SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2020 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1

Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of research articles and book reviews

Melike Baş
Betül Bal Gezegin
Pages
45–62
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings revealed that by using a rich number and variety ofattitude markers, book reviewers were more evaluative in their conclusions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this comparative study is to investigate the deployment of interactional metadiscoursefeatures in two different academic genres.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, a small, specialized corpus of 48 researcharticles and book reviews from seven different disciplines were collected.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings revealed that by using a rich number and variety ofattitude markers, book reviewers were more evaluative in their conclusions.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this comparative study is to investigate the deployment of interactional metadiscoursefeatures in two different academic genres. For this purpose, a small, specialized corpus of 48 researcharticles and book reviews from seven different disciplines were collected. The conclusion sections of thetexts written by non-native speakers of English were investigated to find out how interactionalmetadiscourse features were used. Drawing on previous metadiscourse frameworks, hedges, boosters,attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers were identified in both sub-corpora. The resultsindicated significant differences across the groups on how writers constructed their authorial stance withinteractional metadiscourse markers. Findings revealed that by using a rich number and variety ofattitude markers, book reviewers were more evaluative in their conclusions. On the contrary, higher useof hedges in research articles allowed the authors sound more cautious in their commitment to thepropositions. This study offers a detailed account of interactional metadiscourse in these two genres andillustrates how interpersonal function of language is accomplished for particular purposes in differentacademic texts.

🔖

Cite This Article

Baş, M., Gezegin, B. B. (2022). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of research articles and book reviews. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1, 45–62. https://ajindex.com/articles/506997

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.
  2. Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 3(1), 1-16. Ädel, A. (2003). The use of metadiscourse in argumentative texts by advanced learners and native speakers of English. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Göteborg University, Sweden. Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ädel, A. (2018). Variation in metadiscursive ‘you’ across genres: From research articles to teacher feedback. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 777-796.
  3. Akbas, E., & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge construction: A comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 831-859.
  4. Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 56-73). New York: Oxford University Press.
  5. Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What it is and how it is used in school and non-school social science texts (Report No: 273). Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report, University of Illinois. Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 279-296.
  6. 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.
  7. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11(1), 29-57.
  8. 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.
  9. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
  10. Gardner, S., & Han, C. (2018). Transitions of contrast in Chinese and English university student writing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 861-882.
  11. Gea Valor, M. L. (2000). A pragmat