中西学者学术论文中N that-cl型式的语料库对比研究

A Corpus-based Contrastive Study of N that-cl Patterns in Research Articles by Chinese and Western Scholars

N that-cl型式是书面语料库中高频出现的型式之一,由空壳名词(shell nouns)及其引导的补语从句构成。由于空壳名词语义不明确,依靠补语从句进行语义具化的特点吸引了许多关注。以往关于N thatcl型式的研究多从语篇组织、立场表达和教学方法三个角度展开,但对中西学者在特定语域中使用这一型式的用法和功能异同少有系统探索。本研究基于Beijing CARE Corpus对比探究了中西学者论文中25个高频N that-cl型式的频数分布、用法和特征性意义异同。研究发现,中国学者使用N that-cl型式少于西方学者,事实组、认知过程组、可能性组的频数差异尤为显著,但中国学者趋于使用研究组这类泛化意义较强的型式。此外,一些典型的N that-cl型式体现了中西学者文本的区别性特征意义:西方学者重视研究过程,包含观点分析及逻辑推理,而中国学者更重视研究结果。本研究对学术话语分析和二语学术写作有一定的启示。

N that-cl patterns,which comprise a shell noun and a that-cl complement,frequently occur in academic written corpora.The fact that the shell nouns in the pattern are semantically unspecific and rely on the lexical realization of that-cl has aroused the attention of many researchers.Previous studies on N that-cl patterns mainly concern the discourse organizing function,stance constructing function and the pedagogical methods of the patterns,yet few has made a contrastive study of the patterns produced by Western and Chinese scholars in terms of their co-selections and functions in a specific register.In this study,we conduct a corpus-based contrastive study,on the basis of the Beijing CARE corpus,of the frequencies,co-selections and functions of 25 most frequently used N that-cl patterns in research articles by Western and Chinese scholars.The study reveals that Chinese scholars use N that-cl patterns remarkably less frequently than Western scholars,especially the Fact group,Cognitive Process group and Possibility group.Meanwhile,Chinese scholars tend to use more general N that-cl patterns like the Research group to review the literature or make reference to their own research.Moreover,the divergent usages of some N that-cl patterns reveal the unique features of Chinese and Western academic discourses.Chinese scholars give more weight to own research conclusions,while Western scholars set great store by expounding different viewpoints and logical reasoning.The study provides implications for academic discourse analysis and second language academic writing.