1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 探討PROPOSE和SUGGEST於英文學術寫作中之共現結構：以語料庫為本的研究
A corpus-based study on the co-occurrence patterns of PROPOSE and SUGGEST in English academic writing
作者 林晏宇
Lin, Yen-Yu
貢獻者 鍾曉芳
Chung, Siaw-Fong
林晏宇
Lin, Yen-Yu
關鍵詞 引述動詞
短語詞組
學術英文寫作
語意場
語料庫
Reporting verb
Phraseological pattern
English academic writing
Semantic field
Corpus
日期 2017
上傳時間 10-Aug-2017 09:38:41 (UTC+8)
摘要 在英文學術論文寫作上，引述動詞在文獻的重述、引用等方面扮演著重要的角色。透過引述動詞的使用，寫作者能更清晰、有力的陳述其論點。目前雖有許多關於引述動詞在句子中表達評論語氣與修辭功能的探討，但卻少有研究提及短語詞組的使用情形。引述動詞短語詞組的進一步探究能使學生在建構學術論述寫作的同時，對於經常與之共現的搭配字詞、句構有更敏銳的覺察能力。本研究從語意及句式兩方面著手，觀察常與PROPOSE和SUGGEST兩個高頻近義引述動詞共現的字詞與詞組。此二動詞所具有的共通點為：(一)字義上皆可表示「提出某事以作進一步考量」、(二)經常用於降低或弱化陳述句中的肯定語氣。本研究的目的在於釐清這兩個近義引述動詞的特點，並更完善地歸納出它們各自所偏好的短語詞組。
     
     本研究的研究工具為擁有近四十五億詞彙的當代美式英文語料庫(Corpus of Contemporary American English)，蒐集了其中PROPOSE 和SUGGEST於學術寫作中的相關語料，以觀察此二動詞的不同詞形(V-base型、V-s型、V-ed型與V-ing型)在句子中的表現。至於本研究的分析則分成了三個部分：(一) PROPOSE 和SUGGEST的語法模組、(二) PROPOSE 和SUGGEST的搭配中，有生命性或無生命性的主詞在主要語法模組中的分布情形、(三) PROPOSE 和SUGGEST後的受詞語義分類。量化分析之餘，本研究也引進了語料庫中的索引行(concordance line)以進一步展示PROPOSE及SUGGEST出現的語言環境，分析模組在不同語境中的特點。
     
     研究結果顯示此二動詞的用法有許多相異之處。SUGGEST具有強烈明確傾向與that子句共同出現，而PROPOSE和that子句共現的機率與其和名詞片語共現的機率相近；除此之外，PROPOSE較常與有生命性的主詞共現，SUGGEST則是偏好與無生命性的主詞共現。至於受詞方面，我們發現PROPOSE後的受詞，多屬「認知觀點」、「方法」、「規則」等語義類別，而 SUGGEST後的受詞則多與「可能性」、「狀態」、「性質特徵」有關，以上的對比結果使我們發現，在學術英文寫作中，PROPOSE通常表「提供計畫或行動供他人參考決定」，而SUGGEST則通常表「傳達可能的推論或概念」。我們也發現此二動詞若是以不同詞形呈現時，偏好的字詞也不同。舉例來說，[suggest that-clause]偏好與表達「研究結果」意義相關的主詞共現，[suggests that-clause]則多與表「研究文獻」有關之主詞一同出現。整體而言，若我們從功能的角度出發，PROPOSE通常用於表示某人提出、建議某事項，SUGGEST則多用於詮釋解讀本研究結果或先前文獻中所提出之觀點。
     
     本研究結果揭示了近義詞間短語詞組使用上的不同，並且也證實了當動詞以不同詞形呈現時會選擇不同的搭配，產生不同的語境。本研究透過系統化分析近義引述動詞的搭配情形，期許能為語言教學教材設計及未來與動詞共現詞組相關之研究帶來啟發與助益。
Reporting verbs are important in academic research papers for paraphrasing and reviewing previous studies to support a writer’s positions. While a large number of studies have been carried out to investigate the evaluative potential and rhetorical functions of reporting verbs in citations, comparatively little research has focused on the phraseological patterns of particular common reporting verbs, the exploration of which can be beneficial in raising student awareness of the recurrent associations of words and structures of reporting in academic written discourse. This study aims at examining the syntactic and semantic environments of two frequent near-synonymous reporting verbs, PROPOSE and SUGGEST. According to Hyland (1998a) and Hinkel (2016), PROPOSE and SUGGEST both can mean ‘putting forward something for consideration’ and are frequently applied to mitigate the certainty of a statement (e.g., Hyland, 1998a; Hinkel, 2016). We expect to distinguish the two verbs from each other and offer a more comprehensive phraseological profile of them in academic writing.
     
     We used the subcorpus of academic writing in the 450 million-word Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) as the source data to investigate the performance of PROPOSE and SUGGEST in V-base form, V-s form, V-ed form, and V-ing form. Based on the corpus, the analysis focused on three aspects: (1) the grammatical patterns of PROPOSE and SUGGEST; (2) the distribution of animate and inanimate subjects of the dominant patterns of PROPOSE and SUGGEST; (3) the semantic classification of the objects of PROPOSE and SUGGEST. In addition to the quantitative methods, qualitative-based concordance line analysis was also implemented to reveal the characteristics of the broader stretches of discourse where PROPOSE and SUGGEST occur.
     
      The results show that the two reporting verbs are distinct from each other. While SUGGEST has a rather strong propensity for co-occurring with that-clause, for PROPOSE, the possibilities of co-appearing with a simple noun object and with a that-clause are similar. In addition, PROPOSE is more likely to have animate subjects, whereas SUGGEST prefers inanimate subjects. As for the simple noun objects of the two verbs, a large number of instances occurring with PROPOSE systematically belong to the semantic groups of COGNITION, METHOD, and STANDARD; SUGGEST shows more preference for POSSIBILITY nouns, STATE nouns, QUALITY nouns and RELATION nouns. The inter-comparison of the results of PROPOSE and SUGGEST suggests that, in academic writing, PROPOSE usually carries the sense of ‘to offer a plan or action for others to consider’, whereas SUGGEST tends to mean ‘to communicate or show an idea, which is likely to be true’. Moreover, the differences across four word forms of PROPOSE and SUGGEST were also identified. It was found that [suggest that-clause] prefers subjects referring to research results, but [suggests that-clause] occurs with the subjects referring to articles or studies on a particular topic more frequently. Overall, in terms of functions, PROPOSE is mainly used for describing the action of offering something as a choice for people to think carefully; SUGGEST, in contrast, serves to interpret a research finding or present an argument suggested by previous studies and literature.
     
     The present study sheds light on the phraseological difference between synonyms. It has also proved that different word forms of the same lemma have different choices of collocations and phraseologies. The research findings will contribute to the teaching and research of English for academic purposes since they provide a systematic analysis of the different habitual collocations of two frequent and similar reporting verbs in research articles. We believe this study will bring some insights to the designs of language teaching materials and can serve as the basis for future studies on the co-occurrence patterns and phraseologies of verbs.
參考文獻 Ahmad, J. (2009). Teaching of English. A.P.H Publishing Corporation.
     Al-Sharafu, A. (2004). Textual metonymy: A semiotic approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
     Altenberg, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: the evidence of recurrent word combinations. In A. P. Cowie. (ed.) Phraseology: theory, analysis, and application (pp. 101-122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     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., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Lexical expressions in speech and writing. In D. Biber, S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, & E. Finegan (Eds.), Longman grammar of spoken and written English (pp. 988-1021). London: Longman.
     Blakesley, D. & Hoogeveen, J. (2007). The brief Thompson handbook. Boston: Cengage Learning.
     Bloch, J. (2010). A concordance-based study of the use of reporting verbs as rhetorical devices in academic papers. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 219-244.
     Brezina, D. (2012). Use of Google Scholar in corpus-driven EAP research. English for Academic Purposes, 11, 319-331.
     British Council (n.d.). Reporting verbs. Retrieved from: https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/clause-phrase-and-sentence/verb-patterns/reporting-verbs-that-wh-and-if-clauses
     Bulter, C. (2003). Multi-word sequences and their relevance for models of functional grammar. Functions of Language, 10(2), 179-208.
     Charles, M. (2006a). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27, 492-518.
     Charles, M. (2006b). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 310-331.
     Cheng, W., Greaves, C., Sinclair, J. M., & Warren, M. (2008). Uncovering the extent of phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of Concgrams. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 236-252.
     Chung, S. F., Chao, F. Y., Lan, T. Y., & Lin, Y. Y.(2011). Analyses of the semantic features of the lexical bundle [(VERB) PREPOSITION the NOUN of]. Language Value, 3(1),138-152.
     Clear, J. (1993). From Firth principles: computational tools for the study of collocation. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology (pp. 271-292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     Cowie, A. P. (1978). The place of illustrative material and collocations in the design of a learner’s dictionary. In P. Strevens (Ed.), In honor of A. S. Hornby (pp. 127-139). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     Crow, T. J., & Quigley, R. J. (1985). A semantic field approach to passive vocabulary acquisition for reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 497-513
     Davis, M. (2011). The corpus of contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary & Linguistic Computing, 25(4), 447-464.
     Davis, M. (2013).The development of source use by international postgraduate students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 125-135.
     De Cock, S. (2003). Recurrent sequences of words in native speaker and advanced learner spoken and written English: a corpus-driven approach. Doctoral dissertation, Universite´ catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, Unpublished.
     Dorothy, K. (2014). Lexis and creativity in language use: A corpus-based study. New York: Routledge.
     Dudley-Evans. T. (1994).Research in English for scientific purposes. In R. Khoo (Ed.), LSP: Problems and Prospects (pp.219-231). Singapore: RELC.
     Finegan, E. (2011). Language: Its structure and use. Boston: Wadworth.
     Flowerdew, L. (2000). Investigating referential and pragmatic errors in a learner corpus. In L. Burnard, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective (pp. 145-154). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     Francis, G. (1993). A corpus-driven approach to grammar: Principles, methods, and examples. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 137-156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     Francis, G. (1995). Corpus-driven grammar and its relevance to the learning of English in a cross-cultural situation. In A. Paker (Ed.), English in Education: Multicultural perspectives. Singapore: Unipress.
     Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1996). Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.
     Francis, G., Manning, S., & Hunston, S. (1997). Collins COBUILD Verbs: Patterns & Practice. Harper Collins.
     Gilquin, G., Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2007). Learner corpora: the missing link in EAP pedagogy. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Corpus-based EAP Pedagogy. Special Issue of Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 319-335.
     Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2009). Lexical verbs in academic discourse: A corpus-driven study of learner use. In M. Charles, D. Peccorari, & S. Hunston (Eds.), Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse (pp. 193-214).
     Gries, S. Th. (2008) Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In S. Granger, & F, Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp.3-25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     Gupta, S. (2006).English grammar: The easier way. New Delhi: Lotus Press.
     Hawes, T., & Thomas, S. (1997). Tense choices in citations. Research in the teaching of English, 1997, 31(3), 393-414.
     Hinkel, E. (2002). Why English passive is difficult to teach (and learn)’. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching (pp. 233-259). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical Techniques in Vocabulary and Grammar. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     Ho, K. L. (2012). “I believe that”“ It is suggested that”: authorial presence in the use of reporting verbs in ‘soft’ discipline academic writing by community college students in Hong Kong. Unpublished PhD thesis. The University of Hong Kong.
     Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.) Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp. 161-186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     Hunston, S. (1993).‘Professional conflict: Disagreement in academic discourse’ in M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bognellli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp.115-134). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
     Hunston, S (2002) Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
     Hunston, S. (2003). Lexis, wordform and complementation pattern: A corpus study. Functions of Language, 10(1), 31-60.
     Hunston, S. (2011).Corpus approaches to evaluation: phraseology and evaluative language. New York: Routledge.
     Hunston, S. & Francis, G. (2000).Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
     Hyland, K. (1996a). Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum. System, 24(4), 477-490.
     Hyland, K. (1996b). Talking to the academy: forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281.
     Hyland, K. (1996c). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 434-454.
     Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins. Amsterdam.
     Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18, p. 349–382.
     Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 341-367.
     Hyalnd, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interaction in academic writing. Harlow: Longman.
     Hyland, K. (2002). Activity and evaluation: reporting practices in academic writing. In John Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115-130). London: Longman.
     Johns, T. (2001). From evidence to conclusion: the case of ‘indicate that’. In: M. Hewings (ed.) Aca¬demic writing in context. Implications and applications (p.55-62).The University of Birmingham University Press.
     Jose, M., & Marco, L. (2000). Collocational frameworks in medical research papers: a genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 63-86.
     Kelen, C. (2007). An introduction to rhetorical terms. Tirril: Humanities E-books.
     Koutsantoni, D. (2004). Attitude, certainty, and allusion to common knowledge in scientific research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 162-182.
     Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago.
     Lin, Y. Y., & Chung, S. F. (2016). A corpus-based study on the semantic prosody of CHALLENGE. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 13(2), 99-146.
     Liu, D. (2010). Is it a chief, main, major, primary, or principal concern? A corpus-based behavioral profile study of the near-synonyms. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(1), 56-87.
     Liu, D., & Espino, M. (2012). Actually, genuinely, really, and truly: a corpus-based behavioral profile study of near-synonymous adverbs. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(2), 198-228.
     Luzo´n, M.J. (1996). The rhetorical function of the lexical signalling of the author’s
     presence in the experimental biomedical paper. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University Jaume I, Castello´n.
     Master, P. (1991). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purposes, 10, 15-33.
     Master, P. (2001). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific research articles. In: M. Hewings (ed.) Academic writing in context. Implications and applications (p.169-181) .The University of Birmingham University Press..
     Murphy, M. L., & Koskela, A. (2010). Key Terms in Semantics. London: Continuum.
     Myer, G. (1992). ‘In this paper we report …’: Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 295-313.
     Paquot, M. (2007). EAP vocabulary in EFL learner writing: From extraction to analysis: A phraseology- oriented approach. Unpublished PhD thesis. Universite catholique de Louvain, Centre for English Corpus Linguistics.
     Paquot, M, (2010). Academic vocabulary in learner writing: from extraction to analysis. London: Continuum.
     Petrić, B. (2007). Rhetorical functions of citations in high- and low-rated master`s theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 238-253.
     Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. London: Continuum.
     Pickard, V. (1995). Citing previous writers: what can we say instead of „say‟? Hongkong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, p.89-102.
     Sharpling, G. (2014) Reporting verbs. Coventry, University of Warwick. Retrieved from:http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/learning_english/leap/grammar/reportingverbs/
     Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     Sinclair, J. (1995). Corpus typology: a framework for classification. Stockholm Studies in English, 85, p.17-33.
     Sinclair, J.(2004). Trust the text. Language, corpus and discourse. London: Routledge.
     Smollett, R., Procter, M., & Plotnick, J. (2004) Verbs for referring to sources. University of Toronto. Retrieved from: http://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/english-language/referring-to-sources/
     Sowton, C. & Hewing, M. (2012) Cambridge academic English B2 upper intermediate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Stevenson, R. (2010). Advanced grammar for academic writing. United States: Lulu Press.
     Stubbs, M. (1996) Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
     Swales, J. M. (1986). Citation analysis and discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 39-56.
     Swales, J. M. (1990).Genre analysis: English in academic and research setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Thomas, S. & Hawes, T. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 129-148.
     Thompson, P. (2005). Points of focus and position: intertextual reference in PhD theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 307–323.
     Thompson, P., &Tribble, C. (2001).Looking at citations: using corpora in English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 91–105.
     Thompson, G.& Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365-382.
     Velliaris, D. & Miller, J. (2009) Reporting verbs. York, University of York. Retrieved from: http://www.york.ac.uk/rop/documents/reportingverbs.pdf
     Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English. Englewoods Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
     Wette, R. (2010). Evaluating student learning in a university-level EAP unit on writing using sources. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 158-177.
     Williams, Ian A. (1996). A contextual study of lexical verbs in two types of medical research report: clinical and experimental. English for Specific Purposes, 15(3), 175-197.
     Williams, Ian A. (2008). Semantico-syntactic environments of the verb show and demonstrate and Spanish mostrar and demonstrar in a bilingual corpus of medical research articles. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(1), 38-74.
     Willis, D. (2003) Rules, Patterns and Words: Grammar and Lexis in ELT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Xie, N. Y. (2013). The Development of Use of Reporting Verbs in Academic Writing: A Case Study with Two Chinese Students. Unpublished MA dissertation. The University of Exeter.
     Yang, L. X. (2013). Evaluative functions of reporting evidentials in English research articles of applied linguistics. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 3(2), 119-126.
描述 博士
國立政治大學
英國語文學系
97551504
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097551504
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 鍾曉芳zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chung, Siaw-Fongen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 林晏宇zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lin, Yen-Yuen_US
dc.creator (作者) 林晏宇zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Lin, Yen-Yuen_US
dc.date (日期) 2017en_US
dc.date.accessioned 10-Aug-2017 09:38:41 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 10-Aug-2017 09:38:41 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 10-Aug-2017 09:38:41 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0097551504en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/111707-
dc.description (描述) 博士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 英國語文學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 97551504zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在英文學術論文寫作上，引述動詞在文獻的重述、引用等方面扮演著重要的角色。透過引述動詞的使用，寫作者能更清晰、有力的陳述其論點。目前雖有許多關於引述動詞在句子中表達評論語氣與修辭功能的探討，但卻少有研究提及短語詞組的使用情形。引述動詞短語詞組的進一步探究能使學生在建構學術論述寫作的同時，對於經常與之共現的搭配字詞、句構有更敏銳的覺察能力。本研究從語意及句式兩方面著手，觀察常與PROPOSE和SUGGEST兩個高頻近義引述動詞共現的字詞與詞組。此二動詞所具有的共通點為：(一)字義上皆可表示「提出某事以作進一步考量」、(二)經常用於降低或弱化陳述句中的肯定語氣。本研究的目的在於釐清這兩個近義引述動詞的特點，並更完善地歸納出它們各自所偏好的短語詞組。
     
     本研究的研究工具為擁有近四十五億詞彙的當代美式英文語料庫(Corpus of Contemporary American English)，蒐集了其中PROPOSE 和SUGGEST於學術寫作中的相關語料，以觀察此二動詞的不同詞形(V-base型、V-s型、V-ed型與V-ing型)在句子中的表現。至於本研究的分析則分成了三個部分：(一) PROPOSE 和SUGGEST的語法模組、(二) PROPOSE 和SUGGEST的搭配中，有生命性或無生命性的主詞在主要語法模組中的分布情形、(三) PROPOSE 和SUGGEST後的受詞語義分類。量化分析之餘，本研究也引進了語料庫中的索引行(concordance line)以進一步展示PROPOSE及SUGGEST出現的語言環境，分析模組在不同語境中的特點。
     
     研究結果顯示此二動詞的用法有許多相異之處。SUGGEST具有強烈明確傾向與that子句共同出現，而PROPOSE和that子句共現的機率與其和名詞片語共現的機率相近；除此之外，PROPOSE較常與有生命性的主詞共現，SUGGEST則是偏好與無生命性的主詞共現。至於受詞方面，我們發現PROPOSE後的受詞，多屬「認知觀點」、「方法」、「規則」等語義類別，而 SUGGEST後的受詞則多與「可能性」、「狀態」、「性質特徵」有關，以上的對比結果使我們發現，在學術英文寫作中，PROPOSE通常表「提供計畫或行動供他人參考決定」，而SUGGEST則通常表「傳達可能的推論或概念」。我們也發現此二動詞若是以不同詞形呈現時，偏好的字詞也不同。舉例來說，[suggest that-clause]偏好與表達「研究結果」意義相關的主詞共現，[suggests that-clause]則多與表「研究文獻」有關之主詞一同出現。整體而言，若我們從功能的角度出發，PROPOSE通常用於表示某人提出、建議某事項，SUGGEST則多用於詮釋解讀本研究結果或先前文獻中所提出之觀點。
     
     本研究結果揭示了近義詞間短語詞組使用上的不同，並且也證實了當動詞以不同詞形呈現時會選擇不同的搭配，產生不同的語境。本研究透過系統化分析近義引述動詞的搭配情形，期許能為語言教學教材設計及未來與動詞共現詞組相關之研究帶來啟發與助益。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Reporting verbs are important in academic research papers for paraphrasing and reviewing previous studies to support a writer’s positions. While a large number of studies have been carried out to investigate the evaluative potential and rhetorical functions of reporting verbs in citations, comparatively little research has focused on the phraseological patterns of particular common reporting verbs, the exploration of which can be beneficial in raising student awareness of the recurrent associations of words and structures of reporting in academic written discourse. This study aims at examining the syntactic and semantic environments of two frequent near-synonymous reporting verbs, PROPOSE and SUGGEST. According to Hyland (1998a) and Hinkel (2016), PROPOSE and SUGGEST both can mean ‘putting forward something for consideration’ and are frequently applied to mitigate the certainty of a statement (e.g., Hyland, 1998a; Hinkel, 2016). We expect to distinguish the two verbs from each other and offer a more comprehensive phraseological profile of them in academic writing.
     
     We used the subcorpus of academic writing in the 450 million-word Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) as the source data to investigate the performance of PROPOSE and SUGGEST in V-base form, V-s form, V-ed form, and V-ing form. Based on the corpus, the analysis focused on three aspects: (1) the grammatical patterns of PROPOSE and SUGGEST; (2) the distribution of animate and inanimate subjects of the dominant patterns of PROPOSE and SUGGEST; (3) the semantic classification of the objects of PROPOSE and SUGGEST. In addition to the quantitative methods, qualitative-based concordance line analysis was also implemented to reveal the characteristics of the broader stretches of discourse where PROPOSE and SUGGEST occur.
     
      The results show that the two reporting verbs are distinct from each other. While SUGGEST has a rather strong propensity for co-occurring with that-clause, for PROPOSE, the possibilities of co-appearing with a simple noun object and with a that-clause are similar. In addition, PROPOSE is more likely to have animate subjects, whereas SUGGEST prefers inanimate subjects. As for the simple noun objects of the two verbs, a large number of instances occurring with PROPOSE systematically belong to the semantic groups of COGNITION, METHOD, and STANDARD; SUGGEST shows more preference for POSSIBILITY nouns, STATE nouns, QUALITY nouns and RELATION nouns. The inter-comparison of the results of PROPOSE and SUGGEST suggests that, in academic writing, PROPOSE usually carries the sense of ‘to offer a plan or action for others to consider’, whereas SUGGEST tends to mean ‘to communicate or show an idea, which is likely to be true’. Moreover, the differences across four word forms of PROPOSE and SUGGEST were also identified. It was found that [suggest that-clause] prefers subjects referring to research results, but [suggests that-clause] occurs with the subjects referring to articles or studies on a particular topic more frequently. Overall, in terms of functions, PROPOSE is mainly used for describing the action of offering something as a choice for people to think carefully; SUGGEST, in contrast, serves to interpret a research finding or present an argument suggested by previous studies and literature.
     
     The present study sheds light on the phraseological difference between synonyms. It has also proved that different word forms of the same lemma have different choices of collocations and phraseologies. The research findings will contribute to the teaching and research of English for academic purposes since they provide a systematic analysis of the different habitual collocations of two frequent and similar reporting verbs in research articles. We believe this study will bring some insights to the designs of language teaching materials and can serve as the basis for future studies on the co-occurrence patterns and phraseologies of verbs.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.......1
     1.1 Background and Motivation of the Study.......1
     1.2 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions.......8
     1.3 Significance of the Study.......13
     1.4 Organization....... 13
     CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......15
     2.1 Reporting Verbs and Learner Data.......16
     2.1.1 Learners’ Use of Reporting Verbs.......16
     2.1.2 The Classification of Reporting Verbs.......19
     2.1.3 Syntactic Environment and Animacy of Subjects of the Reporting Verbs.......27
     2.2 Phraseology: Pattern and Meaning in Corpus.......32
     2.3 Semantic Field Theory and Studies.......37
     2.4 Summary and Gap of the Previous Research.......42
     CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY.......45
     3.1 The Corpus.......45
     3.2 The Method for Extracting Data.......46
     3.3 Data Analysis.......50
     3.3.1 Analyzing the Grammatical Patterns and Word Forms of PROPOSE and SUGGEST.......50
     3.3.2 Analyzing the Animacy of the Subjects.......53
     3.3.3 Analyzing the Semantic Fields of the Objects.......54
     3.6 Summary of the Chapter.......57
     CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS OF PROPOSE.......59
     4.1 The Grammatical Patterns and Animacy of Subjects of PROPOSE.......59
     4.1.1 Results of propose....... 65
     4.1.2 Results of proposes.......70
     4.1.3 Results of proposed.......72
     4.1.4 Results of proposing.......78
     4.2 The Semantic Fields of the Objects of PROPOSE.......83
     4.2.1 The frequent phraseologies in COGNITION.......87
     4.2.2 The frequent phraseologies in METHOD.......89
     4.2.3 The frequent phraseologies in STANDARD.......89
     4.2.4 The frequent collocates of [PROPOSE NOUNs]....... 92
     4.3 Summary of the Chapter............. 95
     CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS OF SUGGEST.......... 98
     5.1 The Grammatical Patterns and Animacy of Subjects of SUGGEST....... 98
     5.1.1 Results of suggest....... 102
     5.1.2 Results of suggests.......107
     5.1.3 Results of suggested.......113
     5.1.4 Results of suggesting.......119
     5.2. The Semantic Fields of the Objects of SUGGEST.......122
     5.2.1 The frequent phraseologies of suggest.......127
     5.2.2 The frequent phraseologies of suggesting.......128
     5.3 Summary of the Chapter.......130
     CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION.......132
     CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS.......145
     7.1 Overall Summary.......145
     7.2 Implications and Contributions.......147
     7.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies.......155
     REFERENCES.......158
     APPENDICES.......164
     Appendix A: The Full List of the Animacy of the Subjects and the Grammatical Features of the Patterns of Propose....... 164
     Appendix B: The Full List of the Animacy of the Subjects and the Grammatical Features of the Patterns of Proposes.......171 171
     Appendix C: The Full List of the Animacy of the Subjects and the Grammatical Features of the Patterns of Proposed...... 174
     Appendix D: The Full List of the Animacy of the Subjects and the Grammatical Features of the Patterns of Proposing..... 182
     Appendix E: The Full List of the Animacy of the Subjects and the Grammatical Features of the Patterns of Suggest....... 188
     Appendix F: The Full List of the Animacy of the Subjects and the Grammatical Features of the Patterns of Suggests...... 190
     Appendix G: The Full List of the Animacy of the Subjects and the Grammatical Features of the Patterns of Suggested..... 192
     Appendix H: The Full List of the Animacy of the Subjects and the Grammatical Features of the Patterns of Suggesting.... 197
     Appendix I: Semantic Fields of the Objects of Propose.......203
     Appendix J: Semantic Fields of the Objects of Proposes.......205
     Appendix K: Semantic Fields of the Objects of Proposed.......207
     Appendix L: Semantic Fields of the Objects of Proposing.......206
     Appendix M: Semantic Fields of the Objects of Suggest.......208
     Appendix N: Semantic Fields of the Objects of Suggests.......209
     Appendix O: Semantic Fields of the Objects of Suggested.......210
     Appendix P: Semantic Fields of the Objects of Suggesting.......214		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2990790 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097551504en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 引述動詞zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 短語詞組zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 學術英文寫作zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語意場zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語料庫zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Reporting verben_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Phraseological patternen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) English academic writingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Semantic fielden_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Corpusen_US
dc.title (題名) 探討PROPOSE和SUGGEST於英文學術寫作中之共現結構：以語料庫為本的研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A corpus-based study on the co-occurrence patterns of PROPOSE and SUGGEST in English academic writingen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ahmad, J. (2009). Teaching of English. A.P.H Publishing Corporation.
     Al-Sharafu, A. (2004). Textual metonymy: A semiotic approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
     Altenberg, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: the evidence of recurrent word combinations. In A. P. Cowie. (ed.) Phraseology: theory, analysis, and application (pp. 101-122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     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., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Lexical expressions in speech and writing. In D. Biber, S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, & E. Finegan (Eds.), Longman grammar of spoken and written English (pp. 988-1021). London: Longman.
     Blakesley, D. & Hoogeveen, J. (2007). The brief Thompson handbook. Boston: Cengage Learning.
     Bloch, J. (2010). A concordance-based study of the use of reporting verbs as rhetorical devices in academic papers. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 219-244.
     Brezina, D. (2012). Use of Google Scholar in corpus-driven EAP research. English for Academic Purposes, 11, 319-331.
     British Council (n.d.). Reporting verbs. Retrieved from: https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/clause-phrase-and-sentence/verb-patterns/reporting-verbs-that-wh-and-if-clauses
     Bulter, C. (2003). Multi-word sequences and their relevance for models of functional grammar. Functions of Language, 10(2), 179-208.
     Charles, M. (2006a). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27, 492-518.
     Charles, M. (2006b). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 310-331.
     Cheng, W., Greaves, C., Sinclair, J. M., & Warren, M. (2008). Uncovering the extent of phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of Concgrams. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 236-252.
     Chung, S. F., Chao, F. Y., Lan, T. Y., & Lin, Y. Y.(2011). Analyses of the semantic features of the lexical bundle [(VERB) PREPOSITION the NOUN of]. Language Value, 3(1),138-152.
     Clear, J. (1993). From Firth principles: computational tools for the study of collocation. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology (pp. 271-292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     Cowie, A. P. (1978). The place of illustrative material and collocations in the design of a learner’s dictionary. In P. Strevens (Ed.), In honor of A. S. Hornby (pp. 127-139). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     Crow, T. J., & Quigley, R. J. (1985). A semantic field approach to passive vocabulary acquisition for reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 497-513
     Davis, M. (2011). The corpus of contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary & Linguistic Computing, 25(4), 447-464.
     Davis, M. (2013).The development of source use by international postgraduate students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 125-135.
     De Cock, S. (2003). Recurrent sequences of words in native speaker and advanced learner spoken and written English: a corpus-driven approach. Doctoral dissertation, Universite´ catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, Unpublished.
     Dorothy, K. (2014). Lexis and creativity in language use: A corpus-based study. New York: Routledge.
     Dudley-Evans. T. (1994).Research in English for scientific purposes. In R. Khoo (Ed.), LSP: Problems and Prospects (pp.219-231). Singapore: RELC.
     Finegan, E. (2011). Language: Its structure and use. Boston: Wadworth.
     Flowerdew, L. (2000). Investigating referential and pragmatic errors in a learner corpus. In L. Burnard, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective (pp. 145-154). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     Francis, G. (1993). A corpus-driven approach to grammar: Principles, methods, and examples. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 137-156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     Francis, G. (1995). Corpus-driven grammar and its relevance to the learning of English in a cross-cultural situation. In A. Paker (Ed.), English in Education: Multicultural perspectives. Singapore: Unipress.
     Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1996). Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.
     Francis, G., Manning, S., & Hunston, S. (1997). Collins COBUILD Verbs: Patterns & Practice. Harper Collins.
     Gilquin, G., Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2007). Learner corpora: the missing link in EAP pedagogy. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Corpus-based EAP Pedagogy. Special Issue of Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 319-335.
     Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2009). Lexical verbs in academic discourse: A corpus-driven study of learner use. In M. Charles, D. Peccorari, & S. Hunston (Eds.), Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse (pp. 193-214).
     Gries, S. Th. (2008) Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In S. Granger, & F, Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp.3-25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     Gupta, S. (2006).English grammar: The easier way. New Delhi: Lotus Press.
     Hawes, T., & Thomas, S. (1997). Tense choices in citations. Research in the teaching of English, 1997, 31(3), 393-414.
     Hinkel, E. (2002). Why English passive is difficult to teach (and learn)’. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching (pp. 233-259). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical Techniques in Vocabulary and Grammar. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     Ho, K. L. (2012). “I believe that”“ It is suggested that”: authorial presence in the use of reporting verbs in ‘soft’ discipline academic writing by community college students in Hong Kong. Unpublished PhD thesis. The University of Hong Kong.
     Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.) Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp. 161-186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     Hunston, S. (1993).‘Professional conflict: Disagreement in academic discourse’ in M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bognellli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp.115-134). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
     Hunston, S (2002) Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
     Hunston, S. (2003). Lexis, wordform and complementation pattern: A corpus study. Functions of Language, 10(1), 31-60.
     Hunston, S. (2011).Corpus approaches to evaluation: phraseology and evaluative language. New York: Routledge.
     Hunston, S. & Francis, G. (2000).Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
     Hyland, K. (1996a). Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum. System, 24(4), 477-490.
     Hyland, K. (1996b). Talking to the academy: forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281.
     Hyland, K. (1996c). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 434-454.
     Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins. Amsterdam.
     Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18, p. 349–382.
     Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 341-367.
     Hyalnd, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interaction in academic writing. Harlow: Longman.
     Hyland, K. (2002). Activity and evaluation: reporting practices in academic writing. In John Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115-130). London: Longman.
     Johns, T. (2001). From evidence to conclusion: the case of ‘indicate that’. In: M. Hewings (ed.) Aca¬demic writing in context. Implications and applications (p.55-62).The University of Birmingham University Press.
     Jose, M., & Marco, L. (2000). Collocational frameworks in medical research papers: a genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 63-86.
     Kelen, C. (2007). An introduction to rhetorical terms. Tirril: Humanities E-books.
     Koutsantoni, D. (2004). Attitude, certainty, and allusion to common knowledge in scientific research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 162-182.
     Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago.
     Lin, Y. Y., & Chung, S. F. (2016). A corpus-based study on the semantic prosody of CHALLENGE. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 13(2), 99-146.
     Liu, D. (2010). Is it a chief, main, major, primary, or principal concern? A corpus-based behavioral profile study of the near-synonyms. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(1), 56-87.
     Liu, D., & Espino, M. (2012). Actually, genuinely, really, and truly: a corpus-based behavioral profile study of near-synonymous adverbs. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(2), 198-228.
     Luzo´n, M.J. (1996). The rhetorical function of the lexical signalling of the author’s
     presence in the experimental biomedical paper. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University Jaume I, Castello´n.
     Master, P. (1991). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purposes, 10, 15-33.
     Master, P. (2001). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific research articles. In: M. Hewings (ed.) Academic writing in context. Implications and applications (p.169-181) .The University of Birmingham University Press..
     Murphy, M. L., & Koskela, A. (2010). Key Terms in Semantics. London: Continuum.
     Myer, G. (1992). ‘In this paper we report …’: Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 295-313.
     Paquot, M. (2007). EAP vocabulary in EFL learner writing: From extraction to analysis: A phraseology- oriented approach. Unpublished PhD thesis. Universite catholique de Louvain, Centre for English Corpus Linguistics.
     Paquot, M, (2010). Academic vocabulary in learner writing: from extraction to analysis. London: Continuum.
     Petrić, B. (2007). Rhetorical functions of citations in high- and low-rated master`s theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 238-253.
     Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. London: Continuum.
     Pickard, V. (1995). Citing previous writers: what can we say instead of „say‟? Hongkong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, p.89-102.
     Sharpling, G. (2014) Reporting verbs. Coventry, University of Warwick. Retrieved from:http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/learning_english/leap/grammar/reportingverbs/
     Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     Sinclair, J. (1995). Corpus typology: a framework for classification. Stockholm Studies in English, 85, p.17-33.
     Sinclair, J.(2004). Trust the text. Language, corpus and discourse. London: Routledge.
     Smollett, R., Procter, M., & Plotnick, J. (2004) Verbs for referring to sources. University of Toronto. Retrieved from: http://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/english-language/referring-to-sources/
     Sowton, C. & Hewing, M. (2012) Cambridge academic English B2 upper intermediate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Stevenson, R. (2010). Advanced grammar for academic writing. United States: Lulu Press.
     Stubbs, M. (1996) Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
     Swales, J. M. (1986). Citation analysis and discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 39-56.
     Swales, J. M. (1990).Genre analysis: English in academic and research setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Thomas, S. & Hawes, T. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 129-148.
     Thompson, P. (2005). Points of focus and position: intertextual reference in PhD theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 307–323.
     Thompson, P., &Tribble, C. (2001).Looking at citations: using corpora in English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 91–105.
     Thompson, G.& Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365-382.
     Velliaris, D. & Miller, J. (2009) Reporting verbs. York, University of York. Retrieved from: http://www.york.ac.uk/rop/documents/reportingverbs.pdf
     Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English. Englewoods Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
     Wette, R. (2010). Evaluating student learning in a university-level EAP unit on writing using sources. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 158-177.
     Williams, Ian A. (1996). A contextual study of lexical verbs in two types of medical research report: clinical and experimental. English for Specific Purposes, 15(3), 175-197.
     Williams, Ian A. (2008). Semantico-syntactic environments of the verb show and demonstrate and Spanish mostrar and demonstrar in a bilingual corpus of medical research articles. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(1), 38-74.
     Willis, D. (2003) Rules, Patterns and Words: Grammar and Lexis in ELT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Xie, N. Y. (2013). The Development of Use of Reporting Verbs in Academic Writing: A Case Study with Two Chinese Students. Unpublished MA dissertation. The University of Exeter.
     Yang, L. X. (2013). Evaluative functions of reporting evidentials in English research articles of applied linguistics. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 3(2), 119-126.		zh_TW