Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Research Article Result and Discussion Sections

Mohsen Khedri, Seyed Jamal Ebrahimi, Chan Swee Heng

Abstract


The research article is one of the widely practiced genres of communication among members of academic discourse community to contribute their own new knowledge and get acceptance from the audience. A generic analysis of research articles can cover a wide variety of issues; among them rhetorical features. As argued by Hyland (2004), a valuable means of exploring academic writing and of comparing the rhetorical features and preferences of different discourse communities is through metadiscoursal analysis. Metadiscourse is an aspect of language which provides a link between texts and disciplinary cultures, helping to define the rhetorical context by revealing some of the expectations and understandings of the audience for whom a text is written. Differences in metadiscourse patterns may prove to be an essential means of distinguishing discourse communities (Hyland, 1998). The present paper focused on interactional metadiscourse markers in the result and discussion section of academic research articles across four disciplines, namely, English Language Teaching, Civil Engineering, Biology, and Economics. Sixteen research article result and discussion sections (4 from each discipline) were sourced from four leading international journals for analysis. Results revealed that there were worth-pointing differences, but not statistically significant differences excepting in terms of boosters, between disciplines in the use of interactional metadiscourse markers. Similarities and differences are explained by way of an explication of genre features in terms of contextual configuration and genre specific needs dealing with applied metadiscourse markers by discipline.

Keywords: Metadiscourse; interactional metadiscourse markers; genre; academic research articles


Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse as an indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies. Vol. 4, 139–145.

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2001). Native and non-native writers’ use of textual metadiscourse in ELT papers. Unpublished MA thesis. Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 43, 288-297.

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge. Wisconsin: Wisconsin University Press.

Beecher, T. (1989) Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.

Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic Discourse and Critical Consciousness. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.

Bruce, I. (2005). Syllabus design for general EAP courses: a cognitive approach. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 4(3), 239-256.

Connor, U. (1996) Contrastive rhetoric: A cross-cultural study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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. Vol. 10(1), 39-71.

Farrokhi, F. , & Ashrafi, S. (2009). Textual metadiscourse resources in research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning. Vol. 52(212), 39-75.

Grabe, W. (1987). Contrastive rhetoric and text type research. In U. Connor. , & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 texts (pp. 115-137), Redwood, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Harwood, N. (2005). ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted . . . In this article I aim to do just that’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four discipline. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 37, 1207-1231.

Hewings, M. (2006). Introduction. In M. Hewings (Ed.). Academic writing in context: Implications and applications (pp. 79–92), London: Continuum.

Hopkins, A. , & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 7, 113–122.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 30, 437-455.

Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mentions in research articles. English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 20, 207-226.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. Vol. 13, 133–151.

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

Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 28(2), 266-285.

Hyland, K. , & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 1, 1–12.

Hyland, K. , & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 25(2), 156-177.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2009). Research Article in Applied Linguistics: A Genre-Based Writing Guide. Ahvaz: Shahid Chamran University Press

Kuo, C. H. (1999) The use of personal pronouns: role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 18(2), 121-38.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 13, 3-22.

Millan, E. L. (2010). ‘Extending this claim, we propose…’ The writer’s presence in research articles from different disciplines. Iberica. Vol. 20, 35-56.

Paltridge, B. (1996). Genre, text type, and the language learning classroom. ELT Journal. Vol. 50(3), 237-243.

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes. Vol. 13(2), 149–170.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication. Vol. 36, 82-93.

Vazquez, I. , & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles. A cross-disciplinary study. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses. Vol. 21, 171-190.

Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Boston: Scott Foressman.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2247

ISSN : 0128-5157