Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Language in Focus

International Journal Of Studies In Applied Linguistics And Elt

2 Issues per year

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Investigating Metadiscourse Markers in Asian Englishes: A Corpus-Based Approach

Yuichiro Kobayashi
Published Online: 2016-07-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lifijsal-2016-0002


The present study investigated differences in rhetorical preferences in L2 writings among different L1 groups. This study compared the use of metadiscourse markers in L2 essays and identified discourse devices used to distinguish different L1 groups. The essays originated from the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE) compared six L1 groups (viz., Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, and Thai) based on the frequency of metadiscourse markers. I utilized heat map with hierarchical clustering to investigate differences in metadiscourse among the six learner groups. The results suggested a substantial difference in the use of metadiscourse markers between East Asian groups (viz., Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese) and Southeast Asian groups (viz., Indonesian and Thai). Furthermore, each learner group displayed the specific characteristics of metadiscourse, which offer suggestions for improving L2 learners’ writings.


  • Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Aijmer, K. (2002). Modality in advanced Swedish learners’ written interlanguage. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 55-76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Altenberg, B., & Tapper, M. (1998). The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 80-93). London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Biber, D., Johanson. S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

  • Bickner, R., & Peyasantiwong, P. (1988). Cultural variation in reflective writing. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 160-176). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1-17.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Conner, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Conrad, S. (2002). Corpus linguistic approaches for discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 75-95.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Glynn, D. (2014). Correspondence analysis: An exploratory technique for identifying usage patterns. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods in cognitive semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 443-485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated contrastive approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In K. Aijmer, B. Altenberg, & M. Johansson (Eds.), Languages in contrast: Papers from a Symposium on Text-based Cross-linguistic Studies, Lund 4-5 March 1994 (pp. 37-51). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar

  • Granger, S., & Rayson, P. (1998). Automatic profiling of learner texts. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 119-131). London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Hong, H., & Cao, F. (2014). Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(2), 201-224.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. The Journal of Business Communication, 35, 224-246.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 3-26.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

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

  • Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 253-272.Google Scholar

  • Ishikawa, S. (2013). The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. Learner Corpus Studies in Asia and the World, 1, 91-118.Google Scholar

  • Kamimura, T., & Oi, K. (1998). Argumentative strategies in American and Japanese English. World Englishes, 17(3), 307-323.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kobayashi, Y. (2011). Konparaburu kopasu wo motiita eisakubun to nihongosakubun no shiyogoi ni kansuru taisyoukenkyu [A contrastive study of the vocabulary use in English and Japanese writings with the use of comparable corpora]. In M. Nose (Ed.), Taisyogengogaku wakate no kai sinpoziumu 2010 happyoronbunsyu [Proceedings of Young Researchers’ Conference for Contrastive Linguistics 2010] (pp. 37-47). Nagoya: Sankeisha.Google Scholar

  • Kobayashi, Y. (in press). Heat map with hierarchical clustering: Multivariate visualization method for corpus-based language studies. NINJAL Research Papers, 11.Google Scholar

  • Lin, W. (2014). On metadiscoursal features of Chinese university students’ oral English: A perspective from chunks. US-China Foreign Language, 12(5), 402-410.Google Scholar

  • McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus linguistics: An introduction. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

  • Meyer, P. G. (1997). Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: Strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In R. Markkanen & H. Shroder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 21-41). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Oakes, M. P. (1998). Statistics for corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

  • Petch-Tyson, S. (1998). Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 107-118). London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Reid, J. (1992). A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in English discourse by native and nonnative writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(2), 79-108.Google Scholar

  • Tan, H., & Eng, W. B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in the persuasive writing of Malaysian undergraduate students. English Language Teaching, 7(7), 26-39.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Boston: Scott Foreman.Google Scholar

  • Zamel, V. (1983). Teaching those missing links in writing. ELT Journal, 37, 22-29.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-07-07

Published in Print: 2016-07-01

Citation Information: Language in Focus, Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages 19–35, ISSN (Online) 2300-9764, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lifijsal-2016-0002.

Export Citation

© 2016 Yuichiro Kobayashi, published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in