【作者】 于丽；

【导师】 王北文；

【作者基本信息】 长春理工大学 ， 外国语言学及应用语言学， 2005， 硕士

【摘要】 本文从系统功能语言学的角度对中英文摘要进行对比，并借助SPSS11.50和Excel 2000对原始数据进行处理。旨在发现具有同一主题的中英文摘要在三大纯理功能上所表现出的异同。具体对比分析遵循各要素在中英文摘要中的整体分布状况，在每篇摘要中的分布概况，对差异性的T-test检验及中英文中要素的内部关系的次序进行。所选的30对语言材料均来自国内公开发行的一级外语类核心期刊。 对比分析的结果表明：中英文摘要在经验功能中过程的选择上差异性并不显著，但表现出英文摘要倾向于选择关系过程，而中文摘要倾向于物质过程；人际功能中中英文摘要在情态操作词和情态状语的运用上表现出显著的差异：英文摘要中较多地运用中量值的情态操作词，中文摘要中则更多的应用高量值的情态操作词。另外，虽然在情态状语的选择上，两种语言的摘要均倾向于语气状语，但中文摘要中的语气状语的数量明显多于其在英文摘要中的数量，而英文摘要中的评价状语的数量明显多于其在中文摘要中的数量；在语篇功能上体现为中英文摘要在主位的类型、标记性的选择上不具有显著的差异性，但在主位同一型推进模式和线型推进模式的运用上具有显著的差异：中文摘要中主位同一型推进模式的数量明显多于其在英文摘要中的数量，而英文摘要中线型推进模式的数量则明显多于其在中文摘要中的数量；在衔接手段上中英文摘要在照应和省略两种衔接手段的运用上具有明显的差异，即：英文摘要中较多地运用照应使语篇衔接，而中文摘要则采用省略的方式。而且，各类纯理功能因素内部关系在中英文摘要中并不一致，具有明显的差异性。 在论文的结尾部分，本文简要地探讨了该分析结果对摘要写作与教学的一些启示。更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper contrasts the English abstracts with the Chinese from the perspective of systemic-functional grammar. The original data was treated with SPSS 11.50 and Excel 2000. The aim of the study is to find out the similarities and differences between the two versions of abstracts on the three metafunctions. The contrastive analysis follows the sequence of the general distribution of every element of metafunctions in the two versions of abstracts, the distribution of them in every abstract, the significance testing of the difference and the internal relationship between the elements of every metafunction. The source material is a corpus of 30 pairs of abstracts from six kinds of first class journals published in China. And each pair has the same topic.The analysis shows that the difference between the two versions of abstracts on the selection of process is not significant, but the tendency is that the English abstracts prefer relational process, and the Chinese abstracts prefer material process; that the differences between the two versions on the selection of modal operators and mood adjuncts are significant: in the English abstracts, more median value modal operators are adopted, whereas, in the Chinese abstracts, more high value modal operators are used, and though both of the two versions of abstracts prefer the use of mood adjuncts on the use of modal adjuncts, the number of them in the Chinese abstracts is far more than that in the English abstracts, and the number of comment adjuncts in the English is much more than that in the Chinese; that the differences on the selection of types of theme, markedness of theme are not significant, but the differences on the use of parallel pattern and linear pattern of thematic progression are significant: the number of parallel patterns of thematic progression in the Chinese version is much more than that in the English, whereas the number of linear patterns of thematic progression in the English is much more than that in the Chinese; that the differences between the two versions on the selection of reference and ellipsis are significant: the English abstracts prefer to use reference to create cohesion, whereas, the Chinese prefer the use of ellipsis. In addition to the above differences, the internal relationship between the elements of metafunctions in the English is not in accord with that in the Chinese. Obvious differences exist.Based on the above results, the implication for abstract writing and teaching is given at the end of the paper.更多还原