Rhetorical Style Across Cultures: An Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Writing of Thai and Malaysian Students

Authors

  • Faridah Hayisama International Islamic University Malaysia, P.O. Box 10, 50728 Kuala Lumpur
  • Mohamed Ismail Ahamad Shah International Islamic University Malaysia, P.O. Box 10, 50728 Kuala Lumpur
  • Wan Nur Asyura Wan Adnan Language Academy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v6n1.76

Abstract

It is believed that students from different societies and cultural background have their own preferred rhetorical style of interaction. In writing, such distinctive preference is usually exhibited through the use of linguistic features, of which metadiscourse (MD) markers are considered as one of the signposts to the interpretation of writing style preferences. This study aims to investigate the use of interactional metadiscourse (MD) features and its relevance to the rhetorical style preferences in academic writing of Thai and Malaysian master’s students. Using Hyland’s (2005) taxonomy, their thesis discussions were manually analysed in terms of interactional MD markers to determine their frequency of occurrence and to relate the results to the rhetorical styles of writing preferred by each group of students. The analysis revealed that of all five types of interactional MD features, hedges were the most frequently used device followed respectively by boosters, attitude markers, engagement marker and self-mention. In terms of the rhetorical style of writing, the frequency of MD features suggests that tentative and indirect statements, reader-responsibility, distant-relationship between writer and readers, and less writer-involvement in the texts were the preferred rhetorical styles of interaction of both Thai and Malaysian students. The writing conventions and rhetorical styles of the students can be explained from a sociocultural point of view that they are relevant to the oriental style of interaction from which both groups of students originated. The study draws attention to the pedagogical implications that students in Thai and Malaysia should be given more instructional focus on how to utilize MD features in making academic writing more persuasive and interactive. 

References

Abdollahzadeh, E. 2011. Poring Over the Findings: Interpersonal Authorial Engagement in Applied Linguistics Papers. Journal of Pragmatics. 43: 288-297.

Abdi, R. 2002. Interpersonal Metadiscourse as an Indicator of Interaction and Identity. Discourse Studies. 4: 139-145.

Abdi, R. 2009. Projecting Cultural Identity through Metadiscourse Marking: A Comparison of Persian and English Research Articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning. 212: 1-15.

Adel, A. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Anwardeen, N. H., Luyee, E. O., Gabriel, J. I., & Kalajahi, S. A. R. 2013. An Analysis: The Usage of Metadiscourse in Argumentative Writing by Malaysian Tertiary Level of Students. English Language Teaching. 6(9): 83-96.

Asma, A & Pederson, P. 2009. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights, Puzzles, and Irritations. Kuala Lumpur: Pearson, Prentice Hall.

Babbie, E. R. 2013. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Chan, S., & Tan, H. 2010. Extracting and Comparing the Intricacies of Metadiscourse of Two Written Persuasive Corpora. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT. 6(3): 124-146.

Chen, T. Y., & Kuo, C. H. 2012. A Genre-based Analysis of the Information Structure of Master's Theses in Applied Linguistics. The Asian ESP Journal. 8(1): 24-52.

Connor, U. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Connor, U. 2002. New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36: 493-510.

Crismore, A. Markkanen, R. and M. Steffensen. 1993. Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finish University Students. Written Communication. 10(1): 39-71.

Faghih, E., & Rahimpour, S. 2009. Contrastive Rhetoric of English and Persian Written Texts: Metadiscourse in Applied Linguistics Research Articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics. 1: 192-197.

Hinkel, E. 2002. Second Language Writers’ Text. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Husain, S., Rohany, H., & Noor, N. 2012. Unblock Arguments in Malaysian Sopoblogs. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies. 4(1): 347-356.

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. London, NY: Continuum.

Hyland, K. 2010. Metadiscourse: Mapping Interactions in Academic Writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies. 9(2): 125-143.

Kashiha, H. 2018. Malaysian ESL Students’ Perception of Metadiscoure n Essay Writing. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies. 8(3): 193-201.

Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S. J. and Heng C. S. 2010. Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Research Article Result and Discussion Sections. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. 19(1): 65-74.

Loan, N. T. T., & Pramoolsook, I. 2016. Master’s Theses Written by Vietnamese and International Writers: Rhetorical Structure Variations. The Asian ESP Journal. 12(1): 106-127.

Loi, C. K. & Lim, J. M. H. 2019. Hedging in the discussion sections of English and Malay Educational Research Articles. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies. 19(1): 36-61.

Mauranen, A. 1993. Contrastive ESP Rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economics Texts. English for Specific Purposes. 12: 3-22.

Merriam, S. B. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Milne, E. D. 2003. Metadiscourse Revisited: A Contrastive Study of Persuasive Writing in Professional Discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense. 11: 29-52.

Mur-Duenas, P. 2011. An Intercultural Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Research Articles Written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics. 43: 3068-3079.

Noorian, M., & Biria, R. 2010. Interpersonal Metadiscourse in Persuasive Journalism: A Study of Texts by American and Iranian EFL Columnists. Journal of Modern Languages. 20: 64-79.

Park, Y. S., & Kim, B. S. 2008. Asian and European American Cultural Values and Communication Styles Among Asian American and European American College Students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 14(1): 47.

Rasekh, A. E. & Amiryousefi, M. 2010. Metadiscourse: Definitions, Issues and Its Implications for English Teachers. English Language Teaching. 3(4): 159-167.

Tan, H. 2012. A Proposed Metadiscourse Framework for Lay ESL Writers. World Applied Sciences Journal. 20(1): 1-6.

Toumi, N. 2009. A Model for the Investigation of Reflexive Metadiscourse in Research Articles. Language. 1: 64-73.

Uysal, H. H. 2012. Argumentation across L1 and L2: Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 9: 133-159.

Zakaria, M. K. 2016. Metadiscourse in the Academic Writing of Malaysian and Arab Pre-university Students at the IIUM. Unpublished Master Thesis. International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Downloads

Published

2019-06-19

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Rhetorical Style Across Cultures: An Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Writing of Thai and Malaysian Students. (2019). LSP International Journal, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v6n1.76