描述
开 本: 16开纸 张: 胶版纸包 装: 平装是否套装: 否国际标准书号ISBN: 9787030448255丛书名: 当代外国语言文学与文化求索丛书/王松林
编辑推荐
《中国科学家国内外出版语境下的英文期刊论文：探讨作者身份的构建 = Chinese Scientists’ English Research Articles in National and International Journals: Exploring the Construction of Writer Identity》可供学术英语教学与研究人员阅读及参考，同时将有助于国内自然科学研究工作者提升学术论文写作与发表的沟通策略及写作能力。
目 录
TABLE OF CONTENTS
丛书序i
Acknowledgementsv
Abstractvii
摘要ix
Chapter One Introduction1
1.1 Background to the Research Problem1
1.2 Chinese Materials Scientists as Research Subject2
1.3 Research Questions6
1.4 Structure of This Book8
Chapter Two Academic Writing for Multilingual Scholars9
2.1 Scientific Writing as Scholarly Literacy9
2.1.1 In the eyes of sociologists of scientific knowledge9
2.1.2 In the eyes of applied discourse analysts11
2.2 Multilingual Writers in the Postmodern Science27
2.2.1 Contrastive (genre) analysis of textual features28
2.2.2 Disciplinary socialization of multilingual scientist writers33
2.3 Disciplinary Community of MS in China38
2.3.1 Traditional culture and emergence of the community39
2.3.2 Community size， composition and publications of the CMSs40
2.3.3 Outflow of SCI papers and resulting problems42
2.3.4 Enriched materiality， information gap， and modern technology43
2.3.5 Locally-educated in-service staff as a more specific group44
2.4 An Interim Summary45
Chapter Three Writer Identity46
3.1 Writer Identity: Rationale， Etymology and Conceptualization46
3.2 Existing Studies on Writer Identity49
3.2.1 NES and ESL student writers in Anglo-American schools50
3.2.2 EFL/EAL writers in Anglo-American and non-Western universities
55
3.3 Relevant Terms of Writer Identity: Contexts and Research Foci61
3.3.1 Different ways of talking about “identity” in composition research61
3.3.2 Relationship of various identities to writer identity67
3.4 An Interim Summary71
Chapter Four Research Methodology73
4.1 Research Design73
4.2 An Integrative Model of Writer Identity75
4.3 Data Collection79
4.3.1 Corpus compilation79
4.3.2 Selection of focus subjects in the study81
4.3.3 Literacy and discourse-based interviews84
4.3.4 Microhistory of focus RAs， office and other documents86
4.4 Data Annotation/Processing87
4.4.1 Matrix of identity markers in corpus searching87
4.4.2 Software packages and coding scheme89
4.4.3 Ethnographically-inspired case studies92
Chapter Five CMSs Writer Identity Across Domestic and International Discourse Communities: A Corpus-Based Probe93
5.1 Authorial Identity Constructed via Self-Mentions93
5.1.1 Degrees of implicitness: A formal approach94
5.1.2 Varying pragmatic forces: A discourse-functional view95
5.1.3 Inconsistent presentation in R&D sections and implications97
5.2 Authorial Identity Built upon Citation Practices98
5.3 Discoursal Self Substantiated via Professional Terms103
5.3.1 Same discipline but different domains as reflected via KKW nouns104
5.3.2 Professional experiment-conductor: Use of procedural prefabricates105
5.4 Discursive Construction of Writer Identity via Generic Patterns107
5.4.1 Degrees of identification with NES researchers108
5.4.2 Sizable heterogeneity of CMSs writers as special non-Anglophone academics112
5.5 An Interim Summary115
Chapter Six A Dynamic and “Harmonious” Trajectory: Identity Construction of a Junior CMSs Writer117
6.1 Additional Remarks on Data Collection117
6.2 Autobiographical Self in His Publication Trajectory118
6.3 Authorial Identity: Implicit vs. Explicit120
6.4 Discoursal Self: Theoretical/Applied Researcher vs. Gatekeeper125
6.5 Writer Identity at Stake: Chances vs. Challenges in the Institutional Context
128
6.6 A “Harmonious” Journey in a Materiality-Enriched Research Context129
Chapter Seven Pragmatism and Transposition of Discourse Strategies: Identity Construction of a Senior CMSs Writer132
7.1 Autobiographical Self in His Publication Trajectory132
7.2 Authorial Identity: Largely Implicit135
7.3 Discoursal Self Built up in a Pragmatist Style140
7.3.1 Tactic adaptation of research orientations across communities140
7.3.2 A pragmatist strategy of internal textual appropriation143
7.4 Pragmatist Local Conversations as a Controversial Promising Land146
Chapter Eight Discussion and Implications149
8.1 Revisiting the Integrative Writer Identity Model149
8.2 An Enriched Genre Analysis of Identity Construction Among CMSs Writers
150
8.2.1 Autobiographical self， authorial identity and discoursal self of CMSs writers151
8.2.2 Border-crossing as critical moments of identity construction153
8.2.3 Local contingency， pragmatic identification and critical scholarly literacy154
8.3 Research Implications and Pedagogical Applications156
8.3.1 Theoretical implications156
8.3.2 Methodological implications157
8.3.3 Pedagogical applications158
8.4 Limitations of the Study and Possibilities for Further Research159
8.4.1 Limitations of the study160
8.4.2 Possibilities for further research161
References164
Appendices190
Appendix 1 Literacy Interview Guide for Specialist Informants (Conducted in Chinese)190
Appendix 2 Source of CMSs RAs Corpus (2004～2006)190
Appendix 3.1 Top 20 Key Key-Words in ENG Intr Texts195
Appendix 3.2 Top 20 Key Key-Words in ENG R&D Texts196
Appendix 3.3 Top 20 Key Key-Words in CEN Intr Texts197
Appendix 3.4 Top 20 Key Key-Words in CEN R&D Texts198
Appendix 3.5 Top 22 Key Key-Words in CHN Intr Texts199
Appendix 3.6 T
丛书序i
Acknowledgementsv
Abstractvii
摘要ix
Chapter One Introduction1
1.1 Background to the Research Problem1
1.2 Chinese Materials Scientists as Research Subject2
1.3 Research Questions6
1.4 Structure of This Book8
Chapter Two Academic Writing for Multilingual Scholars9
2.1 Scientific Writing as Scholarly Literacy9
2.1.1 In the eyes of sociologists of scientific knowledge9
2.1.2 In the eyes of applied discourse analysts11
2.2 Multilingual Writers in the Postmodern Science27
2.2.1 Contrastive (genre) analysis of textual features28
2.2.2 Disciplinary socialization of multilingual scientist writers33
2.3 Disciplinary Community of MS in China38
2.3.1 Traditional culture and emergence of the community39
2.3.2 Community size， composition and publications of the CMSs40
2.3.3 Outflow of SCI papers and resulting problems42
2.3.4 Enriched materiality， information gap， and modern technology43
2.3.5 Locally-educated in-service staff as a more specific group44
2.4 An Interim Summary45
Chapter Three Writer Identity46
3.1 Writer Identity: Rationale， Etymology and Conceptualization46
3.2 Existing Studies on Writer Identity49
3.2.1 NES and ESL student writers in Anglo-American schools50
3.2.2 EFL/EAL writers in Anglo-American and non-Western universities
55
3.3 Relevant Terms of Writer Identity: Contexts and Research Foci61
3.3.1 Different ways of talking about “identity” in composition research61
3.3.2 Relationship of various identities to writer identity67
3.4 An Interim Summary71
Chapter Four Research Methodology73
4.1 Research Design73
4.2 An Integrative Model of Writer Identity75
4.3 Data Collection79
4.3.1 Corpus compilation79
4.3.2 Selection of focus subjects in the study81
4.3.3 Literacy and discourse-based interviews84
4.3.4 Microhistory of focus RAs， office and other documents86
4.4 Data Annotation/Processing87
4.4.1 Matrix of identity markers in corpus searching87
4.4.2 Software packages and coding scheme89
4.4.3 Ethnographically-inspired case studies92
Chapter Five CMSs Writer Identity Across Domestic and International Discourse Communities: A Corpus-Based Probe93
5.1 Authorial Identity Constructed via Self-Mentions93
5.1.1 Degrees of implicitness: A formal approach94
5.1.2 Varying pragmatic forces: A discourse-functional view95
5.1.3 Inconsistent presentation in R&D sections and implications97
5.2 Authorial Identity Built upon Citation Practices98
5.3 Discoursal Self Substantiated via Professional Terms103
5.3.1 Same discipline but different domains as reflected via KKW nouns104
5.3.2 Professional experiment-conductor: Use of procedural prefabricates105
5.4 Discursive Construction of Writer Identity via Generic Patterns107
5.4.1 Degrees of identification with NES researchers108
5.4.2 Sizable heterogeneity of CMSs writers as special non-Anglophone academics112
5.5 An Interim Summary115
Chapter Six A Dynamic and “Harmonious” Trajectory: Identity Construction of a Junior CMSs Writer117
6.1 Additional Remarks on Data Collection117
6.2 Autobiographical Self in His Publication Trajectory118
6.3 Authorial Identity: Implicit vs. Explicit120
6.4 Discoursal Self: Theoretical/Applied Researcher vs. Gatekeeper125
6.5 Writer Identity at Stake: Chances vs. Challenges in the Institutional Context
128
6.6 A “Harmonious” Journey in a Materiality-Enriched Research Context129
Chapter Seven Pragmatism and Transposition of Discourse Strategies: Identity Construction of a Senior CMSs Writer132
7.1 Autobiographical Self in His Publication Trajectory132
7.2 Authorial Identity: Largely Implicit135
7.3 Discoursal Self Built up in a Pragmatist Style140
7.3.1 Tactic adaptation of research orientations across communities140
7.3.2 A pragmatist strategy of internal textual appropriation143
7.4 Pragmatist Local Conversations as a Controversial Promising Land146
Chapter Eight Discussion and Implications149
8.1 Revisiting the Integrative Writer Identity Model149
8.2 An Enriched Genre Analysis of Identity Construction Among CMSs Writers
150
8.2.1 Autobiographical self， authorial identity and discoursal self of CMSs writers151
8.2.2 Border-crossing as critical moments of identity construction153
8.2.3 Local contingency， pragmatic identification and critical scholarly literacy154
8.3 Research Implications and Pedagogical Applications156
8.3.1 Theoretical implications156
8.3.2 Methodological implications157
8.3.3 Pedagogical applications158
8.4 Limitations of the Study and Possibilities for Further Research159
8.4.1 Limitations of the study160
8.4.2 Possibilities for further research161
References164
Appendices190
Appendix 1 Literacy Interview Guide for Specialist Informants (Conducted in Chinese)190
Appendix 2 Source of CMSs RAs Corpus (2004～2006)190
Appendix 3.1 Top 20 Key Key-Words in ENG Intr Texts195
Appendix 3.2 Top 20 Key Key-Words in ENG R&D Texts196
Appendix 3.3 Top 20 Key Key-Words in CEN Intr Texts197
Appendix 3.4 Top 20 Key Key-Words in CEN R&D Texts198
Appendix 3.5 Top 22 Key Key-Words in CHN Intr Texts199
Appendix 3.6 T
在线试读
Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Background to the Research Problem
When I worked as an English teacher of a regional comprehensive university in East China during the early 2000s， my former colleagues of science departments often came with their problematic English submissions to international journals. Their complaints， similar to those identified discursive and non-discursive challenges non-Anglophone academics com-monly encounter， were no exceptional from underdeveloped facility of expression， a less rich vocabulary， longer time of writing in English， inappropriate claim-making， negative transfer of L1， more problems in writing sections of the Introductions and Discussions as well as on the whole qualitative articles， and being restricted to a simple style (see Flowerdew， 1999b; Swales & Feak， 2000).
These colleagues however seldom brought their local English submissions for help and not uncommonly developed international submissions out of their newly published Chi-nese-language papers. Some of these local English-medium journal papers―though probably still in need of further polishing either in research design or in the English language―went to publication mainly because of pressure for publishing or lack of sufficient financial support (Song， 2005). This naturally leads to a dilemma for most English-language journals currently edited in Chinese mainland : they find it difficult to attract high-quality submissions from local as well as foreign writers and rather impossible to function as a platform to demonstrate the latest research in China. And as a result but meanwhile as the source of another vicious cycle， they become lowly-rated in the international academy (Zhang et al.， 2003)， giving the prevalence of “Publish in English or Perish” (Swales， 2004) . In a sense， national and interna-tional academic journals are still like two worlds apart， where Chinese writers may bear differ-ent attitudes towards them and publish papers of various qualities and construct their stance and self in different ways.
The above sharp contrast draws my utmost interest because it may embody rhetorical， disciplinary and socio-ideological sources of their communication breakdowns in addition to language problems. We would be thus strongly interested in the concomitant discursive and non-discursive practices and the resulting effect of professional socialization for local Chinese academics as compared with the case of international mainstream journals in English (Cho， 2004; Curry & Lillis， 2004; Swales， 2004; Wood， 2001).
And in the course of writing the early draft of this book， two Chinese research groups were found to commit an extensive series of scientific frauds and finally had to retract 70 pa-pers published principally during 2007 in Acta Crystallographica Section E (Harrison， Simpson & Weil， 2010). And concerned with such a rising tide of scientific misconduct， China’s Min-istry of Science commissioned a survey of researchers， the revealed results of which showed that “roughly one-third of more than 6，000 surveyed across six top institutions admitted to plagiarism， falsification or fabrication” (Qiu， 2010: 143)， this condition brings academic mis-conduct and plagiarism into focus once again and suggests the necessity of examining related substantiation in identity construction of Chinese scientist writers.
1.2 Chinese Materials Scientists as Research Subject
The option of materials science (henceforth abbreviated as MS) as my subject discipline was rather coincidental but in another sense， natural. By calling my choice coincidental， I mean that those science colleagues during my early contact were mostly coming from the MS disci-pline; and by naming it natural， I believe that MS as an interdisciplinary subject would natu-rally invite the involvement of multiple identities or various types of positions and thus lead to common boundary-crossings.
The remaining part of this section is to briefly explicate the distinct interdisciplinarity of MS and clarify the current status of Chinese materials scientists (abbreviated as CMSs) in their own scientific communities. MS is a relatively new discipline emerging in the USA around the early 1950s (Cahn， 2001: 3) resulting through repeated interactions across disci-plines of chemistry， physics， biology， and other sciences and mainly “concerned with the proper-ties and uses of materials in terms of composition， structure， and processing” as shown in the tetrahedron of Fig.1.1 (McGraw-Hill， 2003: x). This will inevitably call up materials research-ers’ varying disciplinary positions such as physicist， chemist， and biologist in their research and writing. Awareness and manipulation of such shifting disciplinary identities would be critical to the development of scholarly literacy and specifically speaking， the construction of writer identity， which is actually one critical concern of my research.
Fig.1.1 Tetrahedron of Materials Science and Engineering
CMSs， as compared
1.1 Background to the Research Problem
When I worked as an English teacher of a regional comprehensive university in East China during the early 2000s， my former colleagues of science departments often came with their problematic English submissions to international journals. Their complaints， similar to those identified discursive and non-discursive challenges non-Anglophone academics com-monly encounter， were no exceptional from underdeveloped facility of expression， a less rich vocabulary， longer time of writing in English， inappropriate claim-making， negative transfer of L1， more problems in writing sections of the Introductions and Discussions as well as on the whole qualitative articles， and being restricted to a simple style (see Flowerdew， 1999b; Swales & Feak， 2000).
These colleagues however seldom brought their local English submissions for help and not uncommonly developed international submissions out of their newly published Chi-nese-language papers. Some of these local English-medium journal papers―though probably still in need of further polishing either in research design or in the English language―went to publication mainly because of pressure for publishing or lack of sufficient financial support (Song， 2005). This naturally leads to a dilemma for most English-language journals currently edited in Chinese mainland : they find it difficult to attract high-quality submissions from local as well as foreign writers and rather impossible to function as a platform to demonstrate the latest research in China. And as a result but meanwhile as the source of another vicious cycle， they become lowly-rated in the international academy (Zhang et al.， 2003)， giving the prevalence of “Publish in English or Perish” (Swales， 2004) . In a sense， national and interna-tional academic journals are still like two worlds apart， where Chinese writers may bear differ-ent attitudes towards them and publish papers of various qualities and construct their stance and self in different ways.
The above sharp contrast draws my utmost interest because it may embody rhetorical， disciplinary and socio-ideological sources of their communication breakdowns in addition to language problems. We would be thus strongly interested in the concomitant discursive and non-discursive practices and the resulting effect of professional socialization for local Chinese academics as compared with the case of international mainstream journals in English (Cho， 2004; Curry & Lillis， 2004; Swales， 2004; Wood， 2001).
And in the course of writing the early draft of this book， two Chinese research groups were found to commit an extensive series of scientific frauds and finally had to retract 70 pa-pers published principally during 2007 in Acta Crystallographica Section E (Harrison， Simpson & Weil， 2010). And concerned with such a rising tide of scientific misconduct， China’s Min-istry of Science commissioned a survey of researchers， the revealed results of which showed that “roughly one-third of more than 6，000 surveyed across six top institutions admitted to plagiarism， falsification or fabrication” (Qiu， 2010: 143)， this condition brings academic mis-conduct and plagiarism into focus once again and suggests the necessity of examining related substantiation in identity construction of Chinese scientist writers.
1.2 Chinese Materials Scientists as Research Subject
The option of materials science (henceforth abbreviated as MS) as my subject discipline was rather coincidental but in another sense， natural. By calling my choice coincidental， I mean that those science colleagues during my early contact were mostly coming from the MS disci-pline; and by naming it natural， I believe that MS as an interdisciplinary subject would natu-rally invite the involvement of multiple identities or various types of positions and thus lead to common boundary-crossings.
The remaining part of this section is to briefly explicate the distinct interdisciplinarity of MS and clarify the current status of Chinese materials scientists (abbreviated as CMSs) in their own scientific communities. MS is a relatively new discipline emerging in the USA around the early 1950s (Cahn， 2001: 3) resulting through repeated interactions across disci-plines of chemistry， physics， biology， and other sciences and mainly “concerned with the proper-ties and uses of materials in terms of composition， structure， and processing” as shown in the tetrahedron of Fig.1.1 (McGraw-Hill， 2003: x). This will inevitably call up materials research-ers’ varying disciplinary positions such as physicist， chemist， and biologist in their research and writing. Awareness and manipulation of such shifting disciplinary identities would be critical to the development of scholarly literacy and specifically speaking， the construction of writer identity， which is actually one critical concern of my research.
Fig.1.1 Tetrahedron of Materials Science and Engineering
CMSs， as compared
评论
还没有评论。