A Cross-Linguistic Study of Interactional Metadiscourse in English and Chinese Research Articles by the Same Chinese Scholars

References

• Becker, C. B. (1986). Reasons for the lack of argumentation and debate in the Far East. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90035-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodde, D. (1991). Chinese thought, society, and science: The intellectual and social background of science and technology in pre-modern China. University of Hawaii Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, C., & Zhang, L. J. (2017). An intercultural analysis of the use of hedging by Chinese and Anglophone academic English writers. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-2009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fløttum, K., Kinn, T., & Dahl, T. (2006). “We now report on …” versus “let us now see how …”: Author roles and interaction with readers in research articles. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 203–224). Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0446-2
   Google Scholar
• Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao, X. (2018). A cross-disciplinary corpus-based study on English and Chinese native speakers’ use of first-person pronouns in academic English writing. Text & Talk, 38(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2017-0032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795–2809. https://doi.org/10/cb8vq7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251–281. https://doi.org/10/cd7wzs
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles (pp. 99–121). Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179–197. https://doi.org/10/b65qtq
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. A&C Black.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic discourse. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
   Google Scholar
• Hyung-Jo, Y., & Römer, U. (2020). Quantifying disciplinary voices: An automated approach to interactional metadiscourse in successful student writing. Written Communication, 37(2), 208–244. https://doi.org/10/ggk87m
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M.-H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10/ggfhh6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, T. K. (2013). Author manifestation and perceptions of self in Chinese academic discourse: Comparisons with English. Languages in Contrast, 13(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.13.1.05lee
   Google Scholar
• Li, Z., & Xu, J. (2020). Reflexive metadiscourse in Chinese and English sociology research article introductions and discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 159, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2006). Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication, 23(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10/ct7pxj
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, L., & Gong, H. (2018). A corpus-based cross-disciplinary study of interpersonal metadiscourse in English research articles. Journal of China Three Gorges University (Humanities & Social Sciences), 40(2), 98–102. https://doi.org/10.13393/j.cnki.1672-6219.2018.02.020
   Google Scholar
• Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I
   Google Scholar
• Mauranen, A. (1994). Culture writes in us—Whether we like it or not. Finnish academic writing style compared to Anglo-American. LEIF - Life and Education in Finland, 1994(2), 26–32. https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/publications/culture-writes-in-us-whether-we-like-it-or-not-finnish-academic-w
   Google Scholar
• Mauranen, A., Hynninen, N., & Ranta, E. (2016). English as the academic lingua franca. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 44–55). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068–3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741–754. https://doi.org/10/bgbm94
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. B. K. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (Vol. 21, 2nd ed). Wiley–Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, J., & Lv, Z. (2017). A study on the characteristics in the use of self-mentions in the Chinese PhD students’ academic English writing. Foreign Language World, 2(179), 89–96. https://oversea.cnki.net/kns/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=WYJY201702012&DbName=CJFQ2017
   Google Scholar
• Wei, J., & Duan, J. (2019). A comparative study of metadiscoursal features in English research article abstracts in hard disciplines. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 1–37. http://arjals.com/index.php/Arab_Journal_Applied_Linguistics/article/view/221
   Google Scholar
• Wu, G. (2013). Self-mention and authorial identity construction: A corpus-based contrastive study between English and Chinese research articles. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 3(36), 6–11. https://oversea.cnki.net/kns/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=JFJW201303001&DbName=CJFQ2013
   Google Scholar
• Wu, G., & Zhu, Y. (2015). Self-mention and authorial identity construction in English and Chinese research articles: A contrastive study. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 10(2), 133–158. https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v10i2.28557
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng, Y., & Gao, A. X. (2016). Chinese humanities and social sciences scholars’ language choices in international scholarly publishing: A ten-year survey. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 48(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10/ggvsqz
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar