: ,

,
:

11
21
,
, 211
, 3 5 133
( Jones 1982, Zam el 1983) , 9
,
,
Cumming ( ) 1
( 1989) , , 11 , 32
Sasaki Hirose ( 1996) , 1

: 11
/ 0 ,

21

/ 0

( , ) 31

: 1) 41 CET 4
; 2) 51 CET 4
/ 0 61
: 71



,
81

91

101

111
1
, 100 ,
,

, 40 ,
, 1600 60
# 34 # 1999 4 ( 120 )
, 2400 ,
100 L ISREL L ISREL
100 100

31
20 , 20
311
)
10 ,

- ,
(
)
30
/ My Complaint 0,
,
30 /
11
0,
, ,
212 1 :
97 12 98 1 , ,
, ( Chi_square= 221.78, df = 173, p< . 01; RM-
SEA= 0. 47, p_value for RM SEA < 0. 05= . 58) ;

213 1 ,
,
T OFEL ,
,
,
A
89 2
R ,
A 90 ,
214 73% , ,
, , 73%

56( SPSS) , 5
6 ( ST REAM S) 5
6( L ISREL ) SP SS
ST REAM S , ,
# 35 #
 2

R squared

. 73

. 38 . 32 . 70

. 43 __ . 43

. 20 __ . 20

__ . 19 . 19

__ . 15 . 15

__ . 49 . 49

__ . 16 . 16

312 ( 1989)
31211 ,
1 , )
( . 38)
( . 20)
( ) ( . 43) ) , ,

, 73% , ,
,
30% , 5415%
( Sasaki & H irose 1996) ,
, , ,

,
, ( )
( . 43)

( . 38) , ,
, ,
, / 0 ,
, , , , ,
, ,
, ,

, , , ,
, ,
,
,
( Henry 1993, Raimes 1985, Za-
( . 20) , mel 1983)
Cumming , , ,
# 36 #
 , ( 1993, , ,
1994, 1995) ( schemata)

, ( 119) ( 2) ,
, ,
, / , 0
,
( 144) ( 1) ;
, ,
, Krashen( 1984)
31212 , ,
, ;
( . 32) ( 2) ,
,
,
( 114) ( 1
1) , ,
,
,
, ,
( audience)
, , ,
, , ,

( 141) ,
( 153) ( 1) , , ( crit-
ical reading)
,
, ,
,
, ,
, , ,
,

, , ,
, ( 115) ( 2) ,
,
, ,
,

, , ,
, ,

# 37 #
( 174) ( 1) ,
) ) )
, ) ) )
, , ,
/ 0
, ,
( 149) ( 2) ) ) ) ,
( 156) ,
( 176) ( 169) ( 1) ) ) ) : 1)
, , ,
, 2)
,
( 1993) , , ,
,
, , ,
/ 0( Krashen 1984) 3)
, , ,
,
, , , ,
( )
, 31213
,
, ,

,
, 5 6 2
( 1986) , / ? (
0( p. 8) 3 ) 5) ,
, / 0
:
, ,

:
,
( 116) ,

:
,
, ,
,
,

# 38 #
 21
,
,
,
Cumming, A . 1989. Writing ex pertise and second lan-
guage proficiency. Language Lear ning , 39, 81 )
/ 0, 141.
Henry, A. R . 1993. Second Language Rhetor ic in Pr o-
, cess : A Comp ar ison of A rabic, Chinese, and Sp an-
ish. N ew Yor k: Peter Lang .

3 ( , N = 42)
Jo nes, S. 1982. Attention to rhetor ical fo rm while com-
posing in a second languag e. In Campbell, C. , V.

Flashner, T . Hudson, and J. Lubin ( eds. ) , Pr o-
1 2292 1 4699* *
ceedings of the Los A ngeles Second Language Re-
- 1 1341
sear ch For um, Vo l. 2 ( pp. 130_143) . L os A ngeles:
U niversity o f California at Los Angeles.
4 ( , N = 42) K rashen, S. 1984. W r iting : Resear ch, T heory , and
A p p lications. Ox ford: Pergamon Institute o f Eng-

1 3463* 1 5854* * lish.

Raimes, A. 1985. What unskilled ESL students do as
1 2782
they write: A classroom study of composing.
T ESOL Quar ter ly , 19, 229_258.
5 ( , N = 42)
Sasaki, M . & K . Hirose. 1996. Explanatory variables

for EFL students. expository wr iting. L anguage
1 4707* *
1 4693* *
L ear ning, 46, 137_174.
1 4065* *
Zamel, V . 1983. T he composition processes of adv anced
ESL students: Six case studies. T ESOL Quar ter ly ,
41 17, 165_187.
, 1986, 5


6 ( )
, 1993, A dvanced level English language lear ning
, in China: T he relationship of modif iable lear ner
, , var iables to lear ning outcome. U npublished doctor al
, dissertation, the U niversity of Hong Ko ng.
, , 1993, ) T EM 4 ) 93
,5 6 4

, , 1994,
, 56 1
,
, 1995, , 5

6 4

: 1999 1 25 ;
11 ,
, 1999 8 31
,
: 471039 ( )

210093 ( )

# 39 #
Clause complex and rhetorical structure theory, by X u Jiuj i u & Jonathan Webst er , p. 16
T his paper compares Chinese t radit ional -f uju. st udies wit h Rhetorical Structure T heory, finding
there are many similarities and also some diff erences. T his paper poses the quest ion of w hy Chinese
tradit ional -fuju. studies w hich have cont inued to achieve int erest ing result s since t he 1950s, remain
relat ively unknow n to scholars in t he int ernat ional linguist ic comm unit y.

Cognate object construction and transitivizing object construction, by L iang J inx i ang , p. 23
What is t radit ionally grouped t og et her under the term of cognat e object is in fact relat ed t o tw o
different grammatical phenomena as reflect ed in cog nate object construction and t ransit ivizing object
const ruct ion. T he paper demonst rat es t he basic diff erences of the t wo const ruct ions and focuses on t he
descript ion and analysis of the sy nt act ic, pragmat ic and semantic characterist ics of cog nat e object con-
st ruct ion. T hrough the introduction of semantic analysis of t he const ruct ion, t he paper discusses t he
possible semant ic foundations for t he syntact ic behavior of sentences.

Syntactic function of onomatopoeic terms in English and Chinese, by Li G uonan , p. 30

Onomatopoeic t erms in English and Chinese, though both imit ative of natural sounds, differ
markedly in parts of speech and syntact ical funct ions due to t he great morpholog ical and st ruct ural dif-
f erences bet w een t he t wo languages. In English, belonging t o nouns or verbs, t hey funct ion as sub-
jects, object s or predicat es, w hile in Chinese, f unctioning most ly as adverbials, att ribut es or comple-
ment s, they display st riking f eatures of adject ives, not w it hst anding t he uncert aint y of t heir parts of
speech. Based on the comparisons, t he paper searches f or t he proper t ransf erence of t heir syntact ical
funct ions in t he course of t ranslat ion betw een English and Chinese.

The relationship of L2 learners. linguistic variables to L2 writing abili ty, by Ma Guanghui & Wen
Qi uf ang , p. 34

T his st udy invest ig at es t he relat ionship of L 2 learners. linguist ic variables to L 2 w rit ing ability .
T he L2 learners. linguist ic variables include L 1 w rit ing abilit y and variables of L2 proficiency. T he
st udy found that L 1 w riting abilit y, L 2 speaking abilit y and L2 product ive vocabulary t oget her could
explain 73% of the v ariance of L2 writ ing abilit y. L 2 comprehension variables had no direct ef fects on
L2 w rit ing abilit y. Besides, diff erent groups of L 2 prof iciency show ed dif ferent models concerning t he
relat ionship among L1 w rit ing ability, L 2 prof iciency and L2 w rit ing ability.

# 80 #