Metadiscourse Markers in Laboratory Sections: Types and Functional Analysis

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 English Department, Shadegan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shadegan, Iran

2 English Department, Bushehr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran

Abstract

The present study examines the application of metadiscourse markers according to Hyland’s (2005) metadiscourse model in laboratory sections. The researchers manually searched an 80580-word corpus of eight laboratory sections collected from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English to identify different types and functions of metadiscourse markers. As shown by the findings, interactional metadiscoursal markers had a higher frequency in laboratory sections than interactive ones. More specifically, the speakers relied mostly on engagement markers (a metadiscourse marker with interactional function) followed by code glosses (a metadiscourse marker with interactive function). As implied, audience involvement through engagement markers and facilitating their comprehension through code glosses are the primary functions of metadiscourse markers used in a laboratory. It is possible to incorporate this finding into the syllabus designed to teach academic spoken genres, including laboratory sections.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Vol. 24, John Benjamins Publishing.
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), 18-38.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2005). Adjusting a business lecture for an international audience: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 183-199.
Cao, F. & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.
Farnia, M. & Mohammadi, N. (2018). Cross-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in persuasive local newspaper articles. Discourse and Interaction, 11(2), 27-44.
Farnia, M. & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2024). Exploring metadiscourse markers in students’ persuasive email requests to university professors. Journal of Linguistic Studies: Theory and Practice, 2(2), 173-201.
Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of ‘we’ in university lectures: reference and function. English for Specific Purposes, 23(1), 45-66.
Ghahremani Mina, K. & 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), 11-29.
Gholami, J., Nejad, S. R. & Pour, J. L. (2014). Metadiscourse markers misuses; a study of EFL learners’ Argumentative Essays. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 580-589.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455.
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. London, New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse: English in A Global Context. A&C Black.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(S2), 125-143.
Hyland, K. & Jiang, F. K. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Kashiha, H. (2018). Malaysian ESL students’ metadiscourse in essay writing. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 8(3), 193-201.
Kashiha, H. & Marandi, S. (2019). Rhetoric-specific features of interactive metadiscourse in introduction moves: A case of discipline awareness. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 37(1), 1-14.
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.
Khedri, M. & Kritsis, K. (2018). Metadiscourse in applied linguistics and chemistry research article introductions. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 47-73.
Lee, S. (2009). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Corpus-Based Study of Expert, L1 and L2 Postgraduate Student Text. Doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University.
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.
Matroudy, M. & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2022). Functional analysis of reflexive metadiscourse in dissertation defense sessions. International Journal of Research in English Education, 7(1), 72-85.
Mauranen, A. (2010). Features of English as a lingua franca in academia. Helsinki English Studies, 6(6), 6-28.
Swales, J. M. (2001). Metatalk in American academic talk: The cases of point and thing. Journal of English Linguistics, 29(1), 34-54.
Zali, M. M., Mohamad, R., Setia, R., Baniamin, R. M. R. & Razlan, R. M. (2020). Comparisons of interactive and interactional metadiscourse among undergraduates. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(4), 21-30.
Journal of Studies in Language Learning and Teaching
Volume 1, Issue 2
July 2024
Pages 365-377

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 August 2024
  • Revise Date: 06 October 2024
  • Accept Date: 19 October 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics