Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 261 Download : 246

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Some studies concerned about engagement markers (EMs) have been conducted among international authors. However, it does not literally trigger Indonesian scholars to study this discipline. Based on this fact, this research aimed to compare EMs in the discussion section of research articles (RAs) written by English Education students of Bengkulu University and RAs published in a reputable English journal. The corpora were analyzed by using the documentation checklist with a quantitative approach. The results showed that the more frequent types of EMs employed by students were knowledge appeals and directives. Similarly, experienced authors of RAs published in the reputable English journal employed the same dominant EMs. However, the order of minor prevalent markers in both corpora differed slightly. The Chi-square test result indicated that the differences in EMs between both corpora were significant in quantity (with Asymp sig. 0.000). More specifically, the experienced authors used a more considerable amount of EMs. In conclusion, the higher frequency of EMs in experienced writers’ RAs signifies the authors’ awareness of using EMs to construct relationships with readers. Therefore, it is essential to emphasize the use of EMs in academic writing. Further study is suggested to analyze the accuracy of EMs in the corpora and focus on a particular type of EMs for achieving more comprehensive findings.

Keywords

engagement markers experienced authors research articles discussion

Article Details

License
Lisensi Creative Commons
Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional.
Author Biography

Suri Aisyah, University of Bengkulu

English department
How to Cite
Aisyah, S., Hardiah, M., & Fadhli, M. (2022). Engagement Markers in Discussion Section of Research Articles Written by English Education Students and Articles Published in Reputable English Journal. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.6.1.1-13
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Al-rickaby, A. K. (2020). A critical discourse analysis of stance and engagement markers in English and Arabic newspaper opinion articles in 2016. Journal of University of Babylon for Humanities, 28(4), 182–194. Retrieved from https://www.journalofbabylon.com/index.php/JUBH/article/view/3012
  2. Arsyad, S. (2013). A Genre-based analysis on discussion section of research articles in Indonesian written by Indonesian speakers. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(4), 50. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i4.3773
  3. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
  4. He, M., & Rahim, H. A. (2019). Comparing engagement markers in economics research articles and opinion pieces: A corpuSA-based study. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 19(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1902-01
  5. Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication, 18, 549-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005
  6. Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.215
  7. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
  8. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
  9. Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543-562. doi:10.1017/S0261444808005235
  10. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). “We must conclude that…”: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003
  11. Irawati, L., Saukah, A., & Suharmanto. (2018). Indonesian authors writing their discussion sections both in English and Indonesian research articles. Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 37(3), 113–121. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.21831/cp.v38i3.21536
  12. Khatibi, Z., & Esfandiari, R. (2021). Comparative analysis of engagement markers in research article introductions and conclusions. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 8(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2021.14944.1825
  13. Millán, E.L. (2014). Reader engagement across cultures, languages and contexts of publication in business research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics (United Kingdom), 24(2), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12019
  14. Parkinson, J. & Adendorff, R. (2004). The use of popular science articles in teaching scientific literacy. English for Specific Purposes. 23, 379-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.11.005
  15. Sahragard, R., & Yazdanpanahi, S. (2017). English engagement markers: A comparison of humanities and science journal articles. Language Art, 2(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.22046/LA.2017.06
  16. Siddique, A. R., Mahmood, M. A., & Iqbal, J. (2017). Metadiscourse analysis of Pakistani Eenglish newspaper editorials: A corpus-based study. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(1), 146. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n1p146
  17. Zarei, G., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n1p42
  18. Zou, H., & Hyland, K. (2020). “Think about how fascinating this is”: Engagement in academic blogs across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21(6), 713-733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100809