Writing for publication : five novice Taiwanese scholars' composing processes and an analysis of their writings of thesis introductions

淡江大學機構典藏 > 外國語文學院 > 英文學系暨研究所 > 學位論文 > Item 987654321/30017

jsp.display-item.identifier=請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw/dspace/handle/987654321/30017

题名:	Writing for publication : five novice Taiwanese scholars' composing processes and an analysis of their writings of thesis introductions
其它题名:	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探討五位臺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
作者:	邱怡慧;Chiu, Yi-hui
贡献者:	淡江大學英文學系博士班黃月貴;Huang, Yueh-kuey
关键词:	學術英文;論文書寫;研究報告引言;writing for publication;research article introductions;CARS model
日期:	2006
上传时间:	2010-01-10 23:16:51 (UTC+8)
摘要:	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。寫作過程：幾位參與者在寫作前使用母語，另外有一位用母語書寫整篇研究報告然後再翻譯成英文。輔助者：幾位參與者覺得即使是英語為母語的專業編修者也只能提供有限的幫助。其中一位覺得編修者只有著重在非常基本的寫作層面而似乎不關心通篇文章的連貫性。但是如果編修者的背景是在理工方面則對於通篇文章則較有影響力。指導者的角色也是歧異很大，有些會重新組織段落或是重寫這些參與者的文章，有些則是要求請英語為母語的專業編修者修改，有些甚至要求參與者以中文書寫之後再翻譯成英文。閱讀：有些參與者提到閱讀的重要性與跟寫作的相關性，但是沒有人提及理解假設(Comprehension Hypothesis)，也就是沒有察覺從大量的閱讀中習得學術語言用法。然而，閱讀被視為寫作者可以立即取得制式語彙的來源。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.
显示于类别:	[英文學系暨研究所] 學位論文

文件中的档案:

档案	大小	格式	浏览次数
	0Kb	Unknown	478	检视/开启

在機構典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

TAIR相关文章

数据加载中.....