从功能主义到语言发展:FCE与Summit Books的比较

Tayyebe Goodarzi
{"title":"从功能主义到语言发展:FCE与Summit Books的比较","authors":"Tayyebe Goodarzi","doi":"10.58803/jclr.v1i1.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This paper aimed to analyze FCE and Summit books which are among popular English language teaching textbooks. In particular, this study was an attempt toward the objective analysis of reading passages by finding the differences and similarities of the books in terms of their processes. \nMethodology: To conduct the study, a corpus of 1964 clauses from reading passages of the two books named Ready for First Certificate of English FCE and Summit was formed, classified, and coded. The corpus was then analyzed based on Halliday and Mattheisen’ (2004) transitivity system. \nResults: The findings of the study revealed that there were significant differences between Summit and FCE books in terms of relational, existential, and verbal processes. \nConclusion: The findings of this study suggest that analyzing the schemas of the texts not only reveals the mindsets of their authors, but also can be an objective method for better understanding of a text The results were also discussed from an educational perspective, and suggestions were made for future research.","PeriodicalId":270616,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Language Research","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Functionalism to Language Development: A Comparison of FCE and Summit Books\",\"authors\":\"Tayyebe Goodarzi\",\"doi\":\"10.58803/jclr.v1i1.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: This paper aimed to analyze FCE and Summit books which are among popular English language teaching textbooks. In particular, this study was an attempt toward the objective analysis of reading passages by finding the differences and similarities of the books in terms of their processes. \\nMethodology: To conduct the study, a corpus of 1964 clauses from reading passages of the two books named Ready for First Certificate of English FCE and Summit was formed, classified, and coded. The corpus was then analyzed based on Halliday and Mattheisen’ (2004) transitivity system. \\nResults: The findings of the study revealed that there were significant differences between Summit and FCE books in terms of relational, existential, and verbal processes. \\nConclusion: The findings of this study suggest that analyzing the schemas of the texts not only reveals the mindsets of their authors, but also can be an objective method for better understanding of a text The results were also discussed from an educational perspective, and suggestions were made for future research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":270616,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Contemporary Language Research\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Contemporary Language Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.58803/jclr.v1i1.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Language Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58803/jclr.v1i1.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前言:本文旨在分析英语教材中比较受欢迎的两本FCE和Summit。特别地,本研究试图通过在阅读过程中找到不同书籍的异同点,对阅读段落进行客观分析。方法:为了进行研究,我们收集了1964年《准备获得英语第一证书》和《顶峰》两本书的阅读段落,并对它们进行了分类和编码。然后基于Halliday和Mattheisen(2004)的及物性系统对语料库进行分析。结果:本研究的结果显示,在关系过程、存在过程和言语过程方面,高峰阅读与外语阅读存在显著差异。结论:本研究的结果表明,分析语篇图式不仅可以揭示作者的思维方式,而且可以作为一种客观的方法来更好地理解文本,并从教育的角度对研究结果进行了讨论,并对今后的研究提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
From Functionalism to Language Development: A Comparison of FCE and Summit Books
Introduction: This paper aimed to analyze FCE and Summit books which are among popular English language teaching textbooks. In particular, this study was an attempt toward the objective analysis of reading passages by finding the differences and similarities of the books in terms of their processes. Methodology: To conduct the study, a corpus of 1964 clauses from reading passages of the two books named Ready for First Certificate of English FCE and Summit was formed, classified, and coded. The corpus was then analyzed based on Halliday and Mattheisen’ (2004) transitivity system. Results: The findings of the study revealed that there were significant differences between Summit and FCE books in terms of relational, existential, and verbal processes. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that analyzing the schemas of the texts not only reveals the mindsets of their authors, but also can be an objective method for better understanding of a text The results were also discussed from an educational perspective, and suggestions were made for future research.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Role of Multimodal Metaphor through Gestures in Middle School English Education Preserving Linguistic Diversity in the Digital Age: A Scalable Model for Cultural Heritage Continuity Evidentiality in American Media's Coverage of China-related Epidemics from the Perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis Construction of Language Landscape in Newly Built Ancient Cities: A Case of Yizhou Ancient City, China Beyond the Red Pen: Using Dynamic Assessment to Mediate Writing Mechanics Issues among ESL Learners
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1