高中英语短文填空语篇错误分析

发布时间：2018-03-25 23:35

本文选题：短文填空　切入点：错误分析　出处：《伊犁师范学院》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：2014年国家考试中心发布了《2014年普通高等学校招生全国统一考试考试说明》。从当年起,新课标高考英语的全国卷中的15道单项选择题被短文填空题取而代之。然而,由于题型相对较新颖,多数学生在面对此种题型时表现的束手无策,解题得分率不高。近两年的研究中一些学者对于短文填空在语篇的应用方面做了一些研究,而对于语篇错误分析少有实例。本研究随机选取了伊宁市第三中学两个班级112个同学15次测试中的1680篇短文填空题为语料,在语篇分析理论和错误分析理论的指导下,在宏观上对短文填空对文章体裁和语篇衔接机制的分布进行解读,在微观上对具体的错误进行分类、标记和统计,意在通过分析不同语篇错误的错误率以及不同体裁的语篇错误率的差别,得到对英语教学的启迪。经过研究发现,在本次的英语短文填空语料中:(1)替代和省略两种衔接机制在本次语料中未出现,其他语篇衔接机制出现几率相没有显著性差异,分布较为均匀。(2)跨类型错误和连接错误为语篇错误的主要错误。指示照应为照应错误中的主要错误,连接衔接中的几种衔接机制出错率没有显著性差异。(3)总体上来说三种体裁短文填空中记叙文中错误率最低,议论文中错误率相对较高。衔接机制上,连接在议论文中出错较多;词汇衔接在说明文中出现频率大,但是出错率低;在三种不同体裁的短文中,跨类型衔接出错率都比较大,尤其是在记叙文中出错几乎达到一半。这些结果表明:英语课堂教学中,应该对衔接手段,尤其是连词衔接和指示衔接的深层含义进行系统的讲解。另外,教师在教学活动中,对语篇的宏观理解有益于学生对文章整体的把握。因此,无论是衔接手段还是语篇的整体理解都应该得到学生和教师的重视。
[Abstract]:In 2014, the National examination Center issued the "National uniform examination Notes for College enrollment in 2014." since that year, 15 multiple-choice questions in the national volume of the new curriculum for college entrance examination English have been replaced by short papers. However, Because of the relatively novel problem type, most students are unable to cope with the problem type, and the score rate of solving the problem is not high. In the past two years, some scholars have done some research on the application of short essay in the text. However, there are few examples of discourse error analysis. This study randomly selected 1680 short essays from 112 students of two classes in Yining No. 3 Middle School to fill in blanks, under the guidance of discourse analysis theory and error analysis theory. At the macro level, the author interprets the distribution of genre and cohesion mechanism in the short passage, classifies, marks and statistics the specific errors at the micro level. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the differences between the error rates of different discourse errors and the differences of discourse error rates of different genres, and to obtain the enlightenment to English teaching. The substitution and omission of the two cohesion mechanisms did not appear in the present corpus, but there was no significant difference in the probability of other cohesive mechanisms. (2) Cross-type errors and concatenation errors are the main errors of discourse errors. There is no significant difference in the error rate of several kinds of cohesive mechanisms in connection cohesion. (3) generally speaking, the error rate of narrative text is the lowest in the three types of short essays, and the error rate in argumentation is relatively high. In connection mechanism, there are more errors in argumentation. The frequency of lexical cohesion is high, but the error rate is low. In the three different genres, the cross-type cohesion error rate is higher. In particular, almost half of the errors in narration are achieved. These results show that in English classroom teaching, the deep meaning of cohesive devices, especially conjunction cohesion and demonstrative cohesion, should be systematically explained. In addition, in the teaching activities, the teacher should make a systematic explanation of the cohesive devices, especially the deep meaning of the conjunction cohesion and the demonstrative cohesion. The macroscopic understanding of the text is beneficial to the students' understanding of the whole text. Therefore, both the cohesive devices and the overall understanding of the text should be attached importance to by both the students and the teachers.
【学位授予单位】：伊犁师范学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：G633.41

【相似文献】