JJMLL » JJMLL Issues

 
 Jordanian Journals
Home
Editorial Board
International Advisory Board
Scope and Description
Manuscript Submission
Manuscript Organization  
Publication Ethics  
Copyright  
Offprints  
Disclaimer  
JJMLL Issues  
Contact Address

 

      

     
   

Comparative Study of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in the Discussion Section of Soft and Hard Science Research Articles: Hedges and Boosters in Focus

 

 

Abstract

 

The aim of this descriptive analytical study was to examine research articles discussion sections from four disciplines to measure the functions and frequencies of hedges and boosters. To this end, scholarly research articles were randomly selected from leading and reputable journals in mechanical and industrial engineering as representatives of hard science disciplines and management and psychology as representatives of soft science disciplines. The size of the corpus in each discipline was around 17000 words. The data were analyzed in light of Hyland's (2005) model of interactional metadiscourse for hedges and boosters devices. Results of descriptive and inferential statistics showed that the use of hedges was significantly more in soft science disciples while boosters were overused in hard science disciplines, corresponding to the fact that by virtue of being less personal and more objective, hard sciences are represented through more frequent use of boosters than hedges to express facts. On the other hand, soft sciences are influenced by their subjectivity which results in higher frequencies of hedges. The findings of this study have implications for English for Academic/Specific purposes courses.

Keywords: Discussion section, Research article, Metadiscourse, Booster, Hedge.

Authors: Maryam Farnia , Sara Gerami

Doi: https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.13.2.5

 

Cited by: Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures (JJMLL) 2021, 13 (2): 263-280

 

Full text

 

 

References

Alhuqbani, Mohammed Nasser. 2013. Genre-Based Analysis of Arabic Research Article Abstracts across Four Disciplines. Journal of Educational and Social Research 3 (3): 371-382.

Alotaibi, Hmoud. 2015. Metadiscourse in Arabic and English Research Article Abstracts. World Journal of English Language 5 (2): 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v5n2p1

Aluthman, Ebtisam Saleh. 2018. A cross-disciplinary investigation of textual metadiscourse markers in academic writing, International Journal of Linguistics 10 (2): 19-38. doi:10.5296/ijl.v10i2.12916

Crismore, Avon, Raija Markkanen, and Margaret S. Steffensen. 1993. Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written By American and Finnish University Students. Written Communication 10 (1): 39–71. doi: 10.1177/0741088393010001002

Farnia, Maryam, Masoud Saeedi, and Zahra Ataei. 2020. A Cross-Disciplinary Study on Evaluative Strategies in Research Articles Conclusion Sections. International Journal of Research in Education 5 (1): 1-18

Farrokhi, Farahman and Safoora Emami. 2008. Hedges and Boosters in Academic Writing: Native vs. Non-Native Research Articles In Applied Linguistics and Engineering. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (2): 62-98.

Farzannia, Sara, and Maryam Farnia. 2016. Metadiscourse Markers in Introduction Sections of Persian and English Mining Engineering Articles. English for Specific Purposes World 49 (17): 1-16.

Fu, Xiaoli, and Ken Hyland. 2014. Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction 7 (1):122-144.

Halliday, Michael. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

 Hashemi, Mohammad R. and Iman Gohari  Moghaddam. 2016. A Mixed Methods Genre Analysis of the Discussion Section of MMR Articles in Applied Linguistics. Journal of Mixed-Method Research: 1-19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816674626

Holmes, Janet. 1990. Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language and communication 10 (3): 185-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S

Hu, Guangwei, and Feng Cao. 2011. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (11): 2795–2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007

Hunston, Susan, and Geoff Thompson. 2001. Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, Ken. 1998. Boosting, Hedging and the Negotiation of Academic Knowledge. Texts 18 (3): 349-382.

Hyland, Ken. 2000. Hedges, Boosters and Lexical Invisibility: Noticing Modifiers in Academic Texts. Language Awareness 9 (4): 179-197.

Hyland, Ken. 2004a. Genre and Second Language Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, Ken. 2004b. Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 13: 133-151.

Hyland, Ken. 2004c. Disciplinary discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press

Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.

Hyland, Ken and Polly Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25 (2): 156–77.

Hyland, Ken. 2013. Writing in the University: Education, Knowledge and Reputation. Language Teaching 46 (1): 53-70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000036

Hyland, Ken. 2015. Metadiscourse. In Tracy, K. (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell

Hyland, Ken, and Feng (Kevin) Jiang. 2020. Text-organizing Metadiscourse: Tracking Changes in Rhetorical Persuasion. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21 (1): 137-164.

Kahkesh, Maryam, and Mohammad Alipour. 2017. A comparative Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers in the Result and Discussion Sections of Literature and Engineering Research Papers. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies 9: 71-82.

Karimi, Keihaneh, Maryam Maleki and Maryam Farnia. 2017. Metadiscourse Markers in the Abstract Sections of Persian and English Law Articles. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research (IJFLTR) 5 (18): 69-83.

Khedri, Mohsen, Chan Swee Heng and Tan Bee Hoon. 2013. Cross-Disciplinary and Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Metadiscourse in Academic Writing. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 31 (1): 129-138, doi: 10.2989/16073614.2013.793957

Kim, Loi Chek, and Jason Miin-Hwa Lim. 2013. Metadiscourse in English and Chinese Research Article Introductions. Discourse Studies 15 (2): 129-146. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24443317

Lee, Joseph, and J. Elliott Casal. 2014. Metadiscourse in Results and Discussion Chapters: A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of English and Spanish Thesis Writers in Engineering. System 46: 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009

Li, Zhijun, and Jinfen Xu. 2020. Reflexive Metadiscourse in Chinese and English Sociology Research Article Introductions and Discussions. Journal of Pragmatics 159: 47-59, https://doi.org/10.101 6/j.pragma.2020.02.003

Liu, Ping, and Xu Huang. 2017. A Study of Interactional Metadiscourse in English Abstracts Of Chinese Economics Research Articles. Higher Education Studies 7 (3): 25-41. http://doi.org/10.5539 /hes.v7n3p25

Markkanen, Raija, and Hartmut Schröder. 1997. Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In Raija Markkanen & Hartmut Schröder (eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a Pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 3-18). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Martin, J. R. 2001. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (Eds.). Evaluation in text (pp. 142-175). Oxford: Oxford Placement Test

Mu, Congjun, Lawrence Jun Zhang, John Ehrich, and Huaqing Hong. 2015. The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20: 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003

Parkinson, Jean. 2011. The discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for Specific Purposes 30 (3): 164-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.001

Schmidt, Richard W. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11 (2): 17–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129

Sedaghat, Azam., Reza Biria, and Yaghoub Asadi Amirabadi. 2015. Cross cultural analysis of hedges in Persian and English editorial columns. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World 8 (1): 37-50.

Siami, Tohid and Reza Abdi. 2012. Metadiscourse strategies in Persian research articles; Implications for teaching writing English articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning 9: 165-176.

Sorahi, Mohammadamin, and Mansour Shabani. 2016. Metadiscourse in Persian and English research article introductions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 6 (6): 1175-1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0606.06

Sultan, Abbas H.J. 2011. A contrastive study o f metadiscourse in English and Arabic linguistics research articles. Acta Linguistica 5 (1): 28-41.

Swales, John, and Christine Feak, 2004. Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Takimoto, Masahiro. 2015. A corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 5 (1): 95-105. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836

Uba, Sani Yantandu. 2020. Metadiscourse in research article genre: A cross-linguistic study of English and Hausa, English Language Teaching 13 (2): 57-62. doi: 10.5539/elt.v13n2p57

Vande Kopple, Willian J. 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36: 1-27.

Ward, Holly Vass. 2015. A comparative analysis of hedging in a corpus of two written legal discourse genres. Doctoral Thesis. Licenciada en Filologia Hispanica. Retrieved from: http://oa.upm.es/39087/1/HOLLY_VASS_WARD.pdf

Wei, Jing, and Jing Duan. 2019. A comparative study of metadiscoursal features in English research article abstracts in hard disciplines, Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics 4 (1): 1-37

Yazdani, Sara, Shahla Sharifi, and Mahmoud Elyassi. 2014. Interactional metadiscourse in English and Persian news articles about 9/11. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 4 (2): 428-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.2.428-434

Zarei, Golamreza, and Sara Mansoori. 2011. A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching 4 (1): 42-50.

 

Copyright © 2006-2021. All Rights Reserved, Yarmouk University