Transitions and Hedges: the Preferred Metadiscourse Markers in Research Articles across English Varieties and Disciplines
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14456/bej.2024.15Keywords:
metadiscourse markers, interactive markers, cross-disciplinary MDMs, interactional markers, linguistic variationsAbstract
This study examines the use of metadiscourse markers (MDMs) in the Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections of Research Articles (RAs) across social sciences, linguistics, and business disciplines in Philippine English, American English, and Chinese English. Analyzing 90 electronic RAs using Yang and Allison's (2003) model for moves and steps and Hyland's (2005) model for MDMs with AntConc software, the study found that transitional markers were the most common interactive markers, while hedges were the most frequent interactional markers. Significant differences in MDM usage were observed across disciplines and English varieties, with social science authors and Philippine English RAs showing higher MDM usage. Interactional MDMs varied: Chinese English authors preferred boosters (e.g., always, definitely) and hedges (e.g., could, perhaps) in social sciences, Philippine English authors in linguistics, and American English authors in business. Our study on metadiscourse markers provides cross-cultural insights, reveals disciplinary variations, compares MDM usage across English varieties, and informs targeted academic writing instruction to enhance communication in diverse settings.
References
Abdi, R. (2010). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(1),1-16.
Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc 3.4.3 [Computer software]. http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html.
Ashofteh, Z., Elahi Shirvan, M., & Golparvar, S. E. (2020). The move structure of abstracts in applied linguistics research articles in light of the distribution and functions of metadiscourse markers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(4), 2077-2096. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.851035
Birhan, A.T. (2021). An exploration of metadiscourse usage in book review articles across three academic disciplines: a contrastive analysis of corpus-based research approach. Scientometrics. 126, 2885-2902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03822-w.
Bellés-Fortuño, B., Bellés-Calvera, L., & Martínez-Hernández, A.-I. (Eds.). (2023). New trends on metadiscourse: An analysis of online and textual genres. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36690-1
Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers. Studies about Linguistics, 5(1), 1-7.
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993) Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
Gai, F.H., & Wang, Y. (2022) Correlated metadiscourse and metacognition in writing research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-cultural study. Frontiers in Psychology.13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1026554.
Gustilo, L., Comillo, M. I., Valle, A., & Comillo, R. (2021). Managing readers’ impressions of research article abstracts through metadiscourse. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 392-406. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i2.34255.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R.B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of second language text (pp. 141-152). Newbury House.
Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281.
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
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 (1st ed.).Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics. 113, 16-29.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F.K. (2018). In this paper we suggest: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Jin, X., & Shang, Y. (2016). Analyzing metadiscourse in the English abstracts of BA Theses. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(1), 210-215.
Khedri, M., Heng, C. S., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article results and discussion sections. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(1), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2013-1901-05
Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 97-109.
Livingstone, K. A. (2019). Examining the use of metadiscourse markers in academic writing. International Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics, 5(3), 244-254.
Noor, R. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric in expository prose: Approaches and achievements. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 255-269.
Pearson, W. S., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2023). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A systematic review. Lingua, 293, 103561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103561.
Ren, W., & Wang, L. (2023). A corpus-based study of metadiscourse features in Chinese-English simultaneous interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1269669. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1269669
Sun, Y. (2024). The use of interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A corpus-based case study of astronautics. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 14(2), 119-130.
Taboada, M. (2006). Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(4), 567-592.
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
Wei, J. (2024a). Metadiscourse research: Theoretical frameworks and empirical studies in China. In B. Bellés-Fortuño, L. Bellés-Calvera, & A.-I. Martínez- Hernández (Eds.), New trends on metadiscourse: An analysis of online and textual genres (pp. 23-48). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2328-7_3.
Wei, J. (2024b). Metadiscourse research: Different approaches and perspectives. In Tracking interaction in Chinese scholars’ academic writing (pp. 7-22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2328-7_2
Wei, J., Li, Y., Zhou, T., & Gong, Z. (2016). Studies on metadiscourse since the 3rd millennium. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 194-204.
Wongsa, J., Chuenchaichon, Y., & Suwannasom, T. (2024). A comparison of metadiscourse markers used in English research article introduction and literature review sections across two disciplines. Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences), 17(1), 74-88. https://doi.org/10.14456/jcdr-hs.2024.5
Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003) Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385.
Zali, M., Rahman, N.A.A., Mat, A.C., & Ana. (2023). Metadiscourse (MD) studies in second language writings (L2): A systematic review of literature. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(4), 291-306
Zarei, G., & Mansoori, S. (2011). Contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in Humanities vs. Non-Humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 42-50.
Zhu, Y., & Gocheco, P. (2014). A contrastive study on the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of the introduction section in the English L1 and Chinese L2 research articles. Philippine ESL Journal, 12, 71-108.
