Revisiting Metadiscourse Markers of the Language Learners in Academic Writing

Authors

  • Feryal CUBUKCU Dokuz Eylul University

Keywords:

Metadiscourse, learners of Turkish, interactive, interactional.

Abstract

This study which explores successful and less-successful learners‘ comparative essays written by university students learning Turkish, which is based on two corpora of student writing: 20 successful essays and 20 less-successful essays in Turkish. Using Hyland‘s (2005) model of interactional metadiscourse, these papers were compared to examine the extent to which successful and less successful student-produced comparative essays differ in their employment of interactive and interactional modes. Findings of the analysis suggest that successful essays contain significantly greater instances of particularly interactive devices than less successful essays.

References

Abdi, A., Rizi, M.T., & 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. (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.

Alibabaee, A., Eslamizadeh, F., & Soleimani, F. (2016). A Contrastive study of esp text books and content books for metadiscourse markers: the cases of psychology, medicine, and mechanical engineering. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(4), 886-893.

Blagojević, S. (2009). Expressing attitudes in academic research articles written by English and Serbian authors. Facta Universitatis series: Linguistics and Literature, 7(1), 63-73.

Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What it is and how it is used in school and nonschool social science texts. Technical Report No. 273. Center for the study of reading. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved Sept. 5, 2015, at: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/ 2142/17788/ctrstreadtechrepv01983i00273_opt.pdf.

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

Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Harris, Z. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(1), 27-29.

Hyland, K. (2004a). Patterns of engagement: dialogic features and l2 student writing. In Ravelli, L. & Ellis, R. (Eds.) Analyzing Academic Writing: Contextualized Frameworks. London: Continuum, pp. 5-23.

Hyland, K. (2004b). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in l2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133–151.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

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

Lee, J., & Deakin, L. (2016) Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21-34.

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.

Mu, C., Jun Zhang, L., 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.

Pérez, M., & Macià, E. (2002). Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension: does it really help foreign language learners? Atlantis, 24(2), 7-21.

Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta-talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3/4), 199-236.

Sloan, G. (1984). The Frequency of Transitional Markers in Discursive Prose. College English, 46(2), 158-75.

Vande Kopple, W. (2012). The Importance of studying metadiscourse. Applied Research in English, 1(2), 37-44.

Downloads

Published

2017-10-18

How to Cite

CUBUKCU, F. (2017). Revisiting Metadiscourse Markers of the Language Learners in Academic Writing. Revista Romaneasca Pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 9(2), 36-47. Retrieved from https://lumenpublishing.com/journals/index.php/rrem/article/view/30

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 2 (2017): Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala

Section

Research Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant this journalright of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND

CC_BY_NC_ND