英语论文网

ble to contribute to pedagogical systems that have a concern with reading andwriting‖.Third, the analysis of the current study may provide some help for abstracts writing, translation andlanguage teaching. Since some Chinese authors may not be aware of the thematic structure, their Englishabstract writing may be loosely structured texts, which is, what is stated in one sentence may not beproperly related to another. The meaning which the authors intend to convey by sticking a group ofirrelevant sentences thus can be hardly understood. The current study puts emphasis on the analysis of4thematic choice and thematic progression patterns of the abstracts. Therefore, it may shed some light onabstract writing and abstract translation and also be helpful to language teachers.In a word, the current study has certain significance in the study of English and Chinese abstracts ofresearch articles from perspective of comparison based on the theory of theme-rheme and thematicprogression patterns.

 

1.4 Feasibility of the Study
Conducting a specific contrastive study between different languages, last but not least, we shouldascertain its feasibility (James, C. 1980: 169). It is essential for a contrastive study to have a commoncriterion (Xu Yulong, 2001: 25).Halliday‘s Systemic Functional Grammar is founded on the description of English, so we should makeit clear to apply it to Chinese to ensure the feasibility of our present contrastive study.Tendency in the field of linguistics is about Chinese as a topic-prominent language (Thompson & Li,1976; Jin Jiling, 1991, 1998 & Liu Shicong, 2000). However, Zhang Jin & Zhang Keding (1998) criticizethe point of taking Chinese as a topic-prominent language, arguing that the sentenc“e这个观点，我不同意”is derived from the sentence“我不同意这个观点”. They consider such syntactic forms as thematization(主位化) rather than topicalization (主题化). They put it ―the thematic constituents of English and Chineseare basically the same except some minor differences on number and form: Chinese has more thematizedcomponents. Many scholars are favor of the idea. Such as Chen Zhi‘an and Kuang Lan (2002), saying thatin Chinese we have more freedom in selecting what constituents to be the theme, while in English thechoice of theme should first meet the needs of syntax. Peng Wangheng (1993), Hu Zhuanglin (1994), FangYan (1995b), and Peng Xuanwei (2000) all adopt thematic structure to analyze Chinese syntactic forms.Like Zhang Jin and Zhang Keding (1998), they give the point that the elements which are moved from theiroriginal position to the initial one as marked theme rather than topic. Li Yunxing (2001:200) argues thatChinese syntactic structures correspond exactly to the thematic structure. Zheng Guiyou (2000) alsodeclares that regarding Chinese as a topic-prominent language is the result of focusing on the structure ofsingle sentence. What is more, according to Huang Guowen (2002), during the past 20 years, Halliday‘ssystemic functional linguistics has been increasingly applied to the description and analysis of both Englishand Chinese in the field of linguistic research and foreign language teaching on the mainland of China.All of the scholars above have offered us a theoretical and practical support to prove that analyzingChinese with the Theme-Rheme Theory is practicable. On the other hand, lots of linguists both at home andabroad have confirmed that TP patterns is important for the constructi本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。