专著推荐 | 刘兴华：《英汉语篇跨文化修辞研究》 | 自由微信

查看原文

其他

专著推荐 | 刘兴华：《英汉语篇跨文化修辞研究》

From: 通讯君语言学通讯 2019-08-05

点击上方蓝字关注

专著推荐

《英汉语篇跨文化修辞研究》

作者：刘兴华

出版时间：2015年

出版社：外语教学与研究出版社

购买链接

作者简介

刘兴华

博士、讲师、硕导

刘兴华，男，安徽安庆人，现供职上海交通大学外国语学院，讲师，硕士生导师，英语系副主任。英国雷丁大学（University of Reading）应用语言学博士（2008-2012），英国诺丁汉特伦特大学（Nottingham Trent University）特邀研究员（2014），曾于美国亚利桑那州立大学（Arizona State University）开展写作方向博士后研究（2015-2016）。研究兴趣主要包括跨文化修辞研究、基于语料库和系统功能语言学分析框架的语篇分析、写作的认知过程研究、循证写作教学等。在外语教学与研究出版社和Springer出版社出版学术著作两部，共同主编英文写作教材两部。以第一作者和重要完成人身份在《外语界》、《外语教学理论与实践》、Educational Psychology Review、Review of Educational Research、Reading Research Quarterly、Reading and Writing、International Journal of Applied Linguistics等国内外刊物上发表学术论文20余篇。目前担任国际期刊TESOL International Journal (SCOPUS 检索)主编，SAGE Open (SSCI)编委，为国际期刊Journal of English for Specific Purposes、Journal of Psycholinguistic Research、Linguistics and Education、Language and Education、Journal of Research in Reading、Education Science: Theory and Practice、Assessing Writing、Educational Psychology Review担任审稿人。曾获中国英汉语比较研究会“英华学术奖”提名奖、国家留学基金委“国家优秀自费留学生奖”、上海交通大学“校长奖”等。联系方式：languagestudies@126.com

内容简介

英汉语篇对比修辞研究的一个焦点话题是有关中英文写作多大程度上倾向于直接/演绎或者间接/归纳模式，但由于研究方法的差异和不足，以往研究常常出现相互矛盾的结果。本项目在充分梳理以往研究的基础上，以一种更加生态化的视角对该课题进行考察，收集了中英大学生的四组同题议论文样本（即英语为母语大学生的优秀英语作文、中国大学生的优秀汉语作文、中国英语专业学生的英语和汉语作文），系统分析了作文样本中中心思想句和段落主题句的分布特征、起始段与结尾段的体裁结构、起承转合结构，以及基于评价框架的介入资源分布特征等。本研究在研究设计上有方法创新，数据全面详实，分析讨论严谨深入，是有志于开展语篇分析和对比修辞研究师生的有益参考资料。

List of Tables
List of Figures
Chapter I Intercultural Rhetoric Revisited
1.1Introduction
1.2The relationship between L 1 and L2 writing
1.3Theoretical conceptualization of intercultural rhetoric
1.4Development and challenges of intercultural rhetoric research
1.5Summary
Chapter 2 A Multidimensional and Ecological
Approach to Intercultural Rhetoric Studies
2.1Introduction
2.2 Research focus
2.3Research methods
2.4Explanatory factors
2.5Summary
Chapter 3 Situating Intercultural Rhetoric
Research Within Systemic Functional Linguistics
3.1Introduction
3.2 Tri-stratal model of language
3.3 Metafunctions of language
3.4 Genre schools
3.5SFL genre studies
3.6Arguing genre from an SFL perspective
3.7 APPRAISAL theory
3.7.1ATTITUDE system
3.7.2 ENGAGEMENT system
3.7.3GRADUATION
3.8 Summary
Chapter 4 Contrasting English-Chinese Written
Discourse： A Case Study
4.1Introduction
4.2Qi-Cheng-Zhuan-He rhetorical structure
4.3Ba Gu Wen （eight-legged essay）
4.4 Inductiveness （indirectness） vs． deductiveness （directness）
4.5 Critical stance and personal voice
4.6 Research gaps in English-Chinese contrastive studies
4.7 Methodology
4.7.1Preparation of research tools
4.7.2Piloting of research tools
4.7.3The formal investigation
4.7.4Chinese English-majors" English （CEE） and Chinese
writing
4.7.5 Good Chinese writing （CC）
4.7.6 Good English writing （EE）
4.7.7Examination of Chinese and English writing manuals
4.7.8Structure analysis of students" texts
4.7.9 Identification of thesis statement and topic sentences
4.7.10Placement of thesis statement and topic sentences
4.7.11Topic sentence/paragraph ratio （T/P value）
4.7.12Identification of introduction and conclusion
paragraphs
4.7.13Schematic analysis
4.7.14 Identication of Qi-Cheng-Zhuan-He rhetorical
structure
4.7.15 Analyzing Engagement resources
4.7.16 Validity and reliability of Appraisal coding
4.7.17 Parsing Chinese lexical items for CEC and CC
4.7.18 Multidimensional view of comparisons
4.8 Summary

Chapter 5 Structural Analysis
5．1 Introduction
5．2 Thesis statement
5．2．1 Comparison of native-speakers" writing： EE and CC
5．2．2 A cross-cultural comparison between EE and CEE
5．2．3 A within-language comparison between CC and CEC
5．2．4 A within-subject comparison between CEE and CEC
5．3 Topic sentences
5．3．！ Comparison of native speakers" writing： EE and CC
5．3．2 A cross-cultural comparison between EE and CEE
5．3．3 A within-language comparison between CC and CEC
5．3．4 A within-subject comparison between CEE and CEC
5．4 Methods of writing an introduction
5．4．1 Comparison of native-speakers" writing： EE and CC
5．4．2 A cross-cultural comparison between EE and CEE
5．4．3 A within-language comparison between CC and CEC
5．4．4 A within-subject comparison between CEE and CEC
5．5 Methods of writing a conclusion
5．5．1 Comparison of native-speakers" writing：EE and CC
5．5．2 A cross-cultural comparison between EE and CEE
5．5．3 A within-language comparison between CC and CEC
5．5．4 A within-subject comparison between CEE and CEC
5．6 Qi-Cheng-Zhuan-He rhetorical structure
5．6．1 Qi-Cheng-Zhuan-He rhetorical structure in EE
5．6．2 Qi-Cheng-Zhuan-He rhetorical structure in CC
5．6．3 Qi-Cheng-Zhuan-He rhetorical structure in CEE
5．6．4 Qi-Cheng-Zhuan-He rhetorical structure in CEC
5．7 Summary

Chapter 6 Engagement Analysis
6．1 Introduction
6．2 Comparison of native-speakers" writing： EE and CC
6．2．1 Monogloss and Heterogloss
6．2．2 Heterogloss subcategories
6．3 A cross-cultural comparison between EE and CEE
6．3．1 Monogloss and Heterogloss
6．3．2 Heterogloss subcategories
6．4 A within-language comparison between CC and CEC
6．4．1 Monogloss and Heterogloss
6．4．2 Heterogloss subcategories
6.5 A within-subject comparison between CEE and CEC
6．5．1 Monogloss and Heterogloss
6．5．2 Heterogloss subcategories
6．6 Summary
Chapter 7 Conclusion
7．1 Introduction
7．2 The study revisited
7．3 Summary of results
7．3．1 Structural analysis
7．3．2 Engagement analysis
7．4 Theoretical implication： Towards a multi-dimensional and
ecological view of contrastive rhetoric
7．5 Pedagogical implications： A two-stage genre-based writing
pedagogy
7．6 Evaluation of the research
7．6．1 Contributions of the study
7．6．2 Limitations of the study
7．7 Suggestions for future research

References
Appendices
Appendix A Potential Topics
Appendix B Writing Instructions
Appendix C Discourse-based Interview Questions （Writing Process
Questionnaire Questions）
Appendix D English Writing Experience Questionnaire for CEE
（English Version）
Appendix E Chinese Writing Experience Questionnaire for CEC and C
Appendix F English Writing Experience Questionnaire for EE
Appendix G TEM4 Writing Rating Rubric for CEE （NACFLT， 2004）
Appendix H CC Rating Rubric