skip to main content


Vol.9, Issue 1, 2023, pp. 107-126 Full text

Crossmark logo

Web of Science: 001126489900001

1Fatma Yuvayapan
Affiliation: Kahramanmaraş Istiklal University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey 022ge7714

2Ilyas Yakut
Affiliation: Kahramanmaraş Istiklal University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey 022ge7714

Metadiscourse is now a widely used term in academic discourse analysis. How academics employ rhetorical devices to structure their texts, establish reader-writer interaction and stamp their authorial stance regarding the conventions of the disciplines, cultures, and genres has been the subject of many studies. Despite the growing prominence of the term, however, some features of it, one of which is frame markers, have gone unnoticed. Frame markers signal the boundaries in the academic discourse for the readers' understanding, and they are a crucial rhetorical feature of metadiscourse. The present study examines the deployment of frame markers in research articles written between 2010 and 2019. Based on the analysis of frame markers in a corpus of research articles across four disciplines in social sciences, there were marked variations across the four disciplines in the use of frame markers and the occurrences of their sub-categories. The findings suggested that academic communities have a decisive role in constructing text structures in research articles. The results might offer guidance to academic writers on shaping the texts that their readers find persuasive.

Keywords: academic writing, metadiscourse, frame markers, research articles, ssocial sciences

Article history:
Submitted: 26 March 2023
Reviewed: 10 April 2023
Accepted: 06 May 2023
Published: 20 June 2023

Citation (APA):
Yuvayapan, F. &Yakut, I. (2023). Disciplinary Variations in Framing Research Articles in The Social Sciences and Humanities. English Studies at NBU, 9(1), 107-126.

Copyright © 2023 Fatma Yuvayapan & Ilyas Yakut

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.

Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.0.4) ['Computer Software']. Waseda University.

Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher-level metatext in Ph.D. theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 41-56.

Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.

Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or academic discipline. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.

El-Dakhs, D. A. S. (2018). Why are abstracts in Ph.D. theses and research articles different? A genre-specific perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 48-60.

Garcia, J. F. C., & Marco, M. J. L. (1998). A genre-based study of laboratory demonstrations. In I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, J. C. Palmer & J. F. Coll (Eds.), Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes (pp. 271-296). Castello de la Plana.

Harris, Z. Z. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(1), 27-29.

Hempel, S., & Degand, L. (2008). Sequencers in different text genres: Academic writing, journalese, and fiction. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(4), 676-693.

Herriman, J. (2022). Metadiscourse in English instruction manuals. English for Specific Purposes, 65, 120-132.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455.

Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341-367.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 41-46). Peter Lang.

Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going?. Journal of pragmatics, 113, 16-29.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2020). Text-organizing metadiscourse: tracking changes in rhetorical persuasion. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21(1), 137-164.

Hyland, K., & Zou, H. J. (2020). In the frame: Signalling structure in academic articles and blogs. Journal of Pragmatics, 165, 31-44.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.

Jordan, M. D. (1985). Authority and persuasion in philosophy. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 18(2), 67-85.

Khedri, M., & Kritsis, K. (2018). Metadiscourse in applied linguistics and chemistry research article introductions. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 47-73.

Khedri, M., Heng, C. S., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319-331.

Lim, J. M. H., Loi, C. K., Hashim, A., & Liu, M. S. M. (2015). Purpose statements in experimental doctoral dissertations submitted to US universities: An inquiry into doctoral students' communicative resources in language education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 69-89.

Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 86-101.

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.

Mur-Duenas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068-3079.

Ozdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63.

Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). Routledge.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research setting. Cambridge University Press.

Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2008). 'Robot Kung fu': Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(7), 1232-1248.

Vande K., & William, J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.

Vázquez, I., & Giner, D. (2009). Writing with conviction: The use of boosters in modeling persuasion in academic discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22, 219-237.

Yakut, I., Genc, B., & Bada, E. (2021). Epicene pronoun usage in the social sciences: The case of research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 52, 101005.


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: Boris Naimushin
Verified Editor Record on Publons

Article Metrics