Dimension of Experience: Metadiscourse in the Texts of Novice Non-Native, Novice Native and Expert Native Speaker

H. Gülru Yüksel, Suzan Kavanoz


Metadiscourse is essential in establishing pragmatically effective academic written communication. However, little is known about how metadiscourse is used in written texts produced by tertiary level second language learners. This corpus-based linguistic research study aims to explore the frequencies and usages of metadiscourse markers in student essays written by Turkish learners of English and investigate the divergences from native speaker norms. As reference corpora, British Academic Written English (BAWE) and British National Corpus (BNC) were used. We found that in academic discourse, regardless of experience in writing (novice or expert) and L1 language background, interpersonal metadiscourse markers are used more frequently than textual metadiscourse markers. The commonalities between novice non-native and expert native writers together with differences between two native speaker groups suggest that pragmatic competence, particularly metadiscourse use, develops by experience regardless of L1 background.


Academic writing, Native speaker writers, Corpus-linguistics, Metadiscourse, Novice learner writers

Full Text:



Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (vol. 24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Akbaş, E. (2012). Exploring metadiscourse in master’s dissertation abstracts: Cultural and linguistic variations across postgraduate writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 1, 12-26.

Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151-183.

Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Hedging in L1 and L2 student writing: A case in Turkey. In: Kincses-Nagy, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of Turkish Linguistics. Szeged University Press, Szeged, pp. 123-132.

Bayyurt, Y., & Akbaş, E. (2014). Akademik metinlerde kaçınma ve vurgulayıcı ifadelerin lisansüstü öğrenciler tarafından algılanması ve kullanılması [Graduate students’ perception and use of hedges and boosters in academic texts]. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları, Ankara, pp. 72-79.

Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35.

Can, C. (2006). An analysis of freshman year university students’ argumentative essays. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.

Can, C. (2012). Uluslararası Türk öğrenici İngilizcesi derleminde tutum belirteçleri [Authorial Stance in Turkish International Corpus of Learner English]. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1, 39–53.

Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 279-296.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39–71.

Çandarlı, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Martı, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 192-202.

Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.

Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.

Fu, X., & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122-144.

Heng, C. S., & Tan, H. (2010). Extracting and comparing the intricacies of metadiscourse of two written persuasive corpora. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 6(3), 124-146.

Hinkel, E. (2003). Teaching Academic ESL Writing. New York: Routledge.

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatic of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455.

Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.

Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.

Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124.

Konca, M. Y., & Nasiri, S. (2014). How to hedge in psychology discipline? A Cross-national study. Journal of American Science, 10(10), 1-5.

Kuhi, D., & Behnam, B. 2011. Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguists: A comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication, 28(1), 97-141.

Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307-322.

Letsoela, P. M. (2013). Interacting with readers: Metadiscourse features in national university of Lesotho undergraduate students' academic writing. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(6), 138.

Lin, L., & Evans, S. (2012). Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 150-160.

Rustipa, K. (2014). Metadiscourse in Indonesian EFL learners’ persuasive texts: A case study at English department. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(1), 44-52.

Tan, H., & Eng, W. B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in the persuasive writing of Malaysian undergraduate students. English Language Teaching 7(7), 26-39.

Ting, L., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 345-356.

Uysal, H. H. (2012). Argumentation across L1 and L2 writing: Exploring cultural influences and transfer issues. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 133-159.

Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.

Vande Kopple, W.J. (2002). From the dynamic style to the synoptic style in spectroscopic articles in the physical review: Beginnings and 1980. Written Communication, 19(2), 227-264.

Zare-ee, A., & Taghi Farvardin, M. (2009). Comparison of university level EFL learners’ linguistic and rhetorical patterns as reflected in their L1 and L2 writing. Novitas-ROYAL, 3(2), 143-155.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.3p.104


  • There are currently no refbacks.

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

2010-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.