格格党

手机浏览器扫描二维码访问

Section 4 Strategies of Writing Literature Review（第1页）

Se4:StrategiesLiteratureReview

banner"

>

Befinwritingyourliteraturereview，youshould（1）clarifyy;（2）fihr;（3）narrowyourtopisiderwhetheryoursourcesaret;（5）findafocus;（6）structawthesisstatement;（7）sideranization.

Similartoprimaryreseareurereviewrequiresfes:

1.Problemformulation:whichtopicorfieldisbeingexaminedandwhatareitspoissues?

2.Literatureseargmaterialsrelevabeingexplored

3.Dataevaluatiwhichliteraturemakesasignifitributioandiopic

4.Analysisaion:disgthefindingsandsofpertiure

Inassessingeachpiesiderationshouldbegivento:

·Provearetheauthor’stials?Aretheauthumentssupportedbyevidence（e.g.primaryhistoricalmaterial，casestudies，istitstifigs）?

&y:Istheauthor’sperspe-handedorprejudicial?Istrarydatasideredorispertiinfoprovetheauthor’spoint?

·Persuasiveness:Whichoftheauthor’sthesesaremostleastg?

·Value:Aretheauthumentsandsg?Doestheworkultimatelytributeinanysignifitwaytofthesubject?

Activity4-1:Learningfromsamples

&hefollolesofliteraturereviewanddoexergroups.

Sample1:

LanguageandGender:ABriefLiteratureReview

Withthegehoffeministworkinmanyacademicfields，itishardlysurprisingthattherelatioweenlanguagearasiderableattentioyears.Iogobeyond“folklinguistic”

assumptionsabouthowmenandwomenuselaheassumptionthatwomeive”

，forexample），studieshavefoanythingfromdifferentsyntactiologicalorlexicalusesoflaoaspeversationanalysis，suinationandtrol，iionsaeraalfeatures.Whilesomeresearchhasfolyoionofdiffereherworkhassoughttoshowhowlinguisticesbothrefledreproducesocialdifference.Agly，Coates（1988）suggeststhatresearguageandgenderbedividedifoihosethatfodifference.

Muchoftheearlierworkemphasizeddominance.Lakoff’s（1975）piwestedthatwomeypicallydisplayedaraures，suchastagquestions，whichmarkeditasinferiorahus，shearguedthatthetypeofsubordinatespeeedbyayounggirl“willlaterbeahersusetokeepherinademeaningpositioreatherseriouslyasahumanbeing”

（1975，p.5）.WhilethereareeproblemswithLakoff’swork—heranalysiswasnotbasedonempiricalresearple，aiofsubordih“roblematic—theemphasisondominanderstatheuchofthiswork.Researeopicsmore，iedmoreoftehefler，andsoon（see，forexample，Zimmerma，1975）.Thechieffocusofthisapproa，hasbeentoshowhowpatterioweenmethedominantpositionofmey.

&udies，however，havetakeapproachbylookingnotsomuixed-sexiionsasathowsame-sexgroupsprodutypesofiion.Inatypicalstudyofthistype，MaltzandBorker（1982）developedlistsofwhattheydescribedasmen’sauresoflaheyarguedthatthesenormsofiionwereasame-sexgroupsratherthanmixed-sexgroupsandthattheissueisthereforeoneof（sub-）culturalmisuniratherthansoequality.Muchofthisresearchhasfoparisoweehepetitiveversationalstyleofmeiveversationalstyleofwomen.

Whilesomeofthemorepopularworkofthistype，suen（1987），lacksacritision，theemphasisondifferehelessbeeeriroupiionsandinemphasizioseewomen’slaonlyas‘subordialsoasasignifitsubculturaldomain.

AlthoughCoates’（1988）distinisclearlyausefuloalsoseemsevidentthatthesetroachesarebyuallyexclusive.Whileitisimportantoherefore，hasimplistiofpowerandteandgenderonlyinmixed-groupdynamics，itisalsoimportantwomen’slinguisticbehaviourasifitexistedoutsidesocialrelationsofpower.AsandO’Leary（1988）ask，“itbecethatmenareaggressiveandhierarchically-anizedversationalists，whereasectedtoprovideversationalsupport?”

（p.80）.Clearly，thereisscreatdealmoreresearchthat

·isbasedonempirien’sandwomen’sspeech;

&haplexuandingeionships（sothatwomen’ssilenple，beseenbothasasiteofoppressionandasasiteofpossibleresistance）;

·looksspecificallyatthetextsoflaherthanassumingbroadgendereddifferences;

·involvesmoreworkbymenonlanguageandgender，siouandmaleusesoflaermsofdifferencehavebeehusrunningthedangermehe‘norm’andwomen’sspeechas‘different’）;