Poring Over Metadiscourse Use in Discussion and Conclusion Sections of Academic Articles Written by Iranian ESP Students

Document Type: Research Article

Authors

1 University of Sistan and Baluchestan

2 Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar,Iran.

3 English Language Department, Chabahar Maritime University

Abstract

This study investigated the employment of interactional metadisocurse in English academic articles written by Iranian ESP students. Data consisted of a total of 66 academic articles written in English by nonhumanities and humanities writers. Discussion and Conclusion sections were extracted, and Hyland’s (2005) taxonomy was borrowed for analysis. The use of hedges, boosters, and attitude markers was compared in the articles. Total number of each metadiscourse marker was counted, and the differences were checked running Mann-Whitney U test. Analysis revealed that there were disciplinary differences in the use of markers by nonhumanities and humanities. Hedges and attitude markers were more frequent in the humanities’ articles, rather than the nonhumanities’ articles. Also, the use of hedges and boosters was statistically significant. Pedagogical implications are discussed in light of the empirical data.

Keywords


Abdelmoneim, A. (2009). Interpersonal metadiscourse categories in two Egyptian newspapers concerning the 2007 constitutional amendments. Unpublished master’s thesis, The American University in Cairo, Egypt.

Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(1), 1-16.

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288-297.

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

Blagojevic S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian speakers. Studies about Linguistics, 5, 1-7.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M.S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. Written Communication, 10, 39-71.

Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. (1998). Developments in ESP: A multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Farrokhi, F., & Ashrafi, S. (2009). Textual metadiscourse resources in research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 1(212), 39-75.

Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.

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

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

Jalilifar (2011). World of attitudes in research article discussion sections: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Technology and Education, 5(3), 171-186.

Lee, I. (2002). Helping students develop coherence in writing. English Teaching Forum, 40, 32-39.

Mauranen A. (2008). AILA symposia abstracts. Retrieved December 25, 2015, from the World Wide Web: www.aila2008.org

Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research papers: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

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

Zarei, G., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 42-50.