VARIATIONS IN METADISCOURSE USE IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW THESIS CHAPTERS

Osei Yaw Akoto, Joseph Benjamin A. Afful

Abstract


Studies have established that thesis chapters are both similar and dissimilar with respect to their rhetorical choices. This paper examined metadiscourse use in the Introduction and Literature Review (LR) chapters of English Language theses from a nonnative context. The Introduction and LR chapters of ten theses, resulting in 50, 000 and 100, 500 words respectively, constituted the data sets for this study. Drawing on Hyland’s metadiscourse model, we manually coded all the metadiscursive elements. The study reveals statistically significant differences across all the interactive and interactional subcategories, affirming the stance that the rhetorical function of a thesis chapter influences its metadiscoursal choices. The study also found a new subcategory of meta-discoursal category labeled continuants. The paper has implications for the teaching and supervision of postgraduate theses, and the theory of metadiscourse.


Keywords


chapterology, continuants, master’s thesis, metadiscourse, disciplinary variation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies. 4: 139-145.

Abdi, R., Rizi, M. T. & Tavakoli, M. (2009). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 42, 1669-1679.

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Hedging in postgraduate student theses: A cross-cultural corpus study. International Conference on Language, Literature and Linguistics. 26, 581-586.

Ädel, A. (2005). On the boundary between evaluation and metadiscourse. In Tognini-Bonnelli,E. and Camiciotti, G., D., L. (eds.). Strategies in academic discourse (Studies in Corpus Linguistics). 153-162 Amsterdam/PhilÄdelphia: John Benjamins.

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2English. PhilÄdelphia: John Benjamins.

Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: Ataxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97.

Afful, J. B. A. (2010). The rhetoric of undergraduate student writing in a Ghanaian university: A cross-disciplinary study. Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Publishing.

Afros, E. (2007). Promotional (meta) discourse in research articles in Language and Literary Studies. Unpublished Masters’ Thesis. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.

Aguilar, M. (2008). Metadiscourse in academic speech: A relevance theoretic approach. Berlin: Peter Lang.

Akoto, O. Y. (2019). Metadiscourse use in English Language and Sociology master’s thesesliterature review chapters. ESP World, 57 (21), 1-31

Akoto, O. Y. (2020). Metadiscourse within a discipline: A study of introduction and literaturereview chapters of sociology masters’ theses. Indonesian Journal of AppliedLinguistics, 10(2), 471-480.

Alkhatmai, M. (2017). Vague language and its social role. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 7(2), 122-127.

Beauvais, P. J. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written communication, 6(1), 11-30.

Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures ofdisciplines. Milton Keynes and Bristol, USA. The Society for research into Higher Educational/Open University Press

Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure andoutput of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology 57(3), 207-213.

Bitchener, J. (2009). Writing an applied linguistics thesis or dissertation: A guide to presenting empirical research. Macmillan International Higher Education.

Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers. Studies about Languages. 5, 60-67.

Burneikaitè, N. (2008). Metadiscourse in Linguistics masters’ theses in English L1 and L2. Kalbotyra. 59(3), 38-47.

Burneikaitė, N. (2009a). Endophoric markers in Linguistics master's theses in English L1 &L2. Man & the Word/Zmogusirzodis, 11(3), 11-16.

Burneikaitė, N. (2009b). Evaluative metadiscourse in linguistics master's theses in English L1 &L2. Language in Different Contexts. KalbairKontekstai, 3(1), 87-95.

Burneikaitė, N. (2009c). Metadiscoursal connectors in linguistics MA theses in English L1 &L2. Kalbotyra, 61(61), 36-50.

Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 28.

Can, C. & Yuvayapan, F. (2018). Stance-taking through metadiscourse in doctoral dissertations. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching. 6(1), 128-142.

Chen, M. (2011). Functions of perspectival metadiscourse in reporting in literature reviews. Journal of Cambridge Studies. 93-106.

Cheng, X. & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English. 30 (2):149-181.

Cherk, L. M. (2016). Characterizing the Metadiscourse of the Pure Math PhD Thesis. NUS CELC5th Symposium Proceedings, 124-134

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed approaches (2nded.). California: Sage Publications Inc.

Crismore, A. & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review. 8(1), 91-112.

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

De Cock, S. (2004). Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgium Journal of English and Literatures (BELL), New Series 2, 225–246.

Duruk, E. (2017). Analysis of metadiscourse markers in academic written discourse produced by Turkish researchers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 13(1), 01-09.

Fitt, M. H., Walker, A. E. & Leary, H. M. (2009). Assessing the quality of doctoral dissertation literature review in Instructional Technology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Gee, J.P. (1999). An Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.

Genegin, B. B., & Melike, B. A. S. (2020). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison ofresearch articles and book reviews. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 45-62.

Haufiku, N. K. T. & Kangira, J. (2018). An exploration of hedging and boosting devices used in academic discourse focusing on English theses at the University of Namibia. Studies in English Language Teaching. 6(1), 1-11.

Heng, C.S. & Tan, H. (2010). Extracting and comparing the intricacies of metadiscourse of two written persuasive corpora. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT). 6 (3), 124-146.

Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT. 18(3), 349-382.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes. 20, 207-226.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 13, 133-151.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies. 9(2), 125-143.

Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going?. Journal of pragmatics, 113, 16-29.Hyland, K.,

Jin, X. & Shang, Y. (2016). Analyzing metadiscourse in the English abstracts of BA theses. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 7(1), 210-215.

Khedri, M., Heng, C. S. & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies. 15(3), 319-333.

Kumpf, E. P. (2000). Visual metadiscourse: Designing the considerate text. Technical Communication Quarterly, 9(4), 401-424.

Lin, Y. L. (2012). Mind the gap! Textbook conversation vs. authentic intercultural interaction. In Y. Leung, K. Cheung, W. Dai, C. Hsiao, & J. Katchen (Eds.), Selected Papers from the 21stInternational Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 42-54). Taipei: Crane Publishing.

Lin, Y. L. (2013). Vague language and interpersonal communication: An analysis of adolescent intercultural conversation. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language. 1(2), 69-81.

Lischinsky, A. (2008). The construction of expert knowledge in popular Management literature. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Universtat Pompeu Fabra.

Musa, A. (2014a). Hedging strategies in English and Chemistry masters’ theses in the University of Cape Coast, Ghana. Journal of ELT and Applied Linguistics (JELTAL), 2(3), 53-71.

Musa, A. (2014b). Hedging in academic writing: A pragmatic analysis of English and Chemistry masters’ theses in a Ghanaian university. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 1-26.

O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Olmos-Lopez, B. (2015). A framework for analysis of authorial identity: Heterogeneity among the undergraduate dissertation chapters. An unpublished doctoral dissertation. Lancaster University.

Overstreet, M., & Yule, G. (2002). The metapragmatics of and everything. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 785–794.

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.

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

Tse, P. & Hyland, K. (2006). ‘So what is the problem this book addresses?’ Interactions in academic book reviews. Text and Talk. 26 (6):767-790

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

Williams, M. (2010). Translating metadiscourse: An explanatory analysis of problems in students’ work. Mutatis Mutandis. 3(1), 73-90.

Woodward-Kron, R. (2002). Academic discourses and their discourses of learning: Participants, texts and social practices. In Candling, C. N. (Ed.). Research and practice in professional discourse. 499-523. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.

Yoon, H. J., & Römer, U. (2020). Quantifying disciplinary voices: An automated approach to interactional metadiscourse in successful student writing. Written Communication, 37(2), 208-244.

Yu, H. (2016). Stance markers in English academic writing in Applied Linguistics: A corpus-based comparison between Korean graduate students’ master’s theses and published journal articles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Seoul National University.

Zahra, R. Z., Roya, B. & Shahla, S. (2015). Interactive and interactional meta-discourse markers in conclusion sections of English master theses. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning. 4(4), 81-92.

Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 42-50.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.30743/ll.v4i2.2601

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Fakultas Sastra 
Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara (UISU), Medan
Jl. Sisingamangaraja Teladan Medan 20217
Telp. (061) 7869911, e-mail: language_literacy@sastra.uisu.ac.id