METADISCOURSE, WRITER IDENTITY AND READER CONSTRUCTION AMONG NOVICE ARABIC-SPEAKING ESL WRITERS
Vol.5, Issue 2, 2019, pp.284-307 Full text
Web of Science: 000512305100008
Christina A. DeCoursey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7930-8352
Affiliation: Silk Road International University, Samarkand, Uzbekistan
This study used qualitative analyses to explore novice ESL writers' concepts of writers, readers and texts. Metadiscourse studies tabulate frequencies of discourse markers in order to characterise the different ways novices and experts, native-speakers and non-native speakers, construct themselves as writers, engage with their readers, and guide readers through their text. But the picture created by these descriptive statistics lacks many content areas voiced by student writers, including their reliance on visual content, and their emotions. Student writers' experiences in a world saturated by visual media and marketing views are also factors shaping how they construct their identities as writers, the identities of their projected readers, and how they understand what they are doing when writing text. This study used content and transitivity analyses to assess how Arabic native-speaker novices understand themselves as writers, how they project their readers' identities, and how they try to engage them. Results show that visuals are indistinct from text, and verbs of seeing are used for reader understanding, in novice writers' sense of their texts, and how they understand engaging the reader. These novices have a demographically granular assessment of audiences, but aim to please readers with expected content rather than challenge them with academic content, and they downplay important elements of teacher talk, syllabus and second-language (L2) composition instruction, particularly data, research, structure and language.
Keywords: metadiscourse, systemic functional linguistics, content analysis, transitivity analysis, English for Academic Purposes, writer concepts, reader concepts
Submitted: 2 November 2019;
Reviewed: 22 November 2019;
Accepted: 20 December 2019;
Published: 30 December 2019
DeCoursey, C. A. (2019). Metadiscourse, Writer Identity and Reader Construction among Novice Arabic-Speaking ESL Writers. English Studies at NBU, 5(1), 284-307. https://doi.org/10.33919/esnbu.19.2.6
Copyright © 2019 Christina A. DeCoursey
This open access article is published and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. If you want to use the work commercially, you must first get the authors' permission.
Abdi, R. (2009). Projecting cultural identify through metadiscourse marking: A comparison and Persian and English research articles. Journal of English-language Teaching and Learning, 52(212), 1-15.
Ädel, A. & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.215
Alexander, O. (2012). Exploring teacher beliefs in teaching EAP at low proficiency levels. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.12.001
Al Falasi, H. (2007). Just say thanks-you: A study of compliment responses. The Linguistics Journal, 2(1), 28-42.
Alshahrani, A. (2015). A cross-linguistic analysis of interactive metadiscourse devices employment in native English and Arab ESL academic writings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(8), 1535-1542. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0508.01
Bazerman, C. & Prior, P. (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analysing texts and textual practices. Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609526
Baayen, R. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686
Biber, B., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration and explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001
Block, D. (1998). Exploring interpretations of questionnaire items. System 26(3), 403–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00022-0
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
Carley, K. (1990). Content analysis. In Asher, R. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, (pp. 725-730). Pergamom Press.
Chen, S., Cheung, F., Bond, M. & Leung, J. (2005). Decomposing the construct of ambivalence over emotional expression in a Chinese cultural context. European Journal of Personality, 19(3), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.538
Cheng, X. (2000). Asian students' reticence revisited. System 28(3), 435-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00015-4
Connor, U. Nagelhout, E. & Rozycki, W. (2008). Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric, Vol. 169. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169
Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the internet. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487002
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
DePalma, M-J. & Alexander, K. P. (2015). A bag full of snakes: Negotiating the challenges of multimodal composition. Computers and Composition, 37, 182-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2015.06.008
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2011). Internationalisation, multilingualism and English-medium instruction. World Englishes, 30(3), 345-359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2011.01718.x
Dong, A., Kleinsmann, M, & Valkenburg, R. (2009). Affect-in-cognition through the language of appraisals. Design Studies, 30(2), 138-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.12.003
Druks, J. (2002). Verbs and nouns – A review of the literature. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 15(3), 289-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0911-6044(01)00029-X
Eagle, L. & Dahl, S. (2015). Marketing ethics & society. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473920415
Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. Continuum.
Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning and Technology, 10(1), 67-87.
Freelon, D. (2010) ReCal: Intercoder reliability calculation as a web service. International Journal of Internet Science, 5(1), 20-33.
Gilquin, G. & Paquot, M., (2008). Too chatty: Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction, 1(1), 41-61. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.1.1.05gil
Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. The British Council. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/pub_english_next.pdf
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. Hodder Education.
Hopkins, D. & King, G. (2010). A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 229-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00428.x
Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied linguistics, 23(2), 215-239. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.215
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. John Wiley & Sons.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Krippendorf, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.
Krippendorf, K. & Bock, M. (2009). The content analysis reader. Sage.
Lavid, J. & Hita, J. (2002). Nuclear transitivity in English and Spanish: A contrastive functional study. Languages in Contrast, 4(1), 75-103. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.4.1.05lav
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J. & Bracken, C. (2004). Practical resources for assessing and reporting inter-coder reliability in content analysis research projects.
Mangan, S. (2008). Mediating discourse online. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.3
Martin, J. (2014). Evolving systemic functional linguistics: beyond the clause. Functional Linguistics, 1(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-419X-1-3
Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse. Continuum.
Megahed, I. (Ed.) (2016). AUC Factbook 2015-2016. American University in Cairo.
Meunier, F & Granger, S. (Eds.) (2008). Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching.John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.138
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in Spanish and English. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068-3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
Negretti, R., & Kuteeva, M. (2011). Fostering metacognitive genre awareness in L2 academic reading and writing: A case study of pre-service English teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.002
Neuendorf, K. (2016). The content analysis guidebook. Sage. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc065
Neumann, W. (2013). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson Education.
Nieto-Galan, A. (2016). Science in the public sphere: A history of lay knowledge and expertise. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315640747
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2010). The discourse functions of metadiscourse in published academic writing: Issues of culture and language. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 41-68. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.217
Ramanathan, V. & Kaplan, R. (2000). Genres, authors, discourse communities: theory and application for L1 and L2 writing instructors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 171-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00021-7
Roberts, C. (2000). A conceptual framework for quantitative textual analysis. Quantity and Quality, 34(3), 259-274. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004780007748
Roberts, C. (Ed.) (1997). Text analysis for the social sciences: Methods for drawing statistical inferences from texts and transcripts. Erlbaum.
Søndergaard, M. (2012). Hofstede's consequences: A study of reviews, citations and replications. Organizational Studies, 15(3), 447-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069401500307
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical assessment, research and evaluation, 7(17), 137-146.
Sultan, A. H. (2011). A contrastive study of metadiscourse in English and Arabic linguistics research articles. Acta Linguistica, 5(1), 28.
Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar. Oxford University Press.
Unsworth, L. (Ed.) (2005) Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistic perspectives. Cassell.
Vande Kopple, W. (2012). The importance of studying metadiscourse. Applied Research in English, 1(2), 37-44.
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D., Druks, J., Barber, H. & Cappa, S. (2011). Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neurophysiological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 407-426. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007
Wei, Y. & Lei, L. (2011). Lexical bundles in the academic writing of advanced Chinese learners. RELC: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 42(2), 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688211407295
Yao, X. (2000). An introduction to Confucianism. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511800887
Zlatev, J., Racine, T. P., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E. (Eds.) (2008). The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.12
1. Reviewer's name: Undisclosed
Review Content: Undisclosed
Review Verified on Publons
2. Reviewer's name: Undisclosed
Review Content: Undisclosed
Review Verified on Publons
Handling Editor: Stan Bogdanov
Verified Editor Record on Publons: https://publons.com/p/27968542