Differentiated Interpersonal Functions of Metadiscursive Nouns in Cross-Cultural Contexts: A Corpus-Based Analysis

Shipeng Song

doi:10.54691/mgv4qs09

Authors

Shipeng Song

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54691/mgv4qs09

Keywords:

Metadiscursive nouns; Interpersonal functions; Cross-cultural divergence; Politeness theory; Academic writing.

Abstract

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

[2] Confucius. (n.d.). The Analects (A. Waley, Trans.). Book 4, Chapter 24.

[3] 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.

[4] F. Jiang;Ken Hyland. (2016). Nouns and Academic Interactions: A Neglected Feature of Metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics. 39(4), 508–531.

[5] Harris, Z. S. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 35(1), 288–290.

[6] Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.

[7] Hyland, K. (2018). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing (Reissued Edition). London: Bloomsbury.

[8] Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2021). Metadiscourse across languages: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Applied Linguistics, 42(6), 1053–1075.

[9] Koutsantoni, V. (2006). Hedging and boosting in academic writing: The case of theses. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1493–1513.

[10] 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.

[11] Liu, J., & Hu, G. (2022). The evolution of hedging in Chinese scientific writing: A diachronic corpus analysis. Science Communication, 44(4), 456–483.

[12] Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

[13] Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.

[14] Wu, S., & Chen, L. (2020). Quantitative vs. qualitative metadiscourse in applied linguistics: A cross-cultural perspective. Language and Communication, 75, 1–5.

[15] Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93.

[16] Zhang, Y., & Xu, J. (2024). Collectivism and impersonal rhetoric: A corpus-based study of Chinese academic writing. Discourse Studies, 26(1), 89–112.