Cover not available

Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 36:1 (2023) ► pp.329–351

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Identification of metadiscourse markers in bachelor’s degree theses in Spanish

Introduction of a text mining tool

ORCiD logo with link | Universidade de Vigo
ORCiD logo with link | Universidade de Vigo
ORCiD logo with link | Universidade de Vigo
Published online: 2 March 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.20055.mig
Abstract
This article introduces a text mining tool that can automatically extract information using Hyland’s analysis model as a theoretical framework to analyse the use and characteristics of metadiscourse in large quantities of academic texts. To verify its validity, we present the results obtained using this tool on various bachelor’s degree theses with a particular focus on the field of engineering. Our results on a 6.9 million-word corpus extracted from 680 bachelor’s theses available online show that interactive metadiscourse markers are prevalent in engineering bachelor’s theses as well as in the authors’ metadiscourse patterns. In addition, we compared our results with previous research on metadiscourse markers. Our study can be used to identify the usage of various types of metadiscourse markers during the production of texts and for the development of software applications involving quantitative linguistic methods for the production of academic texts.
Resumen
Identificación de marcadores de metadiscurso en trabajos de fin de grado en español: Introducción de una herramienta de minería de textos
En este artículo se presenta una herramienta de minería de textos que permite extraer información de forma automática utilizando el modelo de análisis de Hyland como marco teórico para analizar el uso y las características del metadiscurso en grandes cantidades de textos académicos. Para comprobar su validez, presentamos los resultados obtenidos utilizando esta herramienta en varios trabajos fin de grado (TFG), con un enfoque particular en el ámbito de la ingeniería. Nuestros resultados sobre un corpus de 6,9 millones de palabras extraídas de 680 TFG mostraron que los marcadores interactivos del metadiscurso son frecuentes en la elaboración de TFG de ingeniería, así como en los patrones de metadiscurso de los autores. Por otra parte, también hemos comparado los resultados obtenidos en esta investigación con trabajos previos relacionados con los marcadores del metadiscurso. Este estudio puede servir para identificar el uso de varios tipos de marcadores del metadiscurso durante la producción de textos y para el desarrollo de aplicaciones software que empleen métodos lingüísticos cuantitativos para la producción de textos académicos.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Hypothesis and objectives
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Description of the program
    • 3.2Validity
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (51)
References
Akbarpour, M., & Sadeghoghli, H. (2015). The study on Ken Hyland’s interactional model in OUP publications. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(4), 266–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexa, M., & Zuell, C. (2000). Text analysis software: Commonalities, differences and limitations: The results of a review. Quality and Quantity, 34(3), 299–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ananiadou, S., & McNaught, J. (2005). Text mining for biology and biomedicine. Artech House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2012). AntConc (Version 3.3.5) [computer software]. Waseda University. Available from [URL]
Anthony. (2013). A critical look at software tools in corpus linguistics. Linguistic Research 30(2), 141–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Azorín, F., & Sánchez-Crespo, J. L. (1986). Métodos y aplicaciones del muestreo [sampling methods and applications]. Alianza.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barlow, M. (2000). MonoConc Pro (Version 2.2) [computer software]. Available from [URL]
Behnam, B., & Mollanaghizadeh, N. (2015). A comparative study of metadiscourse markers in some selected news programs on VOA: The case of regular English programs vs. special English programs. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 5(1), 242–255. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheaffer, R. L., Mendenhall, W., & Ott, L. (2007). Elementos de muestreo (6th ed.). [elements of sampling]. Grupo Editorial Iberoamérica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, A. M., & Hersh, W. R. (2005). A survey of current work in biomedical text mining. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 6(1), 57–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What it is and how it is used in school and non-school social science texts. Retrieved from [URL]
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in the language and conventions of academic discourse (pp. 188–136). Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De la Calle, G., García-Remesal, M., Nkumu-Mbomio, N., Kulikowski, C., & Maojo, V. M. (2012). e-MIR2: A public online inventory of medical informatics resources. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 12(1), 82–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Talking to students: metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivorra Pérez, F. M. (2014). Cultural values and their correlation with interactional metadiscourse strategies in Spanish and US business websites. ATLANTIS Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 36(2), 73–95.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes, 461, 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jin, X., & Shang, Y. (2016). Analyzing metadiscourse in the English abstracts of BA theses. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 7(1), 210–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., & Grefenstette, G. (2003). Introduction to the special issue on the web as corpus. Computational Linguistics, 29(3), 333–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuhi, D., & Mojood, M. (2014). Metadiscourse in newspaper genre: A cross-linguistic study of English and Persian editorials. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 981, 1046–1055. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuteeva, M., & Mauranen, A. (2018). Digital academic discourse: Texts and contexts. Introduction. Discourse, Context & Media, 241, 1–7. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Le, E. (2004). Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and editorialist’s authority. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(4), 687–714. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46(3), 39–54.
Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 331, 21–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, K. L., & Evans, S. (2012). Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 150–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (2013). Mediated frameworks for participation. In M. Böck & N. Pachler (Eds.), Multimodality and Social Semiosis (pp. 79–88). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse reflexivity – A discourse universal? Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 13–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mur Dueñas, P. (2007). ‘I/we Focus on…’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 143–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068–3079. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orgeira-Crespo, P., Míguez-Álvarez, C., Cuevas-Alonso, M., Doval-Ruiz, M. A. (2020). Decision algorithm for the automatic determination of the use of non-inclusive terms in academic texts. Publications, 8(3), 41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saidian, S., & Jalilifar, A. (2016). “Mayhem! Absolute Mayhem!” Exploring the promotional metadiscursive features in the sportscasts of the 2014 FIFA World Cup semifinal between Brazil and Germany. Discourse, Context and Media, 141, 9–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saki, M. (2019). Metadiscourse and stance-taking in prefaces: A diachronic analysis. In S. Carter-Thomas & C. E. Hamilton (Eds.), Science, Systemic Functional Linguistics and Language Change: A Festschrift for David Banks (pp. 121–139). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, M. (2012). WordSmith Tools (Version 5.0) [Computer Software]. Available from [URL]
Shokouhi, H., Norwood, C. & Soltani, S. (2015). Evidential in Persian editorials. Discourse Studies, 17(4), 449–466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorahi, M., & Shabani, M. (2016). Metadiscourse in Persian and English research article introductions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(6), 1175–1182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suau Jiménez, F. (2015). Quality translation of hotel websites: Interpersonal discourse and customer’s engagement. Onomázein, 321, 152–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (2012). L2 learners’ use of metadiscourse markers in online discussion forums. Issues in Language Teaching (ILT), 1(1), 93–121.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, S. K. (1992). Sampling. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 361, 63–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In F. Barton & C. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 91–113). Hampton Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wei, J., Li, Y., Zhou, T., & Gong, Z. (2016). Studies on metadiscourse since the 3rd millennium. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 194–204.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xiao, W., & Sun, S. (2020). Dynamic lexical features of PhD theses across disciplines: A text mining approach. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 27(2), 114–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yoon, H., & Römer, U. (2020). Quantifying disciplinary voices: An automated approach to interactional metadiscourse in successful student writing. Written Communication, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, M. (2019). Exploring personal metadiscourse markers across speech and writing using cluster analysis. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 26(4), 267–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

El-Dakhs, Dina Abdel Salam, Noorchaya Yahya & Buthainah M. Al Thowaini
2025. Persuading in Arabic and English: A Study of EFL Argumentative Writing in Contrast with Native English Norms. Open Cultural Studies 9:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue