Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Toward a Reappraisal of the Role of MD Markers in EFL Learners’ Perception of Written Texts

Journal Name:

  • The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning

Publication Year:

  • 2012

Key Words:

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Once regarded as the author’s passive message produced to be decoded by the readers, the written text is now viewed as a dynamic entity through which the notion of interactivity between the writer and the readers is thought to be made feasible. Based on the argument that metadiscourse markers help transform a dry and tortuous piece of text into coherent and reader-friendly prose, the researchers in the current study attempted to investigate the effect different metadiscourse markers might have on Iranian EFL learners’ perception of written texts. To this end, 120 undergraduate English students were given three different texts chosen from the most common textbooks in BA (in TEFL), along with their doctored versions (all MD-removed, interactive-removed, and interactional-removed). Each text duo was then accompanied by an 8-item questionnaire adopted from Ifantido (2005). The statistical analysis of the data pointed toward the positive role of metadiscourse markers in bringing about ameliorated text perception on the part of EFL learners. Furthermore, the comparison of the results gained in each separate phase of the study, processed through the application of ANOVA and LSD tests, revealed that texts with both interactive and interactional resources had more effect on learners’ perception of written texts. Moreover, it was found that interactive and interactional resources had more or less the same effect on learners’ reactions to texts. To sum marize, in line with the findings of the present study further evidence is gathered in favor of the argument holding that metadiscourse markers bring about an increased amount of coherence and reader-friendliness in texts.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-toward-reappraisal-role-md-markers-efl-learners-perception-written-texts.pdf
  • 2
1-23
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Akbas, E. (2012). Exploring Metadiscourse in Master’s Dissertation Abstracts: Cultural and Linguistic Variations
across PostgraduateWriters. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1 (1), 12-26.
Amiryousefi, M. & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Definitions, issues and its implications for English
teachers. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 159-167.
Bhatia, V. J. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.
Bruce, N. J. (1989). The role of metadiscourse, speech acts and the language of abstraction in a top-down approach to
teaching English for academic purposes . Paper presented at the European Languages for Special Purposes Symposium,
Budapest, Hungary.
Cammicottoli, B.C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 15(1), 15-33.
Crismore, A., Markakanen, R. & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written
by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction
and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95-113.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline?
Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
Faghih, E. & Rahimpour, S. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in
applied linguistics research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 92-107
Gillaerts, P. & VandeVedde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139.
González, R. A. (2005). Textual metadiscourse in commercial websites. IBÉRICA, 9, 33-52.
Hyland, K (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum. London. New York.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Ifantido, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1325-1353.
Jalilifar, A. & Alipoor, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL
learners’ reading comprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38 (1), 35-52
Mao, L. R. (1993). I conclude not: Toward a pragmatic account of metadiscourse. Rhetoric Review, 11(2), 265-289.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP Rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economics Texts. English for
Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
Parvaresh, V. & Nemati, M. (2008). Metadiscourse and reading comprehension: The effects of language and
proficiency. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5(2), 220-239.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: CUP.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. New York: CUP.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
Valero–Garcia, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific
Purposes, 15 (4), 279–294.
Alavinia, P.& Zarza, S., The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2012–2, 1-23
20
Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A Contrastive Study on Metadiscourse Elements Used in Humanities vs. Non
Humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4 (1), 42-50.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com