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; essay; interactive metadiscourse; EFL students; 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

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

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

Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in academic book reviews. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232(April), 713–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.097

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 www.jlls.org

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. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping Interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220

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

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. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.5.0196

Kobayashi, Y. (2016). Investigating metadiscourse markers in Asian Englishes: A corpus-based approach. Language in Focus, 2(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1515/lifijsal-2016-0002

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

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

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

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. www.iiste.org

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/ijli.v5i2.6844

Refbacks

  • 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.