A Comparative Study On Dialogic Contraction Resources In English Abstracts Of English Language And Literature Doctoral Dissertations Written By Chinese Writers And English Native Writers

English abstracts as a genre of the academic paper have received much attention from numerous scholars in recent years. According to the author‘s investigation, many scholars conduct a great number of valuable studies on English abstracts from perspectives of genre analysis, Systemic Functional Linguistics(SFL) and pragmatics. Nevertheless, a few studies are concerned with Dialogic Contraction theory, especially the comparative study on English abstracts written by Chinese writers and English native writers. Therefore, the author will conduct a comparative study on English abstracts in order to make up this defect.This thesis chose 106 doctoral English abstracts as research subjects in the field of English language and literature from the internationally renowned website PQSD and the largest Dissertation Database CNKI in China respectively. The sample was classified into two groups in this study: one was the Chinese Abstract corpus(CA corpus) which included 50 English abstracts with 24,958 words in total. 56 English abstracts written by English native writers were the English Abstract corpus(EA corpus) with total words of 25,021. In addition, based on the Dialogic Contraction theory proposed by Martin and White, the author conducted comparative analysis with the help of linguistic software UAM Corpus Tool V 2.8.12. The purpose of this study is to find similarities and differences of the use of Dialogical Contraction resources in English abstracts and the four moves written by Chinese writers and English native writers. Furthermore, the author will explain the underlying reason of these similarities and differences. Analytical results were as follows:517(including 271 Disclaim and 246 Proclaim, 52.42% vs. 47.58%) Dialogic Contraction items were found in CA corpus. In the meanwhile, 613(including 336 Disclaim and 277 Proclaim, 54.81% vs. 45.19%) Dialogic Contraction resources were also identified in EA corpus.In addition, there were similarities and differences concerning the use and the dominant type of Dialogic Contraction resources in the four moves. In Introduction move, both Chinese writers and English native writers preferred to use more Disclaim resources rather than Proclaim resources. In Disclaim subsystem, Counter resources won the upper hand in CA corpus. But in EA corpus, the dominant type was Deny resources. Under Proclaim subsystem, Pronounce resources were the main type in the two corpora.In Method move, there were more differences than similarities. In the whole Dialogic Contraction system, Chinese writers were in favor of Proclaim resources. But Disclaim resources won the upper hand in EA database. In Disclaim subsystem, Chinese writers slightly preferred to employ more Counter resources. But the contrary circumstance occurred in EA corpus. In Proclaim subsystem, the density of Pronounce resources was almost double that of Endorse resources. In EA database, the use of Pronounce and Endorse resources was similar. Finally, all writers still disliked Concur resources.In Result move, five sub-types didn‘t have any significant differences. Disclaim and Proclaim resources occupied half of the whole Dialogic Contraction resources respectively. Under Disclaim subsystem, Chinese writers were in favor of Counter resources. However, Deny resources were appreciated by English native writers. Under Proclaim subsystem, Chinese and English native writers preferred to employ Endorse resources. Concur resources were still the least type adopted by Chinese and English native writers.In Discussion/Conclusion move, there were more similarities than differences. Under the Dialogic Contraction system, Proclaim resources apparently overtook Disclaim resources in the two corpora. In Disclaim subsystem, Chinese writers employed more Counter resources than English native writers. However, English native writers slightly relied on Deny resources. In Proclaim subsystem, the use of Pronounce resources and Endorse resources was similar. Furthermore, Concur resources were still paid less attention.In general, the present research not only extends the applied scope of the Dialogic Contraction theory but also strengthens readers‘ understanding of appraisal devices through a comparative study on Dialogic Contraction resources in English abstracts written by Chinese writers and English native writers. In the meanwhile, the results are of theoretical and practical value to English abstract teaching, reading and writing.