第六章 研究結論
6.2 研究限制與展望
本文研究限制主要在分析時間與語料蒐集的部分，由於筆者個人時間有 限，未能分析更多篇章，因此僅能以 60 篇期刊論文作為代表；而學科的選 擇，也僅限於政治、經濟、文化分類，未能考量所有學科論文的表現，且語 料分析也僅選擇功能性較明確、學界較重視的結果與討論章節，而非全面分 析每篇論文。另若有機會，可考慮分析不同期刊使用標記的偏好，可建構作 者對於審查機制的概念，亦可以檢視不同期刊是否具有慣用的標記形式26。
26 感謝洪嘉馡教授在本研究框架下提供了具體的發展方向，期許未來能依此建議提供相關研究。
154
本文在分析三個學科、11 本期刊共 60 篇期刊論文的過程中，發現還可 能出現章節分割的問題，部分期刊因篇幅限制或作者安排的關係，將結果與 討論章節分割，或合併於結論章節當中，易造成分析上的困難，且若研究者 不熟悉相關領域的內容，碰到難以辨別是否為結果與討論章節時，沒有客觀 標準得以參考，僅能依個人主觀判斷為之，此時勢必要交由相關領域的研究 者進行評估，才能準確區別、擷取應納為語料的內容，這項因素可能增加研 究的困難度，若能邀請該領域的學者專家提供建議，方可共同研擬更貼近實 際寫作情形的教學內容。
語料實驗中為求蒐集數據的效率，也考量到受測者的專注力，故僅由筆 者從標記中隨機選擇幾個作為實驗題目，並沒有全面統計標記的說服力；另 外，在第二部分區別同類標記說服力的部分，也因時間、資源有限，僅設計 五個題組，未來若有機會，期望能更進一步擴大的實驗規模，如擴展至探討 其他後設論述標記、統計其他學科或不同章節的標記形式。
華語學術寫作中，後設論述理論的實際運用已逐漸受到關注，但後設論 述標記的變因較複雜，包括文化、學科、論文章節等等，因此在不同的條件 下，標記的使用情境、可達到的說服效力也相異。華語學術寫作課程的需求 在未來可能逐漸增加，因此教師必須對後設論述標記系統有一定程度的認知，
才能配合學習者的需求，制定最佳寫作教學方案，也能衍生出更多不同方面 的寫作策略，強化學術寫作的影響力。
155
研究，11(3)，111-160。謝佳玲、紀孫澧（2020 年 4 月）。華語論文寫作的說服策略與教學意義。 https://stats.moe.gov.tw/bcode/
Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.
Abdi, R. (2009). Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking; A comparison of Persian and English research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 212(1), 1-15.
Abdi, R., Rizi, M.T., & Tacakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in
discourse communities and genres: a framework for the use of metadiscourse.
Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1669-1679.
Abdi, K. (2011). She really only speaks English: Positioning, language ideology, and heritage language learners. Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(2), 161-189.
Ä del, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam, Netherland:
John Benjamins.
Aikhenvald, A. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Alavinia, P., & Zarza, S. (2011). Metadiscourse markers mevisited in EFL context:
156
The case of Iranian academic learners’ perception of written texts. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 3(2), 51-84.
Alexander, M., & Judd, B. (1978). Do nudes in ads enhance brand recall? Journal of Advertising Research, 18, 47-51.
Allison, D. (1995). Assertions and alternatives: helping ESL undergraduates extend their choices in academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 1-15.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Chenoweth, A. N., & Hayes, R. J. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80-98.
Argyle, M. (1972). The social psychology of work. London: Penguin Books.
Baghbadorani, A. E., & Roohani, A. (2014). The impact of strategy-based instruction on L2 learners’ persuasive writing. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 235-241.
Barkaoui, K. (2007). Teaching writing to second language learners: Insights from theory and research. TESL Reporter, 40(1), 35-48.
Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40, 282-295.
Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F., & Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System, 83, 79-95.
Bazerman, C. (1984). Modern evolution of the experiment report in physics:
Spectroscopic articles in Physical review, 1893-1980. Social Studies of Science, 14(2), 163-196.
Beauvais, P. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 6(1), 11-30.
Beach, R., & Liebman-Kleine, J. (1986). The writing/reading relationship:
Becoming one’s own best reader. In B. Peterson (Ed.), Convergences:
Transactions in reading and writing. Chicago, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, England:
Open University Press.
Becker, B. L., & Doolittle, C. J. (1975). How repetition affects evaluations of and information seeking about candidates. Journalism Quarterly, 52(4), 611-617.
Benfield, J. R., & Feak, C. B. (2006). How author can cope with the burden of English as an international language. CHEST, 129, 1728-1730.
157
Benfield, J. R., & Howard, K. M. (2000). The language of science. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 18(6), 642-648.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Congnition/Culture/Power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T. N., & Ackerman, J. (1991). Social context and socially constructed texts: The initiation of a graduate student into a writing research community. Berkeley: Center for the Study of Writing. Technical Report No. 33.
Bhatia, A. (1999). Integrating products, processes and participants in professional writing. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 21-39). London: Longman.
Bhatia, A. (2006). Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences.
Discourse & Society, 17(2), 173-203.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings.
London: Longman.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Borg, E. (2000). Citation practices in academic writing. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Patterns and perspectives: Insights into EAP writing practice (pp. 26-42).
Reading, England: Centre for Applied Language Studies.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bruffee, K. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge:
A bibliographical essay. College English, 48, 773-790.
Burneikaitė, N. (2006). Evidentiality in graduate student writing: a study of Lithuanian students' master's theses in English. Text and Pragmatics, 1, 97-105.
Burns, A. (2004). Genre and genre-based teaching. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 234-238). New York, NY: Routledge.
Caballero, J. M., & Solomon, J. P. (1984). Effects of model attractiveness on sales response. Journal of Advertising, 13(1), 17-33.
158
Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with other’s words: using background reading text in academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing:
Research insights for the classroom (pp. 311-230). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.
Casanave, P. C. (2004). Controversies in second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a Second or foreign Language (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.
Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts.
Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 211-247.
Coates, J. (1987). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society, 88(1), 110-131.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91-112.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in
academic discourse (pp. 118-136). CA, US: SAGE.
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(1), 39-71.
Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What is it and how is it used in school and non-school social science texts. IL, US: University of Illinois.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems.
English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.
Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1-23.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.
Dahl, T. (2008). Contributing to the academic conversation: A study of new
159
knowledge claims in economics and linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1184-1201.
Dahl, T. (2009). The linguistic representation of rhetorical function. Written Communication, 26(4), 370-391.
Day, R. A. (1989). The origins of the scientific paper: The IMRAD format. AMWA Journal, 4, 16-18.
Day, R. A., & Gastel, B. (2006). How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Dehkordi, M. B., & Allami, H. (2012). Evidentiality in academic writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(2), 1895-1901.
Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L. (2001). Introduction: evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 339-348.
Duncan, P. C., & Nelson, E. J. (1985). Effects of humor in a radio advertising experiment. Journal of Advertising, 14(2), 33-64.
Elbow, P. (1996). Writing assessment: Do it better; Do it less. In E. White., W.
Lutz & S. Kamusikiri (Eds.), Assessment of writing: Politics, policies, practices (pp. 120-134). New York, US: Modern Language Association.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. SSLA, 24, 143-188.
Enkvist, N. E. (1978). Tekstilingvistiikan peruskäsitteitä. Jyväskulä, Finland:
Gaudeamnus.
English, H. B., & English, A. C. (1958). A comprehensive dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical terms: A guide to usage. Harlow, England: Longmans, Green & Co.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language, 10(3), 161-184.
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English:
The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243-264.
Fortheringham, W. (1966). Perspectives on persuasion. MA, US: Allyn & Bacon.
Frankenberger, D. K., & Sukhdial, S. A. (1994). Segmenting teens for AIDS preventive behaviors with implications for marketing communications.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13(1), 133-150.
Fuertes-Olivera, P., Velasco-Sacristan, M., Arribas-Bano, A., & Samaniego Fernandez, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1307.
160
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). A components analysis of cognitive strategy training: Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 353–361.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high Schools. Washington, DC, US:
Alliance for Excellent Education.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Falmer Press.
Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstract. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139.
Gillen, C. M., Vaughan, J., & Lye, B. R. (2004). An online tutorial for helping nonscience majors read primary research literature in Biology. Advances in Physiology Education, 28(3), 95-99.
Gould, J. S. (1994). Sexuality and ethics in advertising: A research agenda and policy guideline perspective. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 73-80.
Grellier, J., & Goerke, V. (2014). Communications toolkit. South Melbourne, Victoria: Cengage Learning Australia.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Gross, D., & Alexander, J. (2016). Frameworks for Failure. Pedagogy, 16(2), 273-395.
Gustavii, B. (2008). How to write and illustrate a scientific paper. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London, England: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.).
London: Edward Arnold.
Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test of written language (3rd ed.).
London, England: Pearson Education.
Hammond, J., & Macken-Horarik, M. (1999) Critical literacy: Challenges and questions for ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 528-544.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Assessing second language writing in academic contexts.
Westport, CT, US: Praeger Publishers.
161
Han, J., & Hiver, P. (2018). Genre-based L2 writing instruction and writing-specific psychological factors: The dynamics of change. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 44-59.
Hardman, M. J. (1986). Data-source marking in the Jaqi languages. In W. L. Chafe
& J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of Epistemology (pp.
113-36). New York, NY: Ablex.
Harris, Z. (1959). The transformational model of language structure.
Anthropological Linguistics, 1(1), 27-29.
Harris, R. A. (1991). Rhetoric of science. College English, 53(3), 282-307.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. (1988). An evaluation of a genre-based approach to the teaching of EAP/ESP writing. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 147-156.
Herrington, A. (1985). Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts for writing in two college Chemical Engineering courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 19(4), 331-361.
Hewings, A. (1990). Aspects of the language of economics textbooks. In A.
Dudley-Evans & W. Henderson (Eds.), The language of economics: The analysis of economics discourse (ELT Documents 134) (pp. 109-127).
London: Macmillan and the British Council.
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(3), 345-365.
Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 91, 20-44.
Horowitz, D. M. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445-462.
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635-650.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change. CT, US: Yale University Press.
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, 42(11), 2795-2809.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12-25.
Huddleston, R. (1971). The sentence in written English: A syntactic study based on an analysis of scientific texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
162
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.
Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), 349-382.
Hyland, K. (1998c). Exploring corporate rhetoric: metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(1), 224-245.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2005a). A convincing argument: corpus analysis and academic persuasion. In U. Connor and T. Upton, Discourse in the professions:
perspectives from corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York, NY: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005c). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic writing. In K. Hyland & B. Palridge (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to discourse analysis (pp. 171-184). London:
Bloomsbury.
Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58-69.
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal.
Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693-722.
Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272.
Janis, I., & Feshbach, S. (1953). Effect of fear-arousing communications. The
163
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(1), 78-92.
Janis, I. L., & Hovland, C. I. (Eds.). (1959). Personality and persuability. New Haven and London, Yale University Press.
Johns, T. (1991). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In T. Johns & P. King (Eds.), Classroom concordancing (pp. 27-37). Birmingham, England: ELR University of Birmingham.
Johns, A. M. (1996). The ESL student and the revision process: Some insights from schema theory. In B. Leeds (Ed.), Writing in a second language:
Insights from first and second language teaching and research (pp. 137-1145). New York, US: Longman.
Jones, S. (1990). Evaluation and assessment for ESL literacy. TESL Talk, 20(1), 294-304.
Jordan, R. R. (2002). The growth of EAP in Britain. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 69-78.
Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (Eds.). (2005). Language planning and policy in Europe, Vol. 1. Hungary, Finland and Sweden. Bristol, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Krugman, E. H. (1972). Why three exposures may be enough. Journal of Advertising Research, 12(6), 11-14.
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study of meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Papers from the Eighth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society Papers (Vol. 8, pp. 183-228). Chicago, IL.
Lakoff, R. (1972). Language in Context. Language, 48(4), 907-927.
Lakoff, R. (1972). The pragmatics of modality. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society Papers (Vol.8, pp. 229-246). Chicago:
IL.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. CA, US: SAGE.
Lautamatti, L. (1978). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages:
Analysis of L2 text (pp. 87–113). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.
Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 157-172.
164
Lee, S. (2018). Frameworks for failure in L2 writing: What we can learn from
“failures” of Chinese international students in the US. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 98-105.
Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Lewin, B. A. (2005). Hedging: an exploratory study of authors' and readers' identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(2), 163-178.
Lin, C. Y. (2005). Metadiscourse in academic writing: An investigation of graduate students' MA theses in Taiwan. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 2(1), 1-66.
Littlewood, W. (1996). Academic writing in intercultural contexts: Integrating conventions and personal voice. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-18.
Love, A. M. (1993). Lexico-grammatical features of geology textbooks: Process and product revisited. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 197-218.
Mao, L. R. (1993). I conclude not: toward a pragmatic account of metadiscourse.
Rhetoric Review, 11(2), 265–289.
Martin, J. R. (1999). Mentoring semogenesis: ‘Genre-based’ literacy pedagogy. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 123-155). London: Cassell.
Maton, K. (2014). Building powerful knowledge: The significance of semantic waves. In M. Young., D. Lambert., C. Roberts & M. Roberts (Eds.), Knowledge and the future school: Curriculum and social justice (pp. 181-197). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Finnish-English Economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
Meadows, A. J. (1985). The scientific paper as an archaeological artifact. Journal of Information Science, 11(1), 27-30.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory.
Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Millán, E. L. (2008). Epistemic and approximative meaning revisited: the use of hedges boosters and approximators when writing research in different disciplines. In S. Burgess. & P. Martín-Martín (Eds.), English as an
additional language in research publication and communication (pp. 1-20).
additional language in research publication and communication (pp. 1-20).