Exploring Metadiscourse Markers in Master Thesis Abstracts of TEFL Students: A Case of the University of Mazandaran

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

10.22111/ijals.2021.6740

Abstract

 MMetadiscourse as a self-reflective linguistic device plays an important role in both making a coherent academic text and interacting with readers. Using a sequential mixed method design, the present study investigated the use of metadiscourse markers in the abstract section of 70 master thesis abstracts written by Iranian TEFL students at the University of Mazandaran. The study further examined TEFL graduated students’ (n=7) perspectives on the employment of these markers in their thesis abstracts. Based on Hyland’s (2005) model, the interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers were identified in the data. Next, the whole corpus was carefully examined word by word to report on the frequency of metadiscourse marker use. The findings revealed that interactive metadiscourse markers were used three times more than interactional metadiscourse markers. Moreover, transitions and hedges were more frequently employed while evidentials, boosters and self-mentions were less frequently used. Findings from the qualitative data collected through conducting email interviews with graduated TEFL students suggested that they had positive perspectives towards the use of interactive metadiscourse markers in contrast with the use of interactional metadiscourse markers in their thesis abstracts. The results of this study can offer a number of pedagogical implications for explicit instruction of metadiscourse markers in thesis abstracts.

Keywords


Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of differences across subsections. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(1), 1-6.
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (Vol. 24). John Benjamins Publishing.
Akbas, E. (2012). Interactional metadiscourse in Turkish postgraduates’ academic texts: A comparative study of how they introduce and conclude. Journal on English Language Teaching 2(3), 35-45.

Alavinia, P., & Zarza, S. (2011). Metadiscourse markers revisited in EFL context: The case of Iranian academic learners’ perception of written texts. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 3 (2), 51-84.

Cooley, L., & Lewkowicz, J. (2003). Dissertation writing in practice: Turning ideas into text. Hong Kong University Press.
Crismore, A. (1984). The effect of rhetorical textbook on students: Two studies of metadiscourse and interpersonal voice. www.eric.gov.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M.S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
Cross, C., & Oppenheim, C. (2006).A genre analysis of scientific abstracts. Journal of Documentation, 62(4), 428-446.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
Fu, X., & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122-144.
Hussein, K., J., Khaleel & Abbas, N. (2018). Metadiscourse markers in master thesis abstracts of American and Iraqi English theses. Arab World English Journal, 9(4), 347-360.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2015). Metadiscourse. In Tracy, K. (Ed.). The international Encyclopedia of language and social interaction. Wiley-Blackwell.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124.
Malmir A., & Taji, N. (2021). The interplay of action, context, and linguistic vs. non-linguistic resources in L2 pragmatic performance: The case of requests and refusals. Language Related Research (LRR), 12(3), 215-253.
Marandi, S. (2003). Metadiscourse in Persian and English master’s thesis: A contrastive study. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 23–42.
Mirshamsi, A., & Allami, H. (2013).Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master’s theses. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 32(3), 23-40.
Ozdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63.
Sarani, A., Khoshsima, H. & Izadi, M. (2017). Poring over metadiscourse use in discussion and conclusion sections of academic articles written by Iranian ESP students. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 133-145.
Sultan, A., (2011). A contrastive study of metadiscourse in English and Arabic linguistics research articles. Acta Linguista, 5(1), 28-41.
Swales, J. M. (1990).Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. CUP.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
VandeKopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
VandeKopple, W. J. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse Studies in Composition (pp. 91-113). Hampton Press.
Wang, L., & Zhang, Y., (2015). An Analysis of Theoretical and Empirical Studies on Metadiscourse, International Journal of Research- Granthaalayah. 5(4), 118-127.
Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Scott, Foresman.