外壳名词的认知功能与理学和工学学术话语的知识建构

Cognitive Function and Knowledge Construction of Shell Nouns:Sub-disciplinary Variation in Science and Engineering Academic Discourse

外壳名词(shell noun,缩写为SN)是一类抽象名词,具备承载复杂命题信息的认知功能,是不同领域学者建构学科知识的重要名物化资源。本研究聚焦SN+that-clause、SN+to-infinitive、SN+of+-ing-clause、SN+be+that-clause、SN+be+to-infinitive等五种外壳名词补足语结构,基于Schmid(2000)的外壳名词分类体系构建其认知语义分析框架,利用一个200万词的物理学和航空航天工程英语学术论文语料库,探讨理学和工学学术话语知识建构的子学科变异。研究发现:首先,两个硬学科虽然对外壳名词的选择具有明显的相似性,但对补足语结构有不同的偏好:物理学偏于使用限定性that从句,航空航天工程则倾向使用非限定性不定式从句。其次,两个硬学科使用的外壳名词倾向识解不同类型的经验,即物理学偏向表征一般事实和断言类命题,而航空航天工程偏向表征动态情态判断、意愿类命题以及具体事件。这一实证研究结果揭示出理学和工学两个子学科的不同认识论取向:前者偏好事实以及学科知识的中性表达,强调基于实验观察和中性解释发现真理;后者偏于建构应用性知识、报道实验活动和解决实际问题,注重与受众在元话语层面的对话和磋商,体现更高的互动性和更明显的祈使基调。

Shell nouns(SNs) constitute a special class of abstract nouns that are characterized with the potential for encapsulating complex, proposition-like pieces of information. These nouns provide a plethora of additional nominalized resources for construing disciplinary knowledge. Using a two-million-word corpus of English research articles in the disciplines of physics and aeronautic engineering as data and applying Schmid’s(2000) semantic classification of shell nouns, this article investigates the sub-disciplinary variation of shell nouns in five complement constructions(SN + that-clause, SN + to-infinitive, SN + of +-ing-clause, SN + be + that-clause, SN + be + toinfinitive) across science and engineering. The present study has produced the following findings. Firstly, despite noticeable lexical similarity between the two disciplines in terms of both SN types and tokens, they demonstrate a broader difference in the use of SN complement constructions: physics prefers finite that-clauses as a major complement type of the SNs while aeronautic engineering favors the use of nonfinite to-infinitival clauses. Secondly, from a cognitive semantic perspective, the two disciplines show primary differences in the construal of different types of experience. Physics favors using neutral SNs to construe general facts and assertive SNs for the construal of events of assertion, while aeronautic engineering prefers dynamic SNs, volitional SNs, and specific eventive SNs. Taken together, these findings reveal different epistemological orientations of the two subdisciplines of pure science and engineering. The former tends to construe facts and disciplinary knowledge based on experimental observations as declarative statements, thereby discovering the truth, while the latter prefers to construct applied knowledge, report experimental activities, address practical problems, and highlight dialogue and negotiation with the audience at the metadiscursive level, which reflects a more involved discourse type and a stronger imperative tone.