Metadiscourse Markers in the Abstract Section of Applied Linguistics Research Articles: Celebrity vs. Non-celebrity Authors
DOR: 20.1001.1.23223898.2021.9.37.10.8
Subject Areas :
Parisa Ahmadi
1
,
Javad Gholami
2
,
Reza Abdi
3
,
Zila Mohammadnia
4
1 - Department of English Language, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
2 - Department of English Language , Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
3 - Foreign Languages Teaching Department, University of Mohaghegh Ardebili, Ardebil, Iran
4 - Department of English Language, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
Keywords: Research Articles, Celebrity Authors, Interactional Metadiscourse Markers, Interactive Metadiscourse Markers, Non-Celebrity Authors,
Abstract :
Metadiscourse involves the self-reflective linguistic expressions that refer to the evolving text, the writer, and the imagined readers of that text. This study utilized an interpersonal model of metadiscourse to examine the authors' use of metadiscourse in the Abstract sections of Applied Linguistics Research Articles (RAs). It investigated the distributions of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers at a corpus of 110 RAs published by celebrity and non-celebrity authors to determine the ways academic writers deploy these resources at a hight-stake research genre to persuade readers in their discourse community. The findings revealed that frame markers with a relative frequency of 112 were the most frequent strategy category for the non-celebrity authors. Moreover, evidentials with a relative frequency of 3 were the least frequently used strategy for the celebrity authors. There were no significant differences in the use of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers between celebrity and non-celebrity authors. These findings might have implications for the teaching of academic writing and scholarly publishing and for novice writers who aim to publish their studies in academic journals.
Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse׃ An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139–145.
Abdi, R. (2009). An investigation of the distribution and nature of metadiscourse markers in research articles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran.
Abdi, R., Tavangar Rizi, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1669–1679.
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia׃ John Benjamins.
Alavinia, P , Zarza, S . (2016). Toward a Reappraisal of the Role of MD Markers in EFL Learners’ Perception of Written Texts . The Journal of Language Learning and Teaching , 2 (2) , 1-23 .
Alharbi, S. (2021). An Investigation of Metadiscourse Features in Applied Linguistics Academic Research Articles and Master’s Dissertations. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 12(1), 46-54.
Bonyadi, A., Gholami, J., & Nasiri, S. (2012). A contrastive study of hedging in environmental sciences research articles. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(6), 1186-1193.
Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD dissertation. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41–56.
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What is it and how is it used in school and non-school social science texts. Urbane-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers׃Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York׃ Peter Lang Publishers.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 36–118). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
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, 39–71.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 15 (4), 85–271.
Crompton, P. (1998). Identifying hedges: Definition or divination. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 17 (3), 11–303.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion׃ A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95-113.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles׃ A marker of national culture or of academic discipline. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807–1825.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Dennzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). New York: Sage Publications.
Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revised. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 texts. Redwood, CA: Addison- Wesley.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). The sociosemantic nature of discourse: Language as social semiotics. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses׃ Social interactions in academic writing. London׃ Pearson.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133–151.
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.
Jacobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350-377). New York: Wiley.
Kim, L. C., & Min-Hwa Lim, J. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research articles introduction. Discourse Studies, 15, 129-146.
Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 19–36.
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning (pp. 146-152). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Malmkjaer, K. (2004). Translation in undergraduate degree programs. Amsterdam: Benjamins Translation Library.
Marandi, S. (2002). Contrastive EAP rhetoric: Metadiscourse in Persian vs. English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.
Markkanen, R., Steffensen, M., & Crismore, A. (1993). Quantitative contrastive study of metadiscourse: Problems in design and analysis of data. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 28, 137-152.
Mauranen, A. (1993a). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A text linguistic study. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Publishers.
Mauranen, A. (1993b). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effect on memory. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.
Moreno, A. I. (1997). Genre constraints across languages: Causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs. English for Specific Purposes 16, 161-179.
Ong, W. (1983). Foreword. In W. B. Horner (Ed.), The present state of scholarship in historica and contemporary rhetoric (pp. 1-9). Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis: An introduction. London׃ Continuum.
Peterlin, A. P. (2005). Text-organizing metatext in research articles׃ An English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 307–319.
Rahman, M. (2004). Aiding the reader: The use of metalinguistic devices in scientific discourse. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 18, 30–48.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 13, 149–179.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1998). Language is not a physical object. Journal of English for Specific Purposes,17(3), 295–302.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk׃ Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry׃ Language and Social Interaction, 50,199-236.
Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping׃ The management of interaction in written discourse. TEXT, 15 (1), 27-103.
Valero-Garcés, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric׃ Metatext in Spanish-English economics text. English for Specific Purposes, 15, 279–294.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In F. Bar-ton & C. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 91-113). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Williams, J. M. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview: Scott Foresman.
Yin, S., Gao, Y., & Lu, X. (2021). Syntactic complexity of research article part-genres: Differences between emerging and expert international publication writers. System, 97, 102427. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2020.102427
Zeinolabedini, M., & Gholami, J. (2016). Colleagues helping each other in medical sciences: Iranian field specialists' convenience editing strategies. Learned Publishing, 29(4) 249- 25.