| Metadiscourse refers to such discourse markers that organize discourses,convey the writers’ attitude,and construct the interactions between the writers and the readers.In recent decades,the research related to metadiscourses has received more and more attention from scholars both at home and abroad.However,there have been not too many comparative studies on the use of metadiscourses in English research articles by the Chinese scholars and by the native English writers,and even fewer studies conducted on the use of metadiscourses in research articles in transportation science field.Based on this status quo,this thesis takes eighty articles form Transportation,the core journal in transportation science field,as samples,and to make comparative study on the use of metadiscourses by Chinese and English scholars.The research questions are summarized as:(1)What are the main manifestations of the similarities and differences between metadiscourses used by the two groups of scholars?(2)What are the potential causes for these similarities and differences?(3)What are the ten subcategories of metadiscourse functions in specific discourses?(4)What are the weaknesses in the the Chinese scholars’ use of metadiscourse resources when they compose their research articles?To explore these research questions,Hyland’s Interpersonal Metadiscourse Model(2005)is taken as the theoretical framework to analyze 80 research articles published in Transportation by the Chinese scholars of English as a foreign language and by the native English writers.These 80 articles are constructed into two corpora: Native Chinese Writers’ Research Articles Corpus(NCWRAC)and Native English Writers’ Research Articles Corpus(NEWRAC).The frequencies of metadiscourse resources in NCWRAC and NEWRAC are counted through the software Antconc 3.5.8.0,then they are identified through the manual tagging method.Then,the statistical software SPSS17.0 is used to conduct the Chi-square test to investigate whether there exists significant differences in the use of each of subcategories of metadiscourses in the two corpora.The similarities and differences in metadiscourse use are then summarized and analyzed,and the possible factors leading to them are explored.In addition,this thesis also conducts a comparative study of the metadiscourse use in NCWRAC and NEWRAC through the qualitative method to investigate how metadiscourse resources function in research articles.Based on the comparative study of the metadiscourse use in NCWRAC and NEWRAC through quantitative and qualitative methods,some major findings have been obtained:(1)There exist both similarities and differences in the metadiscourse use in NCWRAC and NEWRAC.In terms of similarities,metadiscourse resources have been used frequently in research articles by both of the two groups of scholars;both of the two groups of scholars attach great importance to the use of transition markers in their research articles;both of the two groups of writers employ fewer attitude markers to state their propositions;and evidentials,transition markers,hedges,and engagement markers are the four most frequently used metadiscourse subcategories in the two corpora.(2)In terms of differences,statistically significant differences are found to be in the employment of interactional markers,interactive markers,hedges,evidentials,endophoric markers,and self-mentions in the two corpora.More specifically,the Chinese scholars employ relatively more interactive metadiscourses,hedges,evidentials,and endophoric markers than the native English writers.By contrast,the native English writers use substantially more interactional metadiscourses and self-mentions than the Chinese scholars do.(3)In terms of the potential factors for these similarities and differences,this thesis has explored them from three perspectives: genre convention,culture difference,and writing traditions.(4)Fourthly,functions and effectiveness of the following ten subcategories of metadiscourse,as have been displayed through a quantitative analysis,can be summarized that transition markers help the readers interpret connections between propositions;frame markers provide framing information about elements of the discourses;code glosses supply additional information;endophoric markers make the additional conceptual material explicit;evidentials refer to the sources of propositions;hedges identify the writers’ attitudes towards other perspectives;boosters are used to underline the writers’ conviction to the propositions;attitude markers indicate the writers’ emotional attitudes towards the proposition;engagement markers makes readers participate in the construction of discourses and arouse their attention;and the use of the self-mentions is the most powerful means of embodied expression of the individual.(5)In terms of the weaknesses of the Chinese scholars’ use of metadiscourse resources in composing their English RAs,they are not very proficient in,or they are not aware of the importance of,interactions between the writer and readers through interactional markers in their English RAs as compared with the native English writers;they tend to use too many meaningless expressions and too much redundant language in their RAs;and it is difficult for those Chinese scholars to completely break away from being modest an conservative,two representative characteristics of Chinese culture,and writing tradition of Chinese RAs.Based on the major findings,there are some useful implications for scholars who write RAs in English,students who are learning academic writing,and teachers of English for academic purpose(EAP)as well.Firstly,it is important to develop the Chinese scholars’ and students’ awareness of the positive roles and functions of metadiscourses in the academic writing.Secondly,a component on use of metadiscourses should be integrated into the professional books and textbooks on English academic writing and RA publication.Lastly,the Chinese scholars and students should develop related cross-cultural awareness and follow the English writing conventions of RAs. |
PDF Full Text Request