Investigating Persuasive Metadiscoursal Strategies in the Discussion Sections of Research Articles: A Contrastive Corpus Study
Keywords:
Persuasive metadiscoursal markers, audience expectations; academic traditions, Scopus journals, TCI journalsAbstract
This study investigates the frequency and patterns of persuasive metadiscourse in the discussion sections of 107 research articles indexed by Scopus and the Thai-Journal Citation Index (TCI). Using an adapted version of Hyland’s (2005a) metadiscoursal markers, the study examined their roles in enhancing persuasiveness. The results show that Scopus journals use more persuasive metadiscoursal markers than TCI journals, especially in interactive markers (code glosses, transitions, frames, and endophoric markers) except evidentials. Scopus journals feature more hedges, self-mentions, attitude markers, and boosters in interactional markers, while TCI journals favor engagement markers. Persuasive patterns differ between the two corpora. Scopus journals prioritize concise references and empirical evidence, adhering to international standards and theoretical exploration. TCI journals, however, emphasize authors’ roles and explanatory content, reflecting regional standards. The study highlights disparities in audience expectations and academic traditions using ethos, pathos, and logos, revealing distinct academic conventions and standards and enriching the understanding of international research practices.
References
Ahmad, K., & Rogers, M. (2001). Corpus linguistics and terminology extraction. In S. E. Wright & G. Budin (Eds.), Handbook of terminology management (pp. 725–760). John Benjamins.
Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. Sage Open, 9(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575
AlJazrawi, D., & AlJazrawi, Z. (2021). Metadiscourse as a way of achieving persuasion in literary criticism texts. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 21(3), 245–263. http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2021-2103-14
Amnuai, W., Kotuta, P., & Duangprasertchai, M. (2020). Textual and linguistic characteristics of research article abstracts. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 23(1), 168–181. https//:doi.org/10.24071/llt.2020.230113
Amnuai, W., & Wannaruk, A. (2013). An analysis of moves in introductions in international and Thai journal research articles. PASAA, 45(1), 61–90.
Amnuai, W., Wimuttisuksuntorn, W., & Wuttikanokkarn, T. (2023). Rhetorical moves and metadiscourse in English abstracts of research articles and masters’ theses. Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 4(2), 29–46.
Anthony, L. ( 2024). AntConc (Version 4.2.4) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
Aristotle. (1954). The rhetoric and the poetics of Aristotle (W. Rhys Roberts & I. Bywater, Trans.; E. P. J. Corbett, Introduction). Modern Library.
Arizavi, S., Jalilifar, A., & Riazi, A. M. (2023). Analysis of argumentation in the discussion sections of published articles in ESP journal: A diachronic corpus-based approach. Argumentation, 37(1), 119-146.
Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.
Canning, P., & Walker, B. (2024). Discourse analysis: A practical introduction. Taylor & Francis.
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007
Çapar, M., & Turan, Ü. D. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse in research articles written by Turkish and native speakers. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 10(1), 324–358. https://10.18039/ajesi.682042
Deng, L., Fatemeh, B., & Gao, X. (2021). Exploring the interactive and interactional metadiscourse in doctoral dissertation writing: A diachronic study. Scientometrics, 126(8), 7223–7250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04064-0
Devlin, K. (2016). Is the academic essay becoming a fossil through lack of authorial voice? The case for more stylish and exploratory writing. Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 1(1), 34–40.
Dogan-Ucar, A. & Akbas, E.(2022). A corpus-driven cross-disciplinary study of inclusive and exclusive we in research article abstracts. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(1), 180–204.
Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2022). Looking into English-medium instruction teachers’ metadiscourse: An ELF perspective. System, 105, 102730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102730.
Elsevier. (n.d.). Scopus: Content coverage guide. https://assets.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/ EX1iy8 VxBeQKf8aN2XzOp/c36f79db25484cb38a5972 ad9a5472ec/ Scopus_ ContentCoverageGuide_WEB.pdf
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243–264.
Geng, H., & Wei, H. (2023). Metadiscourse markers in abstracts of linguistics and literature research articles from Scopus-indexed journals. Journal of Modern Languages, 33(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.22452/jml.vol33no1.2
Gholami, J., Nejad, S. R., & Pour, J. L. (2014). Metadiscourse markers misuses; a study of EFL learners’ Argumentative Essays. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 580–589. https//:doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.454
Giordano, M., & Marongiu, M. A. (2020). ‘And as I said at the beginning, this is a journey in which we are embarking’: Metadiscourse as a rhetorical strategy in online teaching methodology courses. CERLIS SERIES, 9, 131–161.
Gotti, M. (2012). Cross-cultural aspects of academic discourse. Brno Studies in English, 38(2), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2012-2-4
Graham, M., Milanowski, A., & Miller, J. (2012). Measuring and promoting inter-rater agreement of teacher and principal performance ratings. Center for Educator Compensation Reform, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED532068)
Higgins, C., & Walker, R. (2012). Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum, 36(3), 194–208. https//:doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.003
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455. https//:doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interactions in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https//:doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2017). 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
Hyland, K., & Jiang, K. (2022). Metadiscourse choices in EAP: An intra-journal study of JEAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 60, 101165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101165
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
Hyland, K., & Zou, J. (2020). In the frame: Signalling structure in academic articles and blogs. Journal of Pragmatics, 165, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.002
Izquierdo, M., & Blanco, M. P. (2023). Interactional metadiscourse: Building rapport and solidarity in informational-persuasive discourse. An English-Spanish case study. Journal of Pragmatics, 216, 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.08.005
Jaroongkhongdach, W., Watson Todd, R., Hall, D., & Keyuravong, S. (2011). Current research topics and methods in Thai and international research articles in ELT. Expanding horizons in English language and literary studies.
Jaroenchaiwat, P. (2022). Authorial stance and rhetorical structure in English research articles in tourism: A comparative study of international and national Thai journals. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Exeter].
Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2023). Changes in research abstracts: Past tense, third person, passive, and negatives. Written Communication, 40(1), 210–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883221128876
Kitjaroonchai, N., & Maywald, S. (2023). Publications of Asia-Pacific International University from 2017 to 2022 in international conference proceedings, TCI, and SCOPUS databases. Human Behavior, Development & Society, 24(2), 8–17.
Lakoff, R. (1982). Persuasive discourse and ordinary conversation, with examples from advertising. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 25–42). Georgetown University Press.
Levshina, N. (2019). Token-based typology and word order entropy: A study based on Universal Dependencies. Linguistic Typology, 23(3), 533–572. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0025
Loan, N. T. T. (2018). Rhetorical structures and linguistic features of English abstracts in Thai Rajabhat university journals. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 24(4), 71–84. http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2404-06
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Miller, C. R., & Charney, D. (2007). Persuasion, audience, and argument. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 715–734). Routledge.
Miller, C. H. (2015). Persuasion and psychological reactance: The effects of explicit, high-controlling language. In R. Schulze & H. Pishwa (Eds.), The exercise of power in communication (pp. 465–501). Palgrave Macmillan.
Moreno, A. I. (2022). To be or, not to be, self-critical? Writing discussion and/or closing sections in English and Spanish social science research articles. ESP Today, 10(2), 221–244.
Nayernia, A., & Ashouri, F. (2019). Attitude markers in book reviews: The case of applied linguistics discourse community. The Linguistics Journal, 13(1), 126–146.
Nguyen, L. T., & Tuamsuk, K. (2024). Factors influencing researchers’ scientific integrity in scholarly publishing: A path analysis approach. Research Ethics, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241257445
Paphawasit, B., & Wudhikarn, R. (2022). Investigating patterns of research collaboration and citations in science and technology: A case of Chiang Mai University. Administrative Sciences, 12(2), 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020071
Peacock, M. (2006). A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles. Corpora, 1(1), 61–84.
Phongjit, W., & Gampper, C. (2023). That-stance found in discussion sections in applied linguistics research articles. Arab World English Journals, 14(2), 268–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4497561
Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications, 9(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012
Prommas, P. (2020). Metadiscourse in postgraduate writing [Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington].
Rohr, M.-T. R. (2018). Persuasion in smoking cessation online: An interpersonal pragmatics perspective [Doctoral dissertation, University of Basel].
Šandová, J. K. (2021). Interpersonality in research article abstracts: A diachronic case study. Discourse and Interaction, 14(1), 77–99.
Sarwar, R., Rutherford, A. T., Hassan, S.-U., Rakthanmanon, T., & Nutanong, S. (2020). Native language identification of fluent and advanced non-native writers. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing (TALLIP), 19(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3383202
Shen, Y. (2014). On establishing the writer’s credibility in persuasive writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(7), 1511–1515. http//:doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.7.1511-1515
Sirijanchuen, M. (2017). A comparative analysis of macro-textual organization and metadiscourse features in ELT research article introductions written by Thai and international academicians [Master’s thesis, Thammasat University].
Sombatsompop, N., Chancheewa, S., Markpin, T., Premkamolnetr, N., Ittiritmeechai, S., Wongkaew, C., Yochai, W., Ratchatahirun, P. (2012). Thai-Journal Citation Index (TCI) centre: 10 years of experiences, lessons learned, and ongoing development. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 17(3), 17–33.
Thabet, R. A. (2018). A cross-cultural corpus study of the use of hedging markers and dogmatism in postgraduate writing of native and non-native speakers of English. In K. Shaalan, A. E. Hassanien, & F. Tolba (Eds.), Intelligent natural language processing: Trends and applications (pp. 677–710). Springer.
Thai Citation Index. (n.d.). TCI mission. https://tci-thailand.org/view?slug=tci_mission
Thai Journal Citation Index Centre. (n.d.). TCI: Thai Journal Citation Index. https://library.nida.ac.th/th/online_database/tci-thai-journal-citation-index-centre/
Thai-Journal Citation Index. (2023). List of Thai journals to be submitted for consideration for inclusion in Scopus 2023–2026. Thai-Journal Citation Index Centre. https://tci-thailand.org/eng/?page_id=1541
Thompson, G. (2008). Ken Hyland, Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Language in Society, 37(1), 138–141.
Varpio, L. (2018). Using rhetorical appeals to credibility, logic, and emotions to increase your persuasiveness. Perspectives on Medical Education, 7, 207–210.
Wang, X. (2024). Research on the discourse power evaluation of academic journals from the perspective of multiple fusion: Taking medicine, general and internal journals as an example. Journal of Information Science, 50(4), 811–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221107334
Weisser, M. (2015). Practical corpus linguistics: An introduction to corpus-based language analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Worathumrong, S. (2021). “How the Furby coming is…”: Interference of first language and culture in Thai EFL learners’ paragraph writing. English Language Teaching, 14(10), 92–104.
Yea, L. Y., Othman, J., & Wei, L. J. (2020). The use of metadiscourse in academic writing by Malaysian first-year ESL doctoral students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i1.25069
Yoon, J.-H. (2021). Semantic inflation and pronoun avoidance. Linguistic Research, 38(3), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.38.3.202112.003
Yotimart, D., & Abd Aziz, N. H. (2017). Authorial identity and linguistic features of native English and Thai writers in research articles. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(3), 1319–1334.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
By submitting a manuscript, the author transfers the copyright for the article to School of Language and Communication, National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), if and when the manuscript is accepted for publication. Though the journal is an open-access, reproduction of any material published in NIDA Journal of Language and Communication for non-personal and/or commercial purpose requires a written permission from School of Language and Communication, National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA).
