METADISCOURSE MARKERS WRITTEN IN INTRODUCTION SECTION OF FINAL PROJECT OF UNIMUS EFL LEARNERS
Main Article Content
Abstract
Metadiscourse marker is one of determining indicators of the quality of the writers’ writing. Metadiscourse markers enable the writers to interact with the readers effectively. What commonly happens to many undergraduate students studying English as a foreign language is that they are not able to develop an engagement between themselves, their texts, and their readers. Thus, this study investigates the types of metadiscourse markers used by Unimus EFL learners in final project introduction sections, and markers that are frequently used by them in their writing. By using qualitative and quantitative research method, seven introduction sections of final project of Unimus EFL learners focusing on qualitative and qualitative research methods were chosen purposively. As result, the study revealed that in writing introduction sections, the students used various metadiscourse markers, including interactive resources (transitions, frame markers, endophoric markers, evidentials, and code glosses) and interactional resources (hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers, and self-mensions). Among those categories, interactive resources were found to be frequently used by the learners rather than interactional resources. It means that the writers tended to give attention to and guided the readers through the text by establishing their interpretations explicitly rather than involving the readers in the argument through the use of markers in interactional dimension.
Article Details
How to Cite
Aimah, S., Mulyadi, D., & Ifadah, M. (2019). METADISCOURSE MARKERS WRITTEN IN INTRODUCTION SECTION OF FINAL PROJECT OF UNIMUS EFL LEARNERS. English Review: Journal of English Education, 7(2), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v7i2.1717
Issue
Section
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).
References
Anwardeen, N. H., Luyee, E. O., Gabriel, J. I., & Kalajahi, S. A. R. (2013). An analysis: The usage of metadiscourse in argumentative writing by Malaysian tertiary level of students. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 83-96. doi: 10.5539/elt.v6n9p83.
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of pragmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal Metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatic, 40, 95-113. doi: 0.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003.
Dehghan, M., & Chalak, A. (2015). Code glosses in academic writing: The comparison of Iranian and native authors. IJRELT, 3(2), 21-29.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
Hyland, K. (2015). Metadiscourse. The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken_Hyland/publication/285591598_Metadiscourse/links/59ddf79d0f7e9bec3bae06ad/Metadiscourse.pdf.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. doi: 10.1093/applin/25.2.156.
Kuhi, D., & Mojood, M. (2014). Metadiscourse in newspaper genre: a cross-linguistic study of english and Persian editorials. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1046-1055. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.515.
Rustipa, K. (2014). Metadiscourse in Indonesian EFL learners’ persuasive texts: A case study at English department, UNISBANK. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(1), 44-52. doi: 10.5539/ijel.v4n1p44.
Suhono, & Haikal. (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. doi: 10.15408/ijee.v5i1.5505.
Wei, J., Li, Y., Zhou, T., & Gong, Z. (2016). Studies on metadiscourse since the 3rd millenium. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 194-204.
Zakaria, M. K., & Malik, F. A. (2017). Metadiscourse in academic writing of pre-university Arab Students at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). MATEC Web of Conferences. doi:10.1051/matecconf/201815005086.
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of pragmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal Metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatic, 40, 95-113. doi: 0.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003.
Dehghan, M., & Chalak, A. (2015). Code glosses in academic writing: The comparison of Iranian and native authors. IJRELT, 3(2), 21-29.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
Hyland, K. (2015). Metadiscourse. The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken_Hyland/publication/285591598_Metadiscourse/links/59ddf79d0f7e9bec3bae06ad/Metadiscourse.pdf.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. doi: 10.1093/applin/25.2.156.
Kuhi, D., & Mojood, M. (2014). Metadiscourse in newspaper genre: a cross-linguistic study of english and Persian editorials. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1046-1055. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.515.
Rustipa, K. (2014). Metadiscourse in Indonesian EFL learners’ persuasive texts: A case study at English department, UNISBANK. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(1), 44-52. doi: 10.5539/ijel.v4n1p44.
Suhono, & Haikal. (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. doi: 10.15408/ijee.v5i1.5505.
Wei, J., Li, Y., Zhou, T., & Gong, Z. (2016). Studies on metadiscourse since the 3rd millenium. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 194-204.
Zakaria, M. K., & Malik, F. A. (2017). Metadiscourse in academic writing of pre-university Arab Students at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). MATEC Web of Conferences. doi:10.1051/matecconf/201815005086.