英语期刊论文引言中的元话语对比研究
Comparing Metadiscourse Use in Introductions of English Journal Articles
DOI: 10.12677/ML.2019.75091, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 雷 霄：华南理工大学外国语学院，广东 广州；龙 琦：华南理工大学广州学院，广东 广州
关键词: 元话语；人际互动模式；英语期刊论文引言；应用语言学；机械工程；Metadiscourse； Interpersonal Model； Journal Article Introductions； Applied Linguistics； Mechanical Engineering
摘要: 近年来元话语研究日益得到学术写作界的关注，但是专门针对不同学科期刊论文引言部分的元话语比较研究还很少见。本研究以Hyland 的人际互动模式为理论框架，对比分析了机械工程和应用语言学各30篇英语期刊论文引言中的元话语，发现这两个学科元话语使用既有共性又有不同。共性表现为他们的交互元话语使用频率均显著高于互动元话语，其中言据标记和过渡语使用频率都最高，介入标记使用频率最低。两个学科的差异是语言学论文引言中的互动元话语使用频率显著高于机械工程类，其中模糊限制语、态度标记和自称语的使用频率均显著高于机械工程。本对比分析旨在扩展元话语研究并为相应学科期刊论文引言的写作和教学提供启示。
Abstract: Metadiscourse has attracted increasing attention in second language writing; yet, little research has specifically compared its use in introductions of English Journal Articles across disciplines. Using Hyland’s  Interpersonal Model of metadiscourse, this study compared the data from Mechanical Engineering and Applied Linguistics, each comprising 30 journal articles. It was found that both disciplines have used significantly more interactive metadiscourse than interactional ones, with evidentials and transitions ranking the highest and engagement markers the lowest. Differences also exist between the two disciplines: interactional metadiscourse use in Applied Linguistics is significantly higher than that in Mechanical Engineering, particularly hedges, attitude markers, self mentions.
文章引用：雷霄, 龙琦. 英语期刊论文引言中的元话语对比研究[J]. 现代语言学, 2019, 7(5): 695-702. https://doi.org/10.12677/ML.2019.75091

参考文献

[1] Hyland, K. (2004) Disciplinary Interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[2] Hyland, K. (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum, London, New York.
[3] Crismore, A. (1983) Metadiscourse: What It Is and How It Is Used in School and Non-School Social Science Texts. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
[4] Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. (2016) Change of Attitude? A Diachronic Study of Stance. Written Communication, 33, 1-24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[5] Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. (2016) “We Must Conclude that …”: A Diachronic Study of Academic Engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 29-42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[6] Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. (2017) Is Academic Writing Becoming More Informal? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40-51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[7] Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2004) Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156-177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[8] Vande Kopple, W.J. (2002) Metadiscourse, Discourse, and Issues in Composition and Rhetoric. In: Barton, E. and Stygall, G., Eds., Discourse Studies in Composition, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, 91-113.
[9] Adel, A. (2006) Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[10] Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985) Some Explanatory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[11] Charles, M. (2006) The Construction of Stance in Reporting Clauses: A Cross-Disciplinary Study of Theses. Applied Linguistics, 27, 492-518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[12] Mu, C., Zhang, L.J., Enrich, J. and Hong, H. (2015) The Use of Metadiscourse for Knowledge Construction in Chinese and English Research Articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135-148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[13] Gillaerts, P. (2014) Shifting Metadiscourse: Looking for Diachrony in the Abstract Genre. In: Bondi, M. and Sanz, R.L., Eds., Abstracts in Academic Discourse Variation and Change, Peter Lang, Berlin, 271-286.
[14] Kawase, T. (2015) Metadiscourse in the Introductions of PhD Theses and Research Articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[15] Kim, L.C. and Lim, J.M.H. (2013) Metadiscourse in English and Chinese Research Article Introductions. Discourse Studies, 15, 129-146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[16] Rubio, M.M.S. (2011) A Pragmatic Approach to the Ma-cro-Structure and Metadiscoursal Features of Research Article Introductions in the Field of Agricultural Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 258-271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[17] Lee, J.J. and Casal, J.E. (2014) A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of English and Spanish Thesis Writers in Engineering. System, 46, 39-54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[18] Loi, C.-K., Lim, J.M.-H. and Wharton, S. (2016) Expressing an Evaluative Stance in English and Malay Research Article Conclusions: International Publications versus Local Publications. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 1-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[19] Swales, J. (2004) Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[20] Estaji, M. and Vafaeimehr, R. (2015) A Comparative Analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in the Introduction and Conclusion Sections of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Research. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3, 37-56.
[21] Milne, E.D. (2003) Metadiscourse Revisited: A Contrastive Study of Persuasive Writing through Professional Discourse. Estudios Ingleses De La Universidad Complutense, 11, 29-52.