文献综述模板

辽 宁 工 业 大 学 外 国 语 学 院

英 语 专 业 本 科 生 毕 业 论 文

文 献 综 述

题目： Language and Gender （题目英文填写，不超过20个单词，实词首字母大写，字体字号采用Times New Roman 三号字）

院系名称：外国语学院 指导教师：李长江

专业名称：英 语 班 级： 082

学生姓名：王 丽 学 号：080801033

二0一二年二月一日

（以下各项，如未加说明，采用Times New Roman 小四号字填写，单倍行距，段首缩进4个字符） With the general growth of feminist work in many academic fields, it is hardly surprising that the relationship between language and gender has attracted considerable attention in recent years. In an attempt to go beyond “folk linguistic” assumptions about how men and women use language (the assumption that women are “talkative”, for example), studies have focused on anything from different syntactical, phonological or lexical uses of language to aspects of conversation analysis, such as topic nomination and control, interruptions and other interactional features. While some research has focused only on the description of differences, other work has sought to show how linguistic differences both reflect and reproduce social difference. Accordingly, Dan Sperber (2001) suggests that research on language and gender can be divided into studies that focus on dominance and those that focus on difference. Much of the earlier work emphasized dominance. Grice‟s (2003) pioneering work suggested that women‟s speech typically displayed a range of features, such as tag questions, which marked it as inferior and weak. Thus, she argued that the type of subordinate speech learned by a young girl “will later be an excuse for others to keep her in a demeaning position, to refuse to treat her seriously as a human being”. While there are clearly some problems with Grice‟s work --- her analysis was not based on empirical research, for example, and the automatic equation of subordinate with „weak‟ is problematic --- the emphasis on dominance has understandably remained at the Center of much of this work. Research has shown how men nominated topics more, interrupted more often, held the floor for longer, and so on (see, for example, Zimmerman and West, 1975). The chief focus of this approach, then, has been to show how patterns of interaction between men and women reflect the dominant position of men in society. Some studies, however, have taken a different approach by looking not so much at power in mixed-sex interactions as at how the same-sex groups produce certain types of interaction. In a typical study of this type, Stephen and Levinson (2006) developed lists of what they described as men‟s and women‟s features of language. They argued that these norms of interaction were acquired in the same-sex groups rather than mixed-sex groups and that the issue is therefore one of (sub-)cultural miscommunication rather than social inequality. Much of this research has focused on comparisons between, for example, the competitive conversational style of men and the cooperative conversational style of women. While some of the more popular work of this type, such as Fan Jiacai (范家材，2002), lacks a critical dimension, the emphasis on difference has nevertheless been valuable in fostering research into gender subgroup interactions and in emphasizing the need to see women‟s language use not only as „subordinate‟ but also as a significant sub-cultural domain. 1

Although the distinction is clearly a useful one, it also seems evident that these two approaches are by no means mutually exclusive. While it is important on the one hand, therefore, not to operate with a simplistic version of power and to consider language and gender only in mixed-group dynamics, it is also important not to treat women‟s linguistic behavior as if it existed outside social relations of power. As Cameron, Feng Qinghua(冯庆华，2005) and He Ziran（何自然，2001） ask, “Can it be coincidence that men are aggressive and hierarchically-organized conversationalists, whereas women are expected to provide conversational support?” (p.80). Clearly, there is scope here for a great deal more research that is based on empirical data of men‟s and women‟s speech; operates with a complex understanding of power and gender relationships (so that women‟s silence, for example, can be seen both as a site of oppression and as a site of possible resistance); looks specifically at the contexts of language use, rather than assuming broad gendered differences; involves more work by men on language and gender, since attempts to understand male uses of language in terms of difference have been few (thus running the danger of constructing men‟s speech as the „norm‟ and women‟s speech as „different‟); aims not only to describe and explain but also to change language and social relationships. 2

（英文文献在前，中文文献在后；英文文献按著作者姓名首字母顺序编排，中文文献按著作者姓氏拼音首字母顺序编排， 参见参考文献写作格式） References [1] Grice. Pragmatic Reduction of the Binding Conditions Revisited [J]. Journal of Linguistics, 2003, (27): 27. [2] Nida, E. A. Language, Culture and Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Educational Publishing House, 2001. [3] Sperber，Dan. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001. [4] Stephen and Levinson. Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts [C]. New York: Academic Press, 2006. [5] Yang Hsien-Yi & Gladys Yang. A Dream of Red Mansions [M]. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2004. [6] 曹雪芹，高鹗.红楼梦[M].北岳文艺出版社,2001. [7] 范家材.英语修辞赏析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社，2005. [8] 冯庆华.实用翻译教程[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2004. [9] 何善芬.英汉语言对比研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2004. [10] 何自然.语用学和英语学习[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001. [11] 胡曙中.英汉修辞比较研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2006. [12] 胡壮麟.语言学教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2004. [13] 李国南.辞格与词汇[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2003. [14] 徐莉娜.委婉语翻译的语用和语篇策略[J].中国翻译，2005,(2)：45-46. [15] 宗延虎.重视理论探索的辞格研究新作[J].杭州师范学院院报，2002,(4)：33-35. (参考文献不少于15部/篇，其中英文文献不少于5部/篇) 参考文献的写作格式 1、以上序号用方扩号，[1]至[9]与文字之间空两格，[10]以后的空一格。如果需 要两行的，第二行文字要位于序号的后边，英文与第一行文字错后4个英文字符。中文与第一行文字错后2个汉字。中文用小四号宋体，英文用小四号Times New Roman字体。 2、文献要求英语在前，汉语在后。英文作者按字母顺序排列，中文作者按汉语拼 音顺序排列。英文作者的姓名按姓在先名在后的顺序，中间用逗号隔开，后面加句号。中文作者姓名也是先姓后名，中间不用标点符号，后面加句号。如果一篇文章或书有两个或三个作者时，英文作者只把第一作者的姓与名顺序颠倒，第二、三作者则保持不变。 3、英语文献中书名部分要求用斜体表示。年代放在各文献的最后。 注意：红体字是写作要求，在完成文献综述后去掉。 [DB]：数据库 [EB]：电子公告 3

导 师 评 语 成绩 导师签字：

年 月 日 毕业论文工作领导小组审查意见 组长签字： 年 月 日

4