Metadiscourse Markers in English Dissertation Abstracts
Muhammad Saibani Wiyanto, Fabiola Kurnia Dharmawanti and Suwono Suwono
Pasca UNESA, Surabaya State University, Surabaya, Indonesia
Keywords: Metadiscourse, English dissertation abstracts.
Abstract: The research aimed to explore metadiscourse categories and types in English dissertation abstracts of Doctoral
students’. It represented a qualitative research with the content analysis of English dissertation abstracts in
Doctoral students‘. The data was 71 English abstracts from 2007 until 2016. It should be selected 36 abstract
from Indonesia concentration department and 35 abstracts from English concentration department. They have
been graduated from Doctoral Program in Language and Literature education program. The result shows the
English dissertation abstract writer applied categories of metadiscourse model in their research. In interactive
categories, many researches use transitions type more dominant than other types in both concentration. And
they rarely use endhopric markers and evidential types. While, in the interactional categories, many researches
applied engagement markers more dominant than other types. However, they rarely use attitude markers and
self-mentions types at the abstracts. The study can help learners develop metadiscourse effectively in writing
especially abstract section in research.
1 INTRODUCTION
Abstract is significant component of the research. It
has some part in the form. All the parts conceive
resources use of metadiscourse. It indicates on the
interactive and interactional metadiscourse.
Metadiscourse represented to make clear what writer
wants to share to the readers or listener.
Metadiscourse is a widely used term in current
discourse analysis and language education, referring
to an interesting, and relatively new, approach to
conceptualizing interaction between text producers
and their texts and between text producers and users
(Hyland, 2005:1). Metadiscourse as an important
means of facilitating communication, supporting a
position, increasing readability and building a
relationship with an audience has been proven by
some researchers such as metadiscourse in casual
conversation, school textbooks (Crismore, 1989), oral
narratives, science popularizations, undergraduate
textbooks (Hyland, 2000), postgraduate dissertations
(Bunton, 1999; Hyland, 2004; Swales, 1990) and
company annual reports (Hyland, 1998).
According the explanation and the past
investigation above, An Abstract provides some
information about how the writer gives their
perspective or the result of their research easily.
Metadiscourse study is relevant with it. To make
reader easily understanding about the writer result of
conclusion.
To know metadiscourse resources used in
abstract. The article has invertigated to some English
Dissertation Absracts.
2 METHODS
The research applied content analysis. First, It is
descriptive and explorative since I describe the
metadiscourse resources employed in a text, which is
in the dissertation abstract section of post gradutae
students‘. Second the researcher is the key instrument
because I collected and analyzed the data by myself
(Creswell, 1994:145, 2009:164).
Moreover, the study also focuses on the content
analysis since the materials analyzed are in the form
of written i.e. dissertation abstracts section in post
graduate students‘. Besides, this study identifies the
meaning reflected and particular characteristic in the
use of rhetorical moves and metadiscourse (Ary et al,
2010:457).
The data was English Dissertation abstract that
they have written and examined. The number of
English abstracts is 71 English dissertation abstract
samples starting from 2007-2016. Those can be
divided 36 of Indonesia concentration and 35 of
266
Wiyanto, M., Dharmawanti, F. and Suwono, S.
Metadiscourse Markers in English Dissertation Abstracts.
DOI: 10.5220/0007165702660270
In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference
on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017) - Literacy, Culture, and Technology in Language Pedagogy and Use, pages 266-270
ISBN: 978-989-758-332-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

English concentration. The main criteria of the
samples are as follows: The abstract have been
examined in a dissertation.
3 FINDING
A summary of metadiscourse categories, types and
resources use found in the dissertation abstracts of the
37 post graduate students‘from Indonesia
concentration is as follows.
Table 1: Summary of Metadiscourse Categories and Type.
Table 1 shows that interactive metadiscourse
category is dominant. Transitions in interactive
metadiscourse category frequently occur. Then,
transitions are dominant in move 4 and move 5.
Frame markers often occur in Move 2. Then, Move 4
is dominant in the use of code glosses (11 resources).
There are no evidentials in this category. In
interactional metadiscourse, the use of boosters are
dominant. It often occurs in move 4. Attitude markers
is only 4 resources. Hedges frequently appear in move
5. Self-mention is only one resources. The biggest
usage of resources in interactional metadiscourse is
engagement markers.
Then, the occurrence of types of
metadiscourse in each move is also described. For
interactive metadiscourse category, transitions, frame
markers and code glosses exist in all moves. Frame
markers are in move 1, move 2, move 3 move 4, and
move 5. Endhoporic markers are not there.
Evidentials are not used. Meanwhile, for the
interactional metadiscourse category, hedges, and
boosters are in move 1, move 2, move 3, move 4 and
move 5. Attitude markers occur in move 1, move 3,
and move 5. Self-mention is only one on move 3. And
engagement markers are in move 1, move 2, move 3,
move 4 and move 5.
Metadiscourse resources used in interactive
metadiscourse categories are also varied in Indonesia
concentration. Metadiscourse resources in transitions
are always used ―and, though, while, also, whereas,
because, thus, then, beside, but, even though,
therefore, although, likewise, since, moreover,
furthermore, thought, in addition, meanwhile, also,
besides and while. Frame markers consist of aim
well, focuse, numbering, purpose, now, conclusion,
conclude, goal, listing announcing. They have some
subtypes. They are discourse goal (e.g. this study is to
reveal…, this study aimed(s) to…, the objective of
this research is…, the purpose of the study …, the
explanation above underlies this study to…, and so
on), label discourse stages (it can be concluded
that…, the conclusion of this study) and additive
relation (the first, the second, then, cycle 1,
numbering). In the Indonesia concentration. There is
not Endhoporic marker and Evidentials. However,
they have Code glosses. They are in fact, i.e, that is,
or, such as, according, according to, and eg.
Likewise, there are some resources used in each
type in interactional metadiscourse category. Hedges
consist of ―about, often, would, and should.
Boosters comprise ―found, always, never, know,
find, thingking, found, facts, must, and indeed.
Attitude markers used are ―usually and expected.
Self-mentions is only one. It is authors’. Then,
engagement markers are ―assume, applying,
analyze, shows, see, needed to, did not, do not,
following, see, could, go, consider, must, and
classify.
Second, the following is a summary of
metadiscourse categories, types and resources use
found in the dissertation abstracts from English
concentration.
Metadiscourse Markers in English Dissertation Abstracts
267

Table 2: Summary of Metadiscourse Categories, and Types.
Table 2 shows that interactive metadiscourse
category is also dominant. Transitions are still
frequently used. Nevertheless, most of transitions are
used in move 3 and move 4. Code glosses are also
dominant in move 4. In move 4, frame markers are
often applied. Endhoporic markers are dominant in
move 4. Evidentials are the least use of metadiscourse
resources. That is only one. In interactional
metadiscourse category, Engagement markers are
frequently used. In move 4, the metadiscourse types
always existing are hedges, boosters, and attitude
markers. Then, self-mentions occur in move 1, move
2, move 3 and move 5. Self-mentions are the least use
of metadiscourse resources.
4 DISCUSSION
This study investigates metadiscourse category, types
and resources occurrence in the dissertation abstracts
section among the samples (Indonesia concentration
and English concentration). The results show that the
use of interactive metadiscourse tends to be dominant
in two concentrations. It means by referring to
Hyland‘s (2005, 2013) metadiscourse, the writers
tend to influence the ―reader friendliness of a text,
involve the management of information flow and
show how they guide the readers by addressing ways
of organizing discourse.
Furthermore, in interactive metadiscourse,
transitions are frequently used between two
concentrations which occur in all moves. It is due to
the importance of transitions that help readers
interpret links between ideas (Hyland, 2005; 2013).
The writers need transitions to add element to an
argument, compare and contrast arguments and
evidence, and express a result in each move.
However, Indonesia concentration and English
concentration frequently apply transitions in move 4
because this move is dominant. Indonesia
concentration employs transitions frequently in move
4 because most of them are dominant in explaining
move 4. Meanwhile, English concentration often use
more transitions in move 4 than in move 2 because
the writers rarely use in move 2 which all dissertation
abstract. Although most of dissertation abstracts
comprise move 4, the writers tend to use transition in
explaining the results. Two concentration often use
transitions in move 5 because among the samples
infrequently use move 5.
It is necessary to note here that from two
concentrations that Indonesia concentration uses of
frame markers is dominant in move 2 and the so many
English concentration uses frame markers in move 4.
In relation to moves, move 2 is the purpose and scope
of the study. Announcing discourse goal is one of the
functions of frame markers (Hyland, 2005; 2013).
Therefore, frame markers referring to announce
discourse goal are suitable to be employed in move 2.
Moreover, although discourse stages are not
dominant, it occurs only in move 5 with the resource
―conclude. The rests relating to additive relations
are used to show the sequence in mentioning the
purpose. English concentrations employ frame
markers at most because all of the abstracts contain
move 4 and some of the writers mention more than
one result in one abstract.
Endhoporic markers and evidential, the least use
of interactive metadiscourse between two
concentrations, may be due to the components of the
abstracts. Endhoporic markers refer to other parts of
the text and evidentials contribute to a persuasive goal
by representing an idea from another source (Hyland,
2005; 2013). Nevertheless, abstracts only consist of
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
268

five moves (background, purpose, method, result, and
conclusion). Although it is possible to be applied such
as Endhoporic markers ―before… and above…. and
evidentials ―0…, the writers need to understand the
importance of using those resources in writing an
abstract.
Then, the great difference of code glosses between
two concentrations may be due to the ability of the
writers in recovering their intended meaning by
giving additional information. In Indonesia
concentration and English concentration, the use of
code glosses is dominant in move 4 which is the
result, the crucial components in abstracts. Therefore,
the writers tend to use code glosses in move 4 because
they need to ascertain the reader understand the
writers‘ intended meaning in their result of their
research by rephrasing, explaining or elaborating
what has been said.
Interactional metadiscourse is also important in
writing dissertation abstracts in as much as it involves
the ways writers organize interaction by intruding and
commenting on their message (Hyland, 2005, 2013).
However, the use of interactional metadiscourse is
fewer than interactive metadiscourse. The use of
hedges, boosters, and engagement markers are the
most frequent in interactional metadiscourse.
Hedges are one of the most frequent interactional
metadiscourse. It is due to the importance of hedges
that indicate the writer‘s decision to recognize
alternative voices and viewpoints and so withhold
complete commitment to a proposition. Hedges also
emphasize that the information is an opinion rather
than a fact and therefore open that position to
negotiation (Hyland, 2005; 2013). Hedges often
appear in move 4 in English concentration. In
Indonesia concentration, on the contrary, frequently
use hedges in move 5. It means that English
concentration tends to emphasize the results;
however, the use of hedges in Indonesia
concentration tends to be used to explain the
conclusion.
It is necessary to note here that from two
concentration, the use of boosters is dominant in
move 4. In relation to moves, move 4 is the result, the
crucial components in abstracts. Boosters emphasize
certainty or close dialogue which is to show writers
‘confidence in the truth of a particular proposition.
Meanwhile, not much used attitude markers in both
concentrations. It has function to express writer‘s
attitude to proposition or commenting on the status of
information, for instance, the importance of
something, the interest of something, its
appropriateness, and so on (Hyland, 2005; 2013).
Therefore, it is important to emphasize the use of
boosters in move 4 since the writers attempt to show
their confidence in stating the result of their research
and express their attitude related to the result of their
studies. While attitude markers rarely use in the both
concentrations. The number of occurrence which
Indonesia concentration and English concentration
apply boosters in move 4. And attitude markers at
least may be due to the number of two concentrations.
For the use of self-mentions, English
concentration are dominant appearing at most in
move 4. It means that the writers in English
concentration tend to show explicit of author
presence in the text related to explain the result
section in abstracts. Meanwhile, engagement markers
are the most use of interactional metadiscourse since
explicitly building relationship with reader to create
an impression of authority, integrity and credibility
may not an easy thing for postgraduate students.
Nevertheless, the variation of metadiscourse
resources which is different from and not included in
Hyland‘s (1998, 2005), Farrokhi & Ashrafi‘s (2009),
and Abdi‘s (2002) study seems due to the following
reasons: 1) type of research consisting of method,
designed, and instrument of research and 2) the way
students express their idea to excerpt their whole
thesis and to comment their research findings through
the use of linguistic devices.
5 CONCLUSION
On the whole, the use of interactive metadiscourse
tends to be dominant in all disciplines. In interactive
metadiscourse, transitions and frame markers are
often used. However, English concentration and
Indonesia concentration are dominant in the use of
transitions and they are also dominant in the use of
frame markers. In Interactional metadiscourse,
English concentration and Indonesia concentration
are different. English concentration is more dominant
in the use of boosters, and attitude markers than
Indonesia concentration. However, the use of
engagement markers often appears in English
concentration and Indonesia concentration. It is also
important to note here that some variation of
metadiscourse resources found in this research are
different from and not included in Hyland‘s (1998,
2005, 2013) and Farrokhi & Ashrafi‘s (2009) study.
Those resources are ―due to, because of, this study
is/was to, this study is designed to, the researcher
investigates, this study is conducted to, this study
analyzed, the explanation above underlies this study
to, based on the data analysis, based on these findings,
many, inferred, revealed, embodied, very, obtained,
Metadiscourse Markers in English Dissertation Abstracts
269

strengthen, reached, good, poor, bigger, higher,
significant(ly), strong, especially, new, great(ly),
positive, active, attractive, motivated, advanced,
creatively, innovatively, complex‖. It seems due to the
following reasons: 1) type of research consisting of
method, designed, and instrument of research and 2)
the way students express their idea to excerpt their
whole dissertation and to comment their research
findings through the use of linguistic devices.
REFERENCES
Abdi, R. 2002. Interpersonal Metadiscourse: An Indicator
of Interaction and Identity. Discourse Studies. Vol. 4.
No. 2. ISSN 1461-4456: 139-145
Adelaide Writing Centre. 2014. Writing an Abstract.
Adelaide: The University of Adelaide
Ary, D et al. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education.
Wadsworth: Cengage Learning
Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative,
Quantitative and Mix-Method Approaches. Los
Angeles: Sage Publication Inc.
Crismore, A. 1989. Talking The Readers. Metadiscourse as
Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.
Farrokhi, F and Somayeh A. 2009. Textual Metadiscourse
Resources in Research Articles.‖ Journal of English
Language. Volume 52. No.212: 39-72.
.Hyland, K. 1998. Exploring Corporate Rhetoric:
Metadiscourse in the CEO‘s Letter.‖ Journal of
Business Communication. 35 (2): 224-245.
Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse. New York, NY 10010.
Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in
Writing. London, New York: Continuum.
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
270