[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-591636-105":59,"doc-detail-591636-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","a-comparative-study-of-metadiscoursal-features-in-english-research-article-abstracts-in-hard-disciplines","A Comparative Study of Metadiscoursal Features in English Research Article Abstracts in Hard Disciplines","","This comparative study examines how L1 Chinese scholars in hard science disciplines deploy metadiscourse in English research article abstracts, contrasting their usage with L1 English scholars. Using Hyland’s interpersonal model, the analysis finds overall lower metadiscoursal resource use among L1 Chinese writers, with interactive devices favored more in the Chinese group and interactional items more in the English group. T-tests highlight specific differences for code glosses and self-mentions, and deeper analysis identifies two functions of code glosses and five functions of self-mentions.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/a-comparative-study-of-metadiscoursal-features-in-english-research-article-abstracts-in-hard-disciplines/591636/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/a-comparative-study-of-metadiscoursal-features-in-english-research-article-abstracts-in-hard-disciplines/591636.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"supergirl","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-05","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":34},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the main goal of the study?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"To investigate how L1 Chinese scholars in hard science disciplines use metadiscourse in English research article abstracts compared with L1 English scholars.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Which analytical framework is used to examine metadiscourse?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal model of metadiscourse is adopted for the analysis.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What are the key differences found between L1 Chinese and L1 English scholars?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Overall, L1 Chinese scholars use fewer metadiscoursal resources; they use more interactive devices, while L1 English scholars use more interactional items. T-tests also confirm differences in code glosses and self-mentions.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},591636,1792193254,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":34,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},962088121634,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","A Comparative Study of Metadiscoursal Features in English Research Article Abstracts in Hard Disciplines  \nArab Journal of Applied Linguistics e-ISSN 2490-4198  \nVol. 4, No. 1, May 2019, 1-37 © The Authors  \n[http://www.arjals.com](http://www.arjals.com)  \nJing Wei & Jing Duan  \nSouthwest University, Chongqing, China.  \nAbstract  \nThis study investigates how L1 Chinese scholars in hard science disciplines use metadiscourse in their English academic writing, by comparing the deployment of metadiscoursal resources written by L1 Chinese and L1 English scholars. Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal model of metadiscourse was adopted for the analysis. We found that L1 Chinese scholars used less metadiscoursal resources than L1 English scholars on the whole. In the two dimensions of interaction, L1 Chinese scholars made more use of interactive devices, while L1 English scholars used more interactional items. This reflects that L1 Chinese scholars made greater efforts to guide the readers through their papers, and that L1 English scholars are more concerned with creating author identity and engaging their readers. The t-tests confirmed that L1 Chinese scholars used significantly more code glosses in interactive metadiscourse and less self-mentionsin interactional metadiscourse. An in-depth analysis reveals two functions of code glosses and five functions of self-mentions in RA abstracts.  \nKeywords: Metadiscourse, English research article abstracts, hard disciplines, L1 Chinese scholars, L1 English scholars  \nIntroduction  \nMetadiscourse refers to the linguistic resources that writers use to organize their textsand involve their readers and in the meantime convey their position and attitudes towards their writing and audience (Hyland & Tse, 2004, p. 156) . The choice of certain metadiscoursal items over others reflects “the writers’ evaluation of the readers’ need for elaboration and involvement”(Hyland, 2010, p. 141), and their efforts made to “facilitate communication, support the writers’ position, and build a relationship with the audience”(Hyland, 1998, p. 438) . Therefore, the analysis of metadiscourse provides a valuable means of exploring academic writing, by comparing how scholars of different disciplinary communities, and of different linguistic and cultural communities, use metadiscoursal resources as rhetorical skills to present their research, make their cases,  \ndevelop a relationship with their readers and manage writer visibility (Ädel, 2006, p. 4) .  \nStudies reveal that scholars in humanities and social sciences (the soft disciplines)1 interact more with readers than their counterparts in natural sciences and engineering (the hard sciences) as they employ more metadiscoursal resources on the whole (Hyland, 2010; Hyland & Tse, 2004). They make greater efforts to involve the reader in the text by using more hedges (Hyland, 2010), attitude markers (Hyland, 2010; Lafuente-Millán, 2012), self-mentions (Hyland, 2010), and stance nouns (Jiang & Hyland, 2015), which shows that scholars in the soft disciplines favor more explicit personal interpretation than their counterparts in hard sciences. It is also reported that the scholars in the soft fields tend to elaborate by reformulation and favor argument by exemplification (Hyland, 2007) . More recent studies found that even within soft disciplines, scholars use metadiscourse differently (Cao & Hu, 2014; Hu & Cao, 2015; Khedri, 2013; Kim & Lim, 2013; Li & Wharton, 2012), but disciplinary influence on the use of metadiscourse is not  \n1 In this study, we use terms such as “hard sciences”,“hard fields” and “hard disciplines” to refer to natural sciences, and terms such as “soft sciences”, “soft fields” and “soft disciplines” to refer to humanities and social sciences.  \nas strong as contextual factors (Li & Wharton, 2012), or paradigmatic factors (Cao & Hu, 2014; Hu & Cao, 2015) .  \nIncreased international contacts in the academic world, on the other hand, have aroused interests in ho","cbCaimMp817WCKdb","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaimMp817WCKdb","pdf",1546986,37,"English","# Abstract\n# Keywords\n# Introduction","[{\"question\":\"What is the main goal of the study?\",\"answer\":\"To investigate how L1 Chinese scholars in hard science disciplines use metadiscourse in English research article abstracts compared with L1 English scholars.\"},{\"question\":\"Which analytical framework is used to examine metadiscourse?\",\"answer\":\"Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal model of metadiscourse is adopted for the analysis.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the key differences found between L1 Chinese and L1 English scholars?\",\"answer\":\"Overall, L1 Chinese scholars use fewer metadiscoursal resources; they use more interactive devices, while L1 English scholars use more interactional items. T-tests also confirm differences in code glosses and self-mentions.\"}]","A Comparative Study of Metadiscoursal Features in English Research Article Abstracts in Hard Disciplines | PDF",1792072881,93]