Academic Discourse Right/Power and the Development of Chinese Sociology

As a kind of right （quanli 权利）, academic discourse rights include the right to create and innovate, to endow with meaning and to academic autonomy. As a kind of power （quanli权力）, it refers to the power to guide, judge, control and so on. These rights and powers have been pursued as Chinese sociology developed for over a century. At the inception of sociology in China, Yan Fu and other scholars experimented with localizing sociology and innovating academic discourse. Fei Xiaotong＇s life covered nearly 20 years of Chinese sociology＇s early development and another 56 years of its later development; his academic journey epitomizes the historical development of Chinese sociology. The only way for Chinese sociology to move from the periphery of world academia into the center is to endeavor, on the basis of theoretical self-consciousness, to seize the commanding heights of academic discourse rights.

On the Contemporary Construction of the Chinese System of Academic Discourse

As an important academic issue, the contemporary construction of the Chinese system of academic discourse has attracted increasing attention in recent years. Questions needing further reflection and exploration are： What does the genesis and expansion of this topic actually mean？ Within what horizon can we reveal its fundamental nature and draw further conclusions？ What intellectual task will be presented to us in the course of fixing its direction？ An in-depth probe into these questions, that is, the core issue in the contemporary construction of the Chinese system of academic discourse, is how contemporary academic discourse can enter deep into the specific content ushered in by our historical practice, so that this content can be truly grasped intellectually and studied academically.

A STUDY OF HEDGING IN ACADEMIC DISCOURSE AND ITS PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

Hedging is a common practice in academic discourse.Thisarticle investigates the underlying reasons for the use of hedging,its linguistic representations,and its pedagogical applications.

The Four Categories of Chinese Discourse on Human Rights and Their Interrelationships

In China,the main discourse on human rights can be classified into four categories:political discourse,policy discourse,institutional discourse,and academic discourse.These four categories show significant differences in terms of the context,content,mode of expression,characteristics,and functions of the discourse.They cannot be simply equated or interchangeable with one another.However,they also rely on,restrict,and promote each other,and under certain conditions,they can be transformed into one another.It is needed to prevent imbalances,mismatches in context,isolation,and inadequate translation among human rights discourses.Meanwhile,it is essential to promote balanced development among different discourses,where each discourse maintains its own boundaries,refers to one another,and undergoes accurate translation,in order to construct their healthy interrelationships.Exploring appropriate methods of translation between discourses is an important and worthwhile topic for research in Chinese human rights discourse.It holds significant practical significance and academic value in constructing the Chinese human rights discourse system.

Source Work in China-Based and Western SSCI Journal Articles:Preferences of Reporting Structures of English Academic Articles Published in China and in English-Speaking Countries

The purpose of this study is to examine the use of reporting verbs(RVs)in China-based and Western SSCI indexed English journal articles.Writing samples(N=168)are compared in terms of the frequencies of RVs,selection of high-frequency RVs and the evaluative orientations of RVs.The results suggest that whereas both English academic articles published in China and English academic articles published in English-speaking countries use similar varieties of RVs.Using the resources of appraisal theory,we found that English academic articles published in Chinas use fewer discourse RVs;they tend to use more neutral RVs,providing no overt intersubjective stance on the cited evidence,whereas English academic articles published in English-speaking countries favor more positive RVs to endorse the evidence during the argument.In particular,English academic articles published in China rarely employ negative and critical RVs.Academic writers’preferences of RVs are not only due to their language proficiency,but also due to their discursive tradition and underlying cultural values.They also have to do with the journals’coverage of topics and attitude toward academic debates and original thinking.The comparative findings have implications for English academic articles published in China,especially those based in non-English-speaking countries,when they try to use RVs to develop authorial stance in English:that is,to distinguish the semantic stance of RVs and cultivate cross-language and-culture awareness.

Analysis of Authorial Stance in BA Thesis by EFL Learners in China

Based on Hyland’s(2005)framework of stance,this study explored the distribution of authorial stance used by undergraduates in their BA thesis.Through two self-built corpora,the result of the study shows that the use of stance markers in the corpora displays the following sequence:hedges>boosters>attitude markers>self-mentions.Further analysis on each stance marker reveals that undergraduates,as novice academic writers,have some problems with appropriately using stance markers in their academic discourses.The results provide some implications for both student writers and teachers of academic writing.

Writer Identity Construction Revisited: Stance, Voice, Self, and Identity in Academic Written Discourse

Recent research on academic discourse has revealed the intersection of writing and writer identity construction. However, some terms that are being used in writer identity study are sometimes not only interchangeably used without making an explicit connection between them but also used in a way that may cause misunderstanding. The paper is intended to tease out four key terms, namely, stance, voice, self, and identity so that the respective role that each plays in academic written discourse can be differentiated on the one hand, and their interrelationship can be clarified on the other. It is hoped that such a panoramic picture can offer some pedagogical implications for academic writing teaching and research and provide some insights into the research on writer identity construction in academic written discourse as well.