Comparisons of Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse among Undergraduates

Abstract

Interactive and interactional metadiscourse are linguistic features used to maintain the coherence in essays. It involved a one-way interaction between the writer and reader, thus a challenge for Second Language (L2) learners to write effectively and comprehensively. A study is done on how the L2 learners produced the metadiscourse features and the usage is compared. A corpus of 200 evaluative essays by UiTM undergraduate students from computer science and business administration courses is analysed based on Hyland’s (2005) framework. The purpose is to find out the amount and types of metadiscourse used and whether students from different course groups make any differences in their choices. The analysis revealed that students in both courses produced more interactive than interactional metadiscourse. The most prominent feature is Self-mention and the least is Attitude Markers. The same prominent feature for both courses is Transition Markers. The business administration course shows the least feature in Evidentials, whereas Frame Markers in computer science. These are evidence as to the importance of metadiscourse in students’ academic writings and awareness is shown in its usage. This could lead to a proposition for a metadiscourse writing comparison between secondary schools and universities to gain fascinating outcomes. 
 
 Keywords: Evaluative writings, Interactional metadiscourse, Interactive metadiscourse, L2 learners, undergraduates

Interactional Metadiscourse Analysis of ESL Learners’ Essays

“…They applied Self-mention frequently with the use of the author, I, we and our. This study is in line with the study by Mat Zali et al (2020) and MM Zali et al (2021). The strategic application of Self-mention in writing provides an opportunity for authors to assert their authorial persona by stating their strong beliefs and ideas, putting emphasis on their contribution to the field, as well as seeking recognition for their endeavour (Kuo, 1999).…”

“…Using one centralized topic as the focus (Ways to Overcome Bulliying Problems among Teenagers), the learners were asked to write the essays within four weeks. Using Hyland (2005) metadiscourse model which was used by other researchers before like Kashiba (2018), Ariannejad et al (2019), Mat Zali et al (2019 and Zali et al (2020), the interactional metadiscourse like Attitude Markers, Self-mentions, Engagement Markers, Hedges and Boosters were examined as to its usage frequency.Data obtained after being analysed manually was charted. The list of search items compiled were based on Hyland's (2005, pp.…”

“…Currently, the researcher observed in her own teaching context that learners faced a lot of problems in using metadiscourse markers. Previous research studies (Asghar, 2015;Mu et al, 2015;Lu, 2011;Dafouz-Milne, 2008;Hyland, 1999) also showed that students have limited knowledge of metadiscourse markers, in which they preferably used certain metadiscourse markers only which are transition markers and self-mentions (Zali et al, 2020). For that purpose, this research was conducted to investigate the use of metadiscorse markers by ESL learners.…”

Variations in Rhetorical Moves and Metadiscourse Elements in Conference Abstracts: A Genre Analysis

“…These few studies conducted on conference abstracts are not enough to provide a comprehensive understanding of the use of metadiscourse in conference abstracts. Although other researches on hedging and boosters in recent times exist (Afreh et al, 2017;Salar & Behzad, 2016;Ariannejad et al, 2019;Zali et al, 2020), there are but a few studies that deal with the subject in conference abstracts. One can hardly find studies that deal with the use of hedges and boosters in hard sciences and soft sciences conference abstracts, hence the need for the current study.…”

An Analysis of Interactive Metadiscourse Markers in the Original Novel "The Scarlet Letter"

“…It consis of Transition,Frame Markers,Endophoric Markers,Evidential,Code Glosses. (p. 85) According to Zali et al (2021), The interactive metadiscourse attempts to assist readers to classify and clarify propositional material. Such subcategories are Transition Markers, Frame Markers, Endophoric Markers, Code Glosses and Evidential.…”