Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in the Discussion and Conclusion Sections of the Research Papers in the Disciplines of Political Sciences and Religious Studies

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 PhD student in English Language Teaching (ELT), University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

2 Associate Professor of ELT, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

3 Professor of TEFL, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

Metadiscourse is an essential component of academic writing, as it helps authors better communicate their ideas and engage their readers. It is through the analysis of the text's metadiscourse that one can explore academic writing and compare the rhetorical traits and preferences of various discourse communities (Hyland, 2005). To this end, this study examined the differences in the use, type, and frequency of interactional metadiscourse markers in the discussion and conclusion sections of political science and religious studies articles written in English language. The corpus of this study consisted of 45032 words extracted from fifty research articles, twenty-five articles in the field of political science, and twenty-five articles in the field of religious studies published between 2019 and 2023 in the top one high-impact factor and peer-reviewed international journals.
To analyze the data, one Eta and two Chi-square tests were run. Considering the interactional resources of Hyland’s (2005) metadiscourse model, the researchers uncovered that despite some subtle differences in the use, frequency, and types of these metadiscourse markers, “hedges” were the most and attitude markers were the least frequently used metadiscourse markers employed in both political science and religious studies disciplines. The findings have some educational implications that shed light on the need to encourage English language teachers, university professors, and publishers in the fields of TEFL and ESP to provide EFL learners with appropriate sources and settings to increase their familiarity with various metadiscourse markers, especially the category of interactional MDMs that aids them write coherently and establish genuine interaction with audiences.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Appendix A:

Instances of Metadiscourse Markers

Attitude Markers

admittedly, agree, agrees, agreed, amazed, amazing, amazingly, appropriate, appropriately, astonished, astonishing, astonishingly, correctly, curious, curiously, desirable, desirably, disappointed, disappointing, disappointingly, disagree, disagreed, disagrees, dramatic, dramatically, essential, essentially, even x, expected, expectedly, fortunate, fortunately, hopeful, hopefully, important, importantly.

Boosters

actually, always, believe, believed, believes, beyond doubt, certain, certainly, clear, clearly, conclusively, decidedly, definite, definitely, demonstrate, demonstrated, demonstrates, doubtless, establish, established, evident, evidently, find, finds, found, m fact, incontestable, incontestably, incontrovertible, incontrovertibly.

Hedges

about, almost, apparent, apparently, appear, appeared, appears, approximately, argue, argued, argues, around, assume, assumed, broadly, certain amount, certain extent, certain level, claim, claimed, claims, could, couldn't, doubt, doubtful, essentially, estimate, estimated, fairly, feel, feels, felt, frequently, from my perspective, from our perspective, from this perspective, generally, guess.

Self-mention

I, we, me, my, our, mine, us, the author, the author’s, the writer, the writer’s.

Engagement Markers

(the) reader’s, add, allow, analyse, apply, arrange, assess, assume, by the way, calculate, choose, classify, compare, connect, consider, consult, contrast, define, demonstrate, determine, do not, develop, employ, ensure, estimate, evaluate, find, follow, go, have to, imagine, incidentally, increase, input, insert, integrate, key, let x=y, let us, let’s, look at, mark, measure, mount, must, need to, note, notice, observe, one’s, order, ought, our (inclusive), pay, picture, prepare, recall, recover, refer, regard, remember, remove, review, see, select, set, should, show, suppose, state, take (a look/ as example), think about, think of, turn, us (inclusive), use, we (inclusive), you, your.

References

  1. Abbaszadeh, E., Hosseini, S., & Aghajani, M. (2019). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers. A Survey Study on Iranian M.A. TEFL Theses. European Journal of Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2019.v8n3p486
  2. Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101
  3. Abdi, R., Tavangar, R.M., & Tavakkoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1669-1679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.001 
  4. Akoto, O. Y. (2020). Metadiscourse within a discipline: A study of introduction and literature review chapters of sociology master’s theses. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 471-480. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i2.28588
  5. Aragonés, M. (2009). Estudio descriptivo multilingüe del resumen de patente: aspectos contextuales yretóricos.
  6. Atai, M. R., & Sadr, L. (2008). A cross-cultural study of hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistics research articles. Journal of Teaching English Language (TEL), 2(7), 1-2. magiran.com/p724654
  7. Berry, G., & Armitage, P. (1995). Mid‐P confidence intervals: a brief review. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 44(4), 417-423. https://doi.org/10.2307/2348891
  8. Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers. Studies about Linguistics, 5(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0901-6/7.
  9. Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41- 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00022-2
  10. Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse, (pp. 118-36). Sage. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:150391989
  11. 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/10.1177/07410883930100010
  12. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2003). Metadiscourse Revisited: a contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11, 29-52. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/metricas/documentos/ARTREV/818673
  13. 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. 10.30466/IJLTR.2015.20401
  14. Faghih, E., & Rahimpour, S. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written text: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 92-107. https://hdl.handle.net/1911/21850
  15. Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
  16. Harris, Z. (1970). Linguistic transformations for information retrieval. In papers in structural and transformational linguistics (pp. 458-471). Harris. Z. (Original work published 1959). https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=42447830AE0540231E155E5B986BC5D2
  17. 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
  18. Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013002004
  19. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman. 10.3998/mpub.6719
  20. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum. https://library.lol/main/17BCEEE01258BFF0702D6FAC2439BD26
  21. Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S.J., & Chan, S. (2012). Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections. 3L The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19, 65-74. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:59289888
  22. Luuka, M. R. (1994). Metadiscourse in academic texts. In B. L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Text and talk in professional context (pp. 77–88). ASLA. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14282219451731618074&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5
  23. Nawawi, N. A., & Ting, S. H. (2022). An analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse markers in political science research articles. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 22(1), 203-217. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2201-12
  24. Nwogu, K.N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4
  25. Orta, I., Millán, E., Sanz, R., & Dueñas, M. (2006). How to explore academic writing from metadiscourse as an integrated framework of interpersonal meaning: three perspectives of analysis. In Actas de V Congreso Internacional AELFE [Archivo de ordenador]= Proceedings of the 5th International AELFE Conference (pp. 197-208). Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:55434474
  26. Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury. https://library.lol/main/D9CD638810974AE8C66A865C63BD38C1
  27. Rezaei, S., Estaji, M., & Hasanpour Ghaleh, M. (2015). Examining the interactional metadiscourse markers in Iranian MA applied linguistics theses. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 43-71. https://www.magiran.com/paper/1849232/examining-the-interactional-metadiscourse-markers-in-iranian-ma-applied-linguistics-theses?lang=en
  28. Rubio, M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of agricultural studies. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002
  29. Saidi, M., Karami, N. (2021). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Applied Linguistics Reply Articles. Language Teaching Research Quarterly. 22, 64-77.  https://doi:10.32038/ltrq.2021.22.05
  30. Salahshoor, F., & Afsari, P. (2017). An investigation of interactional metadiscourse in discussion and conclusion sections of social and natural science master theses. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 5(2), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.22049/JALDA.2018.26208.1060
  31. Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master’s theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.005
  32. Sheikh, S. (2020). Examining the interactional metadiscourse markers in the Quran. Quranic Studies and Islamic Culture, 4(3), 23–46. magiran.com/p2203991
  33. Susanti, Y., Kurnia, F., & Suharsono, S. (2017). Interactional metadiscourse markers in introduction section of dissertation: Differences across English proficiency level. Celt: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching & Literature. 17(2), 271-292. https://doi.org/10.24167/celt.v17i2.1111
  34. Vande-Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
  35. Vande-Kopple, W. (1997). Refining and applying views of metadiscourse. Paper presented at the 84th annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Phoenix, AZ. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED411539
  36. Vande-Kopple, W. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. Discourse studies in composition, 91-113. https://search.worldcat.org/title/discourse-studies-in-composition/oclc/47972027
  37. Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Scott Foressman. https://library.lol/main/D65C22A2662ABBEB169EA457CF1F988E
  38. Yağiz, O., & Demir, C. (2015). A comparative study of boosting in academic texts: A contrastive rhetoric. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(4), 12-28. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v5n4p12
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 15, Issue 49 - Serial Number 49
February 2024
Pages 221-242

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics