The Corpus- based Investigation of Interactive Metadiscourse in the Persian Research Articles: Hylandʼs Model (2005)

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Ph.D. Candidate, English Language and Literature, University of Sistan and Baluchestan

2 Assistant Professor, English Language and Literature, University of Sistan and Baluchestan


Metadiscourse as a key term in discourse analysis involves coherensive and interpersonal features which helps the connection between the text and the context with the aim of communicating with the audience, organizing the text and interpreting it by the audience. To achieve a coherent text in academic discourse, authors should use metadiscourse, its types including interactive and interactional metadiscourse and their strategies appropriately.  So, the nature and the distribution of metadiscourse is of significance regarding their related scientific fields. The present study seeks to explore “interactive metadiscourse” based on Hylandʼs model (2005) and corpus-based approach in the specified instance of Persian academic discourse which is referent researches. Interactive metadiscourse is used to organize the propositional informations of the text with five strategies including transitions, frame markers, endophoric markers, evidentials and code glosses. The aim of this study is determining and comparing the frequency of occurrences of different kinds of interactive metadiscourse markers in referent researches. Hence, we identified and extracted the interactive metadiscourse markers in 120 Persian referent researches of various scientific fields on humanities, basic science and engineering using Mahak Samim corpus and AntConc software program then we investigated them by manual method too and classified them in five groups of metadiscoursal strategies. Data analysis shows that there is a significant difference in the use of interactive metadiscourse markers in Persian referent researches of three scientific disciplines. This result indicates that although scientific articles belong to a unitary genre (academic discourse), they are also affected by the nature of the affiliated fields. Likewise, surveying interactive metadiscourse strategies shows that only “frame markers” are distributed equally among three scientific fields and the significant differences in the frequency of occurrences of transitions, endophoric markers, evidentials and code glosses among studied scientific fields are confirmed.


Abdi, R. 2011. Metadiscourse Strategies in Research Articles: A Study of the Differences across Subsections, The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3 (1): 1- 16.
Ädel, A. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English, John Benjamins,  Philadelphia.
Anthony, L. 2011. AntConc (Version 3.2.2) [Computer Software] Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan Available from http: // www. antlab. sci. waseda. ac. jp /
Balood, S. 2014. Meta-Discourse and Discourse Markers in the Writing of Iranian and Native Speakers of English in Applied Linguistic Journals, M.A. thesis in Teaching English as a Foreign Language, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University.
Congjun, M. et al. 2015. The Use of Metadiscourse for Knowledge Construction in Chinese and English Research Articles, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20: 135- 148.
Conrad, S. 2002. Corpus Linguistic Approaches for Discourse Analysis, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22: 75–95.
Crismore, A. 1984. The Rhetoric of Textbooks: Metadiscourse, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3): 279-296.
ـــــــــــــــــ. 1989.Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act, New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
Dafouz-Milne, E. 2003.Metadiscourse revisited: A contrast study of persuasive writing in professional discourse, EstudiosIngleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11: 29-52.
ـــــــــــــــــــــ. 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 (1): 95-113.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ghahremani Mina, K., and Biria R. 2017. Exploring Interactive and Interactional metadiscourse Markers in Discussion Sections of Social and Medical Science Articles, IJREE, 2 (4):11-29.
Hajian, Sh. 2013. Metadiscourse Markers in English and Persian Articles on Literature, M.A. thesis in Teaching English as a Foreign Language, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University. [In Persian].
Hempel, S., and L. Degand. 2008. Sequencers in different text genres: Academic writing, journalese, and fiction, Journal of Pragmatics, 40(4): 676-693.
Hewings, M. 2006. Introduction. In: Hewings, M. (ed.), Academic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications (79–92), London: Continuum.
Hu, G., and Cao, F. 2011. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese, Medium journals, 5(3): 234-246.
Hyland, K. 1998b. Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse, Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 437- 55.
ـــــــــــــــ. 1999a. Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin and K. Hyland (eds), Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices (99- 121), London: Longman.
ـــــــــــــــ. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing, London: Longman.
ـــــــــــــــ. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring writing in interaction, London: Continuum.
Hyland, K., and P. Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal, Applied Linguistics, 25 (2): 156–177.
Martin, J., and D. Rose. 2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause, London: Continuum.
Mirshamsi, A. S., and H. Allami. 2013. Metadiscourse Markers in the Discussion/Conclusion Section of Persian and English Master's Theses, journal of teaching language skills, 32 (3): 23- 40.
Pahlevannezhad, M. R., and Alinezhad, B. 2013. Contrastive Rhetorics and the Study of Metadiscourse in Persian Native Speakers’ and Arab Learners’ Compositions. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 1 (1): 79-100. [In Persian].
Shekouhi, H., and A. Talati BaghSiahi. 2009. metadiscourse functions in English and Persian Sociology Articles: A Study in Contrastive Rhetoric, pozań studies in contemporary linguistics, 45 (4): 549- 568.
Sultan, A. H.J. 2011. A contrastivestudy of metadiscoursein Englishand Arabic linguistics research articles, ActaLinguistica, 5 (1): 28- 41.
Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, S., and T. Hawes. 1994. Reporting verbs in medical journal articles, English  for Specific Purposes, 13: 129- 48.
VandeKopple, W. J. 1985. Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication,  36: 82–93.
Williams, J. M. 1981. Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace, 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yazdani, S., Sharifi, Sh., and Elyasi, M. 2017. A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse Markers in English and Persian News Reports about the September 11 Event. Journal of linguistics and Khorasan Dialects. 8 (15): 27- 51. [In Persian].
Volume 10, Issue 2
March 2020
Pages 129-151
  • Receive Date: 18 March 2019
  • Revise Date: 30 July 2019
  • Accept Date: 22 September 2019
  • First Publish Date: 20 February 2020