An Investigation into Metadiscourse Elements Used by Native vs. Non-native University Students across Genders

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

2 Aliabad Katoul Branch, Islamic Azad University, Aliabad Katoul, Iran


The present study has aimed at finding out whether or not students’ language background and gender bring about a distinction between the frequency and types of metadiscourse elements occurring in their papers. To this end, a dataset of 40 student papers in four series written by native male, nonnative male, native female, and nonnative female writers was analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively in terms of the use of metadiscourse resources following the metadiscourse model proposed by Hyland and Tse (2004). The results of the frequency count and chi-square tests (p-value<0.05) revealed more or less notable differences in the overall employment of metadiscourse markers in the two major types of metadiscourse resources (i.e., interactive and interactional) and the categories related to each type (i.e., transitions, frame markers, etc. versus hedges, boosters, attitude markers, etc., respectively) by the four groups of university students. 


Alyousef, H. S. (2015). An investigation of metadiscourse features in international postgraduate business students’ texts: The use of interactive and interactional markers in tertiary multimodal finance texts. SAGE Open, 5(4), 1-10. doi: 10.1177/2158244015610796
Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151-183.
Bondi, M. (2009). Historians at work: Reporting frameworks in English and Italian book review articles. In K. Hyland, & G. Diani, (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 179–196). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bruce, I. (2014). Expressing criticality in the literature review in research article introductions in applied linguistics and psychology. English for Specific Purposes, 36, 85-96.
Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in university essays in English literature and sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13-25. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.005
Camiciottoli, C. B. (2003). Metadiscourse in ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 28-44.
Conner, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: A cross-cultural study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse.  In W. Nash (Ed.), The Writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 118-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
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. 
Crismore, A. (2004).  Pronouns  and  metadiscourse as interpersonal  rhetorical  devices  in  fundraising  letters:  A  corpus linguistic  analysis.  In U.  Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 307-330). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textural and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.
D’Angelo, L. (2008).  Gender identity and authority in academic book reviews: A metadiscourse analysis across disciplines. Linguistica e Filologia, 27, 205-221.
Francis, B., Robson, J.  & Read, B. (2001). An analysis of undergraduate writing styles in the context of gender and achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 313-326. 
Fu, X., & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122-144.
Fuertes-Olivera, P., Valasco-Sacristan, M., Arribas-Bano, A., & Samaniego, F. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1308.
Grey, C. (1998). Towards an overview on gender and language variation.  Retrieved from
Harris, Z. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(1), 27-29.
Herbert, R. K. (1990). Sex-based differences in compliment behavior. Language in Society, 19(2), 201-224.
Herring, S. C. & Paolillo, J. C. (2006). Gender and genre variation in weblogs. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 439-459.
Herring, S., Johnson, D., & Dibenedetto, T. (1995). The discussion is going too far! Male resistance to female participation on the Internet.  In M. Bucholtz, & K. Hall, (Eds.), Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self (pp. 67-96). New York:  Routledge.
Holmes, J. (1984). Women’s language: A functional approach. General Linguistics, 24(3), 149-178.
Holmes, J. (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential positive politeness strategy.  Journal of Pragmatics, 12(3), 445–465.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. New York: Longman.
Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric. Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication 35(2), 224–245.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2004). Patterns of engagement: Dialogic features and L2 student writing. In L. Ravelli & R.  Ellis (Eds.), Academic writing in context: Social-functional perspectives on theory and practice. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 156–177.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.  Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–191.
Hyland, K. (2015). Metadiscourse. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and social sciences (pp. 1-11). Retrieved from
Janssen, A., & Murachver, T. (2004). The relationship between gender and topic in gender-preferential language use. Written Communication, 21(4), 344-367.
Johnson, D., & D. H. Roen. (1992). Complimenting and involvement in peer-reviews: Gender variation.  Language in Society, 21(1), 27-57. 
 Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role and context. Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966).  Cultural thought pattern in intercultural education. Journal of Language Learning, 1, 1-20. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x
Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124.
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), 319-331.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women’s place. New York: Harper & Row.
Le, E. (2004) Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and editorialist’s authority. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(4), 687-714.
Lee, J. J., & Subtirelu, N. C. (2015). Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 52-62.
Lynch, C., & Strauss-Noll, M. (1987). Mauve Washers: Sex-differences in freshman writing. English Journal, 76, 90-94.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vols. 1 & 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mardani, T. (2017). Metadiscourse markers: A contrastive study of translated and non-translated persuasive texts. Journal of Language and Translation, 7(2), 73-79.
Markkanen, R., Steffensen, M. S., & Crismore, A. (1993). Quantitative contrastive study of metadiscourse: problems in design and analysis s of data. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 23, 137–151.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish–English Economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 12(1), 3–22.
McCabe, A. (2004). Mood and modality in Spanish and English history textbooks: The construction of authority. Text 24 (1), 1–29.
McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161-173.
McMillan, J., Clifton, R., Mcgrath, D., & Gale, W.S.  (1977). Women’s language:  Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality?. Sex Roles, 3, 545-559.
Michigan corpus of upper-level student papers. (2009). Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2), 86–101.
Moreno, A. (2004). Retrospective labelling in premise-conclusion metatext: An English–Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and economics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3 (4), 321–339.
Moreno, A., & Sua´rez, L. (2008). A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7 (1), 15–26.
Robson, J. Francis, B. & Read, B. (2002). Writers of passage: Stylistic features of male and female undergraduate history essays. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(4), 351-362.
Rubin, D. L., & Greene, K. (1992). Gender typical style in written language. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 7-40.
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz, A., Marı´a, A., & Zambrano, N. (2003). The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930–1995). English for Specific Purposes 22 (3), 223–247.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organisational and evaluative brackets in discourse.  Language and Social Interaction, 50, 199-236.
Sheldon, E. (2009). From one to another: discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 251–265.
Silver, M. (2003)  The  stance  of  stance:  A  critical  look  at  ways  stance  is expressed  and  modeled  in  academic  discourse.  Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4), 359-374.
Steffensen. M. S., & Cheng, X. (1996). Metadiscourse and text pragmatics: How students write after learning about metadiscourse. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 7, 153-170.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English for specific purpose in academic and research setting. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J., &Van Bonn, S. (2007). Similarities and differences in French and English EAP research article abstracts: The case of ASP. In K. Flottum (Ed.), Language and discipline perspectives on academic discourse (pp. 275–294). Cambridge:  Cambridge Scholars Press.
Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: How women’s and men’s conversational styles affect who gets heard, who gets credit, and what gets done at work. New York: William Morrow.
Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. TEXT, 15(1), 103-27.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
Tse, P., & Hyland, K.  (2006). 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.
Tse, p., & Hyland, K. (2008). Robot Kung Fu: Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1232-1248.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton, & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition. New York: Hampton Press.
Vassileva, I. (2000). Who is the author? A Contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian Academic Discourse. Asgard Verlag: Sankt Augustin.
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 20 (1), 83–102.
Ventola, E., & Mauranen. A. (1991). Non–native writing and native revising of scientific articles. In E. Ventola (Eds.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Explorations in applied linguistics 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Boston: Scott Foresman.