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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
