Research Article Introductions and Disciplinary Influences Based on Interactive Metadiscourse Markers


1 Associate Professor in ELT ELT Department, Faculty of Humanities University of Mohaghegh Ardabili

2 ELT Instructor Payam Noor University, Ardabil Branch


Metadiscourse refers to the evolving text, to the writer, and to the imagined readers of that text. It is based on a view of writing as a social engagement. This study draws on an interpersonal model of metadiscourse to examine disciplinary influences on the use of interactive metadiscourse in research article introductions. The study examined the distributions of interactive metadiscourse markers in a corpus of 120 RAs representing four academic disciplines. Physics and medicine were selected from hard discipline, applied linguistics and Economics were selected from soft science to shed some light on the ways academic writers deploy these resources to persuade readers in their own discourse community. No statistically significant difference was found in the use of interactive metadiscourse markers across disciplines. The findings suggest how academic writers use language to offer an accurate representation of their work in different fields, and how metadiscourse can be seen as a means of uncovering something of the rhetorical and social distinctiveness of disciplinary communities. The findings are attributable to the knowledge-knower structures characteristic of the disciplines and the epistemologies underlying the research paradigms. These findings might have implications for the teaching of academic writing and for novice writers who would like to publish their research in academic journals.


Article Title [Persian]

مقدمه مقالات پژوهشی و تاثیرات بین رشته ای بر اساس فراکلام راهنمایی

Authors [Persian]

  • رضا عبدی 1
  • پریسا احمدی 2
1 دانشیار دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی
2 مربی آموزش زبان انگلیسی دانشگاه پیام نور واحد اردبیل
Abstract [Persian]

فراکلام به متن در حال پیدایش، نویسنده و مخاطبین احتمالی آن متن اشاره می کند و بر اساس دیدگاه مشغولیت و درگیری اجتماعی بنا شده است. این مطالعه از مدل بین فردی فراکلام جهت بررسی تاثیرات رشته ای فراکلام راهنمایی در بخش مقدمه مقالات تحقیقی استفاده می کند. در این مطالعه، توزیع فراکلام راهنمایی در مجموعه 120 مقاله تحقیقی از چهار رشته (30 مقاله از هر رشته ) مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. فیزیک و پزشکی از علوم سخت و آموزش زبان انگلیسی و اقتصاد از علوم انسانی جهت بررسی روش های مورد استفاده نویسندگان دانشگاهی در گونه تحقیقی سطح بپیشرفته برای ترغیب خوانندگان در جامعه زبانی خودشان انتخاب شدند. تفاوت آماری قابل ملاحظه ای در استفاده از فراکلام راهنمایی بین رشته ها به دست نیامد. تجزیه و تحلیل آماری نشان داد که نویسندگان دانشگاهی چگونه از زبان برای معرفی و ارائه آثارشان در رشته های مختلف استفاده می کنند و بنابراین چگونه فراکلام به عنوان وسیله ای برای نشان دادن تفاوت­های اجتماعی و بلاغی رشته]های مختلف علمی به کارمی رود. یافته های این تحقیق، ویژگی های رشته مورد نظر و چگونگی زیر ساختار و نحوه نوشتن این مقالات را نشان داد. این یافته ها برای تدریس نوشتار دانشگاهی و همچنین نویسندگان کم تجربه­تر که قصد چاپ مقاله در مجلات معتبر را دارند، موثر می باشد.

Keywords [Persian]

  • نوشتار دانشگاهی
  • تجزیه و تحلیل گونه نوشتاری
  • فراکلام راهنمایی
  • فراکلام
  • مقالات تحقیقی
Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse׃ An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.

Abdi, R. (2009). Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking: A comparison of Persian and English research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 52(212), 1-15.

Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles; A study of the differences across subsections. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(1), 1-16.

Abdi, R., Tavangar Rizi, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1669-1679.

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia׃ John Benjamins.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories׃ Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes׃ The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 279-296.

Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers׃ Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York׃ Peter Lang Publishers.

Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The Writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 36-118). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

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.

Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion׃ A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Farrokhi, F., & Ashrafi, S. (2009). Textual metadiscourse resources in research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 52, 39-75.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Harris, R. A. (1991). Rhetoric of science. College English, 53(3), 282-307.

Harwood, N. (2005). Nowhere has anyone attempted…In this article I aim to do just that: A corpus based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1207-1231.

Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge.

Hyland, K., (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 124-157

Hyland, K., (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses׃ Social interactions in academic writing. London׃ Pearson.

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. London׃ Continuum.

Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1, 1-12.

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

Jalilifar, A. R., & Shooshtari, Z. G. (2011).  Metadiscourse awareness and ESAP comprehension. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), xx-xx.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric׃ Metatext in Finnish-English Economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.

Myles, J. (2002) Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language 6(2), 1-20.

Paltridge, B. (1994). Genre analysis and the identification of textual boundaries. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 288-299.

Rahman, M. (2004). Aiding the reader: The use of metalinguistic devices in scientific discourse. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 18, 30-48.

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 13, 149-179.

Salager-Meyer, F. (1998). Language is not a physical object. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 295-302.

Salager-Meyer, F. (1999). Referential behavior in scientific writing: A diachronic study. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 279-305.

Svalberg, A. M-L. (2007). Language awareness and language learning. Language Teaching, 40(4), 287-308.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis׃ English for specific purpose in academic and research setting. New York׃ Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. (2001). Metatalk in American Academic Talk. Journal of English Linguistics 29, 34-54.

Thetela, P. (1997). Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 101-118.

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.

Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping׃ The management of Interaction in written discourse. TEXT, 15(1), 103-127.

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

Vande Kopple, W. J. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In F. Bar-ton, & C. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition, (pp. 91-113). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Ventola, E., & Mauranen, A. (1991). ‘Non-native writing and native revisiting of scientific articles’. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics (pp. 475-492). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Communication and community: the pragmatics of ESP. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 3-11.