Interactional metadiscourse markers in scientific texts (based on research articles written by native and non-native speakers)

Бесплатный доступ

The present research investigated textual representations of writer-reader interaction in academic writing. The focus of the study was on the use of metadiscourse markers, i.e., stance and engagement markers, in applied linguistics research articles (RAs) published in English and Persian, the former written by Persian and English-speaking researchers, and the latter by Persian-speaking researchers. A cross-cultural analysis of RAs revealed similarities and differences in how academic writers express their stance and interact with their readers. Among the stance markers, hedging devices were found to be more frequently used in English RAs for expressing the authors’ position, regardless of their native language. Persian RAs, on the other hand, predominantlyused attitude markers for that purpose. In terms of the engagement markers, directives were the most prominent linguistic features employed by the writers in their native language. However, theywere significantly less frequent in English RAs written by Iranian scholars. Compared to native English writers, Iranian writers showed a slightly stronger tendency to use reader pronouns and personal asides in their native language. This study reinforces the impact of the writers’ linguistic and contextual awareness of the first- and second-language academic discourse conventions on the establishment of a successful writer-reader interaction and effective communication of arguments in academic writing.


Metadiscourse, academic writing, research article, academic discourse, writer, reader, english, persian

Короткий адрес:

IDR: 149140561   |   DOI: 10.15688/jvolsu2.2022.4.7

Список литературы Interactional metadiscourse markers in scientific texts (based on research articles written by native and non-native speakers)

  • Abdi R., 2002. Interpersonal Metadiscourse: An Indicator of Interaction and Identity. Discourse Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 139-145. DOI: 10.1177/ 14614456020040020101
  • Akbas E., 2014. Are They Discussing in the Same Way? Interactional Metadiscourse in Turkish Writers' Texts. Jyda A., Warchai K., eds. Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-Culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research. Cham, Springer International Publishing, pp. 119-133. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-02526-1_8
  • Alghazo S., Al Salem M.N., Alrashdan I., 2021. Stance and Engagement in English and Arabic Research Article Abstracts. System, vol. 103, 102681. DOI: 10.1016/j. system.2021.102681
  • Ansarin A.A., Tarlani Aliabdi H., 2011. Reader Engagement in English and Persian Applied Linguistics Articles. English Language Teaching, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 154-164. DOI: 10.5539/ elt.v4n4p154
  • Anthony L., 2020. AntConc (3.5.9) (Computer Software). S. l., Waseda University. URL: https:// www.
  • Basturkmen H., 2012. A Genre-Based Investigation of Discussion Sections of Research Articles in Dentistry and Disciplinary Variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 134-144. DOI: 10.1016/ j.jeap.2011.10.004
  • Candlin C.N., Hyland K., 2014. Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices. London, Routledge. 344 p.
  • Cargill M., O'Connor P., 2013. Writing Scientific Research Articles: Strategy and Steps. S. l., Wiley-Blackwell. 240 p.
  • 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, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 39-71. DOI: 10.1177/ 0741088393010001002
  • Dudley-Evans T., 1994. Genre Analysis: An Approach to Text Analysis for ESP. Coulthard M., ed. Advances in Written Text Analysis. London, Routledge, pp. 219-228.
  • Ebadi S., Salman Rawdhan A., Ebrahimi Marjal B., 2015. A Comparative Study of the Use of Metadicourse Markers in Persian and English Academic Papers. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 28-41.
  • Esmaalizade S., Sahraee R.M., 2015. A Comparison and Investigation of Frequency and Method of Interaction Between the Writer and the Reader in Persian & English Teaching Texts. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, vol.7, no. 1, pp. 119-143. DOI: 10.7508/ isih.2015.25.005
  • Flmttum K., Kinn T., Dahl T., 2006. "We Now Report On" Versus "Let Us Now See How": Author Roles and Interaction with Readers in Research Articles. Hyland K., Bondi M., eds. Academic Discourse Across Disciplines. Bern, Peter Lang, p. 320.
  • Halliday M.A.K., 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London, Edward Arnold.
  • Halliday M.A.K., 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London, Edward Arnold. 256 p.
  • Halliday M.A.K., 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London, Edward Arnold.
  • Hashemi M.R., Hosseini H., 2019. Stance and Culture: A Comparative Study of English and Persian Authorial Stance in Applied Linguistics Research Articles. Advanced Education, no. 12, pp. 21-27.
  • Hirano E., 2009. Research Article Introductions in English for Specific Purposes: A Comparison Between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 240-250. DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2009.02.001
  • Hopkins A., Dudley-Evans T., 1988. A Genre-Based Investigation of the Discussion Sections in Articles and Dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 113-121.
  • Hyland K., 1994. Hedging in Academic Writing and EAF Textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 239-256. DOI: 10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3
  • Hyland K., 2000. Hedges, Boosters and Lexical Invisibility: Noticing Modifiers in Academic Texts. Language Awareness, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 179-197. DOI: 10.1080/09658410008667145
  • Hyland K., 2001. Bringing in the Reader: Addressee Features in Academic Articles. Written Communication, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 549-574. DOI: 10.1177/0741088301018004005
  • Hyland K., 2005. Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 173-192. DOI: 10.1177/ 1461445605050365
  • Hyland K., 2015. Metadiscourse. Tracy K., Ilie C., Sandel T., eds. The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. S. l., Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 997-1006. DOI: 10.1002/ 9781118611463.wbielsi003
  • Hyland K., 2018. The Essential Hyland: Studies in Applied Linguistics. London, Bloomsbury Academic. 520 p.
  • Hyland K., 2019. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, Bloomsbury Publishing.
  • Hyland K., Milton J., 1997. Qualification and Certainty in L1 and L2 Students' Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 183-205.
  • Jalilifar A., 2011. World of Attitudes in Research Article Discussion Sections: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ), vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 81-90. DOI: 10.22061/ tej.2011.281
  • Karimi K., Maleki M., Farnia M., 2017. Metadiscourse Markers in the Abstract Sections of Persian and English Law Articles. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, vol. 5, no. 18, pp. 69-83.
  • Keshavarz M.H., 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, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 3-15.
  • Kochetova L.A., Ilyinova E.Y., 2020. Angloyazychnyy akademicheskiy diskurs v translingval'noy situatsii: korpusno-orientirovannoe izuchenie leksicheskikh markerov [English Academic Discourse in Translinguistic Context: Corpus Based Study of Lexical Markers]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie [Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics], 2020, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 25-37. DOI:
  • Kochetova L.A., Kononova I.V., 2018. Corpus-Based Contrastive Study of Discursive Strategy of Construing Interpersonal Relations in English Language Academic Discourse. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanitites and Social Sciences, 15 (10), pp. 1-11. DOI: 10.17516/ 1997-1370-0353
  • Le T.N.P., Harrington M., 2015. Phraseology Used to Comment on Results in the Discussion Section of Applied Linguistics Quantitative Research Articles. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 39, pp. 45-61. DOI: b10.1016/ j.esp.2015.03.003
  • Leki I., Carson J., 1997. "Completely Different Worlds": EAP and the Writing Experiences of ESL Students in University Courses. Tesol Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 39-69. DOI: 10.2307/3587974
  • Ma C., 2021. Stance and Engagement in Scientific Research Articles. Doctoral Dissertation. Florida, s. n. 166 p.
  • Marefat H., Mohammadzadeh S., 2013. Genre Analysis of Literature Research Article Abstracts: A Cross-Linguistic, Cross-Cultural Study. Applied Research on English Language, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 37-50. DOI: 10.22108/are.2013.15469
  • Mur Duecas P., 2009. Logical Markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business Research Articles. English Text Construction, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 246-264. DOI: 10.1075/etc.2.2.07mur
  • Peacock M., 2002. Communicative Moves in the Discussion Section of Research Articles. System, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 479-497. DOI: 10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7
  • Pourmohammdi M., Kuhi D., 2016. A Comparative Analysis of Self-Mentions in Applied Linguistics PhD Dissertations Written by Native and Non-Native English Writers. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 109-124.
  • Ruiying Y., Allison D., 2003. Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from Results to Conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 365-385.
  • Schiffrin D., 1980. Metatalk: Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse. Sociological Inquiry, vol. 50, no. 34, pp. 199-236. DOI: 10.1111/ j.1475-682X.1980.tb00021.x
  • Sultan A.H.J., 2011. A Contrastive Study of Metadiscourse in English and Arabic Linguistics Research Articles. Acta Linguistica, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 28-41.
  • Tahririan M.H., Jalilfar A.R., 2004. Generic Analysis of Thesis and Dissertation Abstracts: Variation Across Cultures. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 121-143.
  • Taki S., Jafarpour F., 2012. Engagement and Stance in Academic Writing: A Study of English and Persian Research Articles. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 157-168.
  • Thompson G., Hunston S., 2001. Evaluation: An Introduction. Thompson G., Hunston S., eds. Evaluation in Text. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-26.
  • Vande Kopple W.J., 1985. Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 82-93. DOI: 10.2307/357609
  • White P.R.R., 2003. Beyond Modality and Hedging: A Dialogic View of the Language of Intersubjective Stance. Text & Talk, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 259-284. DOI: 10.1515/text.2003.011
  • Yang W., 2014. Stance and Engagement: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Academic Spoken Discourse Across Science Domains. LSP Journal -Language for Special Purposes, Professional Communication, Knowledge Management and Cognition, vol. 5, no. 1. Yazdani S., Sharifi S., Elyassi M., 2014. Interactional Metadiscourse in English and Persian News Articles About 9/11. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 428-434. DOI: 10.4304/tpls.4.2.428-434
  • Zhang Y., 2018. Exploring EFL Learners' Self-Efficacy in Academic Writing Based on Process-Genre Approach. English Language Teaching, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 115-124.
Статья научная