| With the continuous expansion of international academic exchanges,English writing as an important step into the international academic arena and for strengthening international academic exchanges is increasingly valued.The use of discourse resources plays an important role in the overall discourse structure,the author’s point of view,positional identity and the promotion of scientific research results.As a kind of discourse resource,metadiscourse can not only effectively organize discourse,but also help the author to develop effective interactions.Since the term “metadiscourse” was introduced from America in 1959,it has attracted the attention of scholars both at home and abroad.As an important part of the terminology,abstract writing is essential content of the article.At present,most of the academic research on abstracts focuses on the study of moves or genres,and less on the study of metadiscourse,especially the contrastive study of metadiscourse use between different languages and disciplines.This study reviews previous studies of metadiscourse from the perspectives of research frontiers,key literature,core authors and major journals both at home and abroad,and makes an in-depth review of the existing studies of metadiscourse on the basis of the review.Then,by combining the theories related to metadiscourse and identity construction.The present study to analyze 200 doctoral thesis abstracts of education and communication disciplines in Domestic and the United States with an aim to find similarities and differences in the metadiscourse and identity construction.The results show that there are both similarities and differences in the use of metadiscourse and the construction of identity in the two abstracts.Firstly,the abstracts of doctoral dissertations in education and communication disciplines in domestic and the United States include the use of 9 types: transition markers,frame markers,endophoric markers,code glosses,self mentions,engagement markers,attitude markers,discriminatory markers and judgment markers.The types of identity include the three main categories of the the organizers,interactors the evaluators,respectively further divided into connectors,interpreters,spontaneous interactors,other interactors,otherevaluators and self evaluators.The identity of connectors is realized by use of transition markers,frame markers and endophoric markers,the identity of interpreters is realized by use of code glosses,the identity of spontaneous interactors is realized by use of code glosses,the identity of other interactors is realized by use of engagement markers,the identity of evaluators is realized by use of attitude markers,discriminatory markers and judgment markers.In terms of sub-categories of metadiscourse types,it is found that the number and frequency in the use of transition markers,frame markers and self mentions are higher in domestic education disciplines and communication disciplines.In addition,the number and frequency in the use of transition markers,frame markers,code glosses,self mentions,discriminatory markers and judgment markers in communication disciplines are much higher than those in education disciplines.In terms of the identity types,it is found that the number and frequency in the use of organizers and interactors in the primary identity in communication disciplines are much higher than those in education disciplines.In terms of evaluators,it is found that the number and frequency in the use of evaluators in education disciplines are much higher than those in communication disciplines.In terms of connectors and spontaneous interactors in sub-identities,it is found that the number and frequency in the use of connectors and spontaneous interactors in communication disciplines are much higher than those in education disciplines.But the results were reversed in the interpreters,other interactors,and other evaluators.Secondly,the total use of metadiscourse in communication are higher than that in education in the United States,transition markers are still ranks first in both disciplines.Both of them use less of the endophoric markers.In terms of number and frequency in the use of frame markers in communication disciplines are much higher than those in education disciplines.In terms of number and frequency in the use of discriminatory in education disciplines are much higher than those in education communication disciplines.There is a great difference between the two types of metadiscourse in disciplines.In terms of identity types,it is found that the number and frequency in the use of three main categories of identity in communication disciplines are much higher than those in education disciplines.On the sub-category identity,it is found that thenumber and frequency in the use of connector,spontaneous interaction,self evaluators and interpreter in communication disciplines are much higher than those in education disciplines.However,the results are opposite in terms of other interactors and other evaluators.Thirdly,the number and frequency of metadiscourse in the United States are higher than that of in Domestic.It is found that the number and frequency in the use of transition markers,frame markers,endophoric markers and self mentions in communication disciplines are higher in Domestic,while the United States is the most frequently used in terms of self mentions and judgment markers.Then,there are significant differences in the use of frame markers.The frequency in the use of frame markers in the United States are significantly higher than in Domestic.In terms of the number and frequency in the use of organizers and evaluators in the United States are higher than that of in Domestic.In terms of interactors,the number in the use of interactors in Domestic are higher than those in the United States,but in terms of frequency,there are significant differences.The frequency in the use of the three identities in the United States is significantly higher than that in Domestic,but in evaluators,there are no significant differences.On the sub-category identity,the frequency in the use of connectors and spontaneous interactors in the United States are higher than those in Domestic,especially the connectors.Fourthly,the frequency in use of metadiscourse in communication in United States are higher than those in Domestic.The top four high-frequency types of metadiscourse in Domestic are transition markers,frame markers,code glosses and self mentions,while the United States are transition markers,frame marker,self mentions,and judgment markers.In other types,the frequency in use of attitude markers are the lowest in Domestic,and the frequency in use of engagement markers are the lowest in the United States.In terms of identity,the number in use of three types in the United States are much higher than those in Domestic.In terms of sub-category,the number and frequency in use of connectors and spontaneous are higher.In terms of the number in use of other interactions in Domestic use are higher than that of the United States;In terms of the frequency,the results are opposite.In terms of the number in use ofinterpreters,other evaluators and self evaluators in the United States are much higher than those in Domestic.Based on the above comparative analysis,this study summarizes the factors influencing the differences from the aspects of disciplinary differences,language differences,ways of thinking,cultural differences,etc.First,the differences in the use of metadiscourse are summarized as follows: in terms of disciplinary differences,liberal arts have a strong humanism,so they are obvious in the use of frame markers.Science and engineering focus on the objectivity and scientificity of data,so they often use frame markers and code glosses to construct the structure of the article.In terms of language differences,since the corpus analyze the abstract in English and Chinese,the“and” appears frequently in the statistical results in English,so the frame markers will be widely used.In terms of thinking mode,Domestic writers tend to combine objective facts with the views of others,and then intuitively summarize their own subjective consciousness.In addition,Domestic writers focus more on the description of facts and use less transition markers in the abstract.In contrast,English writers focus on the rigor of logical thinking and academic writing.In terms of cultural differences,due to the influence of traditional Chinese Confucianism,there are few metadiscourses of emotion and evaluation in the writing of Domestic writers.English writers express their feelings and critical thinking more directly.Second,the difference in identity construction is mainly caused by the fact that Domestic writers tend to be collectivist and culturally oriented.the author that commonly by group or the academic writing process groups to express their views,so the individual identity is not obvious,but the collective identity is prominent,and this kind of identity can make readers more acceptable.On the contrary,American individualism occupies the mainstream in the society,and individualized thoughts can also be reflected in writing.In places where scientific research achievements are innovative and unique,authors will express their outstanding achievements in scientific research by highlighting their own identities.Therefore,there is a significant difference between the identities of sub-category self interactors and main category evaluators between Domestic and the United States.Finally,in order to provide some reference and enlightenment for the writing of abstracts of liberal arts andsciences by means of difference analysis.The enlightenment of this study includes two aspects.In theory,the combination of metadiscourse theory and identity construction theory can provide reference and enlightenment for the author to express his views and identities reasonably in abstract writing.In practice,for teachers’ teaching,teachers should strengthen the teaching of metadiscourse theory and identity theory in teaching;for students’ learning,students should enhance their knowledge of language and culture,thus improving the level of abstract writing. |
PDF Full Text Request