How do Arab Writers Interact With Their Readers? An Analysis of the Use of Metadiscourse Markers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1306.29Keywords:
Arabic writers, interactional metadiscourse, academic writing, writer-reader interactionAbstract
A considerable body of research has investigated the use of metadiscourse in academic writing in different languages, and it is assumed in the literature that the use of metadiscourse is language- and culture-specific. However, little research has investigated how Arab writers interact with their readers in Arabic research articles (RAs). Thus, following Hyland’s (2005) models, this study explores the use of the interactional metadiscourse in the introductions of 94 Arabic RAs totalling 88,350 words published between 2013-2022. Findings showed that Arab writers tend to establish a relationship with readers and involve them as discourse participants through the use of the inclusive pronoun naḥnu نحن ‘we’ and the rhetorical forms. Arab writers used both grammatical and lexical items to express their views with confidence with a high degree of commitment. They were found to use reader-accuracy markers to mitigate their arguments. They, however, appeared not to evaluate what is presented through their personal feelings, and this might be due to sociocultural reasons, which requires further investigation.
References
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2019). A cross-cultural study of hedging in discussion sections by junior and senior academic writers. Ibérica, 38, 177-202.
Akbas, E. & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or Weakening Claims in Academic Knowledge Construction: A Comparative Study of Hedges and Boosters in Postgraduate Academic Writing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(4), 831-859.
Alharbi, L. M., & Swales, J. M. (2011). Arabic and English abstracts in bilingual language science journals: Same or different? Languages in Contrast, 11(1), 70-86.
Almakrob, A.Y. (2020). Native versus Nonnative English writers’ use of hedging in Linguistics Dissertations. The Asian EFL Journal, 27, 360-381.
Al-Mudhaffari, M., Hussin, S. & Abdullah, I. H. (2020). Interactional Strategies in L2 Writing: An Exploration of Hedging and Boosting Strategies in Applied Linguistics Research Articles. IJAES, 20, 171- 186.
Al-Mudhaffari, M., Hussin, S. & Abdullah, I. H. (2020). Interaction in Academic L2 writing: An analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Strategies in Applied Linguistics Research Articles. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 25(3), 16 – 32.
Alotaibi, H. (2015). Metadiscourse in Arabic and English Research Article Abstracts. World Journal of English Language, 5 (2), 1-8.
Alotabi, H. & Arabi, H. (2020). Taking authorial stance in Arabic research articles introductions. (2020). International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 20(2), 41-62. https://doi.org/10.33806/ijaes2000.20.2.2
Binmahboob. T. (2022). The Use of Metadiscourse by Saudi and British Authors: A Focus on Applied Linguistics Discipline. English Language Teaching, 15(2), 78-89.
Bonyadi, A., Gholami, J. & Nasiri, S., (2012). A Contrastive Study of Hedging in Environmental Sciences Research Articles. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(6), 1186-1193.
Chung, E., Crosthwaite, P. R., & Lee, C. (2023). The use of metadiscourse by secondary-level Chinese learners of English in examination scripts: Insights from a corpus-based study. IRAL, 1-32 https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0155
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. Peter Lang.
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, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11, 29-52.
ElMalik, A. T. & Nesi, H. (2008). Publishing research in a second language: The Case of Sudanese Contributors to International Medical Journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 87-96.
Fathi, S. (2019). The Translation of Arabic Metadiscourse in “A handful of dates” into English. Adab Al-Rafidayn, 77, 17-41.
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139.
Gomaa, Y.A. (2019). A Corpus-Based Pragmatic Analysis of Hedging in Linguistic Master Theses Abstracts Written by Saudi Students. Hermes, 8(1), 9-31.
Herriman, J. (2014). Metadiscourse in English and Swedish non-fiction texts and their translations. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 1–32.
Herriman, J. (2022). Metadiscourse in English instruction manuals. English for Specific Purposes, 65, 120-132.
Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15, 29–53.
Hinkel, E. (2009). The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 667–683.
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.
Hu, G. & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795–2809.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. London; New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2014). Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30.
Hyland, K. & Jiang, F. K. (2019). Academic Discourse and global publishing: Disciplinary persuasion in changing times. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2022a). Metadiscourse choices in EAP: An intra-journal study of JEAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 60, 101-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101165
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2022b). Interaction in written texts: A bibliometric study of published research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 13, 1-24.
Hyland, K., Wang, W., & Jiang, F. K. (2022). Metadiscourse across languages and genres: An overview. Lingua, 265, [103205]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103205
Kafe, H. (2017). An Intercultural Investigation of Metadiscourse Features in Research Articles by American and Turkish Academic Writers. International Journal of Languages Education and Teaching, 5(3), 373-391.
Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124.
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, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21-34.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 149-170.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003
Park, H. I., & Lee, S. (2022). Interactional metadiscourse in English Teaching articles: A diachronic perspective (1980-2021). English Teaching, 77(2), 3-23.
Shen, Q., & Tao, Y. (2021). Stance markers in English medical research articles and newspaper opinion columns: A comparative corpus-based study. PLOS One, 16(3), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247981
Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 79-101.
Toumi, N. A. (2009). A Model for the investigation of reflexive metadiscourse in research articles. Language Studies Working Papers, 1, 64-73.
Kopple, W. J.V. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93.
Kopple, W. J. V. (2012). The importance of studying metadiscourse. Applied Research in English, 1(2), 37–44.
Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace (3rd ed.). Scott Foresman.
Zaki, M. (2022). The metadiscourse of Arabic academic abstracts: A corpus-based study. Research in Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 113–146. https://doi.org/10.32714/ricl.10.02.06
