| Research article(RA),despite its high-level of objectivity,is believed to involve interaction between writers and readers,as writers should simultaneously use language to recognize,build and exchange social relations with readers so as to persuade them.However,writers from different cultural backgrounds may use different strategies to engage with alternative viewpoints.Thus,RAs written by non-native English writers may demonstrate different persuasive effects from those written by native-English writers.One approach to explore the interactional and persuasive nature of RAs is through studying evaluative linguistic resources,particularly engagement resources,by which the writer adjusts the relationship with readers by expressing stances such as denying,endorsing and acknowledging.Martin and White’s Appraisal Theory(2005),particularly the system of Engagement,provides a systematic account of evaluative resources,and has been increasingly used to explore intertextuality in academic genres.This study examines how academics from different cultural backgrounds may differ in the way of engaging with their discourse community in published international RAs.Engagement features of the Introduction section of thirty internationally published English RAs written by Chinese-speaking writers(CWs)and thirty English-speaking writers(EWs)in the field of material science are analyzed based on the Engagement system of Appraisal Theory.Swales’ CARS model is also applied to explore the distribution of engaging resources in different rhetorical Moves of RA introductions.The results show that: Firstly,on the whole,both CWs and EWs prefer to use Heterogloss resources,however,CWs use contractive resources more frequently than EWs.Regarding expansion resources,both CWs and EWs use Entertain resources more frequently than Attribution resources.In terms of contractive resources,both CWs and EWs use Proclaim resources more frequently than Disclaim resources.Secondly,a more detailed analysis of ERs in each Move reveals that CWs tend to shrink the dialogue space in Move 1 and Move 2,and then expand in Move 3,while EWs tend to shrink the dialogue space only in Move 2.Regarding contractive resources,both CWs and EWs show more dependence on Proclaim resources in each Move.A comparison of the preferences for different subtypes of ERs in Moves shows that CWs and EWs place different emphasis on Deny and Counter resources.Finally,a further comparative analysis of the Heterogloss resources in each Step of Move 2 demonstrates that the contractive tendencies of CWs and EWs in the three Moves are “Contraction-Expansion-Contraction” and“ Contraction-Contraction-Contraction” respectively.For the use of various contractive resources,CWs and EWs show consistency in the three Steps,that is,they prefer to use Disclaim resources in Step 1A,Proclaim resources in Step 1B,and almost no Disclaim resources appear in Step 2.However,in Steps 1A and 1B,CWs prefer Counter resources,while EWs do not.Possible reasons behind those similarities and differences of distribution features of ERs are also explored from a cross-cultural perspective.The impact of differences in English proficiency is considered,besides,factors such as writing norms and audience awareness,shaped by cultural and educational experience,also play an important role.Additionally,each Move and each step arranged in introduction claims its specific communicative purpose,which further specifies the engaging strategies that should be adopted in the specific context.The findings may provide insights into cross-cultural analyses of RAs and be pedagogically instructive for Chinese students on the writing of RAs. |
