英语论文哪里有？本研究以Hyland（2005a）互动元话语理论为框架，以50篇中国和英语本族语者英语硕士学位论文为语料，通过语料库的方法对25年来其互动元话语的使用特征进行对比研究和历时研究，旨在揭示中国和英语本族语者硕士学位论文中互动元话语的分布特征和历时变化趋势。
Chapter One Introduction
1.3 Research Purpose
This study has two purposes. The first purpose of this study is to explore the distributional patterns of interactional metadiscourse in Master of Arts (MA) theses written by Chinese English-major students and native English speakers over the past 25 years. The writer further analyzes the distribution of five categories (hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers). By means of comparative analysis, this study aims to find how these two groups employ interactional metadiscourse similarly and differently, consequently advancing a deeper understanding of the ways in which language proficiency and cultural elements may impact academic writing practices.
Secondly, this study aims to explore the diachronic changes in interactional metadiscourse in MA theses of Chinese English-major students and native English speakers throughout the past 25 years. The writer analyzes the diachronic changes in the use of the five sub-categories (hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers) between Chinese English-major students and native English speakers over the last 25 years. By tracing the diachronic changes of metadiscursive elements in academic writing, the research aims to elucidate any noteworthy shifts, developments, or trends that have emerged over time. Such insights can provide valuable implications for educators, writers, and policymakers in the fields of English language education and academic writing instruction.
Chapter Three Research Methodology
3.1 Research Questions
Based on Hyland’s interpersonal classification model (2005a), this paper conducts a diachronic study on the use of interactional metadiscourse in 50 MA theses written by Chinese English-major students and native English speakers over the past 25 years, aiming to identify distributional patterns and diachronic changes in the use of interactional metadiscourse in MA theses.
This study attempts to answer the following two research questions:
(1) What are the distributional patterns of interactional metadiscourse in MA theses written by Chinese English-major students and native English speakers over the past 25 years?
(2) What are the diachronic changes of interactional metadiscourse in MA theses written by Chinese English-major students and native English speakers over the past 25 years?
Chapter Four Results and Discussion
4.1 Distribution Patterns of Interactional Metadiscourse
In this part, the writer analyzed the data and made further discussion about distributional patterns of the use of interactional metadiscourse in MA theses written by Chinese English-major students by comparing them with those written by native English speakers in the field of applied linguistics from 2000 to 2024. First, it presents an overview of the distributional patterns, setting the stage for a detailed exploration of the five categories of interactional metadiscourse: hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions, and engagement markers. Each category’s distribution is analyzed separately to understand how often and in what ways they are used.
4.2 Diachronic Changes of Interactional Metadiscourse
In this part, the writer presented the results and made further discussion about the diachronic changes of the use of interactional metadiscourse in MA theses written by Chinese English-major students and native English speakers in the field of applied linguistics from 2000 to 2024. Regarding diachronic changes, an initial overview is given, followed by an examination of how hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions, and engagement markers have evolved over the period from 2000 to 2024, aiming to uncover trends and potential influencing factors in the use of interactional metadiscourse during this time frame.
4.2.1 An Overview of Diachronic Changes
The analysis of the research data gathered over the last 25 years shows a decrease in interactional metadiscourse by the MA theses written by Chinese English-major students (log likelihood=283.6, p<0.001) and native English speakers (log likelihood=89.7, p<0.001), suggesting they are becoming more cautious about their stances and interactions with readers. The usage of interactional metadiscourse varies significantly between Chinese and American MA theses, as shown in Table 4.7.
Chapter Five Conclusion
5.1 Major Findings
This study conducts a diachronic study on the use of interactional metadiscourse, aiming to identify distributional patterns and diachronic changes of the use of interactional metadiscourse in 50 MA theses written by Chinese English-major students and native English speakers in the field of applied linguistics from 2000 to 2024. Based on the analysis in the previous chapter, the main conclusions of this study could be summed up as follows:
For the distributional patterns of interactional metadiscourse in MA theses, both Chinese and American postgraduates frequently employ interactional markers in their MA theses. Both of these two groups use more hedges and boosters to create the discourse space, and fewer attitude markers and self-mentions to express personal feelings. Specifically, both Chinese English-major students and native English speakers use hedges more frequently, indicating that students are cautious when elaborating and explaining the findings and results of their research and that they wish to create a friendly and open communication environment. However, the Chinese students use fewer hedges overall than the native English speakers, which may be related to the cultural, linguistic, and academic differences. Additionally, these two groups use boosters frequently, indicating that postgraduates wish to demonstrate their confidence in research findings and related subjects. While Chinese graduate students in the Chinese academic context are more likely to use adjectives and adverbs to increase certainty, native English speakers are more likely to use verbs and nouns to bolster the credibility of arguments.
reference(omitted)
