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


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; essay; interactive metadiscourse; EFL students; writing competence.

Full Text:



Al-Subhi, A. S. (2022). Metadiscourse in online advertising: Exploring linguistic and visual metadiscourse in social media advertisements. Journal of Pragmatics, 187, 24–40.

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.

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.

Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in academic book reviews. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232(April), 713–718.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publication, Inc.

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. Retrieved from

Herriman, J. (2022). Metadiscourse in English instruction manuals. English for Specific Purposes, 65, 120–132.

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.

Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping Interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125.

Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29.

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.

Kan, M. O. (2016). The use of interactional metadiscourse: A comparison of articles on Turkish education and literature. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 16(5), 1639–1648.

Kobayashi, Y. (2016). Investigating metadiscourse markers in Asian Englishes: A corpus-based approach. Language in Focus, 2(1), 19–35.

Kuswoyo, H., & Siregar, R. A. (2019). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers as persuasive strategies in oral business presentation. Lingua Cultura, 13(4), 297.

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.

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).

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.

Nugrahani, V. E., & Bram, B. (2020). Metadiscourse markers in scientific journal articles. Langkawi: Journal of The Association for Arabic and English, 6(1), 1.

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.

Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22–39.

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.

Wei, J., Li, Y., Zhou, T., & Gong, Z. (2016). Studies on metadiscourse since the 3rd millennium. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 194–204.

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.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Indonesian Journal of Learning and Instruction

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.