Interactional Metadiscourse Markers: A Comparison of Articles on Science Education and English Language in the Abstract Section

Reynante I. Enriquez¹ , MAELS ²

Section:Research Paper, Product Type: Journal-Paper
Vol.7 , Issue.5 , pp.34-37, May-2021

Online published on May 31, 2021

Copyright © Reynante I. Enriquez, MAELS . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 

View this paper at   Google Scholar | DPI Digital Library

XML View     PDF Download

How to Cite this Paper

Abstract :
The purpose of this study is to identify the usage of interactional metadiscourse markers in the articles of Science Education and English Language in the abstract section. 20 articles, 10 were on Science Education and 10 were on English Language and were carefully selected and these articles were published from 2009 to 2019 in online archives of journals. The selected corpora were analyzed through the model to find out the number, and frequency of the markers, respectively [6]. To determine whether the data obtained demonstrate statistically significant difference content analysis techniques and the paired t-test were used. The finding of the study revealed that there is more usage of interactional metadiscourse markers in the abstract section in Science Education articles with 0.81%, respectively than in the abstract section of English Language with 0.5%. Further, it was found out that there is a statistically significant difference in the usage of interactional metadiscourse markers between Science Education and English Language articles in the abstract section with a P value of .178.

Key-Words / Index Term :
abstract, interactional metadiscourse, articles, metadiscourse markers

References :
[1] H. Allami, “Metadiscourse Markers in the Discussion/Conclusion Section of Persian and English Master’s Theses”, Journal of Teaching Language Skills, Vol. 5, Issue.3, pp 23-40, 2013.
[2] A. Crismore, R. Markkanen, M. S. Steffensen “Metadiscourse in persuasive Writing a Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students”, Written Communication, Vol. 10, Issue. 1, pp 39-71, 1993.
[3] J. Gholami, R. Ilghami, “Metadiscourse Markers in Biological Research Articles and Journal Impact Factor: Non-native Writers vs. Native Writers” Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ, Vol. 44, Issue.4, pp. 349–360, 2016.
[4] P. Gillaerts, F. Van de Velde, “Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Article Abstracts”, Journal of English for Academic purposes, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, pp. 128-139, 2010.
[5] G. Hu, F. Cao, “Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals”, Journal of pragmatics, Vol. 43, Issue.11, pp. 2795-2809, 2011.
[6] K. Hyland, P. Tse, “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal”, Applied linguistics, Vol. 25, Issue.2, pp.156-177, 2004.
[7] K. Hyland, “Exploring Corporate Rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO`s Letter”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 35, Issue.2, pp. 224-244, 1998.
[8] M.O., Kan, “The Use of Interactional Metadiscourse: A Comparison of Articles on Turkish Education and Literature”, Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Biimleri (Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice), pp.1639-1648, 2016.
[9] K. Karimi, M. Maleki, M., Farnia, M., “Metadiscourse Markers in the Abstract Sections of Persian and English Law Articles”, International Journal of Foreign Teaching & Research, Vol.5, Issue. 18, pp.69-83,2017.
[10] T. Kawase, “Metadiscourse Introductions of Ph.D. these and research Articles, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Vol. 20, pp. 114-124.
[11] M. Khedri, C. S. Heng, S. F. Ebrahim, “An exploration of Interactive Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Research Article Abstracts in Two Disciplines, Discourse Studies, Vol. 15, Issue. 3, pp-319-331, 2013.
[12] D. Kuhi, Z. Mousavi, “A Diachronic Study of Interpersonal in Research Articles’ Discussion Section: The Field of Applied Linguistics, International Journal, Vol. 4, Issue. 2, pp. 6-13, 2015.
[13] C. R. Miller, “Genre as Social Action”, Letras & Letras, Vol. 31, Issue. 3, pp. 56-72, 2015.
[14] A. Mirshamsi, H. Allami, “Metadiscourse Markers in the Discussion/Conclusion Section of Persian and English Master’s These, Journal of Teaching Language Skills, Vol. 5, Issue. 3, pp 23-40, 2013.