A Corpus-based Comparative Study Of Conclusion Section Of Journal Papers In Chinese And International English Academic Journals

English, as an international language, is widely used in scientific and technological fields. Journal papers in English have become one of the main channels for communicating and advancing scientific knowledge among scholars world-wide. As a result, English academic journals is an important way for Chinese and international researchers to communicate their findings. However, among 196 Chinese English academic journals published in china, only 20 of them are listed by EI and 35 of them are listed by SCI, which means that Chinese English academic journals (CEAJs) still have a long way to go compared with international English academic journals (IEAJs). Conclusion section as the ending part of a journal paper reveals the essence of the study. However, it has been usually considered as one part of discussion and seldom be studied. In recent years this section has been studied by a few researchers. However, no widely accepted move model has been established for this section in JPs in scientific and technological fields. And no contrastive study has been done in this section.In this paper we establish two corpora for JPs from CEAJs and IEAJs to analyze the conclusion section of each JP. This study aims to find out the similarities and differences of the two corpora on discoursal level in terms of graphological features, moves, thematic features and linguistic features. And a model with four moves for conclusion section is established.In the approach, we randomly collect 100 English journal papers from Chinese and international English academic journals respectively. The conclusion section from each JP is selected to build corpora. As a whole, this thesis is a combination of a quantitative study with a qualitative study. We calculate paper length, conclusion length, move length, theme distribution, thematic progression, voice, tense and modal verbs as the parameters. And a model containing four moves for conclusion section is established after analyzing all the conclusions. Generally, in each conclusion, the total number of a certain parameter is counted, with its proportion and average being calculated. In order to reach a convincing conclusion, the independent T-test is used to verify whether the statistical difference is significant enough to distinguish Chinese data and international data from each other.We find both similarities and differences in the discoursal level between conclusions from CEAJs and IEAJs. On graphological level significant differences exist in the paper length and conclusion length, with conclusions from IEAJs outnumbering those from CEAJs. However, no significant difference is found in the percentage of conclusions to the whole paper length. In the model established for conclusions great difference is found in Move 2: Indicating contributions of the study. This move is obligatory in conclusions from CEAJs, while in IEAJs it is optional. Significant differences are also found in the length of Move 1: Summarizing the study, Move 2: Indicating contributions of the study and Move 4: Recommending the future study. Research results indicate that Chinese writers focus on the contribution of their studies, while English writers pay more attention to the studies themselves and their implications for the future studies. As for the thematic structure, we find significant difference in the number of unmarked themes used by Chinese and English writers. Differences in the most frequently used themes in different categories are also found. In the pattern of thematic progression the results show that Chinese writers use parallel pattern most in conclusions while English writers use linear pattern most. As for linguistic features, active voice and simple present tense are most frequently used in conclusions both from CEAJs and IEAJs. Modal verbs are also frequently adopted by both Chinese and English writers especially in move 3 and move 4.These research findings in this paper can give reference for Chinese authors to obey the underlying writing rules in order to publish their articles in international authoritative academic journals, for Chinese editors of Chinese English academic journals to examine the articles they receive under a more international standard. This study can also provide pedagogical implications for teachers and students involved in academic writing and give insights for further studies on English JP conclusion sections.