期刊論文中討論章節的寫作策略與教學應用:華語教學領域的研究

Abstract

在學術文體中，期刊論文具有一定的代表性及權威性，特別是具備緒論—研究方法—研究結果—討論（IMRD）結構的研究報告。其中，討論章節雖是上述研究報告中的寫作重點，目前學界仍缺乏一致的寫作規範共識。考慮到學科間的差異，因此，本研究從華語教學領域出發，探討期刊論文中討論章節的寫作策略。 為找出具代表性的寫作策略，本研究以2014年度《臺灣華語教學研究》和《華語文教學研究》中，具緒論—研究方法—研究結果—討論結構的18篇期刊論文作為研究語料，並從章節結構和學術論文作者採用的溝通模式兩方面來探究相關寫作策略。在章節結構方面，本研究採用Lewin et al.（2001）五個寫作步驟來分析篇章功能。另一方面，在寫作步驟的架構下，為進一步釐清學術論文作者邏輯銜接，以及與讀者互動的溝通模式，本研究透過Hyland（2004，2005）的後設論述理論作為標記的依據。 研究結果發現，在章節結構層面，學術論文作者最常採用的寫作步驟皆與報告、評價和詮釋研究結果有關。而在寫作步驟的排序上，作者則傾向以報告和評價研究結果相關的步驟作為開始，結尾時則常以研究結果作為結論，或提出相關研究與教學建議。在論述中，學術論文作者亦會重複使用寫作步驟來加強論述。溝通模式方面，在所有寫作步驟中，使用程度較高的是協助讀者閱讀語篇的交互式後設論述，特別是表達語義關係的轉折語。另外，在吸引讀者討論、反饋的互動式後設論述方面，則是與讀者建立關係的標記（介入標記語）為多。然而，依據各寫作步驟的功能特徵，學術論文作者使用後設論述標記的情形也會相應改變。最後，本研究將依據上述的研究成果，總結為第五章教學應用，提出各寫作步驟與後設論述標記的參考範例與練習，並提出模擬教案供教師運用，期望對華語學術寫作領域提供參考依據。In research genres, it is well recognized that journal articles represent disciplinary authority, especially articles with IMRD structures. However, in IMRD structures, the writing standards in Discussion section is still lack of a common consensus. Therefore, this study aims to discover the usage of writing strategies applied in Discussion section in Chinese as Second Language (CSL) journals. In order to achieve this goal, we selected two reputational CSL journals, Taiwan Journal of Chinese as a Second Language and Journal of Chinese Language Teaching in the 2014 issue, and used research articles with IMRD structure as our research target. For the purpose of acquiring better understanding in the Discussion section, we looked into the data from two aspects: structure function and metadiscourse marker usage. To analyze the organization of Discussion section, we adopted the Moves analysis from Lewin et al. (2001). To discover how researchers organize the Moves logically and how they interact with the readers, we applied Hyland (2004, 2005)’s metadiscourse resources as our reference. Our results show that, in CSL journals, the Moves that researchers tend to use the most are the ones that help writers to report, evaluate, and interpret the research results. As to section organization, in the beginning of the section, writers have the tendency to use the Moves that report and evaluate and present the conclusion by reporting the most important results again or providing suggestions for future studies. Furthermore, to enhance the arguments, writers repeatedly use the same Moves. As to the use of metadiscourse, our results suggest that in the field of CSL, researchers tend to use more interactional resources, especially transition, to organize the arguments. In interactive resources, engagement markers are favored. We also discovered that the use of metadicourse is affected by the function of Moves. To sum up, based on our results, we will present a pedagogical application in Chapter 5, such as examples of Moves and metadicourse markers usage, and a mock teaching plan.