A Gender-Oriented Investigation of Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Article Abstracts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61227/agakcx70Keywords:
Applied Linguistics, Abstracts, Interactional Metadiscourse Markers, Gender differenceAbstract
This study investigated gender differences in the use of interactional metadiscourse markers (IMMs) in research article abstracts. Focusing on 200 abstracts written by male and female scholars in Applied Linguistics, the research examined how gender influences the frequency and distribution of IMMs, including hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers, and self-mentions. Using Hyland’s (2005) taxonomy, the abstracts were analyzed quantitatively. Statistical results showed a significant relationship between gender and the use of IMMs. In both disciplines, male authors employed these markers more frequently than female authors. Although disciplinary differences were observed, the main gender-related finding was that male writers tended to rely more on interactional resources overall. However, self-mentions and engagement markers were used relatively infrequently by both genders, suggesting a shared preference for hedges, boosters, and attitude markers as persuasive strategies in abstract writing. These findings carry practical implications for EAP pedagogy and editorial practice, particularly in guiding novice researchers, especially women, toward more rhetorically effective abstract writing.
Downloads
References
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science (p. 59). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bolívar, A. (1999). Los resúmenes para eventos científicos en Lingüística Aplicada en América Latina: estructura e interacción. Opción: Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, (29), 61-82.
Bondi, M. (1999). English across genres. Language Variation in the Discourse of Economics, Modena: Il Fiorino.
Bunton, D. R. (1998). Linguistic and Textual Problems in Ph. D and M. Phil Theses: an analysis of genre moves and metatext (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Hong Kong (Pokfulam, Hong Kong)).
Cameron, D. (2003). Language and sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coates, J. (2004). Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistics Account of Gender
Differences in Language (3rd ed). Harlow: Longman.
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.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.
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.
Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics for applied linguists. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Holmes, J. (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy. Journal of pragmatics, 12(4), 445-465.
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.
Kan, M. O (2016). The use of interactional metadiscourse: A comparison of articles on Turkish
education and literature. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16, 1639–1648.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22.
Paltridge, B. (1996). Genre, text type, and the language learning classroom.ELT Journal, 50(3), 237-243.
Pasaribu. T. A. (2017). Gender Differences and The Use of Metadiscourse Markers in Writing
Essays. International Journal of Humanity Studies, 1(1), pp.93-102.
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.
Zeynali Dastuyi, S., Ahangar, A. A., & Nourmohammadi, E. (2024). A gender-based study of
interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the research papers of Iranian senior undergraduate
students of translation studies. Onomázein, 65(1), 36–64.
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
