Discourse Analysis
Parviz Ajideh; Mohammad Zohrabi; Rougia Oghbatalab
Abstract
In academic discourse across diverse fields, the cultivation of authorial competence in crafting compelling and persuasive texts is of paramount importance. Scholars in the field of linguistics, particularly those involved in discourse analysis, have been attentive to this necessity. Within the realm ...
Read More
In academic discourse across diverse fields, the cultivation of authorial competence in crafting compelling and persuasive texts is of paramount importance. Scholars in the field of linguistics, particularly those involved in discourse analysis, have been attentive to this necessity. Within the realm of academic writing, the strategic utilization of engagement markers plays a pivotal role in achieving persuasive communication and fostering reader engagement. The cultural positioning of academic writers is often reflected in the incorporation of these linguistic elements within written discourse. This study undertook an examination of 60 research articles spanning the domains of hard and soft sciences, with a focus on discerning potential disparities in the employment of engagement markers between two distinct cohorts of authors: native English speakers and non-native Iranian writers. Employing Hyland's (2005b) model of engagement markers as an analytical framework, the study sought to ascertain the frequency of these linguistic devices within academic research articles produced by the aforementioned groups. The findings of the analysis revealed significant differences in the overall and categorical distribution of engagement markers in the scholarly works of native English and non-native Iranian authors across hard and soft science disciplines. These differences may be ascribed to the cultural positioning of academic writers or the potential lack of familiarity with the established conventions of English rhetoric, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics among non-native Iranian authors. The implications of these findings are significant, as they can inform the development of pedagogical materials aimed at enhancing the academic writing proficiency of authors.
zis tajeddin; minoo alemi
Volume 1, Issue 1 , June 2012, , Pages 93-122
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the use of interactional metadiscourse markers in 168 comments made by 28 university students of engineering via an educational forum held as part of a general English course. The students wrote their comments on six topics, with a total of 19,671 words. Their comments ...
Read More
This study aimed to investigate the use of interactional metadiscourse markers in 168 comments made by 28 university students of engineering via an educational forum held as part of a general English course. The students wrote their comments on six topics, with a total of 19,671 words. Their comments during educational discussions were analyzed to determine their use of five metadiscourse categories (hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers, and self-mentions), making up interactional metadiscourse in Hyland’s (2004) model. Following descriptive analysis of the use of metadiscourse categories, chi-square tests were used to investigate the possible differences in the whole sample as well as gender-based differences. The findings showed that although female EFL learners used more metadiscourse markers than males did, the differences were minor and hence gender did not significantly influence the use of interactional metadiscourse markers. However, while male and female participants used all types of interactional metadiscourse, how they used them varied. They used engagement markers and self-mentions more frequently than boosters, hedges, and attitude markers. Since metadiscourse markers play crucial roles in mediating the relationship between what writers intend to argue and their discourse communities, the results of the present study have obvious importance in increasing students’ awareness of the way they organize their writings.