中英期刊摘要结果语步的元话语配价模式对比及历时研究(2000~2025)

A Diachronic and Comparative Study of Metadiscourse Valence Patterns in Result Moves of Chinese and English Journal Abstracts (2000~2025)

摘要: 基于6本中外核心期刊(《外语教学与研究》《纺织学报》《社会学研究》及Applied Linguistics、Journal of English for Academic Purposes、American Journal of Sociology等) 2000~2025年476篇学术摘要语料，采用定量统计与历时分析方法，探究“研究结果”语步中元话语使用特征的中英差异与时间演变规律。结果显示：1) 中文期刊引导式元话语使用频率(均值1.95次/篇)显著高于外文期刊(1.48次/篇)，2000~2025年降幅达51.4%；2) 外文期刊互动式元话语呈持续上升趋势，尤其是态度标记(0.37次/篇)与介入标记(0.40次/篇)，分别是中文期刊的37倍与5.7倍；3) 学科差异显著，语言学引导式元话语使用最多(2.89次/篇)，纺织科学互动式元话语增长最快(2000~2025年增幅60.0%)；4) 2015年与2020年为关键转折点，分别与国内摘要精简政策、国际开放科学规范的推行时间高度吻合。研究揭示了学术文化传统、学科发展需求与出版规范对元话语使用特征的协同影响，为学术写作教学与跨文化学术交流提供实证参考。

Abstract: Based on a corpus of 476 academic abstracts from six core Chinese and international journals—including Foreign Language Teaching and Research, Journal of Textile Research, Sociological Studies, Applied Linguistics, Textile Research Journal, and American Journal of Sociology—collected from 2000~2025, this study employs quantitative statistics and diachronic analysis to investigate the differences and temporal evolution patterns in metadiscourse usage within the “results” move across Chinese and English. The results show notable disparities. Firstly, Chinese journals exhibit a significantly higher frequency of interactive metadiscourse (1.95 instances per abstract) than English journals (1.48 instances per abstract), with a 51.4% decrease during the research period. Secondly, English journals show a continuous rise in interactional metadiscourse. Their stance markers (0.37 instances per abstract) and engagement markers (0.40 instances per abstract) are 37 times and 5.7 times those of Chinese journals respectively. Thirdly, obvious disciplinary differences are observed: linguistics features the highest use of interactive metadiscourse (2.89 instances per abstract), while textile science records the fastest growth rate (60.0%). Fourthly, 2015 and 2020 are critical turning points, corresponding respectively to the implementation of domestic abstract standardization policies and international open science norms. This study reveals the synergistic effects of academic culture, disciplinary development and publishing regulations on metadiscourse use, providing empirical evidence for academic writing teaching and cross-cultural academic communication.