Investigating interactive metadiscourse markers in research article discussions published in varied journal levels (local, national, and international)
Article Sidebar
-
discussion section, interactive metadiscourse markers, metadiscourse markers
Abstract
Interactive metadiscourse markers in the discussion section of a journal play a crucial role in engaging the reader and facilitating a more dynamic interaction. In a discussion journal section, interactive metadiscourse markers may include phrases or expressions that invite the reader to consider alternative viewpoints, respond to the presented ideas, or reflect on the implications of the research findings. This research investigated interactive metadiscourse markers in research article discussion of language teaching within 30 articles published in local, national, and international journals. A mixed-methods approach was adopted and the instrument used in this research was a checklist designed to analyze interactive metadiscourse. The result of the inter-rater agreement of the co-rater and researcher indicated a kappa value of 90.2% (co-rater and researcher respectively) because it shows excellent agreement (above 80%). It shows that the highest frequency used of interactive metadiscourse category is transitions markers in the three-level journals. Evidential markers took the second position in frequency used followed by code glossed in third frequency. Endophoric markers and frame markers are less used by the writers in the article discussions. The research articles published in international reputable journals show the highest number of using interactive metadiscourse devices than the articles published in local and national journals.
Full text article
References
Arsyad, S. (2013). A genre-based analysis of Indonesian research articles in the social sciences and humanities written by Indonesian speakers. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 8(3), 234–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2013.849711
Craswell, J, Plano. C. V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed-method research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.1.57
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(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
Estaji, M., & Vafaeimehr, R. (2015). A comparative analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in the Introduction and Conclusion sections of mechanical and electrical engineering research papers. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3(1), 37–56.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping Interactions in Academic Writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies.
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to Students: Metadiscourse in Introductory Coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London, New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy, and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical Structure of Biochemistry Research Article. English for Specific Purposes.
Khedri, M. et al. (2013). An Exploration of Interactive Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Research Article Abstracts in Two Disciplines. Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Gholami, M., Tajalli, G., Shokrpour, N. (2014). An investigation of metadiscourse markers in English medical text and their Persian translation based on Hyland’s model. European Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2(2).
Mina, K.G. and Biria, R. (2017). Exploring interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in discussion sections of social and medical science articles. International Journal of Research In English Education, 2(4).
Mustafa, O. K. (2016) The Use of Interactional Metadiscourse: A Comparison of Articles on Turkish Education and Literature. Mustafa Kemal University.
Shi, W. and J. Han, 2014. Research on Writing Samples from the Perspective of Metadiscourse. English Language Teaching. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n11p151
Sugiyono. 2003. Metode Penelitian Bisnis. Bandung. Pusat Bahasa Depdiknas.
Sukma, B, P. and Sujatna, E.T.S. (2014). Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in Opinion Articles: A Study of Texts Written by Indonesian Writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(2),16-21.
Wei et al. (2016). Studies on Metadiscourse since the 3rd millennium. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9).
Zakaria, M. K. et al. (2015). Metadiscourse in the academic writing of local and international students at a University in Malaysia. International Journal of Education and Practice, 6(4).