A Cross-disciplinary and Cross-linguistic Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers in the Discussion Sections of Chinese and English Research Articles
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article presents a cross-disciplinary and cross-linguistic analysis of metadiscourse markers (MDMs) in the discussion sections of Chinese and English research articles. Drawing on an integrated framework adapted from previous classifications of metadiscourse markers, the study examines the distribution of interactive and interactional markers across four disciplines representing Biglan’s typology: education, linguistics, physics, and engineering. A corpus of 200 discussion sections (100 Chinese and 100 English) was compiled from high-impact journals and statistical analyses, including chi-square tests with Monte Carlo significance2 estimates. While no significant differences were detected either across disciplines or between the two languages, distinct usage patterns emerged. Research articles written in English consistently favored interactional markers, emphasizing stance and reader engagement, whereas those written in Chinese demonstrated a more balanced deployment of both interactive and interactional resources. These findings offer valuable insights into how disciplinary norms and linguistic backgrounds shape rhetorical practices in academic writing. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of genre-specific discourse strategies and provides pedagogical implications for academic writing instruction in multilingual contexts.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Ahmadi, L. (2022). Rhetorical structure of applied linguistics research article discussions: A comparative cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Language and Education, 8(3), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12750
Ahmadi, P. and Abdi, R. (2016). Analysis of interactive metadiscourse markers in chemistry engineering research articles. 3rd International Conference Research in Science and Technology.
Amnuai, W. (2017). The textual organization of the discussion sections of accounting research articles. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.10.007
Atasoy, A. (2023). The last decade of writing education studies (2010-2020): A systematic review. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 106-149.
Amnuai, W. and Wannaruk, A. (2012). Investigating move structure of English applied linguistics research article discussions published in international and Thai journals. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 1-13.
Azizah, n. (2017). Code glosses in discussion section of journal articles written by Indonesian and English native speakers. Sarjana thesis, Universitas Negeri Jakarta.
Bagherkazemi, M., Moradpour M. V., M., and Javadi, S. S. (2022). Metadiscourse markers in quantitative and qualitative applied linguistics research articles’ discussions: A comparative study. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 10(43), 137-153.
Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and master’s dissertations in language teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.07.001
Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004
Biber, D., Ulla, C., and Thomas, U. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. John Benjamins Publishing.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203.
Cai, L. J. (2017). Students’ perceptions of academic writing: A needs analysis of EAP in China. Asian-focused ELT research and practice: Voices from the far edge, 127-151.
Chien, S. C. (2019). Writing for scholarly publication in English for Taiwanese researchers in the field of English teaching. Sage Open, 9(3), 2158244019870187.
Chokthawikit, S. and Jansem, A. (2021). Democratic discourses of Thai S.E.A. Write Award poems in critical literary linguistics. Journal of Mekong Societies, 17(2), 74 -98. retrieved from https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/mekongjournal/article/view/249007
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., and Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71.
Deerajviset, P. (2022). Research trends in the use of technology in English language education in ASEAN. Journal of Mekong Societies, 18(2), 76-104. retrieved from https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/mekongjournal/article/view/261369
Del Saz-Rubio, M. (2019). A contrastive genre-based approach to the rhetorical structure and use of interactional metadiscourse in the results and discussion sections of food science and technology research articles. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 59, 13-46.
Dilay, I., Kirişçi, and Duruk, E. (2022). A comparative study of metadiscourse markers in the abstract sections of research articles written by Turkish and English researchers. International Journal of Education, 10(4), 101-114.
Faqih, m. r. (2022). Boosters and self-mentions in discussion section of English journal articles written by Indonesian- English native speakers. Sarjana Thesis, Universitas Negeri Jakarta.
Feng, C. (2014). Metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study across disciplines and research paradigms. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Nanyang Singapur: Nanyang Tecnological University National Institute of Education.
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 123-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80125-8
Gao, S. and Pramoolsook, I. (2022). Move-step structure of the results and discussion section of electronic engineering research articles written by Chinese and Thai researchers. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 9(4), 725-739. https://doi.org/10.22190/jtesap2104725g
Gardezi, S. A. and Nesi, H. (2009). Variation in the writing of economics students in Britain and Pakistan: The case of conjunctive ties. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari, and S. Hunston (Eds.), Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse (pp. 236-250). London: Continuum.
Golmohammadi, S., Suluki, S., Daneshmand, F., and Salahshoor, F. (2014). Socio–cognitive perspective to the analysis of the strategic features of the discussion section of research articles in applied linguistics: Native vs. non-native researchers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 604-613.
Greenlee, D. and Stück, J. (2004). Individualist educators in a collectivist society: Insights from a cross-cultural model applied to China. Missiology, 32(4), 491-504.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
Harris, Z. S. (1959). The form of information in science: Analysis of an immunology sublanguage. Language, 35(3), 141-151.
Hashemi, M. R. and Shirzadi, D. (2016). The use of hedging in discussion sections of applied linguistics research articles with varied research methods. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 35(1), 31-56.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1, 81-99.
Ho, M. C. (2013). The difficulties in disciplinary research writing: A case study of first year graduate students in Taiwan. Journal of teaching and teacher education, 2(4), 77-87.
Hyland, K. (1996a). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13, 251-281.
Hyland, K. (1996b). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433-454.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: A&C Black.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 266-285.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Jalilifar, A., Hayati, A.M., and Namdari, N. (2012). A comparative study of research article discussion sections of local and international applied linguistic journals. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(1), 1-29.
Jin, B. X. (2018). A multidimensional analysis of research article discussion sections in the field of chemical engineering. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 61(3), 242-256. doi_10.1109_TPC.2018.2817002
Kadir, W. (2020). The use of interactional metadiscourse markers in the results and discussion sections of Algerian scientific research articles. Doctoral Dissertation, Universite Mouloud Mammeri Tizi Ouzou, Algeria.
Kahkesh, M. and Alipour, M. (2017). Comparative analysis of metadiscourse markers in the result and discussion sections of literature and engineering research papers. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, Special Issue, 72-82.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003
Kustyasari, D., Basthomi, Y., and Anugerahwati, M. (2021). Interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in research articles of Indonesian expert writers. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 6(1), 90-95. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v6i1.1082.
Lim, J. M. H. (2010). Commenting on research results in applied linguistics and education: A comparative genre-based investigation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 280-294. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.10.001
Loi, C. K., Evans, M. S., Lim, J. M. H., and Akkakoson, S. (2016). A comparison between Malay and English research article discussions: A move analysis. Sage Open, 6(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016652925
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Meta text in Finnish-English economic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse reflexivity—A discourse universal. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9, 13-40.
Mazidah, E. N. (2019). A comparison of the interactive metadiscourse in the abstracts of articles written by Indonesian and NES scholars. Etnolingual, 3(1), 57-74.
Memon, M., Pathan, H., and Memon, S. (2021). An intercultural investigation of interactive metadiscourse markers in research articles by Pakistani and British engineers. ResearchGate, (3), 51-72.
Mohammad, R. H. and Iman, G. M. (2016). A mixed methods genre analysis of the discussion section of articles in applied linguistics. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1-19. DOI: 10.1177/1558689816674626
Mongeon, P. and Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., and Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A crosscultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 50-72.
Namazian Dost, I. (2017). A comparative study of boosters in the discussion section of medical and applied linguistics articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(7), 1. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.7p.1
Nawawi, N. A. and Ting, S. H. (2022). An analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in political science research articles. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 22(1).
Nguyen, T. T. L. and Pramoolsook, I. (2015). Move analysis of results-discussion chapters in TESOL master’s theses written by Vietnamese students. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 21(2), 1-15.
Nugrahani, V. E. and Bram, B. (2020). Meta-discourse markers in scientific journal articles. Langkawi: Journal of The Association for Arabic and English, 6(1), 1-16.
Nur, S., Arsyad, S., Zaim, M., and Ramadhan, S. (2021). Interacting with readers: How nonnative authors of English use meta-discourse markers in their research article abstracts published in English medium journals. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(1), 239-255. Doi: 10.52462/jlls.14
Razali, N. Z. (2022). Hedges and boosters in the discussion sections of tourism and pharmacology research articles. International Journal of Language Education and Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 41-49.
Safnil, A. (2013). A genre-based analysis on discussion section of research articles in Indonesian written by Indonesian speakers. International Journal of Linguistics ISSN, 5(4), 50-70.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta-talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 199-236.
Soodmand A, H., Doosti, M., and Movassagh, H. (2018). A comparative study of generic structure of applied linguistics and chemistry research articles: The case of discussions. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 28-56.
Swales, J. M. and Feak, C. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Tran, T. Q. and Duong, T. M. (2013). Hedging: A comparative study of research article results and discussion section in applied linguistics and chemical engineering. English for Specific Purposes World, 41(14), 1-13.
Tang, R. and John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S23-S39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
Yang, R. Y. and Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385.
Yüksel, H. G. and Kavanoz, S. (2018). Dimension of experience: Metadiscourse in the texts of novice non-native, novice native and expert native speaker. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(3), 104. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.3p.104
Zhang, C. J. and Zhu, Y. (2016). China’s graduate students need better education in scientific writing and publishing. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE B, 17(5), 409-412.
Zhang, L. (2014). A comparison of Chinese and English academic databases: CNKI, Scopus, and Web of Science. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(2), 117-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.02.003
Zheng, Y. and Guo, X. (2019). Publishing in and about English: Challenges and opportunities of Chinese multilingual scholars’ language practices in academic publishing. Language Policy, 18(1), 107-130.
