【作者】 徐玮；

【导师】 李民；

【作者基本信息】 江苏大学 ， 外国语言学及应用语言学， 2020， 硕士

【摘要】 学术写作不仅仅传达命题内容,也能体现作者的立场与态度。在学术论文摘要写作中,作者为引导读者迅速把握其研究目的、方法、结果等,不可避免地会表露自己的观点、立场和态度,构建其作者身份。然而,目前相关研究对学术论文摘要中作者身份类型及其语言实现手段的探讨明显不足,对其跨学科差异亦待进一步探讨。鉴于此,本文基于现有相关研究成果,在构拟学术论文摘要中作者身份类型的基础上,试图探析不同学科英文摘要中构建的作者身份及其语言资源使用情况。本研究从语言学、经济学、物理学和医学四个不同学科高影响因子期刊中各收集65篇英文摘要建立四个子语料库。这些期刊摘要均选自Web of Science,且发表于2000年至2019年期间。根据Fl?ttum,et al.(2006)的身份理论,本研究首先对四个子语料库中出现的作者身份进行识别、判定和分析,再对作者身份进行跨学科对比,最后对构建作者身份的显性和隐性语言资源展开分析。数据显示:(1)在作者身份方面,总体上看不同学科对研究者这一身份的使用频次最高,对评价者身份的使用频次最低,且软学科对研究者、语篇组织者和观点持有者这三种身份的使用频次显著高于硬科学。(2)在显性语言资源使用方面,总体上不同学科更倾向于使用第一人称代词,而较少使用表示作者自称的名词来构建其作者身份。另外,软科学比硬科学更倾向于使用显性资源来构建作者身份。(3)在隐性语言资源使用方面,不同学科中无灵主语较多构建研究者、话语建构者和推动者的身份,而it-小句主要构建观点持有者和评价者的身份。另外,硬科学比软科学更习惯使用隐性资源来构建其作者身份。本研究通过跨学科的对比研究探讨国际期刊摘要写作的作者身份建构情况,在理论上有利于进一步丰富作者身份研究,推动跨学科摘要写作的对比研究。在实践层面,本研究对英语学术论文写作具有一定的参考价值,提高论文写作者在学术语篇写作的学科意识。更多还原

【Abstract】 Academic writing not only conveys propositional contents,but also reflects authorial stances and attitudes.In the abstract writing of academic papers,authors inevitably express their own views,declare their stances and attitudes so as to quickly guide readers to grasp the purposes,methods and results of the research.However,few research discusses the types of authorial identities and the languages used to construct the identities in abstract writing,and even fewer research touches upon the interdisciplinary differences in authorial identity construction and the differences in the choice of language.Taking these into consideration,this paper attempts to analyze the authorial identities and the use of language resources in English abstracts of international journals in different disciplines.In this paper,65 journal abstracts were collected respectively from journals of high impact factors in four different disciplines: linguistics,economics,physics and medicine,and four sub-corpora were established subsequently.Abstracts from these journals were all selected from the Web of Science,and published between 2000 and2019.According to the identity theory of Fl?ttum,et al.(2006),this study first identified,determined and analyzed the authorial identities in the four corpora,and then conducted a comparative study on these identities in the four disciplines.Finally,the explicit and implicit language resources of authorial identities were analyzed and compared.The data show that:(1)In terms of the construction of authorial identities,on the whole,the identity of researcher enjoys the highest frequency among all the types of authorial identities,and evaluator the least.In addition,the identities of researcher,discourse conductor and arguer in soft science are constructed more frequently than those in hard science.(2)In terms of explicit language resources,first person pronouns are preferred to self-referring nouns in constructing authorial identities.What’s more,soft science is more inclined to adopt explicit language resources than hard science to construct authorial identities.(3)In terms of implicit language resources,the identities of researcher,discourse conductor and promoter are mainlyconstructed by inanimate subjects,while the identities of arguer and evaluator are mainly constructed by it-constructions.In addition,implicit language resources are more common in hard science than in soft science.This paper conducts a comparative study of authorial identity construction in abstracts of different disciplines.Theoretically,it could enrich research on authorial identities in academic writing,and promote related interdisciplinary comparisons.Practically,this study could shed some light on academic writing,and enhance academic writers’ genre awareness.更多还原