Abstract
This review paper summarises research on the use of interactional metadiscourse in dissertations/theses by master’s and PhD students. A keyword search in the Scopus database identified ten relevant research articles with corpus-based studies from eight countries. The paper concludes that the topic of metadiscourse remains underresearched in these genres, particularly in European contexts.
Reference26 articles.
1. Abdollahzadeh, E. (2019). A cross-cultural study of hedging in discussion sections by junior and senior academic writers. Iberica, (38), 177−202. Retrieved from https://revistaiberica.org/index.php/iberica/article/view/97
2. Akbas, E., & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge construction: A comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 18(4), 831−859. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0260
3. Almakrob, A. Y. (2020). Native versus nonnative English writers' use of hedging in linguistics dissertations. Asian EFL Journal, 27(44), 360−381. Retrieved from https://www.asian-efl-journal.com/monthly-editions-new/2020-monthly-editions/volume-27-issue-4-4-october-2020/index.htm
4. Alotaibi, H. S. (2018). Metadiscourse in dissertation acknowledgments: Exploration of gender differences in EFL texts. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 18(4), 899−916. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0247
5. Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: a corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151−183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055