A Cross-Move Analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Abstracts of Local And International Journals of History

Document Type : Research article

Authors

1 English Language Department, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran

2 English Language Department, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

The current study aimed to explore the generic organization of research article (RA) abstracts published in the Iranian local and international history journals. To this end, a corpus of 80 RA abstracts (40 local and 40 international) were scrutinized in terms of their constituent moves based on Hyland’s (2000) five-move model. Additionally, the study examined the interactional metadiscourse markers across various local and international abstract moves, using Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal metadiscourse model. The results of the genre analysis revealed a high frequency of introduction and purpose moves in local abstracts, as well as introduction, purpose, and product moves in the international corpus. The analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers revealed that boosters were the most frequently occurring category in the two groups of abstracts. Nevertheless, hedges were more frequently used by the local authors while the international researchers made a higher use of self-mentions. The results revealed the informed subjectivity and venue-based patterns of interaction at the service of presenting a persuasive account of the research objectives and outcomes in the field of history. The findings have pedagogical implications for EAP courses that aim to equip novice members of the history discourse community with the tools necessary to adhere to generic and interactional conventions.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101
  2. Akoto, O. Y. (2020). Metadiscourse within a discipline: a study of introduction and literature review chapters of sociology master’s theses. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 471-480.  https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i2.28588 471
  3. Atai, M. R. (2002). ESAP curriculum planning in Iran: An incoherent educational experience.  Special Issue of the Journal of Persian Literature and Human Sciences, 1, 17-34. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=10537209692994706435&hl=en&oi=scholarr
  4. Atai, M. R., & Asadi, S. A. (2013). Assessing academic and professional English language needs of Iranian railway engineering students: A triangulated evaluation study. ESP Across Cultures, 10(1), 35-54. https://edipuglia.it/wp-content/uploads/ESP%202013/Mahmood-Reza-Atai-Seyyed-Asadollah-Asadi.pdf
  5. Atai, M. R., & Habibie, P. (2012). Genre analysis of applied linguistics research article introductions: exploring sub-disciplinary variations. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 4(1), 25–44. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pejman-Habibie/publication/282176293_Genre_Analysis_of_Research_Article_Introductions_across_ESP_Psycholinguistics_and_Sociolinguistics/links/619c39b8d7d1af224b199970/Genre-Analysis-of-Research-Article-Introductions-across-ESP-Psycholinguistics-and-Sociolinguistics.pdf
  6. Atai, M. R., & Sadr, L. (2008). A cross-cultural study of hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistics research articles. Teaching English and Literature Society of Iran (TELLSI), 2(7), 1-2.
  7. Atai, M. R., & Shoja, L. (2011). A triangulated study of academic language needs of Iranian students of computer engineering: are the courses on track? RELC Journal, 42(3), 305-323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688211419392
  8. 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. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.710204
  9. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing Genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman Publishing.
  10. Blanco, F., & Rosa, A. (1997). Dilthey's dream. Teaching history to understand the future. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(3), 189-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(97)89727-3
  11. Coffin, C. (2002). The Voices of history: Theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses. Text, 22(4), 503–528. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2002.020
  12. Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 56, 56-73.
  13. Cook, H. M. (2001). Why can’t learners of JFL distinguish polite from impolite speech styles? In R. Kenneth, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 80-102). Cambridge University Press.
  14. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Edios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11(1), 29-57. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emma-Dafouz/publication/39284379_Metadiscourse_revisited_A_contrastive_study_of_persuasive_writing_in_professional_discourse/links/02e7e5322d98f4729a000000/Metadiscourse-revisited-A-contrastive-study-of-persuasive-writing-in-professional-discourse.pdf
  15. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
  16. Darabad, A. M. (2016). Move analysis of research article abstracts: a cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Linguistics, 8(2), 125–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v8i2.9379
  17. El-Dakhs, D. (2018). Comparative genre analysis of research article abstracts in more and less prestigious journals: linguistics journals in focus. Research in Language, 16(1), 47-63. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=891736
  18. Faghih, E., & Rahimpour, S. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written text: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 92-107. https://www.academia.edu/32272586/Contrastive_rhetoric_of_English_and_Persian_written_texts_Metadiscourse_in_applied_linguistics_research_articles
  19. Farmer, A., & Knight, P. (1995). Active history in key stages 3 and 4. David Fulton Publishers.
  20. Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: what can Goffman’s “Stigma” tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.002
  21. Fu, X., & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres: a study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122-144. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.7.1.05fu
  22. Gessesse, C. M. (2016). An investigation into the macro rhetorical structures of the EFL research abstracts of graduates of 2013: the case of Bahir Dar University in Ethiopia. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 6(1), 1–22. https://www.ojcmt.net/download/an-investigation-into-the-macro-rhetorical-structures-of-the-efl-research-abstracts-of-graduates-of.pdf
  23. Gezegin, B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in academic book reviews. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 713-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.097
  24. Ghasempour, B., & Farnia, M. (2017). Contrastive move analysis: Persian and English research article abstracts in law. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 5(4), 739-753. http://espeap.junis.ni.ac.rs/index.php/espeap/article/view/243
  25. Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
  26. Hatipoǧlu, Ç. (2007). (Im)politeness, national and professional identities and context: Some evidence from e-mailed ‘Call for Papers’. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 760-773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.014
  27. Huckin, T. (2006). Abstracting from abstracts. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context (pp. 93–103). Continuum.
  28. Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013002004
  29. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
  30. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 112-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
  31. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing.  Continuum.
  32. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse. Continuum International Publishing. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6fVEAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Hyland,+K.+(2009).+Academic+Discourse.+Continuum+International+Publishing&ots=075ntNFcR-&sig=GLEWOS-r6EQRFvyqG58t8dB1MM8#v=onepage&q=Hyland%2C%20K.%20(2009).%20Academic%20Discourse.%20Continuum%20International%20Publishing&f=false
  33. Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003
  34. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
  35. Jalilifar, A., Hayati, S., & Don, A. (2018). Investigating metadiscourse markers in book reviews and blurbs: A study of interested and disinterested genres. Studies about Languages, 33, 90-107. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=769000
  36. Junqueira, L., & Cortes, V. (2014). Metadiscourse in book reviews in English and Brazilian Portuguese: A corpus-based analysis. Rhetoric, Professional Communication and Globalization, 6(1), 88-109. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/rpcg/vol6/iss1/5
  37. Kaya, F., & Yağiz, O. (2020). Move analysis of research article abstracts in the field of ELT: A comparative study. Dil Ve Dilbilimi اalıs¸maları Dergisi, 16(1), 390–404. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712854
  38. Marandi, S. (2003). Metadiscourse in Persian/English master's theses: A contrastive study. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 23-42.
  39. McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002
  40. Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.003
  41. Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2013). The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org:10.1002/9781118339855
  42. Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: a study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607087010
  43. Rubio, M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of agricultural studies. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002
  44. Saeeaw, S., & Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2014). Rhetorical Variation across Research Article Abstracts in Environmental Science and Applied Linguistics. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 81-93. DOI:10.5539/elt.v7n8p81
  45. Saidi, M. & Karami, N. (2021). Interactional metadiscourse markers in applied linguistics reply articles. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 22, 64-77. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mavadat-Saidi/publication/363134093_Interactional_Metadiscourse_Markers_in_Applied_Linguistics_Reply_Articles/links/6329cee7873eca0c00a07cc4/Interactional-Metadiscourse-Markers-in-Applied-Linguistics-Reply-Articles.pdf
  46. Saidi, M., & Talebi, S. (2021). Genre analysis of research article abstracts in English for academic purposes journals: Exploring the possible variations across the venues of research. Education Research International, 2021, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3578179
  47. Salahshoor, F., & Afsari, P. (2017). An investigation of interactional metadiscourse in discussion and conclusion sections of social and natural science master theses. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 5(2), 7-14.  https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2018.26208.1060
  48. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.005
  49. Santos, M. B. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 16(4), 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1996.16.4.481
  50. Seidlhofer, B. (1995).  Approaches to Summarization: Discourse Analysis and Language Education (Vol. 11). Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PbN48_KNODgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Seidlhofer,+B.+(1995).++Approaches+to+Summarization:+Discourse+Analysis+and+Language+Education+(vol.11).+Gunter+Narr+Verlag,+T%C3%BCbingen.&ots=rbC8Rg8kZw&sig=RK8glquwlWFqX2YFG9tpoOHhJoQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
  51. Shahini, G., & Riazi, M. (2001). A needs assessment for the English language courses at Shiraz University. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 147-155. http://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1167172
  52. Sidek, H. M., Mat Saad, N. S., Baharun, H., & Idris, M. M. (2016). An analysis of rhetorical moves in abstracts for conference proceedings.  IJASOS- International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 2(4), 24–31. http://ijasos.ocerintjournals.org/en/download/article-file/232078
  53. Suntara, W., & Usaha, S. (2013). Research article abstracts in two related disciplines: rhetorical variation between linguistics and applied linguistics. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 84-99.
  54. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. CUP. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=shX_EV1r3-0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Swales,+J.+(1990).+Genre+analysis:+English+in+academic+and+research+settings.+CUP.&ots=8IN7p1knwl&sig=ZGNW3oh_qhMf5yeQub7hbuePT5E#v=onepage&q&f=false
  55. Tankó, G. (2017). Literary research article abstracts: an analysis of rhetorical moves and their linguistic realizations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 27, 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.04.003
  56. Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2006). So what is the problem this book addressed? Interactions in academic book reviews. Text and Talk, 26(6), 767-790. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.031
  57. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
  58. Yağiz, O., & Demir, C. (2015). A comparative study of boosting in academic texts:  a contrastive rhetoric. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(4), 12-28. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v5n4p12

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics