%40تخفیف

Metadiscourse Markers in Discussion Section of Agricultural English Research Articles Written by Iranian and Non-Iranian Scholars

Name: Metadiscourse Markers in Discussion Section of Agricultural English Research Articles Written by Iranian and Non-Iranian Scholars
SKU: 14969
Price: 210000 IRR
Availability: InStock

تعداد96صفحه در فایل word

Metadiscourse Markers in Discussion Section of Agricultural English Research Articles Written by Iranian and Non-Iranian Scholars

Abstract

This study examined the interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers and their subcategories in English agricultural research articles, as an ESP genre, written by Iranians and non-Iranians. To this aim, this research reviewed the discussion section of 40 recently-published English articles in the field of agriculture, 20 of which were written by Iranian scholars, and the other 20 were selected from research articles written by non-Iranian English speaking scholars. The articles were analyzed and reviewed based on the metadiscourse taxonomy and were compared regarding the first 1,000 words of their discussion sections. To analyze the collected data in the current research, metadiscourse markers were investigated both through an automatic searching procedure and a manual one in order to avoid errors. To analyze the obtained results, the collected data were compared based on the frequency and percentage of each metadiscourse marker in the first phase. Then, the relationship between them was investigated through the statistical procedure of chi-square in order to figure out whether there were significant differences among them. The obtained results revealed that both Iranians and non-Iranians use interactive metadiscourse markers more than interactional ones. Considering interactive category, Iranians displayed a higher frequency of use in their research articles, as compared with non-Iranians. However, with regard to interactional metadiscourse markers, non-Iranians outperformed. Among the subcategories of interactive metadiscourse markers, transitions were the most frequent ones in both groups, followed by evidentials, code glosses and frame markers. The two groups differed significantly merely in the use of transitions, with Iranians’ articles displaying more occurrences. Among the subcategories of interactional markers, self-mentions were the most frequently employed ones, followed by hedges, engagement markers, boosters, and attitude markers respectively. A significant difference was found in employment of self-mention strategies, with non-Iranians displaying a higher frequency of use. Ultimately, the obtained results were discussed and compared with other studies.

Keywords: academic writing, metadiscourse, interactive metadiscourse, interactional metadiscourse

دسته: زبان خارجه, زبان خارجه برچسب: interactional metadiscourse, interactive metadiscourse, Keywords: academic writing, metadiscourse

توضیحات

Subject Page

List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………… IV

List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………. VII

List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………….. VIII

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………….. IX

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………….. XI

Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………………….1

1.1. Background…………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

1.2. Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………….. 4

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

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

1.4.1. Research Questions………………………………………………………………………… 5

1.4.2. Research Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………… 6

1.5. Definition of Key Words…………………………………………………………………… 7

1.6. Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………………………. 7

Chapter Two: Review of Literature………………………………………………9

2.0. Overview……………………………………………………………………………………….. 10

2.1. Theoretical Literature………………………………………………………………………. 10

2.1.1. Second Language Learning……………………………………………………………. 10

2.1.2. Academic Writing………………………………………………………………………… 11

2.1.3. Metadiscourse……………………………………………………………………………… 13

2.1.3.1. Metadiscourse Classifications and Taxonomies……………………………… 14

2.1.3.1.1. Vande Kopple’s Taxonomy of Metadiscourse…………………………….. 15

2.1.3.1.2. Crismore, Markkanen, and Steffensen’s Taxonomy of

Metadiscourse…………………………………………………………………. 18

2.1.3.1.3. Hyland’s Taxonomy of Metadiscourse………………………………………. 20

2.1.3.2. Metadiscourse Resources……………………………………………………………. 22

2.1.3.2.1. Interactive Resources………………………………………………………………. 22

2.1.3.2.2. Interactional Resources…………………………………………………………… 23

2.1.4. The Impact of First Language………………………………………………………. 24

2.1.5. Empirical Literature…………………………………………………………………….. 25

Chapter Three: Methodology………………………………………………….27

3.0. Overview……………………………………………………………………………………… 28

3.1. Corpus of the Study………………………………………………………………………. 29

3.2. Instrumentation……………………………………………………………………………… 29

3.3. Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………… 31

3.3.1. Data Collection…………………………………………………………………………… 31

3.3.2. Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………… 31

Chapter Four: Results…………………………………………………………33

4.0. Overview……………………………………………………………………………………… 34

4.1. Interactive vs. Interactional Metadiscourse Markers…………………………… 34

4.1.1. Iranians’ use of Metadiscourse Markers…………………………………………. 34

4.1.2. Non-Iranians’ use of Metadiscourse Markers………………………………….. 36

4.2. Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of Interactive Metadiscourse Markers….. 37

4.3. Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of Interactive Subcategories ………………. 39

4.3.1. Code Glosses……………………………………………………………………………… 41

4.3.2. Evidentials…………………………………………………………………………………. 42

4.3.3. Frame Markers……………………………………………………………………………. 44

4.3.4. Endophoric Markers……………………………………………………………………. 45

4.3.5. Transitions………………………………………………………………………………….. 46

4.4. Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers.. 48

4.5. Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of Interactional Subcategories…………….. 49

4.5.1. Attitude Markers………………………………………………………………………… 51

4.5.2. Boosters…………………………………………………………………………………….. 53

4.5.3. Engagement Markers…………………………………………………………………… 54

4.5.4. Hedges………………………………………………………………………………………. 55

4.5.5. Self-mentions……………………………………………………………………………… 57

Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion………………………………….….59

5.0. Overview……………………………………………………………………………………….. 60

5.1. Interactive vs. Interactional MMs as Employed by Iranians and Non Iranians…………………………………..…………………………….……….60

5.2. Subcategories of Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers

as Employed by Iranians and Non-Iranians………………………………………………. 63

5.3. Implications and Applications ………………………………………………………….. 69

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research……………………………………………………… 70

References………………………………………………………………..…….71

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 2.1. Vande Kopple’s Taxonomy of Metadiscourse Markers………………… 16

Table 2.2. Crismore, Markkanen, Steffensen’s Taxonomy of Metadiscourse

Markers ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19

Table 2.3. Hyland’s Interpersonal Model of Metadiscourse…………………………. 21

Table 3.1. Categorization of Scholars and Corpus Articles…………………………… 28

Table 3.2. The Interactive and Interactional Taxonomy of Metadiscourse……… 30

Table 4.1. Frequency of Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers

Employed by Iranians…………………………………………………………………………….. 34

Table 4.2. Chi-Square Test Results for Iranians’ use of Interactive vs.

Interactional MMs…………………………………………………………………………………. 35

Table 4.3. Frequency of Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers

Employed by Non-Iranians………………………………………………………………………. 36

Table 4.4. Chi-Square Test for Non-Iranians’ use of Interactive vs. Interactional MMs 37

Table 4.5. Frequency of Interactive MMs Employed by Iranians

and Non-Iranians………………………………………………………………. 37

Table 4.6. Chi-Square Test for Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of

Interactive MMs……………………………………………………………….. 38

Table 4.7. Frequency of Interactive Subcategories Employed by

Iranians and Non-Iranians…………………………………………………………………… 39

Table 4.8. Chi-Square Test for Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of

Interactive Subcategories………………………………………………………………………… 41

Table 4.9. Frequency of Code Glosses Employed by Iranians and

Non-Iranians…………………………………………………………………………………………. 41

Table 4.10. Chi-Square Test for Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’

use of Code Glosses………………………………………………………………………………. 42

Table 4.11. Frequency of Evidentials Employed by Iranians and

Non-Iranians…………………………………………………………………………………………. 43

Table 4.12. Chi-Square Test for Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of

Evidentials……………………………………………………………………………………………. 44

Table 4.13. Frequency of Frame Markers Employed by Iranians and Non

Iranians………………………………………………………………………………………………… 44

Table 4.14. Chi-Square Test for Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of Frame

Markers………………………………………………………………………………………………… 45

Table 4.15. Frequency of Endophoric Markers Employed by Iranians and

Non-Iranians…………………………………………………………………………………………. 46

Table 4.16. Frequency of Transitions Employed by Iranians and

Non-Iranians…………………………………………………………………………………………. 46

Table 4.17. Chi-Square Test for Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of

Transitions…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47

Table 4.18. Frequency of Interactional MMs Employed by Iranians and

Non-Iranians…………………………………………………………………………………………. 48

Table 4.19. Chi-Square Test for Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of

Interactional MMs………………………………………………………………………………….. 49

Table 4.20. Frequency of Interactional Subcategories Employed by Iranians

and Non-Iranians…………………………………………………………………………………… 49

Table 4.21. Chi-Square Test for Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of Interactional

Subcategories…………………………………………………………………………………………. 51

Table 4.22. Frequency of Attitude Markers Employed by Iranians and Non-

Iranians…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 51

Table 4.23. Binomial Test for Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of

Attitude Markers…………………………………………………………………………………… 52

Table 4.24. Frequency of Boosters Employed by Iranians and Non-

Iranians…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 53

Table 4.25. Chi-Square Test for Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of

Boosters………………………………………………………………………………………………… 54

Table 4.26. Frequency of Engagement Markers Employed by Iranians and

Non-Iranians…………………………………………………………………………………………. 54

Table 4.27. Chi-Square Test for Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of

Engagement Markers……………………………………………………………55

Table 4.28. Frequency of Hedges Employed by Iranians and Non-

Iranians…………………………………………………………………………..56 4.29. Chi-Square Test for Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of

Hedges………………………………………………………………………….57

Table 4.30. Frequency of Self-mentions Employed by Iranians and Non-

Iranians…………………………………………………………………………..57

Table 4.31. Chi-Square Test for Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of Self-

Mentions…………………………………………………………………………58

List of Figures

Figure Page

Figure 4.1. Iranians’ use of Interactive vs. Interactional MMs……………………….. 35

Figure 4.2. Non-Iranians’ use of Interactive vs. Interactional MMs………………… 36

Figure 4.3. Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of Interactive MMs……………………… 38

Figure 4.4. Iranians’ use of Interactive Subcategories…………………………………… 40

Figure 4.5. Non-Iranians’ use of Interactive Subcategories……………………………. 40

Figure 4.6. Comparison between Iranians and Non-Iranians in use of Code

Glosses……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42

Figure 4.7. Comparison between Iranians and Non-Iranians in use of

Evidentials………………………………………………………………………………………………. 43

Figure 4.8. Comparison between Iranians and Non-Iranians in use of

Frame Markers………………………………………………………………………………………… 45

Figure 4.9. Comparison between Iranians and Non-Iranians in use of

Transitions………………………………………………………………………………………………. 47

Figure 4.10. Comparison between Iranians and Non-Iranians in use

of Interactional MMs ………………………………………………………………………………. 48

Figure 4.11. Iranians’ use of Interactional Subcategories………………………………. 50

Figure 4.12. Non-Iranians’ use of Interactional Subcategories……………………….. 50

Figure 4.13. Comparison between Iranians and Non-Iranians in use of

Attitude Markers……………………………………………………………………………………… 52

Figure 4.14. Comparison between Iranians and Non-Iranians in use of

Boosters………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53

Figure 4.15. Comparison between Iranians and Non-Iranians in use

of Engagement Markers……………………………………………………………………………. 55

Figure 4.16. Comparison between Iranians and Non-Iranians in use

of Hedges……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 56

Figure 4.17. Comparison between Iranians and Non-Iranians in use

of Self-mentions………………………………………………………………………………………. 58

Metadiscourse Markers in Discussion Section of Agricultural English Research Articles Written by Iranian and Non-Iranian Scholars

تعداد96صفحه در فایل word

Metadiscourse Markers in Discussion Section of Agricultural English Research Articles Written by Iranian and Non-Iranian Scholars

Abstract

Keywords: academic writing, metadiscourse, interactive metadiscourse, interactional metadiscourse

Table of Contents

Subject Page

List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………… IV

List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………. VII

List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………….. VIII

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………….. IX

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………….. XI

Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………………….1

1.1. Background…………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

1.2. Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………….. 4

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

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

1.4.1. Research Questions………………………………………………………………………… 5

1.4.2. Research Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………… 6

1.5. Definition of Key Words…………………………………………………………………… 7

1.6. Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………………………. 7

Chapter Two: Review of Literature………………………………………………9

2.0. Overview……………………………………………………………………………………….. 10

2.1. Theoretical Literature………………………………………………………………………. 10

2.1.1. Second Language Learning……………………………………………………………. 10

2.1.2. Academic Writing………………………………………………………………………… 11

2.1.3. Metadiscourse……………………………………………………………………………… 13

2.1.3.1. Metadiscourse Classifications and Taxonomies……………………………… 14

2.1.3.1.1. Vande Kopple’s Taxonomy of Metadiscourse…………………………….. 15

2.1.3.1.2. Crismore, Markkanen, and Steffensen’s Taxonomy of

Metadiscourse…………………………………………………………………. 18

2.1.3.1.3. Hyland’s Taxonomy of Metadiscourse………………………………………. 20

2.1.3.2. Metadiscourse Resources……………………………………………………………. 22

2.1.3.2.1. Interactive Resources………………………………………………………………. 22

2.1.3.2.2. Interactional Resources…………………………………………………………… 23

2.1.4. The Impact of First Language………………………………………………………. 24

2.1.5. Empirical Literature…………………………………………………………………….. 25

Chapter Three: Methodology………………………………………………….27

3.0. Overview……………………………………………………………………………………… 28

3.1. Corpus of the Study………………………………………………………………………. 29

3.2. Instrumentation……………………………………………………………………………… 29

3.3. Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………… 31

3.3.1. Data Collection…………………………………………………………………………… 31

3.3.2. Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………… 31

Chapter Four: Results…………………………………………………………33

4.0. Overview……………………………………………………………………………………… 34

4.1. Interactive vs. Interactional Metadiscourse Markers…………………………… 34

4.1.1. Iranians’ use of Metadiscourse Markers…………………………………………. 34

4.1.2. Non-Iranians’ use of Metadiscourse Markers………………………………….. 36

4.2. Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of Interactive Metadiscourse Markers….. 37

4.3. Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of Interactive Subcategories ………………. 39

4.3.1. Code Glosses……………………………………………………………………………… 41

4.3.2. Evidentials…………………………………………………………………………………. 42

4.3.3. Frame Markers……………………………………………………………………………. 44

4.3.4. Endophoric Markers……………………………………………………………………. 45

4.3.5. Transitions………………………………………………………………………………….. 46

4.4. Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers.. 48

4.5. Iranians’ vs. Non-Iranians’ use of Interactional Subcategories…………….. 49

4.5.1. Attitude Markers………………………………………………………………………… 51

4.5.2. Boosters…………………………………………………………………………………….. 53

4.5.3. Engagement Markers…………………………………………………………………… 54

4.5.4. Hedges………………………………………………………………………………………. 55

4.5.5. Self-mentions……………………………………………………………………………… 57

Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion………………………………….….59

5.0. Overview……………………………………………………………………………………….. 60

5.1. Interactive vs. Interactional MMs as Employed by Iranians and Non Iranians…………………………………..…………………………….……….60

5.2. Subcategories of Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers

as Employed by Iranians and Non-Iranians………………………………………………. 63

5.3. Implications and Applications ………………………………………………………….. 69

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research……………………………………………………… 70

References………………………………………………………………..…….71

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 2.1. Vande Kopple’s Taxonomy of Metadiscourse Markers………………… 16

Table 2.2. Crismore, Markkanen, Steffensen’s Taxonomy of Metadiscourse

Markers ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19

Table 2.3. Hyland’s Interpersonal Model of Metadiscourse…………………………. 21

Table 3.1. Categorization of Scholars and Corpus Articles…………………………… 28

Table 3.2. The Interactive and Interactional Taxonomy of Metadiscourse……… 30

Table 4.1. Frequency of Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers