後設論述（metadiscourse）作為一種可以歸納語篇寫作風格的模式，在學術寫作的研究中普遍為人所使用（Crismore, Markkanen & Steffensen, 1993; Hyland, 2005; Vande Kopple, 1985）。過去的研究發現，不同語言的後設論述使用有所差異（Crismore et al., 1993; Lee, 2013; Lee & Casal, 2014），章節亦是影響後設論述的主因之一（Gillaerts & Van de Velde, 2010; Yang, 2013）。然而，中文學術引言（introduction）的後設論述研究仍不多見，過去的研究在質化分析及教學應用的方面也有所不足。因此，本文將透過中英引言後設論述對比研究，歸納中文學術引言的寫作特點，將結果應用於中文學術寫作教學中。
本研究蒐集中英期刊引言共60篇，採用Hyland（2005）的後設論述架構進行分析。研究發現，中英學術引言在後設論述的使用上有相似和相異之處。在相似處方面，中英皆偏好使用交互式後設論述來組織文章架構。此外，中英在標記使用頻率上亦呈現出相似性：連接、舉證與註解標記是中英最常使用的交互式標記，自我、增強與規避標記則為中英最常使用的互動式標記。在相異處方面，中文在交互式標記中偏好使用連接標記、英文則偏好使用舉證標記。在互動式標記中，中文偏好使用強調標記、英文則偏好使用規避標記。此外，中英的規避、態度及第一人稱自我標記亦有其特有的語言表現方式。結果顯示，中英相似處反映出中文學術論文受到英文學術社群的影響，但其差異處反映語言文化背景對作者寫作的影響。本文亦將研究結果應用於中文學術寫作教材的設計上，為將來的學術寫作教學提供實質建議。

Metadiscourse, a discourse analysis that reveals and summarizes the features of discourse, is widely used in the study of academic writing. Previous studies have shown distinctions in the number and type of metadiscourse elements across research articles in different languages and fields. However, little research focuses on the use of metadiscourse in Chinese introduction sections. This study, therefore, aims to summarize the features of Chinese introduction sections by comparing the usage of metadiscourse in Chinese and English language research article introductions. The corpus for this study is comprised of 60 introduction sections drawn from articles published in language teaching journals. Hyland’s (2005) model of metadiscourse is employed as the analytical framework for the present study. The results show that there are similarities and differences in usage between the two languages. To guide readers through each phase, both Chinese and English use interactive metadiscourse markers frequently and extensively; furthermore, there are clear similarities in the frequency of metadiscourse markers. As for the differences, Chinese employs more transitions (e.g., in addition, chúcǐzhīwài) and boosters (e.g., clearly, míngxiǎndi) than English, while English employs more evidentials (e.g., X states, X rènwéi) and hedges (e.g., possible, kěnéng) than Chinese. The language forms are differences as well. For example, in English, authors use first-person singular pronouns to refer to themselves, while Chinese authors do not. The findings suggest that Chinese research articles follow the norms of the English language academic community, but there are cultural and linguistic differences in Chinese academic writing. This study has pedagogical applications for academic writing teaching materials in TCSL (Teaching Chinese as a Second Language) for English students.

Arrington, P., & Rose, S. K. (1987). Prologues to what is possible: Introductions as metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 38, 306-318.
Bean, J., Cucchiara, M., Eddy, R., Elbow, P., Grego, R., Haswell, R., Irvine, P., Kennedy, E., Kutz, E., Lehner, A., & Matsuda, P. K. (2006). Should we invite students to write in home languages? Complicating the yes/no debate. In P. K. Matsuda, M. Cox, J. Jordan & C. Ortmeier-Hopper (Eds.), Second-language writing in the composition classroom: A critical sourcebook (pp. 225-240). Boston, MA: Bedford/ST. Martin’s.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U., & Farmer, M. (1990). The teaching of topical structure analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 37-56). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Gibaldi, J., & Achtert, W. S. (1988). MLA handbook for writers of research papers. New York: Modern Language Association of America.
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2002). Cross-cultural communication theories. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 25-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hartley, J. (2008). Academic writing and publishing: A practical handbook. New York: Routledge.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of second language text (pp. 9-21). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809.
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 191-218). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Johns, A. M. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 37-56). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M.-H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146.
Kirkpatrick, A. (1997). Traditional Chinese text structures and their influence on the writing in Chinese and English of contemporary Mainland Chinese students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(3), 223-244.
Krapels, A. R. (1990). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 37-56). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kroll, B. (1990). Introduction. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 1-5). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46, 39-54.
Lee, T. K. (2013). Author manifestation and perceptions of self in Chinese academic discourse: Comparisons with English. Languages in Contrast, 13(1), 90-112.
Li, Y.-L. (2014). The use of connectives in Chinese doctoral dissertation abstracts (master's thesis). Retrieved from http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/88070504544468102750
Lin, W.-H. (2014). Hedges in medical discourse: A comparison between the spoken and the written genres in Taiwan’s medical setting (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/68468448402789678239
Livnat, Z. (2012). Dialogue, science and academic writing. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lo, Y.-W. (2010). Hedges in Chinese academic texts: How authors qualify their argument (master's thesis). Retrieved from http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/56856257676144805430
Monippally, M. M., & Pawar, B. S. (2010). Academic writing: A guide for management students and researchers. New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications Inc.
Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135-148.
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068-3079.
O’Connor, M., & Woodford, F. P. (1975). Writing scientific papers in English. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Ozdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141(25), 59-63.
Rahman, M. (2004). Aiding the reader: The use of metalinguistic devices in scientific discourse. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 18, 29-48.
Rubio, M. S. (2011). A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in field of agricultural sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 258-271.
Samaie, M., Khosravian, F., & Boghayeri, M. (2014). The frequency and types of hedges in research article introductions by Persian and English native authors. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1678-1685.
Samuda, V. (2005). Expertise in pedagogic task design. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching (pp. 230-254). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sheridan, C. L. (2015). National journals and centering institutions: A historiography of an English language teaching journal in Taiwan. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 70-84.
Shi, L. (2002). How western-trained Chinese TESOL professionals publish in their home environment. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 625-634.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2011). Aspects of article introductions. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Taylor, G., & Chen, T. (1991). Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied Linguistics, 12, 319-336.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English. Prentice Hall Regents, NJ: Englewood Cliffs.
West, G. K. (1980). That-nominal constructions in traditional rhetorical divisions of scientific research papers. TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 483-488.
Williams, J. M. (2003). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. New York: Longman.
Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50, 23-36.
李培毓、顏妤璇（2011，1月）。從近期漢語國際教育碩士設置看大陸地區華語師資培育現況。第一屆東亞華語教學研究生論壇。台北市：國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所。
周雪林（1996）。淺談外語教材評估標準。外語界，2，60-63。
馬藹萱、關秉寅（2008，1月）。大專校院招收外籍生市場調查與分析研究。教育部委託研究報告（編號96-3004）。臺北市：教育部。
畢繼萬（1996）。“禮貌”的文化特性研究。世界漢語教學，1，51-59。
連淑能（1993）。英漢對比研究。北京：高等教育出版社。
董鵬程（2007，11月）。台灣華語文教學的過去、現在與未來展望。多元文化與族群和諧國際學術研討會。台北市：國立臺北教育大學華語文中心。
趙金銘（1998）。論對外漢語教材評估。語言與教學研究，3。
潘文國（1997）。漢英語對比綱要。北京：北京語言大學出版社。
謝佳玲（2006a）。華語廣義與狹義情態詞的分析。華語文教學研究，3（1），1-25。
謝佳玲（2006b）。漢語情態詞的語意界定：語料庫為本的研究。中國語文研究，21，45-63。
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。
顧曰國（1992）。禮貌、語用與文化。外語教學與研究，4，10-17。