以語料庫為本之"闡述"策略運用之研究: 以台灣英語學習者的碩士論文為例

Abstract

隨著英語成為全球的溝通媒介語言，學術英文(English for Academic Purposes, EAP)研究漸趨受到學者的重視。對於EAP學習者來說，寫作除了需展現專業學術素養，其作品更需得到專業領域言談團體(disciplinary discourse community)的成員們的認可。許多EAP相關研究因此以期刊文章(Research Articles, RAs)為研究主體，著重於文體分析(genre analysis)、言步分析(move analysis)，以及後設言談分析(metadiscourse analysis)。相較於期刊文章，碩士論文(碩論，MA Thesis)為新手學者進入專業領域言談團體的第一步，然而，直至今日，以其為主的相關研究仍顯不足。 寫作為作者和讀者以及文字互動的過程和成果。學術寫作中，後設言談所指為作者對於自身、讀者，以及專業領域言談團體的投射和瞭解。正確且適當地使用後設言談得以讓作者達到其所期盼的溝通目的(communicative purposes).因此，後設言談的運用對於學術寫作尤其關鍵。闡釋(Reformulation) 下屬後設言談的一種，主要作用為「利用改寫、解釋技巧增補前之所述，以確保讀者理解作者欲傳達之意」(Hyland, 2007a, p. 268)。簡言之，後設言談的範疇下，使用闡釋符號(reformulation markers)得以讓作品更易理解，同時也使其更符合學術寫作的規範。然而，比起其他後設言談的研究，鮮少研究以闡釋符號為研究主題，尤其以碩論為主要研究文體的更是少之又少。鑑於此，此份研究以碩論為主體，旨在探討闡釋符號以及其語用言談功能在碩論中的體現。. 本研究結合語料庫分析和言談分析，用以檢視闡述符號以及其言談功能在60篇台灣研究生碩論中的表現。一共有28個闡述符號囊括在本研究中，進而整理出3883個語料供以分析。針對言談功能的分析工具(coding scheme)，本研究根據Hyland (2007a)修改並使用之。 研究結果顯示學術寫作中對於使用簡易闡釋符號有明顯的趨勢。碩論中最常使用的闡釋符號前五名分別為parentheses, i.e., that is, especially, and particularly，其中parentheses的運用占了幾乎一半以上。此外，和其他研究(Hyland, 2007a))相較之下，碩論中(社會人文領域)闡述符號的使用分布更相於理工領域。 針對闡述符號的言談功能，擴充功能(Expansion)和減縮功能(Reduction)總共占了約八成的使用率，其餘的二成為其它功能(Other)。其它功能介於擴充功能和減縮功能間的灰色地帶，其存在協助我們體認到闡釋符號所引發的語用言談功能為動態的、非恆常不變的，同時也間接點明語情中言談分析(contextual discourse analysis)的重要性和必要性。另外，針對碩論中闡述符號其言談功能子類別的分析中得出，專指功能(Specification)和陳述功能(Presentation)使用得最頻繁，而隱射功能(Implication)和釋義功能(Explanation)則墊底。另一方面，和過往研究Hyland (2007a)的比較下，碩論中闡述符號其言談功能子類別的改寫功能(Paraphrase)的使用頻率為期刊文獻的兩倍，此結果可能歸因於文體的不同，然而，也許也可用對於闡述符號和其言談功能的操作熟悉度來解釋。 本研究驗證闡述符號和其言談功能間的雙向多重功能指向性(mutual multifunctionality)。parentheses 和namely在前五名頻繁使用的闡述符號中最具多重功能指向性。此外，that is (to say) 和其變體i.e.皆可用於表現擴充功能(Expansion)和減縮功能(Reduction)，但是在此前提下，that is (to say)只用於表現隱射功能(Implication)；而i.e.只用於釋義功能(Explanation)。 甚者，於分析碩論章節中的闡述符號和言談功能的運用和分布中發現，章節中文獻探討(Literature Review)和結果與討論(Results and Discussions)所占闡述符號使用頻率最高。同時，和其他以碩論為主體的言步分析(move analysis)研究比較，此兩個章節中所體現之語用言談功能和其文體言步發展(generic move development)相符合。 相關研究已指出讀者覺察(reader awareness)的建立和顯性明確/隱性內含後設言談教學(explicit metadiscourse teaching)給予於學術寫作教學中的重要性。鑑於此，此研究建議設計EAP課程時，應同時在後設言談闡述符號的指導上，結合並施予顯性明確(explicit)和隱性內含(implicit)的教學方法和教材，以讓學習者學習不可缺少的學術寫作知識。除此之外，針對EAP研究，建議將闡述符號和其言談功能，以及言步分析相結合，並將研究範疇擴展至學科領域，甚至至不同文體中。

With English as the medium language of communication around the globe, EAP (English for Academic Purposes) research has increasingly gained its attention. For learners of EAP, it is necessary to be able to academically and persuasively produce written practices acknowledged by members of academic discourse community. Plenty amount of EAP studies, accordingly, have explored genre analysis, move analysis, and metadiscourse analysis of RAs (research articles). Up to date, limited attention has been given to another crucial academic written genre: master’s thesis (MA thesis), which is the first step young researchers must be engaged with in order to join the academic discourse community. Writing is the process and production of interaction among writer, readers, and discourse. Metadiscourse in academic writing refers to writer’s self-projection toward him/herself, readers, and disciplinary discourse community. Metadiscourse is crucially applied in academic writing to achieve writer preferred communicative purposes. Reformulation is a type of metadiscourse that functions to “supply additional information by rephrasing, explaining or elaborating what has been said to ensure the reader is able to recover the writer’s intended meaning” (Hyland, 2007a, p. 268). In other words, metadiscoursal reformulation markers are employed to facilitate comprehension and appropriateness of academic production. However, unlike other metadiscoursal research, little attention has been paid to reformulation markers, especially how they are used in MA theses as a research genre. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate reformulation markers and their discourse functions in MA theses. The present study integrates corpus analysis and discourse analysis to examine reformulation markers and their discourse functions in 60 MA theses by Taiwanese graduate students. There are 28 reformulation markers examined with a total of 3883 elicited reformulation data. A coding scheme modified from Hyland (2007a) is used to analyze discourse functions. The results show that there is a tendency toward the use of simple apposition reformulation markers and fixed connectors. The top five preferred markers in MA theses are parentheses, i.e., that is, especially, and particularly respectively, of which parentheses accounts for nearly half of the frequency. In the comparison of the distribution of reformulation markers with previous research (Hyland, 2007a), it is found that the distribution of MA theses in the present study (i.e. soft science fields) is actually more resemble to hard science fields. Regarding discourse functions, Expansion and Reduction together constitute about 80.00%, and Other 20.00%. It reveals the dynamic representation of metadiscoursal reformulation markers. It also pinpoints the importance and necessity of contextual discourse analysis in metadiscourse research. As for the subcategories of discourse functions, Specification and Presentation are used most frequently, while Implication and Explanation are least used. As compared to Hyland (2007a), the percentage that Paraphrase in MA theses is two times that of RAs, while the percentage of Specification in MA theses is only half of that in RAs. The result could be attributed to generic difference, graduate students’ familiarity with the application of such markers and their discourse functions. Mutual multifunctionality between reformulation markers and discourse functions found in the present study is corresponding previous studies (Adel, 2006; Hyland, 2005). It means that the realization of reformulation function is diverse, for it crucially depends on metadiscursive contextual factors. In the present study, parentheses and namely have more functions than the other markers in the top five reformulation markers. Moreover, both of that is (to say) and its form variant i.e. can trigger Expansion and Reduction function; however, Implication can only be performed by that is (to say) and Explanation by i.e. Furthermore, with regard to sectional distribution of reformulation markers and discourse functions, it is Literature Review, and Results and Discussions that account for the most frequency. It is also observed that the distribution of discourse functions and their subcategories in these two sections conforms to the move development in MA theses (Bitchener and Basturkmen, 2005, 2006; Kwan, 2006). Some research has revealed the importance of reader awareness construction and the advantages of explicit/implicit metadiscourse teaching in academic writing. It is, accordingly, suggested to combine implicit and explicit instruction of metadiscoursal reformulation markers in EAP curriculum design to equip learners with such essential linguistic knowledge which is highly valued in academic disciplinary discourse community. In addition, in EAP research, it is recommended to connect and to relate reformulation markers and discourse functions to research of move analysis in various disciplines, or even genres.