臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在此競爭激烈的學術市場中，專業辭彙、格式化語言及修辭結構對學術寫作的影響是不容小覷的。隨著研究摘要逐漸受到重視，其寫作方法的教學需求也與日俱增。即便至今已有不少學者提出多字詞語或修辭結構的相關論述，卻少有研究實際探討辭彙、格式化語言及修辭結構的相互關係。因此，本研究旨在於詳細探討學術研究摘要之辭彙、格式化語言和修辭結構之特性與相聯性。為此，本研究自：(1) Journal of Pragmatics、(2) Journal of Research in Reading、(3) Journal of Second Language Writing、和(4) Reading and Writing等極具聲望的期刊中擷取了一千篇學術文章，即各自擷取最新發表的二百五十篇期刊文章之意，並用其建立十五個研究所需之語料庫。最主要的五個語料庫只涵括單獨的研究摘要，分別為四個集二百五十篇摘要的單獨語料庫及一個集一千篇摘要的整合語料庫。其他的十個語料庫的建立之本在於探討文化背景及辭彙比較。因此，其中五個語料庫是由全文組成，而剩下的五個語料庫則是由研究摘要、文章標題、作者名稱及聯繫資訊等所構成。研究中的分析工具採用MonoConc Pro和Wordsmith 5.0進行量化分析，包括：字詞頻率、詞語索引、多詞語分析、關鍵字分析及統計數據。此外，本研究亦採用質化分析之辦法，以CARS model、revised CARS model、IMRD structure、和IPMPrC structure為本，探究研究語料庫中，研究摘要之修辭結構的呈現。量化分析的結果顯示出所摘選的一千篇學術摘要在辭彙、格式化語言和修辭結構的運用上有明顯的相異及特殊的相聯性。而在質化分析中，IMRD structure的普及性相當顯著；此外，研究結果中亦發現一種將CARS model及IMRD structure統合使用的文體。本研究旨在詳細探討學術研究摘要之辭彙、格式化語言和修辭結構之相聯性，並期能啟迪未來相關領域之教學研究。

Knowledge of proficient preferences for formulaic language and rhetorical structure has a great importance in academic written genre, especially within the competitive academic marketplace in this contemporary era. Recently, there has been a growing interest in research article (RA) abstract writing, and this pervading interest has boosted the exigency for further pedagogical writing guidelines. Notwithstanding the fact that many investigators have successively focused on the analyses of multi-word expression and rhetorical structure, there is little empirical research conducted in a synthesized approach to explore the interrelationship between the lexical item, formulaic language and rhetorical structure. As a result, the primary aim of this research is to specify lexical item, formulaic language, and rhetorical structure in RA abstracts. In this respect, 1000 RAs were collected from four prestigious journals: (1) Journal of Pragmatics, (2) Journal of Research in Reading, (3) Journal of Second Language Writing, and (4) Reading and Writing, respectively, i.e., 250 of the most currently published articles from each journal. There are thus fifteen corpora constructed in accordance with the research aim. The primary five corpora are compiled of the RA abstracts, with four individual corpora and one collective corpus. The other ten sub-corpora are constructed under the consideration of comparison and cultural background analysis. Hence, five sub-corpora out of the rest ten are compiled of the full texts of the 1000 RAs while the rest five sub-corpora are composed of single abstracts with additional title, author, and affiliation information. The analytical instruments such as MonoConc Pro and Wordsmith 5.0 are adopted to implement the quantitative analyses of word frequency lists, concordances, clusters, key word lists, and statistical examinations. On the other hand, the qualitative analysis for exploring the rhetorical structure is undertaken with reference to the CARS model, the revised CARS model, the IMRD structure, and the IPMPrC structure to assess as well as to interpret each transition within the RA abstracts into the category of three, four, and five moves. Through the synthetic and comparative investigation, the quantitative analysis reveals both the distinct dissimilarity as well as the overlapping tendency of the application between the lexical items, formulaic languages, and rhetorical structures within the research corpora, whereas the qualitative analysis indicates a prevailing distribution of IMRD structure over the other models as well as an explicit pattern of the combination of CARS model and IMRD structure. Additionally, the result shows potential for enlightening further pedagogy-oriented composition instruction for RA abstract.

中文摘要................................................................. i
ABSTRACT................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENT........................................................v
LIST OF TABLES..........................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................x
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION................................................1
1.1. Background and Motivation..........................................1
1.2. Purpose of the Study...............................................3
1.3. Research Questions.................................................5
1.4. Significance of the Study..........................................5
1.5. Terminology........................................................7
1.6. Outline of the Study...............................................8
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................9
2.1. Corpus Linguistics.................................................9
2.1.1. What Is Corpus...................................................11
2.1.2. Word Frequency List..............................................17
2.1.3. Concordance......................................................21
2.1.4. Key Word Analysis & Keyness......................................22
2.1.5. Size of the Corpora..............................................23
2.1.6. Pedagogical Application..........................................26
2.2. Lexical Items in RA abstracts......................................28
2.3. Formulaic Language.................................................31
2.3.1. Definition of Formulaic Language.................................32
2.3.2. Lexical Bundles..................................................33
2.3.3. Structural Analysis..............................................35
2.3.4. Further Discussion...............................................36
2.4. Rhetorical Structure...............................................37
2.4.1. Definition of Move...............................................37
2.4.2. Three Moves Structure............................................38
2.4.3. Four Moves Structure.............................................41
2.4.4. Five Moves Structure.............................................43
2.5. Summary............................................................45
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY...............................................46
3.1. Data Collection....................................................46
3.2. Instruments........................................................50
3.3. Data Analysis......................................................53
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS....................................................59
4.1. Analysis of Lexical Item...........................................59
4.1.1. Analysis of Nouns ...............................................59
4.1.2. Analysis of Verbs................................................63
4.1.3. Analysis of Adjectives...........................................68
4.1.4. Analysis of Adverbs..............................................70
4.1.5. Analysis of the Other Lexical Items..............................72
4.1.6. Analysis of the Keyness..........................................73
4.2. Formulaic Language.................................................75
4.3. Rhetorical Structure...............................................85
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION.................................................93
5.1. Discussion of the Major Findings...................................93
5.2. Limitation and Suggestion..........................................96
5.3. Concluding Remarks.................................................98
REFERENCES..............................................................99
APPENDICES..............................................................104
1. 50 Most Frequent 3-Word Bundles in JOP Abstract Corpus...............104
2. 50 Most Frequent 3-Word Bundles in JRR Abstract Corpus...............105
3. 50 Most Frequent 3-Word Bundles in JSLW Abstract Corpus..............106
4. 50 Most Frequent 3-Word Bundles in R&W Abstract Corpus...............107
5. 50 Most Frequent 3-Word Bundles in Collective Abstract Corpus........108
6. 20 Most Frequent 5-Word Bundles in JOP Abstract Corpus...............109
7. 20 Most Frequent 5-Word Bundles in JRR Abstract Corpus...............109
8. 20 Most Frequent 5-Word Bundles in JSLW Abstract Corpus..............110
9. 20 Most Frequent 5-Word Bundles in R&W Abstract Corpus...............110
10. 50 Most Frequent 5-Word Bundles in Collective Abstract Corpus.......111
11. Detailed Illustration of the Rhetorical Structure Applied in JOP
Abstract Corpus.....................................................112
12. Detailed Illustration of the Rhetorical Structure Applied in JRR
Abstract Corpus.....................................................112
13. Detailed Illustration of the Rhetorical Structure Applied in JSLW
Abstract Corpus.....................................................113
14. Detailed Illustration of the Rhetorical Structure Applied in R&W
Abstract Corpus.....................................................114

LIST OF TABLES

Table
2.1. Overview of the Textual Studies....................................12
2.2. Contemporary RAs Extracted from 2002 to 2011.......................15
2.3. Defined Interpretations for Decoding the Word Frequency Lists......18
2.4. Comparison of the most Common Nouns between
Written Corpus and Spoken Corpus...................................20
2.5. Comparison between Small Corpus and Large Corpus...................25
2.6. Tense across IMRD Sections.........................................30
2.7. Features across IMRD Sections......................................31
2.8. Twelve Main Structures in Academic Prose...........................35
2.9. Comparison between the Five Structures Discussed above.............43
2.10. Framework of Hyland’s Five Move Theory............................44
2.11. Comparison between the Rhetorical Structure Models................45
3.1. Distribution of Research Data and the Retrieved Data Range.........47
3.2. Distribution of Tokens and Types of the Five Primary
Corpora of RA Abstracts............................................48
3.3. Distribution of Tokens and Types of Five Sub-Corpora
of RA Full Texts...................................................49
3.4. Distribution of Tokens and Types of the Other Five Sub-Corpora of RA
Abstracts with the Additional Information in Relation to the
Title of the Articles, Names of the Authors, and the Affiliations..49
3.5. A Comparison Between MonoConc Pro and WordSmith Version 5.0........52
3.6. A Sample Move-Step Analysis........................................57
4.1. 30 Most Frequent Nouns of the Five Primary Corpora.................60
4.2. 30 Most Frequent Verbs of the Five Primary Corpora.................64
4.3. Distribution of the Be-Verbs in the Five Primary Corpora...........65
4.4. Distribution of the Overlapping Reporting Verbs in the
Five Primary Corpora...............................................66
4.5. 30 Most Frequent Adjectives of the Five Primary Corpora............69
4.6. 30 Most Frequent Adverbs of the Five Primary Corpora...............70
4.7. 30 Most Frequent Other Lexical Items of the Five Primary
Corpora............................................................72
4.8. Top 30 Keywords of the Five Primary Corpora........................74
4.9. Frequency of the Application of Keywords in the Five
Primary Corpora....................................................75
4.10. 50 Most Frequent 4-Word Bundles in the JOP Abstract Corpus........78
4.11. 50 Most Frequent 4-Word Bundles in JRR Abstract Corpus............79
4.12. 50 Most Frequent 4-Word Bundles in JSLW Abstract Corpus...........80
4.13. 50 Most Frequent 4-Word Bundles in RW Abstract Corpus.............81
4.14. 50 Most Frequent 4-Word Bundles in the Collective Abstract
Corpus............................................................82
4.15. Distribution of the Structural Analysis of the 4-Word
Bundles in the Five Primary Corpora (%)...........................83
4.16. The Most Frequently Applied Examples of Each Language
Pattern...........................................................85
4.17. Distribution of the Rhetorical Structure of the
Five Primary Corpora..............................................86
4.18. Example of CARS Model.............................................87
4.19. Example of Revised CARS Model.....................................88
4.20. Example of IMRD Structure.........................................89
4.21. Example of IPMPrC Structure.......................................90
4.22. Example of CARS 1,2＋IMRD Structure................................91
4.23. Detailed Illustration of the Rhetorical Structure
Applied in the Collective Corpus...................................92
 
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
2.1. CARS Model..........................................................39
2.2. Revised CARS Model..................................................40
3.1. An Example of MonoConc Pro..........................................50
3.2. An Example of WordSmith Version 5.0.................................51
3.3. An Example of Frequency Word List...................................53
3.4. An Example of Advanced Statistical Information......................54
3.5. An Example of Concordancing the Target Word “Investigate”...........55
3.6. An Example of Cluster: 4-Word Strings...............................55
3.7. An Example of Key Word Analysis.....................................56
4.1. Comparison of the Singular and Plural Pattern between the
Target Nouns........................................................62
4.2. Percentage of Lexical Bundles in 1000 RA abstracts..................76
4.3. Numbers of Lexical Bundles in the Five Primary Corpora..............76

Aston, G. (1997). Small and large corpora in language learning. Retrieved June 1, 2012, from http://www.sslmit.unibo.it/~guy/wudj1.htm.
Barlow, M. (2000). Parallel texts in language teaching. In S. Botley, A. McEnery, & A. Wilson (Eds.), Multilingual corpora in teaching and research. (pp. 106-115).Amsterdam; Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Finegan, E., Johansson, S., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Chang, C. F., & Kuo, C. H. (2011). A corpus-based approach to online materials development for writing research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 30 (3), 222-234.
Charles, M. (2012). ‘Proper vocabulary and juicy collocations’: EAP students evaluate do-it-yourself corpus-building. English for Specific Purposes, 31 (2), 93-102.
Cheng, A. (2006). Analyzing and enacting academic criticism: The case of an L2 graduate learner of academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 279-306.
Conner, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397-423.
Coxhead, A. (2008). Phraseology and English for academic purposes: Challenge and opportunities. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. (pp. 149-162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Coxhead, A. (2010). What can corpora tell us about English for Academic Purposes? In A. O’keeffe & M. McCathy (Eds.), The routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. (pp. 458-470). London: Routledge.
Flowerdew, L. (2010). Using corpora for writing instruction. In A. O’keeffe & M. McCathy (Eds.), The routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 444-457). London: Routledge.
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139.
Golebiowski, Z. (2009). Prominent messages in Education and Applied Linguistics abstracts: How do authors appeal to their prospective readers? Journal of Pragmatics, 41(4), 753-769.
Gosden, H. (1998). An aspect of holistic modeling in academic writing: Propositional clusters as a heuristic for thematic control. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 19-41.
Granger, S. (2002). A bird’s-eye view of learner corpora research. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 3-36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hirano, E. (2009). Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 240-250.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. NY: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2008a). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4-21.
Hyland, K. (2008b). ‘Small bits of textual material’: A discourse analysis of Swales’ writing. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 143-160.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluating that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123-139.
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: a new theory of words and language [DS reader version]. Retrieved from
http://0-lib.myilibrary.com.millennium.lib.ntust.edu.tw/Open.aspx?id=15624&loc=&srch=undefined&src=0#
Kwan, B. S. C. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 30-55.
Lee, D., & Swales, J. (2006). A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 56-75.
Loi, C. K., & Evans, M. S. (2010). Cultural differences in the organization of research article introductions from the field of educational psychology: English and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2814-2825.
Lores, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: from rhetorical structure to thematic organisation. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 280-302.
Malcolm, L. (1987). What rules govern tense usage in scientific articles? English for Specific Purposes, 6(1), 31-43.
Martin, P. M. (2002). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), 25–43.
Nelson, M. (2010). Building a written corpus: What are the basics? In A. O’keeffe & M. McCathy (Eds.), The routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 53-65). London: Routledge.
Nesselhauf, N. (2004). Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching. In J. M. Sinclair (Ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching (pp. 125-152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Paquot, M. (2010). Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. New York, NY: Continuum.
Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479-497.
Schmitt, D., & Schmitt, N. (2005). Focus on vocabulary: Mastering the academic word list. White Plains, NY: Pearson.
Sinclair, J. M., Jones, S., & Daley, R. (2004). English collocation studies: The OSTI report. In R. Krishnamurthy (Ed.). New York, NY: Continuum.
Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic purposes, 2(4), 327-341.
Summers, D. (Ed.). (2005). Longman dictionary of contemporary English. Harlow, England: Pearson Education: Longman.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tribble, C., & Jones, G. (1997). Concordances in the classroom. Houston, TX: Athelstan.
Tribble, C. (2002). Corpora and corpus analysis: new windows on academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 131-149). Harlow, England: Longman.
Vannestal, M., & Lindquist, H. (2007). Learning English grammar with a corpus: Experimenting with concordancing in a university grammar course [Abstract]. ReCALL, 19(3), 329-350. Retrieved from
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1311313&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0958344007000638
Wang, S. P., & Chan, C. W. (2011). Research on wordlists, lexical bundles, and text structures of journal article abstracts. In R. F. Chung, et al. (Eds.), Diversity of Language: Paper in Honor of Professor Feng-fu Tsao on the Occasion of his Retirement, (pp. 369-381). Taipei: Crane Publisher Co.
Wang, S. P., & Kao, C. L. (2012). Wordlists, clusters and structure in research article introductions. Studies in English Language and Literature, 30, 27-43.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and lexicon [Adobe Digital Editions version]. Retrieved from
http://0-ebooks.cambridge.org.millennium.lib.ntust.edu.tw/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9780511519772
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. New York: Oxford University Press.
Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 257-283.