| This thesis studies the problem of “voice” intensity in Chinese college students’ English writing.In literary criticism,the concept of “voice” originally refers to the existence of speaker in a certain discourse(Mei,2012).Nowadays,“voice” is also a concept in L2/EFL writing.According to the highly accepted definition(Matsuda,2001),“voice” refers to a complex overall effect.Its composition includes both linguistic and non-linguistic elements which exist right now and would be evolving in the future.The development of second language writing research has become more and more mature and completed.The L2 writing researchers borrowed the concept of “voice” in the process of studying the author’s identity construction.After the concept of “voice” becoming clear in the field of writing research,researchers began to pay attention to the impact of “voice” on second language writing.In the past ten years,several studies on the correlation between “voice” intensity and text quality have appeared in recent years,and current research result(Zhao,2012)shows that the intensity of “voice” can determine 25% of writing performance.Compared with foreign countries,domestic research on “voice” is still in its infancy,and the concept of “voice” has not been popularized in writing research and teaching.The writing ability of Chinese students is weaker than listening,speaking and reading ability reported from the statistic of IELTS.Based on that,this research assumes that one of the indicators of the weak writing ability is the absence of “voice” or weak “voice” in the text.This study intends to study the “voice” intensity of Chinese college students’ L2/EFL writings from the perspective of the Three-Dimension Model(Zhao,2012).This thesis mainly addresses four questions:Question 1: What is the overall voice intensity in Chinese college students’ EFL writing?Question 2: What is the rating of idea clarity in Chinese college students’ EFL writing?Question 3: What is the rating of idea presentation manner in Chinese college students’ EFL writing?Question 4: What is the rating of writer and reader presence in Chinese college students’ EFL writing?Firstly,the “voice” intensity of 130 participants’ writings were measured using the three-dimension model of “voice” intensity of Zhao(2012),and the overall value representative of the “voice” intensity was obtained.According to the three dimensions of the model and the statistical results of a total of seven linguistic elements contained in each dimension,the “voice” construction of the participants’ English compositions is comprehensively analyzed.Then,the researcher interviewed 21 participants and figured out the reasons for the frequency of the linguistic elements used to construct “voice” and the willingness to build a personal stance or interact with the reader.High or low intensity of “voice” in writing and the causes of “voice” construction would be studied.The concept of “voice” used in this research is the definition of Matsuda(2001)and the “voice” interaction model created by Hyland(2008).Their definition of “voice” is relatively complete and comprehensive.It contains both linguistic elements and nonlinguistic elements,both from the readers’ and writers’ stance.This provides the basis for the subsequent use of 3-dimension model of Zhao(2012).Due to the complexity of the concept of “voice” and the feature that non-linguistic elements can also reflect the “voice” in writing,this research tries to avoid losing some non-linguistic elements of “voice” construction,or linguistic elements that need to be combined with context to determine whether or not to effectively construct a “voice”,instead of just searching for literal linguistic “voice” elements.Besides,this research does not add extra qualitative analysis conclusions and elements that have not been through reliability and validity test in the process of quantitative analysis for guaranteeing the reliability and validity of the original model,such as adding other dimensions like evaluators’ subjective impressions of writing voices to the original 3-dimension model or substituting for linguistic elements in the model.Finally,the interview outline used in this study is based on the modified version of Matsuda(2007).Some unrelated problems in the interview outline are deleted,and the remaining problems are explained as much as possible to let participants understand these interview questions to accurately capture qualitative data under the premise of ensuring the reliability and validity of the original outline.In summary,the research was carried out in steps,using different research methods to solve different research problems,in order to summarize the “voice” intensity of the participants’ writing and the causes of the related situations as much as possible.The results of the study showed that participants’ overall “voices” in English writings had low intensity values.Among the three dimensions of measuring “voice” intensity(dimension 1: clarity of ideas,dimension 2: manner of writing,dimension 3: writer and reader’s reference),dimension 1(clarity of ideas)and dimension 2(manner of writing)got low value,which means presence and clarity of their ideas and manner of idea presentation are weak.It is the main factor for the participants’ low writing intensity,and especially the value of dimension 1(clarity of ideas)is the lowest among the three.Among these linguistic elements of “voice” construction,the second linguistic element “directives” included dimension 1(clarity of ideas),and the second linguistic element “boosters” contained in dimension 2(manner of writing)are the lowest frequency of occurrence.Seven-two percent of participants did not use directives at all,16% participants did not use boosters,and 41% participants used boosters once in the text.The value of dimension 3(writer and reader’ reference)is higher than dimension 1(clarity of ideas)and dimension 2(manner of writing).According to the statistics,the higher value of dimension 3(writer and reader’s reference)is due to the reader’s reference.The frequency of personal pronouns representing readers is much higher than other six categories of linguistic elements contained in each dimension,including articulation of central point,directives,hedges,boosters,attitude markers,and writer reference.The normalization frequency of reader references 61.4/1000 words.However,the high frequency of reader frequency also has other factors,such as the limitations of the composition topic.The topic of writing is “how to balance academic study and extracurricular activities.” It is not typical enough as an argumentative composition topic because it is more important to provide suggestions than prove or discuss point of views.So,participants unconsciously used more second-person pronouns and first-person pronouns referring to readers like "we" to mark specific suggestions for the reader in the process of writing.This is also a limitation of this study.If the interference of propositional limitations were excluded and allow the participants to pay more attention to the discussion in writing,it would be possible that the frequency of the use of reader reference and the overall “voice” intensity would be reduced.The findings reveal that the lack of two linguistic “voice” elements,directives and boosters,mainly leads to the low “voice” intensity in students’ English writing.However,these students got higher values in dimension 3(writer and reader’s reference).Besides,the students did not use or tend to use these two kinds of words,directives and boosters,because the tone of these words was tough and not euphemistic enough in the participants’ impressions or prior English learning.They believe it would reduce their argumentative writing scores in exams if they used them.The students pay much attention to interacting with readers,avoid constructing monologue texts and try to consider the existence of readers.The overall “voice” intensity of the participants in China is below medium level due to the fact the lack of genre awareness.Students are biased in recognition of the genre of high-stake argumentative writing,not paying attention to the expression of personal opinions,but they try to discuss the point of view which are universally or generally recognized.Moreover,the students prefer euphemistic tone and objective description,which indirectly leads writers not to express their positions and personal attitudes.Students in the process of writing,whether it is to put forward ideas or opinions,try to maintain the tone of euphemism,and students believe that the euphemism of words and writing is the key to improve their composition scores.This may be a misunderstanding in traditional English teaching in China.According to the interviews,some students said that in their past English learning,teachers often evade words or expressions that are too affirmative and tough,and encourage students to use euphemistic and polite statements.It is assumed that the teachers’ preference of euphemistic and polite statements is a hint to the students about the pros and cons of the two categories of words or expressions,and students tend to choose to use these affirmative words less or not at all,or not firmly defending their positions and opinions.Under the circumstance that the "voice" research in English writing is relatively lagging behind,this research studies the "voice" intensity of Chinese college students in English writing,clarifies the problem of the construction of Chinese students’ "voice" in English writing,and analyzes the causes behind these problems.This study fills in the blank in the study of English writing process and genre awareness of Chinese college students from the perspective of the intensity of "voice" in English writing.At the same time,this study discovers the problems existing in the English writing of Chinese college students from the perspective of "voice" in English writing and analyzes the causes of the problems,which has implications for the future English writing teaching in China. |
