Article Sidebar

Submitted
April 22, 2025
Published
July 5, 2025
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study presents a comparative corpus analysis of interactional metadiscourse features in two English textbooks used in Indonesian senior high schools: an EFL textbook published by the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture (Bahasa Inggris: Work in Progress) and an ESL textbook published by Cambridge University Press (English as a Second Language: Second Edition). Despite the central role textbooks play in shaping classroom discourse and developing students’ communicative competence, limited attention has been paid to how interactional metadiscourse is utilized in these materials, especially in EFL contexts like Indonesia, where textbooks often serve as the primary source of English input. Addressing this gap, the present study investigates how interactional metadiscourse, features that guide readers through the text and engage them, differ between a locally produced EFL textbook and an internationally published ESL textbook. The analysis was conducted using a corpus-based approach, drawing on Hyland’s (2005) model of interactional metadiscourse to manually identify and categorize features, including hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions, and engagement markers. The results revealed notable differences in the frequency and types of interactional metadiscourse employed in the two materials. These findings support the alternative hypothesis (H1), which posits that the international ESL textbook contains more interactional metadiscourse features than the Indonesian EFL textbook. The study contributes to the limited body of empirical research on metadiscourse in English textbooks and offers insights relevant to improving textbook design and English language instruction in the Indonesian context.

Keywords

Metadiscourse Interactional Metadiscourse International EFL Textbooks Indonesian EFL Textbook

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Rismar Riansih, Angga Dwinka, Safnil Arsyad

Creative Commons License

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

Authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
  4. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Rismar Riansih, Angga Dwinka, & Safnil Arsyad. (2025). Unlocking Interaction: A Deep Dive into Metadiscourse in Indonesian and International EFL and ESL Textbooks for Senior High School. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 10(2), 367–391. https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v10i2.41244
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abdi, A., Rizi, M. T., & Tavakoli, M. (2019). The Effect of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers on EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019. 1633804
  2. Adel, A. (2018). Metadiscourse: Diverse and Divided Perspectives. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes (pp. 337–351). Routledge.
  3. Adel, A. (2018). Variation In Metadiscursive “You” Across Genres: From Research Articles To Teacher Feedback. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(4), 777–796. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0037
  4. Alshahrani, S. (2019). Functional Analyses of Metadiscourse Markers In L2 Students' Academic Writing. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 10(1).
  5. Amaal, S., & Radzuwan, A. R. (2020). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in academic essays written by ESL Students. Asian ESP Journal, 16(4), 181–202.
  6. Baru, R. (2021). A Study of The CP-Based Model. Language Teaching Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.24.05
  7. Chen, H. (2016). A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse In Academic Writing By Chinese And English Speakers. Asian EFL Journal, 18(3), 54-68.
  8. Crosthwaite, J., & Jiang, X. (2017). The Use of Metadiscourse By Secondary-Level Chinese Learners Of English In Examination Scripts: Insights From A Corpus-Based Study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 60, 1-12.
  9. Crosthwaite, P., & Jiang, F. (2017). Does EAP Affect Written L2 academic stance? A Longitudinal Study of Stance Features in Student Writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.002
  10. Erarslan, A. (2021). Correlation between Metadiscourse, Lexical Complexity, Readability and Writing Performance in EFL University Students’ Research-Based Essays. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9(S1), 238–254. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9iS1-May.4017
  11. Gholami, J., & Khosravi, H. (2018). Evaluative Metadiscourse in English and Persian Research Articles: A Comparative Study. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(1), 1-15.
  12. Gholami, J., & Khosravi, R. (2018). Interactional Metadiscourse in English and Persian Newspaper Editorials. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 5(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2018.1481446
  13. Ho, W., & Li, W. (2018). What I’m Speaking Is Almost English: A Corpus-Based Study of Metadiscourse in English-Medium Lectures ataAn Italian University. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 1179-1199.
  14. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
  15. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and Second Language Writing. University of Michigan Press.
  16. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
  17. Hyland, K. (2008). Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. Continuum.
  18. Hyland, K. (2008). Boosters and Attitude in Academic Writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 942-957.
  19. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
  20. Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
  21. Hyland, K. (2019). Second Language Writing. Cambridge University Press.
  22. Işık Kirişçi, D., & Duruk, E. (2022). A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse Markers in the Abstract Sections of Research Articles Written by Turkish and English Researchers. International Journal of Education, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v10i4.5171
  23. Johnson, A., & Wang, B. (2023). Changing Patterns Of Interactive Metadiscourse in English Teaching Articles. English Teaching, 78(2), 83-102.
  24. Johnson, D., & Wang, C. (2023). Evaluating the cultural and critical literacy content in EFL textbooks: A multimodal perspective. Language Teaching Research, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231123456
  25. Kan, M. O. (2021). Interactive Metadiscourse Markers In The Turkish Articles On Science And Social Sciences. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.373.4
  26. Kusumarasdyati. (2021). Evaluative language in Indonesian English textbooks for senior high schools: An appraisal analysis. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i1.34605
  27. Kusumarasdyati. (2021). Interactional metadiscourse in English textbooks: A comparison between Indonesian and Singaporean materials. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i1.34567
  28. Lee, J., & Park, J. (2022). Metadiscourse in English language textbooks: A cross-cultural analysis of Korean and American materials. English Teaching & Learning, 46(3), 249–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-022-00112-7
  29. Lee, S., & Park, H. I. (2022). A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse in Abstracts: Journal 1. Shanlax International Journal of Education.
  30. Lee, S., & Jiang, Y. (2018). A Diachronic Study of Interactive Metadiscourse in Applied Linguistics. Language and Linguistics Compass.
  31. Liu, M., & Buckingham, L. (2018). Examining Metadiscourse in Chinese and UK English University textbooks: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001
  32. Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2018). The Rhetorical use of Interactional Metadiscourse in High- and Low-Rated English Argumentative Essays. Assessing Writing, 36, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.002
  33. Li, W., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse Features in English-Medium Lectures At A Chinese University. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(3), 199-209.
  34. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  35. Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An Intercultural Analysis Of Metadiscourse Features in Research Articles Written In English And In Spanish. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151.
  36. Nur, M. R., Yulia, Y., & Rukmini, D. (2021). English textbook evaluation: A multimodal discourse analysis approach. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i1.18356
  37. Nur, S., Arsyad, S., Zaim, M., & Ramadhan, S. (2021). The Use of Metadiscourse by Saudi and British Authors. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(1), 239-255. https://doi.org/10.52462/jlls.14
  38. Park, H. I., & Lee, S. (2022). Interactional Metadiscourse In English Teaching Articles: A Diachronic Perspective (1980-2021). English Teaching, 77(2), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.77.2.202206.3
  39. Rabab’ah, G., Melibari, A. M., & Alshehri, A. (2024). Interactional metadiscourse markers in EFL textbooks: A corpus-based analysis. Asian EFL Journal, 26(1), 45–70.
  40. Rabab’ah, G., Yagi, S., & Alghazo, S. (2024). Using Metadiscourse to Create Effective And Engaging EFL Virtual Classrooms During the Covid-19 Pandemic. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 107-129. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2024.121421
  41. Reabdi, A. (2021). A Study of the CP-Based Model. Language Teaching Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.24.05
  42. Smith, J. (2021). Correlation Between Metadiscourse And Lexical Complexity. Papers in Education: Current Research and Practice.
  43. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
  44. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
  45. Wei, J., & Duan, J. (2019). A Comparative Study of Metadiscoursal Features in English Research Article Abstracts in Hard Disciplines. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 1-37. e-ISSN 2490-4198. Retrieved from http://www.arjals.com
  46. Wei, J., & Duan, J. (2024). A Corpus-based Analysis of Critical Thinking through Interactional. Turkish Journal of Education, 13(3). Retrieved from www.turje.org
  47. Wei, J., & Duan, L. (2021). An analysis of interactional metadiscourse in Chinese EFL learners' argumentative writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(4), 578–587. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1204.04
  48. Wei, Y., & Duan, Y. (2021). A Corpus-based Comparative Study of Interactional Metadiscourse in Chinese and American EFL writing. System, 99, 102513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102513
  49. Zahro, F., Irham, & Degaf, A. (2021). Scrutinizing Metadiscourse Functions in Indonesian EFL Students: A Case Study on the Classroom Written and Spoken Discourses. MEXTESOL Journal, 45(2).
  50. Zali, M. M., Mohamad, R., & Rosz. (2021). Comparisons of Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Among Undergraduates. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(3).
  51. Zali, N., Mahmud, M. M., & Saad, N. S. M. (2019). The use of metadiscourse markers in academic writing: A study of Malaysian undergraduate students. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 7(3), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.7n.3p.136