Skip Navigation

Applied Linguistics 2004 25(2):156-177; doi:10.1093/applin/25.2.156
© 2004 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (16)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hyland, K.
Right arrow Articles by Tse, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal

Ken Hyland1 and Polly Tse2

1 University of London 2 Chinese University of Hong Kong

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.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 DISCOURSE & COMMUNICATIONHome page
A. Lischinsky
Examples as persuasive argument in popular management literature
Discourse & Communication, August 1, 2008; 2(3): 243 - 269.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 DISCOURSE & COMMUNICATIONHome page
C. F. Schryer, O. Gladkova, M. M. Spafford, and L. Lingard
Co-management in healthcare: negotiating professional boundaries
Discourse & Communication, November 1, 2007; 1(4): 452 - 479.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Applied LinguisticsHome page
K. Hyland
Applying a Gloss: Exemplifying and Reformulating in Academic Discourse
Applied Linguistics, June 1, 2007; 28(2): 266 - 285.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Discourse StudiesHome page
K. Hyland
Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse
Discourse Studies, May 1, 2005; 7(2): 173 - 192.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.