A Contrastive Study On The Metadiscoutse Use In English Management Academic Articles By Native Chinese Scholar And Native English Scholoar

Discourse can be roughly stratified into two levels:primary discourse and metadiscourse. Metadiscourse is defined as self-reflective linguistic expressions referring to the communication triangle:the text involved, the writer, and the imagined readers of that text. It is based on a view of writing as a social engagement and, in academic contexts, reveals the ways writers project themselves into their discourse to signal their organizing attempts, commitments, and attitudes. In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the study of metadiscourse, particularly in the use of metadiscourse in writing. The use of metadiscourse can help writers effectively reach their readers so that their writings can be easily interpreted by the reader. Therefore, metadiscourse is crucial for effective writing.This study, based on two self-compiled corpora, intends to explore the similarities and differences in frequency and variety of metadiscourse adopted by native Chinese scholar and native English scholars from a contrastive perspective. The present study aims to address:1) What are the features of the use of metadiscourse in those English academic articles written by Chinese scholars and native English scholars? 2) What are the possible causes for bringing about the differences of metadiscourse use in the articles written by the two groups of scholars?This study is based on Hyland's classification of metadiscourse and adopts a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Firstly, by frequency counts, the use of the metadiscoursal devices in the two corpora is presented. Then a comparative analysis about the total use of metadiscourse and the use in subcategories is conducted. The possible causes to generate the differences are given in a qualitative way, namely, thinking modes, mother language transfer and language processing system.By frequency counts and comparative analysis, the author finds that native English scholars used more metadiscoursal devices than native Chinese scholars, but the gap is not very big. Native Chinese scholars used 56.87 metadiscoursal devices every 1000 words while native English scholars used 63.83 ones. In some subcategories of metadiscoursal deyices,the two corpora are very dufferebt frin each (?)ther,for example,frame markers. evidentials and interactional resources. Especially, in terms of interactional resources, native Chinese scholars used 18.97 metadiscoursal devices every 1000 words while their English counterparts 28.97 ones. The fact indicates that native Chinese scholars do not have sufficient awareness of establishing appropriate writer-reader relationship and that they have less knowledge of audience needs.The significance of this study lies in the fact that it has enhanced our understanding of the role of metadiscourse in academic writings and the use of metadiscourse by native Chinese scholars and native English ones. This study proposes that language processing system might be one of the causes generating the differences in the use of metadiscourse. Besides, based on the findings and conclusions, this dissertation suggests the pedagogical implications. The limitations and future research dimensions are given.