Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 11. Number3 September 2020 Pp. 193- 211
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no3.12
A Cross-linguistic Analysis of Formulaic Language and Meta-discourse in Linguistics Research
Articles by Natives and Arabs: Modeling Saudis and Egyptians
Mohammad Awad Al-Dawoody Abdulaal
Department of English, College of Science and Humanities
Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University
Al-Kharj 11942, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Department of English, Faculty of Arts, Port Said University
Abstract:
This corpus-based study aims to identify the interactional and interactive metadiscourse markers in terms of frequency in the abstract and discussion sections of research articles on linguistics, written in English by native, Egyptian, and Saudi researchers. To attain this aim, 60 research articles have been randomly compiled and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively via AntConc.3.2.4 depending on Hyland’s (2005) classification of metadiscourse markers (MM). Taking the abstracts and discussions written by the natives as a benchmark, this study poses the following essential question: How close and far is the amount of the interactional and interactive resources in Egyptian and Saudi abstracts and discussions to and from the native level? The results showed that except for hedges, evidential markers, and endophorics, the usage of attitudes, code glosses, engagement markers, self-mentions and transitions in the E-abstracts (i.e. written by Egyptian researchers) was much far from the native level. But in S-abstracts (i.e. abstracts written by Saudi researchers), only two close points to the native level have been recorded: transitions and engagements. In the E-discussion sections, unlike code glosses and frame markers, attitudes, boosters, endophorics, hedges, and self-mentions were reported very close to the N-level. In the S-discussion sections, boosters, code glosses, emphatic, engagement, frame markers, and transitions have recorded far rates from the N-level; whereas only attitudes and hedges were much close to the native normal level.
Keywords: cross-linguistics, Hyland’s classification, interactional marker, interactive devices
Cite as: Abdulaal,M.A. A. (2020).A Cross-linguistic Analysis of Formulaic Language and Meta-discourse in Linguistics Research Articles by Natives and Arabs: Modeling Saudis and Egyptians. Arab World English Journal, 11 (3) . 193- 211.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no3.12
References
Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: an indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139–145. doi: 10.1177/14614456020040020101
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288–297. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019
Abdulaal, M.A.A. (2020). A Diagnostic Chomskian View to Arabic Asymmetry. Arab World English Journal, 11 (2) 168 -186.
doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no2.12
Abdulaal, M. & Abuslema, N. (2020). Spontaneity of Speech Errors: A Diagnostic Psycholinguistic Case Study. International Journal of English Linguistics. 10 (3). 92-107. Doi:10.5539/ijel.v10n3p92.
Akbaş, E. (2012). Exploring metadiscourse in master’s dissertation abstracts: Cultural and linguistic variations across postgraduate writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(1), 12-26
Anwardeen, N. H., Luyee, E. O., Gabriel, J. I., & Kalajahi, S. A. (2013). An analysis: The usage of metadiscourse in argumentative writing by Malaysian tertiary level of students. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 83-96. doi: 10.5539/elt.v6n9p83.
Adel, A. (2012) ‘What I want you to remember is.’: Audience orientation in monologic academic genres. English Text Construction, 5 (1), 12-23
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. doi:10.32601/ejal.710204
Bruce, I. (2010). Textual and discoursal resources used in the essay genre in sociology and English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 153-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.011
Burneikaitė, N. (2008). Metadiscourse in Linguistics master’s theses in English L1 and L2. KALBOTYRA, 59(3), 38- 47. doi: 10.15388/Klbt.2008.7591
Burneikaitė, N. (2009). Metadiscoursal connectors in Linguistics MA theses in English L1 & L2. KALBOTYRA, 61(3), 36-50.
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15–31. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
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. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
Dahl, T. (2004) Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807–1825. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
Farjami, H. (2013). A corpus-based study of the lexical make-up of applied linguistics article abstracts. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 5(2), 27-50.
García-Calvo, J. (2002). Uses of metadiscourse in a research abstracts for scientific events. Revista Letras Curitiba, 57, 195–209.
Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53–68. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring writing in interaction. London: Continuum, 13-15.
Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28 (2), 266–285. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amm011
Hyland, K. (2009a). Academic Discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2009b). Writing in the disciplines: Research evidence for specificity. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 1(1), 5-22.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
Hyland, K. (2010) Metadiscourse: mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic J. English Stud. 9 (2), 125-143.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Jones, J. F. (2011). Using Metadiscourse to Improve Coherence in Academic Writing. Language Education in Asia, 2(1), 1–14. doi: 10.5746/leia/11/v2/i1/a01/jfjone
Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612471476
Lee, S. H. (2006). The use of interpersonal resources in argumentative/persuasive essays by East-Asian ESL and Australian tertiary students, (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Australia: University of Sydney
Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46(1), 39-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009
Lorés, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 280–302
Marandi, S. (2003). Metadiscourse in Persian/English master’s theses: A contrastive study. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 23-42.
Martin-Martin, P. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), 25–43.
Mirshamsi, A., & Allami, H. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master’s theses. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 5(3), 23-40.
Özdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011
Ren, H., & Li, Y. (2011). A comparison study on the rhetorical moves of abstracts in published research articles and master’s foreign-language theses. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 162-166.
Santos, M. B. D. (2019). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text, 16, 481-499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1996.16.4.481
Thompson, P. (2013). Thesis and dissertation writing. In B. Paltridge, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 283-299). West Essex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wang, L., & Zhang, Y. (2016). An analysis of metadiscourse in the abstracts of English academic papers. Global Journal of Human-Social Research, 16(9). Available at https://socialscienceresearch.org/index.php/GJHSS/article/view/1922
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
Yeganeh, M., Heravi, I., Sawari, A. (2015). Hedge and booster in newspaper articles on Iran’s presidential election: a comparative study of English and Persian articles. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 679-683.