%40تخفیف

Examining the Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Iranian M.A. Applied Linguistics Theses

Name: Examining the Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Iranian M.A. Applied Linguistics Theses
SKU: 14855
Price: 210000 IRR
Availability: InStock

تعداد103 صفحه در فایل word

Examining the Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Iranian M.A. Applied Linguistics Theses

Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)

Abstract

One of the most outstanding written academic output a university student has the opportunity to create is thesis which is regarded as “a complex student-produced research genre” (Lee & Casal, 2014). In order to compare rhetorical features and preferences of distinct discourse communities and evaluate academic writing, analyzing metadiscourse features remains deserving a special and long-term attention on the part of the writers (Hyland, 2004). The present study examines the differences in use, type, and frequency of interactional metadiscourse markers in different chapters of theses written by M.A. applied linguistics graduates including 10 males and 10 females from Sharif University of Technology in Tehran. The selected corpus was analyzed using Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal model of metadiscourse. To analyze the data, the frequency, patterns of use, and type of interactional metadiscourse markers were elicited both through a manual corpus analysis and Adobe PDF reader software. Moreover, a Chi-Square statistical measurement through SPSS statistics software was run to examine whether there is any significant difference in the use of metadiscourse markers in regard with different thesis chapters and gender of writers. In the qualitative phase of this study, a structured interview was conducted. The participants of interview were selected based on convenience sampling procedure including 15 females and 5 males M.A. graduates from different universities in Iran. The results of the quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed that although there were some subtle differences in the frequency and types of these metadiscourse markers, there was no statistically significant difference between two genders in the use of interactional metadiscourse markers. The findings of this study may render some pedagogical implications for writing courses at M.A. and PhD levels in the realm of TEFL and ESP in order to persuade and reinforce university instructors and material developers to teach and provide students with metadiscourse features explicitly in order to assist students creating cohesive and coherent academic writings.

Keywords: Metadiscourse markers; Interactional features; Academic writing; Master’s thesis; Gender; Applied linguistics.

دسته: زبان خارجه, زبان خارجه برچسب: Keywords: Metadiscourse markers; Interactional features; Academic writing; Master’s thesis; Gender; Applied linguistics.

توضیحات

Dedication……………………………………………………………………………………………..I

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………..…………………..II

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………… III

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………….IV

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………….VII

List of Figures………………………………………………………………….Ix

List of Appendices……………………………………………………………x

Chapter One: Introduction

Overview………………………………………………………………………2

Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………………3

Significance of the Study…………………………………………………………..4

Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………………..5

Research Questions……………………………………………………………6

Null Hypotheses……………………………………………………………….6

Definition of Key Terms………………………………………………………7

Limitations and Delimitations of the Study………………………………………..9

Chapter Two: Review of the Related Literature

2.1. Overview…………………………………………………………………12

2.2. Origin and Historical Developments……………………………………13

2.3. Definitions of Metadiscourse…………………………………………………14

2.4. Metadiscourse Models and Resources………………………………..…15

2.4.1. Jakobsonian Model……………………………………………….15

2.4.2. Hallidayan Model…………………………………………………….17

2.4.3. Meyer’s Model………………………………………………………..18

2.4.4. Williams’ Model………………………………………………….19

2.4.5. Crismore’s Model…………………………………………………22

2.4.6. Kopple’s Model………………………………………………………22

2.4.7. Hyland and Tse’s Model………………………………………….25

2.4.8. The Theoretical Framework………………………………………27

2.5. Key Principle of Metadiscourse……………………………………………………29

2.6. Two Approaches to Metadiscourse…………………………………..…29

2.6.1. The Broad Approach…………………………………………………29

2.6.2. The Narrow Approach……………………………………….……34

2.7. Metadiscourse, Gender, and Identity……………………………………37

2.8. Metadiscourse, Interaction, and Audience………………………………38

2.9. Metadiscourse and Genres………………………………………….……39

2.10. Metadiscourse in Academic Research Articles………………………..40

2.10.1. Metadiscourse in Postgraduate Writings………………………40

2.10.2. Metadiscourse Variation in Article across Disciplines………..41

2.11. Review of the Related Past Studies……………………………………43

Chapter Three: Method

3.1. Overview…………………………………………………………………47

3.2. Research Participants………………………………………………………47

3.3. Corpus……………………………………………………………………..47

3.4. Instrumentation………………………………………………………….47

3.4.1. Interview………………………………………………………….48

3.5. Data Collection Procedure…………………………………………………48

3.6. Research Design…………………………………………………………..50

3.7. Data Analysis……………………………………………………………50

Chapter Four: Results and Discussion

4.1. Overview…………………………………………………………………47

4.2. Results……………………………………………………………………53

4.2.1. Research Question One……………………………………………53

4.2.2. Research Question Two…………………………………………..57

4.2.3. Research Question Three……………………………………………….60

4.2.4. Research Question Four…………………………………………..63

4.3. Discussion……………………………………………………………….71

Chapter Five: Conclusions, Implications and Suggestions for Further Studies

5.1. Overview…………………………………………………………………81

5.2. Conclusion………………………………………………………………81

5.3. Implications of the Study………………………………………………82

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research……………………………………….83

References………………………………………………………………….85

Appendices………………………………………………………………….93

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Summary of Vande Kopple’s classification system for metadiscourse…………………………………………………………………24

Table 2.2. Hyland and Tse’ model of metadiscourse in academic texts…………………………………………………………………………..26

Table 2.3. Hyland’s model of metadiscourse……………………..…………27

Table 2.4. The broad approach to metadiscourse………………………………30

Table 2.5. Vande Kopple’s seven different kinds of metadiscourse……..….32

Table 2.6. Research taking a broad approach to metadiscourse………….…34

Table 2.7. The narrow approach to metadiscourse……………………….…35

Table 2.8. Research taking a narrow approach to metadiscourse……………….36

Table 3.1. A sample table for collecting raw data……………………………49

Table 4.1. The frequency of interactional metadiscourse markers used by males and females for all chapters included in the study……………………..…………54

Table 4.2. Descriptive statistics of chapters and metadiscourse markers……..55

Table 4.3. Results of Chi-square test for examining the difference in the use of hedges based on participants’ gender…………………………………………57

Table 4.4. Results of Chi-square test for examining the difference in the use of boosters based on participants’ gender……………………………………….58

Table 4.5. Results of Chi-square test for examining the difference in the use of attitude markers based on participants’ gender………………………..………58

Table 4.6. Results of Chi-square test for examining the difference in the use of self-mentions based on participants’ gender……………………………………59

Table 4.7. Results of Chi-square test for examining the difference in the use of engagement markers based on participants’ gender………………………….59

Table 4.8. Results of Chi-square test for examining the difference in the use of hedges based on thesis chapters…………………………………………..…..60

Table 4.9. Results of Chi-square test for examining the difference in the use of boosters based on thesis chapters…………………………………………….61

Table 4.10. Results of Chi-square test for examining the difference in the use of attitude markers based on thesis chapters…………………………………61

Table 4.11. Results of Chi-square test for examining the difference in the use of self-mentions based on thesis chapters……………………………………62

Table 4.12. Results of Chi-square test for examining the difference in the use of engagement markers based on thesis chapters……………………………63

Table 4.13. The frequency of interactional metadiscourse markers employed by participants based on thesis chapters…………………………………..…72

Table 4.14. The frequency of hedges markers employed by participants based on thesis chapters…………………………………………………………….73

Table 4.15. The frequency of booster markers employed by participants based on thesis chapters…………………………………………………………….73

Table 4.16. The frequency of attitude markers employed by participants based on thesis chapters ……………………………………………………………74

Table 4.17. The frequency of self-mention markers employed by participants based on thesis chapters………………………………………………………74

Table 4.18. The frequency of engagement markers employed by participants based on thesis chapter………………………………………………………75

Table 4.19. The overall frequency of interactional metadiscourse markers used by participants……………………………………………………………….76

Table 4.20. The overall frequency of interactional metadiscourse markers used by female participants……………………………………………………….77

Table 4.21. The overall frequency of interactional metadiscourse markers used by male participants…………………………………………………………78

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Hyland’s model of interactional metadiscourse markers…………6

Figure 2.1 Adel’s model of metadiscourse………………………………….24

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Interview questions……………………………………………94