Interactional Markers

Moving in line with the postulation that metadiscourse (MD) markers help transform a dry and tortuous piece of text into a coherent and reader-friendly one, the researchers in the current study attempted to investigate the effect different metadiscourse markers might have on Iranian EFL learners’ perception of written texts. To this end, 120 undergraduate English students were given three different texts chosen from the most common textbooks in BA, along with their doctored versions (all MD-removed, interactive-removed, and interactional-removed). Each text duo was then accompanied by an 8-item questionnaire following Ifantido’s (2005) lead. The findings, overall, were indicative of the positive role of metadiscourse markers in bringing about EFL learners’ ameliorated text perception. Furthermore, data analysis via ANOVA and LSD tests revealed that texts with both interactive and interactional resources had more effect on learners’ perception. Moreover, it was found that interactive and interactional resources had more or less the same effect on learners’ reactions to texts. To sum it up, in line with the findings of the present study further evidence is garnered in favor of the postulation holding that metadiscourse markers bring about an increased amount of coherence and reader-friendliness in texts.

Abstracts are well-accepted as the clarity and fidelity of language in any article assists the readership to get the central points of the research in a brief l but effective manner. Meanwhile, as a significant feature of any piece of discourse, meta-discourse markers can effectively render article texts more reader-friendly and coherent. The present study aims at investigating the extent to which English and Persian sections of Law articles are cross-culturally similar or different in applying metadiscourse markers. To this end, 80 articles, 40 in each language, were carefully selected from Law articles published from 2010 to 2015 in online archives of leading journals. The selected corpora were analyzed through the models suggested by Hyland and Tse (2004) and Hyland (2005) to find out the type, number, and frequency of the markers, respectively. The findings of the study revealed that English authors enlisted a larger number of metadiscourse markers than their Persian counterparts; Persian authors, on the other hand, employed larger number of transitions among others. Such observed differences may stem from the culture-specific application and organization of discourse followed by diverse nationalities and norms.