Metadiscourse Markers in Quantitative and Qualitative Applied Linguistics Research Articles' Discussions: A Comparative Study
الموضوعات :
Marzieh Bagherkazemi
1
,
Milad Moradpour Moghadam Vajargahi
2
,
S. Sadat Javadi
3
1 - Department of English Language Teaching, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Department of English Language Teaching, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3 - Department of English Language Teaching, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
الکلمات المفتاحية: quantitative research, Qualitative Research, Interactional metadiscourse markers Interactive metadiscourse markers,
ملخص المقالة :
Metadiscourse markers are aspects of a text’s organization denoting a writer’s stance toward its propositional content. Given the ideological difference between quantitative and qualitative research in terms of determinacy, metadiscourse markers can be viewed as a venue through which writers’ epistemological positions are presented. The present study was designed to compare the use frequency of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in the discussion section of 20 quantitative and 20 qualitative applied linguistics research articles, with reference to Hyland's (2005) framework. The analysis involved the comparison of frequency counts of metadiscourse markers across the two corpora using a series of Chi-square tests. To that end, the results were computed and analyzed through SPSS. The results revealed significant differences in terms of the frequency of all interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers except for frame markers, evidentials, attitude markers, engagement markers, and boosters. The findings of study have important implications for academic writing instruction.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019.
Abdelmoneim, A. (2009). Interpersonal metadiscourse categories in two Egyptian newspapers concerning the 2007 "Constitutional Amendments"(Unpublished master thesis). The American University.
Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identify. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445602004002010
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. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.218
Adel, S., & Ghorbani Moghadam, R. (2015). A comparison of moves in conclusion sections of research articles in psychology, Persian literature and applied linguistics. Teaching English Language, 9(2), 167-191. https://doi.org/10.22132/tel.2015.53729
Al-Shujairi, Y. (2021). Review of the discussion section of research articles: Rhetorical structure and move. LSP International Journal, 8(2), 9-25. https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v8.17099
Alipour, M. (2018). A comparative analysis of metadiscourse markers in the result and discussion sections of literature and engineering research papers. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 10(1), 71-82.
Akmilia, P. M., Faridi, A., & Sakhiyya, Z. (2022). The use of cohesive devices in research paper conference to achieve texts coherence. English Education Journal, 12(1), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.15294/eej.v12i1.53228
Amnuai, W. (2017). The textual organization of the discussion sections of accounting research articles. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 40(2), 389-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.10.007
Atai, M., & Sadr, L. (2008). A cross-cultural study of hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistics research articles. Teaching English Language (Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran), 2(7), 1-22. https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=162198
Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004
Benson, P., Chik, A., Gao, X., Huang, J., & Wang, W. (2009). Qualitative research in language teaching and learning journals. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 79 -90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15404781.2009.00829.x
Behbahani, H. K., Jabbari, A. A., & Dolatabadi Farahani, A. H. (2018). Effectiveness of explicit instruction of cohesive devices on Iranian EFL learners' writing development. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Scientific Research, 1(4), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.31426/ijamsr.2018.1.4.211
Biria, R., & Noorian, M. (2010). Interpersonal meta discourse in persuasive journalism: A study of texts by American and Iranian EFL columnists. Journal of Modern Languages. 20(1), 64-79.
Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: a contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian speakers. Stud. Lang, 5, 1-7.
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Crismore, A. (1984) The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027840160306
Cömert, A., & Al‐Beyati, E. S. (2019). Writing the discussion section for original research articles. A guide to the scientific career: Virtues, communication, research and academic writing. 523-526. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118907283.ch57
Dafouz, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11, 29-52.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Dobakhti, L. (2013). Commenting on findings in qualitative and quantitative research articles’ discussion sections in applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(5), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.5p.145
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. Advances in Written Text Analysis, 219, 223-242.
Dujsik, D. (2013). A genre analysis of research article discussions in applied linguistics. Language Research, 49(2), 453-477.
Duruk, E. (2017). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in a written register used by Turkish writers. International Journal of Management and Applied Science,3(8), 87-94.
Flowerdew, J. (2012). Discourse in English language education. Routledge
Ghazanfari, M., Barani, G., & Rokhsari, S. (2018). An investigation into metadiscourse elements used by native vs. Non-native university students across genders. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 10(1), 61-94. https://doi.org/10.22111/ijals.2018.4263
Gholami, J., & Ilghami, R. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and journal impact factor: Non-native writers vs. native writers. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44(4), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20961
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). Edward Arnold.
Harris, Z.S. (1981). Discourse Analysis. In Hiż, H. (eds), Papers on syntax: Synthese language library, 14. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8467-7_7
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(8), 1207-1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12(2), 111-132.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A Genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2),113-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(88)90029-4
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 30(4). 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
Hyland, K. (2004) Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543-562. https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0261444808005235
Hyland, K. (2016). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Jalilifar, A. (2011). World of attitudes in research article discussion sections: A cross-linguistic perspective. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ), 5(2), 81-90. https://10.22061/TEJ.2011.281
Jin, B. (2021). A multi-dimensional analysis of research article discussion sections in an engineering discipline: Corpus explorations and scientists’ perceptions. SAGE Open, 11(4), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211050401
Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.006
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2014). Corpus analysis and its applications in ELT. Journal of Studies in the English Language, 2. Retrieved from https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jsel/article/view/23163
Keshavarz, M., & Kheirieh, Z. (2011). Metadiscourse elements in English research articles written by native English and non-native Iranian writers in applied linguistics and civil engineering. Journal of English Studies, 1(3), 3-15.
Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M.-H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612471476
Köroğlu, Z. (2019). A corpus-based analysis: The types of transition markers in the MA theses of native speakers of English and Turkish speakers of English. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 496-507.
Kurniawan, E., & Lubis, A. H. (2020). A comparative move analysis on the qualitative and quantitative findings and discussion sections written by EFL undergraduate students. Asian ESP Journal, 16(6.1),137-162.
Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. E. (2014). Practical research planning and design. Pearson Educational Inc.
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(10), 2814-2825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.03.010
Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J. (2020). Teaching English for research publication purposes (ERPP): A review of language teachers’ pedagogical initiatives. English for Specific Purposes, 59, 29-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.03.002
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education: Examples of methodology and methods (pp. 365-380). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13
Mardani, T. (2017). Metadiscourse markers: A contrastive study of translated and non-translated persuasive texts. Journal of Language and Translation, 7(2), 73-79.
McKay, S. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. Routledge.
Mirshamsi, A., & Allami, H. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master's theses. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 32(3), 23-40. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2013.1706
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). Hodder Arnold.
Moyetta, D. (2016). The discussion section of English and Spanish research articles in psychology: A contrastive study. ESP Today, 4(1), 87-106.
Mulholland, J. (1999). E-mail: Uses, issues and problems in an institutional setting. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini, & C. Nickerson (Eds.), Writing business: Genres, media and discourses (pp. 57-84). Longman.
Nugrahani, V., & Bram, B. (2020). Metadiscourse markers in scientific journal articles. Journal of The Association for Arabic and English, 6(1),1-16. https://doi.org/10.31332/lkw.v6i1.1528
Nizigama, E., & Mahdavirad, F. (2021). Hedging and boosting in the introduction and discussion sections of English research articles: A cross-cultural study of papers written by native and non-native academics. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 108-123.
Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00735.x
Phonhan, P. (2021). Generic structure of research article abstracts in technical education: A move-based study. Journal of Liberal Arts Prince of Songkla University, 13(1), 282–306. Retrieved from https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/journal-la/article/view/241862
Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis: An introduction (2nd ed). Bloomsbury.
Rahimpour, S., Sotoudehnama, E., & Sasani, F. (2015). Investigating researcher identity in qualitative research articles in applied linguistics journals through the lens of CDA. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 74-100. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2018.13794
Rasooyar, H., & Hosseini, E. (2019). Investigating interpersonal metadiscourse markers in English M.A. theses: The case of transition markers. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(4), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.18844/gjflt.v9i4.4089
Saidi, M., & Talebi, S. (2021). Genre analysis of research article abstracts in English for academic purposes journals: Exploring the possible variations across the venues of research. Education Research International, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3578179
Sarani, A., Khoshsima, H., & Izadi, M. (2016). Poring over meta discourse use in discussion and conclusion section of academic articles written by Iranian ESP students. Journal of research in applied linguistics Ahvaz, 8(1), 133-145. https://doi.org/10.22055/RALS.2017.13846
Sheldon, E. (2013). Genre and advancedness in language teaching at tertiary level: Towards bridging the language-culture divide [Paper presentation]. Language and Cultures Network of Australian Universities Biennial Conference, Australia.
Sheldon, E. (2018). Knowledge construction of discussion/conclusion sections of research articles written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.002
Simin, S., & Tavangar, M. (2009). Metadiscourse knowledge and use in Iranian EFL writing. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(1), 230-255.
Soleimani, N., & Mohammadkhah, E. (2020). Meta-discourse markers in the book reviews published in ISI and non-ISI journals of applied linguistics. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 7(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1807677
Sultan, A. (2011). A contrastive study of metadiscourse in English and Arabic linguistics research articles. Acta Linguistica, 5(1), 28–41.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications (Cambridge Applied Linguistics). Cambridge University Press. https://doi/10.1017/CBO9781139524827
Tanskanen, S. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/1010.1075/pbns.146
Takimoto, M. (2015). A corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836
Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2008). Robot kung fu: Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(7), 1232-1248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.002
Wei, J. (2015). Theme and thematic progression in learner English: A literature review. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(1), 67-80. https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2014.1.a06
Wang, J., & Zeng, L. (2021). Disciplinary recognized self-presence: Self-mention used with hedges and boosters in PhD students’ research writing. SAGE Open, 11(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211005454
Yang, Z. (2021). Deconstruction of the discourse authority of scientists in Chinese online science communication: Investigation of citizen science communicators on Chinese knowledge sharing networks. Public Understanding of Science, 30(8), 993–1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211005106
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. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n1p42
