Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||Writing for publication : five novice Taiwanese scholars' composing processes and an analysis of their writings of thesis introductions|
|Other Titles: ||探討五位台灣新進學者英文論文書寫之寫作過程與研究報告引言分析|
|Authors: ||邱怡慧;Chiu, Yi-hui|
|Keywords: ||學術英文;論文書寫;研究報告引言;writing for publication;research article introductions;CARS model|
|Issue Date: ||2010-01-10 23:16:51 (UTC+8)|
|Abstract: ||此研究主要探討五位台灣新進學者以英文投稿學術期刊之經驗以及在學術寫作上能力表現。藉由深度訪談了解這些參與者寫作過程，寫作諮詢及修改的幫助，以及學術閱讀的角色。參與者的寫作能力則藉由Swales 1990 年的 CARS 模型來分析是否研究報告引言中的修辭結構與CARS 模型吻合。|
已發表的研究報告中顯示這些參與者已經習得部分Swales 模型中的要素，但不是全部，而且在這些參與者之間還有很大的變化。在三種語步 (move)中，第一語步最廣為使用，第二語步相對來說很少被使用，第三語步則是作為引導至下一個文章段落的連貫用法。其中第三語步中的第二言步 (step) 全部被五位學者省略。此研究暗示性的証明多閱讀的人較能習得學術寫作風格。
This study explores five novice Taiwanese scholars’ experiences of writing for scholarly publication and their actual competence in academic writing. On the basis of in-depth interviews, subjects’ composing processes, their use of post-writing helpers, and the role of academic reading were investigated. Writing competence was evaluated by an analysis of published research papers, using Swales’ (1990) CARS model to determine if the rhetorical structures, as displayed by moves and steps, were consistent with the prototypes of the CARS model.
Composing process: Several subjects reported relying on their first language in prewriting, and one subject wrote the entire first draft in the first language and then translated.
Helpers: Several subjects felt that professional editors, even when they were native speakers of English, provided only limited help. One subject felt that editors focused only on low-level aspects of writing, and did not appear to be concerned about the overall coherence of the paper. In other cases, the copy-editor had a background in science and had a more profound impact on the paper. Advisors’ roles varied a great deal, from rewriting and reorganization, to simply telling the writer to find a copy-editor, to asking the writer to submitting a version in Chinese first for their review, and asking the writer to translate the paper later.
Reading: Some subjects mentioned reading, but none mentioned it in terms of the Comprehension Hypothesis, not in terms of “acquiring” or absorbing academic language from massive amounts of reading. Rather, reading was used as a source of prefabricated chunks of language that the writers could use immediately in their own papers.
Analysis of introductions to published papers showed that subjects had acquired some aspects of the Swales model, but not all, and there was considerable variability among the subjects. Of the three major Moves described by Swales, Move 1 (establish a territory) was widely used but Move 2 (preparing for the present study) was comparatively rare. Move 3 (introducing the study) was only presented briefly as a transition to the next section. Move 3 Step 2--Announcing Principal findings (APFs) was omitted by all five writers.
There was some suggestive evidence that those who read more had acquired more of the academic writing style.
|Appears in Collections:||[英文學系暨研究所] 學位論文|
All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.