Engagement Markers in Discussion Section of Research Articles Written by English Education Students and Articles Published in Reputable English Journal

Suri Aisyah(1), Mei Hardiah(2), Muhammad Fadhli(3),
(1) University of Bengkulu, Indonesia
(2) University of Bengkulu, Indonesia
(3) University of Bengkulu, Indonesia


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.


engagement markers; experienced authors; research articles discussion

Full Text:



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

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

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

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

Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication, 18, 549-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005

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

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

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

Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543-562. doi:10.1017/S0261444808005235

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.6.1.1-13

Article Metrics

 Abstract Views : 0 times
 PDF Downloaded : 0 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Journal of English Education and Teaching (JEET) is Indexed in


Creative Commons LicenseJournal of English Education and Teaching is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.