期刊论文引用行为中评价者身份构建的学科对比研究

A Cross-Disciplinary Contrastive Study on Evaluator Identity Construction in Journal Article Citations

基于引用参与评价者身份的研究框架,考察了40篇来自4个学科的国际期刊研究论文,对比分析了自然科学和社会科学专业作者通过实施引用行为来构建评价者身份的评价维度和话语资源。研究发现,自然科学与社会科学研究论文均使用大量评价性引用,多数使用非融入式结构和无程度性修饰语,对已有研究课题实施积极评价行为,但社会科学总体上比自然科学使用更多的评价性引用。这主要是因为,自然科学注重客观性、公正性,强调研究方法和成果的新颖度,而社会科学的跨学科性和读者背景多样化特征决定了作者更需要前人成果、特别是权威观点来佐证当前研究价值,同时通过建设协商式的人际关系,使研究结论被同行认可。

Based on the framework of academic writers’evaluator identity construction via citation,this paper selects 40 international research articles of both natural and social sciences,and compares the evaluator identity via citation from two perspectives:the dimension of evaluation and selection of lexical devices.Overall,the results show that evaluative citations occur frequently in texts of both natural and social sciences,most of which use the non-intergral structure to convey a positive attitude towards the results of previous studies in an impersonal and objective manner.The results also demonstrate that research articles of social sciences generally use more evaluative citations than those in natural sciences.The reason maybe that natural sciences are featured by objectivity and impartiality and focus more on originality of methods and results whereas social sciences are featured by interdisciplinarity and complexity of readers’background and highlight importance of previous studies(especially those conducted by authority figures)to demonstrate the research value.Meanwhile,social science writers tend to establish a more negotiable interpersonal relationship to gain peer identification.