CONSTRUCTING METADISCOURSE IN MANDARIN EFL UNDERGRADUATE WRITING
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
บทคัดย่อ
This study investigates the distribution and variation of metadiscourse in Mandarin EFL undergraduate essays, focusing on different writing proficiency levels and examining the correlation between metadiscourse frequency and essay scores. A specialized corpus of 2,766 essays was analyzed using a top-down corpus approach, adopting Hyland’s (2005) metadiscourse framework. The results reveal that interactional metadiscourse dominates, accounting for 69.35% of total metadiscourse, with self mentions being the most frequent sub-category. Significant differences were found between the low-graded and high-graded groups in both interactive and interactional metadiscourse frequencies. The high-graded group demonstrated higher frequencies of metadiscourse elements, contributing to better writing quality. A weak positive correlation (r = 0.288, p < 0.05) between metadiscourse frequency and essay scores was identified. The study highlights the importance of effective metadiscourse usage in enhancing academic writing and suggests targeted instructional strategies to improve students’ writing proficiency. Future research should explore a broader range of genres and proficiency levels to further understand the role of metadiscourse in writing quality.
Article Details
เอกสารอ้างอิง
Abdi, R., Rizi, M. T., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1669–1679.
Ädel, A. (2017). Remember that your reader cannot read your mind: Problem/solution-oriented metadiscourse in teacher feedback on student writing. English for Specific Purposes, 45, 54–68.
Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2021). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Journal of Pragmatics, 181, 120-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.015
Alghazo, S., Al-Anbar, K., Jarrah, M., Rabab’ah, G., & Al-Deaibes, M. (2023). Engagement strategies in English and Arabic newspaper editorials. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1).
Al-Subhi, A. S. (2024). Interactional multimodal metadiscourse in public health posters during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pragmatics and Society.
Anthony, L. (2024). AntConc (Version 4.3.0) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M., Croft, W., Ellis, N., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(S1), 1-26.
Bellés-Calvera, L., & Bellés-Fortuño, B. (2023). New trends on metadiscourse: An analysis of online and textual genres. In Metadiscourse in Digital Communication (pp. 1-260). Springer.
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (Eds.). (2015). The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 28. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bu, J. (2014). Towards a pragmatic analysis of metadiscourse in academic lectures: From relevance to adaptation. Discourse Studies, 16(4), 449–472.
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2021). Multimodal metadiscourse in digital academic journals on linguistics, engineering, and medicine. European Journal of English Studies, 25(2), 162-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825577.2021.1944409
Chung, E., Crosthwaite, P. R., & Lee, C. (2024). The use of metadiscourse by secondary-level Chinese learners of English in examination scripts: Insights from a corpus-based study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 62(2), 977 ff.
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.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning, 59(S1), 90–125.
Fu, X., & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122-144.
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128–139.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gordon, C., & Luke, M. (2016). Metadiscourse in group supervision: How school counselors-in-training construct their transitional professional identities. Discourse Studies, 18(1), 25–43.
Grogan, K. E. (2021). Writing science: What makes scientific writing hard and how to make it easier. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 102(1), e01800. https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.1800
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.
Harris, Z. S. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 27-29.
Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students' timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53–68.
Hong, H., & Cao, F. (2014). Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(2), 201-224.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39(C), 12-25.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2023). Metadiscourse: The evolution of an approach to texts. Applied Linguistics, 43(5), 912-935. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amab056
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2024). Metadiscourse: The evolution of an approach to texts. Applied Linguistics, 43(5), 912-935. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amab056
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.
Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1325–1353.
Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2022). Correlated metadiscourse and metacognition in writing research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-cultural study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.834125
Kinneavy, J. E. (2022). Variation in metadiscourse across speech and writing: A multidimensional study. Applied Linguistics. Oxford Academic.
Kuhi, D., & Behnam, B. (2011). Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguists: A comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication, 28(1), 97–141.
Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46(1), 39–54.
Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21–34.
Lee, S., & Casal, J. E. (2023). Reflexive metadiscourse in academic writing: A systematic review. English for Academic Purposes, 28(2), 156-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.01.004
