引言与结论的呼应：基于英汉博士论文体裁的元话语对比分析
|
摘要
本研究通过对英语本族语、英语非本族语和汉语教育学方向博士论文引言和结论部分的呼应模式进行从宏观的体裁分析到微观的元话语分析,不仅了解了不同研究者在教育学领域博士论文中如何提出问题和回答问题,而且还掌握了该领域博士论文引言和结论部分呼应语步的异同,以及通过元话语的选用实现两个部分呼应的方法和途径。该研究采用以语料库为基础的体裁对比分析方法。所有语料采用随机抽样的方式节选教育学方向博士论文引言和结论部分,自建三个小型语料库,分别为30篇英语本族语博士论文子语料库,来自ProQuest学位论文全文数据库；30篇英语非本族语博士论文子语料库和30篇汉语博士论文子语料库,分别来自CNKI中国博士学位论文全文数据库。
研究结果显示,尽管汉语博士论文、英语非本族语博士论文和英语本族语博士论文引言和结论部分呼应时语步结构呈现一些共性特征,但仍有诸多不同之处。首先,相对于汉语博士论文,英语本族语和英语非本族语博士论文首尾呼应更加明显。其次,三者在评价自身研究时亦存在着显著差异,英语非本族语博士论文在论述自身研究价值时首尾呼应最为突出。
在博士论文引言和结论部分语步呼应结构中,元话语同样起着促进作用。首先,汉语博士论文以作者为中心,而英语本族语和英语非本族语博士论文以读者为中心。其次,三者在构建作者立场时体现出不同的倾向性。英语本族语和英语非本族语博士论文首尾呼应时协商性更强,而汉语博士论文劝说性更强。再次,三者在建立与读者关系时亦呈现出不同特点。相对于英语本族语博士论文,汉语和英语非本族语博士论文更善于与读者建立起同盟关系。
以上研究结果表明,英语本族语博士论文引言和结论部分呼应时与英语非本族语和汉语博士论文存在着差异,与汉语博士论文差异尤为明显。因此,本研究认为不同语言和不同写作文化影响着博士论文引言和结尾部分的呼应和互动。通过对比分析,本研究建议国内研究生在撰写博士论文结论部分时,应加强与引言部分的语步呼应,同时避免过多使用态度标记语和关系建立等元话语,合理构建作者立场,以符合该类体裁的写作范式。
To illuminate possible difficulties faced by Chinese graduates in producing acceptable English and Chinese PhD theses and to suggest ways in which they might deal with these difficulties, this study aims to explore how native speakers of Chinese (NSC), native speakers of English (NSE) and Chinese non-native speakers of English (CNSE) students raise and answer questions in the Introduction and Conclusion parts of their doctoral theses through the manipulation of rhetorical structures and metadiscourse realizations. The approach for the present study is basically contrastive, by conducting a corpus-based genre analysis on a sample of30NSC and30CNSE PhD thesis Introductions and Conclusions from CNKI PhD database, and30NSE ones from ProQuest PhD database. The90PhD theses are randomly selected from the discipline of education.
Our results show that there are some rhetorical differences in raising and answering questions across the three corpora. Firstly, Introductions interact with Conclusions more explicitly in both NSE and CNSE PhD theses than in NSC ones. And secondly, when evaluating their own research, CNSE PhD theses employ more obvious interaction between the Introductions and Conclusions than NSE and NSC ones.
After investigating the interactional structures in the Introductions and Conclusions, this study goes on to examine how metadiscourse helps achieve interactions in the interactional structures across the three corpora. Results indicate that the extent of the metadiscourse involvement varies from different interactional structures and across different corpora. Firstly, NSC PhD thesis Introductions and Conclusions are more reader-responsible and CNSE and NSE ones are more writer-responsible. Secondly, PhD theses in the three corpora tend to employ different strategies to make their claims in the interactional structures. CNSE and NSE PhD thesis writers usually negotiate their claims with their readers, whereas NSC PhD thesis writers often strengthen their claims by persuading readers to accept them. Thirdly, PhD theses in the three corpora show different degrees of awareness of the readers'engagement and processing ability. NSC and CNSE PhD thesis writers often highlight the presence of their readers in the theses to engage them as discourse participants.
The findings reveal that NSE PhD Introductions and Conclusions interact differently from NSC and CNSE ones, which suggests that language plays a significant role in its preference for certain rhetorical structures and metadiscourse strategies. Furthermore, the realization of interactions through the application of metadiscourse in the interactional structures is also closely linked to the writing culture. These results suggest that NSC PhD Introductions should interact more explicitly with the Conclusions in the discipline of education. Furthermore, in order to establish a credible writer identity, NSC and CNSE PhD theses should employ less attitude and engagement markers in the interactional structures, and need to conform to the discourse conventions of the discipline.
研究结果显示,尽管汉语博士论文、英语非本族语博士论文和英语本族语博士论文引言和结论部分呼应时语步结构呈现一些共性特征,但仍有诸多不同之处。首先,相对于汉语博士论文,英语本族语和英语非本族语博士论文首尾呼应更加明显。其次,三者在评价自身研究时亦存在着显著差异,英语非本族语博士论文在论述自身研究价值时首尾呼应最为突出。
在博士论文引言和结论部分语步呼应结构中,元话语同样起着促进作用。首先,汉语博士论文以作者为中心,而英语本族语和英语非本族语博士论文以读者为中心。其次,三者在构建作者立场时体现出不同的倾向性。英语本族语和英语非本族语博士论文首尾呼应时协商性更强,而汉语博士论文劝说性更强。再次,三者在建立与读者关系时亦呈现出不同特点。相对于英语本族语博士论文,汉语和英语非本族语博士论文更善于与读者建立起同盟关系。
以上研究结果表明,英语本族语博士论文引言和结论部分呼应时与英语非本族语和汉语博士论文存在着差异,与汉语博士论文差异尤为明显。因此,本研究认为不同语言和不同写作文化影响着博士论文引言和结尾部分的呼应和互动。通过对比分析,本研究建议国内研究生在撰写博士论文结论部分时,应加强与引言部分的语步呼应,同时避免过多使用态度标记语和关系建立等元话语,合理构建作者立场,以符合该类体裁的写作范式。
To illuminate possible difficulties faced by Chinese graduates in producing acceptable English and Chinese PhD theses and to suggest ways in which they might deal with these difficulties, this study aims to explore how native speakers of Chinese (NSC), native speakers of English (NSE) and Chinese non-native speakers of English (CNSE) students raise and answer questions in the Introduction and Conclusion parts of their doctoral theses through the manipulation of rhetorical structures and metadiscourse realizations. The approach for the present study is basically contrastive, by conducting a corpus-based genre analysis on a sample of30NSC and30CNSE PhD thesis Introductions and Conclusions from CNKI PhD database, and30NSE ones from ProQuest PhD database. The90PhD theses are randomly selected from the discipline of education.
Our results show that there are some rhetorical differences in raising and answering questions across the three corpora. Firstly, Introductions interact with Conclusions more explicitly in both NSE and CNSE PhD theses than in NSC ones. And secondly, when evaluating their own research, CNSE PhD theses employ more obvious interaction between the Introductions and Conclusions than NSE and NSC ones.
After investigating the interactional structures in the Introductions and Conclusions, this study goes on to examine how metadiscourse helps achieve interactions in the interactional structures across the three corpora. Results indicate that the extent of the metadiscourse involvement varies from different interactional structures and across different corpora. Firstly, NSC PhD thesis Introductions and Conclusions are more reader-responsible and CNSE and NSE ones are more writer-responsible. Secondly, PhD theses in the three corpora tend to employ different strategies to make their claims in the interactional structures. CNSE and NSE PhD thesis writers usually negotiate their claims with their readers, whereas NSC PhD thesis writers often strengthen their claims by persuading readers to accept them. Thirdly, PhD theses in the three corpora show different degrees of awareness of the readers'engagement and processing ability. NSC and CNSE PhD thesis writers often highlight the presence of their readers in the theses to engage them as discourse participants.
The findings reveal that NSE PhD Introductions and Conclusions interact differently from NSC and CNSE ones, which suggests that language plays a significant role in its preference for certain rhetorical structures and metadiscourse strategies. Furthermore, the realization of interactions through the application of metadiscourse in the interactional structures is also closely linked to the writing culture. These results suggest that NSC PhD Introductions should interact more explicitly with the Conclusions in the discipline of education. Furthermore, in order to establish a credible writer identity, NSC and CNSE PhD theses should employ less attitude and engagement markers in the interactional structures, and need to conform to the discourse conventions of the discipline.
引文
Adel, A.2006. Metadiscourse in LI and L2 English[M], John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Adel, A.2008. Metadiscourse across three varieties of English:American, British, and advanced-learner English [C]. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric:Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 45-62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ahmad, U. K.1997. Research article introductions in Malay:Rhetoric in an emerging research community [C]. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp.273-304). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Anthony, L.1999. Writing research article introductions in software engineering:how accurate is a standard model? [J]. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 42(1):38-46.
Arvay, A., & Tanko, G.2004. A contrastive analysis of English and Hungarian theoretical research article introductions [J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics 42:71-100.
Bakhtin, M.1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays[M]. Austin, TX:University of Texas Press.
Berkenkotter, C, & Huckin, T.1995. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication. Hillsdale[M]. NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bhatia, V.K. (1993). Analysing genre:Language use in professional settings[M]. London: Longman.
Bhatia, V.1997. Genre-mixing in academic introductions [J]. English for Specific Purposes 16:181-197.
Bhatia, V.2002. A generic view of academic discourse[C]. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp.21-39). Harlow:Longman.
Bhatia, V.2004. Worlds of written discourse [M]. London:Continuum.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R.1998. Corpus Linguistics:Investigating Language Structure and Use[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D.2006. University language:A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers [M]. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Biber, D., Connor, U. and Upton, T.A.2007. Discourse on the move:Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Leech, G.2002. The Longman student grammar of spoken and written English [M]. London:Longman.
Breivega, K. R., Dahl, T. & Flottum, K.2002. Traces of self and others in research articles. A comparative pilot study of English, French and Norwegian research articles in medicine, economics and linguistics [J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12 (2):218-239.
Brett, P.1994. A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles[J]. English for Specific Purposes 13(1):47-59.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C.1987. Politeness,. Some Universals in Language Usage [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bunton, D.1999. The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses [J]. English for Specific Purposes 18:41-56.
Bunton, D.2002. Generic moves in Ph.D. thesis introductions [C]. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp.57-75). London:Longman.
Bunton, D.2005. The structure of PhD conclusion chapters [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4:207-224.
Burgess, S.2002. Packed houses and intimate gatherings:Audience and rhetorical structure[C]. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.). Academic discourse (pp.196-215). London: Pearson Education.
Charles, M.2003.'This mystery...':A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2:313-326.
Charles, M.2006. The construction of stance in reporting clauses:A cross-disciplinary study of theses [J]. Applied Linguistics 27:492-518.
Charles, M.2007. Argument or Evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun that pattern in stance construction [J]. English for Specific Purposes 26:203-218.
Charles, M. et al.2009. Introduction:Exploring the surface between corpus linguistics and discourse analysis [C]. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari, & S. Hunston (Eds.) Academic Writing:At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse (pp.1-10). Continuum International Publishing Group.
Chek Kim Loi.2010. Research article introductions in Chinese and English:A comparative genre-based study [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9:267-279.
Chesterman, A.1998. Contrastive Functional Analysis [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Connor, U.2004. Intercultural rhetoric research:Beyond texts [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3:291-304.
Connor, U. M. and Moreno, A. I.2005. Tertium comparationis:A vital component in contrastive research methodology[C]. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W.G. Egginton, W. Grabe, and V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in Applied Linguistics:Essays in Honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp.153-167). England:Multilingual Matters.
Crismore, A.1983. Metadiscourse:What is it and how is it used in school and nonschool social science texts [M]. Urbana-Champaign:University of Illinois.
Crismore, A. and Fransworth, R.1993. Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing:A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students [J]. Written Communication 10(1):39-71.
Crookes, G.1986. Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure [J]. Applied Linguistics 7:57-70.
Dahl, T.2004. Textual metadiscourse in research articles:a marker of national culture or of academic discipline[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 36:1808-1825.
de Oliveira, J. M. & Pagano, A. S.2006. The research article and the science popularization article:a probabilistic functional grammar perspective on direct discourse representation[J]. Discourse Studies 8(5):627-646.
Dong, Y. R.1998. Non-native graduate students'thesis/dissertation writing in science:Self reports by students and their advisors from two US institutions [J]. English for Specific Purposes 17(4):369-390.
Dudley-Evans, T.1986. Genre:how far can we, should we go?[J]. World English 16(3): 351-358.
Dudley-Evans, T.1994. Genre analysis:An approach to text analysis for ESP [C]. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written text analysis (pp.219-228). London:Routledge.
Flowerdew, J.2008. Determining discourse-based moves in professional reports [C]. In A. Adel & R. Reppen (Eds), Corpora and discourse:The challenges of different settings (pp.117-131). Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Francis, G.1986. Anaphoric nouns[J]. Discourse analysis monographs No.11. University of Birmingham:English Language Research.
Fredrickson, K., & Swales, J.1994. Competition and discourse community:Introductions from Nysvenska studier[C]. In B.-L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Text and Talk in Professional Contexts:Selected Papers from the International Conference "Discourse and the Professions, " Uppsala,26-29 August,1992 (pp. 9-21). Stockholm:ASLA.
Gillaerts, P. & Van De Velde, F.2010. Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(2):128-139.
Gosden, H.1993. Discourse Functions of Subject in Scientific Research Articles[J], Applied Linguistics 14(1):56-75.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B.1996. Theory and Practice of Writing[M]. New York: Longman.
Groom, N.2005. Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines:An exploratory study[J]. English for Academic Purposes 4(3):257-277.
Gnutzmann, C., & Oldenburg, H.1991. Contrastive text linguistics in LSP research: Theoretical considerations and some preliminary findings[C]. In H. Schroder (Ed.), Subject-oriented Texts (pp.103-136). Berlin, Germany and New York:de Gruyter.
Hall, E.T,1976. Beyond Culture. Doubleday[M]. Garden City, New York.
Halliday, M.1994. Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.) [M]. London:Arnold.
Hanania, E.A S. and Akhtar, K.1985. Verb Form and Rhetorical Function in Science Writing:A Study of MS Theses in Biology, Chemistry, and Physics [J], English for Specific Purpose 4,49-58.
Harwood, N.2005a. We do not seem to have a theory... The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap:Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing[J]. Applied Linguistics 26:343-375.
Harwood, N.2005b. Nowhere has anyone attempted.... In this article I aim to do just that: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37:1207-1231.
Hewings, A. and Coffin, C.2007. Writing in multi-party computer conferences and single authored assignments [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(2):126-142.
Hewings, A., & Hewings, M. (2001). Anticipatory "it" in academic writing:an indicator of disciplinary difference and developing disciplinary knowledge[C]. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context (pp.199-214). Birmingham, UK:University of Birmingham Press.
Hewings, M.1993. The end! How to conclude a dissertation[C]. In G. M. Blue (Ed.), Language, learning and success:Studying through English. London:Modern English Publications and The British Council, Macmillan.
Hewings, M., & Hewings, A.2002.'It is interesting to note that...':A comparative study of anticipatory'it'in student and published writing [J]. English for Specific Purposes 21:367-383.
Hinds, J,1987. Reader versus writer responsibility:a new typology [A]. In:Connor, U., Kaplan, R.B. (Eds.), Writing across Languages:Analysis of Second Language Text [C]. Newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp.9-21.
Hinkle, E.1999. Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning[M]. Cambrige: Cambrige University Press.
Holmes, J.1988. Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks [J]. Applied Linguistics 9(1): 21-44.
Holmes, R.1997. Genre analysis and social sciences:an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines [J]. English for Specific Purposes 16:321-337.
Hood, S.2004. Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing:A focus on the introductions to research reports [C]. In L. Ravelli & R. Ellis (Eds), Analysing academic writing:Contextualized frameworks (pp.24-44). London:Continuum.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T.1988. A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations[J]. English for Specific Purposes 7(2):113-122.
Hunston, S.2002. Corpora in Applied Linguistics[M]. Cambridge:CUP.
Hu, Z., Brown. D., & Brown. L.1982. Some linguistic differences in the written English of Chinese and Australian students[J]. Language Learning and Communicationl:39-49.
Hyland, K.1994. Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks[J]. English for Specific Purposes 13 (3):239-256.
Hyland, K.1998. Persuation and context:The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 30:437-455.
Hyland, K.1999a. Talking to Students:Metadiscourse in Introductory Coursebooks[J]. English for Specific Purposes 18(1):3-26.
Hyland, K.1999b. Academic attribution:Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge[J]. Applied Linguistics 20:341-367.
Hyland, K.2000. Disciplinary Discourses:Social Interaction in Academic Writing[M]. London:Longman.
Hyland, K.2002. Authority and invisibility:Authorial identity in academic Writing[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 34:109-112.
Hyland, K.2004. Disciplinary interactions:metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 13:133-151.
Hyland, K.2005. Metadiscourse:Exploring Interaction in Writing[M]. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K.2007. Applying a Gloss:Exemplifying and Reformulating in Academic Discourse[J]. Applied Linguistics 28/2:266-285
Hyland, K.2009. Corpus informed discourse analysis:The case of academic engagement [C]. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari, & S. Hunston (Eds.) Academic Writing:At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse (pp.110-128). Continuum International Publishing Group.
Hyland, K.2010. Constructing proximity:relating to readers in popular and professional science [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purpose (2):116-127.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P.2004. Metadiscourse in Academic Writing:A Reappraisal[J]. Applied Linguistics 25/2:156-177
Ifantidou, E.2005. The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37:1325-1353.
Ivanic, R.1998. Writing and identity:The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing[M]. Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Jakobson, R.1998. On Language:Roman Jakobson[M]. Edited by L. R. Waugh & M. Monville-Burston. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Kanoksilapatham, B.2005. Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles[J]. English for Specific Purposes 24(3):269-292.
Kim Loi, C. & Sweetnam Evans, M.2010. Cultural differences in the organization of research article introductions from the field of educational psychology:English and Chinese [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 42:2814-2825.
Koutsantoni, D.2007. Developing Academic Literacies:Understanding Disciplinary Communities'Culture and Rhetoric[M]. New York:Peter Lang Pub Inc.
Kwan, B.2006. The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics[J]. English for Specific Purposes 25:30-55.
Lautamatti, L.1987. Observations on the development of the topic of simplified discourse[C]. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages (pp. 87-114). Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.
Lee, S.2000. Contrastive rhetorical study on Korean and English research paper introductions[J]. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 4(2):316-336.
Lewin, B., Fine, J., & Young, L.2001. Expository Discourse:A Genre-based Approach to Social Science Research Texts[M]. London and New York:Continuum.
LoCastro, V.2008. Long sentences and floating commas [C]. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric:Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 195-217). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Loukianenko Wolfe, M.2008. Different cultures different discourses? Rhetorical patterns of business letters by English and Russian speakers [C]. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric:Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 87-121). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Martin-Martin, P.2003. A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences [J]. English for Specific Purposes 22:25-43.
Mauranen, A.1993a. Contrastive ESP rhetoric:metatext in Finnish-English economics texts [J]. English for Specific purposes 12:3-22.
Mauranen, A.1993b. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric:A Text-Linguistic Study[M]. Frankfurt a.M.:Peter Lang.
Mauranen, A.2001. Reflexive academic talk:observations from MICASE [C]. In R. Simpson & J. Swales(Eds.), Corpus Linguistic in North America (pp.165-178). Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
McEnry, T. & Kifle, N.A.2002. Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second language writers[C]. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.) Academic Discourse (pp.182-195). London, UK:Longman.
Miller, C. R.1984. Genre as social action [J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70:151-167.
Moreno, A. I.2004. Retrospective labeling in premise-conclusion metatext:An English-Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and economics [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3:321-339.
Moreno, A. I.2008. The importance of comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies [C]. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric:Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp.147-168). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Myers, G.1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles[J]. Applied Linguistics 10:1-35.
Nwogu, K. N.1990. Discourse variation in medical texts:Schema, theme and cohesion in professional and journalistic accounts[M]. Monographs in Systemic Linguistics,2. Nottingham:University of Nottingham.
Nwogu, K. N.1997. The medical research paper:Structure and functions[J]. English for Specific Purposes 16(2):119-138.
Paltridge, B.1994. Genre analysis and the identification of textual boundaries [J]. Applied Linguistics 15:288-299.
Paltridge, B., & Starfi eld, S.2007. Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors [M]. London:Routledge.
Peacock, M.2002. Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles[J]. System 30(4):479-497.
Peng, J.1987. Organizational features in chemical engineering research articles [J]. ELR Journal 1:79-116.
Pho, P. D.2008. Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology:a study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance[J]. Discourse Studies 10(2):231-250.
Reid, J. M.1988. Quantitative differences in English prose written by Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, and English students[D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Ridley, D.2000. The different guises of a PhD thesis and the role of a literature review [C]. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Patterns and perspectives:Insights into EAP writing practice (pp.61-76). Reading:University of Reading.
Samraj, B.2002. Introductions in research articles:Variations across disciplines[J]. English for Specific Purposes 21(1):1-17.
Samraj. B.2008. A discourse analysis of master's theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7:55-67.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.1994. Face parameters in East-West discourse[C]. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The Challenge of Facework (pp.133-158). Albany:State University of New York Press.
Scott, M.2004. Wordsmith Tools (version 4). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Shaw, P.2003. Evaluation and promotion across languages [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2:343-357.
Shim, E.2005. Explicit writing instruction in higher educational contexts:Genre analysis of research article introductions from the English Teaching and TESOL Quarterly Journals [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Shore, B.1996. Culture in Mind. Cognition, Culture and the Problem of Meaning[M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J.1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J.2004. Reading Concordances[M]. London:Longman.
Soler-Monreal, C. et al.2010. A contrastive study of the rhetorical organization of English and Spanish PhD thesis introductions[J]. English for Specific Purposes 2:1-14.
Swales, J.1981. Aspects of Article Introductions[M]. Birmingham:Language Studies Unit, The University of Aston.
Swales, J. M.1990. Genre analysis:English in academic and research settings[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M.2004. Research genres:Exploration and applications[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B.1994. Academic writing for graduate students:A course for nonnative speakers of English [M]. Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. & Feak, C.2000. English in Today's Research World:A Writing Guide[M]. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J., & Luebs, M. A.2002. Genre analysis and the advanced second language writer. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse Studies in Composition (pp.135-154). Cresskill:Hampton Press.
Swales, J., & Najjar, H.1987. The writing of research article introductions[J]. Written Communication 4(2):175-191.
Taylor, G., & Chen, T.1991. Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues[J]. Applied Linguistics 12:319-336.
Thompson, G & P. Thetela.1995. The sound of one hand clapping:the management of interaction in written discourse[J]. Text 15(1):103-127.
Thompson, P.2001. A Pedagogically-motivated Corpus-based Examination of PhD Theses: Macrostructure, Citation Practices and Used of Modal Verbs[D]. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. London:University of Reading.
Thompson, P.2005. Points of focus and position:Intertextual reference in PhD theses [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4:307-323.
Thomas, S., & Hawes, T. P.1994. Reporting verbs in medical journal articles[J]. English for Specific Purposes 13:129-148.
Thompson, S. E.2003. Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signaling of organization in academic lectures[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 5-20.
ThueVold, E.2006. Epistemic modality markers in research articles:A crosslinguistic and cross-disciplinary study[J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16(1):61-87.
Upton, T.A.2002. Understanding direct mail letters as a genre[J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7:65-85.
Valero Garces, C.1996. Contrastive ESP rhetoric:metatext in Spanish-English economics texts[J]. English for Specific Purposes 5:279-294.
Vande Kopple, W.1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse[J]. College Composition and Communication 36:82-93.
Van Dijk, T. A., and W. Kintsch.1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension[M]. New York:Academics.
Vassileva, I.2001. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing[J]. English for Specific Purposes 20 (1):83-102.
Weissberg, R., & Buker, S.1990. Writing up research:Experimental research report writing for students of English [M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall Regents.
Yakhontova, T.2002. Selling or telling? The issue of cultural variation in research genres[C]. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.). Academic discourse (pp.216-232). London: Pearson Education.
Yang, R., & Allison, D.2003. Research articles in applied linguistics:Moving from results to conclusions[J]. English for Specific Purposes 22(4):365-385.
Yu Jianping.2004. How do research articles in mechanical engineering bring themselves to an end? A lexico-grammatical study of conclusions[D]([MA]). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
成晓光,1997,《亚语言研究》[M]。大连：辽宁师范大学出版社。
邓丽鸣,2009,中国二语社科博士论文讨论与结语章节之语体研究[D]。香港：香港城市大学。
方英,2007,中英文医药说明 书元话语使用对比分析及浅释[D]([MA])。上海：上海外国语大学。
高健,2009,《元话语研究——理论与实践》[M]。南京：东南大学出版社。
葛冬梅,杨瑞英,2005,学术论文摘要的体裁分析[J]。《现代外语》(2)：138-146。
占中美,2007,基于语料库的中外英文学术期刊论文结构部分的对比研究[D]([MA])。武汉：华中科技大学。
胡春华,2008,学术讲座中元话语的语用学研究：顺应—关联路向[D]。上海：上海外国语大学。
孔瑞、辛鑫,2009,中国学生口语中元话语使用情况实证研究[J],《中国英语教学》(32)：52-63。
李佐文,2001,论元话语对语境的构建和体现[J],《外国语》(3)：44-50。
吴格奇,2010,英汉研究论文结论部分作者立场标记语对比研究[J],《西安外国语大学》学报(4)：46-50。
徐海铭,2004,中国英语专业本科生使用元语篇手段的发展模式调查研究[J],《外语与外语教学》(3)：59-63。
徐海铭、龚世莲,2006,元语篇手段的使用与语篇质量相关度的实证研究[J],《现代外语》(1)：54-61。
徐赳赳,2006,关于元话语的范围和分类[J],《当代语言学》(4)：345-353。
许余龙,2009,对比语言学研究的新趋势与新思考——第五届国际对比语言学大会述评[J],《外语教学与研究》(4)：279-283。
于建平,2007,元话语的语体特征及互动[J],《中国科技翻译》(4)：43-47。
Adel, A.2008. Metadiscourse across three varieties of English:American, British, and advanced-learner English [C]. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric:Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 45-62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ahmad, U. K.1997. Research article introductions in Malay:Rhetoric in an emerging research community [C]. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp.273-304). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Anthony, L.1999. Writing research article introductions in software engineering:how accurate is a standard model? [J]. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 42(1):38-46.
Arvay, A., & Tanko, G.2004. A contrastive analysis of English and Hungarian theoretical research article introductions [J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics 42:71-100.
Bakhtin, M.1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays[M]. Austin, TX:University of Texas Press.
Berkenkotter, C, & Huckin, T.1995. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication. Hillsdale[M]. NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bhatia, V.K. (1993). Analysing genre:Language use in professional settings[M]. London: Longman.
Bhatia, V.1997. Genre-mixing in academic introductions [J]. English for Specific Purposes 16:181-197.
Bhatia, V.2002. A generic view of academic discourse[C]. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp.21-39). Harlow:Longman.
Bhatia, V.2004. Worlds of written discourse [M]. London:Continuum.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R.1998. Corpus Linguistics:Investigating Language Structure and Use[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D.2006. University language:A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers [M]. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Biber, D., Connor, U. and Upton, T.A.2007. Discourse on the move:Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Leech, G.2002. The Longman student grammar of spoken and written English [M]. London:Longman.
Breivega, K. R., Dahl, T. & Flottum, K.2002. Traces of self and others in research articles. A comparative pilot study of English, French and Norwegian research articles in medicine, economics and linguistics [J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12 (2):218-239.
Brett, P.1994. A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles[J]. English for Specific Purposes 13(1):47-59.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C.1987. Politeness,. Some Universals in Language Usage [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bunton, D.1999. The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses [J]. English for Specific Purposes 18:41-56.
Bunton, D.2002. Generic moves in Ph.D. thesis introductions [C]. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp.57-75). London:Longman.
Bunton, D.2005. The structure of PhD conclusion chapters [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4:207-224.
Burgess, S.2002. Packed houses and intimate gatherings:Audience and rhetorical structure[C]. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.). Academic discourse (pp.196-215). London: Pearson Education.
Charles, M.2003.'This mystery...':A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2:313-326.
Charles, M.2006. The construction of stance in reporting clauses:A cross-disciplinary study of theses [J]. Applied Linguistics 27:492-518.
Charles, M.2007. Argument or Evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun that pattern in stance construction [J]. English for Specific Purposes 26:203-218.
Charles, M. et al.2009. Introduction:Exploring the surface between corpus linguistics and discourse analysis [C]. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari, & S. Hunston (Eds.) Academic Writing:At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse (pp.1-10). Continuum International Publishing Group.
Chek Kim Loi.2010. Research article introductions in Chinese and English:A comparative genre-based study [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9:267-279.
Chesterman, A.1998. Contrastive Functional Analysis [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Connor, U.2004. Intercultural rhetoric research:Beyond texts [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3:291-304.
Connor, U. M. and Moreno, A. I.2005. Tertium comparationis:A vital component in contrastive research methodology[C]. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W.G. Egginton, W. Grabe, and V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in Applied Linguistics:Essays in Honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp.153-167). England:Multilingual Matters.
Crismore, A.1983. Metadiscourse:What is it and how is it used in school and nonschool social science texts [M]. Urbana-Champaign:University of Illinois.
Crismore, A. and Fransworth, R.1993. Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing:A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students [J]. Written Communication 10(1):39-71.
Crookes, G.1986. Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure [J]. Applied Linguistics 7:57-70.
Dahl, T.2004. Textual metadiscourse in research articles:a marker of national culture or of academic discipline[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 36:1808-1825.
de Oliveira, J. M. & Pagano, A. S.2006. The research article and the science popularization article:a probabilistic functional grammar perspective on direct discourse representation[J]. Discourse Studies 8(5):627-646.
Dong, Y. R.1998. Non-native graduate students'thesis/dissertation writing in science:Self reports by students and their advisors from two US institutions [J]. English for Specific Purposes 17(4):369-390.
Dudley-Evans, T.1986. Genre:how far can we, should we go?[J]. World English 16(3): 351-358.
Dudley-Evans, T.1994. Genre analysis:An approach to text analysis for ESP [C]. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written text analysis (pp.219-228). London:Routledge.
Flowerdew, J.2008. Determining discourse-based moves in professional reports [C]. In A. Adel & R. Reppen (Eds), Corpora and discourse:The challenges of different settings (pp.117-131). Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Francis, G.1986. Anaphoric nouns[J]. Discourse analysis monographs No.11. University of Birmingham:English Language Research.
Fredrickson, K., & Swales, J.1994. Competition and discourse community:Introductions from Nysvenska studier[C]. In B.-L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Text and Talk in Professional Contexts:Selected Papers from the International Conference "Discourse and the Professions, " Uppsala,26-29 August,1992 (pp. 9-21). Stockholm:ASLA.
Gillaerts, P. & Van De Velde, F.2010. Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(2):128-139.
Gosden, H.1993. Discourse Functions of Subject in Scientific Research Articles[J], Applied Linguistics 14(1):56-75.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B.1996. Theory and Practice of Writing[M]. New York: Longman.
Groom, N.2005. Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines:An exploratory study[J]. English for Academic Purposes 4(3):257-277.
Gnutzmann, C., & Oldenburg, H.1991. Contrastive text linguistics in LSP research: Theoretical considerations and some preliminary findings[C]. In H. Schroder (Ed.), Subject-oriented Texts (pp.103-136). Berlin, Germany and New York:de Gruyter.
Hall, E.T,1976. Beyond Culture. Doubleday[M]. Garden City, New York.
Halliday, M.1994. Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.) [M]. London:Arnold.
Hanania, E.A S. and Akhtar, K.1985. Verb Form and Rhetorical Function in Science Writing:A Study of MS Theses in Biology, Chemistry, and Physics [J], English for Specific Purpose 4,49-58.
Harwood, N.2005a. We do not seem to have a theory... The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap:Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing[J]. Applied Linguistics 26:343-375.
Harwood, N.2005b. Nowhere has anyone attempted.... In this article I aim to do just that: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37:1207-1231.
Hewings, A. and Coffin, C.2007. Writing in multi-party computer conferences and single authored assignments [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(2):126-142.
Hewings, A., & Hewings, M. (2001). Anticipatory "it" in academic writing:an indicator of disciplinary difference and developing disciplinary knowledge[C]. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context (pp.199-214). Birmingham, UK:University of Birmingham Press.
Hewings, M.1993. The end! How to conclude a dissertation[C]. In G. M. Blue (Ed.), Language, learning and success:Studying through English. London:Modern English Publications and The British Council, Macmillan.
Hewings, M., & Hewings, A.2002.'It is interesting to note that...':A comparative study of anticipatory'it'in student and published writing [J]. English for Specific Purposes 21:367-383.
Hinds, J,1987. Reader versus writer responsibility:a new typology [A]. In:Connor, U., Kaplan, R.B. (Eds.), Writing across Languages:Analysis of Second Language Text [C]. Newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp.9-21.
Hinkle, E.1999. Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning[M]. Cambrige: Cambrige University Press.
Holmes, J.1988. Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks [J]. Applied Linguistics 9(1): 21-44.
Holmes, R.1997. Genre analysis and social sciences:an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines [J]. English for Specific Purposes 16:321-337.
Hood, S.2004. Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing:A focus on the introductions to research reports [C]. In L. Ravelli & R. Ellis (Eds), Analysing academic writing:Contextualized frameworks (pp.24-44). London:Continuum.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T.1988. A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations[J]. English for Specific Purposes 7(2):113-122.
Hunston, S.2002. Corpora in Applied Linguistics[M]. Cambridge:CUP.
Hu, Z., Brown. D., & Brown. L.1982. Some linguistic differences in the written English of Chinese and Australian students[J]. Language Learning and Communicationl:39-49.
Hyland, K.1994. Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks[J]. English for Specific Purposes 13 (3):239-256.
Hyland, K.1998. Persuation and context:The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 30:437-455.
Hyland, K.1999a. Talking to Students:Metadiscourse in Introductory Coursebooks[J]. English for Specific Purposes 18(1):3-26.
Hyland, K.1999b. Academic attribution:Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge[J]. Applied Linguistics 20:341-367.
Hyland, K.2000. Disciplinary Discourses:Social Interaction in Academic Writing[M]. London:Longman.
Hyland, K.2002. Authority and invisibility:Authorial identity in academic Writing[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 34:109-112.
Hyland, K.2004. Disciplinary interactions:metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 13:133-151.
Hyland, K.2005. Metadiscourse:Exploring Interaction in Writing[M]. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K.2007. Applying a Gloss:Exemplifying and Reformulating in Academic Discourse[J]. Applied Linguistics 28/2:266-285
Hyland, K.2009. Corpus informed discourse analysis:The case of academic engagement [C]. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari, & S. Hunston (Eds.) Academic Writing:At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse (pp.110-128). Continuum International Publishing Group.
Hyland, K.2010. Constructing proximity:relating to readers in popular and professional science [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purpose (2):116-127.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P.2004. Metadiscourse in Academic Writing:A Reappraisal[J]. Applied Linguistics 25/2:156-177
Ifantidou, E.2005. The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37:1325-1353.
Ivanic, R.1998. Writing and identity:The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing[M]. Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Jakobson, R.1998. On Language:Roman Jakobson[M]. Edited by L. R. Waugh & M. Monville-Burston. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Kanoksilapatham, B.2005. Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles[J]. English for Specific Purposes 24(3):269-292.
Kim Loi, C. & Sweetnam Evans, M.2010. Cultural differences in the organization of research article introductions from the field of educational psychology:English and Chinese [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 42:2814-2825.
Koutsantoni, D.2007. Developing Academic Literacies:Understanding Disciplinary Communities'Culture and Rhetoric[M]. New York:Peter Lang Pub Inc.
Kwan, B.2006. The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics[J]. English for Specific Purposes 25:30-55.
Lautamatti, L.1987. Observations on the development of the topic of simplified discourse[C]. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages (pp. 87-114). Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.
Lee, S.2000. Contrastive rhetorical study on Korean and English research paper introductions[J]. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 4(2):316-336.
Lewin, B., Fine, J., & Young, L.2001. Expository Discourse:A Genre-based Approach to Social Science Research Texts[M]. London and New York:Continuum.
LoCastro, V.2008. Long sentences and floating commas [C]. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric:Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 195-217). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Loukianenko Wolfe, M.2008. Different cultures different discourses? Rhetorical patterns of business letters by English and Russian speakers [C]. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric:Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 87-121). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Martin-Martin, P.2003. A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences [J]. English for Specific Purposes 22:25-43.
Mauranen, A.1993a. Contrastive ESP rhetoric:metatext in Finnish-English economics texts [J]. English for Specific purposes 12:3-22.
Mauranen, A.1993b. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric:A Text-Linguistic Study[M]. Frankfurt a.M.:Peter Lang.
Mauranen, A.2001. Reflexive academic talk:observations from MICASE [C]. In R. Simpson & J. Swales(Eds.), Corpus Linguistic in North America (pp.165-178). Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
McEnry, T. & Kifle, N.A.2002. Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second language writers[C]. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.) Academic Discourse (pp.182-195). London, UK:Longman.
Miller, C. R.1984. Genre as social action [J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70:151-167.
Moreno, A. I.2004. Retrospective labeling in premise-conclusion metatext:An English-Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and economics [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3:321-339.
Moreno, A. I.2008. The importance of comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies [C]. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric:Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp.147-168). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Myers, G.1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles[J]. Applied Linguistics 10:1-35.
Nwogu, K. N.1990. Discourse variation in medical texts:Schema, theme and cohesion in professional and journalistic accounts[M]. Monographs in Systemic Linguistics,2. Nottingham:University of Nottingham.
Nwogu, K. N.1997. The medical research paper:Structure and functions[J]. English for Specific Purposes 16(2):119-138.
Paltridge, B.1994. Genre analysis and the identification of textual boundaries [J]. Applied Linguistics 15:288-299.
Paltridge, B., & Starfi eld, S.2007. Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors [M]. London:Routledge.
Peacock, M.2002. Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles[J]. System 30(4):479-497.
Peng, J.1987. Organizational features in chemical engineering research articles [J]. ELR Journal 1:79-116.
Pho, P. D.2008. Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology:a study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance[J]. Discourse Studies 10(2):231-250.
Reid, J. M.1988. Quantitative differences in English prose written by Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, and English students[D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Ridley, D.2000. The different guises of a PhD thesis and the role of a literature review [C]. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Patterns and perspectives:Insights into EAP writing practice (pp.61-76). Reading:University of Reading.
Samraj, B.2002. Introductions in research articles:Variations across disciplines[J]. English for Specific Purposes 21(1):1-17.
Samraj. B.2008. A discourse analysis of master's theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7:55-67.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.1994. Face parameters in East-West discourse[C]. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The Challenge of Facework (pp.133-158). Albany:State University of New York Press.
Scott, M.2004. Wordsmith Tools (version 4). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Shaw, P.2003. Evaluation and promotion across languages [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2:343-357.
Shim, E.2005. Explicit writing instruction in higher educational contexts:Genre analysis of research article introductions from the English Teaching and TESOL Quarterly Journals [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Shore, B.1996. Culture in Mind. Cognition, Culture and the Problem of Meaning[M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J.1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J.2004. Reading Concordances[M]. London:Longman.
Soler-Monreal, C. et al.2010. A contrastive study of the rhetorical organization of English and Spanish PhD thesis introductions[J]. English for Specific Purposes 2:1-14.
Swales, J.1981. Aspects of Article Introductions[M]. Birmingham:Language Studies Unit, The University of Aston.
Swales, J. M.1990. Genre analysis:English in academic and research settings[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M.2004. Research genres:Exploration and applications[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B.1994. Academic writing for graduate students:A course for nonnative speakers of English [M]. Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. & Feak, C.2000. English in Today's Research World:A Writing Guide[M]. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J., & Luebs, M. A.2002. Genre analysis and the advanced second language writer. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse Studies in Composition (pp.135-154). Cresskill:Hampton Press.
Swales, J., & Najjar, H.1987. The writing of research article introductions[J]. Written Communication 4(2):175-191.
Taylor, G., & Chen, T.1991. Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues[J]. Applied Linguistics 12:319-336.
Thompson, G & P. Thetela.1995. The sound of one hand clapping:the management of interaction in written discourse[J]. Text 15(1):103-127.
Thompson, P.2001. A Pedagogically-motivated Corpus-based Examination of PhD Theses: Macrostructure, Citation Practices and Used of Modal Verbs[D]. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. London:University of Reading.
Thompson, P.2005. Points of focus and position:Intertextual reference in PhD theses [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4:307-323.
Thomas, S., & Hawes, T. P.1994. Reporting verbs in medical journal articles[J]. English for Specific Purposes 13:129-148.
Thompson, S. E.2003. Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signaling of organization in academic lectures[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 5-20.
ThueVold, E.2006. Epistemic modality markers in research articles:A crosslinguistic and cross-disciplinary study[J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16(1):61-87.
Upton, T.A.2002. Understanding direct mail letters as a genre[J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7:65-85.
Valero Garces, C.1996. Contrastive ESP rhetoric:metatext in Spanish-English economics texts[J]. English for Specific Purposes 5:279-294.
Vande Kopple, W.1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse[J]. College Composition and Communication 36:82-93.
Van Dijk, T. A., and W. Kintsch.1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension[M]. New York:Academics.
Vassileva, I.2001. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing[J]. English for Specific Purposes 20 (1):83-102.
Weissberg, R., & Buker, S.1990. Writing up research:Experimental research report writing for students of English [M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall Regents.
Yakhontova, T.2002. Selling or telling? The issue of cultural variation in research genres[C]. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.). Academic discourse (pp.216-232). London: Pearson Education.
Yang, R., & Allison, D.2003. Research articles in applied linguistics:Moving from results to conclusions[J]. English for Specific Purposes 22(4):365-385.
Yu Jianping.2004. How do research articles in mechanical engineering bring themselves to an end? A lexico-grammatical study of conclusions[D]([MA]). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
成晓光,1997,《亚语言研究》[M]。大连：辽宁师范大学出版社。
邓丽鸣,2009,中国二语社科博士论文讨论与结语章节之语体研究[D]。香港：香港城市大学。
方英,2007,中英文医药说明 书元话语使用对比分析及浅释[D]([MA])。上海：上海外国语大学。
高健,2009,《元话语研究——理论与实践》[M]。南京：东南大学出版社。
葛冬梅,杨瑞英,2005,学术论文摘要的体裁分析[J]。《现代外语》(2)：138-146。
占中美,2007,基于语料库的中外英文学术期刊论文结构部分的对比研究[D]([MA])。武汉：华中科技大学。
胡春华,2008,学术讲座中元话语的语用学研究：顺应—关联路向[D]。上海：上海外国语大学。
孔瑞、辛鑫,2009,中国学生口语中元话语使用情况实证研究[J],《中国英语教学》(32)：52-63。
李佐文,2001,论元话语对语境的构建和体现[J],《外国语》(3)：44-50。
吴格奇,2010,英汉研究论文结论部分作者立场标记语对比研究[J],《西安外国语大学》学报(4)：46-50。
徐海铭,2004,中国英语专业本科生使用元语篇手段的发展模式调查研究[J],《外语与外语教学》(3)：59-63。
徐海铭、龚世莲,2006,元语篇手段的使用与语篇质量相关度的实证研究[J],《现代外语》(1)：54-61。
徐赳赳,2006,关于元话语的范围和分类[J],《当代语言学》(4)：345-353。
许余龙,2009,对比语言学研究的新趋势与新思考——第五届国际对比语言学大会述评[J],《外语教学与研究》(4)：279-283。
于建平,2007,元话语的语体特征及互动[J],《中国科技翻译》(4)：43-47。