A Corpus Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers Used in Argumentative Essays by Pakistani Undergraduate Students

Shafqat, Asmara; Arain, Faiza; Dahraj, Maheen Tufail

doi:10.37200/ijpr/v24i4/pr201013

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Shafqat, Arain and Dahraj [Shafqat et al, 2020] do analogous research for the Pakistani context, analyzing the ratio of interactive and interactional MMs in undergraduate students' works. They find that students use more interactive than interactional MMs and stress the importance of metadiscourse devices in learning and teaching writing skills in an English Language Teaching (ELT) context [Shafqat et al, 2020, p. 349].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contrastive Rhetoric of Metadiscourse Markers in L1 and L2 Research Papers: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Abstracts and Discussion Sections of Medical Research Papers

Grigoriev¹,

Rubtsova²

2023

Synergy of Languages &Amp; Cultures 2022: Interdiscipilinary Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most researchers find themselves in a very competitive surrounding and are supposed to be published continuously in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. However, the norms adopted by the local academic communities may differ from the norms adopted by the international academic communities. Differences have various causes and often include metadiscoursal textual features. The vast majority of the research in metadiscourse basically follow the model proposed by K. Hyland in 2005. To analyze the distribution of metadiscourse markers, four corpora were created: two corpora representing medical cardiology texts written in English by L2 Russian researchers (abstract and discussion section corpora) and two corpora representing English medical texts written by L1 English researchers. The results suggest that interactive metadiscourse markers for sequencing, announcing goals and indicating the nature of a given statement (evidentials) are more frequent in both L1 English abstracts and discussion sections than in their L2 English counterparts. The findings of this study have important pedagogical implications, especially for classes in English for Specific Purposes, English for Academic Purposes, and English for Research Publication Purposes.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contrastive Rhetoric of Metadiscourse Markers in L1 and L2 Research Papers: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Abstracts and Discussion Sections of Medical Research Papers

Grigoriev¹,

Rubtsova²

2023

Synergy of Languages &Amp; Cultures 2022: Interdiscipilinary Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synergy of Languages & Cultures 2022: Interdiscipilinary Studies

2023

Synergy of Languages &Amp; Cultures: Interdiscipilinary Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The collection of articles The Synergy of Languages and Cultures: Interdisciplinary Studies is a peerreviewed scholarly publication. The collection includes papers from Russia, Belorussia, Vietnam and Japan. The collection reflects the position of modern linguists on the development of traditional problems of language and cross-cultural communication, the role of translation in the context of globalization, extensive information exchange, and the interaction of languages and cultures. The collection may also attract the attention of researchers in intercultural communication, language methodology, particularly the methods of teaching foreign languages for special purposes, and of a wider audience interested in modern trends in these areas.

show abstract

Do Pakistani English writers hedge more in linguistics research than native English writers?

Shafqat

Memon

Khan

2022

J. Humanit. Soc. Manag. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this corpus-based study is to compare the use of hedges and associated linguistic constituents in the linguistic research articles authored by Pakistani English Writers (PEWs) and native English writers (NEWs). NEWs hedge more than their PEWs peers, as per the outcomes of the two corpora (20 linguistics research articles by PEWs and 20 linguistics research articles by NEWs). Nevertheless, the statistics revealed that both corpora employed hedging types that were quite similar. To minimize the legitimacy of their assertions and arguments, both factions relied primarily on lexical and hedging strategies, and both groups avoided utilizing hedges such as adverbs of frequency. Likewise, neither group used epistemic nor possibility hedging much. Nonetheless, the use of linguistic elements of hedging by PEWs and NEWs authors differ considerably. PEWs are more committed to their opinions being more appealing and persuasive, owing to the clear impact of first language and culture.

show abstract

A Corpus Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers Used in Argumentative Essays by Pakistani Undergraduate Students

Cited by 3 publications

References 22 publications

The Contrastive Rhetoric of Metadiscourse Markers in L1 and L2 Research Papers: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Abstracts and Discussion Sections of Medical Research Papers

The Contrastive Rhetoric of Metadiscourse Markers in L1 and L2 Research Papers: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Abstracts and Discussion Sections of Medical Research Papers

Synergy of Languages & Cultures 2022: Interdiscipilinary Studies

Do Pakistani English writers hedge more in linguistics research than native English writers?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About