A Comparison of Metadiscourse Markers Used in English Research Article Introduction and Literature Review Sections Across Two Disciplines
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The purposes of this study were 1) to investigate the Metadiscourse Markers used in Humanities and Social Sciences English research articles published in Naresuan University (NU) Journals, 2) to investigate the Metadiscourse Markers used in Science and Technology English research articles published in NU Journals, and 3) to compare the Metadiscourse Markers used in English research articles between these two disciplines. Hyland’s (2005a) Metadiscourse Markers (MDMs) model was the main framework employed in this study, consisting of two major categories of MDMs, namely interactive and interactional categories. The interactive category includes Transitions (TR), Frame Markers (FM), Endophoric Markers (ED), Evidential Markers (EV), and Code glosses (CD). The interactional category includes Hedges (HE), Boosters (BO), Attitude Markers (AM), Engagement Markers (EM), and Self-mentions (SM). The data were a total of 40 datasets of written texts in the introduction and literature review sections published in NU Journals. 20 datasets were from Humanities and Social Sciences English research articles, and the other 20 datasets were from Science and Technology English research articles. They both were purposively selected from NU Journals between 2019 and 2022. The MDMs were collected and analyzed based on Hyland’s (2005a) taxonomy of Metadiscourse. The findings revealed that both disciplinary authors tended to employ MDMs almost equally in research articles. However, when comparing the two types of MDMs, authors in the Science and Technology field employed Interactive MDMs more frequently, whereas authors in Humanities and Social Sciences used Interactional MDMs more often. These findings are relevant for the teaching of research writing, highlighting that academic authors should pay attention to the conventions of MDM usage in different disciplines.
Keywords: Metadiscourse Markers, Discourse Analysis, Academic Writing, Research Articles
References
Al-Rubaye, M. H. K. (2015). Metadiscourse in the Academic Writing of EFL and ESL Arabic-speaking Iraqi Graduate Students (Master’s Thesis). Missouri State University, Springfield, USA. Retrieved from https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/17/
Alshahrani, A. A. S. (2015). A Cross-linguistic Analysis of Interactive Metadiscourse Devices Employment in Native English and Arab ESL Academic Writings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(8), 1535-1542. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0508.01
Bailey, S. (2017). Academic Writing: A Handbook for International Students (5th ed.). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315169996
Birhan, A. T. (2021). An Exploration of Metadiscourse Usage in Book Review Articles Across Three Academic Disciplines: A Contrastive Analysis of Corpus-based Research Approach. Scientometrics, 126, 2885–2902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03822-w
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A Comparative Study of Paradigmatic and Disciplinary Influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007
Çapar, M., & Turan, Ü. D. (2020). Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Articles Written by Turkish and Native Speakers. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 10(1), 324-358. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.682042
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(1), 39-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
Estaji, M., & Vafaeimehr, R. (2015). A Comparative Analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in the Introduction and Conclusion Sections of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Research Papers. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2015.20401
Grogan, K. E. (2021). Writing Science: What Makes Scientific Writing Hard and How to Make It Easier. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 102(1), e01800. https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.1800
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, UK.: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and Academic Writing in the Disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543-562. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005235
Hyland, K. (2018). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Khajavy, G. H., Asadpour, S. F., & Yousefi, A. (2012). A Comparative Analysis of Interactive Metadiscourse Features in Discussion Section of Research Articles Written in English and Persian. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 147-159. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i2.1767
Kopple, W. J. V. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
Nur, S., Arsyad, S., Zaim, M., & Ramadhan, S. (2021). Interacting with Readers: How Nonnative Authors of English Use Meta-discourse Markers in their Research Article Abstracts Published in English Medium Journals. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(1), 239-255. Retrieved from https://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/2346
Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLOS Computational Biology, 9(7), e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
Pooresfahani, A. F., Khajavy, G. H., & Vahidnia, F. (2012). A Contrastive Study of Metadiscourse Elements in Research Articles Written by Iranian Applied Linguistics and Engineering Writers in English. English Linguistics Research, 1(1), 88-96. https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v1n1p88
Sajid, M., & Siddiqui, J. A. (2015). Lack of Academic Writing Skills in English Language at Higher Education Level in Pakistan: Causes, Effects, and Remedies. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(4), 174-186. Retrieved from https://ijllnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_4_October_2015/20.pdf
Saraswati, B., & Pasaribu, T. A. (2019). Metadiscourse Markers and Gender Variation in Journal Articles. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 16(4), 79-92. Retrieved from http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL42/pdf_doc/05.pdf
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Exploration and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827