Interactional Metadiscourse and Author Identity Construction in Academic Theses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1306.20Keywords:
interactional metadiscourse, author identity construction, academic thesesAbstract
Based on Hyland’s (2005) interactional metadiscourse model and the identity construction category proposed by Sun (2015), this study attempts to make a comparative analysis on the characteristics of the frequencies of interactional metadiscourse between Chinese masters’ theses and international journal articles, as well as on the similarities and differences of author identity constructed with interactional metadiscourse. The findings are as follows: (1) from the frequencies of interactional metadiscourse, Chinese masters employ significantly fewer hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mentions in their academic writing than international journal authors, while utilizing markedly more engagement markers. Regarding the subcategories of attitude markers, the two author groups possess notable differences in judgment markers, appreciation markers and affective markers, in which the significant difference in judgment markers is relatively low. The results suggest that the frequency of interactional metadiscourse utilized by Chinese masters in academic writing is inferior to that by international journal authors. (2) The identity categories constructed with interactional metadiscourse by the two author groups are in the descending order of researcher, interactor, and evaluator. Compared with international journal authors, significant differences are discovered in the identities of self-initiated interactor, other-initiated interactor, self-evaluator, other-evaluator, cautious originator, and confident researcher constructed by Chinese masters, whereas no difference is found in the careful advisor identity constructed by the two author groups. This study enriches the research of interactional metadiscourse from the perspective of identity construction, and the findings could provide references for improving students’ awareness of academic writing.
References
Chen, X. R. (2013). Pragmatic identity: Dynamic choice and discursive construction. Foreign Language Research, (4): 27-32.
Guo, Y. & Ma, L. (2016). A study on interactional metadiscourse of abstracts in Chinese and Foreign sociological journals. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University, 24(4): 39-43.
Harwood, N. (2005). ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted … in this article I aim to do just that’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8): 1207-1231.
Hu, G. & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39: 12-25.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8): 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2): 156-177.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. & Jiang, F. K. (2016). “We must conclude that …”: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24: 29-42.
Hyland, K. & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal?. English for Specific Purposes, 45: 40-51.
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Jiang, F. K. (2015). Stance noun expression in Chinese and American student essays: A corpus-based contrastive study. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (5): 8-14.
Jiang, F. K. & Hyland, K. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse: Argumentation and Rhetoric in the change of Academic Contexts. Foreign Language Education, 41(2): 23-28.
Jiang, F. K. & Ma, X. (2018). “As we can see”: Reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35: 1-15.
Kuo, C. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationship in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2): 121-138.
Lee, J. J. & Deakin, L. (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.
Li, M. & Xiao, Y. (2018). The study of interactivity in English academic discourse: A case study of the first person pronouns and their identity construction. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University, 26(2): 18-23.
Liu, G. B. & Yang, Y. F. (2021). A Diachronic Study of Multi-Disciplinary Metadiscourse in Research Articles. ICDEL 2021: 2021 the 6th International Conference on Distance Education and Learning, 121-132.
Lou, B. C. & Wang, L. (2020). Self-mentions and authorial identity construction in Chinese learners’ English academic writing. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 43(1): 93-99+160.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J. & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20: 135-148.
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2007). ‘I/we focus on’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2): 143-162.
Qin, F. & Chen, J. L. (2013). The creation and maintenance of interpersonal meaning: A study of interactive problems in graduate English scientific papers. Foreign Language Education, 34(4): 56-60.
Qiu, X. & Ma, X. (2019). Disciplinary enculturation and authorial stance: Comparison of stance features among masters’ dissertations, doctoral theses and research articles. Ibérica, 38: 327-348.
Rahimivand, M. & Kuhi, D. (2014). An exploration of discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(9): 1492-1501.
Sun, L. (2015). Pragmatic identity construction of English abstracts of Chinese master’s dissertations. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (5): 15-21.
Sun, L. (2020). The study of metadiscourse use and identity construction features in Chinese masters’ academic English writing. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University, 28(4): 28-33.
Tang, R. & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18: S23-S39.
Tas, E. E. I. (2010). “In this paper I will discuss …”: Current trends in academic writing. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3(1): 121-126.
Thompson, G. & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. TEXT, 15 (1): 103-127.
Wang, J. J. & Lv, Z. S. (2017). A study of self-mentions in academic English writing for science and engineering doctoral students. Foreign Language World, (2): 89-96.
Wishnoff, J. R. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computed-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies, 19(1): 119-148.
Wu, B. & Paltridge, B. (2021). Stance expressions in academic writing: A corpus-based comparison of Chinese students’ MA dissertations and PhD theses. Lingua, 253(2): 1-18.
Xin, Z. Y. (2010). The evaluation assigning function of metadiscourse. Foreign Language Education, 31(6): 1-5.
Xu, F. (2015). A study of authorial stance markers in second language academic discourse. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (5): 1-7.
Yoon, H. J. (2021). Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: Effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse. Reading and Writing, 34(3): 1-21.
