nteractional Metadiscourse in Applied Linguistics Master theses: A Corpus Based Comparative Study
Keywords:
Interactional Metadiscourse, Academic Writing, Master Dissertations, Writer-reader interactionAbstract
The purpose of the present study is to examine the interactional metadiscourse features in the introduction and conclusion sections of the Master dissertations written by Algerian students at the University of Constantine 1. The analysis is based on a corpus of 20 Master dissertations introductions and conclusions from Applied Language Studies Discipline. This study seeks to show the distribution of interactional metadiscourse in students’ dissertations sections and the differences in the use of these features. The analysis of this study shows that the distribution of Interactional metadiscourse signals differs in the two sections. The findings of this study may have some pedagogical implications for teaching writing in academic disciplines and genres especially to EFL learners.
Downloads
References
. Ädel, ( 2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. Beauvais, P. J. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 6, 11-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088389006001002
. Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.
. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. & Steffensen, M. (1993). “Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing”. Written Communication 10, 1: 39–71.
. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd edition. London: Edward Arnold.
. Halliday, M.A.K. 1998. 'Language and knowledge: the "unpacking" of text'. Desmond Allison, Lionel Wee, Bao Zhiming and Sunita Anne Abraham (eds.) Text in Education and Society. Singapore: Singapore University Press and World Scientific. Ch.10. pp.157-178.
. Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: a new typology. In U. Connor, & R B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2..
. Hyland, K. 1998) “Persuasion and Context. The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 437–455.
. Hyland, K.(1999). `Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles' in C. Candlin, and K. Hyland (eds): Writing: Texts, processes and practices London: Long-man, pp. 99-121.
. Hyland, k. (2000) Disciplinary discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London : Longman
. Hyland, K. (2001). Putting specificity into specific purposes: how far should we go? Perspectives. 13, 1-21
. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
. Hyland, , & Tse, . (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25/2, 156-177
. Mao,L.(1993). I conclude not: Toward a pragmatic account of metadiscourse. Rhetoric Review, 11(2), 265-289.
. Nash, W. (1992) An Uncommon Tongue. London: Routledge.
. Silver, M. (2003) The stance of stance: a critical look at ways stance is expressed and modeled in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4), 359-374.
. Thompson, G. (2001) 'Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader'. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
. Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: the management of interaction in written discourse. TEXT 15(1), 103-27.
. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition Communication, 1 (36), 1.
. Vande Kopple, W. J. (2002). Metadiscourse, Discourse, and Issues in Composition and ehetoric in E. Barton and G. Stygall (eds): Discourse Studies in Composition. Resskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 91-113.
. Vassileva, I. (2001) 'Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing'. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83-102.
