A Study of the Research Article Discussion Section Written by Native Authors: Hyland’s (2005) Metadiscourse Model in Focus

Subject Areas : Research in English Language Pedagogy

Jafar Asadi ¹ , Seyed Hesamuddin Aliasin ² , Rasool Morad-Joz ³

1 - English Language Department, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran
2 - English Language Department, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran
3 - English Language Department, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran

Received: 2022-12-31 Accepted : 2023-02-08 Published : 2023-02-01

Keywords: Hyland’s (2005) model, Metadiscourse, discussion, Metadiscourse Markers, Research Articles, academic writing,

Abstract :

Academic writing in general and writing research articles in particular have long been considered a crucial mode of discourse, which is due to its challenging requirements for writers. Metadiscourse resources aid the reader in reading comprehension through coherence and cohesion. This study attempts to analyze research article discussion sections written by native authors regarding metadiscourse markers. To this end, 40 research article discussions by native writers from humanities were selected and analyzed. The purpose of the study is to discover the number and types of metadiscourse markers and rhetorical techniques used in composing these texts. The study continues on a qualitative research design, through text analysis, on the basis of Hyland’s (2005) Metadiscourse Model. The findings indicated that the writers used the interactive metadiscourse markers twice as often as the interactional ones. This research could have a direct bearing on teaching writing and material design to enable EFL learners to use an optimal extent of these resources effectively.

References:

Abdulaal, M.A. A. (2020). A cross-linguistic analysis of formulaic language and metadiscourse in linguistics research articles by natives and Arabs: Modeling Saudis and Egyptians. Arab World English Journal, 11(3), 193-211.

Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.35360/njes.218

Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.

Duruk, E. (2017). Analysis of metadiscourse markers in academic written discourse produced by Turkish researchers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 01-09.

Ezeifeka, C. R. (2014). Grammatical metaphor in SFL: A rhetorical resource for academic writing. Unizik Journal of Arts and Humanities,12(1), 207-221.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan. R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Ltd.

Halliday, M. A.  K.  (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

Hashemi, A., Mahdavirad, F., Mazdayasna, G. (2021). Appraisal resources in book reviews: A study of cross-gender variations. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 13(28), 127146. Doi: 10.22034/ELT.2021.46516.2404

Herriman, J. (2022). Metadiscourse in English instruction manuals. English for Specific Purposes, 65, 120-132.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 3(1),437-455. Doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: exploring writing in interaction. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2009). Writing in the disciplines: Research evidence for specificity. Taiwan International ESP Journal,1(1), 5-22.

Hyland, K. (2010) Metadiscourse: mapping interactions in academic writing. English Stud, 9(2), 125-143.

Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113(1), 16–29. Doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007

Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing (2^nd edition). Continuum

Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S. J., & 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.

Kuhi, D., & Behnam, B. (2011). Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguists: A comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication, 28 (1), 97-141.

Marandi, S. (2003). Metadiscourse in Persian/English master’s theses: A contrastive study. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 23-42.

Salahshoor, F. & Afsari, P. (2017). An investigation of interactional metadiscourse in discussion and conclusion sections of social and natural science master theses. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 5(2),7-14. 

Taymaz, N. (2021). A corpus-based comparison of use of hedges and boosters by Turkish ELT MA and PhD students. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(1), 33-49.

Vande Kopple, W. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton, & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 91e113). Hampton Press.

Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2(1), 321-331.