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
Pembimbing : Eki Saputra, M.Pd
Penguji 1 : Dr. Dian Susyla, M.Pd
Penguji 2 ; Ria Anggraini, M.Hum
Source
Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
Publisher
UPT.Perpustakaan Universitas Muhammadiyah Bengkulu
Date
17 Desember 2020
Contributor
Universitas Muhammadiyah Bengkulu
Language
Bahasa Indonesia
Identifier
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., et al. 2001. Persuasion and Advertising English: Metadiscourse in Slogans and Headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 1291-1307.
[8] 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.
[9] Hyland, K. 1998. Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 437-455.
[10] Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
[11] 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.
[12] Karahan, P. 2013. Self-mention in Scientific Articles Written by Turkish and Non Turkish Authors. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70: 305-322.
[13] 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.
[14] 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.
[15] Muslim, F. 2011. An Analysis of Thesis Background of Study Written by English Department Students of UMM. A Thesis. Malang: Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang.
[16] Oulu Business School. 2012. Guidelines for Writing a Thesis. Oulu: University of Oulu.
[17] Sanford, S. G. 2012. A comparison of Metadiscourse Markers And Writings Quality In Adolescent Written Narratives. A Master Thesis. Missoula: University of Montana.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., et al. 2001. Persuasion and Advertising English: Metadiscourse in Slogans and Headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 1291-1307.
[8] 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.
[9] Hyland, K. 1998. Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 437-455.
[10] Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
[11] 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.
[12] Karahan, P. 2013. Self-mention in Scientific Articles Written by Turkish and Non Turkish Authors. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70: 305-322.
[13] 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.
[14] 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.
[15] Muslim, F. 2011. An Analysis of Thesis Background of Study Written by English Department Students of UMM. A Thesis. Malang: Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang.
[16] Oulu Business School. 2012. Guidelines for Writing a Thesis. Oulu: University of Oulu.
[17] Sanford, S. G. 2012. A comparison of Metadiscourse Markers And Writings Quality In Adolescent Written Narratives. A Master Thesis. Missoula: University of Montana.
Collection
Citation
ANNITA INTAN PUTRI
1421110130.P
et al., “INTERACTIONAL METADISCOURSE IN UNDERGRADUATE THESES INTRODUCTIONS BY ENGLISH STUDENTS OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF BENGKULU,” Repository Universitas Muhammadiyah Bengkulu, accessed September 22, 2025, https://repo.umb.ac.id/items/show/1108.