当代英汉论说文中修辞模式的对比研究

VIP免费

3.0 陈辉 2024-11-19 4 4 771.46KB 87 页 15积分

侵权投诉

ABSTRACT

Contrastive rhetoric claims that people of different languages and cultures have

different preferences for rhetorical patterns. The lack of knowledge about another

language’s rhetorical patterns usually causes puzzle or misunderstanding of the learners

who are educated in a different cultural and linguistic background. In this field, some

great contrastive rhetoric theorists such as Kaplan, Connor, etc have conducted a lot of

significant researches into rhetorical patterns of different cultures. However, the author

finds that there aren’t enough specific and complete explanations of the complicated

Chinese rhetorical patterns compared with the Western ones in the earlier researches,

and there is little research into the contrastive study of specific genres such as

argumentative writings.

Thus, this thesis is focused on the contrastive study of Chinese and English

rhetorical patterns in contemporary argumentative essays, and elaborates on it in order

to benefit the cross-cultural communication and second language writing. Kaplan’s

discourse bloc (1972) and Hunt’s T-unit (minimal terminal unit) are adopted by

analyzing thirty Chinese argumentative essays and thirty English argumentative essays

respectively from those standard textbooks, well-known newspapers or magazines, etc.

This study compares and analyzes the Native Chinese Essays (NCE) and Native

English Essays (NEE) respectively on the discourse level, focusing on the whole essay,

the presence and placement of the thesis statement, the topic sentence and the way

essays are paragraphed. Figures and tables are illustrated in this thesis so as to compare

the rhetorical patterns between English and Chinese argumentative essays statistically.

Firstly, in terms of the thesis statement, the statistics shows that seven of the

Chinese essays contain no thesis statement, and 63% of the Chinese essays have a thesis

in the conclusion. In contrast, in the NEE data, almost 60% of the essays have a thesis at

the beginning of the essays, and ten of the essays have thesis statements at the end. This

indicates that Chinese writing prefers to adopt an inductive style, whereas English

writing tends to take a deductive style. The quasi-inductive style is rare in NCEs. It also

shows that English and Chinese rhetorical patterns are complicated. Secondly, regarding

the way essays are paragraphed, the average number of paragraphs in NEE is larger than

that in NCE, that is, 11.2 to 7.3. This indicates the possibility that American writers feel

iii

a greater need to provide more support to show casual proof than Chinese writers do in

displaying their idea, which is an indication of writer-responsibility. At last, considering

the frequency of topic changes and topic sentences in the paragraph, in the NCE, there

is an average of 0.64 topic sentences per paragraph, indicating less likelihood of topic

support in the NCEs. This indirectness is also evident in the average number of topic

changes. A low number of topic changes indicates the tightness of cohesion between

ideas. The average number of topic changes in NCE (1.54) are bigger than those in NEE

paragraph (0.97), suggesting a much looser cohesion in NCE than in NEE.

However there are still some similarities between them for educational or personal

factors. In the NCEs, some are not indirect: The topic sentences of the paragraphs are

clearly marked at the beginning with support ideas following, which have adopted

English rhetorical patterns to a great degree. In the same way, the statistic shows that

like typical Chinese essays, about 16% of NEE have no topic sentence at all, etc.

The results of the quantitative study indicate Chinese and English argumentative

writings both have a variety of rhetorical patterns, but there also exist preferential

rhetorical patterns in English and Chinese writings respectively. English discourse

adopts deductive approach, introducing the topic, idea or standing at the beginning of

the essay and then proving with facts; whereas Chinese discourse tends to be inductive,

placing the main idea in the end by presenting facts, explaining it with facts first and

then drawing the conclusion, which has something to do with the national thinking

patterns, social cultures and rhetorical traditions. English rhetorical patterns are closely

related to classical rhetoric dominated by Aristotle while Chinese rhetorical patterns to

Confucian theories and traditional writing style: eight-legged essay, etc.

The study has given a complete description of the comparison between Chinese

and English rhetorical patterns, covering their differences and similarities. On the one

hand, it affirms Kaplan’s and Hinds’s opinions about the differences between

Anglo-American and Oriental writings; on the other hand, it also shows the simplicity

and partiality in Kaplan’s research. It has some theoretical and practical implications for

the research of contrastive rhetoric, cross-cultural communication, and SLA writing.

Specific pedagogical implication for teachers in academic writing is presented.

Key Words: rhetorical pattern, contrastive rhetoric, argumentative

essays

摘要

对比修辞学指出不同的语言具有不同的主流修辞方式，母语的语言与修辞传

统会对第二语言产生干扰。对此，Connor, Kaplan 等不少的学者进行了语料研究

及理论探讨，做出了很大的贡献。但本文作者发现在比较汉语与英语修辞模式方

面，先前的研究不够具体完善；涉及论说文体裁的修辞模式对比研究也不多。

因此，本文作者拟在新对比修辞环境背景和趋势下，比较英汉论说文中修辞

模式的异同。本文主要采用 Kaplan 的语篇分析模式和 Hunt 的最小终结单位理论

来分析英汉语篇修辞模式的异同。并分别从权威报纸，杂志及一些教科书中选取

长度相当的中美论说文各 30 篇作为分析语料。

本文采用 Kaplan 的语篇分析模式和 Hunt 的最小终结单位理论进行语料量化

研究，从语篇的层次分别对语料进行分析。主要就整个语篇，段落，语篇中心句

出现的频率及位置和主题句在段落内出现的频率来进行计算，从而来分析中英修

辞模式的异同。首先，在语篇中心句出现的频率及位置方面， 63％汉语语料的中

心句放在结论部分；英语语料则有 60％把中心句置于文章的开头部分。这表明英

语语篇倾向于演绎式修辞方式，汉语语篇更多使用归纳式方式。此外，汉语语料

中只有三篇的中心句是在语篇中间部分出现，这与 Hinds 认为大多汉语语篇是半归

纳式的有所不同。其次，在段落层次上，英语语料平均段落数要明显高于汉语语

料：11.2 与 7.3，体现英语语料作者倾向给语篇提供更多的论证与说明，考虑读

者的因素，典型的作者责任型语言。至于段落主题句，英语与汉语语料段落中的

平均主题句分别是是 0.85 与0.64，主题句在段落内出现的频率平均数分别为为 0.97

与1.54，表明了与英语文章相比，汉语语篇的非直接性。

量化分析研究的结果表明，汉英论说文修辞模式呈多样化，但都有其与文化，

修辞传统相关的主流修辞模式。英语论说文倾向于采取演绎模式，中心句置于文

章开始部分，然后用事实加以证明；考虑读者因素，主要是作者责任型。而汉语

论说文习惯于归纳式模式，先陈述事实，中心句放文章最后部分，读者责任型和

作者责任型相结合。这可以从其文化，修辞传统方面分析讨论，英语修辞模式主

要与亚历士多德的修辞理论紧密相连，而汉语修辞模式讨论必须考虑中国传统儒

家思想及写作模式八股文的影响等。

但通过研究还可以发现一些汉语语料也采取了直线式的修辞模式，中心句放

在语篇开头，段落主题句放在段落开始部分，语篇中有很少的主题转换等。这种

现象是因为英语语篇的影响并与作者所接受的教育有关，并不是主流的修辞模式，

而且从另一个侧面说明第二语言修辞模式认知结构的可习得性。

论文全面描述比较了汉英修辞模式。一方面肯定了 Kaplan 与Hinds 对东西修

辞模式比较的研究成果，另一方面反映其研究的片面性，进一步说明了汉英修辞

模式。本文研究结果在理论上和实践上对跨文化交际，修辞研究及英语教学有重

要启示，能够为外语学习者及教师提供了解汉英修辞模式的背景知识，指导学术

文章写作，提高跨文化意识。

关键词：修辞模式对比修辞论说文

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................i

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. ii

摘要 …………………………………………………………………………………...iv

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ...........................................................................viii

Chapter One Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

§1.1 Contrastive Rhetoric .......................................................................................... 1

§1.2 The Rationale for the Thesis .............................................................................. 5

§1.3 Organization of This Thesis ............................................................................... 7

Chapter Two Literature Review .....................................................................................8

§2.1 Research in Rhetoric and Contrastive Text Linguistics ..................................... 8

§2.1.1 Chinese Rhetoric and English Rhetoric ................................................... 8

§2.1.2 Rhetoric, Language and Culture ............................................................ 15

§2.1.3 Contrastive Rhetoric and Text Linguistics ............................................. 16

§2.2 Rhetorical Patterns ........................................................................................... 19

§2.3 Argumentation ..................................................................................................20

§2.3.1 Argument ................................................................................................20

§2.3.2 Argumentative discourse ........................................................................22

§2.4 Earlier Research on the Differences of Rhetorical Patterns between

Chinese and English Essays .....................................................................................23

§2.5 Limitations in Previous Research .................................................................... 27

Chapter Three Chinese and English Rhetorical Patterns: A Quantitative Study ......... 29

§3.1 Research Design ...............................................................................................29

§3.1.1 Hypotheses and Purpose of the Study ....................................................29

§3.1.2 Material .................................................................................................. 29

§3.2 Methodology .................................................................................................... 30

§3.2.1 T-unit and Discourse Bloc Adjustment .................................................. 31

§3.2.2 Defining Thesis Statement and Topic Sentence .....................................35

§3.3 Procedures ........................................................................................................36

Chapter Four Findings and Discussions ...................................................................... 41

§4.1 Findings ............................................................................................................41

§4.1.1 Regarding the Whole Essay ................................................................... 41

§4.1.2 Regarding Thesis Statement ...................................................................45

vii

§4.1.3 Regarding the Paragraph ........................................................................47

§4.1.4 Regarding the Frequency of Topic Changes and Topic Sentences

in the Paragraphs ...............................................................................................49

§4.2 Discussions ...................................................................................................... 53

§4.2.1 A Cultural and Rhetorical Perspective ................................................... 53

§4.2.2 Discussion of the Tendency of Similarities ............................................57

§4.3 Summary .......................................................................................................... 58

Chapter Five Implications and Conclusion ..................................................................61

§5.1 Implication ....................................................................................................... 61

§5.2 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 65

Appendix Ⅰ.................................................................................................................67

Appendix Ⅱ.................................................................................................................69

Appendix Ⅲ.................................................................................................................71

Appendix Ⅳ.................................................................................................................73

Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 74

Publications ..................................................................................................................81

viii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLE

Table 4.1 Degree of generality/specificity in the Native Chinese Essays....................... 41

Table 4.2 Degree of generality/specificity in the Native English Essays........................43

Table 4.3 Presence and placement of thesis statements in NEE and NCE......................45

Table 4.4 Number of paragraphs in the Native Chinese Essay…………………………47

Table 4.5 Number of paragraphs in the Native English Essay........................................ 48

Table 4.6 The number of paragraphs and the average number of topic sentences in NCE

and NEE...........................................................................................................................50

Table 4.7 The number of topic changes in NCE and NEE.............................................. 50

Table 4.8 Presence and placement of topic sentences in NCE and NEE.........................51

FIGURE

Figure 3.1 NCE 8 (Native Chinese Essay 8 ).................................................................. 38

Figure 3.2 NEE 6 (The first three paragraphs of Native English Essay 6)…………39

Figure 4.1 An example of paragraph pattern in NCE 11................................................. 52

Figure 4.2 An example of paragraph pattern in NEE 22................................................. 53

Chapter One Introduction

This study intends to prove and find that native English and Chinese language

speakers from different cultures write in different rhetorical modes, in order to shed

some light on the SLA writing or reading, promote cross-cultural communication and

language teaching.

§1.1 Contrastive Rhetoric

For the second language learners, it is necessary to make a comprehensive study of

the target language in every aspect: listening, speaking, reading, and writing in order to

acquire language competence. Among the four aspects, writing is an important one in

language study. Writing can aid the language learners to output what they have learnt

about the language. Especially in the modern society with increasing political and

economic globalization as its background, people of different cultures communicate

more with each other and great demands have been put on both English learning and

teaching in China. People in various professions often encounter the need to read

literature composed by people of different cultural backgrounds. For English learners, a

lack of English rhetorical patterns may reduce the effectiveness of cross-communication

and understanding.

Writing in English as a second or foreign language has become a significant means

of cross-cultural communication for both researchers and learners. Its importance can be

mainly seen from two perspectives. On the one hand, writing is regarded as a way of

learning (Applebee, 1984): in the process of writing down what one thinks, one

transforms perception into conception. On the other hand, writing is viewed as a way to

acquire language (Cumming, 1995: 39): when writing, students always have to fill the

gap between what they intend to express and what is actually written on the paper.

Actually, many teaching methods have been introduced and tested in the writing field to

improve the students’ writing ability.

In general, writing itself includes many elements, including choice of words and

organization of the structure, etc. A Considerable number of researches have been

conducted into the writing from the lexical or syntactic perspective. However,

sometimes, cultural differences can become a barrier. Undoubtedly, we should study its

rhetorical patterns, if we want to learn about the writing features of another culture.

A Contrastive Study of English and Chinese Rhetorical Patterns in Contemporary Argumentative Essays

Therefore, the study of contrastive rhetoric is necessary and helps the teachers in

teaching writing.

It is fair to say that contrastive rhetoric was the first serious attempt by applied

linguists in the United States to explain the second language writing (Connor, 2001).

According to Connor, it is only within the past twenty years, however, that writing skills

and the role of transfer in particular have been of interest to applied linguistic

researchers. For decades, writing was neglected as an area of study because of the

emphasis on teaching spoken languages during the dominance of audio-lingual

methodology. In the past two decades, the study of writing has become part of the

mainstream in applied linguistics. Reasons for this change are many: the increased

understanding of language learners’ need to read and write in the target language; the

enhanced interdisciplinary approach to studying second language acquisition through

educational, rhetorical, and anthropological methods; and new trends in linguistics.

These new trends emphasize discourse analysis (analysis that extends beyond the

sentence level) and include description of sociolinguistic variations such as the different

speech patterns of men and women and of speakers of different dialects of the same

language. In research on second language writing, contrastive studies have received

more attention than perhaps any other single issue. The importance of contrastive

studies for the understanding of cultural particular as well as linguistic universals is

summarized well in Connor’s works.

According to Connor, contrastive rhetoric is defined as “an area of research in

second language acquisition that identifies problems in composition encountered by

second language writers and, by referring to the rhetorical strategies of the first

language, attempts to explain them” (Connor, 2001: 5). Contrastive rhetoric was

originally initiated by American applied linguist Robert Kaplan in his famous article

“Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education” in 1966. Finding that ESL/EFL

(English as a second /foreign language) students with excellent control of sentence

structure were not necessarily able to compose good texts, he just took the first lead to

do research into the discourse structure and rhetorical patterns of first language by

means of identifying five groups of paragraph development for five ethnical groups,

concluding that Anglo-American expository essays follow a linear development while

essays written in Oriental languages such as Chinese and Korean use a circular

approach, and claiming that language and writing are cultural phenomena (Kaplan,

文档加载中……请稍候！
如果长时间未打开，您也可以点击刷新试试。

下载文档到电脑，查找使用更方便

15 积分 4人已下载

立即下载 VIP免费下载

摘要：

iiABSTRACTContrastiverhetoricclaimsthatpeopleofdifferentlanguagesandcultureshavedifferentpreferencesforrhetoricalpatterns.Thelackofknowledgeaboutanotherlanguage’srhetoricalpatternsusuallycausespuzzleormisunderstandingofthelearnerswhoareeducatedinadifferentculturalandlinguisticbackground.Inthisfield,...

展开>> 收起<<

当代英汉论说文中修辞模式的对比研究.pdf

共87页,预览9页

还剩页未读，继续阅读

当代英汉论说文中修辞模式的对比研究

相关推荐

开通VIP享超值会员特权

作者详情

相关内容

推荐作者

热门标签

举报选择: