Literature review在发表中占有非常重要的地位，一篇优秀的Literature review能够使读者从中收益，因此，Literature review的发表方法很重要，本文就Literature review发表进行了详细的论叙。

 

　　literature review的格式是什么?怎样才能好literature review?

 

　　一篇Literature review按照内容可以分为三个部分：

 

　　1、这篇literature的概况。谁的?在哪儿的?哪年发表的等等……

 

　　2、这篇literature的内容。

 

　　3、你对这篇literature的看法。

 

　　详细点来说是这样的：

 

　　第一部分：文学作品概况

 

　　这部分是最为简单和公式化的，内容主要是文学作品的作者，作者所处的位置，文学作品的出处：会议论文还是期刊，或者是网上的资料，文学作品的读者是哪些。如果有必要，可以在这部分加入对文学作品整体的简略评价。

 

　　第二部分：文学作品内容

 

　　这部分也是比较公式化的。因为每一篇合格的论文都会包含一下的几个部分：

 

　　1.background 背景

 

　　2.problem/hypothesis 问题/假设

 

　　3.solution/argumentation 解决方案/论证

 

　　4.experimental test/conclusion 实验/结论

 

　　把每个点用一句话来概括就可以了，要注意的是不必叙述每个细节，把文学作品的主线理清楚就可以了。

 

　　第三部分：你的看法

 

　　这部分是最为重要的，你的评价应该直接反映该篇文学作品对你的研究有何意义、文学作品的强处以及弱处。你对文学作品的评价可以分为三层。最高层的是对文学作品的内容的评价， 例如方法是否新颖，解决的问题是否有意义，所用的实验步骤、实验对象是否合适，结论是否正确。第二层是关于文学作品的结构和风格的，如论述的组织是否合理，论 证的过程有没有漏洞，文学作品的段落结构有没有问题等等。最底层的是关于文学作品的用词以及语法方面的评价，句子是否通顺，词语是否恰当，有没有更好的表达方式等 等。三层的重要性是递减的，最上面的那一层是最重要的，这应该是你读文学作品的重点，也应该是你Review的重点。

 

　　下面是一个典型的Review，希望大家通过认真研读，能够从中得到启示。

 

　　摘要：In this paper, deception is considered as a communicative strategy. The author analyzes deception from a dynamic perspective. This will deepen the understanding of deception in daily communication. The previous papers mainly analyze deception in terms of its adaptability, but they do not make a detailed analysis of its pragmatic strategies and effects.

 

　　And it emphasized the importance of the maxim of Quality. He believes that the speaker who violates Quality of Maxim is lying and lying is a moral offence. However, there exists a lot of deception in language interactions and Cooperative Principle can not explain it forcefully. Then, Leech put forth the Politeness Principles (PP) with the intention to ‘rescue’ Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP). He held that people use deception in consideration of politeness.

 

　　His PP is further categorized into six main maxims, which go in pairs as follows:

 

　　1) Tact Maxim;

 

　　(a)Minimize cost to other [(b)] Maximize benefit to other;

 

　　2) Generosity Maxim;

 

　　(a)Minimize benefit to self [(b)] Maximize cost to self;

 

　　3) Approbation Maxim (in expressive and assertive);

 

　　(a)Minimize dispraise of other [(b)] Maximize praise of other;

 

　　4) Modesty Maxim (in expressive and assertive);

 

　　a) Minimize praise of self [(b)] Maximize dispraise of self;

 

　　5) Agreement Maxim (in assertive); a) Minimize disagreement between self and other [(b)] Maximize agreement between self and other

 

　　6) Sympathy Maxim (in assertive).

 

　　The most adequate illustration of deception from the pragmatic angle stems from He Ziran and Zhang Shuling in domestic. They view this phenomenon from the angle of adaption theory. According to Jef Verschuren, using language must consist of the continuous making of linguistic choices, consciously or unconsciously. The choice of deception is to adapt to the mental, social or physical world of the speaker or the listener. Though the studies of deception of the two scholars from pragmatic perspective is comprehensive, they ignore deception in pragmatics is a strategy. And the use of deception is not just out of politeness, their interpretation is not systematic.

 

　　It is Qian Guanlian who first studies the topic of true and false speech. He classified the false information into two kinds: profitable false speech and functional false speech. The former consists of “false speech to injure others” and “false speech to benefit others”. In the article “False Information”, Professor Qian classifies the deceptive information into beneficial or harmful false information, and functional false information). The false information which is used to deceive the addressee deliberately is called beneficial or harmful false information. Falsity in the beneficial or harmful false information is not known to the addressee. Professor Qian further classifies it into two kinds: beneficial false information and harmful false information. The false information which is controlled under certain background and can be used to achieve some special effects is called functional false information. All in all, Qian’s False Information is helpful in improving the understanding of deception.

 

　　Actually, the linguistic study of deception is still on the infant stage. Compared with the researches made by foreign scholars, the researches made by Chinese scholars are still not enough.

 

　　In addition, most of the studies from the linguistic perspective concentrate on the pragmatic, semantic or cross-cultural fields both at home and abroad. In general, linguistic studies of deception are fragmentary and no comprehensive theoretical framework has been evolved to explain deception fully. What’s more, few probe deception from the pragmatic strategy perspective. It is of great importance to notice that deception can be helpful to achieve specific pragmatic effects, both as a means of communication and also as a way of expressing personal information. In this case, it was of necessity to approach deception from the pragmatic angle. One problem deserves our attention is that domestic studies of deception is disadvantaged compared with the overseas studies with excessive focus diverted to the morality of deception. It was not until 1980s that the linguistic study of deception emerged at home. Therefore, the study of deception based on empirical evidences from the sociolinguistic perspective is not only meaningful but also vital and urgent. Besides, few scholars integrate deception with Chinese traditional works to analyze its pragmatic effects.

 

　　As a pragmatic strategy, deception is frequently used to achieve certain effects in our daily conversations. Different kinds of deception in certain context can cause different effects. Deception can be classified into beneficial false information and harmful false information according to Qian’s False Information Theory(Zhang, 2006:8).Beneficial false information means that the deception we use is beneficial to others; harmful false information means that the deception we use is harmful to others.

 

　　However, deception occurred in daily life is not given the same attention. Comparatively speaking, the research of it conducted in pragmatic and sociolinguistic field is even more backward.