英语论文网

g Harris in 1959, the concept hasbeen further explored by scholar at home and abroad who have extended their researchscope from the content of texts to the ways it functions interpersonally. Emphasizing the importance of negotiating and establishinginteraction of language are done by sociologists and sociolinguists. They refer ‘frame’ or‘intratextual framing’ as the way in which the flow of words within the text is affected byinternal organization devices which guide interpretation. An another sociolinguist DebbieSchiffrin (1950 ) develops the term metadisocurse forward by defining as ‘ meta-talk’, thetalk about on going talk. Even metadiscourse is interpreted by different callings, it is stillan ambiguous term which is referred as “discourse about discourse” or “talk about talk”.(Williama,1985) which focuses on its role to inward aspects of the text. Therefore, thesecallings only feature very partial and unsatisfactory view of a concept, because it does notstress the other side of interaction, receiver, readers or listeners.
……………

2.2 Empirical study review of metadiscourse abroad andChina
In practice of metadiscourse, four dimensions are summarized: 1 metadiscourse usein academic writing. 2. genre-specific analysis of metadiscourse use 3 culture diversity inthe use of metadiscourse. 4 the development process of writing in terms of metadiscourseuse by writers.Gillaerts et al.(2010) deal with the article abstracts research in terms of interactionalmetadiscourse on the basis of corpus of 72 research articles abstracts in Journal ofPragmatics by the comparison with research articles metadiscourse use. Threeinteractional metadiscourse markers, hedges, boosters and attitude markers in Hyland’smodel are investigated. The findings display that research articles exhibit a great numberof hedges in comparison to boosters and attitude markers, abstracts show morerelationship with boosting, rather than with hedging. This fits in with the functionaldifferences of both text types. At this point, people realize that summarizing the researchacademics is not the only function of research academic abstract .The latter also haspromotional function. The differences between research articles and research articleabstracts is like mode of ‘telling’ and ‘selling’ .That is, if academic writing is described asknowledge telling, then academic writing abstract functions as advertising means forattracting readers to the full-length text of the research article. This research suggests thatboosters are the most important means of interaction marking in research academicabstracts in any period. Another result is discovered that the use of hedges, boosters andattitude markers diminishes in the past 30 years. The author speculates that this fall in theuse of boosters and attitude markers is due to a converging move of linguistics towards thehard sciences.
…………

Chapter 3 Methodology........ 19
3.1 Research Purpose........ 19
3.2 Methodology ........ 19
3.3 Data Collection..... 20
Chapter 4 Data Analysis and Discussion...... 21
4.1 Data Analysis........ 21
4.2 Discussion ...... 22
4.3 Metadiscourse in Practice on Students’ Writing......... 23
4.4 The Reasons of Analysis for the Problems..... 38
Chapter 5 Conclusion ..... 44
5.1 Major Findings of This study ....... 44
5.2 Pedagogical Implications of This Study......... 45本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。