A Diachronic Study of Interaction in Chinese Academic Writing Through the Lens of Metadiscourse
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1304.20Keywords:
interaction, Chinese academic writing, metadiscourse, diachronic studyAbstract
Metadiscourse provides a framework for understanding interaction in discourse by examining the linguistic resources that the writers employ to organize their text and involve their readers. The studies in metadiscourse use in Chinese academic writing reveal that Chinese scholars maintain an impersonal style and adopt an authoritative stance. We investigated the changes in interaction in Chinese academic writing during the past 40 years by exploring metadiscourse use in 90 Chinese research articles from the top five Chinese academic journals in Applied Linguistics in 1980, 2000, and 2020. The analysis shows significant decreases in metadiscourse use during this period in both interactive and interactional features, and changes in linguistic choices of metadiscourse demonstrate a shift to guidance and persuasion with more logical arguments, objective evidence, and relevant literature, possibly suggesting that Chinese scholars now use metadiscourse mainly to clarify and inform, presenting knowledge as codified facts, privileged rather than negotiated or constructed. We also find that metadiscourse use significantly increased in 2000 before its decrease in 2020, unveiling Chinese scholars’ earlier efforts to guide and involve.
References
Aertselaer, JoAnne Neff-van, and Emma Dafouz-Milne. (2008). “Argumentation patterns in different languages: An analysis of metadiscourse markers in English and Spanish texts.” In Developing Contrastive Pragmatics, edited by Pütz, Martin and Aertselaer, JoAnne Neff-van, 87-102. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Anthony, Laurence. (2019). Antconc3.5.8. Retrieved March 5, 2021, from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
Cao, Feng, and Guangwei Hu. (2014). “Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences.” Journal of Pragmatics, 66. 15-31.
Crismore, Avon. (1983). “Metadiscourse: What it is and how it is used in school and non-school social science texts,” Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report, no. 273.
Fu, Xiaoli, and Ken Hyland. (2014). “Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse.” English Text Construction, 7. 122-144.
Gao, Jingting. (2014). “International Students’ Use of Chinese Metadiscourse Markers.” Journal of Nanjing Institute of Technology (Social Science Edition), 14. 20-25.
Gillaerts, Paul, and Freek Van de Velde. (2010). “Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts.” Journal of English for Academic purposes, 9. 128-139.
Hu, Guangwei, and Feng Cao. (2011). “Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals.” Journal of pragmatics, 43. 2795-2809.
Huang, Qin, and Cancan Yang. (2014). “A comparative study of the use of metadiscourse between English and Chinese news features.” Journal of Xi’an International Studies University, 22. 1-5.
Hyland, Ken. (2001). “Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles,.” English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207–226.
Hyland, Ken. (2004). “Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing.” Journal of second language writing, 13(2). 133-151.
Hyland, Ken. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, Ken. (2017). “Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going?.” Journal of pragmatics, 113. 16-29.
Hyland, Ken, and Feng Kevin Jiang. (2016a). ““We must conclude that…”: A diachronic study of academic engagement.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 29-42.
Hyland, Ken, and Feng Kevin Jiang. (2016b). “Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance.” Written communication, 33, 251-274.
Hyland, Ken, and Feng Kevin Jiang. (2017). “Is academic writing becoming more informal?.” English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40-51.
Hyland, Ken, and Feng Kevin Jiang. (2018). ““In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse.” English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30.
Hyland, Ken, and Feng Kevin Jiang. (2020). “Text-organizing metadiscourse: tracking changes in rhetorical persuasion.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21, 137-164.
Ju, Yumei. (2013). “A Study of Metadiscourse in the Discourse of English and Chinese Academic Papers—From the Perspective of Aristotle’s Rhetoric.” Foreign Languages Research, 3. 23-29.
Kuhi, Davud, and Manijheh Mojood. (2014). “Metadiscourse in newspaper genre: A cross-linguistic study of English and Persian editorials.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1046-1055.
Lee, Joseph. J., and Nicholus C. Subtirelu. (2015). “Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures.” English for Specific Purposes, 37. 52-62.
Li, Xiuming. (2011). Research on Chinese Metadiscourse Markers. Beijing: China Social Science Press.
Li, Xiuming. (2007). “Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers and Stylistic Features.” Contemporary Rhetoric, 2, 20-24.
Liu, Shufen. (2013). “A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse in Chinese and American News Review Discourses.” Contemporary Rhetoric, 2. 83-89.
Liu, Hong, and Yulei Song. (2018). “A Comparative Analysis of the Use of Metadiscourse in Chinese and Foreign Chinese International Education Master’s Degree Thesis Abstracts.” International Chinese Language Education, 3. 41-53.
Mu, Congjun. (2010). “A Comparative Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers in Chinese and English Newspaper Editorials.” Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, 4, 35-43.
Mu, Congjun, Lawrence Jun Zhang, John Ehrich and Huaqing Hong. (2015). “The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135-148.
Ozdemir, Neslihan Onder, and Bernadette Longo. (2014). “Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63.
Pooresfahani, Ailin Firoozian, Gholam Hassan Khajavy and Fateme Vahidnia. (2012). “A contrastive study of metadiscourse elements in research articles written by Iranian applied linguistics and engineering writers in English.” English Linguistics Research, 1, 88-96.
Thompson, Geoff. (2001). “Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader.” Applied linguistics, 22, 58-78.
Thompson, Geoff, and Puleng Thetela. (1995). “The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse.” Text & Talk, 15, 103-128.
Ruan, Xianyu, and Jin Xu. (2016). “A Contrastive Study on Application of Metadiscourse in English and Chinese Petroleum Academic Texts.” Journal of Southwest Petroleum University (Social Sciences Edition), 18. 96-104
Vande Copple, William. (1985). “Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse.” College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
Williams, Joseph M. (1981). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Boston: Scott Foresman.
Wu, Geqi. (2010). “A Comparative Study of Authors' Position Markers in the Conclusion of English and Chinese Research Papers.” Journal of Xi’an International Studies University, 18. 46-50.
Wu, Geqi, and Chunlei Pan. (2010). “Research on Author's Position Markers in Chinese Academic Papers.” Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies, 3. 91-96.
Ying, Jieqiong. (2017). “A Cognitive Study of Writing in the Discussion Part of Foreign Language Academic Papers—Based on the Analysis of Mood and Metadiscourse.” Technology Enhanced Foreign Language Education, 6, 64-70.
Zhang, Kevin. (2013). NLPIR Chinese Word Segmentation System. Retrieved April 12, 2021, from https://github.com/NLPIR-team/NLPIR.
