The Use of Metadiscourse Markers in Dissertations Produced by MATESOL Students

Introduction

The use of metadiscourse markers in students’ dissertations has been studied extensively in the last decades (Hyland, 2004; Abdi, 2002; Blagojevic, 2004; Bunton, 1999; Atai et al 2008). Researchers investigated both differences and similarities in the use of metadiscourse markers in students’ writing for the central role that they play in the construction of the text. For example, Hyland (2004) states that they are a valuable means of exploring academic writing, and comparing the rhetorical features and preferences of different discourse communities. Bunton (1999) informs that they are frequently used to make the text more cohesive and coherent.

Generally, definitions of metadiscourse varied from broad ones, such as “writing about writing” (Williams 1981, 211) or “discourse about discourse or communication about communication” (VandeKopple 1985, 83), to more specific ones, such as “writing about the evolving text rather than referring to the subject matter” (Swales 2004, 121). Metadiscourse markers are also known as an umbrella and fuzzy term which is easy to accept, though not easy to establish its boundaries (Swales, 1990; Nash, 1992). The term metadiscourse describes features of rhetorical organization by including only text elements which refer to the text itself (Bunton, 1999; Mauranen, 1993; Valero-Graces, 1989). As pragmatic constructs, metadiscourse features are “crucial rhetorical devices that allow the writer to acknowledge, accommodate and engage with the reader according to socially sanctioned norms.” (Hyland, 1998:5). Where the Sudanese context is concerned, several studies have investigated the use of metadiscourse in research articles. For instance, Ali (2016) compared the use of metadiscourse in discussion section of research articles written by Sudanese and English native speakers. He concluded that there is dichotomy in the use of metadiscourse among disciplines. On the other hand, a study conducted by Mohamed (under process) about metadiscourse markers in academic articles, produced by native speakers, researchers of ESL and EFL background and male and female researchers. He found gender-based differences where female researchers used more metadiscourse markers than their male counterparts. A third study was Albaggari (2011). She compared the use of certainty markers in journals published by Khartoum University press in soft and hard science departments. The findings revealed no significant difference based on the discipline of the research. Finally, Sulaiman (2012) investigated the use of metadiscourse markers in university students’ writing. The study revealed that the participants both misused, and overused metadiscourse markers, which negatively affected the quality of their writing.