A Comparative Study Of Metadiscourse And Genre Structure In Conclusions Of English And Chinese Research Articles In Natural Science

As an important part of the research articles,the conclusion part mainly centers on summarizing and evaluating the research results and pointing out the significance of the research.Metadiscourse and genre structure are two essential micro and macro factors helping to construct conclusions and they may vary in academic conclusions of different languages.However,few studies analyzed and discussed metadiscourse application and genre features from the cross-language perspective.This study mainly selects the research article conclusion sections of the 240 core journals in English and Chinese(120 articles in English and Chinese respectively)from the four representative disciplines of natural sciences(Physics,Chemistry,Biology,and Mechanics)as the research objects to construct English and Chinese corpora.Based on Hyland's metadiscourse model and Swales' move analysis model,the present study utilizes both qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis to explore the similarities and differences in metadiscoursal application and move structure features between English and Chinese research article conclusion in natural science to seek for the possible factors leading to the differences.Conclusions are as follows: there exist similarities and differences in metadiscourse application and move structures between the English and Chinese research article conclusions in natural science.The overall application of metadiscourse varies between English and Chinese research articles conclusions in natural science and move 2 is the obligatory move in both corpora while the other seven moves are treated differently in the two corpora.Additionally,metadiscoursal are applied differently in different moves.For one thing,similarities exist in metadiscourse application and move structures:(1)The interactive resources are similarly treated in both English and Chinese corpora.(2)The orders of eight moves in English and Chinese conclusions are consistent,and move 2(statement of results)has the highest frequency in both English and Chinese corpora.(3)The five subcategories of interactive resources are most frequently applied in move 2 in both corpora.In move 1,engagement markers in interactional dimension are the mostfrequent subcategory in both corpus.In move 4,evidential in interactive dimension is the most frequent subcategory in both corpus.In move 4,move 6 and move 8,the frequencies of all metadiscoursal categories are lower than 20%.For the other,differences are also found:(1)The proportion of metadiscourse markers in English research article conclusions in natural science is higher than that in Chinese research article conclusions in natural science.The number of interactional resources applied in English corpus is over twice as large as that in Chinese corpus.(2)M1+M2+M7structure is most frequently adopted in English conclusions while M2+M7 structure is most frequently adopted in Chinese conclusions.Additionally,there are more move structure types in English conclusions than those in Chinese conclusions.(3)The application of metadiscourse markers in the other seven moves differs in the two corpora.In move 1,frame marker in interactive dimension is most frequently used in English corpus while evidential is most frequently applied in Chinese corpus.In move3,there is no code gloss in both corpus while the other nine subcategories are treated differently in the two corpora.In move 4,the frequencies five subcategories in interactive dimension in English corpus are lower than those in Chinese corpus.Four subcategories in interactional dimension(except for attitude markers)are treated differently in the two corpora.In move 5,except for frame markers,endophoric markers and the attitude markers,the frequency of other metadiscourse types in the English conclusions is higher than that in Chinese conclusions.In move 7,transition markers and evidentials are most frequently used in English corpus,while attitude markers and self-mentions are most frequently applied in Chinese corpus.This study reveals English and Chinese language and cultural differences that may affect the employment of metadiscourse and move structures in English and Chinese research article conclusions in natural science.These differences may be attributed to language divergences and cultural differences between English and Chinese.Cultural can influence thinking patterns and background knowledge and hence affect the application of metadiscourse and construction discourse.Theoretically,this study expands the scope of research papers,metadiscourse and genre structures,and provides references for scholars in natural science to read andwrite academic papers.Meanwhile,the results of this study will also provide practical help for academic writing teaching to improve students' ability to compose research article conclusions.On the one hand,scholars should properly construct conclusions by appropriate use of metadiscourse and move type to interact with the texts and potential readers.On the other hand,it is advisable for both teachers and students to analyze features of published articles and focus on students' preference for metadiscoursal use and generic features in writing to improve students' academic writing ability.