Literature_Review 规范
literature review 范本
literature review 范本A literature review is a comprehensive and critical evaluation of existing scholarship on a particular topic. It aims to identify and synthesize relevant research, provide a summary of current knowledge on the topic, and identify gaps or areas for further study. Below is a sample literature review on the topic of mental health in adolescence:Title: Mental Health in Adolescence: A Comprehensive Literature ReviewIntroduction:Adolescence is a critical period in a person's life, characterized by significant physical, psychological, and social changes. Mental health issues can significantly impact the well-being and future trajectories of adolescents. Therefore, understanding the current research on mental health in this population is crucial to inform policy decisions, intervention strategies, and future research. This literature review aims to synthesize the existing knowledge on mental health in adolescence, identify the factors contributing to mental health issues, and explore potential interventions to improve the well-being of adolescents.Methodology:This review utilizes a systematic approach to identify relevant scholarly articles and research papers. Databases such as PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar were searched using specific keywords, including "adolescent mental health," "mental health interventions," "risk factors," and "protective factors." The search was limited to articles published in the last ten years to ensure theinclusion of recent research. The initial search yielded 500 articles, which were screened based on their relevance to the topic. After the screening process, 50 articles were included in the final review. Findings:Mental health issues in adolescence are multifaceted and influenced by various individual, familial, and social factors. The most prevalent mental health disorders among adolescents include anxiety, depression, and substance abuse disorders. Risk factors such as familial history of mental illness, adverse childhood experiences, peer pressure, and academic stress significantly contribute to the development of mental health issues in this population.Protective factors, on the other hand, act as buffers and promote resilience in adolescents. These include social support, strong family relationships, positive school environments, and access to mental health services. Interventions targeted at enhancing protective factors and reducing risk factors have shown promising results in improving the mental well-being of adolescents. Cognitive-behavioral therapy, mindfulness-based interventions, and peer support programs have emerged as effective interventions for managing mental health disorders in this population.Despite the growing body of research on adolescent mental health, several gaps exist in the current literature. Limited research is available on the mental health concerns of specific subgroups, such as LGBTQ+ adolescents and those from marginalized communities. Furthermore, more research is needed to understand the long-term impacts of mental health interventions and the role of technologyin mental health promotion and prevention.Conclusion:This literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current research on mental health in adolescence. It highlights the importance of addressing mental health issues in this population, identifies the factors contributing to these issues, and explores potential avenues for intervention. Future research should focus on filling the existing gaps in knowledge, developing culturally sensitive interventions, and utilizing technology to improve mental health outcomes among adolescents. Ultimately, a holistic approach incorporating social, familial, and individual factors is crucial for promoting the mental well-being of adolescents.。
LiteratureReview格式规范
重庆科技学院学术英语课程论文文献综述题目：A Preliminary Exploration on theConstitutionalPrinciples andFormative Methods of Euphemism委婉语的构造原则和构成方式初探学生姓名：指导教师：院系：专业、班级：学号：完成时间：2015年6月说明：封面标题要用中英双语，英文题目在上。
英文题目的实词首字母均须大写，字体：西文Arial；字号：3号；中文题目黑体三号。
段落安排：行距固定值28磅。
对齐方式：两端对齐。
学生姓名、教师姓名等一律用黑体三号，单倍行距Literature Review说明：标题Literature Review 首字母均须大写，字体：西文Arial；字号：3号；段落安排：段前24磅，段后18磅；单倍行距。
对齐方式：居中。
1. IntroductionAs a widespread and popular rhetorical device, euphemisms came into people’s life long time ago. …….And the research of euphemisms has a long history ……………..建议：综述前写一导言，简介研究课题主要内容，概括研究现状,研究目的。
2. The definition of euphemism说明：标题序号与标题名之间，加圆点，并空1个英文字符；标题第一个单词的首字母大写；字体：西文Arial；字号：小3号；段落安排：段前空24磅，段后空6磅；行距：固定值20磅。
对齐方式：左对齐。
The word euphemism comes from Greek; the prefix eu- means good and the stem phemism means speech; the whole word‘s literal meaning is word of good omen. In early 1580s, the British writer George Blunt first created the word euphemism ‘and defined it as ‘a good or favorable interpretation of a bad word’. (Shu, 1995：17)（正文中直接引用原文，必须加引号并标出确切的页码）……………………………(正文字体：小四号罗马体，行距为固定值20磅，对齐方式：两端对齐；段首空四个英文字符)3. Researches abroad3.1Researches from socio-linguistic perspective说明：标题序号与标题名之间，不加圆点，空1个英文字符；标题第一个单词的首字母大写；字体：西文Arial；字号：四号；段落安排：段前空12磅，段后空6磅；行距：固定值20磅。
LITERATURE-REVIEW-(文献综述写作方法)
TYPES OF LITERATURE
• SECONDARY LITERATURE
– REVIEW – BOOKS: EDITED COLLECTIONS – BOOKS: MONOGRAPHS / SURVEYS
28 SEPTEMBER 2011
LITERATURE REVIEW
• A GENERAL GUIDE • MAIN SOURCE • HART, C. (1998),
DOING A LITERATURE REVIEW: RELEASING THE SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH IMAGINATION
WRITING LITERATURE REVIEW
(SOCIAL SCIENCES)
KNTAYYA MARIAPPAN
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, UMS
POSபைடு நூலகம்GRADUATE METHODOLOGY COURSE
CENTRE FOR POSTGRADUATE STUDIES SEMESTER 1 / 2011
WHAT YOU NEED TO DO?
DESCRIBE, SUMMARISE, EVALUATE AND CLARIFY THESE LITERATURE
READ AND CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE INFORMATION THAT YOUR LOCATE
PLAN, ORGANISE AND WRITE CRITICALLY ABOUT THE LITERATUTE
literature review的写作要求
literature review的写作要求
写作Literature Review（文献综述）的要求是对已有相关研究文献进行全面、批判性和系统性的评估。
以下是撰写Literature Review时的一般要求和提示：
1. 定义研究领域：明确文献综述的范围和主题，指明所关注的具体研究领域或问题。
2. 搜集文献：广泛搜集文献，包括学术期刊文章、学位论文、会议论文和专业书籍等，以确保论文的全面性。
3. 文献筛选：对搜集到的文献进行筛选，只选择与研究领域相关且质量较高的文献进行综述。
4. 组织结构：按照逻辑顺序对选定的文献进行组织，可以根据主题、时间、理论等方面进行分类。
5. 批判性评估：对每一篇文献进行评论和评估，指出其优点、缺点和局限性。
要注意文献之间的联系和差异。
6. 综合分析：通过比较和对比不同文献的观点和结果，寻找共同点、差异和趋势，提出自己的观点和结论。
7. 文献引用：对已经引用的文献进行正确的引用格式，确保完整性和准确性。
8. 编写风格：采用学术写作风格，包括准确语言、客观描述和
严谨逻辑。
要使用适当的学术词汇和术语。
9. 文章结构：一般包括简介、文献综述、讨论和结论等部分，确保文章有明确的逻辑结构和内在联系。
10. 更新关注：文献综述应注意近期的最新研究，确保文献综述的时效性和权威性。
最后，写作Literature Review时要始终保持批判性思维和客观评估的态度，既要总结之前研究的差异和不足之处，也要为未来研究提供发展方向和建议。
文献综述（LiteratureReview）的四种主要结构解析
文献综述（LiteratureReview）的四种主要结构解析在你开始写的文献综述(Literature Review)之前，你一定要先对整体有个大致的概念(rough idea)。
有些人会问，我的文献综述是只能用一种结构吗?答案是：当然不是。
你可以在文献综述使用不一样的结构，比如你的整体结构可能是按照主题(thematical),但是你的每个部分是按照时间顺序讨论的(chronological)。
1.按时间顺序排列(Chronological)按照主题的时间发展去写文献综述应该是最简单的一种方法。
但是，使用这个方法需要注意一个问题，就是要简单地按顺序列(simply listing)出和汇总文献(summarising)。
所以要试着去分析影响整个领域的模式(patterns)，转折点(turning points)和关键的争论(key debates)。
然后去解释(interpretation)这些点如何和为什么会发生(occurred)。
2.按照主题(Thematic)如果你在整理文献的时候发现一个反复出现的中心主题(central themes),那你就可以选择根据主题去组织你的文献综述了。
你可以综述这个主题的各个部分(different aspects)，举个例子，比如你的论文是关于移民的问题，可能你会关移民政策，语言障碍和文化冲突等。
3.按照方法论(Methodological)如果你的研究是想比较不一样的研究方法可能会造成结果(results)和结论(conclusions)的异同。
那你可以选择按照方法论(methodological)的方法去做文献综述。
比如，关于同一个问题，采用定性研究(qualitative research)和定量研究(quantitative research)的结果有何异同。
还有，对于一个问题，实证研究(empirical study)和理论研究(theoretical study)是分别是如何探索的?4.按照理论(Theoretical)文献综述通常是一个研究的理论框架的基础(the foundation for a theoretical framework)。
什么是LiteratureReview（文献综述）？快到ddl你还懵？
什么是LiteratureReview（文献综述）？快到ddl你还懵？不知不觉，八月已经过了快一半了，还有不到一个月就要交dissertation，也就是毕业论文了。
在阅读了大量文献和确定研究方法主题后，作为dissertation的第一个大模块，很多小伙伴都在开始撰写Literature Review了。
最近，君君收到很多来自毕业生的消息，咨询如何写Literature Review，并觉得特别头疼这一部分。
今天，让我们一步一步剖析什么是LR怎么写好LR吧！首先，我们要明确什么是LR。
什么是LR01毕业论文作为学术性作文，LR部分需要向读者提供有关你主题的重要文献的分析性概述。
如果你的受众比你对该主题的了解少，那么你的目的就是教学。
当然啦，绝大多数同学做的研究项目属于这一种：如果受众（导师）比你更了解这个话题，那么你的目的是展示对该主题的熟悉程度，专业知识的贮备和智能。
# 将一个人的原创作品放在现有文献的背景下。
# 解释与您的主题相关的主要问题。
# 描述每项工作与正在考虑的其他工作的关系。
# 找出解释的新方法，并阐明以往研究中的任何差距。
# 解决之前看似矛盾的研究中的冲突。
# 确定哪些文献对理解您的主题做出了重要贡献。
# 指出进一步研究你的主题的方法。
LR要写什么？02简单来说，我们要牢牢记住一个词“结构合理well structured”你的想法必须在逻辑上从一个点流向另一个点，或是从一个点拓展散射开到几个相对于的研究问题上。
内容上我们主要有四大项必须满足概念：利用文献概述你正在考虑的主题，问题或理论。
归类：将你收集到的这些文献划分类别和概念，也就是按照Research Question归类关联：将前人的工作与你的工作，你想法之前的作品和你的研究点联系起来。
评估：对那些对理解和发展主题做出最大贡献的作品提供结论。
在写这四大部分的过程中，每当你计划将文献纳入你LR的过程中，先思考这几个问题：资格:这篇文章作者有什么资格来做出判断?中立:作者的观点是公正的还是有偏见的?可信度:作者的哪篇论文哪个观点令人信服，为什么?价值:作者的结论是否增加了你研究的问题的价值?看到这里，已经成功了一半啦！加油继续哦！内容上我们主要有四大项必须满足概念：利用文献概述你正在考虑的主题，问题或理论。
Literature-Review-范例
A Literature Review of An Empirical Study ofMultimodal Teaching Model inMiddle School English Listening Teaching in a Multimedia ContextIn recent years, the theories of multimodal discourse and multimodality have gained many scholars’attention。
Many researchers study them and try to apply multimodal teaching to middle school s’ teaching。
And nowadays，many famous language scholars are trying their best to do the empirical study on the multimodal teaching。
As a matter of fact, many noted researchers have made a brief definition of multimodality. “M ultimodality means the combination of different semiotic modes—--for example, language and music—-—in a communicative artifact or event” (Kress ＆Leeuwen 1996：281)。
“M ultimodality refers to the diverse ways in which a number of distinct semiotic resource system are both codeployed and cocontextualized in the making of a text—specific meaning”(Baldry ＆Thibault 2006：21).Since the 1990s of last century, the multimodal teaching approach has drawn the researchers’and the teachers' attention in abroad。
LiteratureReview格式规范
重庆科技学院学术英语课程论文文献综述题目：A Preliminary Exploration on theConstitutionalPrinciples andFormative Methods of Euphemism委婉语的构造原则和构成方式初探学生姓名：指导教师：院系：专业、班级：学号：完成时间：2015年6月说明：封面标题要用中英双语，英文题目在上。
英文题目的实词首字母均须大写，字体：西文Arial；字号：3号；中文题目黑体三号。
段落安排：行距固定值28磅。
对齐方式：两端对齐。
学生姓名、教师姓名等一律用黑体三号，单倍行距Literature Review说明：标题Literature Review 首字母均须大写，字体：西文Arial；字号：3号；段落安排：段前24磅，段后18磅；单倍行距。
对齐方式：居中。
1. IntroductionAs a widespread and popular rhetorical device, euphemisms came into people’s life long time ago. …….And the research of euphemisms has a long history ……………..建议：综述前写一导言，简介研究课题主要内容，概括研究现状,研究目的。
2. The definition of euphemism说明：标题序号与标题名之间，加圆点，并空1个英文字符；标题第一个单词的首字母大写；字体：西文Arial；字号：小3号；段落安排：段前空24磅，段后空6磅；行距：固定值20磅。
对齐方式：左对齐。
The word euphemism comes from Greek; the prefix eu- means good and the stem phemism means speech; the whole word‘s literal meaning is word of good omen. In early 1580s, the British writer George Blunt first created the word euphemism ‘and defined it as ‘a good or favorable interpretation of a bad word’. (Shu, 1995：17)（正文中直接引用原文，必须加引号并标出确切的页码）……………………………(正文字体：小四号罗马体，行距为固定值20磅，对齐方式：两端对齐；段首空四个英文字符)3. Researches abroadfrom socio-linguistic perspective说明：标题序号与标题名之间，不加圆点，空1个英文字符；标题第一个单词的首字母大写；字体：西文Arial；字号：四号；段落安排：段前空12磅，段后空6磅；行距：固定值20磅。
literature review大纲怎么写
一、简介1.1 文献综述的定义及意义文献综述是指对已有研究文献进行搜集、整理、分析和评价，以系统地总结并阐述某一领域内研究现状、问题及趋势的一种学术性文稿。
文献综述在学术研究中具有重要的地位和作用，它不仅可以帮助研究者全面了解某一领域的研究现状，还可以为其研究提供理论和实证依据，促进学术交流与发展。
1.2 文献综述的分类根据研究对象和内容的不同，文献综述可分为理论文献综述和实证文献综述两大类。
理论文献综述主要关注某一理论或概念的研究现状和演变过程，而实证文献综述则集中于某一现象或问题的实证研究成果。
1.3 文献综述的写作目的和要求撰写文献综述的目的在于系统整理和分析已有的研究成果，从而提供有关领域的全面、准确和客观的信息。
文献综述应当具有全面性、前瞻性、评价性和创新性，具备对所涉及的研究进行全面梳理和深入分析的能力。
二、文献综述的写作步骤2.1 确定研究范围和目标在进行文献综述之前，首先需要明确研究的范围和目标。
这包括确定研究的主题、领域、时间跨度和深度，以及所要达到的综述结果和效果。
2.2 收集文献资料收集文献资料是进行文献综述的首要步骤。
可以通过文献检索、网络搜索、文献引用和专家推荐等渠道获取相关的文献资料，并建立起一套完整的文献数据库。
2.3 文献筛选和整理在收集到大量文献资料后，需要对其进行筛选和整理，筛选出与研究目标和范围相符合的文献资料，并按照一定的逻辑和结构进行整理。
2.4 文献分析和评价对筛选和整理出的文献资料进行系统分析和评价，包括对其内容、方法、结论和贡献的评述，以及对其优缺点和局限性的分析。
2.5 撰写文献综述报告在完成文献分析和评价后，可以根据其结果撰写文献综述报告。
报告的结构应该包括综述的目的和意义、研究范围和目标、文献资料的搜集和整理过程、文献分析和评价结果，并给出对相关研究的展望和建议。
三、文献综述的写作技巧3.1 注重逻辑和结构文献综述的写作应该注重逻辑和结构的完整性和合理性，确保整个综述过程的条理清晰，观点连贯，论证有力。
mla的literature review格式
mla的literature review格式MLA (Modern Language Association) 格式中的文献综述(Literature Review) 格式的要求如下：1. 页面设置：- 使用标准A4 或8.5x11 英寸大小的纸张；- 设置1 英寸的页边距；- 字体使用Times New Roman，字号12 号；- 设置双倍行距；- 在页面右上角，创建页码标记（姓氏+页码）。
2. 文章标题：- 文章标题应居中书写；- 使用粗体字（可以使用标题样式设置）；- 将标题放置于页面的顶部，与上方和下方的空间保持相等。
3. 文章结构：- 文章结构包括引言、主体段落和结论；- 引言应简要概述该主题的重要性，并给出所要评估的研究问题；- 主体段落应根据主题的逻辑顺序展开，并包括对每一篇文献的详细分析；- 结论对文献综述的主要发现进行总结，并针对未来研究方向提出建议。
4. 内部引用：- 在文中引用其他学者的观点或研究结果时，使用内部引用；- 根据MLA 格式标准，引用格式为(作者姓氏，出版年)；- 如果引用短语超过四个词，将其放在引号中，并在引号之后加上页码。
5. 引用页：- 在文章结尾，包括一个引用页（Works Cited page）；- 引用页上列出了您在文献综述中使用过的所有引用文献；- 引用格式根据MLA 格式进行设置，包括作者姓名、书名、文章标题、期刊名称、出版年份等信息。
以文献综述题目"中括号内的内容" 为例，下面是一步一步回答：1. 引言：简要概述“中括号内的内容”主题的重要性，并给出所要评估的研究问题。
2. 主体段落：根据主题的逻辑顺序展开，并对每一篇文献进行详细分析。
每一篇文献的分析可以包括但不限于以下内容：- 作者提出的研究问题或假设；- 研究方法和数据分析方法；- 研究结果和发现；- 对现有文献的贡献和限制。
3. 结论：对文献综述的主要发现进行总结，并针对未来研究方向提出建议。
Literature-Review范例
Literature ReviewIn this thesis, I will study the characteristics of the conversational mechanism of repair in Chinese conversational discourse. T o that end, it is necessary to conduct a review of the relevant literature on conversational repair. I shall start with an elaboration of the notion of “repair”, going on to researches into the organization of conversational repair and conclude with the interdisciplinary and multi-linguistic application of “repair” research.1. From Correction to RepairAs a relatively new field in conversation analysis (CA), the proper study of the conversational phenomenon of repair didn’t start until the publication of Schegloff et al’s seminal paper in 1977. Before that, there were only some sporadic discussions of the phenomenon under such generic headings as tongue slips (Laver 1973, see Schegloff 1977) and error correction (Jefferson 1975, see Schegloff 1977). As a still often-used term, “correction”, “commonly understood to refer to the replacement of an ‘error’ or ‘mistake’ by what is ‘correct’” (Schegloff 1977: 363), not only limits research to a minority of the natural occurrences of repair but also misleads researchers about the nature of the trouble-sources.The shift of focus was led by Schegloff et al (1977), whose study was an empirically based effort to examine the organization of repair as a set of ordered, but not equal possibilities. The phenomenon of correction was therefore proven part of a much wider picture, i.e. repair and the scope of discussion was greatly expanded from the mere correcting of some “hearable [usually linguistic] errors” (1977: 363) to all possible “practices for dealing with problems or troubles in speaking, hearing, and understanding the talk in conversation” (2000: 207), a definition given by Schegloff himself some 20 years later. In deed, potential trouble-sources in conversation include not only correction of information, but also and more importantly replacement of inappropriate items or ambiguous anaphors, word search and clarification of the pragmaticfunction/understanding of a previous turn. These and many other occurrences may only be subsumed under the more general scope of repair. Incidentally, correction may not always be categorized under repair either, as is exemplified by the disagreement over the so-called “embedded correction” (Jefferson 1987) –basically a covert form of other-correction –which Schegloff (2000) ruled out as not constituting a kind of repair. Equally important as the expansion in the scope of research was the change in the view of the trouble-sources that directly occasion the repair. According to Schegloff et al (1977), trouble-sources are not self-evident but determined interactively by participants. In other words, all the segments in an utterance is, in theory, potential trouble-sources and often the existence of a trouble-source can only be evidenced by the actual mobilization of the practice of repair on the part of either the hearer or the speaker (and sometimes both). It is worth noting that just as the status of a trouble-source is an uncertainty to be interactively determined, the actual need and proper protocol of its repair is not any more certain. This dynamic and interactive view of repair has proven rewarding in terms of revealing not only its own mechanism but also other cognitive, social and psychological aspects of conversational discourse, as may be interestingly explained by such everyday wisdom: you don’t know something’s at work until it goes wrong.2. The organization of repairMany studies have been carried out with regard to the various dimensions of conversational repair itself, e.g. its classification, sites, forms and causes.Schegloff et al (1977) classified four interactional types of repair according to the subject(s) of initiation/repair, namely self/other-initiated self/other repair. This classification has been adopted by many researchers later, making it easier to tackle conversational data. Yet Geluykens (1994: 56) suggests, rightly I think, that this classification is in need of refinement as it is not always possible to draw a sharp boundary between self and other initiation. He found a sort of other-prompted self-initiation, which underlines the interactive aspect of conversational discourse.Along with the interactional four-type classification, Schegloff et al (1977) proposed the unequal distribution of the four types. To be more exact, self-repair is preferred to other-repair and self-initiation to other-initiation. It follows that the most favored type is self-initiated self-repair. Their claim was put forward with no statistical evidence so later researchers have discussed their empirical findings with reference to either or both of the two preferences. Many studies, including some based on data in languages other than English, are in support of the observation that self-repair is preferred, e.g. Geluykens (1994) and Ma (2007). Yet some remain doubtful as to the preference of self-initiation over other-initiation, e.g. Gaskell (1980), Schwartz (1980) and Gass & Varonis (1985) (see Wang 2007).A strong objection to the preference of self-correction was put forward by Norrick (1991, see Jiang & Li 2003), whose data was collected from conversation in parent-child, teacher-student and NS-NNS contexts. After examining the organization of corrective exchanges in these contexts, he contended that the party abler to perform the correction – not necessarily the speaker – does it. Further, he dismissed the alleged preference as a sub-case which is only possible between adult native speakers, whose ability of repair is approximately equal. In other words, the absence of such preference is the norm while the preference is a special case. Interestingly, Schegloff et al (1977) has also observed that other-correction “seems to be not as infrequent” and “appears to be one vehicle for socialization” in those contexts where someone not-yet-competent in a certain domain –be it language facility or background information –is involved (381). However, they further argued that this exception to the infrequency of other-correction is only a transitional stage and will be superseded by the preference of self-correction eventually. Joining in the heated discussion are Jiang & Li (2003), who also questioned the validity of Schegloff’s claim about the preference for self-repair. They offered as proof the work of Norrick (1991) and Zhao (1996). The latter, on the basis of data obtained in academic seminars, of which other-repair takes up a remarkable proportion, suggested that the option of self- or other-repair should take into account of the context, including the content of conversation and the respective social status of the participants (Jiang & Li 2003: 42). In their own survey, Jiang & Li (2003) calculated the frequencies of repair intwo categories and found the preference of self-repair only existent in the category that included clearing up misunderstandings, word search or self-editing while in the correction of real errors, other-repair enjoys a bigger percentage of 60%. Therefore they blamed the mystery of the preference on the overly broad definition of repair put forward by Schegloff et al.Besides the interactional four-type classification, repair has been classified by other ways. In terms of the kind of trouble-spot being repaired, Levelt (1989, see Geluykens 1994:20) distinguishes between E[rror]-repair and A[ppropriateness]-repair. Considering the temporal aspect of repair, there are immediate repairs and delayed repairs (Geluykens 1994: 22).There has also been in-depth discussion on the sites, or what is called the sequential environment for repair initiation and reparans (the repairing segment). A usual way of referring to the position of repair initiation is by reference to the turn where the trouble-source occurs. Schegloff et al (1977) found self-initiation mainly in three positions, namely the same turn as the trouble-source, the same turn’s transition place and the third-turn to the trouble-source turn; other-initiation, on the other hand, was found mainly in the next turn (to the trouble-source turn). Levinson (1983, see Geluykens 1994) identified four similar opportunities, which are ordered with decreasing preference and most often used by either self- or other-initiation.In particular, Schegloff (2000) elaborated the locus of other-initiation (OI) that occurs in positions other than the turn following the trouble-source turn. He suggested several interactional constraints that may be accountable for these somewhat deviant OIs, constraints related to the organization of repair, of turns or of turn-taking. In addition, he observed occasional delays in OIs which implies the speaker’s intention of “setting aside the understanding problem” (233) or assessing it later. This observation was of great relevance to the study of Wong, who examined a form of “delayed next turn repair initiation” in N-NN English conversation and proposed that it might be accounted by the differences between native and non-native participants in their ways of social interaction – more specifically, in the use of certain tokens and sequential organization inconversation.From the comparison between Schegloff (2000) and Wong (2000), it seems that the instantaneity and complexity of conversation spell danger for hasty generalization and due attention should be paid to minute differentiation. A case in point may be found in Schegloff (1997)’s distinction between “third turn repair”and “third position repair”, both of which occupies as a rule the turn subsequent to the turn following the trouble-source turn, hence “third”. Yet a closer look with a focus on sequential relevance will clear up the confusion of the two. While “third position repair”is usually self-repair in response to other-initiation in the second turn, “third turn repair”is a kind of self-initiated self-repair separated from the trouble-source turn only by a not full-fledged turn of acknowledgement or irrelevant interpolation.Another dimension of conversational repair, i.e. its forms, has also received considerable academic attention. Firstly, on the various forms of initiation, Schegloff (1979) distinguished between lexical and non-lexical initiation; Kuang (2001) specified five forms of repair initiation with decreasing extent of repetition of the trouble-source turn; Drew (1997) developed a sequential analysis of the use of ‘open’ initiators (such as “pardon?”, “sorry?” and “what?”), in which specific forms of initiation are correlated with specific types of trouble sources.Secondly, the forms of the reparans (the repairing utterance) prove a complex issue, as researchers have found an undeniable relation between repair and syntax. For one thing, the four forms taken by same-turn reparans – recycling, replacing, inserting and restarting (Schegloff 1979) may change the syntactic structure of the trouble-source turn. As it is, repair “can [drastically] change the syntactic form by subsuming, under another ‘frame’ sentence, the whole sentence being said or starting to be said” (Schegloff 1979: 280). This interaction between repair and syntax is partly responsible for the confusion of repair with other constructions, e.g. dislocations. In this interesting aspect, Geluykens (1994) explored intensively the mechanism of right dislocation (RD), which often overlaps with anaphoric repair because of their similarity in syntactic characteristics,semantic relations and functions. Ma (2006) categorized RDs with repairing function in Chinese discourse (including a drama script) into the four interactional types of repair. It is not easy to judge whether a RD is functioning as a repair and it is of great help to take into account the prosodic features, as Geluykens wisely and meticulously did.As a kind of repair which has received the widest attention, anaphoric repairs are mobilized by the following general causes, trouble-sources being their specific causes. These general causes may be: (1) the online nature of naturally occurring conversation (Biber et al, see Ma 2007); (2) the “discrepancy between the speaker’s assessment and the hearer’s actual state of knowledge”(Huang 1994: 213; also cf. Sacks & Schegloff ); (3) failure to satisfy concurrently two pragmatic principles, which are the Q[uantity]- and I[nformativeness]-principles according to Huang (1994) but which are the E[conomy]- and C[larity]-principles according to Geluykens (1994). It seems that the three causes are closely related rather conflicting. For one thing, a balanced satisfaction of two pragmatic principles requires above all the speaker’s correct assessment of the hearer’s actual state of knowledge. Moreover, these causes have general implications for the causes of other kinds of repair.3. Towards a broader scopeThough the majority of empirical materials for the study of repair are drawn from English conversation, works have been done on talk-in-interaction in a broader range of languages and communities. These efforts have proven fruitful to some extent. A comparative study by Rieger (2003) found that the structural difference between English and German may have resulted in the different preferences of the form of repetition as self-repair strategies among English and German native speakers. Similarly, Fox et al (see Shen 2005: 39-40) proposed that the difference in the forms of repair in Japanese and English is partly caused by the difference in the syntax of the two languages. Ma (2007) examined repair strategies employed by native speakers of Mandarin Chinese and found a similar skewed distribution of the four interactional types among both literateand illiterate groups. Other studies on repair in Mandarin Chinese include a brief discussion of anaphoric repair by Huang (2000) and an inspiring survey of the classification, positioning and forms of repair and repair initiation by Jiang (2001) and a detailed examination of the forms of repair aimed at problems of production or understanding by Luo (2004).Moerman (1977, see Geluykens 1994: 20)’s findings in a Thai conversational corpus also reinforced the claim of the preference for self-initiated self-repair.Meanwhile, long-due attention has been paid to the organization of repair in non-native discourse communities. The interest in repair strategies of non-native English speakers in English conversation has been given a boost by the need to explore “the potential value of CA for the study of SLA through interaction” (Wong 244). Q uantitative surveys were carried out by Wang (2007) and Chen & Pu (2007) among non-native English speakers in China.In both surveys, non-native speakers were found to favor the repair of errors in linguistic forms rather than improper expressions or inadequate information. The three researchers thus suggested that language teachers should place greater emphasis on communicative competence. Kasper’s investigation in the ESL classroom is also an effort in this direction (see Shen 40). Hence it seems a justified effort for language learning and teaching to take a much closer look at non-native talk –how it may go wrong and then be repaired.As conversation is a most common practice of interpersonal interaction and social communication, the organization of repair in conversation has also sparked interest in interdisciplinary research.Schegloff rightly pointed out that “at the organization of repair – thought not exclusively here – linguistics and sociology meet.” (Schegloff 1977: 381). Faerch& Kasper (see Yao 2005) proposed that problematic utterance is a face-threatening act and accordingly, self-repair is a face-saving act. Similarly, Wong (2000) interpreted the non-native speaker’s ambiguous response (e.g. “oh”) to the native speaker as a“face-saving acknowledgment token” (263), which does not signal anadequate understanding of the preceding turn and which is often followed by other-initiation from the non-native speaker. Here, a sense of “nonnative-ness”seems to be at work. Surprisingly, even among native speakers themselves, the sense of “nonnative-ness”may also arise and membership categorizing may be under way. By analyzing German conversation, Egbert (2004) showed just exactly how“coparticipants engage in linguistic and regional membership categorizing in other-initiated repair sequences”(28). Both Wong and Egbert has shown the potential for CA methodology to be applied to research in intercultural and intra-cultural communications.Researchers in psycholinguistics and computational linguistics have also been interested in the classification of self-repair and the perception of repair through sound signals and syntactic analysis (cf. Yao 2005 and Shen 2005).ReferencesDrew, P. (1997). ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69-101.Egbert, M. (2004). Other-initiated repair and membership categorization –some conversational events that trigger linguistic and regional membership categorization [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1467-1498.Geluykens, R. (1994). The pragmatics of discourse anaphora in English: evidence from conversational repair [M]. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Huang, Yan. (1994). The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: A study with special reference to Chinese [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Jefferson, G. (1987). Exposed and embedded corrections [A]. In G. Button and J.R.E.Lee(eds.):Talk and Social Organization [C]. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 86-100. Retrieved 25 June 2007, from the World Wide Web.<>Rieger, C.L. (2003). Repetitions as self-repair strategies in English and German conversations [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 47-69.Sacks, H. and E. A. Schegloff, (1979). Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction [A]. In G. Psathas (eds.): Everyday Language Studies in Ethnomethodology [C]. New York: Irvington Publishers, 15-21.Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax for conversation [A]. In D. Sudnow (eds.): Discourse and Syntax [C]. New York: Academic Press, 261-286.Schegloff, E.A. (1997). Third Turn Repair [A]. In Guy, G.R., C. Feagin & J. Baugh (eds.): Towards a Social Science of Language 2 [C]. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 31-40.Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When ‘Others’ Initiate Repair [J]. Applied Linguistics 21: 205-243.Schegloff, E.A., G. Jefferson & H. Sacks, (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation [J]. Language 53: 361-382.Wong, J. (2000). Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker English conversation [J]. Applied Linguistics 21: 244-67.陈立平、濮建忠. 2007. 基于语料库的大学生英语口语自我修正研究[J].《外语教学》，28(2)：57-61.姜望琪、李梅. 2003. 谈谈会话中的纠偏问题[J].《外国语》，(4)：39-45.匡小荣. 2001. 汉语口语交谈过程的动态研究[D].上海：复旦大学.罗维. 2004. 汉语会话修正研究[D].山东：山东大学.马文. 2006. 广义右偏置结构与其修正功能[J].《四川外语学院学报》，22(3)：70-74.沈蔚. 2005. 会话修正研究在国外[J].《外语学刊》，(4)：38-42.王晓燕. 2007. 会话偏误修补模式与特征研究——以PETS口试为研究个案[J].《外语与外语教学》，(5)：42-46.姚剑鹏. 2005. 会话修补的认知研究[J].《外语教学》，26(3)：1-6.。
怎样写Literature Review
怎样写Literature ReviewWrite a Literature Review1. IntroductionNot to be confused with a book review, a literature review surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, providing a description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work. The purpose is to offer an overview of significant literature published on a topic.（查找文章、书籍和其他的一些资源，只要和所要讲的问题相关均可，主要目的是列举出跟所讨论话题相关的文献资料。
）2. ComponentsSimilar to primary research, development of the literature review requires four stages:（文献综述分为四个部分）·（提出问题：你将要讨论的话题是什么）Problem formulation—which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues?·（查询资料：找寻所有与话题相关的材料）Literature search—finding materials relevant to the subject being explored·（评估资料：看看那些材料对话题的理解很有作用）Data evaluation—determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic·（分析和阐释）Analysis and interpretation—discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature Literature reviews should comprise the following elements:（相关因素）· An overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review·（主题、话题、理论的整体陈述，再加上文献综述的意义）·Division of works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative theses entirely)·（文献分类，支持的、反对的、或者是另起炉灶的）· Explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others·（各个文献之间的相似之处和不同之处）·Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research·（哪些观点最好、最有说服力、对研究的理解和发展贡献最大）In assessing each piece, consideration should be given to:·Provenance（来源）—what are the author's credentials（信任书、证书）? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence (e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, and recent scientific findings)?·（资料来源，作者是如何证实自己的观点的）· Objectivity—is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?·（资料是否客观，作者的观点是否公正客观，还是带有主观偏见）· Persuasiveness—which of the author's theses are most/least convincing?·（资料是否有说服力，哪些最有说服力，那些最没有说服力）·Value—are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?·（材料价值，作者的观点和结论是否具有说服力，能不能有助于很好地理解话题）3. Definition and Use/PurposeA literature review may constitute an essential chapter of a thesis or dissertation, or may be a self-contained review of writings on a subject. In either case, its purpose is to:·Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review· Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration· Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research· Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies· Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort· Point the way forward for further research·Place one's original work (in the case of theses or dissertations) in the context of existing literatureThe literature review itself, however, does not present new primary scholarship.。
Literature_Review_格式规范
重庆科技学院学术英语课程论文文献综述题目：A Preliminary Exploration on theConstitutional Principles andFormative Methods of Euphemism委婉语的构造原则和构成方式初探学生姓名：指导教师：院系：专业、班级：学号：完成时间：2015年6月说明：封面标题要用中英双语，英文题目在上。
英文题目的实词首字母均须大写，字体：西文Arial；字号：3号；中文题目黑体三号。
段落安排：行距固定值28磅。
对齐方式：两端对齐。
学生姓名、教师姓名等一律用黑体三号，单倍行距Literature Review说明：标题Literature Review 首字母均须大写，字体：西文Arial；字号：3号；段落安排：段前24磅，段后18磅；单倍行距。
对齐方式：居中。
1. IntroductionAs a widespread and popular rhetorical device, euphemisms came into people‟s life long time ago. …….And the research of euphemisms has a long history ……………..建议：综述前写一导言，简介研究课题主要内容，概括研究现状,研究目的。
2. The definition of euphemism说明：标题序号与标题名之间，加圆点，并空1个英文字符；标题第一个单词的首字母大写；字体：西文Arial；字号：小3号；段落安排：段前空24磅，段后空6磅；行距：固定值20磅。
对齐方式：左对齐。
The word euphemism comes from Greek; the prefix eu- means good and the stem phemism means speech; the whole word…s literal meaning is word of good omen. In early 1580s, the British writer George Blunt first created the word euphemism …and defined it as …a good or favorable interpretation of a bad word‟. (Shu, 1995：17)（正文中直接引用原文，必须加引号并标出确切的页码）……………………………(正文字体：小四号罗马体，行距为固定值20磅，对齐方式：两端对齐；段首空四个英文字符)3. Researches abroad3.1 Researches from socio-linguistic perspective说明：标题序号与标题名之间，不加圆点，空1个英文字符；标题第一个单词的首字母大写；字体：西文Arial；字号：四号；段落安排：段前空12磅，段后空6磅；行距：固定值20磅。
literature review原则
literature review原则
撰写文献综述时应遵循以下原则：
1.目标明确：确定综述的目标和范围，明确要回答的研究问题
或提供的相关信息。
2.合适的文献来源：选择权威、可靠的文献来源，如学术期刊、学术数据库、会议论文集等。
不应仅仅依赖于互联网上的非学术来源，如博客、维基百科等。
3.文献选择标准：根据研究目标和研究问题，制定文献选择标准，例如年代限定、研究方法等。
确保选择的文献与研究问题相关且具备一定的学术质量。
4.系统性：进行文献综述时应有一定的系统性，可采用文献检
索策略，如关键词检索和引用导航等，确保收集到的相关文献充分且全面。
5.批判性思考：对选择的文献进行批判性思考，包括文献作者
的研究方法和实证资料，对结果的解释和推理的合理性等，确保评估文献的可靠性和可信度。
6.合理的组织结构：根据文献综述的目标和范围，采用合理的
组织结构撰写文献综述，可以按主题或时间顺序进行组织，以清晰地呈现文献的内容。
7.准确的引文和标注：在文献综述中正确引用和标注相关文献
的信息，遵循所使用的引用规范，如APA、MLA等。
8.合适的文字表达：清晰准确地表达文献的主要内容和结论，确保读者能够理解和获得所需信息。
9.文献评估和讨论：对所选文献进行评估和讨论，指出各篇文献的优缺点、相互之间的联系和差异，从而提供更深入的分析和解释。
10.更新和维护：定期更新文献综述，及时添加最新的研究成果，确保综述的时效性和可靠性。
review怎么写
review怎么写1.Literature Review 怎样写简洁来说就是用本人的话，把前人相关讨论的观点，结论等paraphrase一下。
所以，1. 你首先要确定好本人的讨论方向2. 然后，找出这个讨论领域相关的讨论材料，最好是权威人士的文章，论文等。
阅读材料，摘选经典的，突出的，有利于你绽开论文的论点，写下来，同一论点的归一类，并记录出处（以便以后写bibliography）3. 接下来就是paraphrase别人的话了，记住，这不是抄袭，由于这些是我们的论点所在，前人的讨论结果。
但是假如你全部照抄，没有用本人的话复述就是抄袭了。
准绳上允许一两句是可以直接引用。
不能过多。
4. 最终，将写好的literature review再看一遍，看看能否符合规律。
或者某些论点过少，可以再去相应地找材料。
2.如何写好Review首先需要将“文献综述（Literature Review）”与“背景描述（Backupground Description）”区分开来。
我们在选择讨论问题的时候，需要了解该问题产生的背景和来龙去脉，如“中国半导体产业的进展历程”、“国外进展半导体产业的政策和问题”等等，这些内容属于“背景描述”，关注的是现实层面问题，严格讲不是“文献综述”。
“文献综述”是对学术观点和理论方法的整理。
其次，文献综述是评论性的（Review就是“评论”的意思），因而要带着作者本人批判的眼光（critical thinking）来归纳和评论文献，而不只仅是相关领域学术讨论的“堆砌”。
评论的主线，要根据问题绽开，也就是说，别的学者是如何看待和处理你提出的问题的，他们的方法和理论能否有什么缺陷？要是别的学者已经很完善地处理了你提出的问题，那就没有反复讨论的必要了。
清晰了文献综述的意涵，现来说说怎样做文献综述。
虽说，尽可能广泛地收集材料是担任任的讨论态度，但假如缺乏标准，就极易将人引入文献的泥沼。
技巧一：瞄准主流。
Literature-Review格式
Literature Review写法：看了文献中作者相关理论之后，总结作者的观点在提出自己的看法，要求举例支撑观点的要举例。
具体写法可以参照以下格式To better understand the characters of transformational and transactional leadership. Levinthal & March (2001) illustrates the fact tha t transactional and transformational leadership is intrinsically a collaboration and decision making orientation which emphasizes the development and empowerment of expertise ,the understanding of reform together with encouraging employees to carry out reforms. Bass & Avolio (2001) examines that l eader set up objectives and orientations as well as spurring employees by clarifying roles and work requirements. They also present transactional leaders' charisma or idealized influence, inspirational motivation, stimulation and individualized consideration, which traits could get employees to exert them to working to the largest extent in order to achieve group goals. Schriesheim (2002) shows h ow each reward system is made use of in an organization so as to achieve leaders' vision. Pillai, et al (2003) expound tha t transactional and transformational leadership is based on the notion that leaders give employees rewards or punishments according to their performance in the course of transaction. Boisot (2003) points out, under transactional and transformational leadership, that leaders can create with employees a professional atmosphere and attitude. Through the development of the profession, decision sharing, and the promotion of self-value, they can co-create an environment where respect, acceptance, kindness, support for growth and learning are appreciated.。
literature review格式
中文文学批评的现状与发展趋势一、概述中文文学批评作为文学研究的重要分支，通过对文学作品的分析和解读，有助于深入理解文学作品的内涵和外延，促进文学批评理论的不断完善和发展。
本文旨在探讨中文文学批评的现状与发展趋势，分析当前中文文学批评存在的问题，揭示其未来的发展方向。
二、中文文学批评的现状1. 传统文学批评的影响传统文学批评理论对中文文学批评的影响依然存在，如唯美主义、现代主义、后现代主义等理论在文学批评中仍然占据一席之地。
然而，传统文学批评理论有时会限制学者们对文学作品的多元解读，导致文学批评研究的僵化。
2. 多元化的文学批评视角近年来，随着跨学科研究的兴起，中文文学批评的视角日益多元化。
不同学科背景的学者通过对文学作品的解读和探讨，为中文文学批评带来了新的思路和方法，丰富了文学批评的研究内容和范式。
3. 新媒体时代的挑战新媒体时代的到来，对中文文学批评提出了新的挑战。
互联网、社交媒体等评台的兴起，使文学作品的传播和解读方式发生了巨大变化，如何在新媒体时代进行有效的文学批评成为了当前中文文学研究的一大问题。
三、中文文学批评的发展趋势1. 多元研究方法的融合未来中文文学批评的发展趋势将更加倾向于多元化的研究方法的融合。
跨学科研究、跨文化研究等将成为中文文学批评的重要发展方向，不同文化、不同学科的碰撞与交融将为中文文学批评带来新的活力。
2. 新媒体时代的应对策略面对新媒体时代的挑战，中文文学批评需要积极应对，结合新媒体评台，开展线上线下的文学批评活动，培养更多对文学作品有深刻见解的批评家，推动文学批评朝着更加开放和包容的方向发展。
3. 文学批评理论的革新在传统文学批评理论的基础上，中文文学批评需要不断进行理论创新和实践探索，吸取国际文学批评理论的成果，将其运用到中文文学批评中，推动文学批评理论的更新和完善。
四、结语中文文学批评作为文学研究的重要组成部分，其发展趋势和现状直接关系到中文文学批评理论的持续繁荣和发展。
英语论文分析学习_第2节_literature_review
Length of a literature review
they constitute a section of the paper. Several sentences One or two paragraphs ctor’s degree Sometimes a literature review is written
Quotation/paraphrase
practice:
Read the sample, and decide 1)the location of literature review, 2) how can you divide the structure of a
literature review?
How to evaluate each work
How to cite the reviews
Information/author prominent citation
Quotation/paraphrase
Organising the body
Common text structures( a single passage):
as a paper in itself.
Different names for literature review:
Literature review Related work Background
literature reviews sop 质量管理体系
literature reviews sop 质量管理体系A literature review is a critical evaluation and analysis of previous research studies and scholarly articles related to a specific topic. It serves several purposes, including identifying gaps in the existing knowledge, conceptualizing the research problem, identifying research questions or hypotheses, and providing a context for the research.In the context of quality management systems (QMS), a literature review would focus on the existing research and studies related to the development and implementation of QMS in organizations. This would include examining various models and frameworks of QMS, such as ISO 9001, Six Sigma, Lean Manufacturing, Total Quality Management (TQM), and others. The review would also assess the effectiveness of different approaches and methodologies in implementing QMS in different industries and organizations.The goals of a literature review in the field of QMS would be to:1. Identify and explore the key concepts, theories, and principles of QMS.2. Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of different QMS models and frameworks.3. Understand the factors that influence the successful implementation of QMS.4. Identify gaps in the existing literature and areas for further research.5. Provide a theoretical foundation and context for the research study on QMS.The literature review would involve conducting a comprehensive search of relevant databases, academic journals, and other reliable sources to gather relevant articles and studies related to QMS. The collected literature would then be critically analyzed and synthesized to derive meaningful conclusions and identify key findings.Overall, a literature review on quality management systems would contribute to the understanding of best practices and lessons learned in QMS implementation, and help in developing effective strategies and guidelines for organizations aiming to improve their quality management processes.。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
河北科技师范学院毕业论文文献综述题目：A Preliminary Exploration on theConstitutional Principles andFormative Methods of Euphemism委婉语的构造原则和构成方式初探学生姓名：指导教师：院系：外国语学院专业、班级：英本07级**班学号：完成时间：2010年12月河北科技师范学院教务处制说明：封面标题要用中英双语，英文题目在上。
英文题目的实词首字母均须大写，字体：西文Arial；字号：3号；中文题目黑体三号。
段落安排：行距固定值28磅。
对齐方式：两端对齐。
学生姓名、教师姓名等一律用黑体三号，单倍行距Literature Review说明：标题Literature Review 首字母均须大写，字体：西文Arial；字号：3号；段落安排：段前24磅，段后18磅；单倍行距。
对齐方式：居中。
As a widespread and popular rhetorical device, euphemisms came into people‟s life long time ago. …….And the research of euphemisms has a long history ……………..建议：综述前写一简短导言，简介研究课题，概括研究现状。
1. The definition of euphemism说明：标题序号与标题名之间，加圆点，并空1个英文字符；标题第一个单词的首字母大写；字体：西文Arial；字号：小3号；段落安排：段前空24磅，段后空6磅；行距：固定值20磅。
对齐方式：左对齐。
The word euphemism comes from Greek; the prefix eu- means good and the stem phemism means speech; the whole word…s literal meaning is word of good omen. In early 1580s, the British writer George Blunt first created the word euphemism …and defined it as …a good or favorable interpretation of a bad word‟. (Shu, 1995：17)（正文中直接引用原文，必须加引号并标出确切的页码）……………………………(正文字体：小四号罗马体，行距为固定值20磅，对齐方式：两端对齐；段首空四个英文字符)2. Researches abroad2.1 Researches from socio-linguistic perspective说明：标题序号与标题名之间，不加圆点，空1个英文字符；标题第一个单词的首字母大写；字体：西文Arial；字号：四号；段落安排：段前空12磅，段后空6磅；行距：固定值20磅。
对齐方式：左对齐。
如有次一级标题，2.1.1采用13pt字居左书写，其他同上。
2.2 Researches from semantic perspective2.3 Researches from pragmatic perspective………..Goffman (1957) described the consequences of failure in face-work, or to be exact, failure in using euphemisms, “A person who chronically makes himself and others uneasy in conversation and perpetually kills encounters is a faulty interactant; he is likely to have such a baleful effect upon the social life around him that he may just as well be called a faulty person.”（qtd in Hudson，2003：116）说明：转引用格式3. Researches in China3.1 Studies of euphemism from sociolinguistic perspective3.2 Studies of euphemism from pragmatic perspective………….Xu Haiming (1996), from the perspective of pragmatics, discusses how to choose and understand euphemisms in communication and the principles of using them…若间接引用，需写出版年代.3.3 Other influential studies about euphemism…………. ……………….The researches on euphemism cannot be counted; the present paper just list some of the most influential and popular ones. There is no need to dwell on the importance of the euphemism, just as Enrihgt (1985) puts it, “A language without euphemisms could be a defective instruments of communication” (p.29). （正文中直接引用原文，必须加引号并标出确切的页码）说明：以下为综述的结尾段，应简要总结本领域研究存在的问题或努力方向，进而指出本研究的立足点。
4. ConclusionIn a word, the research of euphemism both in abroad and home has made great progress. …….Bibliography说明：参考文献另起一页（可在综述文末插入分隔符,转到下一页）；标题首字母大写，字体：西文Arial；字号：3号；段落安排：段前24磅，段后18磅；单倍行距。
对齐方式：居中。
Allan , K. & K.Burridge. 1991. Euphemism and Dysphemism：Language Used as Shield and Weapon[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Leech, G.N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics[M]. London: Lon gman.毕秀英, 2003, 英语委婉语研究[D], 郑州大学, 中国优秀硕士论文全文数据库。
陈原, 1983, 《社会语言学》[M], 上海: 学林出版社。
说明：参考文献的正文部分用五号字，汉字用宋体，英文用Times New Roman体，行距采用固定值16磅，段前空3磅，段后空0磅。
每一条文献的内容要写在同一页。
遇有被迫分页的情况，可通过“留白”或微调本页行距的方式将同一条文献内容放在一页。
又：参考文献是作者为写作论文而参考的书籍、期刊等，凡正文夹注各项必须在参考文献中列出。
英文参考文献和中文参考文献分别归类排列，英文在前，中文在后。
英文参考文献按作者姓名的英文字母顺序排列，不编码。
无明显作者的（如字典、辞书百科全书）按书名的英文字母顺序排列。
中文参考文献按作者姓名的拼音字母顺序排列，无明显作者的（如字典、辞书百科全书）按书名的拼音字母顺序排列。
一、撰写文献综述的基本要求文献综述是由学生通过系统地查阅与所选课题相关的国内外文献，进行搜集、整理、加工，从而撰写出综合性叙述和评价的文章。
在文献综述中，要较全面地反映与本课题直接相关的国内外主要研究成果、最新进展、研究动态、前沿问题等，特别是近年来的最新成果和发展趋势，也要指出该课题需要进一步解决的问题。
通过文献综述对中外研究成果的比较和评价，不仅可以进一步阐明本课题选题的意义，还可以为本课题组织材料、形成观点奠定基础。
文献综述主体部分的结构，应该包括该课题的“研究历史”的回顾、“研究现状”的对比，以及研究的“发展趋势”。
二、撰写文献综述的基本注意事项1．要围绕毕业论文主题对文献的各种观点作比较分析，不要教科书式地将与研究课题有关的理论和学派观点简要地汇总陈述一遍。
2．文献综述在逻辑上要合理，可以按文献与毕业论文主题的关系由远而近进行综述，也可以按年代顺序综述，也可按不同的问题进行综述，还可按不同的观点进行比较综述。
3．评述（特别是批评前人不足时）要引用原作者的原文（防止对原作者论点的误解），不要贬低别人抬高自己，不能从二手材料来判定原作者的“错误”。
4．文献综述结果要说清前人工作的不足，衬托出作进一步研究的必要性和理论价值。
5．采用了文献中的观点和内容应注明来源，模型、图表、数据应注明出处，不要含糊不清。
6．文献综述最后要有简要总结，并能准确地反映主题内容，表明前人为该领域研究打下的工作基础。
7. 所有提到的参考文献都应和所毕业论文（设计）研究问题直接相关。
8. 由于与一个研究问题相关的文献数目常常十分巨大，因此文献综述收集和分析文章常常要找同类研究中权威的、优秀的文章，文献综述所用的文献，应主要选自学术期刊或学术会议的文章，其次是教科书或其他书籍。
至于大众传播媒介如报纸、广播、通俗杂志中的文章，一些数据、事实可以引用，但其中的观点不能作为论证问题的依据。
所用的文献，最好是近几年发表的。
三、撰写文献综述的其他事项1．一篇毕业论文应完成一篇文献综述，字数规定不少于2000字。
2．文献综述所用的文献，至少要求20篇，且外文的至少要求5篇。
3．文献综述应包括综述题目、综述正文、文献资料等几方面内容。
4．文献综述所引用的参考文献书写格式应符合我院学位论文写作指南的具体要求。