Interactional metadiscourse markers in applied linguistics research articles: a cross-cultural and cross-sectional analysis

Abstract

This study examines how interactional metadiscourse markers, written by native and non-native English writers in English applied linguistics research articles, are cross-culturally and cross-sectionally used. The selection of five leading journals, Journal of Second Language Writing, Language Learning, English for Specific Purposes, Studies in Second Language Acquisition and Reading and Writing, was based on SCImago Journal Rank 2014. A total number of 60 research articles were randomly selected. The model of analysis was suggested by Hyland’s (2005a) interactional metadiscourse markers which are hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers. The findings revealed that interactional metadiscourse markers had been higher in research articles written by native English than non-native English writers. The highest incidence had been reported in hedges followed by boosters, self-mentions, attitude markers, and engagement markers, respectively. Unlike other four elements, self-mentions had been higher in research articles written by non-native English than native English writers. In addition, significant differences cross-culturally existed in the use of hedges, attitude markers, and engagement markers. Furthermore, significant differences cross-sectionally existed in the use of boosters and self-mentions written by native English writers, and in the use of hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and engagement markers written by non-native English writers. For main functions of each interactional metadiscourse marker, hedges had performed as objective presentations of the writers. Boosters had been used as a conviction when the writers had been equipped with plausible evidence. Also, attitude makers had been employed to convey the writers’ evaluations. Fourth, self-mentions had been used to emphasize the writers’ ownership of the text. Finally, engagement markers had performed as tools to assist the writers to engage and to invite their readers to participate in the text. These cross-cultural and cross-sectional similarities and differences reveal the fact both NE and NNE researchers have been affected by their national and professional-academic culture significantly.