Disciplinary variation in argumentative essays: Mapping metadiscourse patterns in undergraduate writing

Abstract

Academic writing is not only content-oriented but also involves various rhetorical strategies that enable authors to project themselves into the text. This study investigated the use of metadiscourse markers in 230 undergraduate argumentative essays across four disciplines: health and human sciences, liberal arts, science, and engineering, drawing on Hyland's (2005) model to examine interactive and interactional resources. The analysed essays were taken from undergraduate students with diverse L1 backgrounds in the CROW corpus. A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining frequency analysis using corpus tools (SketchEngine) with manual annotation and statistical testing to identify patterns of metadiscourse across discipline and educational contexts. Specifically, interactive markers, particularly transitions and frame markers, dominated all disciplines, reflecting students' textual cohesion and organisation prioritisation. Interactional markers such as hedges and engagement devices were used more selectively as science and engineering students favoured precise, low-reflexivity strategies. Likewise, liberal arts and health students used more evaluative language and authorial presence. Pedagogically, this study highlights the importance of explicit instruction on metadiscourse, emphasising genre and discipline-sensitive approaches to guiding readers, taking a personal stance, and engaging directly with readers.