二语写作中的词块功能特征研究开题报告

1. 研究目的与意义（文献综述包含参考文献）

Functional Analysisof Lexical Bundles in Second Language Writing

二语写作中词块功能特征研究

1. Introduction

1.1 Background of the research

With the acceleration of global integration, international communication has become increasingly frequent. Accordingly, as the most widely used language in the contemporary world, English has been a second language for a majority of Chinese people. Writing, being one of the four essential language skills, is regarded as the comprehensive reflection of all kinds of abilities.

However, a large number of L2 writing assessments show that although the overall language level of students is on the rise, their writing ability is still stagnant and hovering. For Chinese students, it is no doubt a tough nut to write an essay in English, which is not their native tongue, within a specified time frame in order to meet the requirement of the topic and reach a certain standard in terms of content, structure and grammar. Consequently, how to cultivate students' L2 writing competence has been one of the hot spots in the field of foreign language research. A great deal of factors that affect the level of L2 writing, such as teaching modes, writing tasks, native language transfer, knowledge of discourse and so on have been discussed and studied by numerous experts.

The Lexical Approach is a new emerging teaching theory which based on the ideas that English teaching should focus on application, its most important theoretical principle being that "language consists of grammaticalized lexis, not lexicalized grammar." In short, language is not made up of grammar or vocabulary as traditionally conceived, but mainly of lexical bundles. Furthermore, lexical bundles, being a combination of form and function, a unity of normativity and variability, are able to reflect the relationship among semantics, syntax and pragmatics. The learning of lexical bundles is conducive to improve the idiomaticity, fluency and appropriateness of L2 learners, which has unparalleled advantages in all aspects of English listening, speaking, reading and writing.

In recent years, research on lexical bundles mainly centers on the theoretical stage, discussions with respect to functional features of them in L2 writing are relatively rare. The present study therefore intends to make an exploration on the functional features of lexical bundles, a widespread but under-appreciated linguistic phenomenon in the process of L2 writing, with a view to offering a new idea to improve L2 learners' writing competence in ease, fluency and appropriateness.

1.2 Purposesof the research

The purposes for this research containthree levels. First, the most simple and direct, is to explore specific functional features of lexical bundles so as to enrich the study in L2 writing register. Second, the results can enable English learners to have a better understanding of different features of lexical bundles, providing a new thinking for the enhancement of L2 writing ability. The last servesas the teaching enlightenment, which hasaprofoundimpact on the innovation and development of L2 writing instruction.

1.3 Organization of the research

This thesis consists of five parts. Chapter 1 servesas the general introduction, in which research background, research purposes and the organization of the research arestated. Chapter 2 makes a review on the literature, which provides definitions and classifications of lexical bundles. Chapter 3 demonstrates the details of research methodology. Chapter 4presentsthe resultsof dataanalysisalong withdetailed discussions. The last chapter carries on the summary to the study, including major findings, implications, limits as well as suggestions for further research in the future.

2.Literature Review

This chapter analyzes the literature of lexical bundles. First, different definitions of lexical bundles are introduced. Next is functional taxonomies of lexical bundleswith specific examples. Finally, relevant studies on lexical bundles at home and abroad are demonstrated.

2.1 Definitions of lexical bundles

Becker (1975) first put forward lexical bundles as a special multi-word phenomenon between traditional grammar and lexicon, which has been accepted and then developed by plenty of scholars with their different understandings and statements. Wray (1999) described such phenomenon as "formulaic sequence", holding that such sequences are of benefit to speakers and listeners in processing information by a short cut to comprehension. Moon (2002) used the term "multi-word items", and contended that multiple word units are not the product of grammaticalization, but of lexicalization. Pawley Syder (1983) employed the terminology "lexicalized sentence stems", which are regular form-meaning pairings stored in the minds of native speakers, helping them to take control of the language fluently and idiomatically. Nattinger DeCarrico (1992) applied "lexical phrases" based on syntagmatic simplicity and paradigmatic flexibility, which include short, relatively fixed phrases like a ＿ ago, and longer phrases or clauses such as the ＿er X, the ＿er Y, each with a fixed, basic frame, applicable to various fillers.

In spite of the varieties of definitions, the language phenomenon mentioned shares basically similar characteristics: being muti-word combinations; prefabricated in memory; following the principle of integrity.

Lexical bundles, the terminology proposed by Biberet al.(1999), are employed in this study. According to Biberet al.(ibid), lexical bundles are recurrent expressions regardless of their idiomaticity and structural status. They are "simply sequences of word forms that commonly go together in natural discourse".

2.2 Taxonomiesof lexical bundles

Just as vague and diversified as definitions of lexical bundles are, the methods of classifying them into specific categories also vary. On the whole, lexical bundles are classified mainly in terms of both structure and function. Different taxonomies have been posed by scholars according to their own studies, among which the functional taxonomy of lexical bundles put forward by Biberet al.(2004) is much more influential and applies to this study. Biberet al.(ibid) analysethe lexical bundles in classroom teaching, textbooks, conversation and academic prose, proposinga functional taxonomy of lexical bundles, including stancebundles, discourse organizers, referential expressionsandspecial conversational bundlesin light ofdiscourse functions. Theformer3categories can also be matched withHalliday's (1994) meta-functions.As a result, taxonomiesof sub categories related tomore specific functions and meanings are suggestedfor one of the three discourse functions.

Table 2.2 Functional taxonomies of lexical bundles

2.3 Previous studies on lexical bundles

For decades,scholars at home and abroad have been devoted to studies of lexical bundles from different perspectives, and have gained abundant achievements, which can be presented as following:

2.3.1 Previous studies on lexical bundles at abroad

Hyland(2008) demonstrates that bundles are not only central to the creation of academic discourse, but provide a crucial means of differentiating written texts by discipline. In contrast to previous research that regards bundles to be much more used in speech than in writing, Biber (2009) finds lexical bundles as surprisingly common in written course management(e.g., course syllabi). Chen and Baker (2010), by comparing lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing, note that native student writing shares some features such as control of cautious language, whereas non-native writing demonstrates a tendency that seems to be exclusive to L2 writing (e.g., over-generalizing and favoring certain idiomatic expressions and connectors).Research (delErmanon, 2012)on academic writing by native and non-native speakers of Englishconfirmsa general pattern, that is to say,non-native speakers exhibit a more restricted repertoire of lexical bundlesthan native ones.Staple et al. (2013) though speaking highly of the function of lexical bundlesin assessments designed to measure learner development, still remind people that lexical bundle use is only one of many potentially useful linguistic measures of writing proficiency which should not be overrated.

2.3.2 Previous studies onlexical bundlesat home

Pu (2003) set out from colligation and collocation, advising that context should be fully considered in vocabulary teaching. Likewise, Yan (2003) emphasizes the value of learning lexical bundles in second language acquisition, which conduces to avoid going to extremes of the structural and communicative approaches.Later, from the perspective of corpus linguistics, Ding(2005)findsa significant positive correlation between learners' ability to use lexical bundles and their performance in English writing.Qi (2005) concludes 3 positive effects of prefabricated chunks: to develop fluency in writing; to boost vividness and idiomaticity of expressions; to improve the ability of discourse organization.Basing on writing subset of SWECCL corpus, Wang (2006) contends that active structures led by We and You are excessively used by Chinese students, which often result incolloquial expressions. Ma (2009) points out that there still exists a big gap between our students and native English speakers in the use of bundles, particularly those with past tense and certain clauses. By comparing different corpora, Hu (2017) elaborates that lexical bundles produced by native speakers and learners were mainly verbs, followed by nounsand prepositions, all of them principallyplaying the role of discourse organizers andreferential expressions.

References

del, A., Erman, B. (2012).Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 81-92.

Altenberg, B., Granger, S. (2001). The grammatical and lexical patterns of MAKE in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics, 222, 173-195.

Biber, D., Barbieri, F. (2009).Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for SpecialPurposes, 26, 263-286.

Biber, D., et al.(1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow:Pearson.

Chen, Y., Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology, 14(2), 30-49.

Connor, U.(1996).Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language Writing.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4),397-423.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and Second Language Writing. Lansing: The University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation.English for SpecificPurposes 27(1), 4-21.

Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and Way Forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publication.

Moon, R. (2002). Vocabulary connections: multi-word items in English. In N. Schmitt, M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: description, acquisition and pedagogy.Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Nattinger, J. (1980). A lexical phrase-grammar for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 14(3), 337-344.

Nattinger, J., DeCarrico, J. (1992).Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford University Press.

Pawley, A., Syder, H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native like selection and native like fluency. In J. C. Richards, R. W. Schrmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-225). London: Longman.

Peter, A. (1983). The Unit of Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Staples, S., et al. (2013). Formulaic sequences and EAP writing development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section.Journal of English for Academic Purposes, (3), 214-225.

Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus: A new approach to language teaching.London: Collins Cobuild.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zimmerman, C. B. (1997).Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction.In J. Coady, T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: a rationale for pedagogy, (pp. 5-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

丁言仁、戚焱（2005），词块运用与英语口语和写作水平的相关性研究，《解放军外国语学院学报》，（3）：49-53。

胡元江、石海漫、季萍（2017），英语学习者与本族语者议论文词块的结构与功能特征基于语料库的对比研究，《外语研究》，（4）：58-62。

刘晓玲、阳志清（2003），词汇组块教学二语教学的一种新趋势，《外语教学》，（6）。

马广惠（2009），英语专业学生二语限时写作中的词块研究，《外语教学与研究》，（1）：54-60。

戚焱（2005），预制语块与大学英语写作，《山东外语教学》,（5）：64-66。

蹼建忠（2003），英语词汇教学中的类联接、搭配与词块，《外语教学与研究》，（6）：338-345。

王立非、张岩（2006），基于语料库的大学生英语议论文中的语块使用模式研究，《外语电化教学》，（4），36-41。

卫乃兴（2003），搭配研究50年：概念的演变与方法的发展，《解放军外国语学院学报》，（2）。

严维华（2003），语块对基本词汇习得的作用，《解放军外国语学院学报》,（6）。

杨玉晨（1999），英语词汇的板块性及其对英语教学的启示，《外语界》，（3）：24-27。

2. 研究的基本内容、问题解决措施及方案

This thesis intends to make an exploration on the functional features of lexical bundles, a widespread but under-appreciated linguistic phenomenon in the process of L2 writing, from the perspective of functional taxonomy of lexical bundles, including stancebundles, discourse organizers and referential expressions.

Corpus - based approach is the principle methodology employed in this study.With the help of Antconc3.4.4 software, this thesis selects the writing corpus of second language learners to build a small one, aiming to better analyze and study the functional features of lexical bundles.

您可能感兴趣的文章

• 非语言语境与翻译 Non-linguistic Context And Translation开题报告
• 汉语诗歌中文化意象英译的研究 ——以李商隐作品为例开题报告
• 中式思维对中国学习英语写作学习的负迁移研究开题报告
• A Study of Subtitle Translation of Game of Thrones from the Perspective of Eco-translatology开题报告
• 解读《蝇王》中对人性恶的漠视与托辞Pretermission and Pretext for Human Evil as Reflected in Lord of the Flies开题报告
• 从国家政要人物讲话稿中的习语典故引用浅谈翻译 brief discussion on idioms in the text of statement of senior politicians开题报告
• 中学英语口语教学中的话题选择 Topic Selection in Oral English Teaching in Middle Schools开题报告
• On the Themes in Hawthrones Works 霍桑作品主题分析开题报告
• 丘吉尔演说中的危机化解修辞研究开题报告
• 从静态动态转化角度浅析张培基译著开题报告