10.71586/jal.2024.11131190374

A Comparative Analysis of Interactive Metadiscourse across Popular Science Commentaries: Magazine Articles and Newspaper Articles

Show Details XML pdf
  • Salah Ahmadi1,
  • Salah Ahmadi2,
  • Davud Kuhi*3,
  • Davud Kuhi2,
  • Sorayya Behroozi3,
  • Sorayya Behroozizad2,
  1. English Language Department, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran
  2. Department of English, Mar.C., Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran
  3. Department of English language teaching, Mar.C., Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran

Published in Issue 2025-08-30

How to Cite

Salah Ahmadi, Ahmadi, S., Davud Kuhi, Kuhi, D., Sorayya Behroozi, & Behroozizad, S. (2025). A Comparative Analysis of Interactive Metadiscourse across Popular Science Commentaries: Magazine Articles and Newspaper Articles. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.71586/jal.2024.11131190374
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

pdf views: 4

Abstract

Drawing on established metadiscourse frameworks, this study examined the use of interactive metadiscourse markers in popular science commentaries across various topics. The analysis was based on a balanced corpus of 300 magazine and newspaper articles published between 2015 and 2024, a period marked by increased public interest in scientific issues. Using AntConc software as a corpus analysis tool, the study identified patterns in the use of interactive markers and compared their distribution across the two subgenres. The findings revealed that these markers were used frequently, with magazine articles showing a more systematically organized presentation of content. Chi-square tests demonstrated significant differences between the two corpora in the distribution of transitions, endophoric markers, evidentials, and code glosses. These results have important pedagogical implications for ESP and EAP, offering valuable insights for curriculum developers, instructors, and other stakeholders on effective strategies for teaching rhetorical competence. Increasing students’ awareness of interactive metadiscourse can improve textual coherence, enhance reader comprehension, and support both novice and experienced academic writers. Furthermore, educators can develop practical classroom activities to help learners identify and improve these aspects in their writing.

Keywords

  • corpus analysis,
  • ESP/EAP resources,
  • interactive metadiscourse,
  • popular science commentaries,
  • rhetorical strategies
pdf

References

  1. Alghazo, S., Al-Anbar, K., Altakhaineh, A. R. M., & Jarrah, M. (2023). Interactive metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English: Evidence from editorials. Topics in Linguistics, 24(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2023-0004
  2. Alharbi, S. H. (2021). An investigation of metadiscourse features in applied linguistics academic research articles and master’s dissertations. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 12(1), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.12n.1.p.46
  3. Alqahtani, S. N., & Abdelhalim, S. M. (2020). Gender-based study of interactive metadiscourse markers in EFL academic writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(10), 1315–1325. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1010.20
  4. Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc (Version 3.5.8). [Computer Software]. Waseda University. Retrieved from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/
  5. Bhatia, V. K. (2013). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. Routledge.
  6. Chen, L., & Li, C. (2023). Interactional metadiscourse in news commentaries: A corpus-based study of China Daily and The New York Times. Journal of Pragmatics, 212(4), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.04.018
  7. Chung, E., Crosthwaite, P. R., & Lee, C. (2023). The use of metadiscourse by secondary-level Chinese learners of English in examination scripts. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 62(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0155
  8. Egorova, L. A. (2018). Popular science discourse development in the cyberspace. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(5), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.5p.79
  9. Fu, X., & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122–144. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.7.1.05fu
  10. Herriman, J. (2022). Metadiscourse in English instruction manuals. English for Specific Purposes, 65(2), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.10.003
  11. Huang, J., Xiao, W., & Wang, Y. (2023). Use of metadiscourse for identity construction in tourist city publicity. Heliyon, 9(12), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23122
  12. Hudoshnyk, O., & Krupskyi, O. P. (2022). Science and comics: From popularization to the discipline of comics studies. History of Science and Technology, 12(2), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.32703/2415-7422-2022-12-2-210-230
  13. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. Continuum.
  14. Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003
  15. Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  16. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2020). Text-organizing metadiscourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21(1), 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00039.hyl
  17. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2022). Metadiscourse: the evolution of an approach to texts. Text & Talk, 44(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2021-0156
  18. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
  19. Kashiha, H., & Marandi, S. (2019). Rhetoric-specific features of interactive metadiscourse in introduction moves. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 37(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2018.1548294
  20. Khedri, M., & Basirat, E. (2022). Interactive metadiscourse in dentistry research articles. Discourse and Interaction, 15(2), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.5817/di2022-2-77
  21. Kopple, W. J. V. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
  22. Kopple, W. J. V. (2012). The importance of studying metadiscourse. Applied Research in English, 1(2), 37–44.
  23. Kuhi, D. (2017). Hybridity of scientific discourses: An intertextual perspective and implications for ESP pedagogy. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature, 5(2), 61–180. https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2018.26150.1048
  24. Kuhi, D., & Babapour, M. (2019). Metadiscourse use in popular and professional science: The case of hedges and boosters. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature, 7(2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2019.26654.1144
  25. Kuhi, D., & Mojood, M. (2014). Metadiscourse in newspaper genre: A cross-linguistic study of English and Persian editorials. Procedia: Social & Behavioral Sciences, 98(4), 1046–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.515
  26. Lee, S., & Park, H. I. (2023). Changing patterns of interactive metadiscourse in English Teaching articles. English Teaching, 78(2), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.78.2.202206.83
  27. Memon, M. A., Pathan, H., & Memon, S. (2021). An intercultural investigation of interactive metadiscourse markers in research articles by Pakistani and British engineers. Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 3(2), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.52131/pjhss.2021.0903.0156
  28. Nugrahani, V. E., & Bram, B. (2020). Metadiscourse markers in scientific journal articles. Journal of the Association for Arabic and English, 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.31332/lkw.v6i1.1528
  29. Orellana, M. Á. L. (2012). Popularising scientific discourse. Estudis linguüistícs, 17(17), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.7203/qfilologia.17.3379
  30. Pilkington, O. A. (2016). Popular science versus lab lit: Differently depicting scientific apparatus. Science as Culture, 26(3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2016.1255722
  31. Pilkington, O. A. (2019). Definitions of scientific terminology in popular science books: An examination of definitional chains. Science Communication, 41(5), 580–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019861397
  32. Ruonan, L., & Al-Shaibani, G. K. S. (2022). An investigation into the use of metadiscourse in undergraduates’ abstracts in social sciences. Topics in Linguistics, 23(2), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2022-0010
  33. Tessuto, G. (2021). Managing discipline and culture-specific knowledge for digitalized, open-access academic discourse. European Journal of English Studies, 25(3), 278–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825577.2021.1988255
  34. 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.
  35. Wu, G., & Qiu, H. (2012). Popular science publishing in contemporary China. Public Understanding of Science, 22(5), 521–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512445013
  36. Yin, M. (2022). A study on interactive metadiscourse in China-related reports from the New York Times during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 4(11), 193–197. https://doi.org/10.53469/jssh.2022
  37. Zhou, R., & Li, S. (2023). A study on the persuasive function of metadiscourse in hotel responses to negative reviews on TripAdvisor. English Language Teaching, 16(6), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v16n6p55