READER ENGAGEMENT IN L1 AND L2 SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH
Keywords:
metadiscourse markers, speakers of English, L1, L2, speakers of Ukrainian, school system in Ukraine
Abstract
The paper explores the use of metadiscourse markers by L1 speakers of English and proficient L2 speakers in opinion articles. The data for the analysis consists of 90 articles from the most popular newspapers in the USA, the UK and Ukraine, each variety represented with 30 articles. The classification of metadiscourse is primarily based on Hyland’s taxonomy with a more detailed approach to identifying metadiscoursive occurrences. In addition to investigating the most common patterns of engagement across three varieties of English, the study looks into how those patterns influence L1 and L2 readers, in particularly how engaged they are in the reading process and they would rate the persuasiveness of the text. Findings suggest that despite all three varieties having approximately the same number of metadiscourse markers, there’s a difference as to what types are prevalent in the variety. There are also differences observed concerning the reader engagement among L1 and L2 readers.
References
1. Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English / Annelie Ädel. Studies in Corpus Linguistics,24, x, 243 p.
2. Ädel, A. (2017). Remember that your reader cannot read your mind: Problem/solutionoriented metadiscourse in teacher feedback on student writing. English for Specific Purposes, 45, 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESP.2016.09.002
3. Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and Divided Perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.215
4. Aerts, W., & Yan, B. (2017). Rhetorical impression management in the letter to shareholders and institutional setting: A metadiscourse perspective. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 30(2), 404–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1916
5. Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F., & Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System, 83, 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.010
6. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Variation across Speech and Writing. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024
7. Birhan, A. T. (2021). An exploration of metadiscourse usage in book review articles across three academic disciplines: a contrastive analysis of corpus-based research approach. Scientometrics, 126(4), 2885–2902. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11192-020-03822-W
8. Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2005). NS and NNS scientists’ amendments of Dutch scientific English and their impact on hedging. English for Specific Purposes, 24(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.09.004
9. Can, C., & Yuvayapan, F. (2018). Stance-Taking through Metadiscourse in Doctoral Dissertations. International Journal of Languages’ Education, 6(1), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.18298/ijlet.2538
10. 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(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
11. Deng, L., Fatemeh, B., & Gao, X. (2021). Exploring the interactive and interactional metadiscourse in doctoral dissertation writing: a diachronic study. Scientometrics, 126(8), 7223–7250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04064-0
12. Farahani, M. V., & Sbetifard, M. (2017). Metadiscourse Features in English News Writing among English Native and Iranian Writers: A Comparative Corpus-based Inquiry. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(12), 1249–1261. https://doi.org/10.17507/TPLS.0712.12
13. Fu, X., & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122–144. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.7.1.05fu
14. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2013). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar: Fourth edition. In Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar: Fourth Edition. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203431269
15. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
16. Hyland, K. (2018). Metadiscourse : Exploring Interaction in Writing. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uu/detail.action?docID=5560196
17. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (Kevin). (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes (New York, N.Y.), 51, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001
18. Jiang, F., & Ma, X. (2018). ‘As we can see’: Reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.05.003
19. Jokic, N. (2017). Metadiscourse in ELF spoken discourse of Erasmus students in Austria. In Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik (Vol. 42, Issue 2, pp. 211–223). Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH+Co. KG . http://uu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1LT9wwELYQJy6ohdJuecgnLiiVH0nsHDgssAhVuz3wuPQS2bEjRSkJ2mT_P-PEye7CgfbQixWNLEfyNxp_mcx8RoizHyR4ExMSokNDrRK5YiQhEbFUCm4Jy-I8o9q1Py9-y-kv-XMhZ2tNhLXtvwIPNoDeNdL-A_jjomCAZ3ABGMEJYPwrN1jYVrnO29oVa7jk
20. Kashiha, H., & Marandi, S. (2019). Rhetoric-specific features of interactive metadiscourse in introduction moves: A case of discipline awareness. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 37(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2018.1548294
21. Keramati, S. R., Kuhi, D., & Saeidi, M. (2019). Cross-Sectional Diachronic Corpus Analysis of Stance and Engagement Markers in Three Leading Journals of Applied Linguistics. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 6(2), 25–1. https://doi.org/10.30479/JMRELS.2019.11293.1409
22. Kopple, W. J. Vande. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
23. Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I
24. McKeown, J., & Ladegaard, H. J. (2020). Exploring dominance-linked reflexive metadiscourse in moderated group discussions . In Journal of pragmatics (Vol. 166, pp. 15–27). Elsevier B.V . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.007
25. Molino, A. (2018). ‘What I’m speaking is almost english…’’: A corpus-based study of metadiscourse in english-medium lectures at an Italian University.’ Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 18(4), 935–956. https://doi.org/10.12738/ESTP.2018.4.0330
26. Murphy, A. C. (2005). A corpus-based contrastive study of evaluation in English and Italian.
27. Penz, H., & Marko, G. (2017). Metadiscourse in interactive contexts: An introduction. In Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik (Vol. 42, Issue 2, pp. 185–188). Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH+Co. KG . http://uu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV3PT9swFLaA0y7TBmODAcoFLlFQYrtxPIlDQPzQRtGkwWWXyj-lUpGiJuXAX7_n2GlDJ6Rx2CWy3DaK_L0-P39573sIEXycJis-QTvLsgSzgUixgrEkPLOGYcULwaSjJYe_i_Km-D4szpd9DJdz_xV4mAPoXSHtG8Bf3BQmYAwmAFcwArj-kxkMTSNc5e3UJWs4
28. Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. In Journal of pragmatics (Vol. 139, pp. 22–39). Elsevier B.V . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.004
29. Resnik, P. (2017). Metadiscourse in spoken interaction in ESL: A multilingual perspective . In Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik (Vol. 42, Issue 2, pp. 189–210). Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH+Co. KG . http://uu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwt-V1Ba9swFBalp13GurVrurbo1EvwsGXJkgY9pCWljLSEJbn0YmzrBUyYU2rn_-9JlhOnPXQ77GLMO8ig7_np09P7ngiJ2fcweBUT2FJrIwHpcY5OlAulBHDBinDJAJ3G1cs-qdGj-vmgxrvmFjvbfwUebQi9FdL-A_jbQdGA7-gC-EQnwOdfucEDNJlV3q5tsYZN
30. Shahid, M. I., Qasim, H. M., & Hasnain, M. (2021). Whites and Browns: A Contrastive Study of Metadiscourse in English Newspaper Editorials. Register Journal, 14(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.18326/RGT.V14I1.25-42
31. Shen, Q., & Tao, Y. (2021). Stance markers in English medical research articles and newspaper opinion columns: A comparative corpus-based study. PLoS ONE, 16(3 March), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247981
32. Van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as Discourse. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 33. Virtanen, T. (2005). “Polls and surveys show”: Public opinion as a persuasive device in editorial discourse. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion Across Genres : A linguistic approach (pp. 259–284). John Benjamins Publishing Company. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uu/detail.action?docID=622967
34. Yakhontova, T. (2006). Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.03.002
35. 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), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10085-7
36. Zhang, D., & Sheng, D. (2021). EFL Lecturers’ Metadiscourse in Chinese University MOOCs Across Course Types. Corpus Pragmatics : International Journal of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, 5(2), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-021-00098-0
37. Zhang, M. (2016). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies, 18(2), 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615623907
38. Zhang, M. (2019). Exploring Personal Metadiscourse Markers across Speech and Writing Using Cluster Analysis. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 26(4), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2018.1480856
2. Ädel, A. (2017). Remember that your reader cannot read your mind: Problem/solutionoriented metadiscourse in teacher feedback on student writing. English for Specific Purposes, 45, 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESP.2016.09.002
3. Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and Divided Perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.215
4. Aerts, W., & Yan, B. (2017). Rhetorical impression management in the letter to shareholders and institutional setting: A metadiscourse perspective. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 30(2), 404–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1916
5. Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F., & Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System, 83, 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.010
6. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Variation across Speech and Writing. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024
7. Birhan, A. T. (2021). An exploration of metadiscourse usage in book review articles across three academic disciplines: a contrastive analysis of corpus-based research approach. Scientometrics, 126(4), 2885–2902. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11192-020-03822-W
8. Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2005). NS and NNS scientists’ amendments of Dutch scientific English and their impact on hedging. English for Specific Purposes, 24(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.09.004
9. Can, C., & Yuvayapan, F. (2018). Stance-Taking through Metadiscourse in Doctoral Dissertations. International Journal of Languages’ Education, 6(1), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.18298/ijlet.2538
10. 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(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
11. Deng, L., Fatemeh, B., & Gao, X. (2021). Exploring the interactive and interactional metadiscourse in doctoral dissertation writing: a diachronic study. Scientometrics, 126(8), 7223–7250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04064-0
12. Farahani, M. V., & Sbetifard, M. (2017). Metadiscourse Features in English News Writing among English Native and Iranian Writers: A Comparative Corpus-based Inquiry. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(12), 1249–1261. https://doi.org/10.17507/TPLS.0712.12
13. Fu, X., & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122–144. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.7.1.05fu
14. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2013). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar: Fourth edition. In Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar: Fourth Edition. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203431269
15. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
16. Hyland, K. (2018). Metadiscourse : Exploring Interaction in Writing. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uu/detail.action?docID=5560196
17. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (Kevin). (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes (New York, N.Y.), 51, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001
18. Jiang, F., & Ma, X. (2018). ‘As we can see’: Reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.05.003
19. Jokic, N. (2017). Metadiscourse in ELF spoken discourse of Erasmus students in Austria. In Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik (Vol. 42, Issue 2, pp. 211–223). Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH+Co. KG . http://uu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1LT9wwELYQJy6ohdJuecgnLiiVH0nsHDgssAhVuz3wuPQS2bEjRSkJ2mT_P-PEye7CgfbQixWNLEfyNxp_mcx8RoizHyR4ExMSokNDrRK5YiQhEbFUCm4Jy-I8o9q1Py9-y-kv-XMhZ2tNhLXtvwIPNoDeNdL-A_jjomCAZ3ABGMEJYPwrN1jYVrnO29oVa7jk
20. Kashiha, H., & Marandi, S. (2019). Rhetoric-specific features of interactive metadiscourse in introduction moves: A case of discipline awareness. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 37(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2018.1548294
21. Keramati, S. R., Kuhi, D., & Saeidi, M. (2019). Cross-Sectional Diachronic Corpus Analysis of Stance and Engagement Markers in Three Leading Journals of Applied Linguistics. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 6(2), 25–1. https://doi.org/10.30479/JMRELS.2019.11293.1409
22. Kopple, W. J. Vande. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
23. Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I
24. McKeown, J., & Ladegaard, H. J. (2020). Exploring dominance-linked reflexive metadiscourse in moderated group discussions . In Journal of pragmatics (Vol. 166, pp. 15–27). Elsevier B.V . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.007
25. Molino, A. (2018). ‘What I’m speaking is almost english…’’: A corpus-based study of metadiscourse in english-medium lectures at an Italian University.’ Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 18(4), 935–956. https://doi.org/10.12738/ESTP.2018.4.0330
26. Murphy, A. C. (2005). A corpus-based contrastive study of evaluation in English and Italian.
27. Penz, H., & Marko, G. (2017). Metadiscourse in interactive contexts: An introduction. In Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik (Vol. 42, Issue 2, pp. 185–188). Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH+Co. KG . http://uu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV3PT9swFLaA0y7TBmODAcoFLlFQYrtxPIlDQPzQRtGkwWWXyj-lUpGiJuXAX7_n2GlDJ6Rx2CWy3DaK_L0-P39573sIEXycJis-QTvLsgSzgUixgrEkPLOGYcULwaSjJYe_i_Km-D4szpd9DJdz_xV4mAPoXSHtG8Bf3BQmYAwmAFcwArj-kxkMTSNc5e3UJWs4
28. Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. In Journal of pragmatics (Vol. 139, pp. 22–39). Elsevier B.V . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.004
29. Resnik, P. (2017). Metadiscourse in spoken interaction in ESL: A multilingual perspective . In Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik (Vol. 42, Issue 2, pp. 189–210). Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH+Co. KG . http://uu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwt-V1Ba9swFBalp13GurVrurbo1EvwsGXJkgY9pCWljLSEJbn0YmzrBUyYU2rn_-9JlhOnPXQ77GLMO8ig7_np09P7ngiJ2fcweBUT2FJrIwHpcY5OlAulBHDBinDJAJ3G1cs-qdGj-vmgxrvmFjvbfwUebQi9FdL-A_jbQdGA7-gC-EQnwOdfucEDNJlV3q5tsYZN
30. Shahid, M. I., Qasim, H. M., & Hasnain, M. (2021). Whites and Browns: A Contrastive Study of Metadiscourse in English Newspaper Editorials. Register Journal, 14(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.18326/RGT.V14I1.25-42
31. Shen, Q., & Tao, Y. (2021). Stance markers in English medical research articles and newspaper opinion columns: A comparative corpus-based study. PLoS ONE, 16(3 March), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247981
32. Van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as Discourse. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 33. Virtanen, T. (2005). “Polls and surveys show”: Public opinion as a persuasive device in editorial discourse. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion Across Genres : A linguistic approach (pp. 259–284). John Benjamins Publishing Company. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uu/detail.action?docID=622967
34. Yakhontova, T. (2006). Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.03.002
35. 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), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10085-7
36. Zhang, D., & Sheng, D. (2021). EFL Lecturers’ Metadiscourse in Chinese University MOOCs Across Course Types. Corpus Pragmatics : International Journal of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, 5(2), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-021-00098-0
37. Zhang, M. (2016). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies, 18(2), 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615623907
38. Zhang, M. (2019). Exploring Personal Metadiscourse Markers across Speech and Writing Using Cluster Analysis. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 26(4), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2018.1480856
Abstract views: 216 PDF Downloads: 148
Published
2022-01-17
How to Cite
Sabov, A., & Verba, L. (2022). READER ENGAGEMENT IN L1 AND L2 SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH. Scientific Journal of Polonia University, 47(4), 68-80. https://doi.org/10.23856/4709
Section
LANGUAGE, CULTURE, COMMUNICATION
