Reflexive metadiscourse in a corpus of Spanish bachelor dissertations in EFL
Academic English has often been described as a reader-oriented discourse, in which the structure, objectives and claims are made explicit and carefully framed. Metadiscourse markers help to build coherence and cohesion, and allow writers to guide their readership through their texts. Spanish EFL learners often transfer part of their L1 writing culture into their L2 texts. This is problematic because academic Spanish tends to show a slightly more reader-responsible style, and academic texts call for a high degree of disciplinarity: learners not only have to be aware of the conventions of the L2 regarding metadiscourse, but also of their own discipline. This article explores the use of reflexive metadiscourse in a learner corpus of bachelor dissertations written in English by Spanish undergraduates in medicine and linguistics, and compares the results with an expert corpus of research articles. The results show that overall both corpora contain similar frequencies of textual metadiscourse, but this is only true when we look at the results according to discipline. In spite of this quantitative similarity, there are cases of overuse and underuse in the learner corpus that highlight features of the bachelor dissertations genre, on the one hand, and EFL Spanish writing, on the other hand.
Ädel, Annelie. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ädel, Annelie. 2010. Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: a taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9/2: 69–97.
Ädel, Annelie and Anna Mauranen. 2010. Metadiscourse: diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9/2: 1–11.
Bondi, Marina. 2010. Metadiscursive practices in introductions: phraseology and semantic sequences across genres. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9/2: 99–123.
Burneikaite, Nida. 2008. Metadiscourse in linguistics master’s theses in English L1 and L2. Kalbotyra 59/3: 38–47.
Cheng, Xiaoguang and Margaret Steffensen. 1996. A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English 30/2: 149–181.
Crismore, Avon. 1989. Talking with readers: metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.
Crismore, Avon and Rodney Farnsworth. 1990. Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In Walter Nash ed. The writing scholar: studies in academic discourse. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 118–136.
Crismore, Avon, Raija Markkanen and Margaret Steffensen. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10: 39–71.
Crismore, Avon and William J. Vande Kopple. 1997. Hedges and readers: effects on attitudes and learning. In Raija Markkanen and Hartmut Schröder eds. Hedging and discourse: approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 83–114.
Dafouz, Emma. 2003. Metadiscourse revisited: a contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 11: 29–52.
Dahl, Trine. 2004. Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics 36/10: 1807–1825.
García Negroni, María Marta. 2008. Subjetividad y discurso científico-académico: acerca de algunas manifestaciones de la subjetividad en el artículo de investigación en español. Revista Signos 41/66: 5–31.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Harris, Zellig. 1970. Papers in structural and transformational linguistics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Hinds, John. 1987. Reader versus writer responsibility: a new typology. In Ulla Connor and Robert B. Kaplan eds. Writing across languages: analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 141–152.
Hyland, Ken. 1998. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18/3: 343–382.
Hyland Ken. 2000. Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Longman.
Hyland, Ken. 2001. Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20: 207–226.
Hyland, Ken. 2002. Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 34/8: 1091–1112.
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, Ken. 2008. Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching 41/4: 542–562.
Hyland, Ken. 2010. Metadiscourse: mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9/2: 125–143.
Hyland, Ken. 2012. Disciplinary identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, Ken. 2017. Metadiscourse: what is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics 113: 16–29.
Hyland, Ken and Polly Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25/2: 156–177.
Intaraprawat, Puangpen and Margaret Steffensen. 1995. The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing 4/3: 253–272.
Ivanič, Roz. 2004. Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language and Education 18/3: 220–243.
Lee, Joseph J. and Lydia Deakin. 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.
Low, Graham. 1996. Intensifiers and hedges in questionnaire items and the lexical invisibility hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 17/1: 1–37.
Martín-Laguna, Sofia and Eva Alcón. 2015. Do learners rely on metadiscourse markers? An exploratory study in English, Catalan and Spanish. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences 173: 85–92.
Mauranen, Anna. 1993. Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: a textlinguistic study. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Mauranen, Anna. 2001. Reflexive academic talk: observations from MICASE. In Rita C. Simpson and John Swales eds. Corpus linguistics in North America: selections from the 1999 symposium. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 165–178.
Mauranen, Anna. 2010. Discourse reflexivity – a discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9/2: 13–40.
Montaño-Harmon, María Rosario. 1991. Discourse features of written Mexican Spanish: current research in contrastive rhetoric and its implications. Hispania 74/2: 417–425.
Moreno, Ana I. 1997. Genre constraints across languages: causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs. English for Specific Purposes 16: 161–179.
Mur Dueñas, Pilar. 2011. An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 43/12: 3068–3079.
Noble, Wendy. 2010. Understanding metadiscoursal use: lessons from a ‘local’ corpus of learner academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9/2: 145–169.
Pérez-Llantada, Carmen. 2010. The discourse functions of metadiscourse in published academic writing: issues of culture and language. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9/2: 41–68.
Salas, Millaray D. 2015. Reflexive metadiscourse in research articles in Spanish: variation across three disciplines (linguistics, economics and medicine). Journal of Pragmatics 77: 20–40.
Sinclair, John. 1981. Planes of discourse. In S.N.A Rizvi eds. The two-fold voice: essays in honour of Ramesh Mohan. Salzberg: Salzberg University Press, 70–89.
Springer, Philip Ernest. 2012. Advanced learner writing (1st ed.). Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
Toumi, Naouel. 2009. A model for the investigation of reflexive metadiscourse in research articles. Language Studies Working Papers 1: 64–73.
Vande Kopple, William J. 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition & Communication 26: 82–93.
Williams, Joseph M. 1981. Style: ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Submission of your paper to this journal implies that the paper is not under submission for publication elsewhere. Material which has been previously copyrighted, published, or accepted for publication will not be considered for publication in this journal. Submission of a manuscript is interpreted as a statement of certification that no part of the manuscript is copyrighted by any other publisher nor is under review by any other formal publication. By submitting your manuscript to us, you agree on these copyright guidelines. It is your responsibility to ensure that your manuscript does not cause any copyright infringements, defamation, and other problems.
Submitted papers are assumed to contain no proprietary material unprotected by patent or patent application; responsibility for technical content and for protection of proprietary material rests solely with the author(s) and their organizations and is not the responsibility of the journal or its editorial staff. The main author is responsible for ensuring that the article has been seen and approved by all the other authors. It is the responsibility of the author to obtain all necessary copyright release permissions for the use of any copyrighted materials in the manuscript prior to the submission.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the BY Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal
Article submission implies author agreement with this policy.