An Analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Political Science Research Articles

Noor Afifah Nawawi, Su Hie Ting

Abstract


The study examined the interactional metadiscourse markers used in higher and lower tiered political science research articles. The specific aspects studied were: (1) the frequencies of five categories of interactional markers; and (2) the distribution of interactional markers by rhetorical sections. The descriptive study which involved the analysis of political science research articles published in 40 SCOPUS-indexed journals (20 Quartile 1; 20 Quartiles 3 and 4) conducted using Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal metadiscourse model identified 10,903 markers. Both Q1 and Q3-Q4 political science articles have boosters and hedges as the most frequently used markers, and engagement markers as the least used marker. There are significant differences between the higher and lower tiered political science research articles in the frequencies of interactional metadiscourse markers found in rhetorical sections. The method section has the most self-mentions, particularly in articles published in Q1 journals. Writers of articles published in Q1 journals prioritise boosters, indicating confidence in emphasising certainty, but writers of articles published in Q3-Q4 journals prioritise hedges over boosters. The Q1 articles have more attitude markers in the introduction and results-discussion-conclusion sections but less in the abstract and method sections, but writers of Q3-Q4 articles use attitude markers in similar frequencies across sections. The findings suggest that the nature of reader engagement varies with rhetorical sections in research articles.

 


Keywords


interactional; metadiscourse; political science; research articles

Full Text:

PDF

References


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), 35-44.

Alkhodari, F. T., & Habil, H. (2021). Metadiscourse markers in Dr. Zakir Naik's persuasive discourse. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 21(4), 342-363.

Akoto, O. Y. (2020). Metadiscourse within a discipline: A study of introduction and literature review chapters of sociology masters’ theses. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 471-480.

Alyousef, H. S., & Alotaibi, N. E. Q. (2019). Self-mention markers and their rhetorical functions in dentistry research articles: A corpus-based study of intradisciplinary variations within seven dentistry subdisciplines. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(5), 136-145.

Bal-Gezegin, B., & Baş, M. (2020). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of research articles and book reviews. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 45-62.

Braine, G. (2005). The challenge of academic publishing: A Hong Kong perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 707-716.

Crosthwaite, P., Cheung, L., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for specific purposes, 46, 107-123.

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.

Gholami, J., & Ilghami, R. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and journal impact factor: Non‐native writers vs. native writers. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44(4), 349-360.

Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12-25.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 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., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics. 25(2), 156-177.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123-139.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30.

Jin, X., & Shang, Y. (2016). Analyzing metadiscourse in the English abstracts of BA theses. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(1), 210-215.

Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD thesis and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124.

Keramati, S. R., Kuhi, D., & Saeidi, M. (2019). Cross-sectional diachronic corpus analysis of stance and engagement markers in three leading journals of applied linguistics. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 6(2), 1-25.

Khedri, M. (2016). Are we visible? An interdisciplinary data-based study of self-mention in research articles. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52(3), 403-430.

Khedri, M., & Kritsis, K. (2018). Metadiscourse in applied linguistics and chemistry research article introductions. Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 47-73.

Kuhi, D., Yavari, M., & Azar, A. S. (2012). Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles: A cross-sectional survey. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(11), 405-405.

Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46, 39-54.

Li, T., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 345-356.

Mahmood, I. I., & Mohd Kasim, Z. (2021). Metadiscourse resources across themes of Islamic Friday sermon. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 21(1), 45-61.

Primack, R. B. (2009). Why did we reject your paper? Biological Conservation, 142(82), 1559.

Sahragard, R., & Yazdanpanahi, S. (2017). English engagement markers: A comparison of humanities and science Journal Articles. Language Art 2(1), 111-130.

Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master’s theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 55-67.

Wang, J., & Zeng, L. (2021). Disciplinary recognized self-presence: Self-mention used with hedges and boosters in PhD students’ research writing. SAGE Open, 11(2), 1-13.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2201-12

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2131

ISSN : 1675-8021