以語料庫為依據之期刊論文的研究結果撰寫之研究

Abstract

有鑒於英文在學術界的優勢地位以及學術英文(EAP)致力於發展更適合高等教育的教材和課程設計，學術英文近年來備受重視。自Swales在1981年發表以文類分析(genre analysis)方法探討學術文章之序論(Introduction)以來，此方法被廣泛應用分析各種不同學術寫作文類。期刊論文不但在學術上有重要的地位，同時也發展成一種複雜的文體而廣為研究。研究指出期刊論文各章節各自擁有結構和詞彙使用的特色。過去的研究除了探討期刊論文中的章節架構之外，電腦語料庫的使用讓學者得以藉由分析真實語料了解期刊論文中的細部語言使用特色以便提供適合的課程設計。 報告學術研究的結果是期刊論文最重要的目的。期刊論文的作者會在三個主要部份：摘要、研究結果、討論等三個部份中報告研究的結果。本研究藉由建構出自於資訊工程和應用語言學兩個領域之期刊論文之語料庫，結合語料庫與文類分析之方法研究兩種學術領域的期刊論文，並說明三個章節及兩個領域在報告研究結果上之差異。各獨立章節分別建構為子語料庫(subcorpus)並利用自然語言分析工具之協助以探討研究結果在期刊論文三個章節中言步(moves)結構與語言修辭之差異。 首先我們進行了期刊論文中的言步分析，發現AS (結果之摘要)在全部文章中皆存在，表示這是在摘要中必使用的言步。之後可能由是AI (結果之解釋)，或者AA (結果之應用)伴隨並顯示一定之言步組合模式(move patterns)。在研究結果部分的主要言步為RR (結果之報告)，RI (結果之解釋)，RL (圖表位置之指示)，以及 RS (結果之摘要)。另外，這個章節中言步組合的分析顯示出言步不僅可以不同的順序呈現，同時也存在循環模式(cycles)。討論部分中常見的言步包含了DS (結果之摘要)， DI (結果之解釋)，以及 DC (與文獻之比較)。言步組合的分析顯示DS通常置於DI或DC前並呈現循環。此外，討論部份還包含了高頻率的DA (結果之應用)以及 DF (未來研究之建議)兩個言步。 這份研究的第二階段為內容分析(content analysis)，結果顯示摘要(Abstract)中研究結果的表達方式最為簡潔，詳細數據的描述，在報告的結果(Results)中呈現，而討論(Discussion)的詳細程度(level of generality)則介於摘要和結果之間。 語言使用的分析結果包括高頻率動詞，助動詞，字詞組成(lexical bundles)和語態。高頻率的動詞顯示use、show、和find三個動詞在期刊論文這三個章節都很常使用。其他高頻率動詞與結果之摘要相關，如present；資料指稱的see；和加以解釋用的suggest。在討論部份，助動詞的使用較其他兩部分為頻繁，表示作者於討論研究結果時，使用助動詞以表示可能性的語氣，顯示作者對結果的謙虛客氣。表達研究結果的常用字詞組成如in this paper，results show that，this study found，the results of this study。此外，當作者指稱圖表數據，會使用shown in +名詞或of the table。語態的分析顯示出當報告結果時，主動句的使用遠超過被動句。同時我們也探討了期刊論文在應用語言學與資訊工程兩種領域之間是否有相似或不同的呈現方式。雖然這兩個學科領域在各言步使用頻率上表現出相似性，在言步組合上則略有不同。 有研究指出高等教育學生經常遇到的問題是研究報告的撰寫。本研究致力於讓學生了解如何撰寫各章節中的研究結果，同時教學上可提供課程和教材設計。例如，教師應說明各章節常用的言步和言步組合模式，以在不同章節中適當地呈現出研究結果。

English for Academic Purposes (EAP) has attracted increasing attention among scholars, instructors, and learners around the globe since EAP pedagogy proposes learning materials and curriculum design to suit the needs of learners of higher education. The genre-based approach, ever since Swales’ canonical study of the Introduction section of research articles (RAs) in 1981, has been widely applied to the analysis of various genres by EAP researchers. Studies investigating macro-level features of various sections in RAs, the most extensively investigated EAP genre, have pointed out that each section possesses a set of specific communicative purposes; in addition, corpus-based analyses of micro-level features in RA sections provide pedagogical implications for actual use. Reporting research findings is the most crucial communicative purpose of an RA. In its three major sections—Abstract, Results, and Discussion, RA writers have to report the findings of their study. The present study, therefore, aims at exploring how reporting research findings is realized in these sections in two disciplines by integrating genre analysis with corpus-based text analysis. To achieve this goal, a corpus of 48 RAs in the fields of applied linguistics (AL) and computer science (CS) was constructed. Genre analysis was conducted using a scheme of move codes based on previous studies, and NLP tools were used to analyze partially the macro- and micro-level features in reporting research findings. Move analysis revealed that in Abstract, the move AS (summarizing results) occurs in all 48 RAs, indicating this is an obligatory move in Abstract. The move AS may be followed by either AI (interpreting results and findings) or AA (indicating implications/applications). Common moves in Results are RR (reporting findings), RI (interpreting results and findings), RL (locating data), and RS (summarizing results), all of which are related to reporting overall or specific results. In addition, analysis of move patterns in this section showed that moves occur not only in a variety of sequences but also in cyclic patterns. Common rhetorical moves in Discussion include DS (summarizing results), DI (interpreting results and findings), and DC (comparing results to literature), and it was found that DS may be presented in cyclic patterns of DS→DI or DS→DC. Except for the three moves, Discussion section also contains a relatively high frequency of DA (indicating implications/applications) and DF (need/suggestions for future studies). The second stage of this study was content analysis, which revealed that in terms of generality and language use, research results are reported in the most concise and general manner in Abstract. On the other hand, detailed description of data and reference to factual evidence, such as visual data or interview excerpts, are included in Results. Finally, the level of generality of the Discussion section lies between Abstract and Results, focusing on interpretation, implications of results, and comparison with other studies. Analysis of micro-level features in reporting results includes high-frequency verbs, modal verbs, lexical bundles, and voice. Examination of high-frequency verbs showed that use, show, and find are commonly used in all three sections. Other high-frequency verbs are related to summarizing results (present), locating data (see), and interpreting data (suggest). With respect to modal verbs, they are used more frequently in Discussion than the other two sections, indicating that writers often qualify statements when discussing findings and making claims by using modal verbs to show tentativeness. Investigation of lexical bundles showed that to report findings, bundles like in this paper, results show that, and this study found are frequently used. In addition, when writers try to make reference to factual data, bundles like shown in + noun and of the table are used to refer to graphics or excerpts. Finally, analysis of voice revealed that when reporting results, active sentences greatly outweigh passive sentences. Disciplinary variations were also explored to learn whether RAs in applied linguistics and computer science report results in a similar or different manner. While RAs of both disciplines show similar patterns in frequency rankings of moves, move patterns in the two disciplines show slight variations. Studies have pointed out that graduate students often encounter problems when writing about research findings in the various sections of their RAs. It is essential that we offer students information about how the different sections report research results differently. This thesis study provides not only valuable pedagogical implications for EAP practitioners but empirical data showing specific moves, move patterns, and linguistic expressions frequently used in reporting research results in the various sections as well. For example, instructors should indicate the common or obligatory rhetorical moves and move patterns in each section to the learners.