基于机切口语语块的四国大学生英语元话语能力探究
|
摘要
本文基于语料库语言学视角下的"机切语块"探究多国大学生的英语口语元话语能力。研究使用中、日、德、法四国的同质同源英语口语语料(即四个LINDSEI子语库),采用定量分析和中介语对比分析法,从频率、词语形式及语义功能三方面揭示四国子语库中启动类元话语语块的典型特征。结果显示:与英国参照库相比,四国子语库的元话语语块在频率上偏于少用、形式上缺乏多样性和流利性、语义功能上呈语气断然决然的倾向。此外,德、法大学生的元话语语块特征比较接近目标语,而中、日的则差距较大,显示母语背景对习得元话语有一定影响。
This study analyzes the English metadiscoursal ability of university students from different countries based on their machinecut chunks from the perspective of corpus linguistics. It employs homogenous oral English corpora of four LINDSEI sub-corpora of China,Japan, Germany and France. Quantitative and contrastive interlanguage analyses were conducted. Features of utteranceinitial metadiscoursal oral chunks(MOCs) in the four sub-corpora were compared in terms of frequencies,forms and semantic functions. It is found that, compared with the MOCs from the English reference corpus, the MOCs from the four sub-corpora are generally underused in frequency, less diversified and less fluent in form and more assertive in semantic function. It is also found that features of the MOCs used by German and French students are closer to the target, whereas those used by Chinese and Japanese students are further away, indicating that L1 s exert some influence on metadiscourse learning.
This study analyzes the English metadiscoursal ability of university students from different countries based on their machinecut chunks from the perspective of corpus linguistics. It employs homogenous oral English corpora of four LINDSEI sub-corpora of China,Japan, Germany and France. Quantitative and contrastive interlanguage analyses were conducted. Features of utteranceinitial metadiscoursal oral chunks(MOCs) in the four sub-corpora were compared in terms of frequencies,forms and semantic functions. It is found that, compared with the MOCs from the English reference corpus, the MOCs from the four sub-corpora are generally underused in frequency, less diversified and less fluent in form and more assertive in semantic function. It is also found that features of the MOCs used by German and French students are closer to the target, whereas those used by Chinese and Japanese students are further away, indicating that L1 s exert some influence on metadiscourse learning.
引文
[1] Adel, A. Metadiscourse in LI and L2 English[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia:John Benjamins, 2006.
[2] Altenberg, B. On the phraseology of spoken English:The evidence of recurrent word combinations[A].In Cowie, A.(ed). Phraseology:Theory, Analysis and Applications[C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1998:101-122.
[3] Altenberg, B.&Tapper, M. The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners'written English[A]. In Granger, S.(ed). Learner English on Computer[C]. London&New York:Longman, 1998:80-93.
[4] Biber et al. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English[M].London:Longman, 1999.
[5] Biber, D. et al. If you look at...:Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks[J]. Applied Linguistics, 2004(3):371-405.
[6] Cheng, X. G.&Steffensen, M.S. Meta-discourse:A technique for improving student writing[J].Research in the Teaching of English,1997(2):149-181.
[7] Crismore, A. et al. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing:A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students[J]. Written Communication, 1993(1):39-71.
[8] Dastjerdi, H. V.&Shirzad, M.The impact of explicit instruction of metadiscourse markers on EFL learners'writing performance[J].The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2010(2):155-174.
[9] Gilquin, G. et al. Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage(LINDSEI)[M]. Louvain:Presses Universitaires de Louvain, 2010.
[10] Hong,H. Q.&Cao, F. Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing:A corpus-based study[J].International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2014(2):201-224.
[11] Kasper, G. Pragmatic transfer[J].Second Language Research, 1992(3):203-231.
[12] Hyland, K. Persuasion and context:The pragmatics of academic discourse[J].Journal of Pragmatics, 1998(4):437-455.
[13] Lado, R. Linguistics Across Cultures[M]. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 1957.
[14] Leech, G. Preface[A]. In Granger,S.(ed). Learner English on Computer[C]. London&New York:Longman, 1998:xiv-xx.
[15] McCarthy, M. J. Corpora, language and setting standards[R].《剑桥标准英语教程Touchstone》“点石成金”主题教学研讨会.广州:新东方学校,2011.
[16] Ostman, J. The symbolic relationship between pragmatics particles and impromptu speech[A]. In Enkvist,N. E.(ed). Impromptu Speech:ASymposium[C]. Abo:Abo Akademi,1982:147-177.
[17] Overstreet, M. And stuff und so:Investigating pragmatic expressions in English and German[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2005(11):1845-1864.
[18] Scott, M. R. WordSmith Tools 5.0[CP]. Liverpool:Lexical Analysis Software, 2008.
[19] Scott, M.&Tribble, C. Textual Patterns:Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia:John Benjamins, 2006.
[20] Siepmann, D. Academic writing and culture:An overview of differences between English, French and German[J]. Meta:Translators'Journal, 2006(1):131-150.
[21] Sinclair, J. Trust the Text:Language,Corpus and Discourse[M]. London&New York:Routledge, 2004.
[22] Sinclair, J. The phrase, the whole phrase, and nothing but the phrase[A].In Granger, S.&Meunier, F.(eds).Phraseology:An Interdisciplinary Perspective[C]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia:John Benjamins,2008:407-410.
[23] Sinclair, J.&Renouf, A. A lexical syllabus for language learning[A].In Carter, R.&McCarthy, M.(eds).Vocabulary and Language Teaching[C]. London:Longman, 1988.
[24] Stubbs, M. Words and Phrases:Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics[M]. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2001.
[25] Stubbs, M. On very frequent phrases in English:Distributions, functions and structures[R]. Paper presented at ICAME 25, 19-23 May 2004,Verona, Italy.
[26] Taylor, I. Similarity between French and English words:A factor to be considered in bilinguallanguage behavior?[J]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1976(5):85-94.
[27] Watts, R. Taking the pitcher to the"well":Native speakers'perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1989(2):203-237.
[28] Wei, M. A Comparative Study of the Oral Proficiency of Chinese Learners of English:A Discourse Marker Perspective[D]. Oklahoma:Oklahoma State University, 2009.
[29] Williams, J. M. Literary style:The personal voice[A]. In Shopen,T.&Williams, J. M.(eds). Style and Variables in English[C].Cambridge:Winthrop, 1981:117-216.
[30] Yu, S. M. The Pragmatic Development of Hedging in EFL Learners[D].Hong Kong:City University of Hong Kong, 2009.
[31]成晓光,姜辉.亚言语在大学英语写作教学中作用的研究[J].外语界,2004(5):68-79.
[32]何安平.语料库视角的英语口语“立标语块”探究[J].外语教学理论与实践,2011(1):25-31.
[33]何安平.国外语料库语言学视角下多形态短语研究述评[J].当代语言学,2013(1):62-72.
[34]何安平,徐曼菲.中国大学生英语口语small words的研究[J].外语教学与研究,2003(6):446-452.
[35]李洋.预制语块语用功能的语料库口译研究[J].现代外语,2016(2):246-256.
[36]李佐文.论元话语对语境的构建和体现[J].外国语,2001(3):44-50.
[37]林维燕.大学生英语“机切”口语语块的元话语特征探究[M].广州:世界图书出版社广东有限公司,2018.
[38]林维燕,何安平.英语口语机切语块的元话语特征探究[J].外语与外语教学,2012(4):11-15.
[39]徐海铭,龚世莲.元语篇手段的使用与语篇质量相关度得实证研究[J].现代外语,2006(1):54-61.
[40]许家金,许宗瑞.中国大学生英语口语中的互动话语词块研究[J].外语教学与研究,2007(6):437-443.
[41]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中英语课程标准(实验)[S].北京:人民教育出版社,2003.
(2)国际英语学习者口语语料库由比利时卢文大学英语语料库研究中心的S. Granger教授牵头建立,其中的中国子语库由华南师范大学外国语言文化学院何安平教授负责主持。各库均收集了50名本地大学英语专业高年级学生在统一话题和同等时长内产出的英语会话和独白语料(即表1中的B turns)。
(3)国际英语学习者口语语料库团队从各国子语库中随机抽取5个样本,请评分专家根据《欧洲语言共同参考框架》(Common European Framework of Reference for Lanuages)的口语评分标准进行评分(Gilquin et al. 2010:10-11)。该框架是欧盟各国外语教学和评估的标准,旨在为欧洲语言教学的课程设计、大纲制订、语言测试和教材编纂提供一个共同的基础和参考。它描述了语言学习者进行有效交流时所必须掌握的技能和达到的标准,分为三个等级六个级别:A:Basic User(Al:Breakthrough; A2:Way stage);B:Independent User(B1:Threshold;B2:Vantage); C:Proficient User(C1:Effective Operational Proficiency; C2:Mastery)。中国子语库的评分由笔者参照以上方法另请专家完成。
(4)本文所有表格中各类语块的频数均被标准化为每万词次,χ2的计算均基于语块的原始次数和相应语料库的库容,所使用的软件是北京外国语大学梁茂成教授所开发的Chi-square&loglikelihood Calculator。χ2值中,“一”表示四国语块的使用频率低于英国,无任何符号的则表示高于英国;***表示P<0.001。
[2] Altenberg, B. On the phraseology of spoken English:The evidence of recurrent word combinations[A].In Cowie, A.(ed). Phraseology:Theory, Analysis and Applications[C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1998:101-122.
[3] Altenberg, B.&Tapper, M. The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners'written English[A]. In Granger, S.(ed). Learner English on Computer[C]. London&New York:Longman, 1998:80-93.
[4] Biber et al. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English[M].London:Longman, 1999.
[5] Biber, D. et al. If you look at...:Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks[J]. Applied Linguistics, 2004(3):371-405.
[6] Cheng, X. G.&Steffensen, M.S. Meta-discourse:A technique for improving student writing[J].Research in the Teaching of English,1997(2):149-181.
[7] Crismore, A. et al. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing:A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students[J]. Written Communication, 1993(1):39-71.
[8] Dastjerdi, H. V.&Shirzad, M.The impact of explicit instruction of metadiscourse markers on EFL learners'writing performance[J].The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2010(2):155-174.
[9] Gilquin, G. et al. Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage(LINDSEI)[M]. Louvain:Presses Universitaires de Louvain, 2010.
[10] Hong,H. Q.&Cao, F. Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing:A corpus-based study[J].International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2014(2):201-224.
[11] Kasper, G. Pragmatic transfer[J].Second Language Research, 1992(3):203-231.
[12] Hyland, K. Persuasion and context:The pragmatics of academic discourse[J].Journal of Pragmatics, 1998(4):437-455.
[13] Lado, R. Linguistics Across Cultures[M]. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 1957.
[14] Leech, G. Preface[A]. In Granger,S.(ed). Learner English on Computer[C]. London&New York:Longman, 1998:xiv-xx.
[15] McCarthy, M. J. Corpora, language and setting standards[R].《剑桥标准英语教程Touchstone》“点石成金”主题教学研讨会.广州:新东方学校,2011.
[16] Ostman, J. The symbolic relationship between pragmatics particles and impromptu speech[A]. In Enkvist,N. E.(ed). Impromptu Speech:ASymposium[C]. Abo:Abo Akademi,1982:147-177.
[17] Overstreet, M. And stuff und so:Investigating pragmatic expressions in English and German[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2005(11):1845-1864.
[18] Scott, M. R. WordSmith Tools 5.0[CP]. Liverpool:Lexical Analysis Software, 2008.
[19] Scott, M.&Tribble, C. Textual Patterns:Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia:John Benjamins, 2006.
[20] Siepmann, D. Academic writing and culture:An overview of differences between English, French and German[J]. Meta:Translators'Journal, 2006(1):131-150.
[21] Sinclair, J. Trust the Text:Language,Corpus and Discourse[M]. London&New York:Routledge, 2004.
[22] Sinclair, J. The phrase, the whole phrase, and nothing but the phrase[A].In Granger, S.&Meunier, F.(eds).Phraseology:An Interdisciplinary Perspective[C]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia:John Benjamins,2008:407-410.
[23] Sinclair, J.&Renouf, A. A lexical syllabus for language learning[A].In Carter, R.&McCarthy, M.(eds).Vocabulary and Language Teaching[C]. London:Longman, 1988.
[24] Stubbs, M. Words and Phrases:Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics[M]. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2001.
[25] Stubbs, M. On very frequent phrases in English:Distributions, functions and structures[R]. Paper presented at ICAME 25, 19-23 May 2004,Verona, Italy.
[26] Taylor, I. Similarity between French and English words:A factor to be considered in bilinguallanguage behavior?[J]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1976(5):85-94.
[27] Watts, R. Taking the pitcher to the"well":Native speakers'perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1989(2):203-237.
[28] Wei, M. A Comparative Study of the Oral Proficiency of Chinese Learners of English:A Discourse Marker Perspective[D]. Oklahoma:Oklahoma State University, 2009.
[29] Williams, J. M. Literary style:The personal voice[A]. In Shopen,T.&Williams, J. M.(eds). Style and Variables in English[C].Cambridge:Winthrop, 1981:117-216.
[30] Yu, S. M. The Pragmatic Development of Hedging in EFL Learners[D].Hong Kong:City University of Hong Kong, 2009.
[31]成晓光,姜辉.亚言语在大学英语写作教学中作用的研究[J].外语界,2004(5):68-79.
[32]何安平.语料库视角的英语口语“立标语块”探究[J].外语教学理论与实践,2011(1):25-31.
[33]何安平.国外语料库语言学视角下多形态短语研究述评[J].当代语言学,2013(1):62-72.
[34]何安平,徐曼菲.中国大学生英语口语small words的研究[J].外语教学与研究,2003(6):446-452.
[35]李洋.预制语块语用功能的语料库口译研究[J].现代外语,2016(2):246-256.
[36]李佐文.论元话语对语境的构建和体现[J].外国语,2001(3):44-50.
[37]林维燕.大学生英语“机切”口语语块的元话语特征探究[M].广州:世界图书出版社广东有限公司,2018.
[38]林维燕,何安平.英语口语机切语块的元话语特征探究[J].外语与外语教学,2012(4):11-15.
[39]徐海铭,龚世莲.元语篇手段的使用与语篇质量相关度得实证研究[J].现代外语,2006(1):54-61.
[40]许家金,许宗瑞.中国大学生英语口语中的互动话语词块研究[J].外语教学与研究,2007(6):437-443.
[41]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中英语课程标准(实验)[S].北京:人民教育出版社,2003.
(2)国际英语学习者口语语料库由比利时卢文大学英语语料库研究中心的S. Granger教授牵头建立,其中的中国子语库由华南师范大学外国语言文化学院何安平教授负责主持。各库均收集了50名本地大学英语专业高年级学生在统一话题和同等时长内产出的英语会话和独白语料(即表1中的B turns)。
(3)国际英语学习者口语语料库团队从各国子语库中随机抽取5个样本,请评分专家根据《欧洲语言共同参考框架》(Common European Framework of Reference for Lanuages)的口语评分标准进行评分(Gilquin et al. 2010:10-11)。该框架是欧盟各国外语教学和评估的标准,旨在为欧洲语言教学的课程设计、大纲制订、语言测试和教材编纂提供一个共同的基础和参考。它描述了语言学习者进行有效交流时所必须掌握的技能和达到的标准,分为三个等级六个级别:A:Basic User(Al:Breakthrough; A2:Way stage);B:Independent User(B1:Threshold;B2:Vantage); C:Proficient User(C1:Effective Operational Proficiency; C2:Mastery)。中国子语库的评分由笔者参照以上方法另请专家完成。
(4)本文所有表格中各类语块的频数均被标准化为每万词次,χ2的计算均基于语块的原始次数和相应语料库的库容,所使用的软件是北京外国语大学梁茂成教授所开发的Chi-square&loglikelihood Calculator。χ2值中,“一”表示四国语块的使用频率低于英国,无任何符号的则表示高于英国;***表示P<0.001。