BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Zadeh Zahra Rezaei (English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran), Baharlooei Roya (English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran), Simin Shahla (English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran)
Gender-based Study of Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Conclusion Sections of English Master Theses
International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences (ILSHS), 2015, vol. 6 (1), s. 195-208, tab., bibliogr. 21 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Język angielski, Piśmiennictwo naukowe, Wyniki badań, Kobieta, Mężczyzna
English language, Scientific literature, Research results, Woman, Men
The aim of this study is to seek two types of interpersonal model of Hyland (2005) used in conclusion sections of 30 Master Theses of English Teaching, English Literature, and English Translation written by male and female graduate students. These conclusion sections were categorized into two groups of male and female writers: 15 conclusion sections belonged to male writers and other 15 conclusion sections belonged to female writers. The interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers were counted and analyzed to find if male or female writers utilize these metadiscourse markers differently or similarly in conclusion sections of English disciplines (Translation, Teaching, and Literature). These metadiscourse markers were analyzed descriptively and referentially. The descriptive analysis show that both male and female writers in Translation, Teaching and Literature applied more interactional markers than interactive ones. In Translation and Teaching, female writers used more interactional resources comparing to male writers. But, in Literature, male writers employed more interactional markers than female writers. The referential statistics indicate that in English Translation and English Literature, there are significant differences between male and female writers concerning use of Interactive and Interactional metadiscourse Markers, while in English Teaching, there are not any significant differences between male and female writers regarding use of these metadiscourse Markers. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
  1. Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  2. Crismore, A(1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
  3. Crismore A., R. Markkanen & M. Steffensen (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10 (1): 39-71.
  4. Francis, B., Robson, J. & Read, B. (2001). An analysis of undergraduate writing styles in the context of gender and achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 313-326.
  5. Ghafoori, N. and Oghbatalab, R. (2012). A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: Male vs. Female Authors of Research Articles in Applied Linguistics. The Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol.5,Issue 1, spring 2012.
  6. Harris, Z. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(1), 27-29.
  7. Herbert, R. K. (1990). Gender differences in compliment behaviour. Language in Society, 19, 201-224.
  8. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 133-151.
  9. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
  10. Hyland, K. (2008b). Academic clusters: text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41-62.
  11. Hyland, K. & P. Tse (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25 (2): 156-177.
  12. Johnson, D., & D. H. Roen. (1992). Complimenting and involvement in peer-reviews: Gender variation. Language in society, 21(1), 27-57.
  13. Karbalaei, A (2013). Interpersonal Metadiscourse in Compositions written by Iranian ESP Students. European online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences 2013;vol.2, No.2 Special issue on Teaching and Learning. ISSN 1805-3602.
  14. Simin, S., & Tavangar, M. (2009). Metadiscourse knowledge and use in Iranian EFL writing.
  15. The Asian International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Research - Vol. 1 - Issue 3 - EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(1), 230-255.
  16. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Swann, J. Dumert, A., Lillis, T., & Methrie, R. (2004). A Dictionary of Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: University Press.
  18. Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 79-101.
  19. Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2008). ' Robot Kung Fu': Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1232-1248.
  20. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
  21. Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Boston: Scott Foresman.
Cytowane przez
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu