Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of research articles and book reviews

Year 2020, Volume: 6 Issue: 1, 45 - 62, 27.03.2020

Betül Bal Gezegin , Melike Bas

https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.710204

Cited By: 7

Abstract

The aim of this comparative study is to investigate the deployment of interactional metadiscourse features in two different academic genres. For this purpose, a small, specialized corpus of 48 research articles and book reviews from seven different disciplines were collected. The conclusion sections of the texts written by non-native speakers of English were investigated to find out how interactional metadiscourse features were used. Drawing on previous metadiscourse frameworks, hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers were identified in both sub-corpora. The results indicated significant differences across the groups on how writers constructed their authorial stance with interactional metadiscourse markers. Findings revealed that by using a rich number and variety of attitude markers, book reviewers were more evaluative in their conclusions. On the contrary, higher use of hedges in research articles allowed the authors sound more cautious in their commitment to the propositions. This study offers a detailed account of interactional metadiscourse in these two genres and illustrates how interpersonal function of language is accomplished for particular purposes in different academic texts.

Keywords

Book review; corpus; genre; metadiscourse; research articles

References

• Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.
• Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 3(1), 1-16.
• Ädel, A. (2003). The use of metadiscourse in argumentative texts by advanced learners and native speakers of English. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Göteborg University, Sweden.
• Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Ädel, A. (2018). Variation in metadiscursive ‘you’ across genres: From research articles to teacher feedback. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 777-796.
• Akbas, E., & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge construction: A comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 831-859.
• Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 56-73). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What it is and how it is used in school and non-school social science texts (Report No: 273). Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report, University of Illinois.
• Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 279-296.
• 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.
• Dafouz-Milne, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11(1), 29-57.
• 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, 95-113.
• Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
• Gardner, S., & Han, C. (2018). Transitions of contrast in Chinese and English university student writing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 861-882.
• Gea Valor, M. L. (2000). A pragmatic approach to politeness and modality in the book review articles. Valencia: Universitat de Valencia. SELL Monographs. Lengua Inglesa.
• Gezegin-Bal, B. (2015). Book review genre in academic writing: A comparative study of English and Turkish across ten disciplines. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
• 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. Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that …”: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes 21, 367-383.
• Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of RA discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321-327.
• Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication 13(2), 251-81.
• Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
• Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 1, 3-26.
• Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
• Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574
• Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 112-132.
• Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Oxford: Continuum.
• Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion Interaction and the Construction of Knowledge: Representing Self and others in Research Writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1-23.
• Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Bloomsbury.
• Hyland, K. (2011). Disciplines and discourses: Social interactions in the construction of knowledge. In D.
• Starke-Meyerring, A. Paré, N. Artemeva, M. Horne, & L. Yousoubova (Eds.), Writing in Knowledge
• Societies (pp. 193-214). West Lafayette, IN: The WAC Clearinghouse/Parlor Press.
• Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
• 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.
• Jalilifar, A., Hayati, S., & Don, A. (2018). Investigating metadiscourse markers in book reviews and blurbs: A study of interested and disinterested genres. Studies about Languages, 33, 90-107.
• Junqueira, L., & Cortes, V. (2014). Metadiscourse in book reviews in English and Brazilian Portuguese: A Corpus-based analysis. Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization, 6, 88-109.
• Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124.
• Kuhi, D., & Behnam, B. (2011). Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguists: A comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication, 28(1), 97-141.
• Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1998). Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities. London: Greenwood Press.
• Lipari, L. (1996). Journalistic authority: Textual strategies of legitimization. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 821-834.
• Moreno, A. I. (2003). Matching theoretical descriptions of discourse and practical applications to teaching: The case of causal metatext. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 265-295.
• Moreno, Ana I., & Suarez, L. (2008). A framework for comparing evaluation resources across academic texts. Text & Talk, 28(4), 501-521.
• Motta-Roth, D. (1998). Discourse analysis and academic book reviews: A study of text and disciplinary cultures. In I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, J. C. Palmer & J. F. Coll (Eds.), Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes (pp. 29-58). Castelló: Universitat Jaume I.
• North, S. M. (1992). On book reviews in rhetoric and composition. Rhetoric Review, 10(2), 348-363.
• O’Donnell, M. (2013). UAM Corpus Tool (Version 2.8). Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
• Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of Master's theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7(1), 55-67.
• Samraj, B. (2016). Research articles. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (eds), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 403-415). London/New York: Routledge.
• Shaw P. (2009). The Lexis and Grammar of Explicit Evaluation in Academic Book Reviews, 1913 and 1993. In: Hyland K., Diani G. (eds) Academic Evaluation. Palgrave Macmillan, London
• Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: CUP.
• Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
• Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2006a). ‘So what is the problem this book addresses?’: Interactions in academic book reviews. Text & Talk 26(6), 767-790.
• Tse, P., & Hyland, K., (2006b). Gender and discipline: Exploring metadiscourse variation in academic book reviews. In K. Hyland & M., Bondi (Eds.), Academic Discourse across Disciplines, (pp. 177–202). Bern: Peter Lang.
• Vazquez, I., & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles: A cross disciplinary study. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 171-190.
• Yağız, O., & Demir, C. (2015). A comparative study of boosting in academic texts: A contrastive rhetoric. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(4), 12-28.