Metadiscourse Features in Medical Research Articles: Subdisciplinary and Paradigmatic Influences in English and Persian

Document Type : Research Article


1 Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

2 Department of English Language and Literature, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran


Disciplinary studies on metadiscourse in academic texts have come a rather long way (since the 1980s) to afford an awareness of the ways authors strive to signal their insights into their materials as well as their audience. However, few comprehensive corpus-based studies to date have provided a starting point for shaping our understanding of subdisciplinary and paradigmatic diversities within medical contexts in different cultures/languages. For this purpose, 160 research articles (RAs) were picked out from certain databases on medical physics (80) and nursing (80), each group of which was, then, stratified into quantitative (40) and qualitative papers (40) written in English and Persian, and their metadiscourse tokens were compared in terms of type and frequency on the basis of Hyland's (2005) taxonomy. Results indicated a rather cogent homogeneity between the native English writers (NEWs) and Iranian Persian writers (IPWs) in crafting nursing quantitative and qualitative RAs.


Abdi, A. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(1), 1-16.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2001). Native and nonnative writers’ use of textual metadiscourse in ELT papers. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Tehran, Iran.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2007). Writer’s presence in Persian and English newspaper editorials. Paper presented at the International Conference on Systemic Functional Linguistics in Odense, Denmark.
Ädel, A. (2010). A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97.
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1-11.
Alise, M. A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). A continuation of paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Method Research, 4, 103-126.
Basturkman, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, England: SRHE & Open University Press.
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A        study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
DaftaryFard, P. (2002). Scalability of reading comprehension skill constructs: Metadiscourse connection. Unpublished master’s thesis, Iran University of Science and Technology, Iran.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
Dastgoshadeh, A. (2001). Reading comprehension of EFL students using metadiscourse. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Tehran, Iran.
Fang, C., & Hu. G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.
Freedman, A. (1999). Beyond the text: Towards understanding the teaching and learning of genres. Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages Quarterly, 33(4), 764-767.
Goodman, L., & Vassar, M. (2011).An overview of ethnography in healthcare and medical education research. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 8(4), 22-28.
Harwood, N. (2006). (In)appropriate personal pronoun use in political science: A qualitative study and a proposed heuristic for future research. Written Communication, 23, 424-450.
Heng, C. S., & Tan, H. (2010). Extracting and comparing the intricacies of metadiscourse of two written persuasive corpora. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 6(3), 124-146.
Hewings, M. (2006). Introduction. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context: Implications and applications (pp. 79-92). London: Continuum.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 47-68).Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Hofstede, G. (1977). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39,12-25.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (1st ed.). NY: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-77.
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.
Keshavarz, M. H., & Kheirieh, Z. (2011). Metadiscourse elements in research articles written by native English and nonnative English Iranian writers in applied linguistics and civil engineering. Journal of English Studies, 1(3), 3-15.
Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S., & Heng, C. S. (2013). Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic   research article result and discussion sections. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(1), 65-74.
Khorvash, Z. (2008). The effect of metadiscourse awareness on EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Isfahan, Iran.
Kidd, S. A. (2002). The role of qualitative research in psychological journals. Psychological Methods, 7, 126-138.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kutteeva, M., & Negretti, R. (2016). Graduate students’ genre knowledge and perceived disciplinary practices: Creating a research space across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 41, 36-49.
Kwase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of Ph.D. theses and research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 114-124.
Lin, L., & Evans, S. (2012). Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 150-160.
Mahzari, A. (2008). A contrastive study of the introduction section of English and Persian medical research articles. L’Analisi Linguistica Eletteraria, XVI, 373-384.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse reflexivity—A discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 13-40.
Miller, C. (1994). Genre as social action. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 23-42). London: Taylor & Francis.
Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Speciļ¬c Purposes, 26, 25-38.
Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language Teaching, 42, 147-180.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:         Cambridge University Press.
Tavakoli, M., Dabaghi, A., & Korvash, Z. (2010). The effect of metadiscourse awareness on L2 reading comprehension: A case of Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 92-102.
Toumi, N. (2009). A model for the investigation of reflexive metadiscourse in research articles. University of Reading Language Studies Working Papers, 1, 64-73.
VandeKopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College, Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
Validi, M., Jalilifar, A., Shooshtari, Z. G., & Hayati, A. (2016). Medical research article introductions in Persian and English contexts: Rhetorical and metadiscoursal differences. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 73-98.