Metadiscourse in Applied Linguistics and Chemistry Research Article Introductions

Document Type : Research Article


Faculty of Language Studies, Sohar University, Sohar, Sultanate of Oman


This study examined disciplinary rhetoric in research articles, focusing on different traditions in structuring text discourses from a metadiscourse-move analytic approach. The corpus consisted of 72 research article Introductions (RAIs): 36 in applied linguistics and 36 in chemistry. Swales’ CARS model (1990, 2004) and Hyland’s interpersonal model of metadiscourse (2005) were used as analytical frameworks for move and metadiscourse analyses, respectively. Both frequency and functional analyses showed that there were considerable differences between the 2 disciplines in terms of how the writers used metadiscourse in the RAIs and how the metadiscourse markers were mapped to fulfill the rhetorical purposes of Introduction moves. Such discrepancies reflect the susceptibility of metadiscursive features to the sociorhetorical cultures conditioned by the discipline to which the writers belong. Findings have implications for teaching novices, especially nonnative speakers of English, to write research articles and help them create a convincing research space and make appropriate use of metadiscourse.


Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse as an indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4, 139-145.
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Aguilar, M. (2008). Metadiscourse in academic speech: A relevance-theoretic approach. Bern: Peter Lang.
Anthony, L. (1999). Writing research article introductions in software engineering: How accurate is a standard model? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 4, 38-46.
Árvay, A., & Tankó, G. (2004). A contrastive analysis of English and Hungarian theoretical research article introductions. IRAL, 42, 71-100.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Biber, D, Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, Douglas, Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47-59.
Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in Ph.D. theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S41-S56.
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.
Coates, J. (1995). The expression of root and epistemic modality in English. In B. Aarts & C. F. Meyer (Eds.), The verb in contemporary English: Theory and description (pp. 145-156). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cortes, V. (2013). The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 33-43.
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.
D. Salas, M. (2015). Reflexive metadiscourse in research articles in Spanish: Variation across three disciplines (linguistics, economics, and medicine). Journal of Pragmatics, 77, 20-40.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
del Saz-Rubio, M. M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to the macrostructure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of agricultural sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 258-271.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
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, 37, 1207-1231.
Hirano, E. (2009). Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 240-250.
Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 321-337.

Hu, G., & Cao. F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809.
Hu, G., & Wang, G. (2014). Disciplinary and ethnolinguistic influences on citation in research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 14-28.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 341-367.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mentions in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115-130). Harlow: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2002b). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. (2002c). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239.
Hyland, K. (2003). Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 251-259.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 266-285.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1325-1353.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 269-292.
Khedri, M. (2016). Are we visible? An interdisciplinary data-based study of self-mention in research articles. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52(3), 403-430.
Khedri, M., Swee Heng, C., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319-331.
Loi, C. K., & Lim, J. M-H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146.
Loi, C. K., & Evans, M. S. (2010).  Cultural differences in the organization of research article introductions from the field of educational psychology: English and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2814-2825.
Martínez, I. A. (2001). Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of contrastive structure. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 227-247.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 3-22.
McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 161-173.
Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles. Journal of English for academic Purposes, 9, 86-101.
Murillo, S. (2004). A relevance reassessment of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 2059-2068.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1-35.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138.
Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 25-38.
Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variation across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1-17.
Scott, M. (2004). WordSmith tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shehzad, W. (2008). Move two: Establishing a niche. Ibérica, 15, 25-50.
Sheldon, E. (2009). From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 251-267.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text, 15, 103-127.
Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365-382.
Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2008). Robot kung fu: Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1232-1248.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
White, H. D. (2011). Relevance theory and citations. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3345-3361.
Williams, I. A. (1999). Results sections of medical research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(4), 347-366.