1 Assistant Professor at Sharif University of Technology

2 Assistant Professor at Allameh Tabataba’i University

3 MA Student at Khatam University, Tehran


One of the most salient written academic outputs a university student has the opportunity to create is a thesis which is regarded as “a complex student-produced research genre” (Lee & Casal, 2014). In order to compare the rhetorical features and preferences of distinct discourse communities and evaluate academic writing, a special and long-term attention, on the part of the writers, is required for analyzing the metadiscourse features of the texts (Hyland, 2004). To this end, the present study examined the differences in the use, type, and frequency of interactional metadiscourse markers in theses written by M.A. applied linguistics graduates including 10 males and 10 females from Sharif University of Technology in Tehran. The selected corpus was analyzed using Hyland’s (2005) interactional model of metadiscourse. The data were explored through a manual corpus analysis method using Adobe PDF reader software. Moreover, a Chi-Square statistical measure was run to examine whether there were any significant differences in the use of metadiscourse markers in different thesis chapters and across different genders. The results revealed that although there were some subtle differences in the frequency and types of these metadiscourse markers, there was no statistically significant difference between two genders in the use of interactional metadiscourse markers. Besides, it was concluded that there was a significant relationship between the chapters of theses and the use of metadiscourse markers. The findings of this study render some pedagogical implications for writing courses at M.A. and PhD levels in the realms of TEFL and ESP.


Crismore, A., Markakanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2007). 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.
Estaji, M., & Vafaeimehr, R. (2015). A comparative analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in the introduction and conclusion sections of mechanical and electrical engineering research papers. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3(1), 37-56.
Gray, J. (1998). Mars and Venus on a date: A guide for navigating the five stages of dating to create a loving and lasting relationship. New York: HarperCollins.
Harris, Z. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(1), 27-29.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(1), 437-455.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 133–151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London & New York: Continuum.
Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2015). ‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 1-22.
Kopple, V. W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
Kuhi, D., Sorayyaei Azar, A., Shomoossi, A., & Shomoossi, N. (2012). Interaction markers in the written output of learners of English: The case of gender. Journal of Education, 1(2), 79-90.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper and Rowe.
Lee, J., & Casal, J. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46(1), 39-54.
Mao, L. (1993). I conclude not: Toward a pragmatic account of metadiscourse. Rhetoric Review,11(2), 265-289.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 3-22.
Meyer, B. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta‐talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3), 199-236.
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, P. (2013). Thesis and dissertation writing. The handbook of English for specific purposes. West Essex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Boston: Scott Foressman.