A Metadiscourse Analysis over Interactive VS Interactional Resources within English Academic Articles in Arts and Humanities

Sahebkheir, Farnaz; Vosoughie, Marjan

doi:10.22049/jalda.2020.26823.1175

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

¹ Assistant Professor of TEFL, Department of English Language Teaching, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

² Assistant professor in TESOL, Department of English Language Teaching, Sabzevar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sabzevar, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2020.26823.1175

Abstract

In this article, researchers set out to discover the metadiscourse markers in research articles written by both native and non-native English speakers. To this end, a total number of twenty research articles published by Iranian and native English speakers in highly reputed journals on Arts and Humanities domains were randomly selected from major databases including Science Direct, Noormagz, and Magiran. Through Hylands’ Metadiscoursal model (2005), appraisals were accomplished on two main metadiscoursal aspects including interactive vs. interactional resources. The results revealed that interactive resources had the highest proportion in comparison with interactional resources with transitions being in the top list in both native and non-native articles considering different parts of the articles from abstract up to the conclusion part. From among interactional resources, in articles written by native English speakers, attitude markers and for the non-native ones, engagement markers had the least rates. In addition, Iranian scholars had used some markers e.g. ‘attitude markers’, and ‘hedges’ more than native English speakers. It can be included that students should be informed about a balanced use of the frequency and the percentage of different metadiscourse markers in English as a part of teaching writing or grammar in their research writing modules.

Keywords

20.1001.1.2383591.2020.8.1.14.8

Main Subjects

Discourse Studies

Article Title [Persian]

تحلیل فراگفتمانی منابع تعاملی در مقابل منابع ارتباطی در حوزه ها ی علوم انسانی

Authors [Persian]

دکتر فرناز صاحب خیر ¹
دکتر مرجان وثوقی ²

¹ دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تبریز

² دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد سبزوار

Abstract [Persian]

چکیده
در مقاله حاضر، محققان مبادرت به کشف و بررسی وجود نشانگرهای فراگفتمانی در نوشتار مقالات دانشگاهی در میان دو گروه از نویسندگان بومی ( انگلیسی زبان) و غیر بومی (فارسی زبان) کردند. برای این منظور، جمعا بیست مقاله منتشر شده توسط محققان حوزه های علوم انسانی در مجلات بسیار مشهور به صورت تصادفی از پایگاه داده های اطلاعاتی شامل Science Direct، Noormagz و Magiran انتخاب شده و تحلیل محتوایی برای کشف نشانگر های فراگفتمانی بر اساس مدل هایلند (2005)، بر روی دو رشته اصلی نشانگرها شامل منابع ارتباطی و تعاملی انجام شد. نتایج نشان داد که منابع ارتباطی(45.67٪) نسبت به منابع تعاملی بیشترین نسبت را در میان مقالات هر دو گروه گویندگان بومی و غیر بومی داشتند و تفاوت دو گروه در میان منابع تعاملی بیشتر رویت شد. در مقالات نوشته شده توسط محققان در محیط انگلیسی زبانان، نشانگرهای دیدگاهی (1.21٪) و برای فارسی زبانان، نشانگرهای دخلیل کننده (0.2٪) کمترین میزان را داشتند. در نهایت، گونه گونی دیگر نشانگر ها در هر دو پیکره دارای مفاهیم آسیب شناسانه دیگری بود که مورد بحث قرار گرفت.

Keywords [Persian]

گفتمان دانشگاهی
مخاطب
مهارت های نگارش مقاله
نشانگر های فراگفتمانی
مقالات تحقیقاتی

References

Abdi, R., Tavangar Rizi, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2009). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1669-1679.

Aboulalaei, M. H. (2019). Analyzing Iran Daily and US Today in terms of metadiscourse elements. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 7(2), 7-28.

Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2. John Benjamins Publishing.

Adel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1-11.

Ahmadian, M., & Rad, S. E. (2014). Postmethod era and glocalized language curriculum development: A fresh burden on language teachers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(3), 592-598

Akmajian, A., Farmer, A. K., Bickmore, L., Demers, R. A., & Harnish, R. M. (2017). Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication. MIT press.

Al-Zubeiry, H. A. (2019). Metadiscourse devices in English scientific research articles written by native and non- native speakers of English. International Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 46-61.

Babapour, M., & Kuhi, D. A. (2018). Contrastive study of stance-markers in opinion columns of English vs. Farsi newspapers. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 11(22), 23-53.

Boggs, G. L. (2015). Listening to 21st century literacies: Prehistory of writing in an academic discipline. Linguistics and Education 29, 15-31.

Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91, 923-939.

Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 149-181.

Clyne, M. (1991). The sociocultural dimension: The dilemma of the german-speaking scholar. In H. Shröder (Ed.), Subject-oriented texts: Languages for special purposes and text theory (pp. 49-67). Berlin: De Gruyter.

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, 39–71.

Cuenca, M. J., & Crible, L. (2019). Co-occurrence of discourse markers in English: From juxtaposition to composition. Journal of Pragmatics, 140, 171-184.

Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219-228). London: Routledge.

Eghtesadi, R. A., & Navidnia, H. (2009). A comparative study of metadiscourse use in research articles written by native and non-native speakers: Is audience taken into account? The journal of Asia TEFL, 6(3), 157-176.

Everett, D. L. (2012). Language: The cultural tool. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Faghih, E., & Mohseni, M. (2014). Contrastive analysis of metadiscourse markers used by non-native (Iranians) vs. native (Americans) speakers in developing ELT materials. Journal of Language and Translation, 4(1), 9-16.

Faghih, E., & Mousaee, A. (2015). English writing skill in terms of discourse markers in INTERPOL Electronic messages written by non-native and native police officers: A comparative and contrastive study. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(7), 10-23.

Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., Velasco-sacristan, M., Arribas-Bano, A., & Samaniego-Fernandez, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1307.

Gabarró-López, S. (2020). Are discourse markers related to age and educational background? A comparative account between two sign languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 68-82.

Gastel, B., & Day, R. A. (2016). How to write and publish a scientific paper. ABC-CLIO.

Gee, J. (2007). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Taylor and Francis.

Ghahremani-Ghajar, S., Mohammadi Doostdar, H., & Mirhosseini, S. A. (2012). We have been living with this pain: Enquiry-based language learning in Iranian higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(3), 269-281.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Haselow, A. (2019). Discourse marker sequences: Insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn production. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 1-18.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2015). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing 31, 58-69.

Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29.

Jalilfar, 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.

Jalilifar, A., Hayati, A. M., & Mashhadi, A. (2012). Evaluative strategies in Iranian and international research article introductions: Assessment of academic writing. Research in Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 81-109.

Jalilifar, A., Hayati, A. M., & Namdari, N. (2012). A comparative study of research article discussion sections of local and international applied linguistic journals. Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(1), 1-29.

Kahkesh, M., & Alipour, M. (2017). A comparative analysis of metadiscourse markers in the result and discussion sections of literature and Engineering research papers. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 9(Proceedings of the First International Conference on Language Focus), 71-82.

Kalajahi, S. A. R., & Abdullah, A. N. (2012). Perceptions of Iranian English language teachers towards the use of discourse markers in the EFL classroom. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 2(10), 2002-2010.

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, 1, 3-15.

Khazaee, H. (2012). Use of discourse markers by Iranian teachers of English as a foreign language. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(9), 8912-8917.

Kobayashi, Y. (2009). Profiling metadiscourse markers in native and non-Native English. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied linguistics, retrieved from: https://globalex.link/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Lexicon-39_001.pdf

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.

Martín-Laguna, S., & Alcón-Soler, E. (2018). Development of discourse-pragmatic markers in a multilingual classroom: A mixed method research approach. System, 75, 68-80.

Mashhady, H. (2016). Assessment of ESP students' writing performance: A translation-based approach. Teaching English Language, 10(2), 25-45.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A text linguistic study. Frankfort am Main: Peter Lang Publisher.

Mehrad, J., & Gazni, A. (2010). Scientific impact of Islamic nations. International Journal of Information Science and Management, 8(2), 39-56.

Mohammadi, A. N. (2019). Meaning potentials and discourse markers: The case of focus management markers in Persian. Lingua, 229, 102706, 1-17.

Mojibur Rahman, M. (2011). Genre-based writing instruction: Implications in ESP classroom. English for Specific Purposes World, 33(11), 1-9.

Rezaei, S., Estaji, M., & Hasanpour, M. (2015). Examining the interactional metadiscourse markers in Iranian MA Applied Linguistics theses. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 2(1), 71-43.

Sadeghi, E., & Tahririan, M. H. (2014). ESP courses for psychology and law tertiary level students: Attitudes, challenges needs and obstacles. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 2(2), 63-77.

Street, B. V. (2015). Academic writing: Theory and practice. Journal of Educational Issues, 1(2), 110-116.

Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93.

Zhang, M., Sun, W., Peng, H., Gan, Q., & Yu, B. (2017). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across spoken registers. Journal of Pragmatics, 117, 106-118.

A Metadiscourse Analysis over Interactive VS Interactional Resources within English Academic Articles in Arts and Humanities

References

References

Volume 8, Issue 1April 2020Pages 225-245

Volume 8, Issue 1
April 2020
Pages 225-245