Interactive Metadiscourse in Finding and Discussion Section of Theses at English Department Universitas Negeri Jakarta

Abstract

Interactive metadiscourse is one of the sub categorizes of metadiscourse markers which refers to a feature used to construct and organize the information effectively in order to make coherent and convincing written text. Based on Hyland (2004), interactive metadiscourse consists of five categories, they are; transitions, frame markers, endphoric markers, evidentials, and code-glosses. The purpose of this study are to find out the types of interactive metadiscourse features used by English postgraduate students in their finding and discussion section of theses and to find out how interactive metadiscourse used in finding and discussion section of theses. This study implemented content analysis to identify, classify and analyses the interactive metadiscourse. The data sources are 10 finding and discussion section of theses from postgraduate students of English Department, Universitas Negeri Jakarta. The data of this study are words, phrases and clauses which were identified in those data sources. The result of this study showed that transitions were dominantly appeared with 634 words from the total 1540 interactive metadiscourse found or it was most frequently used with 41% followed by endophoric markers with 20%. The high use of transitions indicates that the writers want to create a coherent and cohesive written text by connecting the arguments within sentences or paragraphs. While the endophoric markers were used to help the writer referring the information in other part of the text.

Metadiscourse Markers: Frequency and Errors Made by EFL Students

“…The most frequent resources were 'and', 'because', and 'so'. This result seems consistent with the previous research that found extensive transition markers in abstract writing (Mazidah, 2019;Hamid, 2019). As previously mentioned, frame markers are used to set the structure of an abstract.…”

“…In Indonesia, corpus-based research on metadiscourse was done by some academics, such as Hamid (2019) and Nugroho (2019). The first study aimed to determine the types of interactive metadiscourse markers used by postgraduate students in their finding and discussion section.…”