Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/133833


Title: 學術寫作中名詞補語結構的立場名詞後置修飾語:基於語料庫的跨學科和跨文化研究
Post-modification of stance nouns in Noun Complement construction: A corpus-based study of academic writing across disciplines and cultures
Authors: 黃廷
Huang, Ting
Contributors: 劉怡君
游曉曄

Liu, Yichun
You, Xiaoye

黃廷
Huang, Ting
Keywords: 後置修飾語
名詞補語結構
跨學科差異
跨文化差異
語料庫研究
Post-modification
Noun Complement Construction
Cross-disciplinary Differences
Cross-cultural Differences
Corpus-based Study
Date: 2021
Issue Date: 2021-02-01 13:56:53 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 學術寫作不僅是事實的陳述更是作者透過研究來表達個人觀點與立場。因此,作者如何表達立場才能說服讀者認同其主張,已成為學術寫作研究中的重要議題。許多研究已探討了在構建立場時語言使用的特徵,如模糊限制語、報導動詞、指示詞、時態等。但是,名詞補語結構中立場名詞的後置修飾語卻被相對忽視了。本研究採用了跨國跨領域語料庫和混合研究方法來考察這種結構的使用。本研究的目標是從以下三個方面闡釋目標結構在不同學科和文化背景下使用的差異:(1)其詞彙語法特徵,(2)其功能,以及(3)其使用的潛在動機。

本研究自建語料庫包含600篇學術文章發表於英美和台灣與中國大陸的頂級期刊。為了跨領域對比後置修飾立場名詞補語,本資料庫所收集的學術文章分別來自於兩個學門:自然科學(化學、物理、生物)和社會科學(應用語言學、法律、經濟學)。透過推論統計方法,來確定不同學科領域和語言文化背景的學術作者在
使用目標結構時的詞彙語法差異。本研究也採用定性分析的「功能分析架構」,以考察這些詞彙語法特徵發揮的功能在跨學科和跨文化方面的差異。此外,利用「潛在動機解釋模型」,探討不同學科領域和語言文化背景的作者使用該結構時的可能原因。研究結果表明,特定學科領域和民族文化在語言、修辭、策略和社會文化的實踐和結構存在差異。

本研究透過跨文化、跨學科的語料對比,探討名詞補語結構的後置修飾語使用差異。本研究自建的語料庫方法與分析模型對於目前英語學術寫作在語料庫立場分析研究和跨文化跨領域言詞分析研究上有實質重要貢獻。
Academic writing is not simply concerned with the presentation of facts. In fact, academic writers tend to incorporate their own attitudes and judgements into the text. Thus, how to project an authorial stance that persuades readers of the writer's claim has become a pivotal element in academic written discourse. Different linguistic features, such as hedges, reporting verbs, directives, tense, have been examined for the roles they play in stance-making practices. A relatively neglected means of stance expression, however, has been the post-modification of the stance noun in the Noun Complement construction (as common to many cell marking techniques in This procedure has the disadvantage common to many cell marking techniques that the cells selected for labelling need to be highly colchicine-resistant). This study employed a corpus-based and mixed-methods approach to examining the use of this structure. The three major goals of this study are to describe how the target structure is used across different disciplinary and cultural contexts in terms of (1) its lexico-grammatical features, (2) its functions, and (3) the underlying motivations behind its use.

The research in this study is based on a self-built corpus of 600 samples of published research articles from the journals based in the UK or US and in Taiwan or mainland China in two branches of the natural (chemistry, physics, biology) and social sciences (applied linguistics, law, economics). The inferential statistical methods were applied to identifying the variances in the lexico-grammatical features of the target structure between disciplinary fields and academic writers of different native languages and cultures (English and Chinese). For the qualitative analyses, an analytical framework for description of the post-modification functions in Noun Complement construction was developed to analyze the cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural differences in the functions served by these statistically significant lexico-grammatical features. An explanatory model of the underlying motivations behind different uses of the target structure was also constructed to reveal the reasons that underlie the ways in which writers from contrasting disciplinary fields and linguistic-cultural backgrounds use this structure differently. Results show that the variations in disciplinary and cultural uses of post-modification can be attributed to the various factors in the linguistic, rhetorical, relational, and socio-cultural dimensions of the practices and structures of the particular disciplinary fields and cultures.

In summary, this dissertation contributes to a better understanding of the Noun Complement construction in terms of its post-modification use from the cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural perspectives between the academic communities of the natural and social sciences in the native English countries and the Great China region. It also provides insight into pedagogical practice for new members of the Chinese disciplinary communities and into future research on the cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural use of Noun Complement construction in English academic writing.
Reference: Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Adobe Inc. (2020). Adobe Acrobat Pro DC (Version 20.006.20034) [Computer Software]. San Jose, CA: Adobe Inc.
Akin, H., & Scheufele, D. A. (2017). Overview of the science of science communication. In K. H. Jamieson, D. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (pp. 25-33). New York: Oxford University press.
Aktas, R. N., & Cortes, V. (2008). Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 3-14.
Allison, D. (1995). Assertions and alternatives: Helping ESL undergraduates extend their choices in academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(1), 1-15.
Anthony, L. (2015). TagAnt (Version 1.2.0) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University.
Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc (Version 3.5.8) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University.
Ariana, S. M. (2010). Some thoughts on writing skills. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 19(1), 134-140.
Ashenden, S. (1997). Feminism, postmodernism and the sociology of gender. In D. Owen (Ed.), Sociology after Postmodernism (pp. 40-64). London: SAGE.
Aull, L. L. (2015). First-Year University Writing: A Corpus-Based Study with Implications for Pedagogy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bacon, N. (2013). Style in academic writing. In M. Duncan & S. Vanguri (Eds.), The Centrality of Style (pp. 173-190). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press Madison.
Bazerman, C. (1993). Foreword, in N. Blyler and C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. vii-x). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Milton Keynes: SHRE/Open University Press.
Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151-161.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Benson, C. (2002). Transfer/Cross-linguistic influence. ELT Journal, 56(1), 68-70.
Biber, D. (1991). Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. (2006a). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97-116.
Biber, D. (2006b). University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers, vol. 23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., & Clark, V. (2002). Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures. In T. Fanego, M. J. Lépez-Couso, & J. Perez-Guerra (Eds.), English Historical Morphology (pp. 43-66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., Connor, U. & Upton, T. (2007). Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical Bundles in Conversations and Academic Prose. In H. Hasselgård & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 181-190). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2014). Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies. London: Routledge.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371-405.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 9-48.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93-124.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Nominalizing the verb phrase in academic science writing. In B. Aarts, J. Close, G. Leech, & S. Wallis (Eds.), The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora (pp. 99-132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Written and Spoken English. Harlow: Longman.
Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic Discourse and Critical Consciousness. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bloch, J. and Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy (pp. 213-274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.
Bodde, B., (1991). Chinese Thought, Society and Science: The Intellectual and Social Background of Science and Technology in Pre-modern China. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Bolton, K., Nelson, G., & Hung, J. (2002). A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE-HK). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 165-182.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bühler, K. (1990 [1934]). Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Translation of Sprachtheorie by Donald Fraser Goodwin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Byrnes, H. (2009). Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education, 20, 50-66.
Cai, G. (1999). Texts in contexts: Understanding Chinese students’ English compositions. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating Writing: The Role of Teachers’ Knowledge about Text, Learning, and Culture (pp. 279-297). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Cameron, D. (2012). Epilogue. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 249-256). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentially in English conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology (pp. 261-272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chafe, W. & Nichols J. (1986). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Channell, J. (1990). Precise and vague expressions in writing on economics. In W. Nash (Ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse (pp. 95-117). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Charles, M. (2003). A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 313-326.
Charles, M. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 492-518.
Charles, M. (2007). Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun “that” pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 203-218.
Chen, Q. S. (2014). Exploring the literacy practices of undergraduate English majors’ academic writing in China. In Paper presented at the postgraduate research conference 2013-2014, Hong Kong.
Chen, R. (2020). Single author self-reference: Identity construction and pragmatic competence. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45, Article 100856.
Chen, Y. H., & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30-49.
Clarke, B. L. (1964). Multiple Authorship Trends in Scientific Papers. Science, 143(3608), 822-824.
CNKI-EJCR. (2017). Report on the International & Domestic Citation of China’s English Academic Journals.
Coffin, C. (2004). Arguing about how the world is or how the world should be: The role of argument in IELTS tests. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(3), 229-246.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press, INC.
Conrad, S. (1996). Academic discourse in two disciplines: Professional writing and student development in Biology and History. Unpublished PhD thesis, Northern Arizona University.
Cortes, V. (2002). Lexical bundles in Freshman composition. In R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation (pp. 131-145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397-423.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213-238.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written communication, 10(1), 39-71.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.
Crosthwaite, P., Cheung, L., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 107-123.
Culicover, P. W., & Rochemont, M. S. (1990). Extraposition and the complement principle. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(1), 23-47.
Curran, T. D. (2014). A response to Professor Wu Zongjie’s ‘Interpretation, autonomy, and transformation: Chinese pedagogic discourse in a cross-cultural perspective’. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(3), 305-312.
Davis-Floyd, R., & Sargent, C. F. (1997). Childbirth and Authoritative Knowledge: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499-533.
Demir, C. (2019). The needless complexity in academic writing: Simplicity vs. flowery. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 19(2), 13-27.
Ding, Y. & Miao, W. (2020). The status quo, development and challenges of Chinese English academic journals going global. Publication Research, 6, 65-69.
Dressen, D. (2003). Geologists’ implicit persuasive strategies and the construction of evaluative evidence. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 273-290.
Du, J. (2020). Non-Native English-Speaking Engineers’ Writing at the Workplace. Singapore: Springer.
Egbert, J. (2014). Reader perceptions of linguistic variation in published academic writing. Unpublished PhD thesis, Northern Arizona University.
Egbert, J. (2015). Publication type and discipline variation in published academic writing: Investigating statistical interaction in corpus data. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(1), 1-29.
Ellis, N. C. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 232-249.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elman, B. A. (2000). A Cultural History of Civil Examinations in Late Imperial China. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Enfield, N. J. (2009). Language: Social motives for syntax. Science, 324(5923), 39.
Ernst, D. (2005). The complexity and internationalization of innovation: The root causes. In UNCTAD (Ed.), Globalization of R&D and Developing Countries: Proceedings of the Expert Meeting (pp. 61-87). Geneva: UNCTAD.
Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3(3), 275-296.
Fanelli, D. (2020). Pressures to publish: What effects do we see? In M. Biagioli & A. Lippman (Eds.), Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research (pp. 111-122). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Feng, Y., & Zhou, R. (2007). Using hedges in academic writings: A comparative study. Foreign Language and Literature Studies, 24(2), 108-112.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: Sage.
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Kinn, T. (2006). Academic Voices: Across Languages and Disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 329-346.
Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 1-16.
Francis, E. J. (2010). Grammatical weight and relative clause extraposition in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 35-74.
Francis, G. (1986). Anaphoric Nouns. Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.
Francis, G. (1994). Labelling discourse: an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 83-101). London: Routledge.
Gao, X. (2016). A cross-disciplinary corpus-based study on English and Chinese native speakers’ use of linking adverbials in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 14-28.
Gao, Y., & Wen, Q. (2009). Co-responsibility in the dialogical co-construction of academic discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 700-703.
Gardezi, S. A., & Nesi, H. (2009). Variations in the writing of economics students in Britain and Pakistan: The case of conjunctive ties. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari, & S. Hunston (Eds.), Academic Writing at the Interface of Corpus and Discourse (pp. 236-250). London: Continuum.
Garry, A., & Pearsall, M. (2015). Women, Knowledge, and Reality: Explorations in Feminist Philosophy. London: Routledge.
Gilbert, G. (1976). The transformation of research findings into scientific knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 6(3-4), 281-306.
Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon.
Gray, B. (2011). Exploring academic writing through corpus linguistics: When discipline tells only part of the story. Unpublished PhD thesis, Northern Arizona University.
Gray, B. (2015). Linguistic Variation in Research Articles: When Discipline Tells Only Part of the Story. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gross, A. G., & Chesley, P. (2012). Hedging, stance and voice in medical research articles. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 85-100). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guinda, C. S. & Hyland, K. (2012). Introduction: A context-sensitive approach to stance and voice. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 1-11). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Spoken and written modes of meaning. In D. Graddol & O. Boyd-Barrett (Ed.), Media Texts: Authors and Readers: A Reader (pp. 51-73). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meanings. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1979). Differences between spoken and written language: Some implications for language teaching. In G. Page et al. (Eds.), Communication through Reading: Proceedings of the 4th Australian Reading Conference (pp. 37-52). Adelaide: Australian Reading Association.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science (pp. 185-235). London: Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2013). Meaning as choice. In L. Fontaine, T. Bartlett, & G. O’Grady (Eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993/1996). Writing Science, Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.
Hasselgård, H., Johansson, S., & Lysvåg, P. (1998). English Grammar: Theory and Use. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Hewings, A. (2012). Stance and voice in academic discourse across channels. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 187-201). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 141-152). Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.
Hinds, J. (2001). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. Landmark Essays on ESL Writing, 17, 63-74.
Hinkel, E. (1994). Native and nonnative speakers’ pragmatic interpretations of English texts. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 353-376.
Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 361-386.
Hinkel, E. (1999). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2 academic writing. In E. Hinkel & M. H. Long (Eds.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 90-108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1-2), 29-53.
Hockin, J., Miller, C., & Magee, P. T. (1996). Writing as a Way of Knowing in a Cross-Disciplinary Classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Interdisciplinary Studies of Writing, University of Minnesota.
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(3), 345-365.
Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21-44.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809.
Hu, Y. Y. (2005). Western and Chinese thinking differences and English learning. Digest of Management Science, 7, 53-54.
Huang, R. (2007). Semantic prosody of adjective amplifiers: An analysis of Chinese learners of English. Foreign Language Education, 28(4), 57-60.
Huddleston, R. D., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S. (1989). Evaluation in experimental research articles. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.
Hunston, S. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register Analysis: Theory and Practice (pp. 57-73). London: Pinter.
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 191-218). London: Routledge.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (1999). Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hutauruk, B. S. (2017). Errors of punctuation transfer in English compositions by English learners Academic Year (2013) English Department in FKIP UHN Pematangsiantar. Journal of English Language and Culture, 6(1), 1-18.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.
Hyland, K. (1997). Language attitudes at the handover: Communication and identity in 1997 Hong Kong. English World-Wide, 18(2), 191-210.
Hyland, K. (I998a). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455.
Hyland, K. (1998b). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO's letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224-245.
Hyland, K. (1998c). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Hyland, K. (1999a). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices (pp. 99-121). London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (1999b). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4-21.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary Identities: Individuality and Community in Academic Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2013). Innovating instruction: English in the discipline at the University of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 3-19.
Hyland, K. (2014). English for academic purposes. In C. Leung & B. V. Street (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to English Studies (pp. 392-404). London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2015). Teaching and Researching Writing. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Hyland, K., & Guinda, C. S. (2012). Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, K. F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251-274.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, K. F. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30.
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-206.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005a). Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12(1), 39-64.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005b). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123-139.
IBM Corp. (2018). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 24.0) [Computer Software]. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Ivanič, R. (1991). Nouns in search of a context: A study of nouns with both open-and closed-system characteristics. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 29(2), 93-114.
Jiang, K. F. (2015). Nominal stance construction in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 90-102.
Jiang, K. F. (2017). Stance and voice in academic writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(1), 85-106.
Jiang, K. F., & Hyland, K. (2015). ‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529-550.
Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1-20.
Kim, C., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Disciplinary differences in the use of evaluative that: Expression of stance via that-clauses in business and medicine. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 41, 1-14.
Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146.
Kirkpatrick, A., & Mulligan, D. (2002). Cultures of learning: Critical reading in the social and applied sciences. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 73-99.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The Manufacture of Knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kwiek, M. (2012). The growing complexity of the academic enterprise in Europe: A panoramic view. European Journal of Higher Education, 2(2-3), 112-131.
Lancaster, Z. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 16-30.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lee, W. O., & Tan, J. P. (2018). The new roles for twenty-first-century teachers: Facilitator, knowledge broker, and pedagogical weaver. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, A. Kallioniemi, & J. Lavonen (Eds), The Teacher’s Role in the Changing Globalizing World: Resources and Challenges Related to the Professional Work of Teaching (pp. 11-31). Leiden: Brill Sense.
Leech, G. (1981, 1995). Semantics: The Study of Meaning. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lei, L. (2012). Linking adverbials in academic writing on applied linguistics by Chinese doctoral students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(3), 267-275.
Li, F. (2018). For explaining or summarizing: Differences between colon and dash. Chinese Monthly, 4, 93.
Lillis, T. M. (2012). Economies of signs in writing for academic publication: The case of English medium “national” journals. Journal of Advanced Composition, 32(3-4), 695-722.
Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English. London: Routledge.
Lim, J. M. H. (2017). Writing descriptions of experimental procedures in language education: Implications for the teaching of English for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 47, 61-80.
Lin, H. (2000). Learning and Application of Punctuation. Beijing: People’s Publishing House.
Liu, Y., & Du, Q. (2018). Intercultural rhetoric through a learner lens: American students’ perceptions of evidence use in Chinese yìlùnwén writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 1-11.
Lu, X. (2000). The influence of classical Chinese rhetoric on contemporary Chinese political com¬munication and social relations. In D. R. Heisey (Ed.), Chinese Perspective in Rhetoric and Communication (pp. 3-23). Stamford, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lyons, J. (1995). Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacSwan, J., & Pray, L. (2005). Learning English bilingually: Age of onset of exposure and rate of acquisition among English language learners in a bilingual education program. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(3), 653-678.Maher, P. (2015). The role of ‘that’ in managing averrals and attributions in post-graduate academic legal texts. English for Specific Purposes, 40, 42-56.
Malinowski, B. (1994 [1923]). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In J. Maybin (Ed.), Language and Literacy in Social Practice (pp. 1-10). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters in association with The Open University.
Martin, J. & White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave.
Matthiessen, C. & Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Systemic-Functional Grammar. In F. Peng & J. Ney (Eds.), Current Approaches to Syntax (pp. 2-30). London: Benjamins & Whurr.
Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English, 47(8), 789-808.
Markkanen, R., & Schröder, H. (1989). Hedging as a translation problem in scientific texts. In C. Laurén & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special Language: From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines (pp. 171-179). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
McCarthy, M. (2000). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161-173.
Miller, J. E., & Miller, J. (2011). A Critical Introduction to Syntax. London: Continuum.
Milton, J., & Hyland, K. (1999). Assertions in students' academic essays: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. In R. Berry, B. Asker, K. Hyland, & M. Lam (Eds.), Language Analysis, Description and Pedagogy (pp. 147-161). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Mulholland, J. (1999). Email: Uses, issues and problems in an institutional setting. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing Business: Genres, Media and Discourses (pp. 57-84). London: Longman.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.
Myers, G. (1990). Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Nakayama, S., & Dusenbury, J. (1984). Academic and Scientific Traditions in China, Japan, and the West. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Nash, W. (1990). The stuff these people write. In W. Nash (Ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse (pp. 8-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310.
Pan, F., Reppen, R., & Biber, D. (2016). Comparing patterns of L1 versus L2 English academic professionals: Lexical bundles in Telecommunications research journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 60-71.
Paraskevas, C. (2020). Exploring Grammar Through Texts: Reading and Writing the Structure of English. London: Routledge.
Parkinson, J. (2013). Adopting academic values: Student use of that-complement clauses in academic writing. System, 41(2), 428-442.
PCE. (2017). PDF Converter Elite (Version 5.0.5) [Computer Software]. Vancouver, BC: 0833266 B.C. Ltd.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741-754.
Qiang, L. & Hua, W. (2010). Citation indexing formats of English academic literatures. Journal of Modern Information, 30(9), 173-177.
Richards, K. & Skelton, J. (1991). How critical can you get? In P. Adams, B. Heaton & P. Howarth (Eds.), Socio-Cultural Issues in English for Academic Purposes (pp. 25-41). Basingstoke: Modern English Publications/British Council.
Römer, U. (2009). Corpus research and practice: What help do teachers need and what can we offer? In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and Language Teaching (pp. 83-98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 140-170.
Sanchez-Stockhammer, C. (2016). Punctuation as an indication of register: Comics and academic texts. In C. Schubert & C. Sanchez-Stockhammer (Eds.), Variational Text Linguistics: Revisiting register in English (pp. 139-167). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A Functional Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Schmid, H. (2003). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In D. Jones, & H. Somers (Eds.), New Methods in Language Processing (pp. 154-164). London: Routledge.
Scollon, R. (2001) Mediated Discourse Analysis: The Nexus of Practice. London: Routledge.
Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. (1995). Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Seely, J. (2007). Oxford A–Z of Grammar and Punctuation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shi, L. (2003). Writing in two cultures: Chinese professors return from the West. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 369-392.
Shore, S. (1993). A functional and social-semiotic perspective on language, context and text. In SKY 1993. Helsinki: Suomen kielitieteellinen yhdistys [The Finnish Linguistics Association].
Sigley, R. J. (1997). Text categories and where you can stick them: A crude formality index. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2(2), 199-237.
Skelton, J. (1988). Comments in academic articles. In P. Grunwell (Ed.), Applied Linguistics in Society (pp. 98-108). London: GILT/BAAL.
Skelton, J. (1997). The representation of truth in academic medical writing. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 121-140.
Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328(5977), 450-452.
Sowey, E., & Petocz, P. (2016). A Panorama of Statistics: Perspectives, Puzzles and Paradoxes in Statistics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Staples, S., & Reppen, R. (2016). Understanding first-year L2 writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32: 17-35.
Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication, 33(2), 149-183.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-Assisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
Swales, J. M. (1987). Utilising the literatures in teaching the research paper. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 41-68.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (1998). Textography: Toward a contextualization of written academic discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31(1), 109-121.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., Ahmad, U. K., Chang, Y. Y., Chavez, D., Dressen, D. F., & Seymour, R. (1998). Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied linguistics, 19(1), 97-121.
Swan, M. (2005). Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Tang, Y., Tseng, H., & Vann, C. (2020). Unwrap citation count, Altmetric Attention Score and Mendeley readership status of highly cited articles in the top-tier LIS journals. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, Ahead-of-print(Ahead-of-print).
Thetela, P. (1997). Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 101-118.
Thompson, P. (2001). A pedagogically-motivated corpus-based examination of PhD theses: Macrostructure, citation practices and uses of modal verbs. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Reading.
Thompson, P. (2012). Achieving a voice of authority in PhD theses. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 119-133). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365-382.
Thomson Reuters. (2019). 2020 Journal Citation Reports®.
Tomlin, R. S. (2014). Basic Word Order: Functional Principles. Abingdon: Routledge.
Tran, L. T. (2006). Different shades of the collective way of thinking: Vietnamese and Chinese international students’ reflection on academic writing. Journal of Asia TEFL, 3(3), 121-141.
Tse, P. (2012). Stance in academic bios. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 69-84). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tucker, P. (2003). Evaluation in the art-historical research article. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 291-312.
Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context: Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57(2), 89-99.
van Maanen, J. (1995). Representation in Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
van Noorden, R. (2015). Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature, 525(7569), 306-307.
Vande Kopple, W. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse Studies in Composition (pp. 91-113). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Vidal, M. C. Á. (1991). Towards a postmodern feminism? Atlantis, 12(2), 83-93.
Wang, H., Chen, B., & Chow, S. C. (2003). Sample size determination based on rank tests in clinical trials. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 13(4), 735-751.
Wang, J. & Jiang, F. (2019). Research on stance expressions in academic writing by Chinese PhD students of science and engineering. Foreign Language World, 3, 23-31.
Weigle, S. C., & Friginal, E. (2015). Linguistic dimensions of impromptu test essays compared with successful student disciplinary writing: Effects of language background, topic, and L2 proficiency. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 18, 25-39.
White, P. R. R. (2002). Appraisal – The language of evaluation and stance. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics: 2002 Installment (pp. 1-23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
White, P. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. TEXT - Special Issue on Appraisal, 23(3), 259-284.
Winfield, B., Mizuno, T., & Beaudoin, C. (2000). Confucianism, collectivism and constitutions: Press systems in China and Japan. Communication Law and Policy, 5(3), 323-347.
Winter, E. O. (1977). A clause relational approach to English texts: A study of some predictive lexical items in written discourse. Instructional Science, 6, 1-92.
Winter, E. O. (1982). Towards a Contextual Grammar of English: The Clause and its Place in the Definition of Sentence. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Wittenburg, K. (1987). Extraposition from NP as Anaphora. In J. Huck & A. Ojeda (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 20 (pp. 427–445). New York: Academic Press.
Wood, A. (2001). International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 71-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Xie, C., & Teo, P. (2020). Tuning up the promotional volume: Comparing the About Us texts of top- and second-tier universities in China and America. Journal of Pragmatics, 159, 60-72.
Xu, H. L. (2011). Use of authorial stance markers in research discourse by Chinese advanced EFL learners: A corpus-based contrastive study. Foreign Language Education, 32(6), 44-48.
Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 23-36.
Yin, Y. (2016). Western academic journals publishing mechanism revelation. Editorial Friend, 10, 30-37.
Zhang, F., & Zhan, J. (2020). Understanding voice in Chinese students’ English writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45, Article 100844.
Zhang, J. (2011). Linguistic, ideological, and cultural issues in Chinese and English argumentative writings. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 73-80.
Zhong, Y. (2006). Research on Chinese Punctuation. Beijing: China Federation of Literary and Art Circles Publishing House.
Zhang, Z. S. (2017). Dimensions of Variation in Written Chinese. London: Routledge.
Zuck, J. G. & Zuck, L. V. (1986). Hedging in news writing. In A.-M. Comu, J. Van Parjis, M. Delahaye, & L. Baten (Eds.), Beads or Bracelets? How do We Approach LSP? Selected Papers from the Fifth European Symposium on LSP (pp. 172-180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Description: 博士
國立政治大學
英國語文學系
105551504
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105551504
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[英國語文學系] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
150401.pdf3136KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing