學術寫作為研究者用以描述研究歷程與展示成果的書面媒介，而其中情態（modality）傳達可能性與必要性之評估判斷，西方文獻證實情態詞（modal）於學術語體為寫作者用以銜接邏輯、表述立場與引發讀者反思評價等功能之核心機制；然而有鑑於漢語情態研究仍停留於句法、語義分析層次，尚未跨越至功能面向，也未探究情態於跨學科領域之表現差異，因此本研究擬以現代漢語近義、多義情態動詞“能／能夠”與“可／可以”為例，考察上述動詞於跨學科學術寫作之出現頻率、語義趨向與功能表現，期能發展漢語情態之功能層面研究，區辨兩類動詞差異，並說明情態與學術語境之互動聯繫。
本研究語料取自2005至2010年台灣數所知名大學醫、文學院之博士學位論文，質化與量化研究分析結果顯示，“可”類於醫、文學院的使用頻率皆高於“能”類。其次，兩類情態動詞動力用法皆遠高於義務用法。在語用層次，第一，兩類動詞的後設論述（metadiscourse）功能高度重疊，然而“可”類於醫、文學院之後設論述功能出現率皆高於“能”類，顯示寫作者慣以“可”類作為組織論述與表述立場之語用機制，而“能”類僅起陳述命題功能；其次，於功能類別上，“可”類以語篇功能為主，而“能”類則以人際功能為主。結論顯示情態詞的功能辨析有助於區辨語義面向的模糊與近似性。
在情態跨學科的後設論述功能表現上，兩個學科領域皆傾向以“可”類、“能”類來表示語篇功能；而於人際功能上，醫學院論文使用較多的建議與預測，較少的模糊解讀；而文學院使用較多的模糊解讀，較少的預測。在章節主題上，醫學院各章節主題與功能類型出現明確對應關係，然而文學院論文各章節皆偏好推論功能。研究結果顯示情態表現與學科領域、章節配置具對應關係，然而對應程度亦會因學科特性與寫作規範出現差異。
本文最後歸納兩類動詞出現語境與常見句式，期能使華語學習者的學術寫作更符合華語人士的表達習慣，提昇學習者書面的溝通交際能力。

Academic writing is written by an investigator to describe the research process and present the study that he or she has completed, and modality refers to devices which allow speakers to convey propositional attitude or belief toward a situation. Existing research in academic writing has confirmed its role on organizing a discourse or writer’s stance and involving readers into discussion. While the study of Chinese modality in syntax and semantics field has been extensively investigated, the functional perspective of Chinese modals is unexplored. Therefore, in order to fill this gap in the study of Chinese modality, the specific aims in this paper are using Chinese modals “neng/nenggou” and “ke/keyi” as examples to identify the frequencies of uses, meanings and functions, to elucidate the subtle differences between these two modal verbs, and finally to explicate the interplay between modals and academic contexts.
The data were drawn from doctoral dissertations from colleges of biomedical engineering and liberal arts of various famous universities in Taiwan. The qualitative and quantitative results show that the uses of “ke” in both colleges are higher than “neng.” In addition, the frequencies of dynamic uses are also higher than deontic uses. At the pragmatic level, firstly, the metadiscourse functions of the two verbs are highly overlapped; however, the frequency of “ke” appears as a metadiscoure feature in two disciplines are much higher than “neng,” which sugguests that writers are used to employing “ke” as a pragmatic device on text and stance organization, and “neng” only plays the role of expressing propositional meaning. Secondly, in terms of metadiscourse functions, “ke” is used mainly to display textual functions while “neng” to disply interpersonal functions. The conclusion suggests that the distinciton of modal functions help distinguish the similarity and ambiguity of modal meanings.
On the other hand, in disciplinary communities, textual function was the most frequently occurring metadiscourse feature in the two disciplines. However, in terms of the interpersonal function, biomedical engineering uses more suggestion and prediction and the least hedges, while college of liberal arts uses more hedges and the least prediction. As for the functions identified in conventional context of dissertations, contexts in biomedical engineering have clear correspondence to the feature of meatdiscourse function; however, the college of liberal arts prefers using inferences in all chapters. The result shows that the distribution of modals is highly relavant to the conventional contexts, but the degree varies according to disciplinary variation and writing principles.
In conclusion, the conventional context and sentence patterns of these two modal verbs are generalised in Chinese academic writing. The present study also collects the sentence patterns in hope to enhance the students' writing skills and enable them to express authentically as native Chinese.

丁聲樹等，1963，《現代漢語語法講話》。北京：商務印書館。
王力，1943，《中國現代語法》，上冊。北京：商務印書館。
王力，1989，《漢語語法史》。北京：商務印書館。
朱德熙，1982，《語法講義》。北京：商務印書館。
吳明清，1991，《教育研究－基本觀念與方法分析》。台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
呂叔湘，1999，《現代漢語八百詞（增訂本）》。北京：商務印書館。
李秀明，2006，《漢語元話語標記研究》。博士論文。上海：復旦大學中國語言文學系。
周小兵，2007，《外國人學漢語語法偏誤研究》。北京：北京語言大學出版社。
彭利貞，2007，《現代漢語情態研究》。北京：中國社會科學出版社。
湯廷池，2000，〈漢語的情態副詞：語意內涵與句法功能〉，《中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊》，71.1：199-219。
黃伯榮、廖序東，2002，《現代漢語》。北京：高等教育出版社。
齊滬揚，2002，《語氣詞與語氣系統》。合肥：安徽教育出版社。
劉月華、潘文娛和故韜，2001，《實用現代漢語語法（增訂本）》。北京：商務印書館。
黎錦熙，1992，《新著國語文法》。北京：商務印書館。
謝佳玲，2006，〈漢語情態詞的語義界定：語料庫為本的研究〉，《中國語文研究》，21：45-63。
羅青松，2002，《對外漢語寫作教學研究》。北京：中國社會科學出版社。
Abdi, R., Rizi M. T., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1669-1679.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 288-297.
Arrington, P., & Rose, S. K. (1987). Prologues to what is possible: Introductions as metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 38(3), 306-318.
Banks, D. (1991). Some observations concerning transitivity and modality in scientific writing. Language Science, 13(1), 59-78.
Barton, E. L. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55(7), 745-769.
Beauvais, P. J. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 6, 11-30.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.
Breivega, K. R., Dahl, T., & Flottum, K. (2002). Traces of self and others in research articles. A comparative pilot study of English, French and Norwegian research articles in medicine, economics and linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 218-239.
Bruce, I. (2010). Textual and discoursal resources used in the essay genre in sociology and English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 153-166.
Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic text. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 211-247.
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
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., & Vande Kopple, W. J. (1988). Reader’s learning from prose: The effects of hedges. Written Communication, 5, 184-202.
Crismore, A., & Vande Kopple, W. J. (1990). Rhetorical contexts and hedges. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 20(1), 49-59.
Crismore, A., Markkanen R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.
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. (2009). The linguistic representation of rhetorical function: A study of how economists present their knowledge claims. Written Communication, 26(4), 370-391.
Duenas, P. M. (2007). ‘I/we focus on…’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 143-162.
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In: Bach & Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp. 1-88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167-190.
Garces, C. V. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15(4), 279-294.
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd ed. London: Edward Amold.
Hempel, S., & Degand, L. (2008). Sequencers in different text genres: Academic writing, journalese and fiction. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 676-693.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah; New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hinkel, E. (2009). The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 667-683.
Hu, Chia Yin. (2007). Conceptual schema of the cognition domain: A frame-based study of Mandarin cognition verbs. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123-139.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2008). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41-62.
Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1325-1353.
Jensen, A. (2009). Discourse strategies in professional e-mail negotiation: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 4-18.
Jesperson, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
Kelly, E. (1979). Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 219-238.
Klinge, A. (1995). On the linguistic interpretation of contractual modalities. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 649-675.
Lautamatti, L. (1978). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In V. Kohonen and N. E. Enkvist (Eds.), Text Linguistics, Cognitive Learning and Language Teaching (pp.71-104). Turku: University of Turku.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Li, Ren Zhi. (2003). Modality in English and Chinese: A typological perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Antwerp, Antwerp.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mao, L. R. (1993). I conclude not: Toward a pragmatic account of metadiscourse. Rhetoric Review, 11(2), 265-289.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetorical: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
Memering, D. (1983). Research writing: A complete guide to research papers. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Moreno, A. (1997). Genre constraints across language: Causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs’. English for Specific Purposes, 16(3), 161-179.
Oshima, A., & Houge, A. (1991). Writing academic English. 2nd ed. NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English modals. 2nd ed. London; New York: Longman.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. 2nd ed. London; New York: Longman.
Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (1997). Modal (un)certainty in political discourse: A functional account. Language Sciences, 19, 341-356.
Swales, J. M., Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
Tsang, Chui Lim. (1981). A semantic study of modal auxiliary verbs in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, California.
Turnbull, W., & Saxton, K. L. (1997). Modal expressions as facework in refusals to comply with requests: I think I should say ‘no’ right now. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(2), 145-181.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 177-200.
Von Wright, G. H. (1951). An essay in modal logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Williams, J. M. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Wu, Chun Hui. (2009). Polysemous modal verbs in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei.
Wu, Guang Zhong. (2010). On the construction of multiple polysemous modal verbs in Mandarin Chinese: The semantics-pragmatics interface. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei.
Wu, Siew Mei. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 254-271.