File Download
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleMetadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal
 
AuthorsHyland, K1 3
Tse, P2 3
 
Issue Date2004
 
PublisherOxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/
 
CitationApplied Linguistics, 2004, v. 25 n. 2, p. 156-177+288 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
 
AbstractMetadiscourse is self-reflective linguistic material referring to the evolving text and to the writer and imagined reader of that text. It is based on a view of writing as social engagement and in academic contexts reveals the ways that writers project themselves into their discourse to signal their attitude towards both the propositional content and the audience of the text. Despite considerable interest in metadiscourse by teachers and applied linguists, however, it has failed to achieve its explanatory potential due to a lack of theoretical rigour and empirical confusion. Based on an analysis of 240 L2 postgraduate dissertations totalling 4 million words, we offer a reassessment of metadiscourse, propose what we hope is a more robust model, and use this to explore how these students used metadiscourse. Essentially our argument is that metadiscourse offers a way of understanding the interpersonal resources writers use to present propositional material and therefore a means of uncovering something of the rhetorical and social distinctiveness of disciplinary communities.
 
ISSN0142-6001
2013 Impact Factor: 1.833
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
 
ISI Accession Number IDWOS:000221829400002
 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorHyland, K
 
dc.contributor.authorTse, P
 
dc.date.accessioned2010-12-23T08:47:31Z
 
dc.date.available2010-12-23T08:47:31Z
 
dc.date.issued2004
 
dc.description.abstractMetadiscourse is self-reflective linguistic material referring to the evolving text and to the writer and imagined reader of that text. It is based on a view of writing as social engagement and in academic contexts reveals the ways that writers project themselves into their discourse to signal their attitude towards both the propositional content and the audience of the text. Despite considerable interest in metadiscourse by teachers and applied linguists, however, it has failed to achieve its explanatory potential due to a lack of theoretical rigour and empirical confusion. Based on an analysis of 240 L2 postgraduate dissertations totalling 4 million words, we offer a reassessment of metadiscourse, propose what we hope is a more robust model, and use this to explore how these students used metadiscourse. Essentially our argument is that metadiscourse offers a way of understanding the interpersonal resources writers use to present propositional material and therefore a means of uncovering something of the rhetorical and social distinctiveness of disciplinary communities.
 
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationApplied Linguistics, 2004, v. 25 n. 2, p. 156-177+288 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
 
dc.identifier.citeulike10924494
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
 
dc.identifier.epage177+288
 
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000221829400002
 
dc.identifier.issn0142-6001
2013 Impact Factor: 1.833
 
dc.identifier.issue2
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-4043134585
 
dc.identifier.spage156
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/130138
 
dc.identifier.volume25
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherOxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/
 
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom
 
dc.relation.ispartofApplied Linguistics
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
dc.titleMetadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Hyland, K</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Tse, P</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2010-12-23T08:47:31Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2010-12-23T08:47:31Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2004</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Applied Linguistics, 2004, v. 25 n. 2, p. 156-177+288</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>0142-6001</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/130138</identifier.uri>
<description.abstract>Metadiscourse is self-reflective linguistic material referring to the evolving text and to the writer and imagined reader of that text. It is based on a view of writing as social engagement and in academic contexts reveals the ways that writers project themselves into their discourse to signal their attitude towards both the propositional content and the audience of the text. Despite considerable interest in metadiscourse by teachers and applied linguists, however, it has failed to achieve its explanatory potential due to a lack of theoretical rigour and empirical confusion. Based on an analysis of 240 L2 postgraduate dissertations totalling 4 million words, we offer a reassessment of metadiscourse, propose what we hope is a more robust model, and use this to explore how these students used metadiscourse. Essentially our argument is that metadiscourse offers a way of understanding the interpersonal resources writers use to present propositional material and therefore a means of uncovering something of the rhetorical and social distinctiveness of disciplinary communities.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>Oxford University Press. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Applied Linguistics</relation.ispartof>
<title>Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal</title>
<type>Article</type>
<description.nature>link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1093/applin/25.2.156</identifier.doi>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-4043134585</identifier.scopus>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-4043134585&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>25</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>2</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>156</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>177+288</identifier.epage>
<identifier.isi>WOS:000221829400002</identifier.isi>
<publisher.place>United Kingdom</publisher.place>
<identifier.citeulike>10924494</identifier.citeulike>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. University of London
  2. Chinese University of Hong Kong
  3. University of London, Institute of Education