英语语言学论文格式

转摘More and more scholars are now showing an interest in adopting linguistic approaches to translation studies. Between 1949 and 1989, an incomplete survey by the author revealed that there were only about 30 textbook passages discussing the relationship between linguistics and translation, including aspects of general linguistics, pragmatics, stylistics, text linguistics, rhetoric and machine translation. From 1990 to 1994, there was an incredible increase in the number of passages looking at translation from a linguistic point of view. Almost 160 articles published over these five years concerned translation and general linguistics, stylistics, comparative linguistics, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, text linguistics, rhetoric, etc. New terms such as discourse analysis, hermeneutics, dynamic equivalence, deep structure and surface structure, context, theme and rheme, cooperative principles, to mention just a few, appeared in the field of translation studies. We can definitely identify a trend of applying linguistics theories to translation studies in these years. Today, we are at the point of questioning whether linguistics is a necessary part of translation. In recent years, some scholars who are in favour of free translation, have repeatedly raised this question to the public and appealed for an end to the linguistic approach to translation. Some firmly believe that translation is an art and that therefore linguistics is neither useful nor helpful. Such a claim is wrong if we look at translation as a whole, including scientific translation where meanings are rigid and restricted and the degree of freedom is limited. Flexibility, in this case, is neither required nor appreciated. But even in literary translation, linguistics is hardly a burden. Wang Zongyan pointed out that « If one sees linguistics as a body of rules regulating language, translators most probably will yawn with boredom. If it signifies the use of words and locutions to fit an occasion, there is nothing to stop translators from embracing linguistics » (Wang 1991: 38). The controversy over « literal » versus « free » translation has a long history, with convincing supporters on each side. For example, ancient Western scholars like Erasmus, Augustine, and others were in favour of literal translation. Among early Chinese translators, Kumarajiva is considered to be of the free school, while Xuan Zuang appears as literal and inflexible. In modern China, Yan Fu advocated hermeneutic translation, while Lu Xun preferred a clumsy version to one that was free but inexact. There is nothing wrong in any of these stances. When these translators emphasized free translation they never denied the possibility of literal translation, and vice versa. Problems only arise when the discussion turns to equivalent translations. The problem of equivalence has caused much controversy. Some people believed that there could be an equivalence of language elements independent of the setting in which they of occurred. Based on this assumption, some « literal » translators tried to decompose a text into single elements in hopes of finding equivalents in the target language. This is a naive idea. Jakobson (1971: 262) notes that « Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics. » He does not refer to « equivalence » but to « equivalence in difference » as the cardinal problem. Nida was also misunderstood by many for his notion of « equivalence, » which he took to mean that « Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style » (1969: 12). He further concluded that « Absolute equivalence in translating is never possible » (1984: 14). De Beaugrande and Dressler believed that the success or failure of either free or literal approaches was uncertain: an unduly « literal » translation might be awkward or even unintelligible, while an unduly « free » one might make the original text disintegrate and disappear altogether. To them, equivalence between a translation and an original can only be realized in the experience of the participants (cf. de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981: 216-217). Catford (1965: 27) expressed the same concern that equivalent translation is only « an empirical phenomenon, discovered by comparing SL and TL texts. » In citing the above examples, I have absolutely no intention of insisting on untranslatability. What I mean is that a translator should incorporate his or her own experience and processing activities into the text: solving the problems, reducing polyvalence, explaining away any discrepancies or discontinuities. Linguistic knowledge can help us treat different genres in different ways, always with an awareness that there are never exact equivalences but only approximations. Therefore, amplification and simplification become acceptable. If we agree that texts can be translated, then, in what way does linguistics contribute to translation? To answer this question, we must look at the acceptance of western linguistics in China and its influence on translation. Systematic and scientific study of the Chinese language came into being only at the end of the last century, when Ma Jianzhong published a grammar book Mashi Wentong «马氏文通» in 1898, which was the first in China and took the grammar of Indo-European languages as its model. The study of language was, in turn, influenced by translation studies in China. In Mashi Wenton, the main emphasis is on the use of morphology, which takes up six-sevenths of the book. Influenced by the dominant trend of morphological studies, a word was regarded as the minimum meaningful unit, and a sentence was therefore the logical combination of words of various specific types. Translation was, then, principally based on the unit of the word. In the West, Biblical translation provided a very good example, just as the translation of Buddhist scriptures did in China. Not until the end of the 19th century did some linguists come to realize that sentences were not just the summary of the sequenced words they contained. The Prague School, founded in the 1920s, made a considerable contribution to the study of syntax. According to the analytic approach of the Functional Perspective of the Prague School, a sentence can be broken down into two parts: theme and rheme. Theme is opposed to rheme in a manner similar to the distinction between topic and comment, and is defined as the part of a sentence which contributes least to advancing the process of communication. Rheme, on the other hand, is the part of a sentence which adds most to advancing the process of communication and has the highest degree of communicative dynamism. These two terms help enlighten the process of translating Chinese into English. In the mid-1950s, the study of syntax peaked with the Chomsky's establishment of transformational-generative grammar. This theory of the deep structure and surface structure of language influenced translation tremendously. Nida relied heavily on this theory in developing his « analyzing-transfering-reconstructing » pattern for translation. Some Chinese linguists, in the meantime, tried to raise language studies to a higher plane. Li Jinxi (1982) enlarged the role of sentence studies in his book A New Chinese Grammar, two thirds of which was devoted to discussing sentence formation or syntax. He writes that « No words can be identified except in the context of a sentence. » The study was then improved by other grammarians, including Lu Shuxiang, Wang Li. With the development of linguistic studies, translation based on the unit of the sentence was put forward by some scholars. It was Lin Yu-Tang who first applied the theory to translation in his article « On Translation. » He claimed that « translation should be done on the basis of the sentence [...] What a translator should be faithful to is not the individual words but the meaning conveyed by them » (Lin 1984: r 3). The importance of context in the understanding of a sentence was therefore emphasized. Chao Yuanren, a Chinese scholar and professor at Harvard University, criticized scholars and translators who tended to forget this point and take language for something independent and self-sufficient. In fact, it is obvious that when we translate a sentence, we depend on its context; when we interpret an utterance we rely on the context of the speech (cf. Chao 1967). When a sentence is removed from the text, it usually becomes ambiguous due to the lack of context. Therefore, translation becomes difficult. In the 1960s, people began to realize that the study of language based on sentences was not even sufficient. A complete study should be made of the whole text. A simple sentence like « George passed » may have different interpretations in different contexts. If the context is that of an examination, it means George did well on a test; in a card game it would indicate that George declined his chance to bid; in sports it would mean the ball reached another player. Without a context, how could we decide on a translation? Linguists therefore shifted their attention to the study of texts and to discourse analysis. Text linguistics have become increasingly popular since that time. Van Dijk was a pioneer in this field, and his four-volume edition of the Handbook of Discourse Analysis is of great value. Halliday's Cohesion in English and Introduction to Functional Grammar help us to better understand the English language on a textual level. It is worth noting that de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) provided an overall and systematic study of text, which is useful to translation studies. De Beaugrande actually wrote a book called Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating in 1978. The book did not become very popular as it confined the discussion to translating poetry. At the same time, books on a linguistic approach to translation were introduced into China, such as the works of Eugene Nida, Peter Newmarks, J.C. Catford, Georges Mounin, and others. These books gave a great push to the application of linguistic theories to translation studies in China. Textual or discoursive approaches to the study of translation could not keep pace with the development of text linguistics. Some studies remained on the syntactic or semantic level, though even there textual devices were employed. In talking about the translation units of word and text, Nida wrote: ... average person naively thinks that language is words, the common tacit assumption results that translation involves replacing a word in language A with a word in language B. And the more « conscientious » this sort of translation is, the more acute. In other words, the traditional focus of attention in translation was on the word. It was recognized that that was not a sufficiently large unit, and therefore the focus shifted to the sentence. But again, expert translators and linguists have been able to demonstrate that individual sentences, in turn, are not enough. The focus should be on the paragraph, and to some extent on the total discourse. (Nida and Tabber 1969: 152) From that statement we can see that Nida regards a discourse as something larger than a paragraph, as an article with a beginning and an ending. Nida himself never applied text linguistics to translation, and there might be some confusion if we use his term in our interpretation of discourse, because discourse analysis is not merely a study based on a larger language structure. Some Chinese scholars did make the effort to apply text linguistics to the theory and practice of translation. Wang Bingqin's article (1987) was the first academic paper of this sort. He stated his aim to study and discover the rules governing the internal structure of a text in light of text linguistics. He analyzed numerous examples using textual analysis, but unfortunately, all the samples he collected were descriptions of scenery or quotations from the books of great scholars--no dialogue, no illocutionary or perlocutionary forces in the language. He failed to provide a variety of examples. For this reason, his research findings are largely restricted to rhetorical texts in ancient China (cf. Wang 1981; Luo 1994). Scholars like He Ziran applied pragamatics to translation. He's article (1992) put forth two new terms, « pragmalinguistics » and « socio-pragmatics » which, in translation, refer respectively to « the study of pragmatic force or language use from the viewpoint of linguistic sources » and to « the pragmatic studies which examine the conditions on language use that derive from the social and cultural situation. » He discusses the possibility of applying the pragmatic approach to translation in order to achieve a pragmatic equivalent effect between source and target texts; that is, to reproduce the message carried by the source language itself, as well as the meaning carried by the source language within its context and culture. In this article he tries to distinguish « pragma-linguistics » from « socio-pragmatics » but finally admits that « Actually, a clear line between pragma-linguistics and socio-pragmatics may sometimes be difficult to draw. » Still he insists that the application of the pragmatic approach to translation is helpful and even necessary. Ke Wenli (1992) argued that semantics, which in a broad sense combines semantics and pragmatics, should be studied to help understand, explain and solve some of the problems encountered in translation. In this article, he examines four semantic terms--« sense and reference, » « hyponomy, » « changes of meaning » and « context »--giving many examples to illusrate the importance of having some general knowledge of semantics and of understanding the relationship between semantics and translation. This article is clearly written and readers can easily draw inspiration from it. These linguistics approaches shed new lights on the criteria of « faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance » defined by Yan Fu. Chinese scholars began to criticize the vagueness of these three criteria and endeavored to give them concrete significance through the theories of western linguistics. The result is that the content of these three traditional criteria has been greatly enriched, especially by the effect equivalence theory, which in a broad sense means that the target language should be equivalent to the source language from a semantic, pragmatic, and stylistic point of view. But we are still unable to evaluate translations in a very scientific way. Therefore, Chinese scholars like Fan Shouyi, Xu Shenghuan and Mu Lei embarked on quantitative analyses of translations and used the fuzzy set theory of mathematics in accomplishing their analysis. Fan published several articles on this field of study. His 1987 and 1990 articles evaluate translations according to a numerical quantity of faithfulness. Xu's article « A Mathematical Model for Evaluating a Translation's Quality » presents a normal mathematical model. He states that it is difficult to produce an absolutely accurate evaluation of translations with this model because of the uncertainty and randomness of man's thought process. Making such analysis more accurate and objective would require further research. The unit in translation is a hard nut to crack. Without solving this problem, no research in translation studies will ever be sufficient. To date, very few people have focused their research on this area. Nida holds that the unit should be the sentence, and in a certain sense, the discourse. Barkhudarov (1993: 40), Soviet linguist and translation theorist, suggests that: translation is the process of transforming a speech product (or text) produced in one language into a speech product (or text) in another language. [...] It follows that the most important task of the translator who carries out the process of transformation, and of the theorist who describes or creates a model for that process, is to establish the minimal unit of translation, as it is generally called, the unit of translation in the source text. Though he notes the importance of the unit of translation in a text and considers that this unit can be a unit on any level of language, he fails to point out what a text is and how it might be measured in translation. Halliday's notion of the clause might be significant in this case. To him, a clause is a basic unit. He distinguishes three functions of a clause: textual, interpersonal and ideational. According to Halliday, these functions are not possessed by word or phrase. But he is not quite successful in analyzing the relationship between clause and text (cf. Halliday 1985). In China, some people have tried to solve this problem. Wang Dechun (1987: 10) more or less shares Bakhudarov's view that the translation unit cannot be confined just to sentences. In some ways, the phoneme, word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or even text can all serve as a unit. At this point, we cannot find anything special in treating text translation except for having text as the highest level among translation units. This is not the aim of text linguistics or discourse analysis. If we want to apply these to the theory and practice of translation, we will require a textual approach.

步骤一：选题 英语专业的论文的选题很重要，选对了题，接下来的写作就会很顺利，否则不然。 步骤二：开题报告 要给自己的论文拟定一个标题，然后给这个标题构思一个主题，也就是整篇论文到底在讲什么，要论述什么英语专业本科毕业论文怎么写英语专业本科毕业论文怎么写。接着，构思自己文章的大致框架，也就是提纲。 步骤三：正文(重点) 1.开题报告确定之后，就要开始论文正文部分的写作了。开始写正文之前还有一个小插曲，那就是摘要部分的写作。 2.英语论文写作对原创性有一定的要求，一般是直接引用的内容不得超过30% 论文一定要自己动手写，不然答辩的时候就会一头雾水。

：现在本科学历，如果能找人进事业单位，还是可以的，如果是到普通公司打工，基本老板看的都是实际能力，能为公司带来什么效益，对学历要求不是那么严格。

先不要着急。 论文答辩的时候，给5分钟自述只是一个形式上的要求。通常不会有人非得要求你一定要讲足5分钟的。那些老师通常不会太认真听滴...:) 非要凑够5分钟的话，就说你的写作原由，内容提要，主要观点什么的，最重要的是，你要说说文中你认为的亮点。

我发表英文文章的个人经验 （1）多看专业核心外文期刊的相关文章，向别人学习相关的写作，包括单词、语句，甚至是段落和文章结构。比如老外写的前言部分，往往都进行了综合归纳，如果我们看到这样的文章，一定要多多拜读。 （2）注意文章的逻辑性，打算投往高级别的国际期刊更是如此。一些国外编辑和审稿人对中国人写的文章存在一种怀疑的态度，因此我们自身的文章必须具有足够的事实证据，推理严密，只有这样才能够“打动”编辑和审稿人的心。 （4）写文章一定要有自己的新观点或者新的idea，不能是大量实验数据的堆砌。老外一般喜欢对数据进行深入分析。记住文章是交流学术思想的，不是交流实验工作量的。 （5）注意英语语言。这不可能在一夜之间有质的飞越，但是平时多积累是绝对有益处的，当然如果请国外的朋友或者在国外留学多年的朋友帮着修改语言，那是最好不过的了。 （6）其他需要注意的小地方： A:严格遵循“作者须知”的规定，尊重拟投稿期刊所惯用的论文结构，特别注意图表的位置（一些期刊要求图表在文中，一些则要求图表放在文字部分之后），投稿的份数要足够，重视稿件给编辑和审稿人的“第一印象”。 B:核对通讯作者详细的通信地址、E-mail地址、电话号码、传真号码等。 C:务必遵照期刊的要求将稿件投寄给指定的收稿人或收稿单位（期刊的编辑部、编委会、主编、执行编委或助理编辑）。 D:与编辑部联系的所有信件（包括磁盘、打印稿或复印件等），都应标注联系作者的姓名。

专业原创代写，需要联系

自考本科段英语论文的标准应该和全日制英语本科论文相同，但老师会酌情放宽给分，毕竟自考和全日制水平会有点差别。 中英文题目，中英文摘要，中英文关键词， 英文正文， 7000字以上。加reference。 具体格式可参考网上的MIA论文格式。

我不是自己写的，找脚印论文网写的，又不贵，还能节约点时间泡妞呢。哈哈

有文学方面，翻译学方面，教学法方面的。自己选一个方向，再定题目，写开提报告，再找资料啥的。

有五个方向 英语教学方向 语言学方向 英美文学 英美文化 翻译方向

毕业论文无论在内容或形式上都有一定的要求，这也是考核论文成绩的基本依据之一。关于毕业论文写作的具体要求，在以后的有关章节中将作详细论述，这里先说说毕业论文写作的一些原则要求。 一、坚持理论联系实际的原则 撰写毕业论文必须坚持理论联系实际的原则。理论研究，特别是社会科学的研究必须为现实服务，为社会主义现代化建设服务，为两个文明建设服务。理论来源于实践，又反作用于实践。科学的理论对实践有指导作用，能通过人们的实践活动转化为巨大的物质力量。科学研究的任务就在于揭示事物运动的规律性，并用这种规律性的认识指导人们的实践，推动社会的进步和发展。因此，毕业论文在选题和观点上都必须注重联系社会主义现代化建设的实际，密切注视社会生活中出现的新情况、新问题。 坚持理论研究的现实性，做到理论联系实际，就必须迈开双脚，深入实际，进行社会调查研究。这也是我们正确认识社会的基本途径。人们只有深入到实际中去，同客观事物广泛接触，获得大量的感性材料，然后运用科学的逻辑思维方法，对这些材料进行去粗取精，去伪存真，由此及彼，由表及里的加工制作，才能从中发现有现实意义而又适合自己研究的新课题。在我国改革开放的实践中，新情况、新问题、新经验层出不穷，需要研究的问题遍布社会的方方面面，只要我们对现实问题有浓厚的兴趣和高度的敏感性，善于捕捉那些生动而具有典型性的现实材料，通过深入的思考和研究，就能从中引出有利于社会主义现代化建设的规律性认识，提高毕业论文的价值。当然撰写毕业论文可选择的课题十分广泛，并不只限于现实生活中的问题，也可以研究专业基本理论，中西方比较研究等。但无论选择什么研究课题，都必须贯彻理论联系实际的原则，做到古为今用，洋为中用，从历史的研究中吸取有益于现实社会发展的经验教训，从对外国的研究中，借鉴其成功经验和失败的教训，或为我国的对外政策提供某些依据。 贯彻理论联系实际的原则和方法，必须认真读书，掌握理论武器。 *** 同志指出：“强调联系实际，绝不意味着否定读书的重要，恰恰相反，更要认真地读，反复地读，深钻苦研，做到真正读懂弄通。否则，没有掌握理论，怎么谈得上理论联系实际?”(《求是》杂志1989年第24期)认真读书包括两个方面的内容，一是学好专业课，具备专业基础知识。这是写好毕业论文的前提和必要条件。经验告诉我们，只有具备了相应水平的知识积累，才能理解一定深度的学术问题；同时，也只有具备了某一特定的知识结构，才能对某学科中的问题进行研究。正如黑格尔所说，在讨论学术问题之前，必须“先有具备某种程度的知识”，否则，“没有凭借作为讨论出发的根据，于是他们只能徘徊于模糊空疏以及毫无意义的情况中”。(小逻辑》第三版序言)二是要认真学习马克思主义的基本原理，学会运用马克思主义的立场、观点和方法分析问题、解决问题。马克思主义正确地揭示了自然界、人类社会和思维发展的最一般规律，成为无产阶级和革命人民认识世界和改造世界的强大思想武器。马克思主义作为伟大的认识工具，虽然并不直接提供解决各种具体问题的答案，但它对我们如何正确地发现问题，分析和解决问题提供了正确的立场、观点和方法，因此，大学毕业生在撰写毕业论文时，应当努力学习和掌握马克思主义基本理论，自觉地用马克思主义的立场、观点和方法来指导毕业论文的写作。 二、立论要科学，观点要创新 (一)立论要科学 毕业论文的科学性是指文章的基本观点和内容能够反映事物发展的客观规律。文章的基本观点必须是从对具体材料的分析研究中产生出来，而不是主观臆想出来的。科学研究作用就在于揭示规律，探索真理，为人们认识世界和改造世界开拓前进的道路。判断一篇论文有无价值或价值之大小，首先是看文章观点和内容的科学性如何。 文章的科学性首先来自对客观事物的周密而详尽的调查研究。掌握大量丰富而切合实际的材料，使之成为“谋事之基，成事之道”。 2 毕业论文写作的基本要求 其次，文章的科学性通常取决于作者在观察、分析问题时能否坚持实事求是的科学态度。在科学研究中，既不容许夹杂个人的偏见，又不能人云亦云，更不能不着边际地凭空臆想，而必须从分析出发，力争做到如实反映事物的本来面目。 再次，文章是否具有科学性，还取决于作者的理论基础和专业知识。写作毕业论文是在前人成就的基础上，运用前人提出的科学理论去探索新的问题。因此，必须准确地理解和掌握前人的理论，具有广博而坚实的知识基础。如果对毕业论文所涉及领域中的科学成果一无所知，那就根本不可能写出有价值的论文。 (二)观点要创新 毕业论文的创新是其价值所在。文章的创新性，一般来说，就是要求不能简单地重复前人的观点，而必须有自己的独立见解。学术论文之所以要有创新性，这是由科学研究的目的决定的。从根本上说，人们进行科学研究就是为了认识那些尚未被人们认识的领域，学术论文的写作则是研究成果的文字表述。因此，研究和写作过程本身就是一种创造性活动。从这个意义上说，学术论文如果毫无创造性，就不成其为科学研究，因而也不能称之为学术论文。毕业论文虽然着眼于对学生科学研究能力的基本训练，但创造性仍是其着力强调的一项基本要求。 当然，对学术论文特别是毕业论文创造性的具体要求应作正确的理解。它可以表现为在前人没有探索过的新领域，前人没有做过的新题目上做出了成果；可以表现为在前人成果的基础上作进一步的研究，有新的发现或提出了新的看法，形成一家之言3也可以表现为从一个新的角度，把已有的材料或观点重新加以概括和表述。文章能对现实生活中的新问题作出科学的说明，提出解决的方案，这自然是一种创造性；即使只是提出某种新现象、新问题，能引起人们的注意和思考，这也不失为一种创造性。国家科委成果局在1983年3月发布的《发明奖励条例》中指出：“在科学技术成就中只有改造客观世界的才是发明，……至于认识客观世界的科学成就，则是发现。”条例中对“新”作了明确规定：“新”是指前人所没有的。凡是公知和公用的，都不是“新”。这些规定，可作为我们衡量毕业论文创造性的重要依据。 根据《条例》所规定的原则，结合写作实践，衡量毕业论文的创造性，可以从以下几个具体方面来考虑： (1)所提出的问题在本专业学科领域内有一定的理论意义或实际意义，并通过独立研究，提出了自己一定的认识和看法。 (2)虽是别人已研究过的问题，但作者采取了新的论证角度或新的实验方法，所提出的结论在一定程度上能够给人以启发。 (3)能够以自已有力而周密的分析，澄清在某一问题上的混乱看法。虽然没有更新的见解，但能够为别人再研究这一问题提供一些必要的条件和方法。 (4)用较新的理论、较新的方法提出并在一定程度上解决了实际生产、生活中的问题，取得一定的效果。或为实际问题的解决提供新的思路和数据等。 (5)用相关学科的理论较好地提出并在一定程度上解决本学科中的问题。 (6)用新发现的材料(数据、事实、史实、观察所得等)来证明已证明过的观点。 科学研究中的创造性要求对前人已有的结论不盲从，而要善于独立思考，敢于提出自己的独立见解，敢于否定那些陈旧过时的结论，这不仅要有勤奋的学习态度，还必须具有追求真理、勇于创新的精神。要正确处理继承与创新的关系，任何创新都不是凭空而来的，总是以前人的成果为基础。因此，我们要认真地学习、研究和吸收前人的成果。但是这种学习不是不加分析地生吞活剥，而是既要继承，又要批判和发展。 三、论据要翔实，论证要严密 (一)论据要翔实 一篇优秀的毕业论文仅有一个好的主题和观点是不够的，它还必须要有充分、翔实的论据材料作为支持。旁征博引、多方佐证，是毕业论文有别于一般性议论文的明显特点。一般性议论文，作者要证明一个观点，有时只需对一两个论据进行分析就可以了，而毕业论文则必须以大量的论据材料作为自己观点形成的基础和确立的支柱。作者每确立一个观点，必须考虑：用什么材料做主证，什么材料做旁证；对自己的观点是否会有不同的意见或反面意见，对他人持有的异议应如何进行阐释或反驳。毕业论文要求作者所提出的观点、见解切切实实是属于自己的，而要使自己的观点能够得到别人的承认，就必须有大量的、充分的、有说服力的理由来证实自己观点的正确。 3 毕业论文写作的基本要求 毕业论文的论据要充分，还须运用得当。一篇论文中不可能也没有必要把全部研究工作所得，古今中外的事实事例、精辟的论述、所有的实践数据、观察结果、调查成果等全部引用进来，而是要取其必要者，舍弃可有可无者。论据为论点服务，材料的简单堆积不仅不能证明论点，强有力地阐述论点，反而给人以一种文章拖咨、杂乱无章、不得要领的感觉。因而在已收集的大量材料中如何选择必要的论据显得十分重要。一般来说，要注意论据的新颖性、典型性、代表性，更重要的是考虑其能否有力地阐述观点。 毕业论文中引用的材料和数据，必须正确可靠，经得起推敲和验证，即论据的正确性。具体要求是，所引用的材料必须经过反复证实。第一手材料要公正，要反复核实，要去掉个人的好恶和想当然的推想，保留其客观的真实。第二手材料要究根问底，查明原始出处，并深领其意，而不得断章取义。引用别人的材料是为自己的论证服务，而不得作为篇章的点缀。在引用他人材料时，需要下一番筛选、鉴别的功夫，做到准确无误。写作毕业论文，应尽量多引用自己的实践数据、调查结果等作为佐证。如果文章论证的内容，是作者自己亲身实践所得出的结果，那么文章的价值就会增加许多倍。当然，对于掌握知识有限、实践机会较少的大学生来讲，在初次进行科学研究中难免重复别人的劳动，在毕业论文中较多地引用别人的实践结果、数据等，在所难免。但如果全篇文章的内容均是间接得来的东西的组合，很少有自己亲自动手得到的东西，那也就完全失去了写作毕业论文的意义。 (二)论证要严密 论证是用论据证明论点的方法和过程。论证要严密、富有逻辑性，这样才能使文章具有说服力。从文章全局来说，作者提出问题、分析问题和解决问题，要符合客观事物的规律，符合人们对客观事物认识的程序，使人们的逻辑程序和认识程序统一起来，全篇形成一个逻辑整体。从局部来说，对于某一问题的分析，某一现象的解释，要体现出较为完整的概念、判断、推理的过程。 毕业论文是以逻辑思维为主的文章样式，它诉诸理解大量运用科学的语体，通过概念、判断、推理来反映事物的本质或规律，从已知推测未知，各种毕业论文都是采用这种思维形式。社会科学论文往往是用已知的事实，采取归纳推理的形式，求得对未知的认识。要使论证严密，富有逻辑性，必须做到：(1)概念判断准确，这是逻辑推理的前提；(2)要有层次、有条理的阐明对客观事物的认识过程；(3)要以论为纲，虚实结合，反映出从“实”到“虚”，从“事”到“理”，即由感性认识上升到理性认识的飞跃过程。 此外，撰写毕业论文还应注意文体式样的明确性、规范性。学术论文、调查报告、科普读物、可行性报告、宣传提纲等都各有自己的特点，在写作方法上不能互相混同。

论文的结构应该包括以下几部分：介绍页封面标题页论文审查委员对论文做出贡献的（可选）知识范畴（可选）摘要题词（可选）目录表格列表（可选）符号和缩略语（可选）词汇表（可选）内容