A study of metadiscourse markers in formal writings
-
Devendra Kumar
and
Bhagwati Prasad Pande
Abstract
Metadiscourse markers are linguistic tools that help authors or writers, and speakers, to organise their discourse and communicate their ideas to the reader effectively. These are lexical tokens employed by the writers to engage readers in their writings and to convince them of their stance or opinion about the targeted domain. Metadiscourse markers are generally exploited in academic writings, and a multitude of literary articles focus on studying their usage in scientific discourse. In the present research, an endeavour is made to study the usage, application, and impact of metadiscourse markers over fiction, non-fiction, and academic discourses. To thoroughly examine the distribution and role of these linguistic elements, a diverse corpus is assembled, consisting of sixty literary works from fiction, non-fiction, and academic genres. The distributions of various metadiscourse markers are observed, and the concentration of their usage is then analysed and thoroughly discussed. The empirical results reveal that the usage of metadiscourse markers varies across different genres. Academic authors rely more on the interactive features of metadiscourse markers, while writers of fiction and non-fiction literature tend to exercise the interpretative traits of them. Authors or writers aptly plan the usage of metadiscourse markers and corresponding strategies to hit the aimed audience with the desired impact.
See Table A.1
List of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers.
| Interactive metadiscourse markers | Interactional metadiscourse markers | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S. No. | Type | Markers | Total | S. No. | Type | Markers | Total |
| 1. | Frame markers | To conclude; in conclusion; to sum up; overall; on the whole; all in all; my purpose; the purpose is; the purpose of; my aim; our aim; ultimate aim is to; I seek; I argue, I shall argue; I propose; I suggest(ed); discuss(ed); I would like to; my goal is, our goal is; in this section; in this chapter | 21 | 1. | Hedges | Almost; apparently; appear to be; approximately; assume; believed; certain extent; certain level; certain amount; could; couldn’t/could not; doubt; essential(ly); estimate(ed); frequent(ly); generally; in general; indicate/ed/es; largely; likely; mainly; may; maybe; might; mostly; often; perhaps; plausible; possible; possibly; presumably; probable; probably; relatively; seems; sometimes; somewhat; suspect; unlikely; uncertain; unclear; usually; would; wouldn’t/would not; little; to some extent | 46 |
| 2. | Transition markers | To start with; first time; next; to begin; firstly; secondly; thirdly; meanwhile; last(ly); eventually; finally; in addition; moreover; furthermore; on the other hand; however; therefore; consequently; similarly; and also, but also, furthermore also; yet; at last | 22 | 2. | Boosters | Actually; always; apparent; I believe; certain that; certainly; certainty; clearly; it is clear; conclusively; decidedly; definitely; demonstrate; determine; doubtless; essential; establish; in fact; the fact that; indeed; it is known that; must; never; no doubt; beyond doubt; obvious; obviously; of course; prove; sure; undoubtedly; well known; even if | 33 |
| 3. | Code glosses | For example; for instance; that is to say; namely; in other words; this means; which means; in fact; specifically; such as; known as; defined as; called as; e.g.; i.e.; viz. | 16 | 3. | Attitude markers | Admittedly; I agree; amazingly; appropriately; correctly; curiously; disappointing; disagree; even; fortunately; have to; hopefully; interestingly; prefer; pleased; must; ought; understandably | 18 |
| 4. | Endophoric markers | Noted; noted above; see in fig; in this section; discussed; discussed below; discussed above; discussed earlier; discussed later; discussed before; section; chapter; fig; figure; table | 15 | 4. | Engagement markers | Incidentally; by the way; determine; consider; imagine; let; let us; let’s; lets; our; recall; us; we; you; next; to begin; note; notice; your; one’s; assume; might think; see; think about | 24 |
| 5. | Evidentials | According to; cite(ed); cites; quote; established; points out; points to; point to; point out; argues; argue; claim(ed); claims; suggests; suggest; show(s) that; showed; proves; prove; demonstrates; demonstrate(d); found that; studies, studied; research(ed); state(ed); indicate that; indicates; indicate; evident | 29 | 5. | Self-mentions | I; we; me; my; our; mine | 6 |
| Total | 103 | 127 | |||||
References
Abdi, R. 2011. Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills) 30(1). 1–16. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2012.391.Search in Google Scholar
Ädel, A. 2018. Variation in metadiscursive “you” across genres: From research articles to teacher feedback. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 18. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0037.Search in Google Scholar
Ahangari, S. & M. Kazemi. 2014. A content analysis of ‘Alice in wonderland’ regarding metadiscourse elements. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature 3(3). 10–18. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.3p.10.Search in Google Scholar
Ahmadi, L. 2022. Interactional metadiscourse markers in scientific texts (based on research articles written by native and non-native speakers). Science Journal of Volgograd State University Linguistics 21(4). 99–110. https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2022.4.7.Search in Google Scholar
Ajaz, A., Z. Rubab & K. Ajaz. 2023. A comparative study of meta discourse markers (interactive and interactional) in English short stories of American authors. Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review 7(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.47205/plhr.2023(7-IV)45.Search in Google Scholar
Ali, A., A. Rashid & S. Abbas. 2020. Metadiscourse markers in political discourse: A corpus-assisted study of hedges and boosters in Benazir Bhutto’s speeches. Global Social Sciences Review V(III). 56–63. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2020(V-III).06.Search in Google Scholar
AlJazrawi, D. A. & Z. A. AlJazrawi. 2019. The use of meta-discourse an analysis of interactive and interactional markers in English short stories as a type of literary genre. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature 8(3). 66–77. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.8n.3p.66.Search in Google Scholar
Al-Otaibi, G. M. & A. A. Hussain. 2024. The use of interactional metadiscourse markers by Saudi EFL male and female college students: The case of a gender-sensitive topic. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11(1). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03506-3.Search in Google Scholar
Anthony, L. 2004. AntConc (Version 4.3.1) (Version 4.3.1) [Computer software]. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/.Search in Google Scholar
Celiešienė, V. & I. Vaičienė. 2024. Text-organising metadiscourse markers in academic texts. Journal of Language and Cultural Education 11(2). 86–103. https://doi.org/10.2478/jolace-2023-0018.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, C. 2021. A review of metadiscourse. International Journal of English Language Teaching 9(6). 82–85. https://doi.org/10.37745/ijelt.13.Search in Google Scholar
Crismore, A. 1983. Metadiscourse: What it is and how it is used in school and non-school social science texts. Technical Report No. 273. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED229720.Search in Google Scholar
Crismore, A., R. Markkanen & M. S. Steffensen. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10(1). 39–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002.Search in Google Scholar
Dastuyi, S. Z., A. A. Ahangar & E. Nourmohammadi. 2024. A gender-based study of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the research papers of Iranian senior undergraduate students of translation studies. Onomázein 65, Article 65. https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.65.03.Search in Google Scholar
Esmaeili, S. 2020. Interactional meta-discourse resources in oliver twist. International Journal of English Linguistics 10(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v10n6p78.Search in Google Scholar
Estaji, M. & R. Vafaeimehr. 2015. A comparative analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in the Introduction and Conclusion sections of mechanical and electrical engineering research papers. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 3(1). 37–56.Search in Google Scholar
Farahani, M. V. & A. I. A. Mohammed. 2018. Metadiscourse in Academic vs. non-academic writing: A comparative corpus-driven inquiry. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, Series IV: Philology & Cultural Studies 11(60). 145–166.Search in Google Scholar
Gai, F.-H. & Y. Wang. 2022. Correlated metadiscourse and metacognition in writing research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-cultural study. Frontiers in Psychology 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1026554.Search in Google Scholar
Hamad, Z. & R. Al-Khuzai. 2023. An analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in hawthorne’s simplified novel “the scarlet letter.” Kufa Journal of Arts 1. 594–615. https://doi.org/10.36317/kaj/2023/v1.i55.10780.Search in Google Scholar
Herriman, J. 2014. Metadiscourse in English and Swedish non-fiction texts and their translations. NJES: Nordic Journal of English Studies 13. 1–32. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.291.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. In Pbns.54. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://benjamins.com/catalog/pbns.54.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 1999. Talking to students: Metadiscourse in IntroductoryCoursebooks. English for Specific Purposes 18(1). 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2000. Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness 9(4). 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2001a. Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication 18(4). 549–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2001b. Humble servants of the discipline? Self-Mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20(3). 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2004. Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(2). 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2). 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2010. Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(2). 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2017. Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics 113. 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, K. & P. Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25(2). 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156.Search in Google Scholar
Kawase, T. 2015. Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20. 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.006.Search in Google Scholar
Kopple, W. J. V. 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition & Communication 36(1). 82–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609.Search in Google Scholar
Kopple, V. & J. William. 1997. Refining and applying Views of metadiscourse. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED411539.Search in Google Scholar
Latawiec, B. M., R. C. Anderson, S. Ma & K. Nguyen-Jahiel. 2016. Influence of Collaborative Reasoning discussions on metadiscourse in children’s essays. Text & Talk 36(1). 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2016-0002.Search in Google Scholar
Mohamad, N. A., N. A. Razali, N. F. N. A. Rahman, A. Arshad & A. A. Aziz. 2023. The use of metadiscourse in short story written by ESL learners. In European Proceedings of Educational Sciences, Embracing Change: Emancipating the Landscape of Research in Linguistic, Language and Literature. I-RoLE 2023 (International Conference of Research on Language Education), Melaka, Malaysia.Search in Google Scholar
Obis, A. 2017. El grau de gramaticalització dels marcadors metadiscursius endofòrics. “Com hem explicat anteriorment” i altres variants. Zeitschrift für Katalanistik 30. 123–142. https://doi.org/10.46586/ZfK.2017.123-142.Search in Google Scholar
Pearson, W. S. & E. Abdollahzadeh. 2023. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A systematic review. Lingua 293. 103561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103561.Search in Google Scholar
Ren, W. & L. Wang. 2023. A corpus-based study of metadiscourse features in Chinese-English simultaneous interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1269669.Search in Google Scholar
Soleimani, N. & E. Mohammadkhah. 2020. Meta-discourse markers in the book reviews published in ISI and non-ISI journals of applied linguistics. Cogent Arts & Humanities 7(1). 1807677. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1807677.Search in Google Scholar
Takimoto, M. 2015. A corpus-based analysis of Hedges and Boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 5(1). 90. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836.Search in Google Scholar
Wei, J., Y. Li, T. Zhou & Z. Gong. 2016. Studies on metadiscourse since the 3rd millennium. Journal of Education and Practice 7(9). 194.Search in Google Scholar
Williams, J. M. 1981. Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Scott, Foresman.Search in Google Scholar
Williams, M. 2010. Translating metadiscourse: An explanatory analysis of problems in students’ work. Mutatis Mutandis 3(1). 73–90. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.mut.4791.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, M. 2016. A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies 18(2). 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615623907.Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
