Metadiscourse Markers in Scientific Journal Articles

Veronica Esti Nugrahani; Barli Bram

doi:10.31332/lkw.v6i1.1528

Metadiscourse Markers in Scientific Journal Articles

Veronica Esti Nugrahani, Barli Bram

Abstract

This paper aimed to investigate the use of metadiscourse markers in scientific journal articles. Data of this qualitative research consisted of metadiscourse markers collected from eight journal articles of a special edition published by LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching. The collected metadiscourse markers used in the journal articles were analyzed using discourse analysis based on ten metadiscourse marker categories. Results showed that the analysed journal articles contained 708 metadiscourse markers, with more interactive metadiscourse markers, reaching 529 occurrences, than interactional metadiscourse markers, occurring 179 times. Transitions, such as “but” and “thus”, with 249 occurrences, were the most frequently-used metadiscourse marker and boosters, such as “in fact” and “definitely”, with 24 occurrences, were the least productive marker. Thus, readers can gain a better understanding of the use of metadiscourse markers when using English. It is expected that English language learners and instructors can benefit from the results of this study, particularly concerning the use of metadiscourse markers in academic writing.

Keywords

interactive metadiscourse marker; interactional metadiscourse marker; scientific journal article; academic writing

Full Text:

PDF

References

Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101

Akbarpour, M., & Sadeghoghli, H. (2015). The study on Ken Hyland’s interactional model in OUP publications. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(4), 266–270. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20150304.21

Alyousef, H. S. (2015). An investigation of metadiscourse features in international postgraduate business students’ texts: The use of interactive and interactional markers in tertiary multimodal finance texts. SAGE Open, 5(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015610796

Andang, K., & Bram, B. (2018). Swear words and their implications for English language learning-teaching. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 21(Suppl), 43–49.

Attarn, A. (2014). Study of metadiscourse in ESP articles: A comparison of English articles written by Iranian and English native speakers. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 5(1), 63–71.

Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. In Written Communication (Vol. 31). https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055

Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers. Kalbų Studijos, (5), 60–67. Retrieved from https://www.kalbos.lt/zurnalai/05_numeris/08.pdf

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. & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 118–136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. In Written Communication (Vol. 10). https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002

Dafouz-Milne, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing through professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de La Universidad Complutense, 11, 29–52. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_EIUC.2003.v11.8792

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.

Febriyanti, R., Inderawati, R., & Fiftinova, F. (2018). Enhancing descriptive writing achievement by applying process approach through environmental observation. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 21(Suppl), 21–32.

Gee, J.P., & Handford, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. New York: Routledge.

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 Mehrnaz. European Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 1–41.

Hadiyanti, K., & Widya, W. (2018). Analyzing the values and effects of powerpoint presentations. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 21(Suppl), 87–95.

Harris, Z. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language, 28, 1–30.

Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001

Huh, M. H., & Lee, I. H. (2016). On the use of metadiscourse in EFL undergraduate student writing. English Teaching, 71(3), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.71.3.201609.99

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.

Indraswari, V., & Kuswandono, P. (2018). English teachers’ motivation and challenges in vocational high school in Yogyakarta. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 21(Suppl), 96–104. Retrieved from https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT/article/view/1197

Jorgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage Publication.

Khedri, M., & Kritsis, K. (2018). Metadiscourse in applied linguistics and chemistry research article introductions. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 47–73.

Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S. F. & Chan, S. H. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319–331.

Kim, C.L., & Lim, J. M. H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129–146.

Kurniasari, M., & Mbato, C. (2018). Indonesian students’ language attitudes towards Indonesian and English through education and working frame. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 21(Suppl), 69–86. Retrieved from https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT/article/view/1184

Lee, J. J., & Subtirelu, N. C. (2015). Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 52–62.

Lee, J.J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46, 39–54.

Lee, J.J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21–34.

Li, T., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 345–356.

Mina, K.G., & Biria, R. (2017). Exploring interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in discussion sections of social and medical science articles. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(4), 11–29.

Mirshamsi, A. & Allami, H. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master’s theses. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 5(3), 23–40.

Mu, C., Zhang, L.J., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135–148.

Noorian, M., & Biria, R. (2017). Interpersonal metadiscourse in persuasive journalism: A study of texts by American and Iranian EFL columnists. Journal of Modern Languages, 20(1), 64–79.

Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis: An introduction (2nd ed). New York: Bloomsbury.

Pratiwi, S., & Triprihatmini, V. (2018). Students’ perception on the use of video to assess performances in public speaking class. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 21(Suppl), 33–42. Retrieved from https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT/article/view/1177

Rezaie, M., & Lashkarian, A. (2015). The use of metadiscourse markers in TESOL and medical research articles. International Journal of English and Education, 4(4), 345–356.

Simin, S., & Tavangar, M. (2009). Metadiscourse knowledge and use in Iranian EFL writing. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(1), 230–255.

Sultan, A. H. J. (2011). A contrastive study of metadiscourse in English and Arabic linguistics research articles. Acta Linguistica, 5, 28–41.

Tanjung, F. (2018). Language learning strategies in English as a foreign language classroom in Indonesian higher education context. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 21(Suppl), 50–68. Retrieved from https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT/article/view/966

Tannen, D., Hamilton, H.E., & Schiffrin, D. (Ed.). (2015). The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Thompson, P. (2013). Thesis and dissertation writing. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Ed.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 283–299). West Essex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36–62.

Wang, L., & Zhang, Y. (2016). An analysis of metadiscourse in the abstracts of English academic papers. Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 16(9), 9–16.

Wulandari, A., & Ena, O. (2018). Using debate activities to develop Indonesian high school students’ speaking skills. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 21(Suppl), 12–20. Retrieved from https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT/article/view/1168

Yazdani, A. (2017). Comparing metadiscourse markers employed in English and Persian online headlines. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 6(4), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2016.1554

Yuksel, H.G., & Kavanoz, S. (2018). Dimension of experience: Metadiscourse in the texts of novice non-native, novice native and expert native speaker. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(3), 104–112.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31332/lkw.v6i1.1528

Copyright (c) 2020 Veronica Esti Nugrahani, Barli Bram