Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVasheghani Farahani, Mehrdad
dc.description.abstractThis paper reports on a comparative study performed in the field of Corpus Linguistics. The objective of the research was to analyze the distributional pattern of interactive and interactional metadiscourse features in two modes of academic spoken and written English. For this reason, a list of metadiscourse characteristics was gathered. By using the Sketch engine software, all the words were scrutinized in the corpus and their concordance lines were analyzed one by one in both corpora (British Academic Written English Corpus and British Academic Spoken English Corpus). As the data can show, in both corpora, the general propensity of the authors was towards the interactive metadiscourse features. In addition, in the written corpus, the transitions and endophoric markers were used more often; while in the spoken, endophoric markers and transitions were the most frequently applied metadiscourse features. In the interactional metadiscourse features, hedges and self-mentions were the most frequent in the written form; whereas in the spoken, self-mentions and boosters were used moe often.en
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesResearch in Language;3en
dc.subjectmetadiscourse featuresen
dc.subjectcomparative linguisticsen
dc.subjectacademic discourseen
dc.subjectwritten and spoken modeen
dc.titleMetadiscourse in Academic Written and Spoken English: A Comparative Corpus-Based Inquiryen
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationUniversity of Leipzig, Germanyen
dc.referencesAbdollehzadeh, Esmail. 2003. “Interpersonal Metadiscourse in ELT Papers by Iranian and Anglo-American Academic Writers”. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Multiculturalism in ELT practice at Baskent University, Turkey.en
dc.referencesAbdollehzadeh, Esmail. 2007. “Writer is Presence in Persian and English Newspaper Editorials”. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Systemic Functional Linguistics in Odense, Denmark.en
dc.referencesÄdel, Annelie. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
dc.referencesÄdel, Annelie. 2010. “Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English”. Nordic Journal of English Studies, Vol.9, No. 2, pp. 69-97.
dc.referencesAhour, Touran., & Entezari Maleki, S. 2014. „The effect of metadiscourse instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ speaking ability”. English Language Teaching, Vol. 7, No. 10, pp. 69-75.
dc.referencesAmiryousefi, Mohammad., & Eslami Rasekh, A. 2010. “Metadiscourse: Definitions, issues and its implications for English teachers”. English Language Teaching, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 159-167.
dc.referencesBailey, Stephen. 2003. Academic writing: A handbook for international students (1st ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.en
dc.referencesBeigmohammadi, A. 2003. An Investigation into the Patterns of Use of Discourse Features of Intensity Markers in Academic Research Articles of Hard Science, Social Science, and. TEFL. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Tehran, Tehran.en
dc.referencesBoggel, Sandra. 2009. Metadiscourse In Middle English And Early Modern English Religious Texts: A Corpus-Based Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.en
dc.referencesBowker, Natilene. 2007. Academic Writing: A Guide to Tertiary Level Writing. Palmerston North: Massey University.en
dc.referencesBrown, G., & Yule, G. 1993. Discourse Analysis (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.en
dc.referencesCamiciottoli, Belinda Crawford. 2003. “Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign Language, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 1-16. Retrieved from (accessed 2019)en
dc.referencesChafe, Wallace. 1982. “Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature”. In: D. Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy Norwood, NJ: ABLEX, pp. 35-53.en
dc.referencesCheng, X., & Steffensen, M. S. 1996. “Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 194-181.
dc.referencesCissna, Kenneth. N., & Anderson, R. C. 2002. Moments Of Meeting: Buber, Rogers And The Potential For Public Dialogue. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.en
dc.referencesCrismore, A. 1989. Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.en
dc.referencesCrismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M.S. 1993.”Metadiscourse In Persuasive Writing: Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students”. Written Communication, 10 (1), pp. 39-71.en
dc.referencesCrismore, Avon., & Abdollahzadeh, E. 2010. “A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context”. Nordic Journal of English Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 195-219.
dc.referencesDavoodifard, M. 2006. A Contrastive Analysis of Hedging in English and Persian research Articles: Linguistic and Cultural Variations across Languages and Disciplines. An Unpublished Thesis, University of Esfahan, Iran.en
dc.referencesFlowerdew, John & Steve Tauroza. 1995. The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, pp. 435-458.
dc.referencesGhadyani, F., & Tahririan, M. H. 2015. Interactive Markers in Medical Research Articles Written by Iranian and Native Authors of ISI and Non-ISI Medical Journals: A Contrastive Metadiscourse Analysis of Method Section. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 309-317. doi:10.17507/tpls.0502.10en
dc.referencesGhahremani Mina, K., & Biria, R. 2017. “Exploring interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in discussion sections of social and medical science articles”. International Journal of Research in English Education, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 11-29. doi:10.29252/ijree.2.4.11en
dc.referencesHarris, Zellig. 1959. “The transformational model of language structure”. Anthropological Linguistics, Vol.1, No. 1, pp. 27-29.en
dc.referencesHudson, R. A. 1980. Sociolinguistics (1st Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.en
dc.referencesHyland, K. 1998. “Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse”. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 30, pp. 437-455.
dc.referencesHyland, Ken. 1999. “Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books”. English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 3-26.
dc.referencesHyland, Ken. 2002. “Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing”. Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 34, pp. 1091–1112.
dc.referencesHyland, Ken. 2004. “Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing”. Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 133-151. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001en
dc.referencesHyland, Ken. 2004. “Patterns of engagement: Dialogic features and L2 student’s writing”. In: L. Ravelli & R. Ellis (eds.), Academic Writing in Context: Social-functional Perspectives on Theory and Practice. London: Continuum.en
dc.referencesHyland, Ken., & P. Tse. 2004. “Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal”. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 156-177.
dc.referencesHyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.en
dc.referencesHyland, K. 2010. “Metadiscourse: ‘Mapping interactions in academic writing’”. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9: 2, pp. 125-143.
dc.referencesLatawiec, Bogusław. 2012. Metadiscourse in oral discussions and persuasive essays of children exposed to collaborative reasoning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.en
dc.referencesIvanic, Rosalind, 1998. Writing an Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
dc.referencesJalilifar, Alireza. & M. Alipour. 2007. “How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill”. Journal of College Reading and Learning 38: 1, pp. 127-148.
dc.referencesKong, R., & Xin, X. 2009. “Empirical study on metadiscourse in Chinese EFL learners’ oral communication”. CELEA Journal 32: 1, pp. 52-64.en
dc.referencesKopple, William. J. 1985. “Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication 36: 1, pp. 82-93. doi: 10.2307/357609en
dc.referencesKruger, A. 2004. “Corpus-based translation research: its development and implications for general, literary and Bible translation”. Acta Theologica 22: 1, pp. 70-106. doi:10.4314/actat. v22i1.5455.en
dc.referencesLove, R., C. Dembry, C., A. Hardie, V. Brezina & T. McEnery. 2017. “The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 319-344. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02loven
dc.referencesMcEnery, Tony, & Andrew Hardie. 2012. Corpus linguistics: Method, theory, and practice (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
dc.referencesMcGillivray, Barbara & A. Kilgarriff. 2013. “Tools for historical corpus research and a corpus of Latin”. In: Bennett, P., Durrell, M., Scheible, S., & Whitt, R. J. New methods in historical corpora. Tübingen: Narr.en
dc.referencesMukherjee, Jogeshwar. 2006. “Corpus Linguistics and Language Pedagogy: The State of the art- and beyond”. In: Corpus Technology and Language Technology: New Resources, New Tools, New Methods . Wien: Peter Lang, pp. 5-24.en
dc.referencesPenz, Hermine., E. Maria Graf, & G. Marko. 2016. Verbal workshop: metadiscourse in spoken language”. Retrieved from (accessed 2019)en
dc.referencesPérez, Marta. A., & Elisabet A. Macià. 2002. “Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension: Does it really help foreign language learners?” Atlantis Journal 24: 1, pp. 3-21.en
dc.referencesSchiffrin, Deborah. 1980. “Metatalk: Organisational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological inquiry”. Language and Social Interaction 50, pp. 199-236.
dc.referencesThompson, S. E. 2003. Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signaling of organization in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2, pp. 5-20.
dc.referencesTymoczko, Maria. 1998. Computerized corpora and the future of translation studies. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 43: 4, pp. 652-660. doi: 10.7202/004515ar.en
dc.referencesVahid Dastjerdi H., & M. Shirzad. (2010). The impact of explicit instruction of metadiscourse markers on EFL learners' writing performance. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills 2: 2, pp. 155-174.en
dc.referencesWeisser, M. 2016. Practical Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction To Corpus-Based Language Analysis. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
dc.referencesZanettin, Federico. 2012. Translation-Driven Corpora: Corpus Resources For Descriptive And Applied Translation Studies. Place of publication not identified, UK: St. Jerome Publishing.en
dc.referencesZarei, Gholam & Sara Mansoori. 2007. Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive analysis of English and Persian research articles. The Asian ESP Journal 3: 2, pp. 24-40.en

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as