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

Pahlevansadegh

2019

JARHE

Purpose In spite of the growing interest in using corpora in language teaching and learning, applying computers and software (especially corpora software) is still new in second language teaching and learning. In addition, employing a learner corpus-based perspective in teaching metadiscourse features in International English Language Testing System (IELTS) writing tasks is not reported to the best knowledge of the researchers. Understanding and spotting this gap, the purpose of this paper is to utilize a learner corpus-based approach in teaching metadiscourse features and investigate its possible impacts on IELTS writing performance of the Iranian second language learners. Therefore, this study addressed the following research questions and hypotheses. Design/methodology/approach The current research utilized a quasi-experimental research design. In addition, this research used a learner corpus-based methodology. The corpus-based methodology was exploited to enable the researchers to have access to a large body of authentic language materials. In other words, a corpus-based methodology was used due to the fact that it made it possible for the researchers to elicit the metadiscourse features from a large number of authentic writing materials and to employ them during the treatment process with authentic examples. Findings The findings showed that there was a positive correlation between teaching metadiscourse features and writing performance of IELTS learners; in that, teaching metadiscourse features could soar the writing performance of the subjects. In addition, interactional metadiscourse features had more impact than interactive metadiscourse features on writing performance. Practical implications The results of this research can have useful implications for second language teachers and learners as well as researchers in learner corpus as they can learn the creation and application of learner corpora in second language teaching and learning. Originality/value This paper is value in that it uses corpus software and methodology in teaching metadiscourse features in writing section of IELTS test.

Section: A Model Of Metadiscourse Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching metadiscourse features and IELTS writing performance of Iranian EFL learners

Pahlevansadegh

2019

JARHE

“…As far as the design of the study was concerned, the design of the study in hand was descriptive, quantitative, nonexperimental and corpus-based study in nature to analyze metadiscourse features. As far as the metadiscourse discourse classification was concerned, it is worth noting that since its advent, there has been proposed several models of metadiscourse classifications (see for example Crismore, 1989;Vande Kopple, 1985Hyland, 2005;Adel, 2006), However, for the purpose of the current study, the classification proposed by Hyland (20005) was exploited; due to the fact that it is not only the most up to date model, but also, the most well-defined, established and comprehensive model (Ghadyani& Tahririan, 2015). In his model, metadiscourse features are basically divided into main categories as interactive and interactional.…”

Section: Review Of the Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Metadiscourse Features in English News Writing among English Native and Iranian Writers: A Comparative Corpus-based Inquiry

Sabetifard

2017

TPLS

Abstract-The aim of this study was to compare and contrast the distribution and application of metadiscourse features in news writings between English native writers and Iranian non-native writers. To this end, a comparable corpus of English news written by English native authors and Iranian authors were selected randomly. For the theoretical framework, Hyland's model (2005) was exploited. As the data represent, the English authors were more relied than the Persian ones on metadiscourse features. Also, the data revealed that in both corpora, the interactional metadiscourse features were preponderant as compared to the interactive metadiscourse features. In addition, in the interactional corpus, hedges were the most frequent as compared to transitions which were the most frequent type of metadiscourse in interactive category.

“…There are various classifications of metadiscourse (see for example Crismore, 1989;Vande Kopple, 1985, 2002Hyland, 2005;Adel, 2006). For the purposes of the reported research the taxonomy proposed by Hyland (2005) was adopted as this classification is the most transparent and seems more practical than numerous others with complex problematic categories (Ghadyani& Tahririan, 2015).…”

Section: Metadiscourse Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Metadiscourse in Academic Written and Spoken English: A Comparative Corpus-Based Inquiry

2020

RiL

This 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.