Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections

The research article is one of the widely practiced genres of communication among members of academic discourse community to contribute their own new knowledge and get acceptance from the audience. A generic analysis of research articles can cover a wide variety of issues; among them rhetorical feat...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Khedri, Mohsen, Ebrahimi, Seyed Jamal, Chan, Swee Heng
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 2013
Online Access:http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/41937/1/Interactional%20metadiscourse%20markers%20in%20academic%20research%20article%20result%20and%20discussion%20sections.pdf
_version_ 1796974038076096512
author Khedri, Mohsen
Ebrahimi, Seyed Jamal
Chan, Swee Heng
author_facet Khedri, Mohsen
Ebrahimi, Seyed Jamal
Chan, Swee Heng
author_sort Khedri, Mohsen
collection UPM
description The research article is one of the widely practiced genres of communication among members of academic discourse community to contribute their own new knowledge and get acceptance from the audience. A generic analysis of research articles can cover a wide variety of issues; among them rhetorical features. As argued by Hyland (2004), a valuable means of exploring academic writing and of comparing the rhetorical features and preferences of different discourse communities is through metadiscoursal analysis. Metadiscourse is an aspect of language which provides a link between texts and disciplinary cultures, helping to define the rhetorical context by revealing some of the expectations and understandings of the audience for whom a text is written. Differences in metadiscourse patterns may prove to be an essential means of distinguishing discourse communities (Hyland, 1998). The present paper focused on interactional metadiscourse markers in the result and discussion section of academic research articles across four disciplines, namely, English Language Teaching, Civil Engineering, Biology, and Economics. Sixteen research article result and discussion sections (4 from each discipline) were sourced from four leading international journals for analysis. Results revealed that there were worth-pointing differences, but not statistically significant differences excepting in terms of boosters, between disciplines in the use of interactional metadiscourse markers. Similarities and differences are explained by way of an explication of genre features in terms of contextual configuration and genre specific needs dealing with applied metadiscourse markers by discipline.
first_indexed 2024-03-06T08:51:22Z
format Article
id upm.eprints-41937
institution Universiti Putra Malaysia
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-06T08:51:22Z
publishDate 2013
publisher Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
record_format dspace
spelling upm.eprints-419372016-02-10T04:01:20Z http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/41937/ Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections Khedri, Mohsen Ebrahimi, Seyed Jamal Chan, Swee Heng The research article is one of the widely practiced genres of communication among members of academic discourse community to contribute their own new knowledge and get acceptance from the audience. A generic analysis of research articles can cover a wide variety of issues; among them rhetorical features. As argued by Hyland (2004), a valuable means of exploring academic writing and of comparing the rhetorical features and preferences of different discourse communities is through metadiscoursal analysis. Metadiscourse is an aspect of language which provides a link between texts and disciplinary cultures, helping to define the rhetorical context by revealing some of the expectations and understandings of the audience for whom a text is written. Differences in metadiscourse patterns may prove to be an essential means of distinguishing discourse communities (Hyland, 1998). The present paper focused on interactional metadiscourse markers in the result and discussion section of academic research articles across four disciplines, namely, English Language Teaching, Civil Engineering, Biology, and Economics. Sixteen research article result and discussion sections (4 from each discipline) were sourced from four leading international journals for analysis. Results revealed that there were worth-pointing differences, but not statistically significant differences excepting in terms of boosters, between disciplines in the use of interactional metadiscourse markers. Similarities and differences are explained by way of an explication of genre features in terms of contextual configuration and genre specific needs dealing with applied metadiscourse markers by discipline. Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 2013 Article PeerReviewed application/pdf en http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/41937/1/Interactional%20metadiscourse%20markers%20in%20academic%20research%20article%20result%20and%20discussion%20sections.pdf Khedri, Mohsen and Ebrahimi, Seyed Jamal and Chan, Swee Heng (2013) Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 19 (1). pp. 65-74. ISSN 0128-5157 http://ejournals.ukm.my/3l/article/view/1195
spellingShingle Khedri, Mohsen
Ebrahimi, Seyed Jamal
Chan, Swee Heng
Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections
title Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections
title_full Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections
title_fullStr Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections
title_full_unstemmed Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections
title_short Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections
title_sort interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections
url http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/41937/1/Interactional%20metadiscourse%20markers%20in%20academic%20research%20article%20result%20and%20discussion%20sections.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT khedrimohsen interactionalmetadiscoursemarkersinacademicresearcharticleresultanddiscussionsections
AT ebrahimiseyedjamal interactionalmetadiscoursemarkersinacademicresearcharticleresultanddiscussionsections
AT chansweeheng interactionalmetadiscoursemarkersinacademicresearcharticleresultanddiscussionsections