Exploring MetadiscourseMarkers in Medical English Research ArticleAbstractsWritten by Native English vs.Non-nativeIranianScholars

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of English, Faculty of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences

Abstract

This study examines the use of metadiscourse markers (MDMs) in English research article abstracts by Iranian non-native and English native medical scholars. Using Hyland and Tse’s (2004) classification system, 102 abstracts-51 written by native English speakers and 51 authored by non-native Iranian speakers-published between 2008 and 2023 in prestigious ISI journals, were analyzed. Findings indicate both groups predominantly use interactive MDMs over interactional ones. No significant difference was found between groups in interactional MDM usage. However, non-native writers (NNWs) used more interactive MDMs compared to native writers (NWs). While no disparity was noted in interactional subgroups (hedges, boosters, self-mentions, attitude markers, engagement markers), a significant difference was observed in frame markers, an interactive MDM subset. No differences were noted in the use of transition markers, code glosses, evidentials, and endophoric markers. Hedges were most frequently used among interactional MDMs, followed by boosters, self-mentions, attitude markers, and engagement markers. Frame and transition markers were predominant among interactive MDMs, followed by code glosses, with evidentials and endophoric markers being the least used. These results underscore the importance of MDMs in enhancing coherence and organization in medical academic writing. However, the MDM usage between the two groups shows similarities, which may be specific to the medical field, indicating the need for tailored curricula to promote effective MDM use. Additionally, it is essential to consider cultural and educational backgrounds when designing training programs to enhance academic writing skills.

Keywords

References

  • scientific texts.Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics, 21(4), 102-115. https://doi.org/10.15688/jvols2.2022.4.7
  • Alsubhi, S. A. (2016). Knowledge and attitude of first aid skills among health science students at Taibah University, Al-Madinah, Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Advanced Research, 4(7), 298-305. https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/918
  • Al-zubeiry, H. (2019). Metadiscourse devices in English scientific research articles written by native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v11i1.14259
  • Ajideh, P., Ansarin, A., Zohrabi, M., & Nouri, Z. (2024). An analysis of interactive and interactional metadiscourse: Native vs. non-native author dichotomy. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 43(2), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.22099/tesl.2024.49202.3253
  • Ajideh, B., Jalilifar, A., & Ahangari, Z. (2009). Code glosses in academic writing: A comparison of Iranian and native English authors. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(6), 1234-1245.
  • Binmahboob, T. (2022). The use of metadiscourse by Saudi and British authors: A focus on applied linguistics discipline. English Language Teaching, 15(2), 78. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v15n2p78
  • Blagojevic, S. (2010). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers. Studies about Languages, (H 30), No. 5, 60-67.
  • Boginskaya, O. (2022). Metadiscourse patterns in academic prose by non-native English writers: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Discourse and Interaction, 15(2), 5-27. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2022-2-5
  • Bondi, M. (2014). Changing voices: Authorial voice in abstracts. In M. Bondi & R. LoresSanz (Eds.), Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change (pp. 243-270). Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Çapar, M., &Turan, U. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse in research articles by Turkish and native speakers. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 10(1), 324-358. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.682042
  • Farrokhi, F., & Ashrafi, S. (2009). Textual metadiscourse resources in research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 1(212), 39-75.
  • Farrokhi, F., & Emami, S. (2008). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: Native vs. non-native research articles in applied linguistics and engineering. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 62-98.
  • Ghafoori, S., &Oghbatalab, M. (2012). A comparative study of metadiscourse in academic writing: Male vs. female authors of research articles in applied linguistics. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 9(1), 45-63.
  • Gholami, J., & Ilghami, R. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and journal impact factor: Non-native writers vs. native writers. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44(4), 349-360. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20961
  • Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809.
  • Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching discourse markers. Longman.
  • Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
  • Hyland, K., &Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
  • Jones, P., & Smith, T. (2023). Metadiscourse markers in quantitative and qualitative applied linguistics research articles' discussions: A comparative study. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 10(2), 67-89. https://doi.org/10.56789/jalpp.
  • Keshavarz, M. H., &Kheirieh, Z. (2011). Metadiscourse elements in research articles written by native and non-native writers in Applied Linguistics and Civil Engineering. Journal of English Studies, 13(3), 315. https://doi.org/10.30466/jes.2012.12345
  • Kheirabadi, R., & Kheirabadi, M. (2017). The Evaluative Semantics Model: A New Approach in CDA of Journalistic Discourse. Journal of Linguistics and Rhetorical Studies, 15(8), 65-88. doi:22075/jlrs.2017.6757. [In Persian]
  • Lee, S. (2004). The use of evidential markers in academic writing: A comparison between native and non-native English speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(4), 667-683.
  • Mancilla, R., Polat, N., &Akcay, A. (2017). An investigation of native and non-native English speakers’ level of written syntactic complexity in asynchronous online discussions. Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 112-134. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv012
  • Moghadam, F. D. (2017). Persuasion in Journalism: A Study of Metadiscourse in Texts by Native Speakers of English and Iranian EFL Writers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(6), 483-495. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0706.11
  • Mowlood, B., Tahriri, A., &Razmjoo, S. A. (2024). Interactional metadiscourse markers in the discussion and conclusion sections of research papers in the disciplines of political sciences and religious studies. ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research), 15(49), 221-242[In Persian].
  • Pearson, W., &Abdollahzadeh, E. (2023). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A systematic review. Lingua, 293, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103561
  • Pérez-Llantada, C. (2010). The discourse functions of metadiscourse in published academic writing: Issues of culture and language. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(S2), 41-68. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.217
  • Rababah, G., Yagi, S., & Alghazo, S. (2024). Using metadiscourse to create effective and engaging EFL virtual classrooms during the Covid-19 pandemic. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2024.121421
  • Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 45-75.
  • Shirzadi, A., et al. (2017). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of Iranian and American M.A. EFL writers. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 45-62.
  • Sorahi, M., &Shabani, M. (2016). Metadiscourse in Persian and English research article introductions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(6), 1175-1182. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0606.06
  • Supranont, S. (2012). Genre analysis of research article abstracts in applied linguistics: Exploring sub-disciplinary variations. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 9(3), 34-40.
  • Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M. (2012). L2 learners' use of metadiscourse markers in online discussion forums. Issues in Language Teaching 1 (1): 93-122.
  • Tavanpour, N., Goudarzi, Z., & Farnia, M. (2016). Interactional metadiscourse markers in sports news in newspapers: A cross-cultural study of American and Iranian columnists. The Philologist, 1(1), 1-13.
  • Vande-Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
  • VasheghaniFarahani, E., & Sabetifard, F. (2017). Metadiscourse markers in academic writing: A comparative analysis of native and non-native English speakers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(3), 456-465.
  • Wei, D., & Duan, W. (2019). A comparative study of metadiscoursal features in English research article abstracts in hard disciplines. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.11649/cs.2827
  • Yakut, I. (2022). Functions of meta-discursive nouns: A corpus-based comparison of post-graduate genres in L1 and L2 English. Cognitive Studies | Étudescognitives, 22, Article 2827. https://doi.org/10.11649/cs.2827
  • Yulita, E., Rukmini, D., & Widhiyanto, W. (2021). Comparison of the use of discourse markers in English speeches between non-native and native speakers of English. English Education Journal (EEJ), 11(2), 198-207.
  • Zamani, M., Safavi, K., & Iranzade, N. (2018). Relation of Language and Power in the First Modern Persian Poetry (Critical Discourse Analysis of “Vafâ-ye be ʔahd” (Adherence to the Pledge)). Journal of Linguistics and Rhetorical Studies, 8(16), 157-188. doi:22075/jlrs.2018.13977.1150
  • Zarei, G. R. & Mansoori, S. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non-humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching,4(1), 42-55. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n1p42
  • Zarei, G. R. (2015). Metadiscourse in Academic Prose: A Contrastive Analysis of English and Persian Research Articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 1-15.
Journal Of Linguistic and Rhetorical Studies
Volume 17, Issue 43
In progress
March 2026
Pages 75-106

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics