A Comparative Study of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Research Article Abstracts: The Case of Discipline and Gender

Azita Fadaei; Zohre. G.  Shooshtari

doi:10.61227/092zz194

Authors

Azita Fadaei Islamic Azadi University, Khuzestan Branch, Iran
Zohre. G. Shooshtari Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61227/092zz194

Keywords:

Applied Linguistics, Abstracts, Gender, Interactional Metadiscourse Markers, Medicine

Abstract

This study investigated the pattern of interactional metadiscourse markers (IMMs) in research article abstracts in Applied Linguistics and Medicine. It also examined the relationship between gender and the use of these markers in abstracts. The corpus consisted of 400 abstracts published by Elsevier between 2012 and 2013, written by male and female scholars. Using Hyland’s (2005) taxonomy, the study analyzed the frequency of boosters, hedges, attitude markers, engagement markers, and self-mentions through both quantitative and qualitative methods. Using Hyland’s (2005) taxonomy, the abstracts were examined manually to find any occurrence of IMMs and its sub-categories, including boosters, hedges, attitude markers, engagement markers and self-mentions. Both corpora were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively; in the quantitative phase of data analysis, the frequency and percentage of occurrence of all the categories were calculated and used to make comparisons between disciplines and genders. The results of chi-square test revealed that a significant difference existed in the use and frequency of these markers in the selected disciplines. The results indicated that the overall distribution of IMMs in the abstract sections of Applied Linguistics articles was higher than in Medicine ones. The quantitative analysis also represented a statistically significant difference in the use of IMMs by male and female abstract writers. In both disciplines, male writers tended to use more IMMs in their writings in comparison to female writers. In the qualitative data analysis, real world representations of IMMs within the study corpora were identified and these markers were distributed almost equally in the abstract sections of the studied disciplines. In all, findings indicated that the overall distribution of IMMs in Applied Linguistics article abstracts was higher than Medicine ones. Yet, in both disciplines, the little use of the self-mentions and engagement markers seemed to imply that writers in general consider hedges, boosters and attitude markers as more useful persuasive resources, when they create their research abstracts. It has some pedagogical implications.

References

Abdi, R. (2000). Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in Social Science and Natural Science Research Article Discussion Sections. Unpublished Master‘s thesis, University of Tehran, Tehran.

Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers. Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.

Crismore, A., & Abdollehzadeh, E. (2010). A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 195-219.

Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91-112.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written communication, 10(1), 39-71.

Fartousi, H. (2012). A Rhetorical Analysis of a Daily Editorial:‘Wishing Iraq Well’. Advances in Asian Social Science, 1(2), 197-204.

García-Calvo, J. (2010). Uses of Metadiscourse in a Research Abstracts for Scientific Events. Revista Letras, 57.

Grabe, W. (1987). Contrastive rhetoric and text-type research. Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text, 115-138.

Halliday, M. A. (1994). Functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Hewings, M. (Ed.). (2006). Academic writing in context: Implications and applications. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the Reader Addressee Features in Academic Articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, Ken. 2004. ―Disciplinary Interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing‖. Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 133-151.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum. London. New York.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.

Jogthong, C. (2001). Research article introductions in Thai: Genre analysis of academic writing (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University).

Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S. J., & Heng, C. S. (2013). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Research Article Result and Discussion Sections. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 19(1).

Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22.

Oskouei, L. K. (2011). Interactional Variation in English and Persian: A Comparative Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Magazine Editorials (Doctoral dissertation, University of East Anglia Norwich).

Paltridge, B. (1996). Genre, text type, and the language learning classroom.ELT Journal, 50(3), 237-243.

Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25 (3), 407-431.

Sadigzade, Z. (2026). Metadiscourse Patterns in Human-Written vs. Generative AI-Authored Research Abstracts: A Comparative Corpus-Based Analysis. Acta Globalis Humanitatis Et Linguarum, 3(1), 44-54.

Salager‐Meyer, F. (1991). Medical English abstracts: How well are they structured? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(7), 528-531.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.

Tse, p., & Hyland, K. (2008). Robot Kung Fu: Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1232-1248.

Yavari, M., & Kashani, A. F (2012). Gender-based Study of Metadiscourse in Research Articles’ Rhetorical Sections.

Zhu, Z. & WU, X. (2025). Metadiscourse in multimodal discourse: The case of about us pages of Chinese and American companies. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 12(4), 1- 18.