Metadiscourse in Academic Written and Spoken English: A Comparative Corpus-Based Inquiry

Mehrdad Vasheghani Farahani

doi:10.18778/1731-7533.18.3.05

Authors

Mehrdad Vasheghani Farahani University of Leipzig, Germany

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.18.3.05

Keywords:

metadiscourse features, comparative linguistics, academic discourse, written and spoken mode

Abstract

This paper reports on a comparative study performed in the field of Corpus Linguistics. The objective of the research was to analyze the distributional pattern of interactive and interactional metadiscourse features in two modes of academic spoken and written English. For this reason, a list of metadiscourse characteristics was gathered. By using the Sketch engine software, all the words were scrutinized in the corpus and their concordance lines were analyzed one by one in both corpora (British Academic Written English Corpus and British Academic Spoken English Corpus). As the data can show, in both corpora, the general propensity of the authors was towards the interactive metadiscourse features. In addition, in the written corpus, the transitions and endophoric markers were used more often; while in the spoken, endophoric markers and transitions were the most frequently applied metadiscourse features. In the interactional metadiscourse features, hedges and self-mentions were the most frequent in the written form; whereas in the spoken, self-mentions and boosters were used moe often.

References

Abdollehzadeh, Esmail. 2003. “Interpersonal Metadiscourse in ELT Papers by Iranian and Anglo-American Academic Writers”. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Multiculturalism in ELT practice at Baskent University, Turkey.
Google Scholar

Abdollehzadeh, Esmail. 2007. “Writer is Presence in Persian and English Newspaper Editorials”. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Systemic Functional Linguistics in Odense, Denmark.
Google Scholar

Ädel, Annelie. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/scl.24
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24

Ädel, Annelie. 2010. “Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English”. Nordic Journal of English Studies, Vol.9, No. 2, pp. 69-97. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.218
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.218

Ahour, Touran., & Entezari Maleki, S. 2014. „The effect of metadiscourse instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ speaking ability”. English Language Teaching, Vol. 7, No. 10, pp. 69-75. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n10p69
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n10p69

Amiryousefi, Mohammad., & Eslami Rasekh, A. 2010. “Metadiscourse: Definitions, issues and its implications for English teachers”. English Language Teaching, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 159-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p159
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p159

Bailey, Stephen. 2003. Academic writing: A handbook for international students (1st ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Beigmohammadi, A. 2003. An Investigation into the Patterns of Use of Discourse Features of Intensity Markers in Academic Research Articles of Hard Science, Social Science, and. TEFL. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Tehran, Tehran.
Google Scholar

Boggel, Sandra. 2009. Metadiscourse In Middle English And Early Modern English Religious Texts: A Corpus-Based Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Google Scholar

Bowker, Natilene. 2007. Academic Writing: A Guide to Tertiary Level Writing. Palmerston North: Massey University.
Google Scholar

Brown, G., & Yule, G. 1993. Discourse Analysis (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Camiciottoli, Belinda Crawford. 2003. “Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign Language, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 1-16. Retrieved from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/April2003/camiciottoli/camiciottoli.html (accessed 2019)
Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1982. “Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature”. In: D. Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy Norwood, NJ: ABLEX, pp. 35-53.
Google Scholar

Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. S. 1996. “Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 194-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
Google Scholar

Cissna, Kenneth. N., & Anderson, R. C. 2002. Moments Of Meeting: Buber, Rogers And The Potential For Public Dialogue. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Google Scholar

Crismore, A. 1989. Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
Google Scholar

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M.S. 1993.”Metadiscourse In Persuasive Writing: Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students”. Written Communication, 10 (1), pp. 39-71.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002

Crismore, Avon., & Abdollahzadeh, E. 2010. “A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context”. Nordic Journal of English Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 195-219. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.223
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.223

Davoodifard, M. 2006. A Contrastive Analysis of Hedging in English and Persian research Articles: Linguistic and Cultural Variations across Languages and Disciplines. An Unpublished Thesis, University of Esfahan, Iran.
Google Scholar

Flowerdew, John & Steve Tauroza. 1995. The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, pp. 435-458. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014406
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014406

Ghadyani, F., & Tahririan, M. H. 2015. Interactive Markers in Medical Research Articles Written by Iranian and Native Authors of ISI and Non-ISI Medical Journals: A Contrastive Metadiscourse Analysis of Method Section. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 309-317. doi:10.17507/tpls.0502.10
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0502.10

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, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 11-29. doi:10.29252/ijree.2.4.11
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.29252/ijree.2.4.11

Harris, Zellig. 1959. “The transformational model of language structure”. Anthropological Linguistics, Vol.1, No. 1, pp. 27-29.
Google Scholar

Hudson, R. A. 1980. Sociolinguistics (1st Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 1998. “Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse”. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 30, pp. 437-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5

Hyland, Ken. 1999. “Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books”. English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2

Hyland, Ken. 2002. “Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing”. Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 34, pp. 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8

Hyland, Ken. 2004. “Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing”. Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 133-151. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001

Hyland, Ken. 2004. “Patterns of engagement: Dialogic features and L2 student’s writing”. In: L. Ravelli & R. Ellis (eds.), Academic Writing in Context: Social-functional Perspectives on Theory and Practice. London: Continuum.
Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken., & P. Tse. 2004. “Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal”. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156

Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2010. “Metadiscourse: ‘Mapping interactions in academic writing’”. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9: 2, pp. 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220

Latawiec, Bogusław. 2012. Metadiscourse in oral discussions and persuasive essays of children exposed to collaborative reasoning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Google Scholar

Ivanic, Rosalind, 1998. Writing an Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5

Jalilifar, Alireza. & M. Alipour. 2007. “How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill”. Journal of College Reading and Learning 38: 1, pp. 127-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2007.10850203
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2007.10850203

Kong, R., & Xin, X. 2009. “Empirical study on metadiscourse in Chinese EFL learners’ oral communication”. CELEA Journal 32: 1, pp. 52-64.
Google Scholar

Kopple, William. J. 1985. “Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication 36: 1, pp. 82-93. doi: 10.2307/357609
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/357609

Kruger, A. 2004. “Corpus-based translation research: its development and implications for general, literary and Bible translation”. Acta Theologica 22: 1, pp. 70-106. doi:10.4314/actat. v22i1.5455.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v22i1.5455

Love, R., C. Dembry, C., A. Hardie, V. Brezina & T. McEnery. 2017. “The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 319-344. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov

McEnery, Tony, & Andrew Hardie. 2012. Corpus linguistics: Method, theory, and practice (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511981395
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511981395

McGillivray, Barbara & A. Kilgarriff. 2013. “Tools for historical corpus research and a corpus of Latin”. In: Bennett, P., Durrell, M., Scheible, S., & Whitt, R. J. New methods in historical corpora. Tübingen: Narr.
Google Scholar

Mukherjee, Jogeshwar. 2006. “Corpus Linguistics and Language Pedagogy: The State of the art- and beyond”. In: Corpus Technology and Language Technology: New Resources, New Tools, New Methods . Wien: Peter Lang, pp. 5-24.
Google Scholar

Penz, Hermine., E. Maria Graf, & G. Marko. 2016. Verbal workshop: metadiscourse in spoken language”. Retrieved from https://static.uni-graz.at/fileadmin/gewiinstitute/Sprachwissenschaft/OELT_2016/VERBAL_Workshop_Metadiscourse_OELT_2016.pf (accessed 2019)
Google Scholar

Pérez, Marta. A., & Elisabet A. Macià. 2002. “Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension: Does it really help foreign language learners?” Atlantis Journal 24: 1, pp. 3-21.
Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1980. “Metatalk: Organisational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological inquiry”. Language and Social Interaction 50, pp. 199-236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00021.x
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00021.x

Thompson, S. E. 2003. Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signaling of organization in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2, pp. 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00036-X
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00036-X

Tymoczko, Maria. 1998. Computerized corpora and the future of translation studies. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 43: 4, pp. 652-660. doi: 10.7202/004515ar.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/004515ar

Vahid Dastjerdi H., & M. Shirzad. (2010). The impact of explicit instruction of metadiscourse markers on EFL learners' writing performance. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills 2: 2, pp. 155-174.
Google Scholar

Weisser, M. 2016. Practical Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction To Corpus-Based Language Analysis. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119180180
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119180180

Zanettin, Federico. 2012. Translation-Driven Corpora: Corpus Resources For Descriptive And Applied Translation Studies. Place of publication not identified, UK: St. Jerome Publishing.
Google Scholar

Zarei, Gholam & Sara Mansoori. 2007. Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive analysis of English and Persian research articles. The Asian ESP Journal 3: 2, pp. 24-40.
Google Scholar