在學術文體中，期刊論文具有一定的代表性及權威性，特別是具備緒論—研究方法—研究結果—討論（IMRD）結構的研究報告。其中，討論章節雖是上述研究報告中的寫作重點，目前學界仍缺乏一致的寫作規範共識。考慮到學科間的差異，因此，本研究從華語教學領域出發，探討期刊論文中討論章節的寫作策略。
為找出具代表性的寫作策略，本研究以2014年度《臺灣華語教學研究》和《華語文教學研究》中，具緒論—研究方法—研究結果—討論結構的18篇期刊論文作為研究語料，並從章節結構和學術論文作者採用的溝通模式兩方面來探究相關寫作策略。在章節結構方面，本研究採用Lewin et al.（2001）五個寫作步驟來分析篇章功能。另一方面，在寫作步驟的架構下，為進一步釐清學術論文作者邏輯銜接，以及與讀者互動的溝通模式，本研究透過Hyland（2004，2005）的後設論述理論作為標記的依據。
研究結果發現，在章節結構層面，學術論文作者最常採用的寫作步驟皆與報告、評價和詮釋研究結果有關。而在寫作步驟的排序上，作者則傾向以報告和評價研究結果相關的步驟作為開始，結尾時則常以研究結果作為結論，或提出相關研究與教學建議。在論述中，學術論文作者亦會重複使用寫作步驟來加強論述。溝通模式方面，在所有寫作步驟中，使用程度較高的是協助讀者閱讀語篇的交互式後設論述，特別是表達語義關係的轉折語。另外，在吸引讀者討論、反饋的互動式後設論述方面，則是與讀者建立關係的標記（介入標記語）為多。然而，依據各寫作步驟的功能特徵，學術論文作者使用後設論述標記的情形也會相應改變。最後，本研究將依據上述的研究成果，總結為第五章教學應用，提出各寫作步驟與後設論述標記的參考範例與練習，並提出模擬教案供教師運用，期望對華語學術寫作領域提供參考依據。

In research genres, it is well recognized that journal articles represent disciplinary authority, especially articles with IMRD structures. However, in IMRD structures, the writing standards in Discussion section is still lack of a common consensus. Therefore, this study aims to discover the usage of writing strategies applied in Discussion section in Chinese as Second Language (CSL) journals.
In order to achieve this goal, we selected two reputational CSL journals, Taiwan Journal of Chinese as a Second Language and Journal of Chinese Language Teaching in the 2014 issue, and used research articles with IMRD structure as our research target. For the purpose of acquiring better understanding in the Discussion section, we looked into the data from two aspects: structure function and metadiscourse marker usage. To analyze the organization of Discussion section, we adopted the Moves analysis from Lewin et al. (2001). To discover how researchers organize the Moves logically and how they interact with the readers, we applied Hyland (2004, 2005)’s metadiscourse resources as our reference.
Our results show that, in CSL journals, the Moves that researchers tend to use the most are the ones that help writers to report, evaluate, and interpret the research results. As to section organization, in the beginning of the section, writers have the tendency to use the Moves that report and evaluate and present the conclusion by reporting the most important results again or providing suggestions for future studies. Furthermore, to enhance the arguments, writers repeatedly use the same Moves. As to the use of metadiscourse, our results suggest that in the field of CSL, researchers tend to use more interactional resources, especially transition, to organize the arguments. In interactive resources, engagement markers are favored. We also discovered that the use of metadicourse is affected by the function of Moves. To sum up, based on our results, we will present a pedagogical application in Chapter 5, such as examples of Moves and metadicourse markers usage, and a mock teaching plan.

參考文獻
蔡柏盈（2012）。知識與表達的融通：中文學術寫作課的設計。全人教育 學報，9，179-199。
達僕、賀陽、董小玉（主編）（1999）。漢語修養與寫作實踐。北京：首 都師範大學出版社。
李秀明（2006）。漢語元話語標記研究（未出版之博士論文）。上海：復旦 大學。
劉金明（2011）。外國語言文學研究生學術寫作課程教學改革研究。當代 教育理論與實踐，3（10），3。
羅青松（2002）。對外漢語寫作教學研究。北京：中國社會科學出版社。
美國心理協會（2011）。美國心理學會出版手冊：論文寫作格式（陳玉 玲、王明傑譯）。台北：雙葉書廊有限公司。
吳欣儒（2011）。華語學術寫作之情態動詞分析與教學應用（未出版之 碩士論文）。台北：國立臺灣師範大學。
徐振宗、李保初、桂青山（主編）（2007）。漢語寫作學。北京：北京師範 大學出版社。
許雅晴（2014）。華法網路新聞之語篇標記研究與教學應用（未出版之碩 士論文）。台北：國立臺灣師範大學。
Amin Ahmed, S., & Alamin, A. (2012). Skills and strategies used in the comprehension and production of academic writing in Taif University. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(3), 134-139.
Basturkmen, H., & Bitchener, J. (2005). The text and beyond: Exploring the expectations of the academic community for the discussion of results section in Masters thesis. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1-19.
Berkenkotter, C., & Hucking, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion of results section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 4-18.
Bitchener, J. (2010). Writing an applied linguistics thesis or dissertation: A guide to presenting empirical research. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.
Coxhead, A. (2012). Academic vocabulary, writing and English for academic purposes: Perspectives from second language learners. RELC Journal, 43(1), 137-145.
Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What is it and how is it used in school and non-school social science texts. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139.
Giridharan, B. (2012). Identifying gaps in academic writing of ESL students. US-China Education Review, A2(6), 578-587.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd ed. London, England: Edward Arnold.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion section in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113-122.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purpose, 18(1), 3-26.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London, England: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London, England: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2010). Research writing. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 191-204). London, England: Continuum.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2003). A corpus-based investing of scientific research articles: Linking move analysis and multidimensional analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
Kuhi, D. & Behnam, B. (2011). Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguistics: A comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication, 28(1), 97-141.
Lewin, B. A., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research text. London, England: Continuum.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.
Nwogu, K. N. (1990). Discourse variation in medical texts: Schema, theme and cohesion in professional and journalistic accounts. Nottingham, England: University of Nottingham.
Paltridge, B., & Wang, W. (2010). Research discourse. In B. Paltridge, & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 256-270). London, England: Continuum.
Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (1992). Surviving your dissertation: a comprehensive guide to content and process. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genre: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365-385.