英语专业毕业论文肯定要用英语写。
当然是英语了，英语专业毕业的，毕业论文要求都是英文的吧？
达晋编译-专业的SCI论文服务机构：用英文来书写应该是一些西方比较重视的学科吧，我是历史学的，基本上都是中文写的。用英文来书写更有利于国际化，同时也可以投寄更多地杂志期刊。
飘过，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，
在研究生阶段完成毕业论文是为应对学位授予要求时的一项重要任务。论文语言的选择很大程度上取决于研究生研究方向所在的学院和研究生自身要求。在撰写研究生毕业论文时，应该以表达研究思想和研究成果为主要出发点，其语言的选择应该符合学术规范和要求, 论文语言良好的表达直接关系到研究生的研究成果和学术地位。一般来说，如果你的研究领域属于国际性学科，或者论文的研究对象、数据来自于国际上已有的研究成果，那么你可以选择使用英文撰写论文。这有利于你的研究成果被国际学术界广泛承认，同时也可以提高你在学术界的知名度。而且，撰写毕业论文是一项综合性的任务，往往需要查阅大量的文献，参考和借鉴来自于国际学术界的研究成果，因此，如果使用英语写论文，不仅可以更加贴近国际学术标准，而且可以方便的查阅和引用相应的外文研究成果。总之，是选择用英文还是中文写毕业论文要根据个人研究领域方向和研究成果所处的学术环境来做出选择，重要的是能够准确和清晰地表达研究思想和研究成果。
无论是用英文还是用中文写研究生毕业论文，都有其重要性。首先，用英文写有助于扩大研究的国际影响力，提高论文的可见度和引用率，有利于吸引更多的学术关注和合作机会。其次，用中文写则有助于更深入地探究本土问题，更准确地表达本土思想和观点，更容易被国内同行所理解和接受。因此，选择用英文还是用中文写研究生毕业论文，应该结合自身的研究方向、研究对象、研究目的和所在学术领域的国际化程度等因素进行权衡和选择。同时，无论用英文还是用中文写论文，都需要严格遵守学术规范和论文写作要求，注重论文的质量和可信度。
这个问题的答案取决于你的文化和学术环境，以及你的读者群。一般来说，如果你的读者群主要是国内的专家、教授和同行，那么用中文写论文是比较常见的做法，更符合国内学术传统和规范。但是，如果你的研究课题涉及到跨国或国际性的领域，或者你打算将论文投稿到国际期刊上，那么使用英文写论文是更为适宜的选择。因为英文具有广泛的使用范围和通用性，在国际化的学术交流和合作中具有重要的地位，也能使你的研究成果被更多人所知晓和了解。当然，在决定写论文的语言时，还需要考虑自己的英文水平和能力水平是否能够支持使用英文写作。如果自己对英文写作并不熟练，那么可能要花费更多的时间和精力来学习和提高英文写作水平，否则可能会导致论文质量大打折扣。同时，还需要根据自己的实际情况和研究对象来进行权衡和选择。
研究生毕业论文写作英文还是中文，取决于你所在的研究领域和你未来的发展方向。在某些学术领域，如科学、工程技术、医学等，英文论文是国际上通用的科研交流语言，发表论文也必须用英文。在这些领域，如果你想要在国际学术圈发表论文、参加国际会议、申请海外高校或者国外公司的职位，那么写英文论文对你的进一步发展是非常重要的。然而，在人文社科领域，中文论文仍然是主要的交流方式，特别是在中国的学术圈内，发表中文论文才是硕博研究生的主要任务之一。因此，需要根据实际情况决定使用哪种语言。如果你的研究内容涉及到国际学术范围，或者你未来的工作方向在国际上，那么撰写英文论文是非常有必要的。如果你的研究领域以及未来发展方向主要在国内，那么撰写中文论文可能更有实际意义。当然，也可以考虑将中英文两种版本都写出来，从而方便在不同的领域进行推广和交流。
研究生毕业论文写作英文还是中文，取决于你所在的研究领域和你未来的发展方向。在某些学术领域，如科学、工程技术、医学等，英文论文是国际上通用的科研交流语言，发表论文也必须用英文。在这些领域，如果你想要在国际学术圈发表论文、参加国际会议、申请海外高校或者国外公司的职位，那么写英文论文对你的进一步发展是非常重要的。然而，在人文社科领域，中文论文仍然是主要的交流方式，特别是在中国的学术圈内，发表中文论文才是硕博研究生的主要任务之一。因此，需要根据实际情况决定使用哪种语言。如果你的研究内容涉及到国际学术范围，或者你未来的工作方向在国际上，那么撰写英文论文是非常有必要的。如果你的研究领域以及未来发展方向主要在国内，那么撰写中文论文可能更有实际意义。当然，也可以考虑将中英文两种版本都写出来，从而方便在不同的领域进行推广和交流。
是英文到网上查一下
按照老师要求来，一般只有英语专业的才用英文创作，你是什么课题？需要帮忙吗？
达晋编译-专业的SCI论文服务机构：用英文来书写应该是一些西方比较重视的学科吧，我是历史学的，基本上都是中文写的。用英文来书写更有利于国际化，同时也可以投寄更多地杂志期刊。
按照老师要求来，一般只有英语专业的才用英文创作，你是什么课题？需要帮忙吗？
当然是英语了，英语专业毕业的，毕业论文要求都是英文的吧？
在研究生阶段完成毕业论文是为应对学位授予要求时的一项重要任务。论文语言的选择很大程度上取决于研究生研究方向所在的学院和研究生自身要求。在撰写研究生毕业论文时，应该以表达研究思想和研究成果为主要出发点，其语言的选择应该符合学术规范和要求, 论文语言良好的表达直接关系到研究生的研究成果和学术地位。一般来说，如果你的研究领域属于国际性学科，或者论文的研究对象、数据来自于国际上已有的研究成果，那么你可以选择使用英文撰写论文。这有利于你的研究成果被国际学术界广泛承认，同时也可以提高你在学术界的知名度。而且，撰写毕业论文是一项综合性的任务，往往需要查阅大量的文献，参考和借鉴来自于国际学术界的研究成果，因此，如果使用英语写论文，不仅可以更加贴近国际学术标准，而且可以方便的查阅和引用相应的外文研究成果。总之，是选择用英文还是中文写毕业论文要根据个人研究领域方向和研究成果所处的学术环境来做出选择，重要的是能够准确和清晰地表达研究思想和研究成果。
不明白为什么要舍近求远，你如果对自己的英文水平很有自信，对你导师的英文水平也很有自信，对你答辩时出席的导师的英文水平也很有自信，而且你们导师同意可以用英文写的话，那大可以用英文写。
在研究生阶段完成毕业论文是为应对学位授予要求时的一项重要任务。论文语言的选择很大程度上取决于研究生研究方向所在的学院和研究生自身要求。在撰写研究生毕业论文时，应该以表达研究思想和研究成果为主要出发点，其语言的选择应该符合学术规范和要求, 论文语言良好的表达直接关系到研究生的研究成果和学术地位。一般来说，如果你的研究领域属于国际性学科，或者论文的研究对象、数据来自于国际上已有的研究成果，那么你可以选择使用英文撰写论文。这有利于你的研究成果被国际学术界广泛承认，同时也可以提高你在学术界的知名度。而且，撰写毕业论文是一项综合性的任务，往往需要查阅大量的文献，参考和借鉴来自于国际学术界的研究成果，因此，如果使用英语写论文，不仅可以更加贴近国际学术标准，而且可以方便的查阅和引用相应的外文研究成果。总之，是选择用英文还是中文写毕业论文要根据个人研究领域方向和研究成果所处的学术环境来做出选择，重要的是能够准确和清晰地表达研究思想和研究成果。
这个问题的答案取决于你的文化和学术环境，以及你的读者群。一般来说，如果你的读者群主要是国内的专家、教授和同行，那么用中文写论文是比较常见的做法，更符合国内学术传统和规范。但是，如果你的研究课题涉及到跨国或国际性的领域，或者你打算将论文投稿到国际期刊上，那么使用英文写论文是更为适宜的选择。因为英文具有广泛的使用范围和通用性，在国际化的学术交流和合作中具有重要的地位，也能使你的研究成果被更多人所知晓和了解。当然，在决定写论文的语言时，还需要考虑自己的英文水平和能力水平是否能够支持使用英文写作。如果自己对英文写作并不熟练，那么可能要花费更多的时间和精力来学习和提高英文写作水平，否则可能会导致论文质量大打折扣。同时，还需要根据自己的实际情况和研究对象来进行权衡和选择。
q我 帮你
Accounting, the Environment and Sustainability（会计、环境与可持续发展） Sustainability relates to both present and future generations. It is discuss that the needs of all peoples are met. Those needs are both social and environmental. The link between accounting and environmental degradation is well-established in the literature (see, for example, Eden, 1996; Gray et all 1993). The crucial point is that accounting which takes the business agenda as given should include much environmental and social accounting. Thus, central to any discussion of accounting and the environment is a basic, challenging, and deeply unsettling question: do we believe that the organizations which accounting serves and supports can deliver environmental security and sustainability? At the same time as the technical implementation of social accounting and reporting has been developing the philosophical basis for such accounting has also been developed. Thus, Benston (1982, 1984) and Schreuder and Ramanathan (1984) consider the extent to which accountants should be involved in this accounting. Donaldson (1982) argues that such accounting can be justified by means of the social contract as benefiting society at large. Batley and Tozer (1990) and Geno (1995) have argued that “sustainability” is the “cornerstone” of environmental accounting. 6. Social and Environmental Reporting（社会与环境报告） The questions of how business should report its social performance and how that performance should be assessed have been dominant themes in the social accounting literature (Gray et al, 1996) and the social issues in management literature (Wood 1991) over the past decade. We are now witnessing both a number of initiatives that seek to set guidelines or standards for social accounting, for example the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). If there is one area which accounting researchers have embraced with enthusiasm it is the phenomenal growth in environmental reporting by organizations. The research in this area has been dominated, initially at any rate, primarily by studies descriptive in orientation. Such studies typically employ some variant of content analysis (see, for example, Milne and Adler, 1999; Gray et all, 1995). Both country specific studies and comparative studies have recorded an upward trend in environmental disclosure both through the annual report and through stand-alone environmental reports. However, analyses of the phenomenon ( Hackston and Milne1996; Fekrat et al1996; Pava and Krause 1996 ; Adams et al 1998) confirm that such reporting is principally restricted to the very largest companies and is, to a degree at least, country and industry variant. Research into environmental disclosure is developing rapidly with examinations of the impact of pressure groups (Tilt, 1994) and other external forces (Gray et all, 1995; Deegan and Gordon, 1996), exploration of user’s needs (Epstein and Freedman, 1994; Deegan and Rankin, 1997), focus on particular aspects of reporting such as environmental policies (Tilt, 1997), exploration of the truthfulness of environmental disclosure (Deegan and Rankin, 1996) and much needed theoretical development (see, for example, Patten, 1992; Roberts, 1992; Gray et al, 1995, Buhr, 1998; Adams et al, 1998; Brown and Deegan, 1998; Neu et all, 1998). Environmental reporting takes place in a predominantly voluntary regime and with the continuing interest in voluntary guidelines for such reporting (see, for example, KPMG 1997), such survey of practice are crucial in keeping attention focused on the doubtful quality and, especially, the global paucity of such reporting. If environmental reporting is important (for social accountability reasons even if it is of dubious “financial user need” value) then the predominant view of business – that environmental reporting is adequate in voluntary regime – must be challenged. Whilst the early research into environmental disclosure appeared to be so delighted that any such disclosure was taking place, this acquiescence has given way to a more critical analysis of practice. This analysis, primarily informed by the “critical school” (Laughlin, 1999), comprises three main themes. The first two of these themes are, in essence, the same critique made of social accounting. First, accounts of any kind are necessarily partial and biased constructions of a complex world. Not only do such constructions, by making some things visible, make other things invisible (Broadbent, 1994) but they are most likely to limit and even destroy the essential nature of the thing accounted for. (See, for example, Maunders and Burritt, 1991; Maunders, 1996; Cooper, 1992; Johnson, 1998). Second, the critical theorist would argue that environmental reporting is voluntary activity it can only reflect those aspects of environmental performance which organizations are willing to release. It can, therefore, only be a legitimation device and not an accountability mechanism. Consequently, the critical theorist argue, environmental accounting- including environmental reporting- is almost certain to do more environmental harm than it does good. These two themes are now developing into an important – if, as yet, unresolved – theoretical debate which seeks to counter the inherent managerialism of most accounting (and environmental accounting) research. The final theme in the critique of environmental disclosure develops the issue of the voluntary nature of environmental disclosure and brings a much-needed re-assessment of the importance and role of law in the construction of society. Specifically, Gallhofer and Haslam (1997) could be taken to use researchers’ views on the role of regulation in governing environmental reporting as an indicator of the researcher’s managerialist or alternative perspective. In essence, a non-managerialist environmental reporting would have to challenge an organization’s legitimacy and, in particular, the legitimacy of the means by which it earned the reported profit and gained its growth. The critical challenges to environmental reporting are not ill-founded when they remark that too little environmental reporting research examines this question to any substantial degree. One of the more inexplicable, although exceptionally welcome, consequences of the growing environmental agenda has been the re- emergence of a serious interest in social accounting. This is not the place to try and review, in any detail, the broad social accounting literature (see, for example, Gray et al 1996) – although a few general observations seems opposite. Social Accounting had its principal heyday in the 1970s but, although some researchers maintained an active interest in the field, it virtually disappeared from the popular consciousness of accounting academe during the 1980s and 1990s. Its re-emergence seems to be a response to a number of factors. One such factor seems to be the recognition that separation of environmental from social issues is difficult at best and pernicious at worst. As environmental issues are explored more carefully, the underlying implications for employment, communities, health and safety and even the organization’s very posture on ethics and social responsibility inevitably resurface. Equally, corporate practice has re-discovered social accounting and when organizations as diverse as Ben and Jerry’s, the Body Shop and Shell commit to social accounting, the wider business community begins to take notice. Finally, as we shall see, the environmental debate leads us inexorably towards discussions of sustainability. Such discussions must, by definition, embrace social accounting matters. The recent research literature on social accounting is still a little sparse but examples exist. The Adams/Roberts project has maintained a focus across both social and environmental disclosure (see, for example, Adams et al, 1998; Gray et al 1995; Hackston and Milne, 1996). Work by Roberts (1992), Pinkston and Carroll (1996), Patten (1995), Epstein and Freedman (1994), Mathews (1995) and Robertson & Nicholson (1996) continues to keep the social responsibility accounting debate moving forward whilst simultaneously, we are starting to see a re-emergence of normative work designed to guide how social accounting might be accomplished and what it might look like (See, Zadek et al, 1997; Gray et al, 1997; Gonella et al, 1998).