Article Sidebar

Submitted
February 14, 2019
Accepted
February 14, 2019
Published
February 14, 2019
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 127 Download : 165

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This research is aimed to find metadiscourse form and metadiscourse category which are dominantly used in the undergraduate thesis introduction written by English Department students of Bengkulu University. The documentation technique and checklist are used in this research. Fifteen undergraduate thesis introductions by English Department students were analyzed by using mix method quantitative and qualitative, along with descriptive approach. From the result it was found that English Department students dominantly used interactive metadiscourse markers category and transition metadiscourse markers form in their writing. However, English Department students used of metadiscourse markers were still limited to the use of and, or, also but metadiscourse markers.

Keywords

Undergraduate theses introduction metadiscourse markers Indonesian authors English students

Article Details

License
Lisensi Creative Commons
Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional.
How to Cite
Agustinos, P., Arsyad, S., & ., S. (2019). METADISCOURSE MARKERS IN THE UNDERGRADUATE THESIS INTRODUCTION WRITTEN BY ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS IN UNIVERSITY OF BENGKULU. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 2(3), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.2.3.50-61
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Atai, M. R., & Sadr, L. (2008). A cross-cultural study of hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistics research articles. Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran (TELLSI), 2(7),
  2. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Barton, E. (1995). Contrastive and Non-Contrastive Connectives Metadiscourse Functions in Argumentation. SAGE Journals.Volume: 12 issue: 2, page(s): 219-239.
  4. Beauvais, P. J. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication,6(1),11-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088389006001002
  5. 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. Open Campus, The University of the West Indies, West Indies.
  6. Cheng, X and Steffensen, M. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique in improving students writing. Research in the teaching of English. Journal of Pragmatics. Elsevier
  7. Crismore, A. (1982). The metadiscourse component: understanding writing about reading directives. Avon.
  8. Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of social studies textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16 (3), 279-296.
  9. Crismore, A. (1985). Metadiscourse in social studies texts. Technical Report, No. 366.
  10. Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.
  11. Crismore, A. et al. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of text written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication.
  12. Duszak, A. (1994). Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 291-313.
  13. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(94)90003-5
  14. Falahati, R. (2006, February). The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles. Proceedings of the 22nd North West Linguistics Conference (NWLC22), Burnaby: Simon Fraser University, 1, 99-112.
  15. Halliday MAK. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd Edition, Edward Arnold.
  16. Halliday MAK. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd Edition. London. Edward Arnold, London;
  17. Halliday MAK. (2007). Language and education. London: Continuum.
  18. Harris, Z. (1970). Linguistic transformations for information retrieval. In papers in structural and transformational linguistics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. (Original work published 1959).
  19. Hempel, S. Degand, L. (2008). Sequencers in different text genres: Academic writing, journalese, and fiction. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(4), 676-693.
  20. Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256.
  21. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437.
  22. Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1), 3-26.
  23. Hyland, K, (2001a). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226.
  24. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.
  25. Hyland, K (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing, 14 – 60. 218 – 234.
  26. Intraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272.
  27. Martinez, A. C. L. (2004). Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish university students. IBERICA, 8, 63-80.
  28. Mur Dueñ as, M.P. (2007). “I/we focus on…”: A cross-cultural analysis of self- mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 143-162.
  29. Nash, W. (1990). The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse. Indiana University. SAGE Publications.
  30. Richards, J.C. & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). Harlow: Longman.
  31. Redd-Boyd, T. and Slater, W. (1989). The effect of audience specification on undergraduates: attitude, strategies, and writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 77-103
  32. Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta?Talk: Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse. Wiley Online Library. Sociological Inquiry Volume 50, Issue 3?4
  33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00021.x
  34. Steffensen, M. S.; Cheng X, (1996). Metadiscourse and Text Pragmatics: How Students Write after Learning about Metadiscourse. In: Bouton, Lawrence F., Ed. Pragmatics and Language Learning. Monograph Series Volume 7,p153-70, 1996; see FL 024 180.
  35. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58
  36. Thompson, E. S. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation, and the signaling of organization in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(1), 5-20.
  37. Vande Kopple W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 1985;36: 82-93.
  38. Vande Kopple W. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition. Gresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
  39. Williams, Joseph M. (2011). Problems into PROBLEMS: A Rhetoric of Motivation. Practice & Pedagogy. Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse.
  40. Zarei, G. R. & Mansoori, S. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 42-50.