INTERACTIVE METADISCOURSE MARKERS IN EFL MAJORS’ SUMMARIES IN ENGLISH
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
EFL majors’ academic training includes the development of academic skills, primarily academic reading and writing, which are important since English majors have to read many books and papers during their studies and often have to write papers on the basis of what they have read. This implies the students’ ability to decide which parts of the text are important and will be mentioned in the paper they are writing, as well as the ability to synthesize the material in a reader-friendly manner in accordance with the Anglophone academic tradition, which heavily relies on the use of metadiscourse markers that guide the reader through the text. In order to investigate to what extent EFL majors use interactive metadiscourse markers (Hyland 2005, 2010), which concern the writer’s awareness of a participating audience and address ways of organizing discourse, a research study was conducted with 59 English majors in their fifth year (MA level), who read a paper published in an academic journal and were asked to write a 250-word summary. The material was analyzed with the AntConc freeware and the results are used as a basis for pedagogical recommendations that aim at improving students’ training in academic writing.
Downloads
Metrics
Article Details
References
Bogdanović, V. (2017). Žanr i metadiskurs u odabranim udžbenicima engleskog jezika struke. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet.
Chen, Y. & Su, S. (2012). A genre-based approach to teaching EFL summary writing. ELT Journal, 66/2, 184–192.
Cheng, F. W. (2008). Scaffolding language, scaffolding writing: a genre approach to teaching narrative writing’. Asian EFL Journal, 10/2, 167–191.
Crismore, A. (1989) Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.
Gagich, M. & Zickel, E. (2017). In Practice: A Guide to Rhetoric, Genre, and Success in First-Year Writing. Cleveland: MSL Academic Endeavors.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437–455.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16/3, 148–164.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9/ 2, 125–143.
Intaraprawat, P. & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 253–272.
Irwin, J. (1986). Teaching Reading Comprehension Processes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kongpetch, S. (2006). Using a genre-based approach to teach writing to Thai students: a case study. Prospect, 21/2, 3–33.
Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, Theory, and Application. Oxford: Pergamon.
Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse reflexivity – a discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9/2, 13–40.
Novakov, P. (2011). Business terminology – international and/ national? Godišnjak. Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, XXXVI/1, 61–69.
Thomas, S. & Hawes, T. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 129–148.
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93.
Widodo, H. P. (2006). Designing a genre-based lesson plan for an academic writing course. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5/3, 173–99.
Williams, J. (1981) Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Boston: Scott Foresman.