Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Language in Focus

International Journal Of Studies In Applied Linguistics And Elt

2 Issues per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9764
See all formats and pricing




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

Yuichiro Kobayashi
  • Toyo University, Japan
Published Online: 2016-07-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lifijsal-2016-0002

Abstract

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.

References

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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. [Crossref]

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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 Science]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

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


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, July 2016

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

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.