Document Type : research paper
Authors
1 Imam Khomeini International University, Department of English Language, Faculty of Humanities,
2 Imam Khomeini international University
Abstract
In the last few decades, the interpersonal aspect of academic writing has been stressed in English for academic purposes (EAP). This corpus-based study has focused on cross-cultural and cross-contextual analysis of engagement markers in English Physics research articles (RA) written by American English writers publishing in English-medium international journals; Persian writers publishing in international English-medium journals; and Persian writers publishing in English-medium national journals. Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal model was used as the analytical framework. The analysis is based on a corpus of 240 RAs in two subsections: introductions and conclusions. The computer programme AntConc was used to analyse the data, and the engagement markers were textually examined for the various functions and uses they served in the introductions and conclusions. Results of data analyses showed differences in the overall frequency of engagement markers among the three sub-corpora. However, although American academics and internationally published Persian academics’ metadiscoursal preferences are relatively similar, Persian writers seem to be affected by cultural preferences when making their engagement choices. This implies that the linguistic background of writers in addition to the cultural contexts of publication seems to direct scholars’ rhetorical patterns when writing their RAs. Results of the current study help novice and international Physics scholars, particularly Iranian academics, to at least partially meet the disciplinary conventions of the journal they submit their manuscripts. Moreover, EAP teachers can benefit from the results to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the needs of EAP learners.
Keywords
Abdelrahim, A. A., & Abdelrahim, M. A. (2020). Teaching and assessing metadiscoursal features in argumentative writing: A professional development training for EFL teachers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 70-91.
Abdi, R., (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse as an indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288-297.
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins.
Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97.
Ädel, A. (2017). Remember that your reader cannot read your mind: Problem/solution-oriented metadiscourse in teacher feedback on student writing. English for Specific Purposes, 45(1), 54-68.
Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010).Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1–11.
Alkhathlan, M. (2019). Metadiscourse in academic writing: An investigation of Saudi EFL students' research articles. Linguistics and Literature Studies, 7(5), 220-225.
Al-Zubeiry, H. A., & Al-Baha, K. S. 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.
Anthony, L. (2018). AntConc (version3.2.4) [computer software]. Waseda University.
Beauvais, P. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 6(1), 11-30.
Bloch, J. & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 231-274). Ablex.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. Peter Lang.
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.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.
Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Multilingual Matters.
Del Saz Rubio, M. M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258-271.
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139.
Harris, Z. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(1), 7-29.
Harwood, N. (2006). (In)appropriate personal pronoun use in political science: A qualitative study and a proposed heuristic for future research. Written Communication, 23(4), 424-450.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor, & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-152). Addison Wesley.
Ho, V. (2018). Using metadiscourse in making persuasive attempts through workplace request emails. Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 70-81.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 113–122.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39(3), 12-25.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied linguistics, 23(2), 215-239.
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. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
Hyland, K. (2011). Projecting an academic identity in some reflective genres. Ibérica, 21, 9-30.
Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic discourse. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2015). Metadiscourse. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 998-1006). John Wiley & Sons,Inc.
Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31(1), 58-69.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113(3), 16-29.
Hyland, K. (I998). Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-55.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). “We must conclude that…”: A diachronic study of academic Engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 29-42.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). In this paper we suggest: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Jiang F., & Hyland, K. (2016). Nouns and academic interactions: A neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 1–25.
Jiang, F. K., & Ma, X. (2018). As we can see: Reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 1-15.
Khedri, M., & Kritsis, K. (2018). Metadiscourse in applied linguistics and Chemistry research article introductions. Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 47-73.
Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146.
Lafuente-Millán, E. (2014). Reader engagement across cultures, languages and contexts of publication in business research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24, 201–223.
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(1), 52-62.
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.
Li, Z., & Xu, J. (2020). Reflexive metadiscourse in Chinese and English sociology research article introductions and discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 159, 47-59.
Malmir, B., Khany, R., & Aliakbari, M. (2019). Journal article highlights in applied linguistics: An exploration into the rhetorical moves and their lexico-grammatical features. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 49-63.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22.
Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse reflexivity—a discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 13–40.
Mozayan, M. R., Allami, H., & Fazilatfar, A. M. (2018). Metadiscourse features in medical research articles: Subdisciplinary and paradigmatic influences in English and Persian. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 83-104.
Mu, C., Zhang, L. G., 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.
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2008) Analysing engagement markers cross-culturally: the case of English and Spanish business management research articles In S. Burgess and P. Martín Martín (eds.): English as an additional language in research publication and communication (197–213). Peter Lang.
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068–3079.
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2016). Modal hedging verbs in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Business Management research articles. Kalbotyra, 69, 153-178.
Musa, A., Hussin, S., & Ho, I. A. (2019). Interaction in academic L2 writing: An analysis of interactional metadiscourse strategies in applied linguistics research articles. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 25(3), 16-32.
Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 25-38.
Qin, W. & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139(1), 22-39.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.
Shafique, H., Shahbaz, M., & Hafeez, M. R. (2019). Metadiscourse in research writing: A study of native English and Pakistani research articles. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(4), 376-385.
Shaw, P., & Liu, E. (1998). What develops in the development of second language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 225-254.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, S. E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for academic purposes, 2(1), 5-20.
Validi, M., Jalilifar, A., G Shooshtari, Z., & Hayati, A. (2016). Medical research article introductions in Persian and English contexts: Rhetorical and metadiscoursal differences. Research in Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 73-98.
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College composition and communication, 36, 82–93.
Vande Kopple, W. (1988). Metadiscourse and the recall of modality markers. Visible Language, 22, 233–272.
Vande Kopple, W. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton, & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 91-113). Hampton Press.
Xu, H. (2001). Metadiscourse: A Cross-cultural perspective. Southeast University Press.
Yin, Z., & Parkinson, J. (2021). Critical review of literature: the case of the news and views genre. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 00972. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100972
Zhang, M., Sun, W., Peng, H., Gan, Q., & Yu, B. (2017). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across spoken registers. Journal of Pragmatics, 117(1), 106-118.
)