Abstract

This article reports on a study that explored cross-disciplinary variation in the use of metadiscourse markers in advanced-level student writing, put forward as a realistic target for novice writers. Starting from the stance and engagement categories included in Hyland’s model, we first conducted a comprehensive quantitative analysis of interactional metadiscourse across disciplines. For this analysis, we used an automated processing tool that generates quantity scores for each metadiscourse category. We then carried out a detailed qualitative analysis of selected items that contributed significantly to these category scores. The data for our analyses come from a corpus of 829 student papers from 16 different disciplines. The results showed notable differences in students’ use of metadiscourse features across academic divisions and disciplines. We suggest that this offers evidence of advanced students’ ability to express interactional strategies that are in line with disciplinary expectations. We also found, however, that disciplines that fall into the same academic division were not necessarily similar in their use of interactional metadiscourse, which calls into question the usefulness of existing disciplinary groupings. The findings of this study offer insights into how to build an appropriate writerly stance in different academic communities.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2020-04-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088319898672
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cites in this index (6)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Written Communication
  4. Written Communication
  5. Written Communication
Show all 6 →
  1. Written Communication
Also cites 51 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1177/14614456020040020101
  2. 10.1075/ijcl.17.1.01ade
  3. 10.1016/j.jeap.2017.01.005
  4. 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
  5. 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
  6. 10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.005
  7. 10.37514/JWA-J.2017.1.1.04
    Journal of Writing Analytics  
  8. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
  9. 10.11139/cj.30.3.410-422
  10. 10.37514/LLD-J.1994.1.1.03
  11. 10.1075/scl.71
  12. 10.1057/9781137030825_2
  13. 10.3366/cor.2013.0040
  14. Hardy J. A., Römer U., Roberson A. (2015). The power of relevant models: Using a corpus of student writing to…
  15. 10.1093/applin/ami012
  16. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
  17. 10.1145/1014052.1014073
  18. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse
  19. 10.1075/pbns.54
  20. 10.1093/applin/23.2.215
  21. 10.1177/1461445605050365
  22. 10.1075/etc.1.1.03hyl
  23. 10.1057/9781137030825_9
  24. 10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3
  25. 10.1093/applin/25.2.156
  26. 10.1017/S0261444807004892
  27. 10.3115/1075096.1075150
  28. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.006
  29. 10.1080/03075079812331380364
  30. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004
  31. 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004
  32. Adjective intensification—learners versus native speakers: A corpus study of argumentativ…
  33. 10.1075/ijcl.14.1.02lu
  34. 10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0008
  35. 10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.006
  36. 10.1111/j.1467-8640.2012.00460.x
  37. 10.1093/applin/amu017
  38. 10.1093/applin/16.4.442
  39. 10.3366/cor.2012.0015
  40. 10.1075/ijcl.18.1.07odo
  41. 10.1111/ijal.12200
  42. 10.1075/arcl.7.06rom
  43. 10.3366/cor.2011.0011
  44. 10.17239/jowr-2010.02.02.2
  45. 10.1016/j.esp.2002.10.001
  46. 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.005
  47. 10.1016/j.jeap.2017.11.005
  48. 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001
  49. 10.1515/cllt-2012-0006
  50. 10.1016/j.asw.2017.02.002
  51. 10.1177/0265532212456965
CrossRef global citation count: 38 View in citation network →