A COMPARISON OF THE INTERACTIVE METADISCOURSE IN THE ABSTRACTS OF ARTICLES WRITTEN BY INDONESIAN AND NES SCHOLARS

Eva Nur Mazidah

= http://dx.doi.org/10.20473/etno.v3i1.12995
Abstract views = 92 times | views = 75 times

Abstract


An abstract plays an important role in an article because it becomes the face of the whole paper.  Besides, voluntarily or involuntarily when writing an abstract, a writer also applies metadiscourse markers to communicate effectively by organizing, interacting, and showing the stance.  Thus, the application of metadiscourse in an abstract becomes an interesting object to examine.  This study is aimed at examining interactive and interactional metadiscourse suggested by Hyland (2005) in 50 abstracts written by Indonesian scholars and 50 abstracts written by NES scholars, 100-250 word range, taken from TEFLIN journal and ELT journal.  The results show that NES scholars apply more metadiscourse markers than Indonesian scholars (83.14 versus 76.37). NES, in details, apply more code glosses, and transition markers, while Indonesian scholars apply more frame markers and evidentials, and the similar result is found in endophoric markers (8.9 for both groups of scholars). But, from overall cases and variants, metadiscourse markers by Indonesian scholars are more varied than those of NES scholars (618 versus 559 cases, 66 versus 48 variants). Differences are mostly influenced by cultural interferences (Friedlander, 1987; Hyland, 2005; Abdi, 2009; Sanjaya et al., 2015; Mu et al., 2015). Apart from what causes the differences, the result of T-test shows that the difference in metadiscourse markers applied by both scholars is not significant. It means that metadiscourse markers applied by both groups of scholars are similar.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdi, R. (2009). Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking: A comparison of Persian and English research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning Year 52 No. 212/Autumn &Winter2009

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English: Studies in corpus Linguistics. Amesterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Amiryousefi, M., & Barati, H. (2011). Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing, Ken Hyland, Continuum, London. Elixir Literature, 40, 5245-5250.

Azar, B. S. (1999). Understanding and using English grammar. Published by Binarupa Aksara.

Crismore, A., Markkaen, R., and Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10/1, 39-71.

Davies, A. (2003). The NES Speaker: Myth and Reality. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.

Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, 109-125.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001

Hyland, Ken. (2005). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.

Khedri, M., Heng, C. S., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319-331.

Llach, M. P. A. (2011). Lexical errors and accuracy in foreign language writing (Vol. 58). Multilingual Matters.

Meyer, C. F. (2009). Introducing English Linguistics (Vol. 11). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Murray, N., & Beglar, D. (2009). Inside track: writing dissertations and theses. Pearson Education.

Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135-148.

Ozdemir, N. O. and Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural Study. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63.

Sanjaya, I. N. S., Sitawati, A. A. R., and Suciani, N. K. (2015). Comparing hedges used by English and Indonesian scholars in published research articles: A corpus based study. Teflin Journal, 26 (2), 209-227. doi:10.15639/teflinjournal.v26i2/209-227

Sultan, A. H. (2011). A contrastive study of metadiscourse in English and Arabic linguistics research articles. Acta Linguistica, 5(1), 28.

Swales. J. M., and Feak, C. B. (2001). Academic Writing for Graduate Students Essential Tasks and Skills: A Course of NonNES Speakers of English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Supatranont, P. (2012). Developing a writing template of research article abstracts: A corpus-based method. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 144-156.

Wallwork, Adrian. (2011). English for Writing Research Papers. New York: Springer.

Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An introduction to sociolinguistics. John Wiley & Sons.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019 Etnolingual

This journal is indexed by:

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

 

View Etnolingual Stats