Differentiated Interpersonal Functions of Metadiscursive Nouns in Cross-Cultural Contexts: A Corpus-Based Analysis
Drawing on Hyland’s model of interactive metadiscourse and Brown & Levinson’s politeness theory, this study investigates the cross-cultural divergences and evolutionary mechanisms of interpersonal functions of metadiscursive nouns (MNs) in Chinese and English academic writing. Utilizing a diachronic bilingual parallel corpus (2015–2025) comprising 200 journal articles from applied linguistics in each language (totaling 1.5 million tokens),this study systematically analyze how MNs mediate writer-reader interactions across linguistic and cultural boundaries.This study innovatively proposes a tripartite analytical framework of Rhetorical Identity-Cognitive Interaction-Cultural Adaptation to unravel the co-evolutionary mechanisms underlying MNs’ divergences, driven by disciplinary norms, cognitive schemata, and rhetorical traditions. Amplifier MNs (e.g., evidence) occur more frequently in English than in Chinese, predominantly through N+be+complement clause constructions to bolster propositional authority; Hedging MNs are more prevalent in Chinese, frequently co-occurring with epistemic modals to form double-hedging patterns, reflecting Confucian “prudent speech”principles in safeguarding positive face.In the cognitive interaction dimension, disciplinary paradigm shifts drive diachronic divergence. Interpretative MNs (e.g., interpretation) in English exhibit an increase, reflecting a post-positivist interpretative turn;empirical MNs (e.g.,data) in Chinese show a surge, reinforcing the institutionalization of quantitative methodologies in scholarly practice.In the rhetorical identity dimension, English deploys explicit self-references (we) and reader-oriented MNs (implication) to construct dialogic authority; Chinese favors impersonal MNs (e.g., this study) for depersonalized persuasion, with a higher density than English self-referential markers, highlighting collectivist cultural constraints on individual rhetorical agency. This study breaks through Western-centric frameworks of metadiscourse interpretation, confirming that cross-cultural differences in MNs are essentially the product of the co-evolution of academic institutions, cognitive habits, and rhetorical traditions. It provides theoretical grounding and methodological support for constructing an inclusive global academic rhetoric system.
References
- Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
- Confucius. (n.d.). The Analects (A. Waley, Trans.). Book 4, Chapter 24.
- Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2023). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A multidimensional perspective. In J. Flowerdew & M. Charles (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metadiscourse (pp. 123–138). Routledge.
- F. Jiang;Ken Hyland. (2016). Nouns and Academic Interactions: A Neglected Feature of Metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics. 39(4), 508–531.
- Harris, Z. S. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 35(1), 288–290.
- Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
- Hyland, K. (2018). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing (Reissued Edition). London: Bloomsbury.
- Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2021). Metadiscourse across languages: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Applied Linguistics, 42(6), 1053–1075.
- Koutsantoni, V. (2006). Hedging and boosting in academic writing: The case of theses. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1493–1513.
- Li, X., & Wang, Y. (2023). Cultural constraints on metadiscursive practices: A contrastive study of Chinese and English academic abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 62.
- Liu, J., & Hu, G. (2022). The evolution of hedging in Chinese scientific writing: A diachronic corpus analysis. Science Communication, 44(4), 456–483.
- Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
- Wu, S., & Chen, L. (2020). Quantitative vs. qualitative metadiscourse in applied linguistics: A cross-cultural perspective. Language and Communication, 75, 1–5.
- Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93.
- Zhang, Y., & Xu, J. (2024). Collectivism and impersonal rhetoric: A corpus-based study of Chinese academic writing. Discourse Studies, 26(1), 89–112.