Metadiscourse refers to the linguistic element that is used to communicate meanings with imagined readers and to express a viewpoint as members of a particular academic community. Accordingly, this study reported the distributions of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in a corpus of 99 research articles representing the English language, Computer Sciences, and Education disciplines. To observe the writers’ metadiscourse devices usage in their discourse community, Hyland’s (Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. Continuum, New York, 2005) metadiscourse taxonomy was employed. The data were computed through descriptive statistics, Chi square, Kruskal–Wallis test, and content analysis. Hence, the data revealed that though articles in all disciplines employed both interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers, English Language discipline articles contained highest metadiscourse devices compared with Education and Computer sciences discipline articles. It was also observed that the book review writers used much more interactive markers such as transition and evidential devices than interactional markers. However, among interactional markers, self-mention markers were extensively used. The data also indicated that there was statistically a significant difference across disciplines in using interactive and interactional metadiscourse devices. Hence, these findings implied that academic writing teachers should focus on discipline-oriented metadiscourse devices while teaching academic writing skills.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the difference across subjection. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 62(4), 1–16.
Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English: Studies in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Akoto, O. Y. (2018). Same chapter, different disciplines: Metadiscourse use in introductions of English language and sociology master theses. Journal of the IATEFL English for Specific Purposes Special Interest Group, 51, 18–27.
Alcaraz-Ariza, M. (2011). Evaluation in English-medium medical book reviews. International Journal of English Studies, 11(1), 137–153.
Al-Shujairi, Y., Yau, M., & Buba, J. (2016). Roles of moves, tenses and metadiscourse in the abstract of an acceptable research article. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 379–386.
Asari, S., & Kuhi, D. (2016). Afunctional investigation of self-mention in soft science Master theses. The Journal of Applied Linguistics., 9(18), 49–64.
Atai, M. R., & Asghari, M. R. (2017). Exploring disciplinary variation in the generic structure and metadiscourse features of online academic book blurbs. Ampersand, 4, 1–47.
Babaii, E., & Ansary, H. (2005). On the effect of disciplinary variation on transitivity: The case of academic book reviews. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3).
Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in academic book reviews. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 713–718.
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Words of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.
Bowker, L., & Pearson, J. (2002). Working with specialized language: A practical guide to using Corpora. London: Taylor & Francis.
Cao, F. (2014). Metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study across disciplines and research paradigms. (PhD dissertation). Singapore: Nanyang Technology University.
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15–31.
Diani, G. (2009). Reporting and evaluation in English Book review articles: A Cross-Disciplinary Study. In H. Ken & D. Giuliana (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 87–104). London: Palgrave.
Gholami, J., Nejad, S., & Pour, J. (2014). Metadiscourse markers misuse: A study of EFL Learners’ argumentative essays. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 580–589.
Gillaerts, P., & Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128–139.
Gilmore, A., & Millar, N. (2018). The language of civil engineering research articles: A corpus-based approach. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 1–17.
Groom, N. (2009). Phraseology and epistemology in academic book reviews: A corpus-driven analysis of two humanities disciplines. In H. Ken, & D. Giuliana (Eds.) Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 122–142).
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12–25.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2017). What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.
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, 33(1), 91–107.
Jiang, K. F. (2017). Stance and voice in academic writing: The noun that construction and disciplinary variations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(1), 86–107.
Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S., & Heng, C. (2013a). Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article and discussion sections. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Langauge Studies, 19(1), 65–74.
Khedri, M., Heng, C., & Ebrahimi, S. (2013b). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article. Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319–331.
Khedri, M., & Kritsis, K. (2018). Metadiscourse in Applied Linguistics and Chemistry research article introductions. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 47–72.
Lafuente-Millan, E. (2014). Reader engagement across cultures, languages, and contexts of publication in business research articles. Introduction Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24, 201–223.
Li, T., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 345–356.
Lin, C. (2005). Metadiscourse in academic writing: An investigation of graduate students’ MA thesis in Taiwan. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 2(1), 1–66.
Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1998). Scholarly book reviewing in the Social sciences and Humanities: The flow of ideas within and among disciplines. London: Greenwood Press.
Lu, L. (2011). Metadiscourse and genre learning: English argumentative writing by Chinese undergraduates (Unpublished Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR. http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b4599670.
Moreno, A., & Suarez, L. (2009). Academic book reviews in English and Spanish: Critical comments and rhetorical structure. In H. Ken, & D. Giuliana (Eds.) Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 161–178).
Ozdemir, A. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia—Social Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59–63.
Rahimivand, M., & Kuhi, D. (2014). An exploration of discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1492–1501.
Riley, L., & Spreitzer, E. (1970). Book reviewing in the social sciences. The American Sociologists, 5(4), 358–363.
Sahragard, R., & Yazdanpanahi, S. (2017). English engagement markers: A comparison of humanities and Science Journals. Language Art, 2(1), 111–130.
Salazar, D. (2014). Lexical bundles in native and non-native scientific writing: Applying a corpus-based study to language teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2009). Disciplinary and gender: Constructing rhetorical identity in book reviews. In H. Ken & D. Giuliana (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 105–121). London: Palgrave.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In F. Barton & C. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 91–113). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Williams, J. M. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Harper: Collins publisher.
Yeganeh, M., Heravi, I., & Sawari, A. (2015). Hedge and booster in Newspaper articles on Iran’s presidential election: A comparative study of English and Persian articles. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 679–683.
Conflict of interest
The authors declares that he has no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Birhan, A.T. An exploration of metadiscourse usage in book review articles across three academic disciplines: a contrastive analysis of corpus-based research approach. Scientometrics (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03822-w
- Metadiscourse markers
- Academic writing
- Book reviews
- Corpus linguistic