A pragmatic approach to the rhetorical analysis and the metadiscourse markers of research article abstracts in the field of applied linguistics

Discourse and Interaction


Using Hyland’s (2000) model as a research tool and drawing on Hyland’s (2005a) model of metadiscourse, this article presents a pragmatic two-level rhetorical analysis of the constituent moves within research article abstracts. It specifically zeroes in on the identification and mapping of the most frequently used metadiscourse markers signifying these moves. The findings highlight that Libyan authors employ interactive markers more often than interactional ones. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis of metadiscourse indicate that transitions, endophoric markers, and frame markers emerge as the dominant interactive categories. In contrast, interactional metadiscourse is predominantly represented by attitude markers, hedges, and boosters. Based on the findings, Move 1 features the highest frequency of metadiscourse markers, followed by Move 2. Notably, transitions stand out as the most prevalent category across all moves. This study carries pedagogical implications for academic writing practices among Libyan academic writers and students alike. Moreover, it enhances the existing body of research on the genre of research articles.

rhetorical analysis, metadiscourse markers, research article, academic writers, pragmatic approach
Author biographies

Eatidal Hasan

a:1:{s:5:"en_US";s:30:"lecturer in Gharyan University";}

Eatidal Hasan was awarded an MA in Linguistics by the University of Malaya, Malaysia, in 2018. She is currently a lecturer at Gharyan University in Libya. Her research interests include English for Academic Purposes, discourse studies, second language writing and translation studies.

Alsout Ergaya

Ergaya Alsout was awarded an MA in Linguistics by the University of Malaya, Malaysia. She is an assistant lecturer at Fezzan University, Libya. She is currently doing her PhD in Language Studies at Universiti Sultan Zainal Abdin, Malaysia. Her research interests are applied linguistics (pragmatics, discourse analysis, genre analysis, ESP, EAP, translation) and research methodology.


Abdi, R., Rizi, M. T. and Tavakoli, M. (2010) ‘The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse.’ Journal of Pragmatics 42(6), 1669-1679. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.001
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011) ‘Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers.’ Journal of Pragmatics 43(1), 288-297. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019
Aguilar, M. (2008) Metadiscourse in Academic Speech: A Relevance-theoretic Approach. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Akbas, E. (2014) ‘Are they discussing in the same way? Interactional metadiscourse in Turkish writers’ texts.’ In: Łyda, A. and Warchał, K. (eds) Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research. Cham: Springer. 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02526-1_8
Alotaibi, H. (2015) ‘Metadiscourse in Arabic and English research article abstracts.’ World Journal of English Language 5(2), 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v5n2p1
Al-Shujairi, Y. B. J., Ya’u, M. S. and Buba, J. A. (2016) ‘Role of moves, tenses, and metadiscourse in the abstract of an acceptable research article.’ Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 7(2), 379-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n2s1p379
American Psychological Association (2001) Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 5th ed. Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association.
Amnuai, W. (2019) ‘Analyses of rhetorical moves and linguistic realizations in accounting research article abstracts published in international and Thai-based journals.’ Sage Open 9(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018822384
Ashofteh, Z., Shirvan, M. E. and Golparvar, S. E. (2020) ‘The move structure of abstracts in applied linguistics research articles in light of the distribution and functions of metadiscourse markers.’ Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 16(4), 2077-2096. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.851035
Benraiss, K. (2023) ‘Interactional metadiscourse in applied linguistics research article abstracts of Moroccan L2 writers of English: A small corpus investigation.’ International Journal of English Language Studies 5(1), 23-31. https://doi. org/10.32996/ijels.2023.5.1.3
Bhatia, V. K. (1993) Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London and New York: Longman.
Biber, D., Connor, U. and Upton, T. (2007) Discourse on the Move. Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Boginskaya, O. (2023) ‘Interactional metadiscourse markers in English research article abstracts written by non-nativeaut hors: A corpus-based contrastive study. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura 28(1), 139-154. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v28n1a08 Bunton, D. (1999) ‘The use of higher level metatext in Ph.D theses.’ English for Specific Purposes 18, 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00022-2
Connor, U. (2004) ‘Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3, 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003
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.
Dahl, T. (2009) ‘The linguistic representation of rhetorical function: A study of how economists present their knowledge claims.’ Written Communication 26(4), 370-391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309341241
Del Saz-Rubio, M. M. (2011) ‘A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences.’ English for Specific Purposes 30(4), 258-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. esp.2011.03.002
Dos Santos, M. B. (1996) ‘The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics.’ Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 16(4), 481-500. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1996.16.4.481 Dudley-Evans, T. and St John, M. J. (1998) Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A Multi-disciplinary Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gillaerts, P. and Van de Velde, F. (2010) ‘Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
Golebiowski, Z. (2009) ‘Prominent messages in education and applied linguistic abstracts: How do authors appeal to their prospective readers?’ Journal of Pragmatics 41(4), 753-769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.009
Holmes, J. (1982) ‘Expressing doubt and certainty in English.’ RELC Journal 13(2), 9-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828201300202
Hu, G. and Cao, F. (2011) ‘Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals.’ Journal of Pragmatics 43(11), 2795-2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.009
Hu, G. and Wang, G. (2014) ‘Disciplinary and ethnolinguistic influences on citation in research articles.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 14, 14-28. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.11.001
Hyland, K. (1998a) ‘Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter.’ The Journal of Business Communication 35(2), 224-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500203
Hyland, K. (1998b) ‘Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse.’ Journal of Pragmatics 30(4), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (2000) Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001) ‘Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles.’ Written Communication 18(4), 549-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005
Hyland, K. (2002) ‘Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing.’ Journal of Pragmatics 34(8), 1091-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8 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. (2005a) Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b) ‘Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.’ Discourse Studies 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2010) ‘Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing.’ Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2), 125-143. DOI: 10.35360/njes.220
Hyland K. (2013) ‘Metadiscourse.’ In: Hyland, K. (ed.) Discourse Studies Reader: Essential Excerpts. London: Bloomsbury. 56-88.
Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. K. (2016) ‘“We must conclude that…”: A diachronic study of academic engagement.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24, 29-42. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003
Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. (2020) ‘Text-organizing metadiscourse: Tracking changes in rhetorical persuasion.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21(1), 137-164. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00039.hyl
Jiang, F. K. and Hyland, K. (2017) ‘Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves.’ English for Specific Purposes 46, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.11.001
Jiang, F. and Hyland, K. (2023) ‘Changes in research abstracts: Past tense, third person, passive, and negatives.’ Written Communication 40(1), 210-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883221128876
Kashiha, H. and 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
Khedri, M. and Basirat, E. (2022) ‘Interactive metadiscourse in dentistry research articles: Iranian vs non-Iranian academic writers.’ Discourse and Interaction 15(2), 77-100. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2022-2-77
Khedri, M. and Kritsis, K. (2018) ‘Metadiscourse in applied linguistics and chemistry research article introductions.’ Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics 9(2), 47-73. https://doi.org/10.22055/RALS.2018.13793
Khedri, M., Heng, C. S. and Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013) ‘An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines.’ Discourse Studies 15(3), 319-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613480588
Lakoff, G. (1973) ‘Tense and its relation to participants.’ Language 46(4), 838-849. https://doi.org/10.2307/412259
Langacker, R. W. (1990) ‘Subjectification.’ Cognitive Linguistics 1(1), 5-38. https://doi. org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
Martín Martín, P. (2008) ‘The mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: A comparative study.’ International Journal of English Studies 8(2), 133-152. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.8.2.49201
Mauranen, A. (1993) Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Mauranen, A. (2007) ‘Discourse reflexivity and international speakers: How is it used in English as a lingua franca?’ Jezik in slovstvo 52(3-4), 1-19.
Murillo, S. (2004) ‘A relevance reassessment of reformulation markers.’ Journal of Pragmatics 36(11), 2059-2068. https://doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.006 Myers, G. (1989) ‘The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles.’ Applied Linguistics10(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1
Ngai, S. B. C., Singh, R. G. and Koon, A. C. (2018) ‘A discourse analysis of the macro-structure, metadiscoursal and microdiscoursal features in the abstracts of research articles across multiple science disciplines.’ PLoS ONE 13(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205417
Peacock, M. (2006) ‘A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles.’ Corpora 1(1), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2006.1.1.61
Pho, P. D. (2008) ‘Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance.’ Discourse Studies 10(2), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607087010
Richard, J. C. and Schmidt, R. (2002) Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. 3rd ed. London: Longman.
Samraj, B. (2005) ‘An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines.’ English for Specific Purposes 24(2), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2002.10.001
Sanganyado, E. (2019) ‘How to write an honest but effective abstract for scientific papers.’ Scientific African 6, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2019.e00170
Scott, M. (2020) WordSmith Tools. Version 8. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software and Oxford University Press.
Stapleton, P. (2002) ‘Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in L2 writing: Returning the spotlight to ideas.’ Journal of Second Language Writing 11(3), 177-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00070-X
Suntara, W. and Usaha, S. (2013) ‘Research article abstracts in two related disciplines: Rhetorical variation between linguistics and applied linguistics.’ English Language Teaching 6(2), 84-99. doi:10.5539/elt.v6n2p84
Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004) Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. and Feak, C. B. (2004) Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
White, H. D. (2011) ‘Relevance theory and citations.’ Journal of Pragmatics 43(14), 3345-3361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.005



Crossref logo





PDF views