INTERACTIVE METADISCOURSE MARKERS IN INDONESIAN EFL STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC WRITING

Arsen Nahum Pasaribu, Tiara K Pasaribu, Erika Sinambela, Vitri Rosalina Manullang

Abstract


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.


Keywords


academic writing; discourse analysis; EFL students; essay; interactive metadiscourse; writing competence.

Full Text:

PDF

References


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




DOI: https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v10i3.6817

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 English Review: Journal of English Education