INTERACTIVE METADISCOURSE MARKERS IN INDONESIAN EFL STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC WRITING
Isi Artikel Utama
Abstrak
The research on metadiscourse markers investigation in academic texts has grown very rapidly in the last decade. However, research on interactive metadiscourse markers on EFL students' academic writing is still relatively underexplored. Therefore, this study aims to reveal how the competence of EFL students in the use of interactive metadiscourse in academic writing by comparing two groups of students with different grades, third-semester students and fifth-semester students. The research design is a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. A total of 40 students were participating in this research and divided into two groups. Each group consists of 20 students. They were assigned to write a minimum-250-word essay about the importance of English mastery in the disrupted era of 4.0. Around 818 interactive markers were identified in the student’s essay texts. The results reveal that the use of interactive discourse markers in the students' writing was considered still low in quantity. The transition markers were the most dominant found in the text, followed by frame markers, code gloss, endophoric markers, and evidential respectively. Moreover, the students in the fifth semester perform slightly better than their third-semester counterparts at using the interactive metadiscourse markers. However, most of the students in both groups still encountered difficulties to employ the interactive markers in their writing. The lack of practice and the student's native language practice might have contributed to the low quality of the student's writing.
Rincian Artikel
##submission.howToCite##
Pasaribu, A. N., Pasaribu, T. K., Sinambela, E., & Manullang, V. R. (2022). INTERACTIVE METADISCOURSE MARKERS IN INDONESIAN EFL STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC WRITING. English Review: Journal of English Education, 10(3), 883-890. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v10i3.6817
Terbitan
Bagian
Articles
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Referensi
Al-Subhi, A. S. (2022). Metadiscourse in online advertising: Exploring linguistic and visual metadiscourse in social media advertisements. Journal of Pragmatics, 187, 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.027
Albalat-Mascarell, A., & Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019). Self-representation in political campaign talk: A functional metadiscourse approach to self-mentions in televised presidential debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 147(12), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.011
Alkhodari, F. T., & Habil, H. (2021). Metadiscourse markers in Dr. Zakir Naik’s persuasive discourse. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 21(4), 342–363. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2021-2104-18
Almudhaffari, M., Hussin, S., & Ho, A. I. (2019). Interaction in academic L2 writing: An analysis of interactional metadiscourse strategies in applied linguistics research articles. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 25(3), 16–32. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2019-2503-02
Alqahtani, S. N., & Abdelhalim, S. M. (2020). Gender-based study of interactive metadiscourse markers in efl academic writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(10), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1010.20
Anuarsham, A. H., Rahmat, N. H., & Khamsah, M. A. N. (2020). Metadiscourse analysis of an online entertainment article. European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies, 3(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejals.v3i1.187
Bal-Gezegin, B., & Baş, M. (2020). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of research articles and book reviews. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.710204
Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F., & Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System, 83(3), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.010
Birhan, A. T. (2021). An exploration of metadiscourse usage in book review articles across three academic disciplines: a contrastive analysis of corpus-based research approach. Scientometrics, 126(4), 2885–2902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03822-w
Bogdanović, V., & Mirović, I. (2018). Young researchers writing in ESL and the use of metadiscourse: Learning the ropes. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 18(4), 813–830. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0031
Carrio-Pastor, M. L. (2019). Different ways to express personal attitudes in Spanish and English engineering papers: An analysis of metadiscourse devices, Affective Evaluation and Sentiment Analysis. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 15(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15.1515/lpp-2019-004
Castillo-Hajan, B., Hajan, B. H., & Marasingan, A. C. (2019). Construction of second language writer identity in student persuasive essays: A metadiscourse analysis. Asian EFL Journal Research Article, 21(3), 36–60.
Duruk, E. (2017). Analysis of metadiscourse markers in academic written discourse produced by Turkish researchers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 1–9. www.jlls.org
Farahani, M. V., & Kazemian, R. (2021). Speaker-audience interaction in spoken political discourse: A contrastive parallel corpus-based study of English-Persian translation of metadiscourse features in TED talks. Corpus Pragmatics, 5(2), 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-021-00099-z
Farnia, M., & Mohammadi, N. (2018). Cross-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in persuasive local newspaper articles. Discourse and Interaction, 11(2), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2018-2-27
Hayisama, F., Ahamad Shah, M. I., & Wan Adnan, W. N. A. (2019). Rhetorical style across cultures: an analysis of metadiscourse markers in academic writing of Thai and Malaysian students. LSP International Journal, 6(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v6n1.76
Herriman, J. (2022). Metadiscourse in English instruction manuals. English for Specific Purposes, 65, 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.10.003
Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
Jalilifar, A., Hayati, S., & Don, A. (2018). Investigating metadiscourse markers in book reviews and blurbs: A study of interested and disinterested genres. Studies About Languages, 2824(33), 90–107. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.33.0.19415
Kuswoyo, H., & Siregar, R. A. (2019). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers as persuasive strategies in oral business presentation. Lingua Cultura, 13(4), 297. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v13i4.5882
Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.04.002
Lotfi, S. A. T., Sarkeshikian, S. A. H., & Saleh, E. (2019). A cross-cultural study of the use of metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays by Iranian and Chinese EFL students. Cogent Arts and Humanities, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2019.1601540
Mirzaeian, E. (2020). An intra-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers used in Obama and Trump’s speeches on the Iran nuclear deal. Corpus Pragmatics, 4(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00076-7
Mohamed, A. F. B., & Rashid, R. B. A. (2017). The metadiscourse markers in good undergraduate writers’ essays corpus. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(6), 213. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n6p213
Nugrahani, V. E., & Bram, B. (2020). Metadiscourse markers in scientific journal articles. Langkawi: Journal of The Association for Arabic and English, 6(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.31332/lkw.v6i1.1528
Pasaribu, A. N. (2022). Ideational metaphor analysis on EFL students ’ academic writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(4), 891–896.
Pasaribu, T. (2017). Gender differences and the use of metadiscourse markers in writing essays. International Journal of Humanity Studies, 1(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijhs.2017.010110
Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.004
Siddique, A. R., Mahmood, M. A., & Iqbal, J. (2018). Metadiscourse analysis of Pakistani English newspaper editorials: A corpus-based study. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(1), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n1p146
Soysal, Y. (2020). Exploring elementary and middle school science teachers’ metadiscourse moves: A Vygotskian analysis and interpretation. Learning: Research and Practice, 7(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2020.1761432
Suhono, S., & Haikal, H. (2018). Interactive metadiscourse and interactional metadiscourse categories of students’ international program school based on gender. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 5(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v5i1.5505
Yoon, H. J., & Römer, U. (2020). Quantifying disciplinary voices: An automated approach to interactional metadiscourse in successful student writing. In Written Communication (Vol. 37, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088319898672
Zhang, M. (2018). Exploring personal metadiscourse markers across speech and writing using cluster analysis. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 26(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2018.1480856
Zhang, M., Sun, W., Peng, H., Gan, Q., & Yu, B. (2017). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across spoken registers. Journal of Pragmatics, 117, 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.004
Albalat-Mascarell, A., & Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019). Self-representation in political campaign talk: A functional metadiscourse approach to self-mentions in televised presidential debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 147(12), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.011
Alkhodari, F. T., & Habil, H. (2021). Metadiscourse markers in Dr. Zakir Naik’s persuasive discourse. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 21(4), 342–363. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2021-2104-18
Almudhaffari, M., Hussin, S., & Ho, A. I. (2019). Interaction in academic L2 writing: An analysis of interactional metadiscourse strategies in applied linguistics research articles. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 25(3), 16–32. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2019-2503-02
Alqahtani, S. N., & Abdelhalim, S. M. (2020). Gender-based study of interactive metadiscourse markers in efl academic writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(10), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1010.20
Anuarsham, A. H., Rahmat, N. H., & Khamsah, M. A. N. (2020). Metadiscourse analysis of an online entertainment article. European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies, 3(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejals.v3i1.187
Bal-Gezegin, B., & Baş, M. (2020). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of research articles and book reviews. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.710204
Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F., & Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System, 83(3), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.010
Birhan, A. T. (2021). An exploration of metadiscourse usage in book review articles across three academic disciplines: a contrastive analysis of corpus-based research approach. Scientometrics, 126(4), 2885–2902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03822-w
Bogdanović, V., & Mirović, I. (2018). Young researchers writing in ESL and the use of metadiscourse: Learning the ropes. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 18(4), 813–830. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0031
Carrio-Pastor, M. L. (2019). Different ways to express personal attitudes in Spanish and English engineering papers: An analysis of metadiscourse devices, Affective Evaluation and Sentiment Analysis. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 15(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15.1515/lpp-2019-004
Castillo-Hajan, B., Hajan, B. H., & Marasingan, A. C. (2019). Construction of second language writer identity in student persuasive essays: A metadiscourse analysis. Asian EFL Journal Research Article, 21(3), 36–60.
Duruk, E. (2017). Analysis of metadiscourse markers in academic written discourse produced by Turkish researchers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 1–9. www.jlls.org
Farahani, M. V., & Kazemian, R. (2021). Speaker-audience interaction in spoken political discourse: A contrastive parallel corpus-based study of English-Persian translation of metadiscourse features in TED talks. Corpus Pragmatics, 5(2), 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-021-00099-z
Farnia, M., & Mohammadi, N. (2018). Cross-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in persuasive local newspaper articles. Discourse and Interaction, 11(2), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2018-2-27
Hayisama, F., Ahamad Shah, M. I., & Wan Adnan, W. N. A. (2019). Rhetorical style across cultures: an analysis of metadiscourse markers in academic writing of Thai and Malaysian students. LSP International Journal, 6(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v6n1.76
Herriman, J. (2022). Metadiscourse in English instruction manuals. English for Specific Purposes, 65, 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.10.003
Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
Jalilifar, A., Hayati, S., & Don, A. (2018). Investigating metadiscourse markers in book reviews and blurbs: A study of interested and disinterested genres. Studies About Languages, 2824(33), 90–107. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.33.0.19415
Kuswoyo, H., & Siregar, R. A. (2019). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers as persuasive strategies in oral business presentation. Lingua Cultura, 13(4), 297. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v13i4.5882
Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.04.002
Lotfi, S. A. T., Sarkeshikian, S. A. H., & Saleh, E. (2019). A cross-cultural study of the use of metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays by Iranian and Chinese EFL students. Cogent Arts and Humanities, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2019.1601540
Mirzaeian, E. (2020). An intra-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers used in Obama and Trump’s speeches on the Iran nuclear deal. Corpus Pragmatics, 4(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00076-7
Mohamed, A. F. B., & Rashid, R. B. A. (2017). The metadiscourse markers in good undergraduate writers’ essays corpus. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(6), 213. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n6p213
Nugrahani, V. E., & Bram, B. (2020). Metadiscourse markers in scientific journal articles. Langkawi: Journal of The Association for Arabic and English, 6(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.31332/lkw.v6i1.1528
Pasaribu, A. N. (2022). Ideational metaphor analysis on EFL students ’ academic writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(4), 891–896.
Pasaribu, T. (2017). Gender differences and the use of metadiscourse markers in writing essays. International Journal of Humanity Studies, 1(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijhs.2017.010110
Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.004
Siddique, A. R., Mahmood, M. A., & Iqbal, J. (2018). Metadiscourse analysis of Pakistani English newspaper editorials: A corpus-based study. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(1), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n1p146
Soysal, Y. (2020). Exploring elementary and middle school science teachers’ metadiscourse moves: A Vygotskian analysis and interpretation. Learning: Research and Practice, 7(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2020.1761432
Suhono, S., & Haikal, H. (2018). Interactive metadiscourse and interactional metadiscourse categories of students’ international program school based on gender. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 5(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v5i1.5505
Yoon, H. J., & Römer, U. (2020). Quantifying disciplinary voices: An automated approach to interactional metadiscourse in successful student writing. In Written Communication (Vol. 37, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088319898672
Zhang, M. (2018). Exploring personal metadiscourse markers across speech and writing using cluster analysis. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 26(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2018.1480856
Zhang, M., Sun, W., Peng, H., Gan, Q., & Yu, B. (2017). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across spoken registers. Journal of Pragmatics, 117, 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.004