A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: Male vs. Female Authors of Research Articles in Applied Linguistics

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

Department of English Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

Like conversation and other modes of communication, writing is a rich medium for gender performance. In fact, writing functions to construct the disciplines as well as the gender of its practitioners. Despite the significance of author gender, as one constitutive dimension of any writing, it has been relatively under-researched. One way, by means of which author gender is practiced, and revealed in written discourse, is the incorporation and use of metadiscoursal categories. Examining 20 applied linguistics research articles (10 written by native male English writers and 10 written by native female English writers), the present study sought to examine whether male and female native English writers differed in their use of metadiscoursal elements. For this purpose, Hyland’s (2005) model of metadiscourse was employed as an analytical framework to identify the type of metadiscoursal elements. The results of Independent samples t-test showed that English male and female writers did not differ significantly in their overall use of metadiscourse; but, significant differences were observed in categorical distribution of metadiscoursal elements. The findings of the study can provide a sound basis for the development of pedagogical materials.

Keywords


Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose; A contrastive study of academic article written in english by English and Norwegian native speakers. Studies about

            Linguistics, 5, 1-7.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.

Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross –linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95-113

Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of  Academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-125

 Duszak, A. (1997). Cross-cultural academic communication: a discourse community views. In  A. Duszak (Ed), Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs (pp. 11-39). Berlin.

Francis, B., Robsen, J., & Read, B. (2001). An analyses of undergraduate writing styles in the context of gender and achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 313- 326.  

Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 1-12.  

Herbert, R. K. (1990). Sex-based differences in compliment behavior. Language in Society, 19, 201-224.

Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 345-365.

Holmes, J. (1989). Sex Differences and Apologies: One Aspect of Communicative Competence. Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 194-213.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.

Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1), 3-26.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interaction in academic writing. London. Longman.

Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2008). ‘Small bits of textual material’: A discourse analysis of Swales’ writing. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 143–160.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 52(2), 156-177.

Johnson, D., & Roen, D. (1992). Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews: gender variation. Language in Society, 21, 27-57.

Kubota, R. (2003). New approaches to gender, class, and race in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 31-47.

Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research papers: Structure and Functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2),119-138.

Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers.Orlando: Academic Press.

Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis. London: Continuum.

Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Swann, J. Dumert, A., Lillis, T., & Methrie, R. (2004). A Dictionary of Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: University Press.

Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 79-101.

Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2008). ‘ Robot Kung Fu’: Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1232-1248.

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue With the Reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.

Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.