Document Type : Research Paper


Assistant professor , university of Mohaghegh Ardabili


In order to develop an understanding of the rhetorical conventions in the Persian language and to find out the metadiscursive cultural norms of Iranian writers in their native language writings, it is necessary to probe into the implicit rhetorical features of academic writing which has so far eluded a comprehensive systematic characterization. Metadiscourse marking, which is supposed to be one of the important rhetorical aspects in the writing process, is shown to be susceptible to cultural mentalities. Therefore, in this study an attempt is made to explore interactive and interactional metadiscourse strategies use by the Persian writers in the genre of research articles (RAs). For the purpose of this study, a corpus of 60 Persian research articles from social and natural sciences was selected for a close qualitative manual analysis. It appeared that, though globally similar in many ways, different IMRD sections of RAs which follow different cognitive genre types use interactive and interactional strategies differently. Also, the conventions of the two sciences appeared to be weirdly different. The findings are analyzed and implications are drawn for the teachers and learners of writing research articles in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes. It is argued that without such characterizations it would be very difficult to gather an idea of the current rhetorical trend in Persian language so that a comparison can be made with any target language conventions in teaching and learning foreign languages.


Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles; A study
of the differences across subsections. Journal of Teaching
Language Skills, 3(1), 1-16.
Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for specific
purposes. Newjersy: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research
world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1-22.
Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bruce, I. (2003). Cognitive genre prototype modeling and its
implications for the teaching of academic writing to learners of
English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Bruce, I. (2005). Syllabus design for general EAP writing courses: A
cognitive approach. English for Academic Purposes, 4, 239-256.
Buttny, R. (2010). Citizen participation, metadiscourse, and
accountability: A public hearing on a zoning change for wal-mart.
Journal of Communication, 60(4), 636-659.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric; A cross-cultural study.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and
interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and
attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper
discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker
of national culture or of academic discipline. Journal of
Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Guillem, S. M. (2009). Argumentation, metadiscourse and social
cognition: organizing knowledge in political communication.
Discourse & Society, 20(6), 727-746.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing.
Continuum: London.
176 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No,9 /Spring&Summer 2012
Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1, 1-12.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A
reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Jalilifar, A, & Alipour, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a
difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners' reading
comprehension skill.
Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1), 1079-1095.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought pattern in intercultural
communication. Journal of Language Learning, 1, 1-20.
Marandi, S. (2003). Metadiscourse in Persian /English master’s
theses: A contrastive study. Iranian Journal of Applied
Linguistics (IJAL), 6(2), 23-42.
Mey, J. L. (2005). Discourse and metadiscourse. Journal of
Pragmatics, 37(9), 1323-1324.
Nassaji, H. (2008). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English: Studies in
corpus linguistics. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 332-333.
Simin S., & Tavangar, M. (2009). Metadiscourse knowledge and use
in Iranian EFL writing. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly,
11(1), 230-255.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English for specific purpose in
academic and research setting. New York: Cambridge
University Press.