Metadiscourse in Upper Secondary English Essays: Exploring Genres in L1 and L2 Educational Contexts
This exploratory research project aims to investigate metadiscourse features in English essays written by upper secondary pupils attending schools in Norway, Sweden and the UK. Metadiscourse refers to the linguistic features that authors use to interact with their readers. This project recognises two main types of metadiscourse: signposting and stance. Signposts are words and phrases that authors use to guide their readers through the unfolding text. Stance markers are used to offer evaluations, navigate knowledge claims, and anticipate reader reactions. A large body of research has investigated the use of metadiscourse in professional and tertiary-level educational settings. However, comparatively few studies have investigated metadiscourse features in pre-tertiary essay writing. This research project contributes to this currently limited pool of research by analysing metadiscourse in final- year upper secondary pupils’ English essays in both L1 and L2 educational contexts. Furthermore, by incorporating interview methods, this research also aims to investigate English teachers’ general views towards metadiscourse and to what extent their instruction affects their pupils’ compositional decisions.
The project involved collecting a corpus of non-fiction essays and holding interviews with teachers in upper secondary schools situated in Norway, Sweden and the UK. The essays were written for assignments set by teachers and grouped in five genres: political essays, literary essays, opinion pieces, linguistic investigations and commentaries. A metadiscourse taxonomy was adapted based on previous studies and a close reading of a sub-sample of 50 essays. The resulting taxonomy, which comprises 26 sub-categories and accounts for over 1,000 metadiscourse types, was utilised in four steps. Firstly, the types were used to electronically scan the corpus using a concordancing program. Secondly, the concordance lines were manually read to filter out non- metadiscoursal results. Thirdly, the number of each metadiscourse sub-category per 1,000 words in each essay was calculated. Finally, the descriptive statistics and concordance lines were used to identify trends regarding the use of each sub-category in the corpus. Additionally, semi- structured interviews were held with 19 teachers to gain insight into the metadiscourse-related advice they offered their pupils. The interview data were used to supplement the interpretation of the results from the textual analysis. The findings are reported in four articles that each focus on separate aspects of metadiscourse and different stages of the research process.
Article 1 reports results from a preliminary study using a sub-set of 56 essays collected from the Norwegian and UK schools. This preliminary analysis was conducted in order to devise the adapted taxonomy, as well as to gain insight into the pragmatic usage of metadiscourse features in the upper secondary essays.
Article 2 reports the results from an analysis of signposts in a corpus of 115 essays from the Norwegian, Swedish and UK schools, supplemented by data from the teacher interviews. Whereas the pupils frequently used a wide range of linguistic features to explicitly signal sentential relations, their use of markers that signal structural relations was somewhat sporadic, probably due to the short length of the essays. Although signposts were used similarly across the three educational contexts, their usage seemed to reflect the purposes of the target genres. While the UK teachers tended not to address the use of these features, the teachers in Norway and Sweden tended to provide pupils with decontextualised lists of signposts, which raises questions about whether upper secondary teachers in these L1 and L2 contexts should offer more explicit instruction in the pragmatic use of organisational features.
Article 3 reports results from an analysis of epistemic stance and engagement features in the same corpus, alongside data from the teacher interviews. The pupils used a wide range of features to navigate knowledge claims, draw on extra-textual material, and anticipate reader reactions. These features seemed to be used in ways that reflected the communicative purpose of the target genre. The findings also indicated that the pupils sometimes used boosters inappropriately, which suggests pupils at this level may benefit from explicit instruction in the appropriate use of these features. The interviews revealed that the teachers offered advice regarding epistemic stance and engagement features, but this was sometimes inconsequential, categorical, or outdated.
Article 4 reports results from an analysis of attitude markers in 135 essays collected from the Norwegian, Swedish and British schools. For this study, 218 attitude markers belonging to four sub-categories were used to scan the corpus. The results revealed the wide range of types that the pupils used to offer their affective evaluations of the material in question and how these varied across the educational contexts and genres. While many other metadiscourse features seemed to be used similarly across the educational contexts, attitude markers were more varied and frequent among pupils in the UK. This may be explained by several factors, such as the UK pupils having a broader lexical vocabulary, or that the UK genres required pupils to more frequently offer their affective reactions.
Overall, these articles offer insight into the wide range of linguistic features that pupils rely on to signal textual relations, negotiate knowledge claims, engage readers, and express attitudes. On the one hand, many of these features seemed to be used at relatively similar frequencies across the three educational contexts. This might demonstrate the seemingly high written proficiency of L2 learners of English in Norway and Sweden. Alternatively, this may partly be due to the linguistic similarities of Norwegian, Swedish and English, enabling the Scandinavian upper secondary pupils to directly transfer many metadiscourse features from their L1s to English with relative success. On the other hand, metadiscourse usage seemed to reflect the communicative purposes of the target genres. Other factors may also have influenced the pupils’ metadiscourse usage, such as teacher advice, essay writing prompts, and individual preferences. The interview data suggest that the teachers tended to offer advice that was somewhat disconnected from professional writing practices, which consequently requires further investigation.
This project contributes to the field by offering insight into the types, frequencies and usage of metadiscourse features among this under- researched group. The analysis required compiling an adapted taxonomy that accounts for the idiosyncratic types and sub-categories that characterised the corpus, which provides a comprehensive starting point for future studies that aim to investigate how metadiscourse features are used in pre-tertiary educational contexts. A further major contribution of this project is the use of interview methods to investigate teacher views regarding metadiscourse-related instruction. The findings have implications for teachers who aim to develop their pupils’ pragmatic knowledge of how signposts and stance markers vary across different genres. Engaging pupils in writing essays of varying lengths across a range of genres can contribute to preparing them for the written demands they are likely to face in higher education and among professional discourse communities.
Abdi, R., Rizi, M. T. & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1669-1679.
Ahn, K. (2011). Conceptualization of American English native speaker norms: A case study of an English language classroom in South Korea. Asia Pacific Educational Review, 12, 691-702.
Aijmer, K. & Hasselgård, H. (2015). Cross-linguistic studies at the interface between lexis and grammar. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 1-8.
Alyousef, H. (2015). An investigation of metadiscourse features in international postgraduate business students' texts: The use of interactive and interactional markers in tertiary multimodal finance texts. SAGE Open, 5(4), 1-10.
Altenberg, B. (2007). The correspondence of resultative connectors in English and Swedish. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 6(1), 1-26.
Altenberg, B. & Granger, S. (2001). The grammatical and lexical patterning of make in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 173-194.
Amiryousefi, M. & Rasekh, A. E. (2010). Metadiscourse: Definitions, issues and its implications for English teachers. English Language Teaching, 3, 159-167.
Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc (Version 3.5.8) [Computer software]. Waseda University.
AQA Education (AQA). (2013). A-level creative writing. AQA. AQA Education (AQA). (2019). AS and A-level English language. AQA.
Aragones, E., Gilboa, I., Postlewaite, A. & Schmeidler, D. (2001). Rhetoric and analogies. Research in Economics, 68(1), 1-10.
Askehave, I. & Swales, J. M. (2001). Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 195-212.
Atkinson, D. & Sohn, J. (2013). Culture from the bottom up. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 669-693.
Aull, L. & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151-183.
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press.
Baker, P. (2010). Corpus methods in linguistics. In L. Litosseliti, (Ed.), Research methods in linguistics (p. 93-113). Continuum.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. University of Texas Press.
Bakshiri, N. & Mohammadi, M. (2014). Proactive/reactive focus on form and immediate/delayed writing production. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 334-342.
Balboni, P. E. & Caon, F. (2014). A performance-oriented model of intercultural communicative competence. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 35. https://immi.se/intercultural/nr35/balboni.html
Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F. & Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers' use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System, 83, 79-95.
Bazerman, C. (2014). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activity and people. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), Writing about writing: A college reader (2nd ed.) (p. 309-339). Bedford/St Martin's.
Beauvais, P. J. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 6, 11-30.
Beck, S. W., Llosa, L., Black, K. & Anderson, A. T. G. (2018). From assessing to teaching writing: What teachers prioritize. Assessing Writing, 37, 68-77.
Belcher, D. (2014). What we need and don't need intercultural rhetoric for: A retrospective and prospective look at an evolving research area. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25(1), 59- 67.
Bennett, M. J. (2013). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Paradigms, principles & practices (2nd ed.). Intercultural Press.
Berggren, J. (2019). Writing, reviewing, and revising: Peer feedback in lower secondary EFL classrooms [Ph.D. thesis]. Stockholm University.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman.
Bialystok, E. & Hakuta, K. (1994). In other words: The science and psychology of second language acquisition. Basic Books.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education Limited.
Biber, D., Reppen, R., Staples, S. & Egbert, J. (2020). Exploring the longitudinal development of grammatical complexity in the disciplinary writing of L2-English university students International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 6(1), 38-71.
Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers. Studies about Languages, 5, 60-67.
Brannon, L., Courtney, J. P., Urbanski, C. P., Woodward, S. V., Reynolds, J. M., Iannone, A. E., Haag, K. D., Mach, K., Manship, L. A. & Kendrick, M. (2008). The five-paragraph essay and the deficit model of education. English Journal, 98(2), 16-21.
Brezina, V., Weill-Tessier, P. & McEnery, A. (2020). #LancsBox (Version 5.1.1) [Computer software]. http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox.
Bruce, I. (2010). Textual and discoursal resources used in the essay genre in sociology and English. Journal for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 153-166.
Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 159-178.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6, 97-113.
Burt, C. (2005). What is international English? Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.7916/D8F47NPX
Canagarajah, A. (2013). The end of second language writing? Journal of Second Language Writing 22(4), 440-441.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Çandarlı, D., Bayyurt, Y. & Marti, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross- cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 192-202.
Cao, F. & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-196.
Cheng, X. & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149-181.
Collins. (2019). The collins corpus. Collins Learning. https://collins.co.uk/pages/elt-cobuild-reference-the-collins-corpus
Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 291-304.
Connor-Greene, P. A. & Greene, D. J. (2002). Science or snake oil?
Teaching critical evaluation of "research" reports on the internet. Teaching of Psychology, 29(4), 321-324.
Cook, V. J. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185-209.
Cortes, V. (2002). Lexical bundles in freshman composition. In R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (p. 131-145). Benjamins.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Crossley, S. & McNamara, D. (2014). Does writing development equal writing quality? A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 66-79.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: From theory to research. Routledge.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251.
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(10), 1807-1825.
Dahl, T. (2008). The KIAP project: Academic voices in harmony and contrast. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 203-204.
Dash, N. S. & Arulmozi, S. (2018). History, features, and typology of language corpora. Springer.
Dastjerdi, H. V. & Shirzad, M. (2012). The impact of explicit instruction of metadiscourse markers on EFL learners' writing performance. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2(2), 155-174. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2012.412
De Cock, S. (2004). Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures (BELL), 2, 225-246.
Defazio, J., Jones, J., Tennant, F. & Hook, S. A. (2010). Academic literacy: The importance and impact of writing across the curriculum - a case study. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 34-47.
Department for Education (DfE). (2014). The national curriculum in England. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/sys tem/uploads/attachment_data/file/381344/Master_final_national_curriculum_28_Nov.pdf
Dobbs, C. L. (2014). Signaling organization and stance: Academic language use in middle grade persuasive writing. Reading and Writing, 27(8), 1327-1352.
Docherty, P. (2019). An exploratory study in the use of direct quotation by L2 entry level Bachelor students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 40, 26-40.
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169- 192.
Dypedal, M. & Hasselgård, H. (2018). Introducing English grammar (3rd ed.). Fagbokforlaget.
Ebeling, J. (2016). Contrastive linguistics in a new key. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 15(3), 7-14.
Education First. (2020). English proficiency index. https://www.ef.no/epi/regions/europe/norway/
Ellis, R. (2008a). Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 4-22.
Ellis, R. (2008b). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. & Johson, K. E. (1998). An evaluation of a genre-based approach to the teaching of EAP/ESP writing. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 147-156.
Enkvist, N. E. (1997). Why we need contrastive rhetoric. Alternation, 4, 188-206.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman.
Farahani, M. V. (2019). Metadiscourse in academic English texts: A corpus-based probe into British academic written English corpus. Studies about Languages, 34, 56-73.
Farrokhi, F. & Ashrafi, S. (2009). Textual metadiscourse resources in research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 52(212), 39-75.
Farrokhi, F. & Sattarpour, S. (2012). The effects of direct written corrective feedback on improvement of grammatical accuracy of high-proficient L2 learners. World Journal of Education, 2(2), 49-57.
Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualizing context: Grammaticality meets appropriateness. John Benjamins.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Flowerdew, J. (2011). Some dichotomies in genre analysis for languages for specific purposes. In V. Bhatia, P. S. Hernández & P. Pérez-Parades (Eds.), Researching specialized languages. (p. 139-154). John Benjamins.
Flowerdew, J. (2015). Revisiting metadiscourse: Conceptual and methodological issues concerning signalling nouns. Ibérica, 29, 15-34.
Flowerdew, J. & Wan, A. (2006). Genre analysis of tax computation letters: How and why tax accountants write the way they do. English for Specific Purposes, 25(2), 133-153.
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., Didriksen, A. A. & Gjesdal, A. M. (2013). KIAP- reflections on a complex corpus. Bergen Language and Linguistic Studies, 3(1), 137-150.
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T. & Torodd K. (2006). Academic voices. John Benjamins.
Freedman, S. W., Hull, G. A., Higgs, J. M., & Booten, K. P. (2016). Teaching writing in a digital and global age: Toward access, learning, and development for all. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., p. 1389- 1450). American Educational Research Association.
Friginal, E., Li, M. & Weigle, S. C. (2014). Revisiting multiple profiles of learner compositions: A comparison of highly rated NS and NNS essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 1-16.
Fu, X. & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122-144.
Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., Velasco-Sacristán, M., Arribas-Baño, A. & Samaniego-Fernández, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1307.
Gardner, S. & Han. C. (2018). Transitions of contrast in Chinese and English university student writing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(4), 861-882.
Gaskell, D. & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32(3), 301-319.
Gass, S. M. Behney, J. & Plonsky L. (2020). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Gentil, G. (2011). A biliteracy agenda for genre research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 6-23.
Gholami, J. & Ilghami, R. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and journal impact factor: Non-native writers vs. native writers. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44(4), 349-360.
Gillaerts, P. & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139.
Gnutzmann, C. & Rabe, F. (2014). 'Theoretical subtleties' or 'text modules'? German researchers' language demands and attitudes across disciplinary cultures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13(1), 31-40.
Grabe, W. (2008). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English. A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century. The British Council.
Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43, 277-303.
Granger, S. (1998). The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (p. 3-18). London.
Granger, S. (2009). The contribution of leaner corpora to second language acquisition and foreign language teaching: A critical evaluation. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and language teaching (p. 13-32). John Benjamins.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (p. 45-58). Academic Press.
Griffiths, J. (2001). Norway and the United Kingdom. Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
Hammond, P. (2018). The UK's shared economic values with Sweden. Gov.uk. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-uks-shared-economic-values-with-sweden
Hannon, P. (2007). The history and future of literacy. In T. Grainger (Ed.). The RoutledgeFalmer reader in language and literacy (p. 19-32). RoutledgeFalmer.
Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263-277.
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.
Hasselgreen, A. & Sundet, K. T. (2017). Introducing the CORYL corpus: What it is and how we can use it to shed light on learner language. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies, 7, 197-215.
Hasselgård, H. (2016). Discourse-organizing metadiscourse in novice academic English. In M. J. López-Couso, B. Méndez-Naya, P. Núñez-Pertejo & I. M. Palacios-Martínez (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics on the move: Exploring and understanding English through corpora (p. 106-131). Brill Rodopi.
Haugen, E. (2009). Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. In B. Comrie (Ed.), The world's major languages (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Haugen, E. & Markey, T. L. (1973). Scandinavian languages: Fifty years of linguistic research (1918 - 1968). Walter de Gruyter.
Hellekjær, G. O. (2007). Fremmedspråk i norsk næringsliv - Engelsk er ikke nok! Fremmedspråksenteret.
Hempel, S. & Degand, L. (2008). Sequencers in different text genres: Academic writing, journalese and fiction. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 676-693.
Herriman, J. (2009). Don't get me wrong! Negation in argumentative writing by Swedish and British students and professional writers. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 8(3), 117-140.
Herriman, J. (2014). Metadiscourse in English and Swedish non-fiction texts and their translations. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 13(1), 1-32.
Hinds, J. (2011). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Landmark essays on ESL writing (p. 63-74). Routledge.
Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Linguistic Learning, 15, 29-53.
Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading & writing in second language writing instruction. The University of Michigan Press.
Ho, V. (2018). Using metadiscourse in making persuasive attempts through workplace request emails. Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 70-81.
Ho, V. & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students' timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53-68.
Holliday, A. R. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20, 237- 264.
Holmes, J. (1986). Functions of you know in women's and men's speech. Language in Society, 15, 1-22.
Hu, G. & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12-25.
Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (1998a). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO's letter. Journal of Business Communication 35(2), p. 224- 244.
Hyland, K. (1998b). Hedging in scientific research. John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Scientific Purposes, 20(3), 207- 226.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2007a). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic disciplines. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 266-285.
Hyland, K. (2007b). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 58-69.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29.
Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101.
Hyland, K. & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Hyltenstam, K. (2004). Engelskan, skolans språkundervisning och svensk språkpolitik. In Svenska Språknämnden (Ed.), Engelskan i Sverige: Språkval i utbildning, arbete och kulturliv (p. 36- 107). Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. University of Pennsylvania Press.
IBM Corp. (2017). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows (Version 25.0) [Computer software]. IBM Corp.
Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1325-1353.
Institutet för Språk och Folkminnen (ISOF). (2021). Avdelningen språkrådet. https://www.isof.se/vart-uppdrag/om-myndigheten/organisation/avdelningar/avdelningen-sprakradet
Intraprawat, P. & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272.
Jakobson, R. (1990). On language. Harvard University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2005). ELF at the gate: The position of English as a Lingua Franca. Humanising Language Teaching, 7(2). http://www.hltmag.co.uk/mar05/idea.htm
Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), 281-315.
Jiang, F. & Hyland, K. (2016). Nouns and academic interactions: A neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 1-25.
Jiang, J., Bi, P., Liu, H. (2019). Syntactic complexity development in the writings of EFL learners: Insights from a dependency syntactically-annotated corpus. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 100666.
Johansson, S. (2007). Seeing through multilingual corpora: On the use of corpora in contrastive studies. Benjamins.
Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2017). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
Johnson, J. & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.
Kachru, B. B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.). University of Illinois Press.
Kaneko, T. (2005). Semantic network makes things problematic: Use of vertical axis prepositions by Japanese learners of English. Proceedings of the NICT JLE corpus symposium, 7-10.
Kang, E. & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18.
Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
Keshavarz, M. H. & Kheirieh, Z. (2011). Metadiscourse elements in English research articles written by native English and non- native Iranian writers in applied linguistics and civil engineering. Journal of English Studies, 1(3), 3-15.
Khabbazi-Oskouei, L. (2013). Propositional or non-propositional, that is the questions: A new approach to analysing "interpersonal metadiscourse" in editorials. Journal of Pragmatics, 47(1), 93- 107.
Khedri, M. & Kritsis, K. (2018). Metadiscourse in applied linguistics and chemistry. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 47-74. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2018.13793
Krashen, S. (1993). The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 722-725.
Krashen, S. (2013). Second language acquisition: Theories, applications and some conjectures. Cambridge University Press.
Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of Ll-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 69-100.
Kubota, R. & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 7-27.
Kumpf, E. (2000). Visual metadiscourse: Designing the considerate text. Technical Communication Quarterly, 9, 401-424.
Kuteeva, M. (2013). Graduate learners' approaches to genre-analysis tasks: Variations across and within four disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 32(2), 84-96.
Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju (3rd ed.). Gyldendal.
Lardiere D. (2009) Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25(2), 173-227.
Lea, M. R. & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.
Lee, J. J. (2005). Native speaker: An achievable model? Asian EFL Journal 7(2), 152-163.
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.
Leech, N. N. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and Quantity, 43, 265-275.
Lemmouh, Z. (2008). The relationship between grades and the lexical richness of student essays. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 163-180.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. Wiley. Liu, M. & Xu, Y. (2013). An investigation of syntactic errors in Chinese undergraduate EFL learners' compositions: A cohort study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(4), 182-191.
Ljosland, R. (2008). Lingua franca, prestisjespråk og forestilt fellesskap: Om engelsk som akademisk språk i Norge [Ph.D. Thesis]. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Longo, B. (1994). The role of metadiscourse in persuasion. Technical Communication, 41(2), 348-352.
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Mahalski, P. A. (1992). Essay-writing: Do study manuals give relevant advice? Higher Education, 24(1), 113-132.
Malmström, H., Pecorari, D. & Shaw, P. (2018). Words for what? Contrasting university students' receptive and productive academic vocabulary needs. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 28-39.
Mao, L. R. (1993). I conclude not: Toward a pragmatic account of metadiscourse. Rhetoric Review, 11(2), 265-289.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mathieu, F. (2017). The failure of state multiculturalism in the UK? An analysis of the UK's multicultural policy for 2000-2015. Ethnicities, 18(1), 43-69.
Mauranen, A. (1993a). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish- English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22.
Mauranen, A. (1993b). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A textlinguistic study. Peter Lang.
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge University Press.
Maxwell-Reid, C. & Kartika-Ningsih, H. (2020). Nominal expansion in L2 adolescent writing: Functions and realizations of clausal embedding in argumentative texts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100751.
McCabe, A. & Belmonte, I. A. (2019). Challenging the concept of pure objectivity in British and Spanish hard news reports: The case of the 2006 Lebanon War. In C. Sancho-Guinda (Ed.), Engagement in professional genres (p. 67-86). John Benjamins.
McEnery, T. & Wilson, A. (2003). Corpus linguistics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.
McGrath, L. & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161-173.
Mills, K. & Dooley, K. (2014). Teaching persuasive texts: Building a language of evaluation through hedging and moderated intensification. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 22(3), 33- 41.
Ministry of Culture. (2009). Language act (2009:600). https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/9e56b0c78cb5447b968 a29dd14a68358/spraklag-pa-engelska
Mocanu, M. (2015). An empirical analysis of metadiscourse in the abstracts of Romanian accounting research articles. Accounting and Management Information Systems, 14(2), 362-377.
Modiano, M. (1999). International English in the global village. English Today, 15(2), 22-27.
Mohamed-Sayidina, A. (2010). Transfer of L1 cohesive devices and transition words into L2 academic texts: The case of arab students. RELC Journal, 41(3), 253-266.
Monte-Sano, C. (2015). Qualities of historical writing instruction: A comparative case study of two teachers' practices. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1045-1079.
Moreno, A. I. (2021). Selling research in RA discussion sections through English and Spanish: An intercultural rhetoric approach. English for Specific Purposes, 63, 1-17.
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.
Muñoz, C. & Singleton, D. (2011). A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate attainment. Language Teaching, 44(1), 1-35.
Mur Dueñas, Pilar. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 50-72.
Nystrand, M. (1996). Opening diologue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. Teachers College Press.
Office for National Statistics. (2013). 2011 Census: Detailed analysis - English language proficiency in England and Wales, main language and general health characteristics. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/cultura lidentity/language/articles/detailedanalysisenglishlanguageprofi ciencyinenglandandwales/2013-08-30
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160- 3715/2007.1638
Ortega, L. (2019). SLA and the study of equitable multilingualism. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12525
Orts, M. A. (2016). Power distance and persuasion: The tension between imposition and legitimation in international legal genres. Journal of Pragmatics, 92, 1-16.
Paikeday, T.M. (1985). The native speaker is dead! Lexicography Inc. Penfield, W. & Robert, L. (1959). Speech and brain mechanisms. Atheneum Press.
Peterlin, A. P. (2005). Text-organising metatext in research articles: An English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 307-319.
Politzer-Ahles, S., Holliday, J. J., Girolamo, T., Spychalska, M. & Berkson, K. H. (2016). Is linguistic injustice a myth? A response to Hyland (2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 34(3), 3-8.
Prince, E. F., Frader, J. & Bosk, C. (1980). On hedging in physician- physician discourse [Conference Presentation]. AAAL Symposium on Applied Linguistics in Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.
Proposisjoner til Stortinget. (2019). Prop. 108 L. (2019-2020). Regjeringen.no. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/prop.-108-l- 20192020/id2701451/?ch=13
Qin, W. & Ucceli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22-39.
Rahman, M. (2004). Aiding the reader: The use of metalinguistic devices in scientific discourse. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 18, 29-48.
Reynolds, D. (2005). Linguistic correlates of second language literacy development: Evidence from middle-grade learner essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(1), 19-45.
Reynolds, J. F., Matalene, C. B., Magnotto, J. N., Samson Jr. D. C., Sadler, L. V. (1995). Professional writing in context lessons from teaching and consulting in worlds of work. Routledge.
Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. S. (2019). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Rindal, U. (2014). What is English? Acta Didactica Norge, 8(2), 1-17.
Sadeghi, K. & Esmaili, S. (2012). Frequency of textual metadiscourse resources (MTRs) in two original and simplified novels. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 647-652.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 149-170.
Salas, M. D. (2015). Reflexive metadiscourse in research articles in Spanish: Variation across three disciplines (linguistics, economics and medicine). Journal of Pragmatics, 77, 20-40.
Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 1-17.
Sancho-Guinda, C. (2019). Networking engagement in professional practices. In C. Sancho-Guinda (Ed.), Engagement in professional genres (p. 1-28). John Benjamins.
Sanford, S. G. (2012). A comparison of metadiscourse markers and writing quality in adolescent written narratives [Bachelor's thesis]. Montana State University.
Sawaki, Y., Quinlan, T. & Lee, Y. (2013). Understanding learner strengths and weaknesses: Assessing performance on an integrated writing task. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 73-95.
Scott, M. (2020). WordSmith Tools (Version 8) [Computer software]. Lexical Analysis Software.
Simensen, A. M. (2013). Skolefaget engelsk: Fra britisk engelsk til mange slags "engelsker"- og veien videre. Acta Didactica Norge, 8(2), 1-18.
Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 343-357.
Shaw, P. (2016). Genre analysis. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (p. 243- 255). Taylor & Francis.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677.
Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2015). Collocation in beginner learner writing: A longitudinal study. System, 53, 148-160.
Skolverket. (2018). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare 2011. Skolverket. https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a 218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf
Skolverket. (2020). English. Skolverket. https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/gymnasieskolan/laropla n-program-och-amnen-i-gymnasieskolan/amnesplaner-i-gymnasieskolan-pa-engelska
Smith, K. (2006). In defense of the five-paragraph essay. English Journal, 95(4), 16-17.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (p. 607-632). Blackwell.
Språkrådet. (2021). Om oss. https://www.sprakradet.no/Vi-og-vart/Om-oss/
Stetsenko, A. & Arievitch, I. (1997). Constructing and deconstructing the self: Comparing post-Vygotskian and discourse-based versions of social constructivism. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4(3), 159-172.
Subtirelu, N. (2013). What (do) learners want (?): A re-examination of the issue of learner preferences regarding the use of 'native' speaker norms in English language teaching. Language Awareness, 22(3), 270-291.
Sundqvist, P. & Sylvén, L. K. (2016). Extramural English in teaching and learning. Palgrave Macmillan.
Swales, J. M. (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2014). The concept of discourse community. In E. Wardle & D. Downs (Eds.), Writing about writing: A college reader (2nd ed.) (p. 215-229). Bedford/St. Martin's.
Swales, J. M. (2016). Reflections on the concept of discourse community. Concepts and Frameworks in English for Specific Purposes, 69, 1-12.
Tarrayo, V. (2014). Exploring interactions in L2 blogging: Metadiscourse in Philippine investigative journalism blogs. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 2(3), 35-53. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15951
Tavakoli, M., Bahrami, L. & Amirian, Z. (2012). Improvement of metadiscourse use among Iranian EFL learners through a process-based writing course. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 9(9), 129-164.
Taylor, H. & Goodall, J. (2019). A preliminary investigation into the rhetorical function of 'I' in different genres of successful business student academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 135-145.
Thompson, G. & Theleta, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text, 15(1), 103-127.
Thomson, J. J. (2016). Hedging in year nine girls' and boys' written English in Norwegian schools [Master's thesis]. University of Stavanger.
Thomson, J. J. (2018). Hedging in English texts written by lower secondary pupils attending Norwegian schools. Nordic Journal of Modern Language Methodology, 6(1), 46-65.
Tinsley, T. & Board, K. (2013). Languages for the future: Which languages the UK needs most and why. British Council.
Toumi, N. (2009). A model for the investigation of reflexive metadiscourse in research articles. Language Studies Working Papers, 1, 64-73.
Tribble, C. (2010). A genre-based approach to developing materials for writing. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), English language teaching materials (p. 157-178). Cambridge University Press.
Triki, N. (2019). Revisiting the metadiscursive aspect of definitions in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 104-116.
Tåqvist, M. K. (2016). Facts and things: Advanced ESL learners' use of discourse-organising nouns. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 15(4), 107-134.
Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36-62.
Ukagba, G. & Idemudia Odia, S. (2014). The epistemic status of propositions of future events. Idea Studia Nad Strukturą i Rozwojem Pojęć Filozoficznych, 26, 393-405.
Utdanningsdirektoratet (Udir). (2006). English - programme subject in programmes for specialization in general studies. Utdanningdirektoratet. https://www.udir.no/kl06/ENG4-01?lplang=http://data.udir.no/kl06/eng.
Utdanningsdirektoratet (Udir). (2019). Fag- og timefordeling og tilbudsstruktur for Kunnskapsløftet Udir-1-2019. Utdanningdirektoratet. https://www.udir.no/regelverkstolkninger/opplaring/Innhold-i- opplaringen/udir-1-2019/vedlegg-1/2.-grunnskolen/#2.2ordinar- fag-og-timefordeling
Utdanningsdirektoratet (Udir). (2020). Læreplan i engelsk. Utdanningsdirektoratet. https://data.udir.no/kl06/v201906/laereplaner-lk20/ENG01- 04.pdf?lang=nob
Utdanningsdirektoratet (Udir). (2021). Finn eksamensoppgaver. Utdanningsdirektoratet. https://sokeresultat.udir.no/eksamensoppgaver.html
Valero-Garcés, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15(4), 279-294.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse and issues in compositions and rhetoric. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (p. 91-114). Hampton Press Inc.
Vassileva, I. (1998). Who am I/who are we in academic writing? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 163-190.
Virtanen, T. & Halmari, H. (2005). Persuasion across genres: Emerging perspectives. In H. Halmari & T. Virtananen (Eds.), Persuasion across genres (p. 3-26). John Benjamins.
Vo, S. (2019). Use of lexical features in non-native academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 1-12.
Vyatkina, N., Hirschmann, H., Golcher, F. (2015). Syntactic modification at early stages of L2 German writing development: A longitudinal learner corpus study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 28-50.
Webb, S. & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford University Press.
Weblingua Ltd. (2020). Text inspector. https://textinspector.com/ Wingate, U. (2012). "Argument!" Helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 145-154.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. University of Hawai'i Press.
Xiaoqiong, B. H. & Xianxing, J. (2011). Kachru's three concentric circles and English teaching fallacies in EFL and ESL Contexts. Changing English, 18(2), 219-228.
Yates, J. & Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 299-326.
Yavari, M. & Kashani, A. F. (2013). Gender-based study of metadiscourse in research articles' rhetorical sections. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(2), 77-88.
Yoon, H. (2017). Textual voice elements and voice strength in EFL argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 32, 72-84.
Zhang, M., Sun, W., Peng, H., Gan, Q. & Yu, B. (2017). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across spoken registers. Journal of Pragmatics, 117, 106-118.
Ädel, A. (2005). On the boundaries between evaluation and metadiscourse. In L. C. Tognini-Bonelli & G. Del (Eds.), Strategies in academic discourse (p. 153-162). John Benjamins.
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins.
Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you a kind of map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic speech. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97.
Ädel, A. (2017). Remember that your reader cannot read your mind: Problem/solution-oriented metadiscourse in teacher feedback on student writing. English for Specific Purposes, 45, 54-68.
Ädel, A. (2018). Variation in metadiscursive "you" across genres: From research articles to teacher feedback. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(4): 777-796.
Ädel, A. (2021). Corpus compilation. In M. Paquot, S. & T. Gries (Eds.), A practical handbook of corpus linguistics. Springer.
Ädel, A. & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9, 1-11.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.