An Analysis of Interactional Markers in the Methodology Sections of Research Articles Across Englishes and Disciplines (original) (raw)
Related papers
Modern Journal of Studies in English Language Teaching and Literature
A cornucopia of research has been conducted on the use of metadiscourse across disciplines and languages. Still, this present study is the first to identify and analyse how metadiscourse markers (MDMs) help realize the functions of moves and steps in the Methods sections of research articles (RAs) across disciplines and Englishes. The present study is an investigation of the distribution of MDMs in the formulation of moves and steps in the Methods section of social science, business, and linguistics RAs written by American English (the inner circle), Philippine English (outer circle), and Chinese English (expanding circle) RA writers. Utilizing a qualitative-quantitative mixed methodology, it shows that engagement markers are the most frequently used interactional markers, that culture and discipline are two variables that account for the variations in MDMs use, that soft disciplines like humanities and social sciences seem to demand more writer accountability to assertions made, an...
This comparative study draws on an interpersonal model of metadiscourse to examine disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on the use of interactional metadiscourse in the post-method sections of 120 research articles. These research articles were drawn from three social science disciplines (i.e., applied linguistics, education, and psychology) and two research paradigms (i.e., quantitative and qualitative research). Quantitative analyses showed that the applied linguistics and education research articles used boosters more frequently than the psychology research articles. Furthermore, the applied linguistics subcorpus deployed more reader references but fewer self-mentions than the psychology subcorpus. Cross-paradigmatic comparisons revealed that the quantitative research articles made more frequent use of hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers as a main type, and directives as a subtype than the qualitative research articles. Qualitative analyses identified additional cross-disciplinary and cross-paradigmatic differences in the choice or function of specific metadiscoursal resources. These observed differences are attributable to the knowledge-knower structures characteristic of the disciplines and the epistemologies underlying the research paradigms.
JEES (Journal of English Educators Society)
Academic writing articles serve as the medium of communication among scholars to share knowledge and new inquiries and are made in such a way that the idea they deliver is both understandable and accepted. One essential action to accomplish this is by employing metadiscourse markers. Metadiscourse is viewed as an essential element of credible written texts created by students of ESL and native speakers, by which the intelligibility of communication in research articles can be accomplished through suitable discipline conscience, norms, and belief to track the writers’ pathway to academic promotions. Therefore, employing descriptive qualitative approach, this study aims at investigating the utilization of interpersonal metadiscourse markers and their functions in academic writing. Analysing discussion section of research articles written by Indonesian expert writers, the results show that the metadiscourse markers in the articles are found to be similar to the commonly used markers am...
Metadiscourse Strategies in Research Articles: A Study of the Differences Across Subsections
Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2011
The implicit rhetorical features of academic writing which has so far eluded a comprehensive systematic characterization have made teaching it a challenging task for a large group of practitioners in academic setting. One such feature of academic writing susceptible to cultural mentalities is metadiscourse marking, which is supposed to be one of the important rhetorical aspects in the writing process. Therefore, through analyzing interactive and interactional metadiscourse strategies use, this study makes an attempt to find out the normal metadiscursive distribution in the various cognitivegeneric structures within the socio-genreic structure of research articles (RAs). For the purpose of this study, a small corpus of 54 research articles from social and natural sciences was selected for a close manual qualitative analysis. It appeared that, though globally similar in many ways, different IMRD sections (i.e. Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion) of RAs which follow different...
Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline
Journal of Pragmatics, 2004
Academic writers leave traces of themselves in their writing which may be linked to national as well as disciplinary culture. This paper takes a doubly contrastive approach and investigates writer manifestation in three languages, English, French and Norwegian, and three disciplines, economics, linguistics and medicine, in order to see whether language or discipline is the most important variable governing the pattern of metatext in academic discourse. My corpus consists of 180 refereed research articles within these languages and disciplines. My findings suggest that the language variable is the most important one within economics and linguistics, where English and Norwegian show very similar patterns, using much more metatext than French; within medicine, all three languages display a uniform pattern of little metatext. I conclude that English and Norwegian are both representatives of writer responsible cultures, while French represents a reader responsible culture. As regards discipline, I suggest that since economics and linguistics have a less formalised research article text structure and to some extent create their findings through argumentation in the text, national culture will be more important than it is in medicine, where the IMRD (Introduction-Method-Results-Discussion) structure is globally implemented and the research data to a greater extent are given outside the text. #
2018
This study attempts to compare and analyze the use of metadiscourse markers (MM s) in research articles (RA s) from two disciplines of applied linguistics and politics written in English and Persian. It aims to find the similarities and differences in using MM s by English and Persian writers of these two disciplines. To achieve this goal, 160 RA s from international and national journals from 2006-2012 were selected. 80 English RA s : 40 applied linguistics, 40 politics and 80 Persian RA s : 40 applied linguistics, 40 politics. A recent metadiscourse classification formulated by Hyland and Tse (2004) was used as the model. After determining the frequency and percentage of each MM, we used Chi-square analysis to see if the differences between these two disciplines are significant or not. Findings reveal that English writers used MM s more than Persian writers. We found some cross-linguistics differences in English and Persian applied linguistics RA s , while English and Persian writers of politics used MM s almost in a same way. We do not find any cross-disciplinary differences in these two languages. Result of this study is useful for Persian students and teachers and all who are interested in learning more about English.
Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Articles Written by Turkish and Native Speakers
Anadolu journal of educational sciences international, 2020
This study investigates how Turkish non-native speakers and native speakers of English use metadiscourse markers in research articles. With this purpose, a total of 100 research articles on the field of teaching a foreign language were analyzed based on the taxonomy of Hyland and Tse (2004). 50 research articles written by Turkish academic writers and 50 research articles written by American academic writers were collected from prestigious journals. The taxonomy has mainly two components: Interactive and interactional resources. This study focuses on the interactional resources. A qualitative approach was applied. The results of the binomial test showed that there are significant differences in the use of interactional metadiscourse markers between the two groups. American academic writers (AAWs) used significantly more interactional metadiscourse markers (IMMs) in English research articles (ERAs) compared to Turkish academic writers (TAWs). The use of the subcategories of engagement markers were also significantly different specifically in terms of the use of self-mention and questions. This may suggest that the use of IMMs may show cultural preferences, which can be considered as stylistic difference and may not need further instructional intervention. Thus, academic writing courses are suggested to be included especially in MA and PhD programs. Models of academic texts can be used in courses and raising consciousness on both micro and macro aspects of academic discourse can be suggested.
International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 2022
Metadiscourse markers are aspects of a text's organization denoting a writer's stance toward its propositional content. Given the ideological difference between quantitative and qualitative research in terms of determinacy, metadiscourse markers can be viewed as a venue through which writers' epistemological positions are presented. The present study was designed to compare the use frequency of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in the discussion section of 20 quantitative and 20 qualitative applied linguistics research articles, with reference to Hyland's (2005) framework. The analysis involved the comparison of frequency counts of metadiscourse markers across the two corpora using a series of Chi-square tests. To that end, the results were computed and analyzed through SPSS. The results revealed significant differences in terms of the frequency of all interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers except for frame markers, evidentials, attitude markers, engagement markers, and boosters. The findings of study have important implications for academic writing instruction.
Metadiscourse in Research Writing: A Study of Native English and Pakistani Research Articles
International Journal of English Linguistics, 2019
Metadiscourse is extremely important for structuring a relationship between writer and reader when it comes to academic writing. It is an interesting area of inquiry that is believed to play a vital role in writing persuasive discourse, based on the expectations of the people involved (Behzad & Shafique, 2018). This study deals with the comparative analysis of native English and Pakistani research articles. For this research, 100 native English and Pakistani English research articles are taken, following Hyland and Tse (2004a) model of metadiscourse. A corpus-based mixed method research approach is employed to carry out this study. All the metadiscursive devices are quantified by using corpus-based approach and then analyzed qualitatively. The results reveal that Pakistani research writers use more interactive markers whereas the interactional markers are found frequent in native English academic writers. The overall results disclose that Native research writers of English are more ...
Nordic Journal of English Studies
Taking the non-integrative approach to metadiscourse (Ädel 2006; 2008), this paper carries out a cross-cultural and cross-linguistic analysis of text-and participant-oriented metadiscourse in two rhetorically forceful research article sections (Introductions and Discussions). Results show that, across cultures, the average frequencies of the two types of metadiscourse are relatively similar in the two article sections. Findings also show that the micro-level discourse functions of these metadiscourse types seem to concentrate in specific information moves in these sections, suggestive of shared uniform conventions for academic writing across cultures and languages. The exploration of metadiscourse further reveals several culture-and language-specific traits regarding preferred lexicogrammatical realisations of metadiscourse units, different preferences for personal/impersonal metadiscourse types as well as different textual developments for constructing arguments.