閱讀是學習語言的重要途徑，根據英國牛津大學數位報告（Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism），網路新聞已成為主流的新聞資訊接收來源，若能將網路新聞融入閱讀教學，除了能增加學生的閱讀量以外，亦能使其接收新聞時事，增添課堂趣味性。根據教育部逐年統計，來臺學習華語的德籍學習者逐年增加，顯示出針對德籍學習者教學研究之需要，然此類語言對比研究卻相當缺乏。因此本研究以Hyland（2005）的後設論述（metadiscourse）架構分析華語與德語網路新聞娛樂版與健康版，探討後設論述標記在不同語言以及不同新聞類別之間所展現的差異性，最後將研究結果應用於新聞閱讀教學中。
本研究蒐集華語娛樂新聞、華語健康新聞、德語娛樂新聞以及德語健康新聞各100篇。研究結果顯示，華語和德語皆依賴交互式（interactive）後設論述標記以連接語篇的邏輯概念，其中使用最多的是連接標記與示證標記，顯示華語與德語新聞皆重視語篇內的邏輯連接以及引用外部資訊以加強報導內容的可信度。而用於表達記者立場態度及與讀者互動的互動式（interactional）標記則顯示，華語記者傾向以態度標記表達其立場及觀點，而德語記者則偏好使用強調標記以顯示其對於報導內容的的確定性。對比娛樂版和健康版兩類新聞的後設論述標記使用情形則可以看到，兩類新聞皆使用大量的交互式標記，而其中健康新聞的連接標記比娛樂新聞多，顯示其更重視語篇內容的連接，而娛樂新聞則使用較健康新聞多的示證標記以引用他人話語為報導內容佐證。而在互動式標記上，娛樂新聞記者使用較多的態度標記，可見其對於報導內容的自信及贊同，而健康新聞記者則傾向使用模糊標記以持保留客觀、商討的空間。
綜上所述，不同語言和不同主題都能影響後設論述標記的使用情形，藉此本研究將分析結果應用於華語新聞閱讀教學設計中，使德籍學習者了解華語與德語網路新聞中各類後設論述標記詞語的使用，並進一步建構完整的語篇概念，了解作者的寫作目的及技巧，並以有效的方式進行閱讀，進而提升新聞語篇的閱讀理解能力。

Reading is a significant path for learning a language. According to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (Oxford University, UK), online news has become a mainstream source for readers to receive news and information. If online news can be well transformed and applied into reading courses, it will not only increase students' reading volume, but also inspire their interests to learn the latest news and get their involvement in the class. According to the statistics from Ministry of Education in Taiwan, the number of German learners coming to Taiwan to learn Chinese is increasing annually, which is indicating the rising need for research on teaching German learners. However, there is a lack of language comparative studies of this field. Therefore, this study applies Hyland's (2005) concept of metadiscourse as the framework to analyze the differences between Chinese and German news on the entertainment page and health page, and further to investigate the differences between the metadiscourse in different languages and news categories. And last, the research result could be applying in the field of online news discourse.
Within this study, there are 100 pieces of each categories being collected; including, Chinese entertainment news, Chinese health news, German entertainment news, and German health news. According to the research result, the most frequent used markers are the transition and evidential which indicates that both Chinese and German-language news share the same characteristics. The first is to use the transition emphasize the logic connections between texts. And the second is the evidential which is aim for enhancing the credibility of the content. Besides the two markers mentioned above, the interactional markers which aims for showing the stand and the attitude for the reports are being frequently applied in the Chinese news context. Chinese journalists tend to use attitude markers to express their stance and viewpoints, while German journalists prefer to use emphasis markers to show their certainty about the content of their reports. Comparing the use of metadiscourse markers in the entertainment and health news, we can see that both types of news use a large number of interactive markers, with more transitions in the health news than in the entertainment news, indicating that they focus more on the connection of the content of the discourse, while the entertainment news uses more evidentials than the health news to quote others to strengthen the content of the report. In terms of interactional markers, entertainment news reporters used more attitude markers to show their confidence and agreement with the content of their reports, while health news reporters tended to use hedges to reserve room for objectivity and discussion.
In summary of the description above, the language and the theme differences could affect the application of metadiscourse with the text. The results of the analysis can be applied to the design of online news discourse so that German learners can understand the use of various types of metadiscourse in Chinese and German online news. In this way, it will help German leaners to further construct a complete concept within the text, understand the author's purpose and techniques, and read in an effective way to improve the comprehension toward news articles of the students.

王力（1987）。現代語法。台中：藍燈文化事業有限公司。
吳培筠（2018）。由報刊到網路之新聞華語教學設計研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣大學，臺北市。
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。
李明哲（2010）。「新聞感」與網路新聞寫作之探討：從「倒三角」的延續與創新出發。傳播與社會學刊，14，161-186。
李楊、王鍾華、陳灼（2007）。對外漢語教學課程研究。北京：北京語言大學
周小兵、張世濤、干紅梅（2008）。漢語閱讀教學理論與方法。北京:北京大學出版社。
周芬（2011）。VOA時事新聞語篇的元話語特徵探析。台州學院學報，33（5），47-50。
周慶祥（2005）。網路新聞理論與實務。臺北市：風雲論壇。
林綱（2012）。網路新聞語言的語用分析。南京：南京師範大學出版社。
林靜怡（2021）。中德網路新聞語篇標記研究與閱讀教學建議。（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
柯華葳（1992）。台灣地區的閱讀研究文獻回顧。中國語言心理學研究第一年度結案報告。嘉義：國立中正大學認知科學研究中心。
侯敏、王秀清（1996）。報刊的教學設想與安排。語言教學與研究，2，27-33。
俞蘋（2016年1月25日）全台上網成年人中，超過七成利用多種平台看新聞。取自http://www.crctaiwan.nctu.edu.tw/ResultsShow_detail.asp?RS_ID=39
柳淑芬（2013）。中美新聞評論篇章中對的元話語比較研究。當代修辭學，2，83-89。
段瑞雲、黃瑩（2009）。互動元話語視角下的中美報紙社論對比分析。中國礦業大學學報（社會科學版），11（4），135-139。
郎曼（2020）。德語新聞報導語篇連貫的認知研究。北京：中國書記出版社。
郎曼（2013）。預設連貫功能的認知研究——以德語新聞報導語篇為例。解放軍外國語學院學報，36，51-56。
徐富平（2005）。漢語報刊閱讀教學中的語感問題研究。雲南師範大學學報（對外漢語教學與研究版），3，36-41。
陳賢純（2008）。對外漢語閱讀教學16講。北京：北京語言大學出版社。
張志紅（2014）。語用標記與英語閱讀教學模式設計。浙江萬里學院學報，2，112-116。
張和生（2007）。對外漢語課堂教學研究的回顧與展望。北京：高等教育出版社。
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）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
陳萬達（2007）。網路新聞學。臺北縣：威仕曼文化。
彭志平（2007）。漢語閱讀課教學法。北京：北京語言大學出版社。
黃琡華（2011）。華語新聞類課程的引導技巧——從文本理解到課堂討論。載於葉德明（主編）。對外華語課程設計（215-230頁）。臺北市：文鶴出版有限公司。
黃勤、熊瑤（2012）。英漢新聞評論中元話語使用對比分析。外語學刊，164（1），99-103。
黃勤、龔夢南（2014）。英語新聞報導與新聞評論中元話語使用之對比研究。當代外語研究，5，16-20。
楊千緻（2018）。臉書新聞分享引言與標題之中英對比：互動策略與教學應用（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
葉德明（1999）。華語文教學規範與理論基礎——華語文為第二語言教學芻議。臺北市：師大書苑有限公司。
臺灣傳播調查資料庫（2015年3月11日）。上網？還是看電視？從媒體選擇看出年齡差異。取自http://www.crctaiwan.nctu.edu.tw/ResultsShow_detail.asp?RS_ID=24
臺灣傳播調查資料庫（2019年1月24日）。「沒辦法，我就是想上網」-臺灣民眾網路使用習慣大調查。取自http://www.crctaiwan.nctu.edu.tw/ResultsShow_detail.asp?RS_ID=88
劉齊生，（2003）。中德敘述語篇中的因果關係結構。解放軍外國語學院學報，26，92-95。
Andı, S., Fletcher, R., Newman, N., Nielsen, R. K. & Schulz, A. (Eds.). (2020). Reuters institute digital news report 2020. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-06/DNR_2020_FINAL.pdf
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 28-44.
Conboy, M. (2007). The language of the news. Oxford, England: Routledge.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A Study of texts written by American and Finnish university students, Written Communication, 10, 39-71.
Cumming, S. (1984). Local Cohesion in Chinese and English: An Approach to clause combining. In Brugman, C., Macaulay, M., Dahlstrom, A., Emanation, M., Moonwomon, B., & C. O’Connor (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, CA.
Deuze, M. (2003). The web and its journalisms: Considering the consequences of different types of news media online. New Media and Society, 5(2), 203-230.
Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Newman, N., & Nielsen, R. K. (Eds.). (2019). Reuters institute digital news report 2019. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/inline-files/DNR_2019_FINAL.pdf
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fu, X., & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122-144.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6(4), 126-135.
Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In J. F. Kavanagh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye (pp. 331-358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973) Explorations in the functions of language. London, England: Edward Arnold.
Hashemi, M. R., Khodabakhshzadeh H., & Shirvan M. E. (2011). The effect of metadiscourse on EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 1(2), 112-125.
Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1&2), 29-53.
Huang, J., Tindall, E., & Nisbet, D. (2011). Authentic activities and materials for adult ESL learners. Journal of Adult Education, 40(1), 1-10.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing . Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Jalififar, A. R., & Shooshtari, Z. G. (2011). Metadiscourse awareness and ESAP comprehension. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), 54-74.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966): Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1-2), 1-20.
Kletzien, S. B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository text of different levels. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1), 67-86.
Kuhi, D., & Mojood, M. (2014). Metadiscourse in newspaper genre: A cross-linguistic study of English and Persian editorials. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1046-1055.
Li, C., & Thompson, S. (1976). Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language. In: C. Li (Ed.). Subject and topic (pp. 457-489). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Li, X. (1996). “Good Writing” in cross-cultural context. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Liang, M. Y. (2013). Rethinking authenticity: Voice and feedback in media discourse. Computers and Composition, 30(3), 157-179.
Loman, N. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of Education Psychology, 75(3), 402-412.
Nguyen, A. (2008). The penetration of online news: Past, present and future. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG.
Patterson, T. E. (2000). Doing well and doing good: How soft news and critical journalism are shrinking the news and weakening democracy- and what news outlets can do about it. Cambridge, MA: Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Reinemann, C., Stanyer, J., Scherr, S., & Legnante, G. (2012). Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 221- 239.
Stovall, J. G. (2004). Web journalism: Practice and promise of a new medium. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tuchman, G. (1973). Making news by doing work: Routinizing the unexpected. American Journal of Sociology, 79(1), 110-131.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
Ward, M. (2002). Journalism online. Woburn, MA: Focal Press.
Wolk, R. (2001). Introduction to online journalism: Publishing news and information. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
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.
Brinker, K. (2001). Linguistische Textanalyse: Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden [Linguistic text analyse: An introduction to basic concepts and methods]. Berlin, Germany: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
de Beaugrande, R. A., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Einführung in die Textlinguistik [Introduction to text linguistics]. Tübingen, Gemany: Max meyer Verlag.
Günther, S. (1993). Diskursstrategien der interkulturellen Kommunikation: Analysen deutsch-chinesischer Gespräche [Discourse strategies in intercultural communication: Analyzes of German-Chinese conversations]. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Heinemann, W. (1982). Textlinguistik heute: Entwicklung, Probleme, Aufgaben [Text linguistics nowadays: development, problems, tasks]. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig, Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe [Scientific journal of the Karl Marx University Leipzig, social and linguistic series], 31(3), 210-221.
Humboldt, W. V. (1968). Gesammelte Schriften: Fünfter Band [Collected writings: Volume five]. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
Huneke, H. -W. (2008). Zeitung lesen lernen. Mit einem Blick in Lehrwerke für den Deutschunterricht auf der Sekundarstufe [Learn to read the newspaper. With a look at textbooks for German lessons at secondary level]. In T. Hauser, H. -W. Huneke & A. Lutz (Eds.), Zeitung Machen-Zeitung lesen: Journalismus und Didaktik im Gespräch [Making newspaper-reading newspaper: Journalism and didactics in conversation] (pp. 142-160). Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany: Rombach Druck- und Verlagshaus GmbH & Co. KG.
Lüger, H. -H. (1995). Pressesprache [Press language]. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Rüskamp, W. (2008). Journalistisches Schreiben [Journalistic writing]. In T. Hauser, H. -W. Huneke & A. Lutz (Eds.), Zeitung Machen-Zeitung lesen: Journalismus und Didaktik im Gespräch [Making newspaper-reading newspaper: Journalism and didactics in conversation] (pp. 94-106). Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany: Rombach Druck- und Verlagshaus GmbH & Co. KG.
Schulz von Thun, F. (1981). Miteinander reden 1: Störungen und Klärungen: Allgemeine Psychologie der Kommunikation [Talking to each other 1: Disturbances and clarifications: General psychology of communication]. Reinbek, Germany: Rowohlt.
Schulz, W. (1976). Die Konstruktion von Realität in den Nachrichtenmedien [The construction of reality in the news media]. Freiburg/München, Germany: Verlag Karl Alber Freiburg/München.
Steininger, D. (2008). Layout-Das Aussehen einer Zeitung ist fast so wichtig wie ihr Inhalt [Layout- The look of a newspaper is almost as important as its content]. In T. Hauser, H. -W. Huneke & A. Lutz (Eds.), Zeitung machen-Zeitung lesen: Journalismus und Didaktik im Gespräch [Making newspaper-reading newspaper: Journalism and didactics in conversation] (pp. 48-69). Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany: Rombach Druck- und Verlagshaus GmbH & Co. KG.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Textwissenschaft: Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung [Textology: An interdisciplinary introduction]. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.