Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Imam Khomeini International University, Department of English Language, Faculty of Humanities, Qazvin, Iran

2 English Language Department, Faculty of Humanities, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

10.22034/elt.2022.51232.2487

Abstract

While metadiscourse has been extensively examined across several genres, contexts of publication, disciplines, and languages over the past two decades, researchers have mainly limited themselves to the qualitative checking of candidate metadiscourse markers for the various functions they serve. In the present study, however, we drew on retrospective methods coupled with semi-structured interviews to gain a deeper understanding of metadiscourse features applied linguistics apprentice and professional authors use in their research articles (RAs) in national and international English-medium journals. To achieve this goal, we built on Hyland’s (2019) interpersonal metadiscourse model to analyse RAs in three subsections including introductions, results, and discussion. We ran chi-square tests to examine the RA variations, following the descriptive analysis of the use of metadiscourse markers. A follow-up stimulated recall through semi-structured e-mail interviews was used. We used MAXQDA to analyse the interview data from authors. The results of qualitative and thematic analyses showed that metadiscourse markers play key roles in conveying the writers’ message and intention to the members of discourse communities. The findings of the study suggest raising apprentice writers’ awareness of the way they frame their message in research writing

Keywords

Main Subjects

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins.
Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97.
Attarn, A. (2014). Study of metadiscourse in ESP articles: A Comparison of English articles written by Iranian and English native speakers. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 5(1), 63-71.
Aull, L. (2015). First-year university writing: A corpus-based study with implications for pedagogy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Cao, F. & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66(5), 15-31.
Chen. L., & Hu, G. (2020): Mediating knowledge through expressing surprises: A frame-based analysis of surprise markers in research articles across disciplines and research paradigms. Discourse Processes. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2020.1737348.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Crismore, A. (1990). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. Peter Lang
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Flowerdew, J. (2015). Revisiting metadiscourse: Conceptual and methodological issues concerning signaling nouns. Iberica, 29, 15-34.
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.) Routledge.
Harris, Z. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language, 28(1), 1-30
Harwood, N. (2006). (In)appropriate personal pronoun use in political science: A qualitative study and a proposed heuristic for future research. Written Communication, 23(4), 424-450.
Herriman, J. (2022). Metadiscourse in English instruction manuals. English for Specific Purposes, 65, 120-132.
Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. Routledge.
Hong, H. & Cao, F. (2014). Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19, 201-224.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39(3), 12–25.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151.
Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (2nd edition). Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction, and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1-23.
Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary identities. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113(4), 16-29.
Jiang, K., & Hyland, K. (2015). “The fact that”: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529-550
Keshavarz, M. H., & Kheirieh, Z. (2011). Metadiscourse elements in English research articles written by native English and non-native Iranian writers in Applied Linguistics and Civil Engineering. Journal of English Studies, 1, 3-15.
Khatibi, Z., & Esfandiari, R. (2021). Comparative analysis of engagement markers in research article introductions and conclusions. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 8(3), 1-24.
Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S. J., & Heng, C. S. (2013). Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(1), 65–74.
Khoshsima, H., Talati-Baghsiahi, A., Zare-Behtash, E., Safaie-Qalati, M. (2018). Interactional Metadiscourse in the writings of novice vs. established members of academic communities. Two Quarterly Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning University of Tabriz, 10(22), 63-86.
Kuhi, D., & Behnam, B. (2011). Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguists: A comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication, 28(1), 97-141.
Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34(7), 97-109.
Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 86–101.
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS program (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Saadi Al-Subhi, A. (2021). Metadiscourse in online advertising: Exploring linguistic and visual metadiscourse in social media advertisements. Journal of Pragmatics, 187, 24-40.
Sarani, A., Khoshsima, H., Izadi, M. (2017). Poring Over Metadiscourse Use in Discussion and Conclusion Sections of Academic Articles Written by Iranian ESP Students. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 133-145. doi: 10.22055/rals.2017.13846
Sheldon, E. (2009). From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001
Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2008). Robot Kung fu: Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(7), 1232-1248.
Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36-62. 
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93.
Yoon, H., & Römer, U. (2020). Quantifying disciplinary voices: an automated approach to interactional metadiscourse in successful student writing. Written Communication, 2(9), 1- 37.