Reflexive Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Spoken Seminars: An Across-Sciences Study
محورهای موضوعی : Second Language EducationOranoos Rezaei 1 , Seyed Foad Ebrahimi 2 , Saeed Yazdani 3
1 - English department, Bu. C., Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran
2 - English department, Shad. C., Islamic Azad University, Shadegan, Iran
3 - English department, Bu. C., Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran
کلید واژه: metadiscourse, reflexive, sciences, seminars, functions ,
چکیده مقاله :
Metadiscourse is defined as linguistic expressions that help to organizing discourse and displaying stance toward the discourse, and it has changed communication as a mere transfer of information to have aspects such as attitudes, personalities, and assumptions of participants in the communication (Hyland, 2005, 2010). There are two quite different strands can be identified concerning the study of metadiscourse; narrow and broad. The narrow model that is mostly adopted by Mauranen (1993) and Adel (2010) stresses the reflexivity in language. This study intends to shed the light on the realizations and discourse functions of reflexive metadiscourse markers in academic seminars across sciences. To this end, 39 seminars were selected from four different sciences (Life and Medical Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Physical and Social Sciences). The seminars were selected from the British Academic Spoken English corpus (BASE). Corpus was analyzed based Adel’s (2010) framework and results are normalized per 1000 words. Findings suggested that different sciences have different tastes concerning reflexive metadiscourse markers. Thus, these differences should be included in the syllabus developed for teaching academic speaking genres across sciences.
Metadiscourse is defined as linguistic expressions that help to organizing discourse and displaying stance toward the discourse, and it has changed communication as a mere transfer of information to have aspects such as attitudes, personalities, and assumptions of participants in the communication (Hyland, 2005, 2010). There are two quite different strands can be identified concerning the study of metadiscourse; narrow and broad. The narrow model that is mostly adopted by Mauranen (1993) and Adel (2010) stresses the reflexivity in language. This study intends to shed the light on the realizations and discourse functions of reflexive metadiscourse markers in academic seminars across sciences. To this end, 39 seminars were selected from four different sciences (Life and Medical Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Physical and Social Sciences). The seminars were selected from the British Academic Spoken English corpus (BASE). Corpus was analyzed based Adel’s (2010) framework and results are normalized per 1000 words. Findings suggested that different sciences have different tastes concerning reflexive metadiscourse markers. Thus, these differences should be included in the syllabus developed for teaching academic speaking genres across sciences.
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins Publishing
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(S2), 69-97.
Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic journal of English studies, 9(S2), 1-11.
Ädel, A. (2017). Remember that your reader cannot read your mind: Problem/solution-oriented metadiscourse in teacher feedback on student writing. English for Specific Purposes, 45, 54-68.
Aguilar, M. (2008). Metadiscourse in academic speech: A relevance-theoretic approach (Vol. 317). Peter Lang.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study.
Charles, M. (2025). English for academic purposes. The handbook of English for specific purposes, 247-264.
Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149-181.
Crismore, A., & Abdollehzadeh, E. (2010). A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(S2), 195-219.
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.
Dastjerdi, H. V., & Shirzad, M. (2010). The impact of explicit instruction of meta-discourse engineering writers in English. English Linguistics Research, 1(1), 88-96.
Ghaffari, J., Behjat, F., & Rostampoor, M. (2015). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers instruction and Iranian EFL learner's writing skills. Iranian EFL Journal, 11(1), 417-440.
Gholami, M., Tajalli, G., & Shokrpour, N. (2014). An investigation of metadiscourse markers in English medical texts and their Persian translation based on Hyland’s model. European Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 1-41.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(2), 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of second language writing, 4(3), 253-272.
Jakobson, R. (1980). A metalinguagem como um problema linguístico. Jakobson, R. The framework of language. Michigan Studies in Humanities, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies.
Jalilifar, A., & Alipour, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners' reading comprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1), 35-52.
Luukka, M. R. (1994). Metadiscourse in academic texts. Text and talk in professional context, 77-88.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22.
Pérez, M. A., & Macià, E. A. (2002). Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension: Does it really help foreign language learners?. Atlantis, 7-21.
Pooresfahani, A. F., Khajavy, G. H., & Vahidnia, F. (2012). A contrastive study of metadiscourse elements in research articles written by Iranian applied linguistics and engineering writers in English. English Linguistics Research, 1(1), 88-96.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta-Talk: Organizational and Evaluate Brackets in Discourse. Sociological inquiry, 50, 17-29.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge university press.
Yeganeh, M. T., & Ghoreyshi, S. M. (2015). Exploring gender differences in the use of discourse markers in Iranian academic research articles. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 684-689.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
Thompson, S. E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for academic purposes, 2(1), 5-20.
Van Dijk, T. A., Ting-Toomey, S., Smitherman, G., & Troutman, D. (1997). Discourse, ethnicity, culture and racism. Discourse as social interaction, 2, 144-180.
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition & Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
Vande Kopple, W. J., & Crismore, A. (1990). Readers' reactions to hedges in ascience textbook. Linguistics and Education, 2(4), 303-322.
Williams, J. M. (1981). Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Boston: Scott Foresman
