The Use of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in English Book Reviews Across Disciplines


  • Neda Zal University of Kashan
  • Mohammad Raouf Moini University of Kashan



engagement, hard discipline, metadiscourse, interactional metadiscourse, soft discipline, stance


The study aimed to investigate the frequency and type of stance and engagement features in each move of book reviews of soft and hard disciplines according to Hyland’s (2005) Interactional Metadiscourse taxonomy. A corpus of 102 book reviews published by 30 first quality journals in 6 disciplines was randomly selected and analyzed. The results indicated a significant difference between book reviews in terms of stance markers. Furthermore, Move 2 (Outlining) enjoyed the highest frequency of stance features, while move 4 (Evaluation) contained the least frequency of stance features. Also, a significant difference was observed in the use of stance markers in Introducing, Outlining, and Highlighting. However, using engagement markers, the significant difference was only in the highlighting.

Author Biographies

Neda Zal, University of Kashan

Department of Foreign Languages

Mohammad Raouf Moini, University of Kashan

Department of Foreign Languages


Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 288-297. https://

Atai, M. R., & Sadr, L. (2008). A cross-cultural study of hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistics research articles. Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran (TELLSI), 2(7), 1-2.

Ebrahimi, S., J. (2018). The Role of Metadiscourse Markers in Comprehending Texts of Reading Comprehension Books Published in Iran and Oxford University Press. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature. 7(3), 90-96.

Faghih, E., & Rahimpour, S. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written text: Metadiscourse in applied linguistic research articles, Rice Working Papers in Linguistic, 1, 92-107.

Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., Velasco-Sacrist.n, M., Arribas-Bano, A., & Samiengo-Fern.ndez, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1307.

Gea Valor, M. L. (2000). The pragmatics of positive politeness in the book review. Resla, 14,145-159.

Gezegin, B., B. (2016). A Corpus-based Investigation of Metadiscourse in Academic Book Reviews. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 713-718.

Ghafoori, N. & Oghbatalab, R. (2012). A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: Male vs. Female Authors of Research. Articles in Applied Linguistics. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 87-113.

Ghazanfari, M., Barani, G. & Rokhsari, S. (2018). An Investigation into Metadiscourse Elements Used by Native vs. Non-Native University Students across Genders. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 10 (1), 60-94.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, Boosters and lexical invisibility: noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9 (4), 179-197.

Hyland, K. (2000). Praise and criticism: Interactions in book reviews. In K. Hyland (Ed.), Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing (pp.41-62). Harlow, England: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 29(3), 207-226.

Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Power and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156-177.

Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse. Exploring interaction in writing. London/New York: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192.

Hyland, K. (2008b). Persuasion, Interaction and the Construction of Knowledge: Representing Self and Others in Research Writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8 (2), 1-23.

Hyland, K. & Diani, G. (2009). Introduction: Academic evaluation and review genres. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic Evaluation. Review Genres in University Settings (pp. 1-14). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 116-127.

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, 90-117.

Junqueira, L. & Cortes, V. (2014). Metadiscourse in book reviews in English and Brazilian Portuguese: A corpus-based analysis. Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization.6, 88-109.

McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices, English for Specific Purposes, 31, 161-173.

Miller, C. (1994). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.

Salahshoor, F. & Afsari, P. (2017). An Investigation of Interactional Metadiscourse in Discussion and Conclusion Sections of Social and Natural Science Master Theses. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 5(2), 7-14.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic settings. Cambridge University Press.

Tse, P. & Hyland, K. (2006). So what is the problem this book addresses? Interactions in academic book reviews. Text & Talk 26(6), 767-790. https:// /10.1515/ TEXT. 2006. 031.

Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36, 82-93.

Yang, Y. (2014). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50, 23-36. https:// 10.1016/ .pragma. 2013.01.008.