Code Glosses in Academic Writing: The Comparison of Iranian and Native Authors

Subject Areas : Research in English Language Pedagogy

Mahdi  Dehghan ¹ (Department of English, Isfahan(Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan,Iran)
Azizeh  Chalak ² (Department of English, Isfahan(Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan,Iran)

Received: 2017-12-01 Accepted : 2016-01-17 Published : 2016-01-17

Keywords: Code gloss, Discourse Studies, EAP, Metadiscourse, L2 writing,

Abstract :

One of the challenges of academic writing is the creation of a structurally and communicatively well-organized and coherent text. Metadiscourse enables authors of journal articles to achieve this goal by raising the writers‘ awareness about discourse features which can contribute to a better academic content production. Also, L1 background has always been a hot topic in applied linguistics and native versus non-native comparisons have been of particular interest in this field. The purpose of this study was to see whether native English speakers and Iranians use code glosses as a sub-category of metadiscourse similarly in their academic writings. To this end, the introduction section of 30 journal articles written by native and Iranian non-native English authors were investigated and the number of code-glosses in each group was counted and analyzed. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used to answer the research question of this study. The result of data analysis revealed that there was no significant difference between the frequency count of code glosses used by Iranian and native English authors. This study can have pedagogical implications for EAP course designers as well as academic writing instructors and students.

References:

Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Adel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of meta discourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97.
Beauvais, P.  (1989). A speech act theory of discourse. Written Communication, 6(1), 11-30.
Beighmohammadi, A. (2003). An Investigation into the patterns of use of discourse features of intensity markers in academic research articles of hard science, social science and TEFL. Unpublished Masteral thesis, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Bunton, D. (1998). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18(Suppl), S41-S56.
Camiciottoli, B.C. (2003). Meta discourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 28-44.
Chambliss, M.J., & Garner, R. (1996).Do adults change their minds after reading persuasive text? Journal of Written Communication, 13(3), 291–313.
Cheng, X., &  Steffensen, M.S. (1996). Meta discourse: A technique for improving student writing. Journal of Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149-181.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Meta discourse in popular and professional science discourse. InW. Nash(Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp.118-136). Newburg Park, CA: Sage.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Meta discourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.
Dastgoshadeh, A. (2001). Reading comprehension of EFL students using meta discourse. Unpublished Masteral thesis, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Faghih, E., & Rahimpour, S.  (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 92-107.

Farrokhi, F., & Ashrafi, S. (2009). Textual meta discourse resources in research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 52(212), 39-75.

Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse  in  the  CEO’s  letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224–245.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London:  Longman.  
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Meta discourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151.  
Hyland, K. (2005). Meta discourse. 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). Meta discourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Marandi, S. (2002). Contrastive EAP rhetoric: meta discourse in Persian vs. English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A textlinguistic study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Parvaresh, V. (2008). Meta discourse and reading comprehension: The effects of language and proficiency. Unpublished Masteral thesis, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik,
J. (1985). A Comprehensive grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction, 50(3/4), 199-236.
Taavitsainen, I. (1999). Meta discursive practices and the evolution of early English medical writing. (1375– 1550). In J.M. Kirk (Ed.), Corpora Galore: Analyses and techniques in describe English (pp. 191–207). Amsterdam: Rodopi.  
Toumi, N. (2009). A Model for the investigation of reflexive meta discourse in research articles. Language Studies Working Papers, 1, 64-73.
VandeKopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on meta discourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93.