This article reports on a study that explored cross-disciplinary variation in the use of metadiscourse markers in advanced-level student writing, put forward as a realistic target for novice writers. Starting from the stance and engagement categories included in Hyland’s model, we first conducted a comprehensive quantitative analysis of interactional metadiscourse across disciplines. For this analysis, we used an automated processing tool that generates quantity scores for each metadiscourse category. We then carried out a detailed qualitative analysis of selected items that contributed significantly to these category scores. The data for our analyses come from a corpus of 829 student papers from 16 different disciplines. The results showed notable differences in students’ use of metadiscourse features across academic divisions and disciplines. We suggest that this offers evidence of advanced students’ ability to express interactional strategies that are in line with disciplinary expectations. We also found, however, that disciplines that fall into the same academic division were not necessarily similar in their use of interactional metadiscourse, which calls into question the usefulness of existing disciplinary groupings. The findings of this study offer insights into how to build an appropriate writerly stance in different academic communities.
AbdiR. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identify. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139–145.
2.
ÄdelA.RömerU. (2012). Research on advanced student writing across disciplines and levels: Introducing the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(1), 3–34.
AullL. (2019). Linguistic markers of stance and genre in upper-level student writing. Written Communication, 36(2), 267–295.
5.
AullL. L.BandarageD.MillerM. R. (2017). Generality in student and expert epistemic stance: A corpus analysis of first-year, upper-level, and published academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 26, 29–41.
6.
AullL. L.LancasterZ. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151–183.
7.
BecherT. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Open University Press.
8.
BiberD. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116.
9.
BiberD.FineganE. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9(1), 93–124.
10.
BruceI. (2016). Constructing critical stance in university essays in English literature and sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13–25.
11.
ChafeW. L. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In ChafeW. L.NicholsJ. (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261–272). Ablex.
12.
CrossleyS. A.RussellD.KyleK.RömerU. (2017). Applying natural language processing tools to a student academic writing corpus: How large are disciplinary differences across science and engineering fields?Journal of Writing Analytics, 1, 48–81.
13.
DahlT. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline?Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807–1825.
14.
GarnerJ. R. (2013). The use of linking adverbials in academic essays: How data-driven learning can help. CALICO Journal, 30(3), 410–422.
15.
GeislerC. (1994). Literacy and expertise in the academy. Language and Learning across the Disciplines, 1(1), 35–57.
16.
GrayB. (2015). Linguistic variation in research articles. When discipline tells only part of the story. John Benjamins.
17.
GrayB.BiberD. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In HylandK.Sancho GuindaC. (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 15–33). Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
HardyJ. A.RömerU. (2013). Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 8(2), 183–207.
19.
HardyJ. A.RömerU.RobersonA. (2015). The power of relevant models: Using a corpus of student writing to introduce disciplinary practices in a first year composition course. Across the Disciplines, 12. http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/hardyetal2015.cfm.
20.
HarréR.Van LangenhoveL. (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Blackwell.
21.
HarwoodN. (2005). “We do not seem to have a theory . . . the theory I present here attempts to fill this gap”: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 343–375.
22.
HuG.CaoF. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795–2809.
23.
HuM.LiuB. (2004). Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 168–177). ACM.
24.
HunstonS.ThompsonG. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press.
25.
HylandK. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.
26.
HylandK. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549–574.
27.
HylandK. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215–239.
28.
HylandK. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192.
29.
HylandK. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction, 1(1), 5–22.
30.
HylandK. (2012). Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in final year reports. In HylandK.GuindaC. S. (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 134–150). Palgrave Macmillan.
31.
HylandK.MiltonJ. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183–205.
32.
HylandK.TseP. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.
33.
JohnsA. M. (2008). Genre awareness for the novice academic student: An ongoing quest. Language Teaching, 41(2), 237–252.
34.
KleinD.ManningC. D. (2003). Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 423–430). ACM.
35.
LancasterZ. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 16–30.
36.
LeaM.StreetB. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172.
37.
LeeJ. J.DeakinL. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21–34.
38.
LiT.WhartonS. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 345–356.
39.
LorenzG. R. (1999). Adjective intensification—learners versus native speakers: A corpus study of argumentative writing. Rodopi.
40.
LuX. (2010). Automatic measurement of syntactic complexity in child language acquisition. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(1), 3–28.
41.
MartinJ. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In HunstonS.ThompsonG. (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142–176). Oxford University Press.
42.
MeiW. S. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 254–271.
43.
MohammadS.TurneyP. (2013). Crowdsourcing a word-emotion association lexicon. Computational Intelligence, 29(3), 436–465.
44.
NeiderhiserJ.KelleyP.KennedyK. M.SwalesJ. M.VergaroC. (2016). “Notice the similarities between the two sets . . .”: Imperative usage in a corpus of upper-level student papers. Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 198–218.
45.
O’BrienT. (1995). Rhetorical structure analysis and the case of the inaccurate, incoherent source-hopper. Applied Linguistics, 16(4), 442–482.
46.
O’DonnellM. B.RömerU. (2012). From student hard drive to web corpus (part 2): The annotation and online distribution of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 7(1), 1–18.
47.
O’DonnellM. B.RömerU.EllisN. C. (2013). The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing: Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 83–108.
48.
PolioC.YoonH.-J. (2018). The reliability and validity of automated tools for examining variation in syntactic complexity across genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 165–188.
49.
RaysonP.BerridgeD.FrancisB. (2004). Extending the Cochran rule for the comparison of word frequencies between corpora. In PurnelleG.FaironC.DisterA. (Eds.), Le Poids des Mots: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Statistical Analysis of Textual Data (pp. 926–936). Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
50.
RömerU. (2009). The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 140–162.
51.
RömerU. (2012). Corpora and teaching academic writing: Exploring the pedagogical potential of MICUSP. In ThomasJ.BoultonA. (Eds.), Input, process and product: Developments in teaching and language corpora (pp. 70–82). Masaryk University Press.
52.
RömerU.O’DonnellM. B. (2011). From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): The design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 6(2), 159–177.
53.
RömerU.WulffS. (2010). Applying corpus methods to written academic texts: Explorations of MICUSP. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 99–127.
54.
SamrajB. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 141–156.
55.
SamrajB. (2008). A discourse analysis of master’s theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 55–67.
56.
StreetB. (2009). Hidden features of academic paper writing. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 24(1), 1–17.
57.
SwalesJ. M. (2014). Variation in citational practice in a corpus of student biology papers: From parenthetical plonking to intertextual storytelling. Written Communication, 31(1), 118–141.
58.
SwalesJ. M.PostJ. (2018). Student use of imperatives in their academic writing: How research can be pedagogically applied. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 91–97.
59.
UccelliP.DobbsC. L.ScottJ. (2013). Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36–62.
60.
VarttalaT. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse. Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis. Electronic doctoral dissertation.
61.
WilsonA. (2013). Embracing Bayes factors for key item analysis in corpus linguistics. In BieswangerM.Koll-StobbeA. (Eds.), New approaches to the study of linguistic variability (pp. 3–11). Peter Lang.
62.
WingateU. (2012). “Argument!” helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145–154.
63.
WolfeC. R. (2011). Argumentation across the curriculum. Written Communication, 28(2), 193–219.
64.
WulffS.RömerU.SwalesJ. M. (2012). Attended/unattended this in academic student writing: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 129–157.
65.
YoonH.-J. (2017). Textual voice elements and voice strength in EFL argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 32, 72–84.
66.
ZhaoC. G. (2012). Measuring authorial voice strength in L2 argumentative writing: The development and validation of an analytic rubric. Language Testing, 30(2), 201–230.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
