學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 台灣大學生英文議論文中人稱代名詞使用之功能分析
A functional analysis of personal pronoun use in argumentation by Taiwanese college students作者 張銀玲
Chang, Yin Ling貢獻者 尤雪瑛
Yu, Hsueh Ying
張銀玲
Chang, Yin Ling關鍵詞 人稱代名詞
人際關係標記
篇章功能
Personal Pronoun
Interpersonal Marker
Discourse Function日期 2011 上傳時間 4-九月-2013 14:47:36 (UTC+8) 摘要 為了呼應將人際層面融入寫作教學的趨勢，本論文將透過分析人稱代名詞（一種明顯的人際關係標記)在議論文中的使用功能來探討不同程度的台灣大學生如何使用人稱代名詞建構作者與讀者之間的關係。本研究的第一部份著重在七十六篇文章的文本分析。首先，這些文章按照評分結果將其分成高、中、低三組，然後分析人稱代名詞最常出現的搭配語言形式，並歸納出不同人稱代名詞的篇章功能。第二部份則是分析學生問卷及訪談學生，藉以作進一步的闡述。問卷的目的在找出學生對議論文寫作的看法，而訪談學生則是想找出使用不同人稱代名詞的原因。本研究發現不同程度的三組學生在人稱代名詞的整體使用數量、種類、及頻率分配上都有不同，程度高的一組明顯少於中間程度及較低組。同時，結果也顯示這些學生會搭配不同的語言形式（例如動詞、助動詞、加強標記等）來行使不同的篇章功能，而且不同程度的學生在功能運用上也會有所差異。整體而言，低組同學呈現較多的自我投射，中間組同學比較注重與讀者和其他外人的關係，而高組同學在呈現觀點時較為客觀。在選擇人稱代名詞時，學生會從自己本身、讀者、文章寫作等三方面的相互關係作出考量，決定採取主觀或客觀的觀點、表達權威或謙卑的態度、顯示親近或疏離的關係、使用直接或間接的策略。大致上來說，這些學生使用較多的人性訴求來凝聚跟讀者之間的關係，同時也強化自己論點的力道。這樣的策略充分反映出台灣文化中的人道主義和集體主義。本研究發現學生在議論文寫作中會以功能和人際關係為導向來選擇和使用人稱代名詞。
In response to the call for the incorporation of interpersonal dimension into the writing pedagogy, this study provides a functional analysis of personal pronouns—an explicit interpersonal marker—used in argumentative texts by Taiwanese college students. The purpose is to see how students of different proficiency levels construct the writer-reader relationship through personal pronouns during the composition. The first part of the study centers on the analysis of 76 learner essays. They are first rated and sorted into three groups of different quality—High, Mid, and Low. Later, the linguistic forms associated with personal pronouns are examined, and the discourse functions personal pronouns fulfill in contexts are also identified. The results of the text analysis are further supplemented by the post-writing questionnaires and the oral interviews on students to obtain more in-depth discovery and interpretation. While the questionnaire aims to reveal how the students perceive argumentative writing, the interview intends to find out the reasons for their choices of personal pronouns. The results have shown that the use of personal pronouns in the three groups differs in quantity, type and distribution. The High group writers use significantly fewer pronouns than the other two. Moreover, the students use personal pronouns with salient accompanying linguistic forms (e.g. verbs, modals, emphatic markers) to perform various discourse functions, and students of different levels also vary in maneuvering the functions. Overall, the Low group writers tend to be more self-involved, and the Mid group writers are more likely to include in-group and out-group members in discourse. The High group writers, however, present their arguments more objectively. In selecting personal pronouns, the students usually take account of the interrelationship among the writer, the reader and the text, on whose basis the alternatives between subjectivity and objectivity, authority and modesty, intimacy and detachment, or directness and indirectness are weighed. In general, the students use more personal appeals to achieve mutual solidarity with the reader and to intensify their convictions as well, which reflects humaneness and collectivism that have been highly valued in Taiwanese culture. The study has found that the students` strategic choices of personal pronouns in argumentative writing are usually functionally and interpersonally-oriented.參考文獻 Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.Albakry, M. (2005). Styles in American newspaper language: Use & usage.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations (AAT 3189032).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. (2007) AntConc Software (Version 3.2.1). Available from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/antconc_index.htmlBanerjee, S. (2008). Revisiting argumentation: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful NES and ESL college writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3300328). Baumgarten, N., & House, J. (2010). I think and I don`t know in English as lingua franca and native English discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42 (5), 1164-1200.Beaugrande, R. d., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. New York: Longman.Beltran, A. U. (2001). Perceptual and linguistic approaches to the study of reflectiveness in journal writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3035397). Berkenkotter, C. (1984). Understanding a writer`s awareness of audience. College Composition and Communication, 32, 388-397.Berman, R. A. (2004). Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 105-124.Biber, D., Johansson, S. Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Biq, Y-O. (1991). The multiple uses of the second person singular pronoun ni in conversational Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(4), 307-321.Black, K. (1989). Audience analysis and persuasive writing at the college level. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(3), 231-249.Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (2004). The functional analysis of English (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.Breeze, R. (2007). How personal is this text: Researching writer and reader presence in student writing using Wordsmith tools. CORELL: Computer Resources for Language Learning, 1, 14-21.Brown, D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. New York: Longman. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 28-44.Carrell, P. L. (1987). Text as interaction: Some implications of text analysis and reading research for ESL composition. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 47-56). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Carvalho, J. B. (2002). Developing audience awareness in writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(3), 271-282.Chang, Y-H. (1998). The study of personal pronouns in mandarin political discourse. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.Chao, C.-F. (2002). An analysis of the usage of personal pronouns in senior high school students` compositions. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei.Chen, C. (2010). 英語專業四級考試議論文中模糊人稱代詞的使用分析 [Analysis of the Use of Fuzzy Personal Pronouns in Argumentative Writings in TEM4]. Journal of Yunnan RTV University, 12(1), 85-87. Chen, C.-H., & Wang, Y.-F. (2006). Politeness strategies in Chinese and English argumentative writing: A preliminary study. Paper presented at the fifteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei, Taiwan.Chen, J. & Wu, Y. (2011). Less well-behaved pronouns: Singular they in English and plural ta ‘it/he/she’ in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 407-410. Cheng, F.-W. (2005). Audience strategies used by EFL college writers. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 209-225.Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149-181.Cobb, T. (2003). Analyzing later interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59 (3), 393-423. Connor, U. (1987). Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural differences. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across language: analysis of L2 text (pp. 57-72). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24(1), 67-87.Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 493-510.Connor, U., & Kaplan, R. B. (Eds.). (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1985). Understanding persuasive essay writing: Linguistic/rhetorical approach. Text, 5(4), 309-326.Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 279-296.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.Crismore, A., & Vande Kopple, W. J. (1984). Reader`s learning from the prose: The effect of hedges. Written Communication, 5(2), 184-202.Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 217-287.Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/argumentative discourse. Canadian Journal of Education, 15(4), 348-359.Crowhurst, M. (1991). Interrelationships between reading and writing persuasive discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 314-338.Dafouz-Milne, E. (2007). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95-113.Dafouz, E., Nunez, B., & Sancho, C. (2007). Analyzing stance in a CLIL university context: Non-native speaker use of personal pronouns and modal verbs. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 647-662.Donald, R. B., Morrow, B. R., Wargetz, L. G., & Werner, K. (1996). Writing clear essays (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Duenas, P. M. (2007). `I/we focus on...`: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 143-162.Duke University. (n.d.). Because I said so: Effective use of the first-person perspective and the personal voice in academic writing. Retrieved from http://uwp.aas.duke.edu/wstudio Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.Ferris, D. R. (1994). Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences between native and non-native. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(1), 45-65.Fetzer, A., & Bull, P. (2008). `Well, I answer it by simply inviting you to look at the evidence`: The strategic use of pronouns in political interviews. Journal of Language and Politics, 7(2), 271-289.Flottum, K., Kinn, T., & Dahl, T. (2006). "We now report on..." versus "Let us now see how...": Author roles and interaction with readers in research articles. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 203-224). Bern: Peter Lang.Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.Flowerdew, L. (1997). Interpersonal strategies: Investigating interlanguage corpora. RELC Journal, 28(1), 72-88.Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of `we` in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 45-66.Frodesen, J., & Holten, C. (2003). Grammar and the ESL writing class. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 141-161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gao, J. (2005). Toward a multi-dimensional approach to the interpersonal-rhetorical resources of English metadiscourse. Unpublished Dissertation, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai.Gledhill, C. (2000). The discourse function of collocation in research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 115-135. González, V., Chen, C.-Y., & Sanchez, C. (2001). Cultural thinking and discourse organizational patterns influencing writing skills in a Chinese English-as-a-foreign language (EFL) learner. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 627-652.Gordon, K. W. (2007). Personal Voice in Academic Writing. Ohio Journal of English Language Arts, pp. 44-51, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=27653930&lang=zh-tw&site=ehost-liveGrabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 242-262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York: Longman.Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.Hartnett, C. G. (1997). A functional approach to composition offers an alternative. Composition Chronicle: Newsletter for Writing Teachers, 10 (5), 5-8. Harwood, N. (2005a). `We do not seem to have a theory...The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap`: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 343-375.Harwood, N. (2005b). "Nowhere has anyone attempted...In this article I am to do just that`: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1207-1231.Harwood, N. (2006). (In)appropriate personal pronoun use in political science: A qualitative study and a proposed heuristic for future research. Written Communication, 23(4), 424-450.Harwood, N. (2007). Political scientists on the functions of personal pronouns in their writing: An interview-based study of `I` and `we`. Text & Talk, 27(1), 27-54.Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hays, J. N., Brandt, K. M., & Chanry, K. H. (1988). The impact of friendly and hostile audiences on the argumentative writing of high school and college students. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(4), 391-416.Hell, J. G. v., Verhoeven, L., Tak, M., & Oosterhout, M. v. (2005). To take a stance: A developmental study of the use of pronouns and passives in spoken and written narrative and expository texts in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 239-273.Herriman, J. (2007). “I’m stating my case”: Overt authorial presence in English argumentative texts by students and professional writers. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 6 (1). Retrieved from http://ojs.ub.gu.se/ojs/index.php/njes/article/viewFile/13/19Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across Language: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Hines, E. (2004). High quality and low quality college-level academic writing: Its discursive features. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado.Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 361-386.Hinkel, E. (1999). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), 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.Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.Hyland, K. (2001a). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574.Hyland, K. (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226. Hyland, K. (2002a). Teaching and researching writing. London: Pearson Education.Hyland, K. (2002b). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.Hyland, K. (2002c). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239.Hyland, K. (2002d). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text, 22(4), 529-557.Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.Hyland, K. (2005b). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education: An International Research Journal, 16(4), 363-377.Hyland, K. (2005c). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.Iddings, J. (2007). A functional analysis of humanities and biochemistry writing with respect to teaching university composition. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Marshall University. Inigo-Mora, I. (2004). On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language and Politics, 3(1), 27-52.Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272.Ivanic, R. & Simpson, J. (1992). Who’s who in academic writing? In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 141–173). London: Longman."Jalilifar, A., & Alipour, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners` reading comprehension skills. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1), 35-52.Johns, A. M. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 24-36). Cambridge: University Press. Johns, A. M. (2003). Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 195-217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kamimura, T., & Oi, K. (1996). A crosscultural analysis of argumentative strategies in student essays. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED394324.pdf 94.324ED394324Kamio, A. (2001). English generic we, you, and they: An analysis in terms of territory of information. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(7), 1111-1124.Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor & r. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9-22). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Kim, C.-K. (2009). Personal pronouns in English and Korean texts: A corpus-based study in terms of textual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2086-2099.Kirkpatrick, A. (1995). Chinese rhetoric: Methods of argument. Multilingua, 14(3), 271-295.Kitagawa, C., & Lehrer, A. (1990). Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(5), 739-759.Krause, K.-l., & O`Brien, D. (1999). A sociolinguistic study of the argumentative writing of Chinese students. Educational Journal, 27(2), 43-64.Kroll, B. (Ed.). (2003). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kuo, C.-H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121-138.Kuo, S.-h. (2002). From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular pronoun in Chinese political discourse. Text, 22(1), 29-55.Kuo, S.-h. (2003). Involvement vs detachment: Gender differences in the use of personal pronouns in televised sports in Taiwan. Discourse Studies, 5(4), 479-494.Lau, H.-H. (2004). Interaction markers used by Taiwanese PhD students of physics. Paper presented at the Thirteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei.Lee, S. H. (2008). An integrative framework for the analyses of argumentative / persuasive essays from an interpersonal perspective. Text & Talk, 28(2), 239-270.Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Li, X. (2005). Intercultural rhetorical studies in argumentative discourse: English and Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Shanghai International Studies Universities, Shanghai.Li, Y.-Z. (2004). 論漢英第一人稱代詞複數的模糊性 [The vagueness of first personal plural pronouns in Chinese and English]. Journal of Hehai University (Social Science), 2, 72-80. Li, Z.-Z. (2000). 第二人稱在自傳中的人際功能 [The interpersonal function of second person in autobiography]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 6, 51-56。Lin, H.-C. (1993). The pragmatic uses of personal pronouns in mandarin Chinese. Unpublished master thesis. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.Lin, S.-R. (2004). 第一人稱指示語的語用分析 [A pragmatic analysis of first personal pronoun]. Journal of Shandong College of Education, 1, 24-26, 45.Liu, K.-P., & Zho, Y.-F. (2004). 英漢思維差異對中國學生EFL寫作的影響 [The impact of Chinese-English conceptual differences on Chinese students’ EFL writing]. Foreign Language Research, 5, 107-111. Luo, L.-L. (2008). 淺析大學生議論文中的代詞銜接 [An analysis on the pronoun link in the argumentative essays by college students]. Journal of Jianxi Radio and TV University, 1, 67-69. Luzon, M. J. (2009). The use of we in a learner corpus of reports written by EFL engineering students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 192-206.Maitland, K & Wilson, J. (1987). Pronominal selection and ideological conflict. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(4), 495-512. Martinez, I. A. (2001). Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity structure. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 227-247.Martinez, I. A. (2005). Native and non-native writers` use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 174-190.Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 15-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Matsuda, P. K., & Tardy, C. M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 235-249.Matu, P. M. (2008). Transitivity as a tool for ideological analysis. Journal of Third World Studies, 25(1), 199-211.McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. New York: Longman.McCrostie, J. (2008). Writer visibility in EFL learner academic writing: A corpus-based study. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 32, 97-114.Meyer, H. (2008). The ‘empowerment’ of students: A contribution from systemic functional grammar. English in Education, 42 (2), 165-181. Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C. (2008). The Effects of Content and Audience Awareness Goals for Revision on the Persuasive Essays of Fifth- and Eighth-Grade Students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 131-151.Morell, T. (2004). Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 325-338.Muhlhausler, P., & Harre, R. (1990). Pronouns and people. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.Myers, G. (1992). ‘In this paper we report…’: Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics, 17(4), 295-313.Na, J., & Choi, I. (2009). Culture and first-person pronouns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(11), 1492-1499.Ning, Z.-y. (2008). A genre-based analysis of English research article abstracts and the linguistic feature of personal pronouns for financial economics. US-China Education Review, 5(7), 62-65.Okamura, A. (2009). Use of personal pronouns in two types of monologic academic speech. The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics, 52(1), 17-26. Retrieved from http://www1.tcue.ac.jp/home1/k-gakkai/ronsyuu/ronsyuukeisai/52_1/okamura.pdfOshima, A. & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English (4th ed.). White Plain, NY: Pearson Education. Pennycook, A. (1994). The politics of pronouns. ELT Journal, 48(2), 173-178.Petch-Tyson, S. (1998). Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 107-118). London: Longman.Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Audience and voice in current L1 composition texts: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 21-34.Recski, L. (2005). Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: A functional account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 5-23.Reilly, J., Zamora, A., & McGivern, R. f. (2005). Acquiring perspective in English: The development of stance. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 185-208.Rounds, P. L. (1987). Multifunctional personal pronoun use in an educational setting. English for Specific Purposes, 6(1), 13-29.Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Schleppegrell, M. J. (1998). Grammar as resource: Writing a description. Research in the Teaching of English, 32(2), 182-211.Schleppegrell, M. J., & Go, A. L. (2007). Analyzing the writing of English learners: A functional approach. Language Arts, 84(6), 529-528.Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-675.Sinclair, J. (1995) Introduction. In Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (2nd ed.). London: Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45-75.Smalley, R. L., Ruetten, M.K., & Kozyrev, J. R. (2001). Refining composition skills: Rhetoric and grammar (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.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.Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The `I` in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first personal pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S23-S39.Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text, 15(1), 103-127.Tian, H.-L. (2001a). 英漢語 “WE/我們”的人際功能與文化差異 [The cultural differences in interpersonal functions of English we and Chinese we]. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, 3, 17-20. Tian, H.-L. (2001b). ”我”、”我們” 的使用與個人特性 [I and We: A reflection of the speaker’s personality]. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies, 4, 75-80. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.Vande Kopple, W. J. (1996). Rhetorical or functional grammar and the teaching of composition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication Vande Kopple, W. J. (1997). Refining and applying views of metadiscourse. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the conference on college composition and communication (48th). Vassileva, I. (1998). Who am I /Who are we in academic writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 163-190.Vladimirou, D. (2006). ‘I suggest that we need more research’: Personal reference in linguistics journal articles. Papers from the Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguists and Language Teaching, Vol. 1. Papers from LAEL, PG, 2006. Wales, K. (1996). Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wang, L.-Q. (2005). 英漢第一人稱複數研究綜述 [A study on English and Chinese first person plural pronouns]. Journal of Xiamen Educational College, 7(4), 54-56.Wang, R. (2004). 主觀性在人稱代詞移用中的表現 [Subjectivity in the transfer of personal pronouns]. Journal of Sichuan College of Education, 20(9), 77-79.Wang, X. (2006). 論英漢語言的差異對大學英語寫作的影響 [On the Influences on College English Writing of English and Chinese Language Differences]. Journal of Xinxiang Teachers College, 20(4), 139-141.Wang, Y-p., & Xia, Z. (2005). 英漢對比修辭學實證研究:論證語篇與修辭結構之對比 [A contrastive study of rhetorical structures in argumentative texts: An empirical study in English-Chinese contrastive rhetoric]. Journal of Henan University (Social Science), 45 (4), 147-150.Webber, P. (1994). The function of questions in different medical journal genres. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 257-268.Williams, J. M. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. New York: Longman.Wu. D. (2003). 從語用角度分析英漢複數第一人稱指示語 [The pragmatics use of plural first person deixis in English and Chinese]. Journal of Bijie Teachers College, 21(1), 52-54. Wu, S.-Y., & Rubin, D. L. (2000). Evaluating the impact of collectivism and individualism on argumentative writing by Chinese and North American college students. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(2), 148-178.Xiang, X. (2003). Multiplicity of self in public discourse: The use of personal references in two radio sports shows. Language Sciences, 25(5), 489-514.Yang, Y.-C. (2006). Metadiscourse instruction in EAP courses: Feasibility and acceptability. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, Ching Hua University, Hsin-Chu.Zainuddin, H., & Moore, R. A. (2003). Audience awareness in L1 and L2 composing of bilingual writers. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume7/ej25/ej25a2/Zhang, M. (2008). 中外摘要中第一人稱代詞用法的對比研究 [A comparison study of first person pronouns in abstracts in China and English speaking countries]. Shanghai Journal of Translation, 2, 31-36. 描述 博士
國立政治大學
英國語文學研究所
93551504
100資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093551504 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 尤雪瑛 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Yu, Hsueh Ying en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 張銀玲 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Chang, Yin Ling en_US dc.creator (作者) 張銀玲 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chang, Yin Ling en_US dc.date (日期) 2011 en_US dc.date.accessioned 4-九月-2013 14:47:36 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 4-九月-2013 14:47:36 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 4-九月-2013 14:47:36 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0093551504 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/60009 - dc.description (描述) 博士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 英國語文學研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 93551504 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 100 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 為了呼應將人際層面融入寫作教學的趨勢，本論文將透過分析人稱代名詞（一種明顯的人際關係標記)在議論文中的使用功能來探討不同程度的台灣大學生如何使用人稱代名詞建構作者與讀者之間的關係。本研究的第一部份著重在七十六篇文章的文本分析。首先，這些文章按照評分結果將其分成高、中、低三組，然後分析人稱代名詞最常出現的搭配語言形式，並歸納出不同人稱代名詞的篇章功能。第二部份則是分析學生問卷及訪談學生，藉以作進一步的闡述。問卷的目的在找出學生對議論文寫作的看法，而訪談學生則是想找出使用不同人稱代名詞的原因。本研究發現不同程度的三組學生在人稱代名詞的整體使用數量、種類、及頻率分配上都有不同，程度高的一組明顯少於中間程度及較低組。同時，結果也顯示這些學生會搭配不同的語言形式（例如動詞、助動詞、加強標記等）來行使不同的篇章功能，而且不同程度的學生在功能運用上也會有所差異。整體而言，低組同學呈現較多的自我投射，中間組同學比較注重與讀者和其他外人的關係，而高組同學在呈現觀點時較為客觀。在選擇人稱代名詞時，學生會從自己本身、讀者、文章寫作等三方面的相互關係作出考量，決定採取主觀或客觀的觀點、表達權威或謙卑的態度、顯示親近或疏離的關係、使用直接或間接的策略。大致上來說，這些學生使用較多的人性訴求來凝聚跟讀者之間的關係，同時也強化自己論點的力道。這樣的策略充分反映出台灣文化中的人道主義和集體主義。本研究發現學生在議論文寫作中會以功能和人際關係為導向來選擇和使用人稱代名詞。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) In response to the call for the incorporation of interpersonal dimension into the writing pedagogy, this study provides a functional analysis of personal pronouns—an explicit interpersonal marker—used in argumentative texts by Taiwanese college students. The purpose is to see how students of different proficiency levels construct the writer-reader relationship through personal pronouns during the composition. The first part of the study centers on the analysis of 76 learner essays. They are first rated and sorted into three groups of different quality—High, Mid, and Low. Later, the linguistic forms associated with personal pronouns are examined, and the discourse functions personal pronouns fulfill in contexts are also identified. The results of the text analysis are further supplemented by the post-writing questionnaires and the oral interviews on students to obtain more in-depth discovery and interpretation. While the questionnaire aims to reveal how the students perceive argumentative writing, the interview intends to find out the reasons for their choices of personal pronouns. The results have shown that the use of personal pronouns in the three groups differs in quantity, type and distribution. The High group writers use significantly fewer pronouns than the other two. Moreover, the students use personal pronouns with salient accompanying linguistic forms (e.g. verbs, modals, emphatic markers) to perform various discourse functions, and students of different levels also vary in maneuvering the functions. Overall, the Low group writers tend to be more self-involved, and the Mid group writers are more likely to include in-group and out-group members in discourse. The High group writers, however, present their arguments more objectively. In selecting personal pronouns, the students usually take account of the interrelationship among the writer, the reader and the text, on whose basis the alternatives between subjectivity and objectivity, authority and modesty, intimacy and detachment, or directness and indirectness are weighed. In general, the students use more personal appeals to achieve mutual solidarity with the reader and to intensify their convictions as well, which reflects humaneness and collectivism that have been highly valued in Taiwanese culture. The study has found that the students` strategic choices of personal pronouns in argumentative writing are usually functionally and interpersonally-oriented. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements iiiChinese Abstract xvEnglish Abstract xviChapter1. Introduction 1 Background 1 Statement of the Problem 3 Statement of the Purpose 7 Research Questions 8 Significance of the Study 9 Organization of the Dissertation 10 Definition of Terms 112. Literature Review 14 Writing as a Form of Interaction 14 Writer’s Voice 15 Audience Awareness 16 The Role of Voice and Audience in Writing classroom 17 Personal Pronouns 19 Overview 19 Approaches to Analyzing Personal Pronouns 21 Pragmatic Functions of Personal pronouns 22 First Person Singular Pronoun I 22 First Person Pronoun Plural We 23 Second Person Pronoun You 25 Third Person Pronoun Plural They and Singular S/he 26 The Co-Text of Personal Pronouns 28 Pronominal Shift 30 Cross-Cultural Comparisons 31 Argumentative Writing 34 Argumentative Text Genre 34 Effective Argumentative Writing 34 Previous Studies on Argumentative Writing 36 Systemic Functional Grammar 38 Discourse-Semantic Structure 38 Lexico-Grammatical Structure 39 Transitivity 39 Mood 40 Theme 41 Application of SFG to Research and Pedagogy 42 Research from a Functional Perspective 433. Methodology 45 Participants 45 Instruments 47 The Writing Task 47 Holistic Rating Scale 48 Post-Writing Questionnaire 50 Post-Writing Oral Interview Questions 51 Data Analysis 52 Text analysis 52 Frequency Analysis 53 Analysis of the Collocated Linguistic Forms 54 Principles for Coding the Collocated Forms 55 Cluster Analysis 56 Analysis of Discourse Functions 59 Analysis of Questionnaires 61 Analysis of Oral Interviews 624. Analysis of Pronominal Linguistic Forms and Discourse Functions 63 Descriptive Statistics of the Writing Samples 63 Distribution of Different Types of Personal Pronouns 64 Overall Frequency of Occurrences of Personal Pronouns 64 Frequency Distribution in Three Groups 67 Summary of Personal Pronoun Use and Frequency Distribution 68 Analysis of Linguistic Forms and Discourse functions 68 First Person Singular I 69 The Use of I in Relation to Text Structure 70 Linguistic Collocations of I in Subject Position 72 Main Verbs and Emphatics after I 72 Modals after I 73 Most Frequent Clusters with I 74 Discourse Functions of I 75 The Function Distribution of Pronoun I 77 Summary of the Use of I 79 First Person Plural We 80 The Use of We in Relation to Text Structure 80 Linguistic Collocations of We in Subject Position 83 Main Verbs and Emphatics after We 83 Modals after We 84 Most Frequent Clusters with We 85 Discourse Functions of We 85 The Function Distribution of Pronoun We 89 Summary of the Use of We 90 Second Person Pronoun You 91 The Use of You in Relation to Text Structure 91 Linguistic Collocations of You in Subject Position 94 Main Verbs and Emphatics after You 94 Modals after You 95 Most Frequent Clusters with You 96 Discourse Functions of You 97 The Function Distribution of Pronoun You 100 Summary of the Use of You 101 Third Person Plural They 102 The Use of They in Relation to Text Structure 103 Linguistic Collocations of They in Subject Position 105 Main Verbs and Emphatics after They 105 Modals after They 106 Most Frequent Clusters with They 107 Discourse Functions of They 108 The Function Distribution of Pronoun They 111 Summary of the Use of They 112 Third Person Singular S/he 113 The Use of S/he in Relation to Text Structure 114 Linguistic Collocations of S/he in Subject Position 115 Main Verbs and Emphatics after S/he 115 Modals after S/he 116 Most Frequent Clusters with S/he 116 Discourse Functions of S/he 117 Summary of the Use of S/he 118 Summary of the Chapter 1185. Analysis of Questionnaires and Interviews 121 Results and Analysis of the Questionnaires 121 Question 1: The Purpose of Writing 122 Expressing Purpose 123 Convincing Purpose 123 Assignment Purpose 124 The Choice of Personal Pronoun in Relation to Writing Purpose 124 Expressing Purpose 125 Convincing Purpose 126 Assignment Purpose 127 Question 2: The Intended Reader 127 The Choice of Personal Pronoun in Relation to Intended Reader 129 General Public Group 130 Opponents Group 130 Teachers/Researchers Group 131 Question 3: The Writer-Reader Relationship 132 Equal Relationship 132 Unequal Relationship 134 The Choice of Personal Pronoun in Relation to Writer- Reader Relationship 135 Equal Relationship 137 Unequal Relationship 137 Question 5: The Convincing Strategy 138 Direct Strategy 139 Indirect Strategy 140 The Choice of Personal Pronoun in Relation to Convincing Strategy 142 Direct Strategy 143 Indirect Strategy 143 Question 4: The Persuasive Effect of the Text 144 Question 6: The Major Difficulties in Composing the Essay 146 Results of Oral interview 148 The Choice of I 148 The Choice of We 150 The Choice of You 152 The Choice of They 154 The Choice of S/he 156 Comparison between Text Analysis and Interview Results 156 Strategic and Cultural Perspectives on Personal Pronoun Use 158 The Students’ Strategic Use of Personal Pronouns 158 Writer-Oriented Considerations 158 Reader-Oriented Considerations 161 Text-Oriented Considerations 163 Conclusion of the Strategic Use 164 Cultural Factors Involved in Personal Pronoun Use 164 A Humane Approach to Argumentation 165 The On-the-Same-Boat Reader 166 Little Use of Impersonal One 167 Mixed Strategies to Persuasion 168 Different Pragmatic Meanings of Personal Pronouns 1696. Conclusion 171 Answers to Research Questions 171 Question 1: The Overall Frequency and Distribution of Personal Pronouns 171 Overall Frequency and Distribution 171 Variance among Groups in Distribution 172 Question 2: The Most common Linguistic Forms Collocated with Personal Pronouns 172 Question 3: The Discourse Functions Fulfilled by Types of PersonalPronouns 174 Discourse Functions and Types of Personal Pronouns 174 Variance among Groups in Function Use 175 Question 4: The Students’ Perceptions of Argumentative Writing 175 Questionnaire Results 175 Oral Interview Results 176 Pedagogical Implications 177 Teaching Suggestions 182 Limitations of the Study 184 Directions for Future Research 185Appendixes A. Argumentative Writing Task 187 B. Argumentative Writing Task (Chinese version) 188 C. Holistic Rating Scale 189 D. Post-Writing Questionnaire 192 E. Post-Writing Questionnaire (Chinese version) 194 F. Post-Writing Oral Interview Questions 196 G. Informed Consent Form 197 H. Informed Consent Form (Chinese version) 198 I. Collocated Linguistic Forms and Illustrative Examples 199 J. The Categorization Schemes of Discourse Functions and Illustrations 200References 202Vita 219 LIST OF TABLESTable 4.1 Number of Papers and Words for Each Group 63 4.2 The Raw Number, Percentage, and Normalized Frequency per 100 Words 654.3 Frequency of Personal Pronoun per 100 Words (%) 674.4 Density of I in Relation to Text Structure (per 100 Words) 704.5 Main Verbs that Most Frequently Collocated with I 734.6 Modal Distribution after I 744.7 Top 10 Clusters Associated with I 744.8 Distribution of Functions of I (Percentage and Raw Number) 784.9 Density of We in Relation to Text Structure (per 100 Words) 804.10 Main Verbs that Most Frequently Collocated with We 834.11 Modal Distribution after We 844.12 Top 10 Clusters Associated with We 854.13 Distribution of Functions of We (Percentage and Raw Number) 894.14 Density of You in Relation to Text Structure (per 100 Words) 924.15 Main Verbs that Most Frequently Collocated with You 954.16 Modal Distribution after You 954.17 Top 7 Clusters Associated with You 964.18 Distribution of Functions of You (Percentage and Raw Number) 1014.19 Density of They in Relation to Text Structure (per 100 words) 1034.20 Main Verbs that Most Frequently Collocated with They 1054.21 Modal Distribution after They 1064.22 Top 10 Clusters Associated with They 1074.23 Distribution of Functions of They (Percentage and Raw Number) 1114.24 Density of S/he in Relation to Text Structure (per 100 Words) 1154.25 Main Verbs that Most Frequently Collocated with S/he 1154.26 Top 6 Clusters Associated with S/he 1164.27 The Linguistic Forms and Discourse Functions Associated with Types of Personal Pronouns 1205.1 The Purposes of Writing by Three Groups (Percentage and Raw Number) 1225.2 Density of Pronouns in Relation to Writing Purpose 1255.3 Pronoun Use (%) by Three Groups for Expressing Purpose 1255.4 Pronoun Use (%) by Three Groups for Convincing Purpose 1265.5 Pronoun Use (%) by Three Groups for Assignment Purpose 1275.6 The Intended Readers Chosen by Three Groups (Percentage and Raw Number) 1285.7 Density of Pronouns in Relation to Reader Group 1295.8 Pronoun Use (%) by Three Groups for General Public 1305.9 Pronoun Use (%) by Three Groups for Opponents 1315.10 Pronoun Use (%) by Three Groups for Teachers/Researchers 1315.11 The Perception of Writer-Reader Relationship by Three Groups 1325.12 Density of Pronouns in Relation to Writer-Reader Relationship 1355.13 Pronoun Use (%) by Three Groups for Equal Relationship 1375.14 Pronoun Use (%) by Three Groups for Unequal Relationship 1385.15 The Convincing Strategies Adopted by Three Groups 1385.16 Density of Pronouns in Relation to Convincing Strategy 1435.17 Pronoun Use (%) by Three Groups for Direct Strategy 1435.18 Pronoun Use (%) by Three Groups for Indirect Strategy 1445.19 Perception of Text Persuasiveness by Three Groups 1455.20 The Difficulties in Composing the Essays by Three Groups 1475.21 Consistent Findings from Text Analysis and Oral Interview 157 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2279816 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093551504 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 人稱代名詞 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 人際關係標記 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 篇章功能 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Personal Pronoun en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Interpersonal Marker en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Discourse Function en_US dc.title (題名) 台灣大學生英文議論文中人稱代名詞使用之功能分析 zh_TW dc.title (題名) A functional analysis of personal pronoun use in argumentation by Taiwanese college students en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.Albakry, M. (2005). Styles in American newspaper language: Use & usage.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations (AAT 3189032).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. (2007) AntConc Software (Version 3.2.1). Available from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/antconc_index.htmlBanerjee, S. (2008). Revisiting argumentation: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful NES and ESL college writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3300328). Baumgarten, N., & House, J. (2010). I think and I don`t know in English as lingua franca and native English discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42 (5), 1164-1200.Beaugrande, R. d., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. New York: Longman.Beltran, A. U. (2001). Perceptual and linguistic approaches to the study of reflectiveness in journal writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3035397). Berkenkotter, C. (1984). Understanding a writer`s awareness of audience. College Composition and Communication, 32, 388-397.Berman, R. A. (2004). Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 105-124.Biber, D., Johansson, S. Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Biq, Y-O. (1991). The multiple uses of the second person singular pronoun ni in conversational Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(4), 307-321.Black, K. (1989). Audience analysis and persuasive writing at the college level. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(3), 231-249.Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (2004). The functional analysis of English (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.Breeze, R. (2007). How personal is this text: Researching writer and reader presence in student writing using Wordsmith tools. CORELL: Computer Resources for Language Learning, 1, 14-21.Brown, D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. New York: Longman. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 28-44.Carrell, P. L. (1987). Text as interaction: Some implications of text analysis and reading research for ESL composition. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 47-56). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Carvalho, J. B. (2002). Developing audience awareness in writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(3), 271-282.Chang, Y-H. (1998). The study of personal pronouns in mandarin political discourse. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.Chao, C.-F. (2002). An analysis of the usage of personal pronouns in senior high school students` compositions. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei.Chen, C. (2010). 英語專業四級考試議論文中模糊人稱代詞的使用分析 [Analysis of the Use of Fuzzy Personal Pronouns in Argumentative Writings in TEM4]. Journal of Yunnan RTV University, 12(1), 85-87. Chen, C.-H., & Wang, Y.-F. (2006). Politeness strategies in Chinese and English argumentative writing: A preliminary study. Paper presented at the fifteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei, Taiwan.Chen, J. & Wu, Y. (2011). Less well-behaved pronouns: Singular they in English and plural ta ‘it/he/she’ in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 407-410. Cheng, F.-W. (2005). Audience strategies used by EFL college writers. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 209-225.Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149-181.Cobb, T. (2003). Analyzing later interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59 (3), 393-423. Connor, U. (1987). Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural differences. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across language: analysis of L2 text (pp. 57-72). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24(1), 67-87.Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 493-510.Connor, U., & Kaplan, R. B. (Eds.). (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1985). Understanding persuasive essay writing: Linguistic/rhetorical approach. Text, 5(4), 309-326.Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 279-296.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.Crismore, A., & Vande Kopple, W. J. (1984). Reader`s learning from the prose: The effect of hedges. Written Communication, 5(2), 184-202.Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 217-287.Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/argumentative discourse. Canadian Journal of Education, 15(4), 348-359.Crowhurst, M. (1991). Interrelationships between reading and writing persuasive discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 314-338.Dafouz-Milne, E. (2007). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95-113.Dafouz, E., Nunez, B., & Sancho, C. (2007). Analyzing stance in a CLIL university context: Non-native speaker use of personal pronouns and modal verbs. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 647-662.Donald, R. B., Morrow, B. R., Wargetz, L. G., & Werner, K. (1996). Writing clear essays (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Duenas, P. M. (2007). `I/we focus on...`: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 143-162.Duke University. (n.d.). Because I said so: Effective use of the first-person perspective and the personal voice in academic writing. Retrieved from http://uwp.aas.duke.edu/wstudio Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.Ferris, D. R. (1994). Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences between native and non-native. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(1), 45-65.Fetzer, A., & Bull, P. (2008). `Well, I answer it by simply inviting you to look at the evidence`: The strategic use of pronouns in political interviews. Journal of Language and Politics, 7(2), 271-289.Flottum, K., Kinn, T., & Dahl, T. (2006). "We now report on..." versus "Let us now see how...": Author roles and interaction with readers in research articles. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 203-224). Bern: Peter Lang.Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.Flowerdew, L. (1997). Interpersonal strategies: Investigating interlanguage corpora. RELC Journal, 28(1), 72-88.Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of `we` in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 45-66.Frodesen, J., & Holten, C. (2003). Grammar and the ESL writing class. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 141-161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gao, J. (2005). Toward a multi-dimensional approach to the interpersonal-rhetorical resources of English metadiscourse. Unpublished Dissertation, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai.Gledhill, C. (2000). The discourse function of collocation in research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 115-135. González, V., Chen, C.-Y., & Sanchez, C. (2001). Cultural thinking and discourse organizational patterns influencing writing skills in a Chinese English-as-a-foreign language (EFL) learner. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 627-652.Gordon, K. W. (2007). Personal Voice in Academic Writing. Ohio Journal of English Language Arts, pp. 44-51, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=27653930&lang=zh-tw&site=ehost-liveGrabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 242-262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York: Longman.Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.Hartnett, C. G. (1997). A functional approach to composition offers an alternative. Composition Chronicle: Newsletter for Writing Teachers, 10 (5), 5-8. Harwood, N. (2005a). `We do not seem to have a theory...The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap`: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 343-375.Harwood, N. (2005b). "Nowhere has anyone attempted...In this article I am to do just that`: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1207-1231.Harwood, N. (2006). (In)appropriate personal pronoun use in political science: A qualitative study and a proposed heuristic for future research. Written Communication, 23(4), 424-450.Harwood, N. (2007). Political scientists on the functions of personal pronouns in their writing: An interview-based study of `I` and `we`. Text & Talk, 27(1), 27-54.Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hays, J. N., Brandt, K. M., & Chanry, K. H. (1988). The impact of friendly and hostile audiences on the argumentative writing of high school and college students. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(4), 391-416.Hell, J. G. v., Verhoeven, L., Tak, M., & Oosterhout, M. v. (2005). To take a stance: A developmental study of the use of pronouns and passives in spoken and written narrative and expository texts in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 239-273.Herriman, J. (2007). “I’m stating my case”: Overt authorial presence in English argumentative texts by students and professional writers. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 6 (1). Retrieved from http://ojs.ub.gu.se/ojs/index.php/njes/article/viewFile/13/19Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across Language: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Hines, E. (2004). High quality and low quality college-level academic writing: Its discursive features. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado.Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 361-386.Hinkel, E. (1999). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), 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.Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.Hyland, K. (2001a). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574.Hyland, K. (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226. Hyland, K. (2002a). Teaching and researching writing. London: Pearson Education.Hyland, K. (2002b). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.Hyland, K. (2002c). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239.Hyland, K. (2002d). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text, 22(4), 529-557.Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.Hyland, K. (2005b). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education: An International Research Journal, 16(4), 363-377.Hyland, K. (2005c). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.Iddings, J. (2007). A functional analysis of humanities and biochemistry writing with respect to teaching university composition. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Marshall University. Inigo-Mora, I. (2004). On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language and Politics, 3(1), 27-52.Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272.Ivanic, R. & Simpson, J. (1992). Who’s who in academic writing? In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 141–173). London: Longman."Jalilifar, A., & Alipour, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners` reading comprehension skills. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1), 35-52.Johns, A. M. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 24-36). Cambridge: University Press. Johns, A. M. (2003). Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 195-217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kamimura, T., & Oi, K. (1996). A crosscultural analysis of argumentative strategies in student essays. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED394324.pdf 94.324ED394324Kamio, A. (2001). English generic we, you, and they: An analysis in terms of territory of information. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(7), 1111-1124.Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor & r. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9-22). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Kim, C.-K. (2009). Personal pronouns in English and Korean texts: A corpus-based study in terms of textual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2086-2099.Kirkpatrick, A. (1995). Chinese rhetoric: Methods of argument. Multilingua, 14(3), 271-295.Kitagawa, C., & Lehrer, A. (1990). Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(5), 739-759.Krause, K.-l., & O`Brien, D. (1999). A sociolinguistic study of the argumentative writing of Chinese students. Educational Journal, 27(2), 43-64.Kroll, B. (Ed.). (2003). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kuo, C.-H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121-138.Kuo, S.-h. (2002). From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular pronoun in Chinese political discourse. Text, 22(1), 29-55.Kuo, S.-h. (2003). Involvement vs detachment: Gender differences in the use of personal pronouns in televised sports in Taiwan. Discourse Studies, 5(4), 479-494.Lau, H.-H. (2004). Interaction markers used by Taiwanese PhD students of physics. Paper presented at the Thirteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei.Lee, S. H. (2008). An integrative framework for the analyses of argumentative / persuasive essays from an interpersonal perspective. Text & Talk, 28(2), 239-270.Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Li, X. (2005). Intercultural rhetorical studies in argumentative discourse: English and Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Shanghai International Studies Universities, Shanghai.Li, Y.-Z. (2004). 論漢英第一人稱代詞複數的模糊性 [The vagueness of first personal plural pronouns in Chinese and English]. Journal of Hehai University (Social Science), 2, 72-80. Li, Z.-Z. (2000). 第二人稱在自傳中的人際功能 [The interpersonal function of second person in autobiography]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 6, 51-56。Lin, H.-C. (1993). The pragmatic uses of personal pronouns in mandarin Chinese. Unpublished master thesis. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.Lin, S.-R. (2004). 第一人稱指示語的語用分析 [A pragmatic analysis of first personal pronoun]. Journal of Shandong College of Education, 1, 24-26, 45.Liu, K.-P., & Zho, Y.-F. (2004). 英漢思維差異對中國學生EFL寫作的影響 [The impact of Chinese-English conceptual differences on Chinese students’ EFL writing]. Foreign Language Research, 5, 107-111. Luo, L.-L. (2008). 淺析大學生議論文中的代詞銜接 [An analysis on the pronoun link in the argumentative essays by college students]. Journal of Jianxi Radio and TV University, 1, 67-69. Luzon, M. J. (2009). The use of we in a learner corpus of reports written by EFL engineering students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 192-206.Maitland, K & Wilson, J. (1987). Pronominal selection and ideological conflict. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(4), 495-512. Martinez, I. A. (2001). Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity structure. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 227-247.Martinez, I. A. (2005). Native and non-native writers` use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 174-190.Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 15-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Matsuda, P. K., & Tardy, C. M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 235-249.Matu, P. M. (2008). Transitivity as a tool for ideological analysis. Journal of Third World Studies, 25(1), 199-211.McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. New York: Longman.McCrostie, J. (2008). Writer visibility in EFL learner academic writing: A corpus-based study. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 32, 97-114.Meyer, H. (2008). The ‘empowerment’ of students: A contribution from systemic functional grammar. English in Education, 42 (2), 165-181. Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C. (2008). The Effects of Content and Audience Awareness Goals for Revision on the Persuasive Essays of Fifth- and Eighth-Grade Students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 131-151.Morell, T. (2004). Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 325-338.Muhlhausler, P., & Harre, R. (1990). Pronouns and people. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.Myers, G. (1992). ‘In this paper we report…’: Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics, 17(4), 295-313.Na, J., & Choi, I. (2009). Culture and first-person pronouns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(11), 1492-1499.Ning, Z.-y. (2008). A genre-based analysis of English research article abstracts and the linguistic feature of personal pronouns for financial economics. US-China Education Review, 5(7), 62-65.Okamura, A. (2009). Use of personal pronouns in two types of monologic academic speech. The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics, 52(1), 17-26. Retrieved from http://www1.tcue.ac.jp/home1/k-gakkai/ronsyuu/ronsyuukeisai/52_1/okamura.pdfOshima, A. & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English (4th ed.). White Plain, NY: Pearson Education. Pennycook, A. (1994). The politics of pronouns. ELT Journal, 48(2), 173-178.Petch-Tyson, S. (1998). Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 107-118). London: Longman.Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Audience and voice in current L1 composition texts: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 21-34.Recski, L. (2005). Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: A functional account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 5-23.Reilly, J., Zamora, A., & McGivern, R. f. (2005). Acquiring perspective in English: The development of stance. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 185-208.Rounds, P. L. (1987). Multifunctional personal pronoun use in an educational setting. English for Specific Purposes, 6(1), 13-29.Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Schleppegrell, M. J. (1998). Grammar as resource: Writing a description. Research in the Teaching of English, 32(2), 182-211.Schleppegrell, M. J., & Go, A. L. (2007). Analyzing the writing of English learners: A functional approach. Language Arts, 84(6), 529-528.Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-675.Sinclair, J. (1995) Introduction. In Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (2nd ed.). London: Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45-75.Smalley, R. L., Ruetten, M.K., & Kozyrev, J. R. (2001). Refining composition skills: Rhetoric and grammar (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.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.Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The `I` in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first personal pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S23-S39.Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text, 15(1), 103-127.Tian, H.-L. (2001a). 英漢語 “WE/我們”的人際功能與文化差異 [The cultural differences in interpersonal functions of English we and Chinese we]. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, 3, 17-20. Tian, H.-L. (2001b). ”我”、”我們” 的使用與個人特性 [I and We: A reflection of the speaker’s personality]. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies, 4, 75-80. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.Vande Kopple, W. J. (1996). Rhetorical or functional grammar and the teaching of composition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication Vande Kopple, W. J. (1997). Refining and applying views of metadiscourse. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the conference on college composition and communication (48th). Vassileva, I. (1998). Who am I /Who are we in academic writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 163-190.Vladimirou, D. (2006). ‘I suggest that we need more research’: Personal reference in linguistics journal articles. Papers from the Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguists and Language Teaching, Vol. 1. Papers from LAEL, PG, 2006. Wales, K. (1996). Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wang, L.-Q. (2005). 英漢第一人稱複數研究綜述 [A study on English and Chinese first person plural pronouns]. Journal of Xiamen Educational College, 7(4), 54-56.Wang, R. (2004). 主觀性在人稱代詞移用中的表現 [Subjectivity in the transfer of personal pronouns]. Journal of Sichuan College of Education, 20(9), 77-79.Wang, X. (2006). 論英漢語言的差異對大學英語寫作的影響 [On the Influences on College English Writing of English and Chinese Language Differences]. Journal of Xinxiang Teachers College, 20(4), 139-141.Wang, Y-p., & Xia, Z. (2005). 英漢對比修辭學實證研究:論證語篇與修辭結構之對比 [A contrastive study of rhetorical structures in argumentative texts: An empirical study in English-Chinese contrastive rhetoric]. Journal of Henan University (Social Science), 45 (4), 147-150.Webber, P. (1994). The function of questions in different medical journal genres. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 257-268.Williams, J. M. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. New York: Longman.Wu. D. (2003). 從語用角度分析英漢複數第一人稱指示語 [The pragmatics use of plural first person deixis in English and Chinese]. Journal of Bijie Teachers College, 21(1), 52-54. Wu, S.-Y., & Rubin, D. L. (2000). Evaluating the impact of collectivism and individualism on argumentative writing by Chinese and North American college students. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(2), 148-178.Xiang, X. (2003). Multiplicity of self in public discourse: The use of personal references in two radio sports shows. Language Sciences, 25(5), 489-514.Yang, Y.-C. (2006). Metadiscourse instruction in EAP courses: Feasibility and acceptability. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, Ching Hua University, Hsin-Chu.Zainuddin, H., & Moore, R. A. (2003). Audience awareness in L1 and L2 composing of bilingual writers. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume7/ej25/ej25a2/Zhang, M. (2008). 中外摘要中第一人稱代詞用法的對比研究 [A comparison study of first person pronouns in abstracts in China and English speaking countries]. Shanghai Journal of Translation, 2, 31-36. zh_TW
