The use of metadiscourse markers in applied linguistics research proposals written by Vietnamese MA students

Dang Ngoc Cat Tien

doi:10.46223/HCMCOUJS.soci.en.13.2.2688.2023

13 (2) 2023

The use of metadiscourse markers in applied linguistics research proposals written by Vietnamese MA students

Author - Affiliation:

Dang Ngoc Cat Tien - Yersin Unviersity, Dalat , Vietnam

Corresponding author: Dang Ngoc Cat Tien - dangngoccattiendyd@gmail.com

DOI:10.46223/HCMCOUJS.soci.en.13.2.2688.2023

Submitted: 14-03-2023
Accepted: 14-07-2023
Published: 27-12-2023

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate how the metadiscourse markers are used in Applied Linguistic research proposals written by Vietnamese MA students. Besides, it also examines what the most and least common types of metadiscourse markers are used in this kind of proposal. The study used a corpus consisting of Applied Linguistic research proposals written by a total of 20 students. The analysis of the type and frequency of metadiscourse markers used in the selected research proposals was based on Hyland’s (2005) model. With the support of the concordance computer program, namely Antconc, the occurrence of each metadiscourse marker found was calculated to find out the results. The finding of the study showed that interactive markers are more commonly used than interactional markers in Applied Linguistic research proposals. It is also seen that transition markers are the most common type of metadiscourse markers, while evidential markers have the lowest frequency. This can imply that Vietnamese students prioritize the interactive metadiscourse markers over the interactional metadiscourse markers in Applied Linguistics research proposals due to the fact that it is the easiest way for the author to organize the text in order to make readers comprehend the whole text.

Keywords

applied linguistic research proposals; interactive metadiscourse; interactional metadiscourse; Vietnamese MA students

Full Text:

PDF

Cite this paper as:

Dang, T. N. C. (2023). The use of metadiscourse markers in applied linguistics research proposals written by Vietnamese MA students. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science – Social Sciences, 13(2), 111-124. doi:10.46223/HCMCOUJS.soci.en.13.2.2688.2023

References

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2003). Interpersonal metadiscourse in ELT papers by Iranian and Anglo-American academic writers. Paper presented at the International Conference on Multiculturalism in ELT Practice, Baskent University, Turkey.

Banaruee, H., Mohammadian, A., & Zare-Behtash, E. (2017). Metadiscourse makers in pure mathematics textbook. Global Journal of Educational Studies, 3(2), 62-69.

Boshrabadi, A. M., Biria, R., & Zavari, Z. (2014). A cross cultural analysis of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers: The case of economic articles in English and persian newspapers. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(2), 59-66.

Chesterman, A. (1998) Contrastive functional analysis. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Filippi, P. (2016). Emotional and interactional prosody across animal communication systems: A comparative approach to the emergence of language. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-19.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Edward Arnold.

Haryanto, T. (2007). Grammatical error analysis in students’ recount texts (A final project). Semarang, Indonesia: Semarang State University.

Hinkel, E. (2002). New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hui, J., & Na, B. (2008). Use of metadiscourse in allocating SLA learners’ attention. Sino-US English Teaching, 5(11), 55-67.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.

Jalilifar, A., & Alipour, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1), 35-52.

Kopple, W. J. V. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.

Mohamed, A., & Rashid, R. (2017). The metadiscourse markers in good undergraduate writers’ essays corpus. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(6), 213-220.

Nodelman, P. (1988). Words about pictures. The narrative art of children’s picture books. Athens, Greece and London, UK: The University of Georgia Press.

Pasaribu, T. A. (2017). Gender differences and the use of metadiscourse markers in writing essays. International Journal of Humanity Studies, 1(1), 93-102.

Rustipa, K. (2014). Metadiscourse in Indonesian EFL learners’ persuasive texts: A case study at English department, Unisbank. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(1), 44-52.

Seyyedrezaie, Z. S., & Vahedi, V. S. (2017). Projecting gender identity through metadiscourse marking: Investigating writers’ stance taking in written discourse. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 301-310.

Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Tan, H., & Eng, W. B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in the persuasive writing of Malaysian undergraduate students. English Language Teaching, 7(7), 26-38.

Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83-102.

Yakhontova, T. (2002). “Selling” or “telling”? The issue of cultural variation in research genres. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 216-232). London, UK: Longman.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46223/HCMCOUJS.soci.en.13.2.2688.2023