International Journal of Language and Linguistics
Volume 3, Issue 4, July 2015, Pages: 266-270
Received: Mar. 19, 2015;
Accepted: Jun. 1, 2015;
Published: Jul. 15, 2015
Views 5270 Downloads 87
Mohammad Akbarpour, Department of English Teaching, East Azerbaijan Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
Hossein Sadeghoghli, Department of English Studies, East Azerbaijan Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
This study is an attempt to understand how different authors of research articles in diverse fields draw on interactional devices in their writings to convince and interact with their audience. In order to do so seventy research articles from Economics, Humanities, Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Law, Mathematics & Physical Sciences, and Medicine were selected to constitute the data of this study. Then Ken Hyland’s interactional model was applied to find out to what extent writers used interpersonal resources in their writings. The results showed some considerable similarities and variations cross and across the fields. The findings of this study may also provide some useful insights into the teaching of writing research articles and may be helpful for writing teachers and students.
The Study on Ken Hyland’s Interactional Model in OUP Publications, International Journal of Language and Linguistics.
Vol. 3, No. 4,
2015, pp. 266-270.
Abdi. R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 3(1), 1-16.
Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Amiryousefi, M. & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Definitions, issues and its implications for English. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 159-167.
Bahtia, V. K. (1997). Introduction: genre analysis and world Englishes. World Englishes. 16(3), 313-319.
Davies, A., & Elder, C. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
EBRAHIMI, S.J. & HENG, C. S. & Khedri, M. (….).Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies , 19 (1), 65 – 74 .
Firoozian Pooresfahani, A. & Khajavy , G.H. (2012). A contrastive study of metadiscourse elements in research articles written by Iranian applied linguistics and engineering writers in English. English Linguistics Research, 1(1), 88-96.
Gillaerts, P. & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes ,9 , 128-139.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 239256.
Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles Written Communication13 (2), 251-281
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 326.
Hyland, K. (2000).Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239.
Hyland, K. (2002b) Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing .Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. (2002c). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal56 (4), 351-358.
Hyland, K., & Tse , P. (2004a). Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Hyland, K. (2004b). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2004c) Disciplinary Discourses: social interactions in academic writing. Michigan:University of Michigan Press
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b).Metadiscourse: Exploring writing in interaction. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005c). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2005d). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education 16 , 363–377.
Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction, and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. Interactional Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1- 23.
Swales, J. (1990).Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Khabbazi-Oskouei, L. (2013). Propositional or non-propositional, that is the question: A new approach to analyzing‘interpersonal metadiscourse’ in editorials. Journal of Pragmatics, 47 ,93—107.
Kuhi, D., & Behnam, B. (2010). Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguists: A comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication, 28 (1), 97-141.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the readers. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.