Comparative analysis of interactional metadiscursive resources in academic writing by L2 and L1 English writers

Musa Al-Mudhaffari, Supyan Hussin, Imran Ho Abdullah

Abstract


Interactional Metadicursive Resources (IMRs) are established as the most common rhetorical features that assist writers in achieving interaction with the discourse community. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of IMRs in research articles (RAs) authored by Yemeni L2 writers and L1 English writers, while also examining the extent to which both groups employ these resources to achieve persuasive purposes. Based on Hyland’s (2019) model, AntConc was used as an analytical tool in a corpus-based methodology to analyze the use of IMRs in their context of use, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Moreover, Swales’ models were adapted to identify rhetorical moves in the different sections of RAs. The findings indicate that L1 writers tended to use IMRs more frequently and effectively to pursue ethos and pathos. However, Yemeni L2 writers tended to use IMRs sparingly, lacking familiarity with their persuasive role. L1 writers tended to express epistemic and affective stances and used these resources throughout their research, while Yemeni L2 writers tended to focus more on propositional content, using limited IMRs in their writing. Furthermore, unlike L1 English writers, who tended to negotiate their claims in the RA introduction and engage their audience in the RA conclusion, Yemeni L2 writers almost exclusively strengthened their line of argument when initiating and concluding their research. The study concludes by discussing the pedagogical implications of the effective use of IMRs in L2 academic writing.

Keywords


genre analysis; interactional metadiscourse; L1 and L2 academic writing; persuasive appeals

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Series: Studies in corpus linguistics (Vol. 24). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24

Al-Mudhaffari, M., & Hussin, S. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse strategies in academic discourse: An analysis of research articles produced by Arab writers. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 28(1), 35-52.

Al-Zubeiry, H. Y. A. (2023). Stance-marking of interaction in research articles written by non-native speakers of English: An analytical study. Studies in English Language and Education, 10(1), 235-250. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i1.26648

Ashofteh, Z., Shirvan, M. E., & 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

Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055

Azar, A. S., Hassaram, P., Farook, F. I. M., & Romli, N. H. (2022). A comparative analysis of stance features in research article introductions: Malaysian and English authors. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 22(2), 261-287. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2202-14

Bajwa, N. u. H., Langer, M., König, C. J., & Honecker, H. (2019). What might get published in management and applied psychology? Experimentally manipulating implicit expectations of reviewers regarding hedges. Scientometrics, 120(3), 1351-1371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03164-2

Bal-Gezegin, B., & Baş, M. (2020). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of research articles and book reviews. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.710204

Can, T., & Cangır, H. (2019). A corpus-assisted comparative analysis of self-mention markers in doctoral dissertations of literary studies written in Turkey and the UK. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 100796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100796

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002

Deng, L., Fatemeh, B., & Gao, X. (2021). Exploring the interactive and interactional metadiscourse in doctoral dissertation writing: A diachronic study. Scientometrics, 126(8), 7223-7250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04064-0

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2021). Engaging with the reader in research articles in English: Variation across disciplines and linguacultural backgrounds. English for Specific Purposes, 63, 18-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.02.003

Ghahraman, V., Karlsson, M., Kazemi, A., Saeedi, S., & Elhami, A. (2023). On the functions of hedging in research articles (RAs): A study on RA discussions. International Journal of Language Studies, 17(January), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7513381

Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1), 29-53.

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

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365

Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: Across-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004

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(4), 345-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004

Loi, C. K., & Lim, J. M. H. (2019). Hedging in the discussion sections of English and Malay educational research articles. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 19(1), 36-61. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1901-03

Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A textlinguistic study. Peter Lang.

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(2015), 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003

Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1

Swales, J. (1985). English language papers and authors’ first language: Preliminary explorations. Scientometrics, 8(1-2), 91-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02025223

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, G. (2008). Ken Hyland, Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Language in Society, 37(1), 138-141. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404508080111

Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609

Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001

Zhang, M. (2019). Exploring personal metadiscourse markers across speech and writing using cluster analysis. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 26(4), 267-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2018.1480856




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v11i2.35456

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


View Journal Stats