Abstract
Following the concept of Interpersonal model of Metadiscourse markers proposed by Hayland and Tse (2004) then developed by Hayland (2005), this content analysis aims to find the use of interactional metadiscourse markers in the introduction sections of two dissertations written by good and poor writers of doctorate students State University of Surabaya. The interactional metadiscourse markers were categorized into Booster, Hedges, Attitude Markers, Engagement Markers, and Self Mention.The good writer used more in number and variations of interactional metadiscourse markers than those of the poor writer used. For the most frequent interactional metadiscourse markers,the good writer used Engagement Marker, while the poor writer used the Self Mention as the most frequent one. It can be concluded that the use of interactional metadiscourse markers can be used as indicators of a good writer. So, it is suggested for the English teacher/lecturer to teach explicitly the use of interactional metadiscourse markers especially when the students write in academic writing.
Highlights
The categories of metadiscourse markers has been developed by several researchers; Kopple (1985) categorized them into two broad categories; textual and interpersonal types
The following are the data about the use of the interactional metadiscourse markers in the introduction section used by the more proficient writer
There are some items used by a good writer that can be categorized as Interactional Metadiscourse markers
Summary
The categories of metadiscourse markers has been developed by several researchers; Kopple (1985) categorized them into two broad categories; textual and interpersonal types This classification were not clear and ambigious, so it was difficult to be applied in practice. This research uses the recent and practical metadiscourse categories propossed by Hyland and Tse (2004) and developed by Hyland (2005), called as an interpersonal model of metadiscourse. This type classifies metadiscourse into two categories such as; Interactive and Interactional metadiscourse markers. The interactional categories consists of; hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self mentions, and engagement markers (Hyland, 2005, p.49)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Celt: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching & Literature
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
