華語學術寫作之情態動詞分析與教學應用

Abstract

學術寫作為研究者用以描述研究歷程與展示成果的書面媒介，而其中情態（modality）傳達可能性與必要性之評估判斷，西方文獻證實情態詞（modal）於學術語體為寫作者用以銜接邏輯、表述立場與引發讀者反思評價等功能之核心機制；然而有鑑於漢語情態研究仍停留於句法、語義分析層次，尚未跨越至功能面向，也未探究情態於跨學科領域之表現差異，因此本研究擬以現代漢語近義、多義情態動詞“能／能夠”與“可／可以”為例，考察上述動詞於跨學科學術寫作之出現頻率、語義趨向與功能表現，期能發展漢語情態之功能層面研究，區辨兩類動詞差異，並說明情態與學術語境之互動聯繫。 本研究語料取自2005至2010年台灣數所知名大學醫、文學院之博士學位論文，質化與量化研究分析結果顯示，“可”類於醫、文學院的使用頻率皆高於“能”類。其次，兩類情態動詞動力用法皆遠高於義務用法。在語用層次，第一，兩類動詞的後設論述（metadiscourse）功能高度重疊，然而“可”類於醫、文學院之後設論述功能出現率皆高於“能”類，顯示寫作者慣以“可”類作為組織論述與表述立場之語用機制，而“能”類僅起陳述命題功能；其次，於功能類別上，“可”類以語篇功能為主，而“能”類則以人際功能為主。結論顯示情態詞的功能辨析有助於區辨語義面向的模糊與近似性。 在情態跨學科的後設論述功能表現上，兩個學科領域皆傾向以“可”類、“能”類來表示語篇功能；而於人際功能上，醫學院論文使用較多的建議與預測，較少的模糊解讀；而文學院使用較多的模糊解讀，較少的預測。在章節主題上，醫學院各章節主題與功能類型出現明確對應關係，然而文學院論文各章節皆偏好推論功能。研究結果顯示情態表現與學科領域、章節配置具對應關係，然而對應程度亦會因學科特性與寫作規範出現差異。 本文最後歸納兩類動詞出現語境與常見句式，期能使華語學習者的學術寫作更符合華語人士的表達習慣，提昇學習者書面的溝通交際能力。Academic writing is written by an investigator to describe the research process and present the study that he or she has completed, and modality refers to devices which allow speakers to convey propositional attitude or belief toward a situation. Existing research in academic writing has confirmed its role on organizing a discourse or writer’s stance and involving readers into discussion. While the study of Chinese modality in syntax and semantics field has been extensively investigated, the functional perspective of Chinese modals is unexplored. Therefore, in order to fill this gap in the study of Chinese modality, the specific aims in this paper are using Chinese modals “neng/nenggou” and “ke/keyi” as examples to identify the frequencies of uses, meanings and functions, to elucidate the subtle differences between these two modal verbs, and finally to explicate the interplay between modals and academic contexts. The data were drawn from doctoral dissertations from colleges of biomedical engineering and liberal arts of various famous universities in Taiwan. The qualitative and quantitative results show that the uses of “ke” in both colleges are higher than “neng.” In addition, the frequencies of dynamic uses are also higher than deontic uses. At the pragmatic level, firstly, the metadiscourse functions of the two verbs are highly overlapped; however, the frequency of “ke” appears as a metadiscoure feature in two disciplines are much higher than “neng,” which sugguests that writers are used to employing “ke” as a pragmatic device on text and stance organization, and “neng” only plays the role of expressing propositional meaning. Secondly, in terms of metadiscourse functions, “ke” is used mainly to display textual functions while “neng” to disply interpersonal functions. The conclusion suggests that the distinciton of modal functions help distinguish the similarity and ambiguity of modal meanings. On the other hand, in disciplinary communities, textual function was the most frequently occurring metadiscourse feature in the two disciplines. However, in terms of the interpersonal function, biomedical engineering uses more suggestion and prediction and the least hedges, while college of liberal arts uses more hedges and the least prediction. As for the functions identified in conventional context of dissertations, contexts in biomedical engineering have clear correspondence to the feature of meatdiscourse function; however, the college of liberal arts prefers using inferences in all chapters. The result shows that the distribution of modals is highly relavant to the conventional contexts, but the degree varies according to disciplinary variation and writing principles. In conclusion, the conventional context and sentence patterns of these two modal verbs are generalised in Chinese academic writing. The present study also collects the sentence patterns in hope to enhance the students' writing skills and enable them to express authentically as native Chinese.