Metadiscourse Markers Revisited in EFL Context: The Case of Iranian Academic Learners’ Perception of Written Texts

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Urmia University

2 Islamic Azad University, Mahabad Branch


Moving in line with the postulation that metadiscourse (MD) markers help transform a dry and tortuous piece of text into a coherent and reader-friendly one, the researchers in the current study attempted to investigate the effect different metadiscourse markers might have on Iranian EFL learners’ perception of written texts. To this end, 120 undergraduate English students were given three different texts chosen from the most common textbooks in BA, along with their doctored versions (all MD-removed, interactive-removed, and interactional-removed). Each text duo was then accompanied by an 8-item questionnaire following Ifantido’s (2005) lead. The findings, overall, were indicative of the positive role of metadiscourse markers in bringing about EFL learners’ ameliorated text perception. Furthermore, data analysis via ANOVA and LSD tests revealed that texts with both interactive and interactional resources had more effect on learners’ perception. Moreover, it was found that interactive and interactional resources had more or less the same effect on learners’ reactions to texts. To sum it up, in line with the findings of the present study further evidence is garnered in favor of the postulation holding that metadiscourse markers bring about an increased amount of coherence and reader-friendliness in texts.


Amiryousefi, M., & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Definitions, issues and its implications for English teachers. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 159-167.
Bruce, N. J. (1989). The role of metadiscourse, speech acts and the language of abstraction in a top-down approach to teaching English for academic purposes. Paperpresented at the European Languages for Special Purposes Symposium, Budapest, Hungary.
Cammicottoli, B. C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 15-33.
Crismore, A. (1990). Metadiscourse and discourse processes: Interactions and issues. Discourse Processes, 13, 191-205.
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. (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.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London and New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Ifantido, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1325-1353.
Jalilifar, A., & Alipoor, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1), 35-52.  
Mao, L. R. (1993). I conclude not: Toward a pragmatic account of metadiscourse. Rhetoric Review, 11(2), 265-289.
Parvaresh, V., & Nemati, M. (2008). Metadiscourse and reading comprehension: The effects of language and proficiency. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5(2), 220-239.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.