چکیده:
This study compares metadiscourse markers in result and discussion sections of literature and engineering research papers. To this end, 40 research articles (20 literature and 20 engineering) are selected from two major international journals. Based on Hyland’s (2005) model of metadiscourse, the articles are codified in terms of frequency, percentage, and density of interactive and interactional markers found. The two corpora are compared to see to what extent the genre of lectures are different. Data are analyzed through Chi-square and the results of the quantitative analysis reveal significant cross-linguistic differences for overall frequency of metadiscourse except for frame markers and boosters.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Data are analyzed through Chi- square and the results of the quantitative analysis reveal significant cross- linguistic differences for overall frequency of metadiscourse except for frame markers and boosters.
This study is intended to bridge this gap by examining the kinds, frequency, and use of metadiscourse markers in the result and discussion parts of research papers in the field of literature and engineering to develop the readers’ awareness of how native speakers of these fields organize their writing.
For filling the gap in research on the mentioned topic, this cross- linguistic study attempts to find out how metadiscourse, interactive and interactional orientation of metadiscourse in articles, differs or resembles in literature and engineering.
Residuals for Interactive Metadiscourse Markers Frequency in Literature Research papers Frequency in Engineering Research Papers Transitions 1 Count 1415 17.
The density and percentage of the use of metadiscourse markers is higher in the literature research papers than in the engineering ones.
The overall results of this study support Rashidi and Alihosseini’s (2012) study who examined the difference in the use and frequency of metadiscourse markers in the result and discussion sections of 20 research papers in the field of literature and engineering.
Moreover, such results are not in line with the findings of Blagojevic’s (2004) study which demonstrated no statistically significant difference in use of metadiscourse markers in the academic research papers between English native and non-native speakers.