INTERACTIONAL METADISCOURSE IN UNDERGRADUATE THESES INTRODUCTIONS BY ENGLISH STUDENTS OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF BENGKULU
Dublin Core
Title
INTERACTIONAL METADISCOURSE IN UNDERGRADUATE THESES INTRODUCTIONS BY ENGLISH STUDENTS OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF BENGKULU
Description
The aims of this research are at investigating the interactional metadiscourse and the most dominant interactional metadiscourse category in the background of the undergraduate thesis introductions written by English students of Muhammadiyah University of Bengkulu. This study involved thirty-three thesis backgrounds in 2019 Academic Year. This study followed the metadiscourse framework of Hyland (2009) in investigating the interactional metadiscourse in the corpus of the research. The results of this research showed that five categories of interactional metadiscourse found in the thesis backgrounds, were hedges, attitude markers, self-mention, boosters, and engagement markers. In addition, the most dominant of interactional metadiscourse category found in the backgrounds of the undergraduate theses introductions was hedges. The findings of this research can give information to the English students especially for Muhammadiyah University of Bengkulu students on the variation and the function of interactional metadiscourse in building the sentences when they are writing the essay or thesis.
Creator
ANNITA INTAN PUTRI
1421110130.P
1421110130.P
Advisor: Eki Saputra, M. Pd.
Source
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
Publisher
upt
Date
06/04/2021
Contributor
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY BENGKULU
Rights
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY BENGKULU
Relation
Azar, A. S., & Hashim, A. 2019. The Impact of Attitude Markers on Enhancing Evaluation in The Review Article Genre. GEMA Online: Journal of Language Studies, 19(1): 153-173.
Belcher, W. L. 2009. Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Biria, K. G., &Mirna, R. 2017. Exploring Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Discussion Sections of Social and Medical Science Articles. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2 (4): 11-29.
Blagojevic, Savka. 2004. Metadiscourse in Academic Prose: a Contrastive Study of Academic Articles Written in English by English and Norwegian Native Speakers Studies. Studies about Languages, 5: 60-67.
Brown, J. D. 1996. Testing in Language Programs. Saddle River, NJ : Practice Hall Regents.
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: 95-113.
Dakhi, S., & Hutabarat, H. 2018. Language Effectiveness and Factors Influencing Scientific Writing of Indonesian Undergraduate Thesis. English Review: Journal of English Education, 7 (1): 61-74
Estaji, M., & Vafaeimehr, R. 2015. A Comparative Analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in The Introduction and Conclusion Sections of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Research Papers. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3 (1): 37-56.
Farahani, M. V. 2019. Metadiscourse in Academic English Texts: A Corpus-based Probe into British Academic Written English Corpus. Studies about languages, 34: 56-73.
Fitri, S. 2017. Interactions of Student and Supervisor In Skripsi Research: Understanding Differences in Perspectives and Perpecstion. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3 (2): 929-946.
Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., et al. 2001. Persuasion and Advertising English: Metadiscourse in Slogans and Headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 1291-1307.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., &Airasian, P. W. 2011. Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Applications (10th Ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
Gee, J. P. 2014. An Introduction of Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Gholami, J., Nejad, S.R., & Pour, J. L. 2014. Metadiscourse Markers Misuses: a Study of EFL Learners‟ Argumentative Essays. Procedia - Social andBehavioral Science, 98: 580 - 589.
Hui, J & Na, B. 2008. Use Metadiscourse Markers in Allocating SLA learners’ Attention. USA: Sino-US English Teaching, 5 (11): 1-5.
Hyland, K. 1998. Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 437-455.
Hyland, K. 2001. Bringing in The Reader: Addressee Features in Academic Writing. Written Communication, 18(4): 549-574.
Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Jalilifar, A., & Alipour, M. 2007. How Explicit Instruction Makes A Difference: Metadiscourse Markers and EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension Skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38 (1): 35-52.
Jasrial, D., Arsyad, S., & Arono. 2019. The Impact of Genre-Based Mentoring on Linguistics Feature Quality of Research Article Abstracts by Indonesian Lecturers in Social Sciences and Humanities. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature, 4 (2): 146-161.
Kanoksilapatan, B. 2005. Rhetorical Structure of Biochemistry Research Articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24 (3): 269-292.
Karahan, P. 2013. Self-mention in Scientific Articles Written by Turkish and Non Turkish Authors. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70: 305-322.
Kitjaroenpaiboon, W.,& Getkham, K. 2015. An Analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Devices in Communication Arts Research Articles. International Journal of Management and Applied Science, 1 (9): 125-131.
Kuhi, D., & Mojood, M. 2014. Meta-discourse in Newspaper Genre: A Cross-Linguistics Study of English Persian Editorials. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98: 1046 -1055.
Mogalakwe, M. 2006.The Use of Documentary Research Methods in Social Research. African Sociological Review, 10, (1), 221-230.
Mohamed, A. F.B., & Rashid, R. B. A. 2017. The Metadiscourse Markers in Good Undergraduate Writers’ Essays Corpus. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7 (6): 2013-2020.
Muslim, F. 2011. An Analysis of Thesis Background of Study Written by English Department Students of UMM. A Thesis. Malang: Universitas Muhammadiyah Malam. Retrieved from: http://eprints.umm.ac.id/31020/2/jiptummb--frensiskam-27205-1-pendahul-n.pdf. May 5th, 2020.
Nugroho, A. 2019. Exploring Metadiscourse Use in Thesis Abstracts: a cross-cultural study. Journal of English and Cultre, 2(2): 113-127.
Oulu Business School. 2012. Guidelines for Writing a Thesis. Oulu: University of Oulu. Retrieved from: https://www.oulu.fi/sites/default/files/content/Guidelines.pdf. May 5th, 2020
Safnil. 2013. A Genre-Based Analysis on the Introductions of Research Articles Written by Indonesian Academics. TEFLIN Journal, 24 (2): 180-200.
Sahragard, R., & Yazdanpanahi, S. 2017. English Engagement Markers: A Comparison of Humanities and Science Journal Articles. Language Art, 2(1): 111-130.
Salichah, I., Irawati, E., & Basthomi, Y. 2015. Hedges and Boosters in Undergraduate Students’ Research Articles. Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora, 3(2): 154-160.
Sanford, S. G. 2012. A comparison of Metadiscourse Markers And Writings Quality In Adolescent Written Narratives. A Master Thesis. Missoula: University of Montana. Retrieved from: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2385&context=etd. March 15th, 2020.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. 2001. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Scott, J. 1990. A Matter of Record, Documentary Sources in Social Research, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Sorahi, M, & Shabani, M. 2016. Metadiscourse in Persian and English Research Article Introductions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6 (6): 1175-1182.
Sudjana. 2005. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito.
Suhono, & Haikal. 2018. Interactive Metadiscourse and Interactional Metadiscourse Categories of Students’ International Program School Based on Gender. Indonesian Journal of English Education, 5 (1): 1-11.
Susanti, T., Rufinus, A., & Sutapa, G. 2015. An Analysis of Students’ Research Background Writing. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Untan, 4 (2): 1-10.
Susanti, Y., Kurnia, F. D., & Suharsono. 2017. Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in The Introduction of Dissertations: Differences Across English Proficiency Level. A Journal Culture. English Language, Teaching and Literature, 17 (2): 1-23.
Swales, J. M. 1981. Aspect of Article Introductions. Aston Research Report no 1. Birmingham: University of Aston.
Takimoto, M. 2015. A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in English Academic Articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5 (1): 95-105.
Vázquez, I., & Giner, D. 2009. Writing With Conviction: The Use of Boosters in Modelling Persuasion in Academic Discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22: 219-237
Belcher, W. L. 2009. Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Biria, K. G., &Mirna, R. 2017. Exploring Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Discussion Sections of Social and Medical Science Articles. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2 (4): 11-29.
Blagojevic, Savka. 2004. Metadiscourse in Academic Prose: a Contrastive Study of Academic Articles Written in English by English and Norwegian Native Speakers Studies. Studies about Languages, 5: 60-67.
Brown, J. D. 1996. Testing in Language Programs. Saddle River, NJ : Practice Hall Regents.
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: 95-113.
Dakhi, S., & Hutabarat, H. 2018. Language Effectiveness and Factors Influencing Scientific Writing of Indonesian Undergraduate Thesis. English Review: Journal of English Education, 7 (1): 61-74
Estaji, M., & Vafaeimehr, R. 2015. A Comparative Analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in The Introduction and Conclusion Sections of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Research Papers. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3 (1): 37-56.
Farahani, M. V. 2019. Metadiscourse in Academic English Texts: A Corpus-based Probe into British Academic Written English Corpus. Studies about languages, 34: 56-73.
Fitri, S. 2017. Interactions of Student and Supervisor In Skripsi Research: Understanding Differences in Perspectives and Perpecstion. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3 (2): 929-946.
Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., et al. 2001. Persuasion and Advertising English: Metadiscourse in Slogans and Headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 1291-1307.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., &Airasian, P. W. 2011. Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Applications (10th Ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
Gee, J. P. 2014. An Introduction of Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Gholami, J., Nejad, S.R., & Pour, J. L. 2014. Metadiscourse Markers Misuses: a Study of EFL Learners‟ Argumentative Essays. Procedia - Social andBehavioral Science, 98: 580 - 589.
Hui, J & Na, B. 2008. Use Metadiscourse Markers in Allocating SLA learners’ Attention. USA: Sino-US English Teaching, 5 (11): 1-5.
Hyland, K. 1998. Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 437-455.
Hyland, K. 2001. Bringing in The Reader: Addressee Features in Academic Writing. Written Communication, 18(4): 549-574.
Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Jalilifar, A., & Alipour, M. 2007. How Explicit Instruction Makes A Difference: Metadiscourse Markers and EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension Skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38 (1): 35-52.
Jasrial, D., Arsyad, S., & Arono. 2019. The Impact of Genre-Based Mentoring on Linguistics Feature Quality of Research Article Abstracts by Indonesian Lecturers in Social Sciences and Humanities. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature, 4 (2): 146-161.
Kanoksilapatan, B. 2005. Rhetorical Structure of Biochemistry Research Articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24 (3): 269-292.
Karahan, P. 2013. Self-mention in Scientific Articles Written by Turkish and Non Turkish Authors. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70: 305-322.
Kitjaroenpaiboon, W.,& Getkham, K. 2015. An Analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Devices in Communication Arts Research Articles. International Journal of Management and Applied Science, 1 (9): 125-131.
Kuhi, D., & Mojood, M. 2014. Meta-discourse in Newspaper Genre: A Cross-Linguistics Study of English Persian Editorials. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98: 1046 -1055.
Mogalakwe, M. 2006.The Use of Documentary Research Methods in Social Research. African Sociological Review, 10, (1), 221-230.
Mohamed, A. F.B., & Rashid, R. B. A. 2017. The Metadiscourse Markers in Good Undergraduate Writers’ Essays Corpus. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7 (6): 2013-2020.
Muslim, F. 2011. An Analysis of Thesis Background of Study Written by English Department Students of UMM. A Thesis. Malang: Universitas Muhammadiyah Malam. Retrieved from: http://eprints.umm.ac.id/31020/2/jiptummb--frensiskam-27205-1-pendahul-n.pdf. May 5th, 2020.
Nugroho, A. 2019. Exploring Metadiscourse Use in Thesis Abstracts: a cross-cultural study. Journal of English and Cultre, 2(2): 113-127.
Oulu Business School. 2012. Guidelines for Writing a Thesis. Oulu: University of Oulu. Retrieved from: https://www.oulu.fi/sites/default/files/content/Guidelines.pdf. May 5th, 2020
Safnil. 2013. A Genre-Based Analysis on the Introductions of Research Articles Written by Indonesian Academics. TEFLIN Journal, 24 (2): 180-200.
Sahragard, R., & Yazdanpanahi, S. 2017. English Engagement Markers: A Comparison of Humanities and Science Journal Articles. Language Art, 2(1): 111-130.
Salichah, I., Irawati, E., & Basthomi, Y. 2015. Hedges and Boosters in Undergraduate Students’ Research Articles. Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora, 3(2): 154-160.
Sanford, S. G. 2012. A comparison of Metadiscourse Markers And Writings Quality In Adolescent Written Narratives. A Master Thesis. Missoula: University of Montana. Retrieved from: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2385&context=etd. March 15th, 2020.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. 2001. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Scott, J. 1990. A Matter of Record, Documentary Sources in Social Research, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Sorahi, M, & Shabani, M. 2016. Metadiscourse in Persian and English Research Article Introductions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6 (6): 1175-1182.
Sudjana. 2005. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito.
Suhono, & Haikal. 2018. Interactive Metadiscourse and Interactional Metadiscourse Categories of Students’ International Program School Based on Gender. Indonesian Journal of English Education, 5 (1): 1-11.
Susanti, T., Rufinus, A., & Sutapa, G. 2015. An Analysis of Students’ Research Background Writing. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Untan, 4 (2): 1-10.
Susanti, Y., Kurnia, F. D., & Suharsono. 2017. Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in The Introduction of Dissertations: Differences Across English Proficiency Level. A Journal Culture. English Language, Teaching and Literature, 17 (2): 1-23.
Swales, J. M. 1981. Aspect of Article Introductions. Aston Research Report no 1. Birmingham: University of Aston.
Takimoto, M. 2015. A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in English Academic Articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5 (1): 95-105.
Vázquez, I., & Giner, D. 2009. Writing With Conviction: The Use of Boosters in Modelling Persuasion in Academic Discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22: 219-237
Format
pdf
Language
bahasa indonesia
Collection
Citation
ANNITA INTAN PUTRI
1421110130.P
and Advisor: Eki Saputra, M. Pd., “INTERACTIONAL METADISCOURSE IN UNDERGRADUATE THESES INTRODUCTIONS BY ENGLISH STUDENTS OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF BENGKULU,” Repository Universitas Muhammadiyah Bengkulu, accessed April 20, 2024, http://repo.umb.ac.id/items/show/1881.