An Analysis of Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Applied Linguistics Webinars: The Case of Top-Tier Native vs. Non-Native Speaking Scholars

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
Kaveh Jalilzadeh 1
Farahman Farrokhi 2
Alireza Asltaleb Maghferat 2
Amirreza Akhlaghi Ilkhchi 3
Christine Coombe 4
1 School of Foreign Languages, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey
2 Department of English, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
3 Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Humanities, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran
4 Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai Men’s College, Dubai, UAE
10.48311/lrr.2026.117137.82935
چکیده
Within the ecosystem of genres, audiences, and modalities, knowledge dissemination relies on metadiscourse markers that guide and engage academic audiences. Despite digital technologies reshaping communication after the pandemic, their use in academic webinars, especially regarding speakers’ linguistic backgrounds, remains an underresearched area of inquiry. Accordingly, this study aimed to comprehensively analyze interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers utilized by both top-tier native and non-native scholars in Applied Linguistics webinars. To this end, a corpus of 24 webinars (24 hours and 35 minutes) conducted by top-tier Applied Linguists over five years was purposively selected and analyzed using Hyland’s (2005) metadiscourse model, focusing on the frequency and distribution of interactive and interactional markers. The results showed that native scholars employed metadiscourse markers (both interactive and interactional) somewhat more frequently than non-natives, though both groups used them extensively to organize and engage audiences. While natives favored interactional markers over interactive ones, non-natives demonstrated the opposite trend, relying more on interactive than interactional markers. These findings highlight the need for EAP/ESP pedagogy to extend beyond accuracy, fostering non-native scholars’ interactional competence through training in hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mentions, empowering them to communicate confidently, engage audiences, and sustain presence in global academia
کلیدواژه‌ها
genre analysis
metadiscourse markers
interactive metadiscourse markers
interactional metadiscourse markers
applied linguistics
webinars
موضوعات
Abdulsada, M. N. (2021). Translanguaging knowledge remotely: The analysis of an academic webinar. Professional Discourse & Communication, 3(4), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2021-3-4-33-50
Abusalim, N., Zidouni, S., Alghazo, S., Rababah, G., & Rayyan, M.  (2022). Textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in political discourse:  A case study. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 9(1), 2124683. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2022.2124683.
Ädel, A. (2021). Reflections on reflexivity in digital communication: Towards a third wave of metadiscourse studies. In L. D'Angelo, A. Mauranen, & S. Maci (Eds.), Metadiscourse in digital communication (pp. 37–64). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85814-8_3
Afzaal, M., El-Dakhs, D.B.S., Mardini, N., Ambreen, F., & Ismail, H. (2025). A corpus-based analysis of stance markers in upper and lower proficiency level argumentative essays by Saudi learners. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1589004. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1589004
Ahmadi, P., Gholami, J., Abdi, R., & Mohammadnia, Z. (2021). Metadiscourse markers in the abstract section of applied linguistics research articles: Celebrity vs. non-celebrity authors. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 9(37), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.52547/JFL.9.37.159
Ajideh, P., Ansarin, A., Zohrabi, M., & Nouri, Z. (2024). An analysis of interactive and interactional metadiscourse: Native vs. nonnative author dichotomy. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 43(2), 31–48. https:/doi.org/10.22099/tesl.2024.49202.3253
 Appel, A., & McKay, R. (2025). The value of interactional metadiscourse in university level writing: Differences between high and low performing undergraduate business students. English for Specific Purposes, 79, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2025.03.002
Çakır, H. (2016). Native and non-native writers' use of stance adverbs in English research article abstracts. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6, 85–96.
Chang, P., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2022). Metadiscourse in digital academic genres: Interaction and stance in online lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 66, 1–15.
Dahl, T., & Fløttum, K. (2023). Metadiscourse in professional and academic genres: Current trends and new directions. Discourse Studies, 25(4), 457–475.
 Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2022). Looking into English-medium instruction teachers' metadiscourse: An ELF perspective. System, 105, 102730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102730
Dudley-Evans, T. (2002). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 233–242). Routledge.
Fadlelmola, F. M., Panji, S., Ahmed, A. E., Ghouila, A., Akurugu, W. A., Domelevo Entfellner, J. B., Mulder, N., & H3ABioNet Research working group as members of the H3Africa Consortium. (2019). Ten simple rules for organizing a webinar series. PLoS Computational Biology, 15(4), e1006671. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006671
Flowerdew, J. (2015). Discourse in English language education. Routledge.
Ghazanfari, M., Barani, G., & Rokhsari, S. (2018). An investigation into metadiscourse elements used by native vs. non-native university students across genders. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 10(1), 61–94. http://ijals.usb.ac.ir
Hayatolain, S., Ganji, M., & Askarpoor, A. (in press). Metadiscourse patterns across high-and low-scoring IELTS essays. Language Related Research. https://doi.org/10.48311/lrr.2026.117276.82949
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543–562. https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0261444808005235
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2018). In this paper, we suggest: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes. 51, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2022). Metadiscourse choices in EAP: An intra-journal study of JEAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 60, 101165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101165
Jalili, A., Abdi, R., Saeedakhtar, A., & Asltaleb Maghferat, A. (2026). A Comparative Study of Persuasion Attainment in Iranian and American Newspaper Discourse: Tehran Times vs. The New York Times. Applied Linguistics Inquiry, 4(1), 208–221. https://doi.org/10.22077/ali.2026.9978.1196
Kahkesh, M. & Alipour, M. (2017). A comparative study of metadiscourse markers in English and Persian university lectures. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8 (Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language, Discourse and Pragmatics), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2017.12917
Klisc, C., McGill, T., & Hobbs, V. (2016). Use of a post-asynchronous online discussion assessment to enhance student critical thinking. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3030
Ling, M. (2023). Reflexive metadiscourse in online academic discussion forums [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Victoria University of Wellington.
Livingstone, K. A. (2019). Examining the use of metadiscourse markers in academic writing. International Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics, 5(3), 244–254.
Öz, G. (2022). A comparative corpus-based analysis of boosters in NESs and NNESs' academic articles. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v7i1.1128
Papangkorn, P., & Phoocharoensil, S. N. (2021). A comparative study of stance and engagement used by English and Thai speakers in English argumentative essays. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 867–888. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14152a
Pearson, W. & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2023). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A systematic review. Lingua, 293(4), 103561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103561
Singh, K. K. M., Chu, I. L. Y., & Vijayarajoo, A. R. R. (2023). Metadiscourse markers in academic oral presentations: A corpus analysis. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(11), 8017–8036. https;//doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i11/19797
Taguchi, N., & Ishihara, N. (2018). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca: Research and pedagogy in the era of globalization. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 80–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000028
Tang, K. S. (2017). Analyzing teachers' use of metadiscourse: The missing element in classroom discourse analysis. Science Education, 101 (4), 548–583. 10.1002/sce.21275
Taromi, T., & Ghayoomi, M. (2026). The importance and role of interactive meta-discourse markers in discourse study of Persian scientific articles. Language Related Research, 17(2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.48311/lrr.2025.7107
Vasheghani Farahani, M. (2020). Metadiscourse in academic written and spoken English: A comparative corpus-based inquiry. Research in Language, 18(3), 319–341. https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.18.3.05
Wang, C., & Li, J. (2024). Comparative analysis of evidentiality in spoken and written academic discourse. English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies, 6(3), 62–86. https://doi.org/10.22158/eltls.v6n3p62
 Wang, S., Wang, F., Zhu, Z., Wang, J., Tran, T., & Du, Z. (2024). Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 252, 124167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124167
 Yazdani, A., & Salehi, H. (2016). Metadiscourse markers of online texts: English and Persian online headlines use of metadiscourse markers. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 4(3), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.4n.3p.41