语义密度、句法复杂度与学科知识编码

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2022.06.008

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

语义密度和句法复杂度揭示学科知识编码属性和学科文化特征。本研究通过对比分析中国本科生、研究生、学者和本族语作者学术论文摘要中语义密度和句法复杂度的分布,探索语义密度和句法复杂度作为学科知识编码水平测量手段的可行性。研究发现,在不同学科水平的作者之间,语义密度和句法复杂度分布具有明显差异性。三组较高水平作者语义密度显著高于本科生作者;母语作者的句法复杂度显著高于研究生和本科生,但与中国学者没有显著差异。语义密度反应知识浓缩程度,句法复杂度展示权力语法,二者均反应知识编码的不同侧面,可以作为学科知识水平和学术写作水平测量的有效方法。

关键词: 语义密度, 句法复杂度, 学科知识编码, 学科文化

Abstract:

Semantic density and syntactic complexity reveal the characteristics of knowledge coding and culture of a discipline. The aim of this study is to testify the feasibility of semantic density and syntactic complexity as measures of knowledge coding in linguistics. By deploying the analytical tools of semantic density and syntactic complexity, this study compared four sets of abstracts of academic articles written by four groups of researchers at different academic levels, namely, experts of native speaker of English (NR), Chinese experts (CR), Chinese master degree students (MA), Chinese undergraduate students of linguistic courses (EFL). The results show that distributions of SD and SC are different among the four groups. NR, CR and MA used much more condensed technical terms than EFL writers. NR’s syntactic complexity is much higher than that of the MA and EFL group. There is no significant difference between NR and CR. Data from the analysis testified the validity of the two analytical tools for assessing writers’ capacity of knowledge coding.

Key words: Semantic Density (SD), Syntactic Complexity (SC), disciplinary knowledge coding, disciplinary culture

中图分类号:

H319

高彦梅, 周江平. 语义密度、句法复杂度与学科知识编码[J]. 当代外语研究, 2022, 22(6): 55-67.

GAO Yanmei, ZHOU Jiangping. Semantic Density, Syntactic Complexity and Disciplinary Knowledge Coding[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(6): 55-67.

图/表 5

参考文献 34

[1]	Ai H. & X. Lu. 2013. A corpus-based comparison of syntactic complexity in NNS and NS university students’ writing [A]. In A.Díaz-Negrillo, N.Ballier & P.Thompson (eds.). Automatic Treatment and Analysis of Learner Corpus Data[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 249-264.
[2]	Becher T. 1987. Disciplinary discourse[J]. Studies in Higher Education 12: 261-274. doi: 10.1080/03075078712331378052 URL
[3]	Becher T. & P. Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories[M]. Buckingham: Open University Press.
[4]	Bulte B. & A. Housen. 2012. Defining and operationalising L2 complexity[A]. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken & I. Vedder (eds.). Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 21-46.
[5]	Fadilah E. & M. Anugerahwati. 2019. Grammarical metaphor at tertiary level: Rise, development, and implications revisited[J]. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics 7(1): 131-143.
[6]	Halliday M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2^ndedn.)[M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[7]	Halliday M. A. K. 2016. Aspects of Language and Learning[M]. New York: Springer.
[8]	Hunt K. W. 1965. Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels[R]. NCTE Research Report No. 3. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
[9]	Kyle K. 2016. Measuring Syntactic Development in L2 writing: Fine Grained Indices of Syntactic Complexity and Usage-based Indices of Syntactic Sophistication (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation)[D]. Atlanta: Georgia State University.
[10]	Lu X. 2010. Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing[J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(4): 474-496. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu URL
[11]	Lu X. 2011. A Corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development[J]. TESOL Quarterly 45(1): 36-62. doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.240859 URL
[12]	Lu X. & H. Ai. 2015. Syntactic Complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 29 (3): 16-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003 URL
[13]	Lu, X. J.E. Casal & Y. Liu. 2020. The ehetoricalfunctions of syntactically complex sentences in social science research article introductions[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 44: 1-16.
[14]	Macnaught L., K. Maton J. R. Martin & E. Matruglio. 2013. Jointly constructing semantic waves: Implications for teacher training[J]. Linguistics & Education 24( 1): 50-63.
[15]	Martin J.R. 2013. Embedded literacy: Knowledge as meaning[J]. Linguistics and Education 24: 23-37. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.006 URL
[16]	Martin J. R., K. Maton & E. Matruglio 2010. Historical Cosmologies: Epistemology and Axiology in Australian Secondary School History Discourse[J]. Revista Signos 43 (74): 433-463.
[17]	Maton K. 2009. Cumulative and segmented learning: Exploring the role of curriculum structures in knowledge-building[J]. British Journal of Sociology of Education 30(1): 43-57. doi: 10.1080/01425690802514342 URL
[18]	Maton K. 2013. Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building[J]. Linguistics and Education 24(1): 8-22. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005 URL
[19]	Maton K. 2014. A TALL order? Legitimation Code Theory for academic language and learning[J]. Journal of Academic Language and Learning 8(3): A34-A48.
[20]	Maton K. & Y. J. Doran. 2017. Semantic density: A translation device for revealing complexity of knowledge practices in discourse, part 1-wording[J]. Onomázein (1): 46-76.
[21]	Maton K. & E Matruglio. 2009. How do we know: the social relation in school history discourse[R]. Sydney: The University of Sydney LCT-SFL Roundtable.
[22]	Ortega L. 2003. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing[J]. Applied Linguistics 24(4): 492-518. doi: 10.1093/applin/24.4.492 URL
[23]	Ortega L. 2015, Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 29: 82-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008 URL
[24]	Ure J. 1971. Lexical density and register differentiation[A]. In G.Perren & J.L.M.Trim (eds.). Applications of Linguistics[C]. London: Cambridge University Press.443-452.
[25]	Wolfe-Quintero K., S. Inagaki & H.Y. Kim. 1998. Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and Complexity[M]. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
[26]	Yang W., X. Lu & S. C. Weigle. 2015. Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 28: 53-67. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002 URL
[27]	郭彩琛. 2019. 语言学会议论文摘要中的母语及二语作者语言特征研究[D]. 北京: 北京大学硕士学位论文.
[28]	雷蕾. 2017. 中国英语学习者学术写作句法复杂度研究[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报(5): 1-9.
[29]	李文、郭建辉. 2020. 中国高级英语学习者概念语法隐喻能力——基于中外博士论文的研究[J]. 外语教学理论与实践(1): 50-58.
[30]	陆小飞、许琪. 2016. 二语句法复杂度分析器及其在二语写作研究中的应用[J]. 外语教学与研究(3): 409-420.
[31]	吴奇格、朱永生. 2016. 大学英语教材中三个不同语类的“权力三项”特征分析[J]. 外语与外语教学(5): 50-58.
[32]	杨越森、苏杭、卫乃兴. 2019. 语义序列与学科文化探索[J]. 外语教学与研究(4): 508-520.
[33]	张德禄、覃玖英. 2016. 语义波理论及其在教师课堂话语分析和建构中的作用[J]. 外语教学(2): 52-55.
[34]	周惠、刘永兵. 2017. 英语学位论文摘要中语法隐喻的使用与语篇功能研究[J]. 现代外语(4): 484-494.

	EFL-MA	EFL-CR	EFL-NR	MA-CR	MA-NR	CR-NR
MLS	0.020*	0.000**	0.000**	0.170	0.021*	0.337
MLT	0.015*	0.000**	0.000**	0.039*	0.015*	0.701
MLC	0.314	0.033*	0.063	0.253	0.390	0.775