The aim of this comparative study is to investigate the deployment of interactional metadiscourse features in two different academic genres. For this purpose, a small, specialized corpus of 48 research articles and book reviews from seven different disciplines were collected. The conclusion sections of the texts written by non-native speakers of English were investigated to find out how interactional metadiscourse features were used. Drawing on previous metadiscourse frameworks, hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers were identified in both sub-corpora. The results indicated significant differences across the groups on how writers constructed their authorial stance with interactional metadiscourse markers. Findings revealed that by using a rich number and variety of attitude markers, book reviewers were more evaluative in their conclusions. On the contrary, higher use of hedges in research articles allowed the authors sound more cautious in their commitment to the propositions. This study offers a detailed account of interactional metadiscourse in these two genres and illustrates how interpersonal function of language is accomplished for particular purposes in different academic texts.

中文翻译：

---

学术写作中的元话语：研究文章和书评的比较

这项比较研究的目的是研究两种不同学术流派中交互元话语功能的部署。为此，收集了一个小型的专业语料库，其中包含来自七个不同学科的48篇研究文章和书评。对非英语母语者撰写的文本的结论部分进行了调查，以了解如何使用交互性元话语功能。利用以前的元话语框架，在两个子语料库中都确定了树篱，助推器，态度标记，自我提及和参与标记。结果表明，各群体在作者如何利用互动元话语标记构建其作者立场方面存在显着差异。调查结果表明，通过使用多种多样的姿态标记，书评人的结论更具评价性。相反，研究文章中套期保值的使用使作者对这些主张的承诺更加谨慎。这项研究详细介绍了这两种类型的交互元话语，并说明了如何在不同的学术文本中为特定目的实现语言的人际交往功能。