A Comparative Study Of Generic Structure And Metadisoursal Features Of Research Article Introductions In Engineering And Economic Disciplines

Research article introductions(hereinafter RAIs), important parts of academic discourse, are the leading parts for readers to have a general idea of the whole paper and authors interact with readers through certain metadisourse, and the study of metadiscourse in moves of RAIs will provide theoretical and practical significance on RAI writing and teaching.In this research, the author sets up a corpus of 60 English RAIs in economic and engineering disciplines and conducts a comparative study of move structure and metadisoursal features of research article introductions in the two disciplines. Firstly, the generic structure of RAIs in economic and engineering disciplines are investgated with Swales’(1990) CARS model. Secondly, the micro-structure of the two disciplines’ RAIs is also explored: the metadiscourse employment in RAIs of engineering and economic disciplines within generic structure of RAIs is explored with the metadiscourse classification criteria proposed by Hyland(2005a) and substantial differences in metadiscourse employment in each move are found. Finally, the author gives reasonable explannation of the differences from the perscpective of disciplinary differences and conventions.Findings reveal that(1) as to the macro generic structure of 60 RAIs the three moves in Swales’ CARS model(Move 1 Establish a territory, Move 2 Establish a niche, Move 3 Occupying the niche) are obligatory in RAIs of the two disciplines, while there are differences in the two disciplines within some moves: writers in engineering discipline tend to use step 1D(Continuing a tradition) of move 2 more frequently than those in economic discipline, while writers in economic discipline are likely to put more emphasis on the step 2(Announcing principle findings) and step 3(Indicating RA structure) of move 3.(2) As to the micro-structure the metadiscourse use in RAIs, the author finds that plenty of metadiscourse are employed in each move of RAIs of this study and the interactive metadiscourse is employed more than the interactional metadiscourse in three moves.(3) Besides, there is, as a whole, metadiscourse employment differences exist in moves of RAIs between the two disciplines: Hedges and self mentions tend to be more common in all the three moves of economic RAIs than those in engineering discipline; In move 2, Engagement markers and endophoric markers in the engineering discipline seem more commonly used than those in the economic; In move 3, frame markers, endophoric markers and engagement markers in move 3 are more commonly used in engineering RAIs than those of economic discipline. Disciplinary features and conventions in the two disciplines shall account for the metadiscourse differences.This research reveals the disciplinary culture that may affect the metadiscourse employment in engineering discipline and economic discipline; may provide some references for the writers in engineering discipline and economic discipline to read and write their articles more properly. Besides, teachers are supposed to apply the findings and implications in this research into the practical teaching process to improve students’ ability to compose appropriate RAIs.