An investigation into the use of metadiscourse in undergraduates’ abstracts in social sciences

IF 0.2 N/A LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Ruonan Lin, G. Al-Shaibani
{"title":"An investigation into the use of metadiscourse in undergraduates’ abstracts in social sciences","authors":"Ruonan Lin, G. Al-Shaibani","doi":"10.2478/topling-2022-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There is very little research on the use of metadiscourse markers in abstracts across different disciplines (especially in a single study) in the research of undergraduates as novice researchers, and little qualitative research has been done on the topic in EFL and ESL contexts altogether. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the use of metadiscourse markers in EFL and ESL undergraduates’ abstracts in social sciences across three disciplines (English Language and Communication, Mass Communication, and Psychology) in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts at UCSI University, a Malaysian private university. We adopt Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal model which involves two main categories – interactive metadiscourse and interactional metadiscourse – to analyse all 62 abstracts collected from the 2016 Colloquium held at the faculty. The method used is qualitative to categorize the metadiscourse markers accordingly as well as counting their frequencies. The findings showed that the interactional metadiscourse markers were used nearly twice as often as the interactive discourse markers for the three disciplines, and the most used markers are boosters. The most used interactive metadiscourse markers are transitions, followed by frame markers, evidentials, code glosses, and endophoric markers. The findings can be used by ESL and EFL instructors when teaching students learning argumentative writing and research writing to use metadiscourse markers to make arguments and write proper critiques to reflect their stance and voice. This research adds some insights into this neglected genre of academic discourse at the undergraduate level.","PeriodicalId":41377,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Linguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2022-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract There is very little research on the use of metadiscourse markers in abstracts across different disciplines (especially in a single study) in the research of undergraduates as novice researchers, and little qualitative research has been done on the topic in EFL and ESL contexts altogether. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the use of metadiscourse markers in EFL and ESL undergraduates’ abstracts in social sciences across three disciplines (English Language and Communication, Mass Communication, and Psychology) in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts at UCSI University, a Malaysian private university. We adopt Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal model which involves two main categories – interactive metadiscourse and interactional metadiscourse – to analyse all 62 abstracts collected from the 2016 Colloquium held at the faculty. The method used is qualitative to categorize the metadiscourse markers accordingly as well as counting their frequencies. The findings showed that the interactional metadiscourse markers were used nearly twice as often as the interactive discourse markers for the three disciplines, and the most used markers are boosters. The most used interactive metadiscourse markers are transitions, followed by frame markers, evidentials, code glosses, and endophoric markers. The findings can be used by ESL and EFL instructors when teaching students learning argumentative writing and research writing to use metadiscourse markers to make arguments and write proper critiques to reflect their stance and voice. This research adds some insights into this neglected genre of academic discourse at the undergraduate level.
元语篇在大学生社会科学摘要中的运用研究
在以本科生为研究新手的研究中,关于不同学科摘要中元话语标记的使用的研究很少(特别是在单一研究中),而且在EFL和ESL语境中对这一主题的定性研究也很少。因此,本研究的目的是考察马来西亚私立大学UCSI大学社会科学与文科学院的英语和ESL本科生在三个学科(英语语言与传播、大众传播和心理学)的社会科学摘要中元话语标记的使用情况。我们采用Hyland(2005)的人际关系模型,该模型涉及两个主要类别——互动元话语和互动元话语——来分析2016年在学院举行的研讨会上收集的所有62篇摘要。本文采用定性的方法对元话语标记进行分类,并对其频率进行统计。研究发现,在三个学科中,交互元话语标记的使用频率几乎是交互话语标记的两倍,其中使用最多的是助推器标记。最常用的交互式元话语标记是过渡,其次是框架标记、证据、代码注释和内源性标记。研究结果可供ESL和EFL教师在教授学生学习议论文写作和研究性写作时使用元话语标记来进行论证,并撰写适当的评论来反映他们的立场和声音。本研究对这种被忽视的本科学术话语类型增加了一些见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Topics in Linguistics
Topics in Linguistics LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
26 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信