届外语学院本科毕业论文写作模版

1、中图分类号：H313 学号：00420210556南阳师范学院 本科毕业论文 论文题目：中国大学英语学习者连接副词使用情况调查作 者： 张 三 丰 指导教师： 李 无 忌 教授 学 院： 外 国 语 学 院 专 业： 英 语 班 级： 2007 级 1班 二一二 年 三 月 中国大学英语学习者连接副词使用情况调查 南阳师范学院外国语学院英语专业申请文学学士学位毕业论文作 者： 指导教师： The Use of Linking Adverbials by Chinese College English LearnersA Thesis Submitted toEnglish Department

2、,School of Foreign Languages,Nanyang Normal Universityin Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsfor the Degree of Bachelor of ArtsByZhang SanfengSupervisor： AcknowledgementsI would like to thank all those who have given me their generous help, commitment and enthusiasm, which have been the major dri

3、ving force to complete the current paper. 摘 要本研究以连接副词为研究对象，主要目的是探讨中国大学英语学习者在英语口语和笔语中使用连接副词的特点，并对其在连接副词的使用上表现出的非母语性进行客观描述。研究发现：无论在口语还是在写作中，中国大学英语学习者在连接副词的使用上都有过多使用的倾向。影响中国大学英语学习者使用连接副词的因素是多方面的，如母语迁移、教学引导、文体意识、语义理解以及语用知识等。关键词：连接副词；大学英语学习者；使用；教学 AbstractThe aim of this research is, through a general co

4、mparison between learners corpora and NSs corpora, to probe into the characteristics of Chinese EFL learners with regard to their use of linking adverbials in writing and speaking, and give an impersonal description about the non-nativeness that the learners demonstrate in the use of linking adverbi

5、als. It is found that Chinese EFL learners have shown an overall overusing tendency in using linking adverbials in their speaking and writing. The results have shown that the factors which contributing to Chinese EFL learners use of linking adverbials are multifold, such as mother tongue transfer, p

6、edagogical instructions, stylistic awareness, semantic understanding, pragmatic considerations. Key Words: linking adverbials; Chinese EFL learners; use; teaching ContentsAcknowledgements I摘要 IIAbstract IIIContents IV1. Introduction 11.1 Research Background 11.2 Motivations and Objectives 22. The Th

7、eoretical Framework of Child Language Learning 52.1 Introduction 52.2 A Selective Review of Child Learning 52.3 Child Language Learning 132.3.1 Child First Language Development 142.3.2 Child Second Language Development 162.3.3 Child Foreign Language Learning 192.4 Summary of Key Learning Principles

8、233. Some Critical Issues in Primary EFL Instruction in Chinese Context25 3.1 Introduction 253.2 The Debate about the Inclusion of English in the Primary Curriculum 253.3 The Contents of Primary English Curriculum 273.4 Approaches to Primary Instruction 303.5 Assessment in Primary English Curriculum

9、 344. Research Design A Survey Study 374.1 Introduction 374.2 The Survey Background 374.3 Subjects 374.5 Data Collection and Analysis 435. Results and Discussions 455.1 Introduction 455.2 The Overview of Primary EFL Program in Henan Province 455.3 The Current Situation of Primary English Classroom I

10、nstruction526. Conclusion 696.1 Major Findings and Contributions 696.2 Recommendations for Future Research 71Appendixes73Bibliography82VThe Use of Linking Adverbials by Chinese College English Learners1. Introduction1.1 Research BackgroundIn the first decade or two after World War II, the introducti

11、on of foreign languages in the elementary school in the U.S.A., and of primary school French in Britain, and similar developments in other countries were part of a widespread search for ways of “improving the effectiveness of language education by taking into account into timetable of language devel

12、opment in childhood” 1:363. The past decade has seen significant increase in foreign language programs for young learners. In many African and Asian countries, primary children have long been taught French or English as preparation for their use as a medium of instruction.1.2 Motivations and Objecti

13、vesJackendoffs conceptual semantics is a decompositional theory of meaning. The central principle of his approach is that describing meaning involves describing mental representations; in Jackendoff 2:122 this is called the Mentalist Postulate:Meaning in natural language is an information structure

14、that is mentally encoded by human beings.So the meaning of a sentence is a conceptual structure. R. Jackendoffs conceptual semantics is based on ontological philosophy. He claims that the formal representation of every semantic component corresponds to a category in ontology. He defines a set of bas

15、ic semantic category or concept, which includes: Event, State, Material Thing or Object, Path, Place, and Property. Among these, Event and State are the two basic conceptual situations. Jackendoff 2:76-80 believes that the meaning of natural language is an information structure embedded in the depth

16、s of human mind. The meaning of a sentence is a structure which is composed of concepts, and sentence meaning is composed of the lexical meaning of its component, “Meaning in natural language is an information structure that is mentally encoded by human beings” 2:122. But this is not a process of ad

17、dition of each semantic components but rather a construction of semantic structures working in a whole. That is to say, the semantic structures in Jackendoffs theory reflect the word knowledge of human kind. The conceptual structures may produce and introduce inference on the meaning integrity of a

18、sentence on the one hand; and provide constraints on the combination of syntactic constructions on the other hand and therefore to avoid the production of anomalous sentences. 1.2.1 The Sub-sub-titleThe relationship of the lexical semantics and the syntactic components can be revealed through the fo

19、llowing figure. PredicateKickArgument RolesARG1 (Ted)ARG2 (the ball)Thematic RoleAgent (Subject)Theme（Object）Figure 3. The mapping relationship of argument roles and thematic roles 2:235Jackendoffs semantics structure theory is very useful in study of lexical semantics, especially in the field of le

20、xical representation. As a semantic ontology, it divides the domain of language into types of entities and every sentence component corresponds to a certain entity type. This makes it possible to define the constraints in general on the mapping from the semantic entities to the syntactic constituent

21、s 3:114. This theory allows the representation of semantic entities in the form of functions, which account for the manners by which the entities compose together semantically. The functions are not predictable from the entities. On the contrary, they are determined through the process of language a

22、nalysis in the attempt to obtain the possible formal representations of semantic. The result of such a function is confined to a certain entity in the ontology. In this way, there are at least general constraints on the determination of which function is possible. As ontology, the semantic structure

23、 theory reflects the possible language representations of different entity types, and what is more, it provides a way to determine the constant and coherent interrelations between the entities 4.For example, eg. 1 Bill went into the house 5:78. The syntactic representation of this sentence is like t

24、he following: eg. 2 S NP BillVP V WentPP P intoNP the houseBut the representation in semantic structure theory is like this: eg. 3 Event GO (Thing Bill, Path TO (Place IN (Thing HOUSE)In Jackendoffs terms, this sentence tells about a motion event, which is composed of three semantic categories. One

25、category is the act itself: Go, together with the other two categories which form such an action: the Thing (or Object) and the Path projected by the Thing 1 3. The Path may have an end point, that is to say, a category of Place, where the act stops. In the above mentioned sentence, the act is went,

26、 the Thing is Bill, the Path is into the house, and the Place is the house. On the other hand, even when some lexical items are well-analyzed and clear-described in the componential analysis approach, they cannot be interpreted according to the given analysis in the real world (for examples see Chap

27、ter 3). That is to say, the componential analysis cannot fulfill the task of representing the semantics of lexical items 6 7. The meanings of words, in real use, are more or less accompanied with the influence of the speakers world knowledge and the particular culture reflected by the language. The

28、analysis and the representation of lexical semantic should not put aside these factors and ignore the gap between lexical meanings in theory and in real use. 2. The Theoretical Framework of Child Language LearningThis theory allows the representation of semantic entities in the form of functions, wh

29、ich account for the manners by which the entities compose together semantically. The functions are not predictable from the entities. On the contrary, they are determined through the process of language analysis in the attempt to obtain the possible formal representations of semantic. The result of

30、such a function is confined to a certain entity in the ontology. In this way, there are at least general constraints on the determination of which function is possible. As ontology, the semantic structure theory reflects the possible language representations of different entity types, and what is mo

31、re, it provides a way to determine the constant and coherent interrelations between the entities 4.2.1 Notes: Decade is ten years. Bibliography1 dations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II M. Stanford, California: Stanford UP, 1991. 【1、2、3、4为专著写法】2 Culicover, P. & R. Jackendoff. Simpler Syntax M. Oxford

32、: Oxford UP, 2005.3 束定芳. 现代语义学M. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2000.Scott, F. S. , et al. English Grammar: A Linguis4 Langacker, R. W. Foun5 tic Study of Its Classes and Structure M. London: Heinemann, 1968.6 Verspoor, C. M. Contextually-Dependent Lexical Semantics D. Ph. D thesis, the U of Edinburgh, 1997. 【硕、博士论文写法】7 亚里士多德. 修辞学M. 罗念生译. 上海: 生活读书新知三联书店, 1991. 【中文译著写法】8 Aristotle. Rheto