毕业论文体例及范文.doc

保密类别 编 号 一号宋体加粗武汉大学珞珈学院毕 业 论 文 逻辑连接词的衔接作用： 基于非英语母语学习者的实证研究论文题目不用加括号，二号黑体，字数不超过20个字，可分为两行 系 别： 专 业： 年 级： 学 号： 内容居中；1】系别一栏填写所在系的全称，2】专业一栏填写所学专业 2】年级一栏写“年级+班级”，如：2012级英语一班姓 名： 指导教师： 武汉大学珞珈学院教务处印制年 月 日BACHELORS DEGREE THESIS OF LUOJIA COLLEGEWUHAN UNIVERSITY Logical Connectors as Cohesive Devices： An Empirical Study on EFL Learners Department:English DepartmentSubject:EnglishName:XXXSupervisor:Prof. XXXMay 2011武汉大学珞珈学院本科毕业论文原创性声明本人郑重声明： 1、所呈交的毕业论文（设计），是本人在导师的指导下，独立进行研究工作所取得的成果。2、除文中已经注明引用的内容外，本论文（设计）不含任何其他个人或集体已经发表或撰写过的作品或成果。3、对本论文（设计）的研究做出重要贡献的个人和集体，均已在论文（设计）中以明确方式标明。本声明的法律结果由本人承担。论文作者签名： 年 月 日之间空两格小二号黑体居中，单倍行距摘 要小四号宋体1.25行距阅读是二语习得过程中的一项非常重要的技能，国内的英语教学也把阅读放在了一个十分重要的位置。逻辑连接词，作为一种重要的衔接手段，往往起到明晰文章结构，指引文章重要信息的作用。从某种意义上来看，阅读水平的高低很大程度上取决于对于逻辑连接词语篇衔接作用的理解和掌握。本文从语篇，逻辑连接词，阅读活动等基本概念入手，提出了三个基本假设：（1）EFL学习者对于逻辑连接词的掌握程度和语言水平高度相关；（2）不同类型的逻辑连接词的掌握难度不同；（3）不同语篇类型中的逻辑连接词，对于EFL学习这造成的障碍不同。通过设计两个实验，来验证以上三个基本假设。实验的内容是完成一个有16个测试逻辑连接词的单项选择题。 学生需要在选出最佳答案后给出解释说明理由。参加实验的学生全部来是武汉大学外国语言文学学院英文系。他们被分成三个小组A，B和C，分别由随机抽取的英语专业大一，大二，大三的学生组成。总人数为60人。其中，B组在比较A,C两组的行为时相当于对照组的作用。研究采用了回归分析，t检验，F检验，ANOVO分析等统计学手段来验证以上三个假设。分析结果显示，语言水平和测试成绩有非线性的关系，具体形式为，其中Y表示测试成绩，X表示语言水平，表示语言水平对测试成绩的贡献程度。独立样本检验显示不同分组的受试者在测试成绩上有显著差异。同时，ANOVA分析显示，不同类型的逻辑连接词的确存在着难易程度不同的状况，但不同的语篇类型（议论文和说明文）并不存在着此类现象。此外，复合句中的逻辑连接词比文章中的逻辑连接词让受试者感觉更容易。关键词： 逻辑连接词；衔接；语篇；线性回归模型小四号黑体顶格ABSTRACT18号加粗Times New Roman，单倍行距Reading is a very important skill in EFL learning and domestic language teaching has always put reading on the priority list of its teaching schedule. Logical connectors, as a significant cohesive device, usually help clear test structure and indicate essential information of a text. To some extent, reading ability can largely be ascribed to ones understanding and mastering of logical connectors as cohesive devices.12号，行距1.25Times New RomanThis paper firstly introduces some basic concept such as text, logical connector and reading process and then bring about three hypotheses: (1) The ability to understand the logical connectors in a text rely heavily on the readers language proficiency; (2) Different types of logical connectors possess different levels of challenge in understanding the text; (3) Different types of text possess different levels of challenge in understanding the logical connectors in the text. By designing two experiments, we carried out a series of empirical analysis to test these hypotheses. Experiments required subjects to finish a 16-question-logical-connector cloze test. Subjects are also required to give a verbal justification to their choices. All subjects come from the English Department of Wuhan University. They are divided into three groups A, B and C, consisting of first-year, second-year and third-year English-major students respectively. The total number of subjects is 60. Group B serves as a control group when comparison is made between Group A and C. Research employs many statistical methods including regression analysis, t-Test, F-Test and ANOVA to verify the hypotheses. Empirical result show that there is a non-linear relationship between language proficiency and test score, with the specific form being, where Y denotes test score, X denotes language proficiency，and denotes the degree X contributes to Y. Independent Sample Tests show that subjects from different groups do have a significant difference of test scores. At the same time, ANOVO shows that although different types of logical connectors possess different levels of challenge in the test, there arent any significant differences between different text forms (scientific exposition and argumentation). Besides, logical connectors in complex sentences seem to be easier for subject then those in passages. Key Words: Logical Connector; Cohesion; Text; Linear Regression Model 中英文摘要用罗马数字编页码，页码居中2ContentsChapter One Introduction 1.1 Research Background 011.2 Significance of Study 021.3 Organization of Thesis 02Chapter Two Literature Review2.1 Definitions 03 2.1.1 The Concept of Text 03 2.1.2 Logical Connectors 03 2.1.3 Cohesive Devices 042.2 Relevant Research Review 04 2.2.1 The Nature and Process of Reading 04 2.2.2 The Construction-Integration (CI) Model of Text Comprehension 04 2.2.3 Empirical Research Review 05Chapter 3 Methodology3.1 Introduction 063.2 Hypotheses and Experiment Design 063.3 Subjects and Instruments 073.4 Data Collection and Analysis 08Chapter 4 Results and Discussion4.1 Relationship between Language Proficiency and Cloze Test Score 11 4.1.1 The Regression Model 11 4.1.2 Comparison of Means 124.2 Levels of Challenge among Different Types of Connectors 134.3 Levels of Challenge among Different Text Forms 14 4.3.1 Scientific Exposition VS. Argumentation 14 4.3.2 Effects of Text Length 154.4 Other Findings 15Chapter 5 Conclusion 16Bibliography 17APPENDIX 18二级标题，14号，Times New Roman一级标题，18号，加粗Times New RomanChapter One Introduction1.1 Research Background正文，12号，行距1.25Times New RomanReaders can usually use their prior knowledge to comprehend the new information when reading a text in a domain with which they are familiar. While during most of the times, however, readers read text in an unfamiliar domain and thus they do not have specific content schemata to help them understand the text. Instead, readers are expected to utilize specific linguistic devices to make inferences about what information is important, how specific propositions are related to other propositions, and so forth. These processes are critical to the construction of a coherent internal representation of the text.Among the various linguistic devices that may help a reader understand a text, conjunctive elements (Halliday & Hasan, 1976) or logical connectors (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1983) play a vital role in displaying the basic organization of a text and thus is essentially important in determining a readers overall understanding of a text. An interactive theory (W. Kintschs, 1988) of reading assumes that reading involves many complementary levels of analysis. The theory asserts that when one source of knowledge fails to be operative, other sources of knowledge may provide alternative ways of determining the meaning of a text. For example, suppose there is no specific cues in a text about how a certain logical connector ought to be integrated into the readers understanding, the reader may, nonetheless, be able to figure out how to integrate connectives if he or she has adequate comprehension skills. Thus, these sources of knowledge may compensate for the lack of connectives in the text. On the other hand, if a readers reading skills or other sources of knowledge fail to help fill the blank, he or she may have obvious difficulty in understanding the text. To some extent, the assessment of a readers understanding of the text can be well transformed to the testing of crucial logical connectors appeared in the text. In order to understand the comprehension process of a reader when reading familiar and unfamiliar texts, we try to analyze their choices of certain logical connectors. By comparing performances of subjects from different groups, we ought to test the following three hypotheses:Hypothesis 1: The ability to understand the logical connectors in a text rely heavily on the readers language proficiency.Hypothesis 2: Different types of logical connectors possess different levels of challenge in understanding the text.Hypothesis 3: Different types of text possess different levels of challenge in understanding the logical connectors in the text. We have designed two experiments to test the above three hypotheses. In Experiment 1, we made a comparative analysis of 18 first-year and 19 third-year Chapter Two Literature Review2.1 Definitions 2.1.1 The Concept of TextThe word text used in linguistics refers to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole (Halliday & Hasan1976).A text may be prose or verse, dialogue or monologue. It is not defined by its size and may be an all-day discussion on a committee. It is a unit of language use or a semantic unit rather than a grammatical unit. A text does not consist of sentences; rather it is realized by or encoded in sentences.What distinguishes a text from a collection of unrelated sentences, according to Halliday and Hasan(1976), is texture from which a text is derived. As it functions to achieve unity with respect to its environment and which is constituted by the cohesive relations that exist between or within sentences.2.1.2 Logical Connectors10.5号，行距1.15Times New Roman缩进10个空格Conjunctive elements, according to Halliday & Hasan (1976), are: Cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings; they are not primarily devices for reaching out into the preceding (or following) text, but they express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse.What Halliday and Hasan call “conjunctive elements” are also called “conjuncts” (Quirk & Greenbaum 1976; Greenbaum & Quirk 1990), “connectives” (e.g.Crewe et al. 1985) or “logical connectors” (e.g. Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman 1983). We have adopted the common term logical connectors and the classification scheme of Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freemans Grammar Book (1983) that differentiates among four major types of connectors: addictive (used to signal addition, introduction, similarity, etc);adversative (used to signal conflict, concession, etc);causal (used to signal cause/effect, reason/result, etc);sequential (used to signal a chronological or logical sequence)Specifically, Additives (e.g., in addition, moreover) are the least constraining of the semantic relationship between the clauses or sentences related by the connector: Almost any new information that continues the topic of the discourse may logically follow most additive connector terms. Causals and adversatives signal a specific type of elaboration. Causals (e.g., as a result, therefore) signal that there is a cause-effect or antecedent-consequent relation between the conjoined clauses or sentences. In narrative text, causal relations are critical to plot coherence. Their role in text is to convey Bibliography18号，加粗Times New Roman英文参考文献1. 专著 1）基本格式：作者的姓名（英文作者的姓，名）. 年份. 书名（斜体）. 出版地：出版商. 如果有第二行，则需要缩进4个英文字符。Chomsky, N. 1981. Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar M. Pisa, Italy：Scuola Normale Superiore. 2) 书的主编(各项信息顺序基本如上，在主编姓名后面加上ed.)Hall, David, ed. 1981. The Oxford Book of American Literary Anecdotes. New York: OUP. 3) 机构作者American library association. 1983. Intellectual Freedom Manual. 2nd ed. Chicago: ALA 4) 翻译著作Calvino, I. 1986. The Use of Literature. P. Greagh Trans. San Diego: Harcourt. 2. 文章 1） 期刊文章： 作者姓名. 年份. 篇名. 刊名（斜体）. 刊物的卷号和期号：文章的起止页码.Boling, D. 1965. The Atomization of Meaning J. Language 41: 555-573. 2) 论文集中的文章基本格式： 作者姓名. 年份. 篇名. 论文集作者姓名.eds. 论文集名称（斜体）. 出版地：出版商. 文章的起止页码. Peters, M & T.B. Stephen. 1986. Interaction Routines as Cultural Influences Upon Language Acquisition. In Schieffelin, B.B.&E. Ouches, eds. Language Socialization Across Cultures C. Cambridge: CUP, 80-96. 3. 互联网资料（分别置于英文参考文献和中文参考文献之后)基本格式：如果是中文的参考中文参考文献的格式，英文的则参考英文参考文献的格式，例如：Net. 1, Steven Pinker. 2006. Second Language Acquisition of Spanish and French Unaccusative Verbs. http:/www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/pinker.langacq.html.Net. 2, 杨玉，2006，浅谈我国农村初级中学英语时态的教学现状与教学策略。 /en/elements/4/3255.htm.中文参考文献参考文献中各文献的排列以作者的姓氏拼音为序。1、期刊文献的格式：“作者，发表时间，文章题目名，发表的期刊名,卷号(期数): 引文页码。如有第二行，则须缩进4个英文字符。杨扬、王玉、周洲，2000，油田储层非均质性研究，高校地质学报，第3期： 223-230页。2）图书或硕士、博士文献的格式：“作者，出版时间，著作题目名（硕博论文名）。出版社名称（硕博毕业院校名）。如有第二行，则须缩进4个英文字符”徐通锵，1997，语言论。长春：东北师范大学出版社。张三四，2005，论非作格动词的习得路径。江南大学博士论文。3）会议文献的格式：“作者，发表时间，文章题目名。会议名称,卷号(期数):引文页码。如有第二行，则须缩进4个英文字符”。孙力等，2000,储层条件下水淹油层测井响应机理实验研究。北京国际学术讨论会， 第10-11页。MLA STYLE 注释格式1. 基本格式Graff defines his recent book, Professing Literature, as a history of academic li