Comparative Study of Conclusion Section of Aerospace Research Article (RA) in the Use of Interactional Metadiscourse

Siming Huang
{"title":"Comparative Study of Conclusion Section of Aerospace Research Article (RA) in the Use of Interactional Metadiscourse","authors":"Siming Huang","doi":"10.18178/ijlll.2023.9.4.413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study provides a comparative corpus-based analysis of interactional metadiscourse between Chinese scholars and English native speakers’ conclusion section of aerospace research articles. For this purpose, based on Hyland’s (2005) interactional metadiscourse taxonomy, 52 aerospace conclusions writing pieces from two high-profile journals were selected for analysis. Results indicate that the discrepancy in total number and frequency lies in the use of hedges, boosters, and attitude markers. Linguistic features, sociocultural factors, and rhetoric functions are responsible for these discrepancies. This work may shed lights on academic writing and pedagogy.","PeriodicalId":408181,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18178/ijlll.2023.9.4.413","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study provides a comparative corpus-based analysis of interactional metadiscourse between Chinese scholars and English native speakers’ conclusion section of aerospace research articles. For this purpose, based on Hyland’s (2005) interactional metadiscourse taxonomy, 52 aerospace conclusions writing pieces from two high-profile journals were selected for analysis. Results indicate that the discrepancy in total number and frequency lies in the use of hedges, boosters, and attitude markers. Linguistic features, sociocultural factors, and rhetoric functions are responsible for these discrepancies. This work may shed lights on academic writing and pedagogy.
航空航天研究论文(RA)结束语在互动元语篇运用中的比较研究
本研究以比较语料库为基础,分析了中国学者与英语母语者在航空航天研究论文结论部分的互动元语篇。为此,基于Hyland(2005)的互动元话语分类法,我们选择了来自两份知名期刊的52篇航空航天结论写作文章进行分析。结果表明,在总数和频率上的差异在于模糊限制语、助推器和态度标记语的使用。语言特征、社会文化因素和修辞功能是造成这些差异的主要原因。这项工作可能会对学术写作和教育学有所启发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信