An Overview of Contrastive Studies on English and Chinese Academic Discourse: Status Quo, Problems and Prospects

doi:10.12002/j.bisu.636

Abstract

Abstract:

With the rise of discourse linguistics, the object of English-Chinese contrastive studies has expanded from clauses to discourses. In recent years, substantial achievements have been made in contrastive studies of English and Chinese academic discourses. However, there are relatively few literature reviews on relevant research, and the research focal points and development trends in this field remain in need of clarification. This paper reviews the existing literature and discusses the current state of research, its major problems, and possible future directions. Contrastive studies on English and Chinese academic discourses concurrently consider macroscopic discourse pattern comparison and microscopic linguistic feature analysis, characterized by diverse research perspectives, increasingly rigorous research paradigms, and findings with practical value. Nevertheless, in establishing comparative criteria and interpreting results, some studies tend to privilege English academic discourse while paying insufficient attention to the distinctive features of Chinese academic discourse. In addition, the corpora used in contrastive studies of English and Chinese academic discourse need to be further expanded, and the findings of such research require more theoretical and systematic interpretation beyond empirically based generalizations.

Keywords: contrastive analysis of English and Chinese; academic discourse; literature review; research trends

摘要：

随着篇章语言学的兴起，英汉对比研究的对象从小句扩展到语篇。近年来，英汉学术语篇对比研究取得了丰硕成果，然而针对相关研究的文献回顾还较为匮乏，该领域的研究热点和发展趋势亟待明确。本文对已有研究进行了梳理，就研究现状、存在问题以及未来研究方向进行了讨论。英汉学术语篇对比研究兼顾宏观语篇模式对比和微观语言特征分析，研究视角多样，研究范式趋于科学，研究结论也具有应用价值。不过，部分对比研究在制定对比标准和阐释对比结果时，存在向英语学术语篇倾斜、对汉语学术语篇特征关注不够的情况。此外，英汉学术语篇对比研究的语料规模有待进一步扩大，对比研究结果也亟待形成超越经验常识的理论性、系统性阐释。

关键词: 英汉对比, 学术语篇, 文献综述, 研究趋势

CLC Number:

H030

Yu Hui, Wang Le. An Overview of Contrastive Studies on English and Chinese Academic Discourse: Status Quo, Problems and Prospects[J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2026, 48(2): 33-46.

于晖, 王乐. 英汉学术语篇对比研究——现状、问题与展望[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2026, 48(2): 33-46.

References 76

[1]	CONNOR U, NAGELHOUT E & ROZYCKI W. Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008.
[2]	DENG Liming & HE Ping. “We may conclude that:” A corpus-based study of stance-taking in conclusion sections of RAs across cultures and disciplines[J/OL]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2023,14:1175144[2023-10-20]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1175144.
[3]	FAGAN E R & CHEONG P. Contrastive rhetoric: Pedagogical implications for the ESL teacher in Singapore[J]. RELC Journal, 1987(1):19-30.
[4]	GAO Xiaofang. Contrastive analysis of hedges in a sample of Chinese and English molecular biology papers[J]. Psychological Reports, 2004(2):487-493.
[5]	HALLIDAY M A K & HASAN R. Cohesion in English[M]. London: Longman, 1976.
[6]	HOEY M. Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis[M]. London: Routledge, 2001.
[7]	HU Guangwei & CAO Feng. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2011(11):2795-2809.
[8]	HYLAND K. Genre and Second Language Writing[M]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
[9]	HYLAND K. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse[J]. Discourse Studies, 2005(2):173-192.
[10]	HYLAND K. Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context[M]. London: Continuum, 2009.
[11]	HYLAND K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing[M]. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018.
[12]	JACKSON H. Contrastive linguistics — What is it?[J]. ITL — International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1976(1):1-32.
[13]	JAMES C. Contrastive Analysis[M]. London: Longman Group Ltd., 1980.
[14]	KAPLAN R B. Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education[J]. Language Learning, 1966(1-2):1-20.
[15]	KIM L C & LIM J M H. Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions[J]. Discourse Studies, 2013(2):129-146.
[16]	LI Xiangdong. Mediating cross-cultural differences in research article rhetorical moves in academic translation:A pilot corpus-based study of abstracts[J/OL]. Lingua, 2020,238:102795[2023-08-25]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102795.
[17]	LI Zhijun & XU Jinfen. Reflexive metadiscourse in Chinese and English sociology research article introductions and discussions[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2020,159:47-59.
[18]	LINDEBERG A C. Promotion and Politeness: Conflicting Scholarly Rhetoric in Three Disciplines[M]. Turku: Äbo Akademi University Press, 2004.
[19]	LOI C K. Research article introductions in Chinese and English: A comparative genre-based study[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2010(4):267-279.
[20]	LOI C K & EVANS M S. Cultural differences in the organization of research article introductions from the field of educational psychology: English and Chinese[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2010(10):2814-2825.
[21]	MARTIN J R & WHITE P R R. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English[M]. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
[22]	MU Congjun. A multidimensional contrastive analysis of linguistic features between international and local biology journal English research articles[J]. Scientometrics, 2021(9):7901-7916.
[23]	MU Congjun, ZHANG Lawrence Jun, EHRICH J, et al. The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2015,20:135-148.
[24]	SCOLLON R & SCOLLON S. Point of view and citation: Fourteen Chinese and English versions of the ‘same’ news story[J]. Text & Talk, 1997(1):83-126.
[25]	SHI Ling & DONG Yanning. Chinese graduate students paraphrasing in English and Chinese contexts[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2018,34:46-56.
[26]	SWALES J M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[27]	TAYLOR G & CHEN Tingguang. Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discoure analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1991(3):319-336.
[28]	WU Geqi & ZHU Yongsheng. Self-mention and authorial identity construction in English and Chinese research articles[J]. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 2015(2):133-158.
[29]	YANG Yingli. Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2013(1):23-36.
[30]	蔡基刚. 英汉学术语篇元话语对比中的平行语料库建设问题研究[J]. 外语研究, 2017(4):1-4.
[31]	陈安定. 英汉比较与翻译[M]. 香港: 商务印书馆(香港)有限公司, 1985.
[32]	陈晓燕. 英汉社论语篇态度资源对比分析[J]. 外国语, 2007(3):39-46.
[33]	程喜. 基于语式差异的英汉政治话语语法隐喻分布的对比研究[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2023(1):129-145.
[34]	崔林, 成晓光. 学术论文中动词性据素使用情况的英汉对比研究[J]. 大连理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2014(2):115-119.
[35]	韩金龙, 秦秀白. 体裁分析与体裁教学法[J]. 外语界, 2000(1):11-18.
[36]	胡坚. 语言学语域学术论文的宏观结构和修辞模式[J]. 山东外语教学, 2008(5):37-42.
[37]	HYLAND K & JIANG Kevin Feng. 学术英语研究论文的元话语使用——基于JEAP的期刊内对比研究[J]. 姜峰,陈庆斌,译. 外语学刊, 2023(2):1-7.
[38]	姜峰. 英汉学术语篇修辞渲染的跨学科历时研究[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2023(1):24-34,47.
[39]	蒋婷, 徐娟. 英文法律类论文中引言的体裁研究——以英汉对比为视角[J]. 社会科学研究, 2013(2):203-208.
[40]	蒋婷, 杨霞. 英汉法律类学术论文中作者身份构建的对比研究——以介入系统为视角[J]. 西安外国语大学学报, 2018(4):8-13.
[41]	蒋跃, 陶梅. 英汉医学论文讨论部分中模糊限制语的对比研究[J]. 外语学刊, 2007(6):115-122.
[42]	鞠玉梅. 体裁分析与英汉学术论文摘要语篇[J]. 外语教学, 2004(2):32-36.
[43]	鞠玉梅. 英汉学术论文语篇中的元话语研究——从亚里士多德修辞学的角度[J]. 外语研究, 2013(3):23-29.
[44]	李成陈, 江桂英. 评价理论态度系统视角下中英学术专著他序对比研究[J]. 外语教学, 2017(5):43-48.
[45]	刘丹. 英汉论辩体裁介入系统跨文化对比研究[J]. 外语学刊, 2013(3):31-35.
[46]	刘先刚. 英汉科技语言比较[J]. 外语教学, 1992(1):14-18.
[47]	龙满英, 许家金. 大学生英汉同题议论文中立场标记的对比研究[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2010(3):21-24.
[48]	穆从军. 修辞结构理论视角下英汉学术论文摘要的修辞关系对比研究[J]. 现代外语, 2016(1):97-107.
[49]	潘文国. 汉英语对比纲要[M]. 北京: 北京语言文化大学出版社, 1997.
[50]	潘文国, 谭慧敏. 对比语言学:历史与哲学思考[M]. 上海: 上海教育出版社, 2006.
[51]	钱家骏, 穆从军. 跨语言学术交际的主体间性——英汉学术期刊论文引言语篇模式与介入资源对比[J]. 西安外国语大学学报, 2017(4):13-17.
[52]	邵敬敏. 关于“功能”和“解释”的几点思考[J]. 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 1996(4):81-85.
[53]	孙琦, 韩萍. 英汉诗词中虚拟位移句的对比研究[J]. 西安外国语大学学报, 2019(1):23-26,58.
[54]	滕延江. 英汉学术论文摘要中限定修饰语使用分布的对比分析[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2008(11):40-43.
[55]	田朝霞. 后RP时代语音教学标准及教学重点——从English After RP: Standard British Pronunciation Today(2019)谈起[J]. 外语教育研究前沿, 2023(2):52-60.
[56]	王成宇. 英汉疑问型学术论文标题对比研究[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2003(2):126-131.
[57]	王文斌. 英汉对比研究的三大问题[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2023(2):163-175,318.
[58]	王裕坤, 汪先锋. 英汉语篇中内指照应衔接方式的对比分析[J]. 学术界, 2010(7):151-157.
[59]	王舟. 英汉学术论文摘要中模糊限制语的对比研究—— 一项基于语料库的研究[J]. 华中科技大学学报(社会科学版), 2008(6):59-63.
[60]	吴格奇. 学术论文作者自称与身份构建—— 一项基于语料库的英汉对比研究[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报, 2013(3):6-11,127.
[61]	吴格奇, 潘春雷. 英汉学术论文中指令行为的“推销”功能对比研究[J]. 外国语文, 2013(6):95-99.
[62]	徐玉臣, 苏蕊, 寇英, 等. 英汉科技语篇中语言评价系统对比研究[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2018.
[63]	许余龙. 对比语言学[M]. 第2版. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2010.
[64]	闫郁文, 李泉. 语篇分析理论下英汉二语教材指令语对比研究[J]. 汉语学习, 2023(3):72-83.
[65]	杨佑文, 徐美容子, 刘清华. 英汉学术论文中的言据性对比研究[J]. 西安外国语大学学报, 2019(3):48-52.
[66]	杨佑文, 印睿. 英汉语篇指示语的范畴类型及其例示性对比研究[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2015(6):1-12.
[67]	杨玉晨. 英汉学术论文开头段语篇模式和思维方式对比分析[J]. 外语教学, 2003(4):20-23.
[68]	杨自俭. 序[C]//王菊泉,郑立信,编. 英汉语言文化对比研究:1995—2003. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2004:1-11.
[69]	尹富林, 胡元江. 基于语料库的英汉科技语篇衔接机制比较与翻译[J]. 外语研究, 2010(3):87-92.
[70]	于晖, 王乐. 功能视角下不同范式学术语篇元话语对比研究——以模糊语与加强词为例[J]. 当代修辞学, 2023(1):30-41.
[71]	于晖, 张少杰. 汉语学术语篇的多声系统探究[J]. 当代修辞学, 2021(6):49-59.
[72]	袁媛. 英汉书评中表达类言语行为的对比研究[J]. 浙江社会科学, 2012(5):130-135.
[73]	张乐. 基于英汉期刊论文可比语料库的对比短语学研究:背景、理念和方法[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报, 2021(1):53-61.
[74]	张滟, 祖大庆. 评价:英汉财经语域学术论文摘要语篇宏观图式结构TC的生长点[J]. 外语教学, 2006(2):39-43.
[75]	赵永青, 薛舒云, 邓耀臣, 等. 同一期刊论文英汉摘要作者立场信息一致性研究[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报, 2019(3):73-81,160.
[76]	郑丹. 英汉学术期刊论文篇章模式对比研究[J]. 外语学刊, 2012(5):56-59.