Dynamicity of interaction in academic discourse: Evidence from a corpus-based study

Authors

  • Mehrdad Vasheghani Farahani

    Universität Leipzig

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59400/fls.v5i3.1895

Abstract

Metadiscourse features are the rhetorical devices that serve to maintain the writer-reader and speaker-audience interaction. The way metadiscourse features are utilized in spoken and written modes may differ given the nature of these two modes of communication. For this reason, the present study set to unpack the distributional pattern of metadiscourse features as well as investigate the construction and maintenance of writer-reader and speaker-audience interaction in academic written and spoken English. To achieve this goal, two corpora of The British Academic Written English Corpus and British Academic Spoken English Corpus were utilized as the data gathering resources. To categorize the metadiscourse features, Hyland's taxonomy was selected. The quantitative analysis of the data showcased that the written corpus was more interactive oriented despite the fact that the spoken corpus showed a propensity towards the interactional category of metadiscourse features. On the other hand, the analysis of the concordance lines illustrated that academic conventions differed significantly in spoken and written academic English which resulted in a dynamic interaction between writer-reader as well as speaker-audience. The results of the study at hand may have implications in such lines of research as corpus linguistics, contrastive analysis and genre studies.

Keywords:

corpus-based studies; English spoken and written modes; metadiscourse features; written and spoken discourse; interaction in academic discourse; writer-reader interaction

References

Abdi R, Rizi MT, Tavakoli M (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42(6): 1669–1679. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.001

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

Ädel A (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins Publishing.

Ädel A (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 69–97. doi: 10.35360/njes.218

Aijmer K, Stenström AB (2004). Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. John Benjamins Publishing.

Alkhathlan M (2019). Metadiscourse in academic writing: An investigation of Saudi EFL students’ research articles. Linguistics and Literature Studies 7(5): 220–225. doi: 10.13189/lls.2019.070505

Alsop S, Nesi H (2009). Issues in the development of the British academic written English (BAWE) corpus. Corpora 4(1): 71–83. doi: 10.3366/e1749503209000227

Alyousef HS (2015). An investigation of metadiscourse features in international postgraduate business students’ texts. Sage Open 5(4). doi: 10.1177/2158244015610796

Alyousef HS (2016). A multimodal discourse analysis of the textual and logical relations in marketing texts written by international undergraduate students. Functional Linguistics 3: 3. doi: 10.1186/s40554-016-0025-1

Anderman GM, Rogers M (2008). Incorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator, 1st ed. Multilingual Matters.

Aull LL, Lancaster Z (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication 31(2): 151–183. doi: 10.1177/0741088314527055

Bal-Gezegin B, Bas 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

Basturkmen H, von Randow J (2014). Guiding the reader (or not) to re-create coherence: Observations on postgraduate student writing in an academic argumentative writing task. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 16: 14–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2014.07.005

Brown G, Yule G (1983). Discourse Analysis, 1st ed. Cambridge University Press.

Candel-Mora MA, Vargas-Sierra C (2013). An analysis of research production in corpus linguistics applied to translation. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics (CILC2013); 14–16 March 2013; Alicante, Spain.

Çapar M, Turan ÜD (2020). Interactional metadiscourse in research articles written by Turkish and native speaker. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International 10(1): 324–358. doi: 10.18039/ajesi.682042

Choemue S, Bram B (2021). Discourse markers in academic and non-academic writings of Thai EFL learners. Studies in English Language and Education 8(3): 1209–1226. doi: 10.24815/siele.v8i3.20122

Crismore A (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. Peter Lang Publishers.

Csomay E, Crawford WJ (2016). Doing Corpus Linguistics. Routledge.

Fraser B (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In: Fischer K (editor). Approaches to Discourse Particles. Elsevier. pp. 189–204.

Fung L, Carter R (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics 28(3): 410–439. doi: 10.1093/applin/amm030

González M, Roseano P, Borràs-Comes J, Prieto P (2017). Epistemic and evidential marking in discourse: Effects of register and debatability. Lingua 186–187: 68–87. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.008

Heng CS, Tan H (2010). Extracting and comparing the intricacies of metadiscourse of two written persuasive corpora. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT) 6(3): 124–146.

Herriman J (2014). Metadiscourse in English and Swedish non-fiction texts and their translations. Nordic Journal of English Studies 3(1): 1–32. doi: 10.35360/njes.291

Hewings M (2006). Introduction. In: Hewings M (editor). Academic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications. Continuum. pp. 79–92.

Hyland K (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Longman.

Hyland K (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(2): 133–151. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001

Hyland K (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.

Hyland K (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing, 2nd ed. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Jalilifar A, Hayati S, Don A (2018). Investigating metadiscourse markers in book reviews and blurbs: A study of interested and disinterested genres. Studies about Languages 33: 90–107. doi: 10.5755/j01.sal.0.33.19415

Kapranov O (2017). Discourse markers in EFL academic essays written by primary school teacher candidates. Konin Language Studies 5(4): 473–493.

Kawase T (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20: 114–124. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.006

Lahuerta Martínez ACL (2002). The use of discourse markers in EFL learners’ writing. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 15: 123–132. doi: 10.14198/raei.2002.15.08

Lam PWY (2009). Discourse particles in corpus data and textbooks: The case of well. Applied Linguistics 31(2): 260–281. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp026

Latawiec B (2012). Metadiscourse in oral discussions and persuasive essays of children exposed to collaborative reasoning. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, US; Unpublished work.

Massaabi A (2014). Metadiscourse and reading research articles (RA) in English by Tunisian geography faculty. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 98: 1110–1118. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.523

Mikhailov M, Cooper R (2016). Corpus Linguistics for Translation and Contrastive Studies: A Guide for Research, 1st ed. Routledge.

Müller S (2005). Discourse Markers in Native and Non-Native English Discourse. John Benjamins.

Öztürk Y, Durmuşoğlu Köse G (2021). “Well (er) you know …”: Discourse markers in native and non-native spoken English. Corpus Pragmatics 5: 223–242. doi: 10.1007/s41701-020-00095-9

Tadayyon M, Vasheghani Farahani M (2017). Exploring discourse markers used in academic papers: A comparative corpus-based inquiry of Iranian and English native writers. The Iranian EFL Journal 13(2): 40–58.

Thompson G (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22(1): 58–78. doi: 10.1093/applin/22.1.58

Thompson P, Nesi H (2001). Research in progress, the British academic spoken English (BASE) corpus project. Language Teaching Research 5(3): 263–264. doi: 10.1191/136216801680223443

Tse P, Hyland K (2006a). ‘So what is the problem this book addresses?’: Interactions in academic book reviews. Text & Talk 26(6): 767–790. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.031

Tse P, Hyland K (2006b). Gender and discipline: Exploring metadiscourse variation in academic book reviews. In: Hyland K, Bondi M (editors). Academic Discourse across Disciplines. Peter Lang. Volume 42. pp. 177–202.

Vande Kopple WJ (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36(1): 82–93. doi: 10.2307/357609

Vande Kopple WJ (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In: Barton EL, Stygall G (editors). Discourse Studies in Composition. Hampton Press. pp. 91–113.

Vasheghani Farahani M (2017). Investigating the application and distribution of metadiscourse features in research articles in applied linguistics between English native writers and Iranian writers: A comparative corpus-based inquiry. Journal of Advances in Linguistics 8(1): 1268–1285. doi: 10.24297/jal.v8i1.6441

Vasheghani Farahani M (2020). Metadiscourse in academic written and spoken English: A comparative corpus-based inquiry. Research in Language 18(3): 319–341. doi: 10.18778/1731-7533.18.3.05

Vasheghani Farahani M, Mohemmed AIA (2018). Metadiscourse in academic vs. non-academic writing: A comparative corpus-driven inquiry. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov 11(1): 145–166.

Vasheghani Farahani M, Pahlevanzade Fini M (2023). Corpora and Translation: Methods, Concepts and Application. Logos Publications.

Wei J, Duan J (2018). A comparative study of metadiscourse in English research article abstracts in hard disciplines by L1 Chinese and L1 English scholars. Applied Research on English Language 7(3): 399–434. doi: 10.22108/are.2019.110099.1264

Williams JM (1981). Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace, 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press.

Williams M (2010). Translating metadiscourse: An explanatory analysis of problems in students’ work. Mutatis Mutandis 3(1): 73–90.

Yang R, Allison D (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes 22(4): 365–385. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1

Zanettin F, Bernardini S, Stewart D (2003). Corpora in Translator Education, 1st ed. Routledge.

Zhang M (2016). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies 18(2): 204–222. doi: 10.1177/1461445615623907

Downloads

How to Cite

Farahani, M. V. (2023). Dynamicity of interaction in academic discourse: Evidence from a corpus-based study. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.59400/fls.v5i3.1895

Issue

Vol. 5 , Iss. 3 (December 2023)

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2023 Mehrdad Vasheghani Farahani

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.