Interpersonal Metadiscourse: Changing Patterns in Linguistics Book Reviews
Abstract
This corpus-based study examines metadiscourse in linguistics book reviews across three key years: 2002, 2012, and 2022. Its aim is to trace the evolution and usage patterns of metadiscourse markers over this twenty-year span. Using Hyland’s (2005) Interpersonal model, the research delves into both interactive and interactional metadiscourse. The study analyses various types of interactive metadiscourse markers, including transitions, code glosses, endophorics, frame markers, and evidentials. It also examines interactional metadiscourse, focusing on elements like self-mentions, attitude markers, hedges, boosters, and engagement markers. The findings show a notable consistency in the use of these markers across the studied years. Specifically, transitions are the most frequently used in interactive metadiscourse, followed by frame markers and others. In interactional metadiscourse, hedges are most prevalent, followed by engagement markers and others. By observing metadiscourse changes over two decades, the study offers insights into the evolving academic conventions and adaptations in writing practices in response to changing demands in scholarly communication. The results reveal a slight increase in the use of interactive metadiscourse markers and a small decline in interactional markers from 2002 to 2022. This trend highlights the dynamic nature of academic writing and emphasises the increasing importance of metadiscourse in structuring academic discourse and engaging readers. These findings provide insights for linguistics researchers and the broader academic community, underscoring the critical role of metadiscourse in effective scholarly communication.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.1.4) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
Babaii, E., & Ansary, H. (2005). On the effect of disciplinary variation on transitivity: The case of academic book reviews. Asian EFL journal, 7(3), 113-126.
Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in academic book reviews. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 713-718.
Bal-Gezegin, B., & Bas, M. (2020). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of research articles and book reviews. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 45-62.
Birhan, A. T. (2021). An exploration of metadiscourse usage in book review articles across three academic disciplines: a contrastive analysis of corpus-based research approach. Scientometrics, 126(4), 2885-2902.
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.
Deng, L., Fatemeh, B., & Gao, X. (2021). Exploring the interactive and interactional metadiscourse in doctoral dissertation writing: A diachronic study. Scientometrics, 126(8), 7223-7250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04064-0
Diani, G. (2009). Reporting and evaluation in English book review articles: A cross-disciplinary study. Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings, 87-104.
East, J. W. (2011). The scholarly book review in the humanities: An academic Cinderella? Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43(1), 52-67.
Gilmore, A., & Millar, N. (2018). The language of civil engineering research articles: A corpus-based approach. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 1-17.
Groom, N. (2009). Phraseology and epistemology in academic book reviews: A corpus-driven analysis of two humanities disciplines. Academic evaluation (pp. 122-139). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses, Michigan classics ed.: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2020). Text-organizing metadiscourse: Tracking changes in rhetorical persuasion. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21(1), 137-164.
Irvin, L. L. (2010). What Is “Academic” Writing?. Writing spaces: Readings on writing, 1, 3-17.
Jalilifar, A., Hayati, S., & Don, A. (2018). Investigating metadiscourse markers in book reviews and blurbs: A study of interested and disinterested genres. Studies about Languages, 33, 90-107.
Junqueiria, L., & Cortes, V. (2014). Metadiscourse in book reviews in English and Brazilian Portuguese: A corpus-based analysis. Journal of Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization, 6(1), 5.
Kaplan, S. (2014). Why Book Reviews?. Transport Reviews, 34(4), 415-417.
Lo, Y. Y., Othman, J., & Lim, J. W. (2020). The use of metadiscourse in academic writing by Malaysian first-year ESL doctoral students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 271-282.
Nawawi, N. A., & Ting, S-H. (2022). An analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in political science research articles. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 22(1), 203-217.
Oinas, P., & Leppälä, S. (2013). Views on book reviews. Regional Studies, 47(10), 1785-1789. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.856530
Salager-Meyer, F., Ariza, M. Á. A., & Berbesí, M. P. (2007). Collegiality, critique and the construction of scientific argumentation in medical book reviews: A diachronic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(10), 1758-1774.
Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2006). ‘So what is the problem this book addresses?’: Interactions in academic book reviews. Text & Talk, 26(6), 767-790.
Zal, N., & Moini, M. R. (2021). The use of interactional metadiscourse markers in English book reviews across disciplines. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(3), 477- 488. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1203.18
Zou, H. J., & Hyland, K. (2022). How the medium shapes the message: Stance in two forms of book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 193, 269-280.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2024-2402-05
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
eISSN : 2550-2131
ISSN : 1675-8021