A Comparative Analysis of Function and Frequency of Metadiscourse Markers: A Cross Disciplinary Study

While the past few years have witnessed a growth in the research for metadiscourse markers, little attention has been paid to it in Iranian academic context. This study investigates how Iranian and native English writers use metadiscourse markers in research articles across three disciplines. Drawing on Hyland’s (۲۰۰۵) framework, I explored a corpus of ۳۰ published articles to examine the frequency and distribution of metadiscourse markers, disciplinary variation, cross-cultural differences, and sectional patterns. The findings showed that hedges were used more frequently in the humanities and social sciences but appeared less often in the sciences. Although no statistically significant overall differences were found between Iranian and native English writers, Iranian authors tended to use a greater number of hedges. Sectional analysis manifested that engagement markers appeared most often in introductions, hedges were concentrated in literature reviews, boosters were dominant in results sections, and attitude markers were frequent in discussions. These findings revealed how disciplinary conventions shape writers’ metadiscourse choices. The study discusses pedagogical implications about raising awareness of discipline-specific metadiscourse practices in course instructions to better prepare novice researchers for international publication.

کلیدواژه ها:

Academic Writing ، Cross-disciplinary variation ، Sectional analysis ، Iranian writers