L1 英语作者和中国 EFL 学者撰写的研究问题比较研究

IF 3.1 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Ziqing Gong , Yonghou Liu , Ying Liu
{"title":"L1 英语作者和中国 EFL 学者撰写的研究问题比较研究","authors":"Ziqing Gong ,&nbsp;Yonghou Liu ,&nbsp;Ying Liu","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Research questions (RQs) function as an important basis for entire research projects, but scant attention has been paid to their formulation. The current study compares the types and structures of RQs and inter-step shifts involving RQs in English research articles (RAs) written by L1 English authors and Chinese EFL scholars. Our data consisted of 300 English RAs from highly ranked journals in the field of applied linguistics, comprising 150 articles by L1 English authors and 150 articles by Chinese EFL scholars. The findings reveal that RQ types are used by both author groups in the following decreasing order: descriptive questions &gt; contingent questions &gt; comparative questions &gt; explanatory questions &gt; normative questions. Both Chinese and L1 English writers exhibit sophisticated competence in constructing RQs in appropriate hierarchical orders, characterized by patterns of parallel structure, progressive structure, and parallel-progressive structure. However, English L1 scholars outperform their Chinese counterparts in the use of inter-step shifts that integrate RQs into a broader text. Our findings can help writers understand the internal logic of RQs, guide them to formulate hierarchically appropriate RQs and integrate them into the entire research context.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study of research questions written by L1 English authors and Chinese EFL scholars\",\"authors\":\"Ziqing Gong ,&nbsp;Yonghou Liu ,&nbsp;Ying Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101383\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Research questions (RQs) function as an important basis for entire research projects, but scant attention has been paid to their formulation. The current study compares the types and structures of RQs and inter-step shifts involving RQs in English research articles (RAs) written by L1 English authors and Chinese EFL scholars. Our data consisted of 300 English RAs from highly ranked journals in the field of applied linguistics, comprising 150 articles by L1 English authors and 150 articles by Chinese EFL scholars. The findings reveal that RQ types are used by both author groups in the following decreasing order: descriptive questions &gt; contingent questions &gt; comparative questions &gt; explanatory questions &gt; normative questions. Both Chinese and L1 English writers exhibit sophisticated competence in constructing RQs in appropriate hierarchical orders, characterized by patterns of parallel structure, progressive structure, and parallel-progressive structure. However, English L1 scholars outperform their Chinese counterparts in the use of inter-step shifts that integrate RQs into a broader text. Our findings can help writers understand the internal logic of RQs, guide them to formulate hierarchically appropriate RQs and integrate them into the entire research context.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of English for Academic Purposes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of English for Academic Purposes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158524000511\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158524000511","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究问题(RQs)是整个研究项目的重要基础,但很少有人关注研究问题的提出。本研究比较了第一语言英语作者和中国 EFL 学者撰写的英语研究文章(RAs)中 RQs 的类型和结构,以及涉及 RQs 的步骤间转换。我们的数据来自应用语言学领域排名较高期刊的 300 篇英文研究文章,其中 150 篇文章由英语为母语的作者撰写,150 篇文章由英语为母语的中国学者撰写。研究结果显示,两组作者使用的RQ类型依次为:描述性问题;或然性问题;比较性问题;解释性问题;规范性问题。汉语和英语为第一语言的作者在按照适当的等级顺序构建 RQ 方面都表现出了高超的能力,其特点是并列结构、递进结构和并列-递进结构模式。然而,英语为第一语言的学者在使用将 RQs 整合到更广泛的文本中的步骤间转换方面优于中国学者。我们的研究结果可以帮助写作者理解 RQs 的内在逻辑,指导他们制定层次适当的 RQs 并将其融入整个研究语境中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparative study of research questions written by L1 English authors and Chinese EFL scholars

Research questions (RQs) function as an important basis for entire research projects, but scant attention has been paid to their formulation. The current study compares the types and structures of RQs and inter-step shifts involving RQs in English research articles (RAs) written by L1 English authors and Chinese EFL scholars. Our data consisted of 300 English RAs from highly ranked journals in the field of applied linguistics, comprising 150 articles by L1 English authors and 150 articles by Chinese EFL scholars. The findings reveal that RQ types are used by both author groups in the following decreasing order: descriptive questions > contingent questions > comparative questions > explanatory questions > normative questions. Both Chinese and L1 English writers exhibit sophisticated competence in constructing RQs in appropriate hierarchical orders, characterized by patterns of parallel structure, progressive structure, and parallel-progressive structure. However, English L1 scholars outperform their Chinese counterparts in the use of inter-step shifts that integrate RQs into a broader text. Our findings can help writers understand the internal logic of RQs, guide them to formulate hierarchically appropriate RQs and integrate them into the entire research context.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of English for Academic Purposes provides a forum for the dissemination of information and views which enables practitioners of and researchers in EAP to keep current with developments in their field and to contribute to its continued updating. JEAP publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges in the linguistic, sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic description of English as it occurs in the contexts of academic study and scholarly exchange itself.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信