The Use of Metadiscourse Markers in Expository Essays By Malaysian ESL Learners

MASLIZA MAT ZALI, NURUL AJLEAA ABDUL RAHMAN, RAZIFA MOHD RAZLAN, AZMAN CHE MAT, YASSIR SABRI EID Al SUOD

Abstract


Language elements such as interactive and interactional metadiscourse (MD) are employed to keep essays coherent. Since there was only one way for the writer and reader to communicate, it was difficult for English Second Language (ESL) learners to write clearly and thoroughly. The use of MD markers by ESL learners was studied, and its usage was compared. An experimental study was conducted among 120 ESL learners who are undergraduates from a university in Malaysia.  Their use of MD markers was analysed based on Hyland (2005)’s framework. A set of questionnaires was distributed to determine the types of MD markers used and whether learners from different groups make any differences in their choices of MD markers in their expository essays. For data triangulation, a semi-structured interview was conducted too. The analysis revealed that ESL learners in both groups frequently used more interactional than interactive MD. The most prominent feature used is Self-mention and the least is Evidential. However, the experimental group used frequently MD markers in their essays as compared to the control group. The ESL learners from experimental group which were given treatment have chosen to use more MD markers in their essays. This result indicates the vital role of MD use in academic writings to enhance the writing quality. This could lead to a proposition for an analysis of MD use on written corpus to gain fascinating outcomes and also to find the relationship of MD use with the ESL learners’ awareness and their writing score. 


Full Text:

PDF

References


Akinseye, T. (2023). Exploring interactive metadiscourse as a practical approach to enhancing academic writing skills of newly admitted undergraduates students in Nigeria. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 10(2), 44–61.

Alharbi, S. H. (2021). An Investigation of Metadiscourse Features in Applied Linguistics Academic Research Articles and Master’s Dissertations. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 12(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.12n.1.p.46

Alotaibi, H. S. (2021). The Use of Metadiscursive Markers in Letters of Recommendation: An Investigation of Gender Variations. Arab World English Journal, 12(2), 238–250.

Bannerman-Wood, J., & Boakye, N. Y. (2025). The Use of Frame Markers in Undergraduate Students’ Argumentative Essays. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-0136/CGP/v32i02/77-91

Chan, S., & Tan, H. (2010). Extracting and comparing the intricacies of metadiscourse of two written persuasive corpora. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 6(3), 124–146.

Chang, P., Tsai, C.-C., & Chen, P. (2020). Organization strategies in EFL expository essays in a content-based language learning course. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29, 183–197.

Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91–112.

Fadhlini, A., Mohd, M. N., & Alam, N. (2017). CORPUS ANALYSIS OF METADISCOURSE IN UNDERGRADU-ATE ACADEMIC PROJECTS. In International Journal of Modern Languages and Applied Linguistics (Vol. 1, Issue 1).

Goltaji, F., & Hooshmand, M. (2022). The Study of Interactive Metadiscourse Markers in TEFL Textbooks Written by Native vs. Non-Native Authors. In Journal of English Language Research (Vol. 3, Issue 1). http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0250-3870

Hanim Rahmat, N., Anisah Tan Abdullah, N., Hanis Yahaya, M., Pow Yean, C., & Whanchit, W. (2020). Gender Differences on the Use of Metadiscourse on Reflective Essays: A Case Study of Inbound Students. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 10(5), 248–261. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.1.2020.105.248.261

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29.

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), 35–52.

Kashiha, H. (2022). ON PERSUASIVE STRATEGIES: METADISCOURSE PRACTICES IN POLITICAL SPEECHES. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2022-1-77

Khazaee, H., Maftoon, P., Birjandi, P., & Golandouz, G. R. (2022). Fixing the Underuse of Code Glosses in Iranian EFL Learners’ Academic Writing: A Corpus-based Comparison of Three Pedagogical Approaches. https://doi.org/10.22132/tel.2022.150320

Kinneavy, J. E. (1969). The basic aims of discourse. College Composition & Communication, 20(5), 297–304.

Mat Zali, M., Mohamad, R., Setia, R., Raja Baniamin, R. M., & Mohd Razlan, R. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse analysis of evaluative

essays. ESTEEM Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5, 120–129.

Mohamed, A. F., Ab Rashid, R., Lateh, N. H. M., & Kurniawan, Y. (2021). The use of metadiscourse in good malaysian undergraduate persuasive Essays. International Online Journal of Language, Communication, and Humanities, 1–12.

Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135–148.

Pham, D. T. A. (2024). Metadiscourse markers in L2 source-based informative essays: An analysis of texts written by L2 undergraduate students. Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.

Reyes, N. Á., Ulloa, E. L., Lagos, J., & Miralles, J. F. (2024). Students’ voice in essayist prose: A longitudinal study of metadiscoursal textual practice and awareness. https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.48.171

Sasaki, M. (2002). Building an empirically-based model of EFL learners’ writing processes. New Directions for Research in L2 Writing, 49–80.

Shafqat, A., Arain, F., & Dahraj, M. T. (2020). A Corpus Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers Used in Argumentative Essays by Pakistani Undergraduate Students. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(04), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.37200/ijpr/v24i4/pr201013

Tahmasbi, M., Fatahipour, M., & Gharagozloo, N. (2024). The Impact of Online Metadiscourse Markers Instruction on Iranian EFL Learners’ Expository Writing: A Mixed Methods Study. Research in English Language Pedagogy (RELP), 12(1).

Voon, B. H., Teo, A. K., & Voon, J. E. C. (2019). Improving the Performance of MUET Students in Report-Writing: From Experiment to Actions. Asian Journal of University Education, 15(3), 176–186.

Yea, L. Y., Othman, J., & Wei, L. J. (2020). The use of metadiscourse in academic writing by Malaysian first-year ESL doctoral students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.17509/IJAL.V10I1.25069

Zali, M. M., Mohamad, R., Setia, R., Baniamin, R. M. R., & Razlan, R. M. (2021). Comparisons of interactive and interactional metadiscourse among undergraduates. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(4), 21–30.

Zali, M. M., Razlan, R. M., Baniamin, R. M. R., & Setia, R. (2022). Interactional Metadiscourse Analysis of ESL Learners’ Essays. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 7(SI9), 55–60.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.