Comparative Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers in Moves of the Discussion Section of Chinese and English Research Articles across Disciplines
Abstract
Background. The Discussion section is where research findings are reported, interpreted, evaluated, connected to previous work, and turned into claims or implications. It is challenging for novice writers and EFL learners due to its complex rhetorical demands. Previous studies have focused on either rhetorical moves or metadiscourse markers (MDMs) in isolation, but much less is known about how particular markers help writers perform particular moves, and whether these patterns differ across languages and disciplines.
Purpose. This study examines how MDMs are distributed across rhetorical moves in the Discussion sections of Chinese and English research articles from soft and hard science. It seeks to identify disciplinary and linguistic differences in move-based marker use and explore how these patterns can inform genre-based academic writing instruction.
Method. The corpus included 200 Discussion sections from Scopus Q1 (English) and CNKI core (Chinese) journals. Texts were coded for rhetorical moves using an integrated move framework and for MDMs using Cao’s taxonomy. Frequencies were normalized per 1,000 words. Chi square tests, Cramer’s V, adjusted residuals, and qualitative examples were used to identify significant patterns.
Results. Disciplinary differences were move specific. In English articles, soft sciences used more attitude markers when drawing implications (15.17 vs 6.39), while hard sciences relied more on endophoric markers in background information and reporting results (3.88 vs 0.38 and 6.09 vs 1.69). In Chinese articles, soft sciences used more frame markers and boosters when reporting results (4.81 vs 1.53 and 8.05 vs 2.67), whereas hard sciences used more endophoric markers in reporting and commenting on results (6.76 vs 1.29 and 3.70 vs 0.64). The most striking cross-linguistic difference concerns self-mentions. English articles used them significantly more frequently than Chinese articles across several moves in both soft and hard sciences (p < .001, Cramer’s V=0.176-0.507). An Argumentative Progression Pattern also emerged: writers shift from interactive to interactional markers as they develop interpretations, claims, evaluation and implications.
Conclusion. The findings demonstrate that MDM use in Discussion sections is shaped by discipline, language, and publication context. They also suggest that genre-based academic writing pedagogy should teach MDM as a move-sensitive resource, especially self-mentions, hedges, attitude markers, and endophoric markers.
Downloads
References
Ahmadi, L. (2022). Rhetorical structure of applied linguistics research article discussions: A comparative cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Language and Education, 8(3), 11-22. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0592-6059
Ahmed, A. A. (2023). The role of metadiscourse devices in Q1 Scopus-indexed linguistics research articles. Journal of Almaarif University College, 34(1), 393-405. https://doi.org/10.51345/.v34i1.574.g348
Alharbi, L. M., & Swales, J. M. (2011). Arabic and English abstracts in bilingual language science journals: Same or different? Languages in Contrast, 11(1), 70-86. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.11.1.06alb
Amnuai, W. (2019). The textual organization of the discussion sections of accounting research articles. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 40(2), 389-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.10.007
Amnuai, W., & Wannaruk, A. (2012). Investigating move structure of English applied linguistics research article discussions published in International and Thai journals. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n2p1
Ashofteh, Z., Shirvan, M. E., & Golparvar, E. (2020). The move structure of abstracts in applied linguistics research articles in light of the distribution and functions of metadiscourse markers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(4), 2077-2096. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.851035
Azizah, N. (2017). Code glosses in Discussion section of journal articles written by Indonesian and English native speakers [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Universitas Negeri Jakarta. http://repository.unj.ac.id/id/eprint/28751
Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and masters’ dissertations in language teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.07.001
Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in Dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman.
Biber, D., Ulla, C., & Thomas, U. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. John Benjamins Publishing.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034701
Cao, F. (2014). Metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study across disciplines and research paradigms [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. https://hdl.handle.net/10497/16725
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2010). Learning by generating vs. receiving instructional explanations: Two approaches to enhance attention cueing in animations. Computers & Education, 55(2), 681-691.
Faqih, M. R. (2022). Boosters and self-mentions in Discussion section of English journal articles written by Indonesian-English native speakers [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Universitas Negeri Jakarta. http://repository.unj.ac.id/id/eprint/24291
Gao, S., & Pramoolsook, I. (2022). Move-step structure of the Results and Discussion section of electronic Engineering research articles written by Chinese and Thai Researchers. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 9(4), 725-739. https://doi.org/10.22190/jtesap2104725g
Greenlee, D., & Stück, J. (2004). Individualist educators in a collectivist society: Insights from a cross-cultural model applied to China. Missiology, 32(4), 491-504. https://doi.org/10.1177/009182960403200407
Hilmi, A. Z., & Afifi, N. (2021). A genre analysis on the discussion section of quantitative and qualitative research articles in ELT and linguistics. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies), 8(2), 341-369. https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v8i2.3264
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An Investigation of the structure of research article Discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321 -337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00038-5
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 113-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(88)90029-4
Huang, J. (2010). Chinese university students’ perceptions of their difficulties in academic English writing. Asian Social Science, 6(11), 132-146. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v6n11p132
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.002
Hyland, K. (1996a). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13, 251-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013002004
Hyland, K. (1996b). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433-454. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. A&C Black.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 266-285. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/28.2.266
Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2022). Metadiscourse choices in EAP: An intra-journal study of JEAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 60, 101-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101166
Indarti, D. (2022). Rhetorical moves and meta-discourse markers in Abstracts of Indonesian Scopus indexed journals across academic disciplines. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 10(4), 483-495. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v10i4.5173
Jalilifar, A., Hayati, A.M., & Namdari, N. (2012). A comparative study of research article Discussion sections of local and international applied linguistic journals. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(1), 1-29.
Kadir, W. (2020). The use of interactional metadiscourse markers in the Results and Discussion sections of Algerian scientific research articles [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Universite Mouloud Mammaeri Tiziouzou.
Kahkesh, M., & Alipour, M. (2017). Comparative analysis of metadiscourse markers in the Result and Discussion sections of Literature and Engineering research papers. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 9, 72-82. https://doi.org/10.22111/ijals.2018.4192
Kustyasari, D., Basthomi, Y., & Anugerahwati, M. (2021). Interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in research articles of Indonesian expert writers. Journal of English Educators Society, 6(1), 90-95. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v6i1.1082
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Li, W., & Andersen, H. C. (2017). The complexity of indirect translation. Orbis Litterarum, 72(3), 181-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/oli.12148
Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 97-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.04.002
Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J. (2009). Academic discourse. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 465-478). Routledge.
Loi, C.K., Evans, M. S., Lim, J.M., & Akkakoson, S. (2016). A comparison between Malay and English research article Discussions: A move analysis. SAGE Open, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016652925
Mohammad, A. S. N. (2012). A structural move analysis of Discussion sub-genre in applied linguistics. Iranian Institute for Encyclopedia Research, 2, 199-212. https://works.bepress.com/nodushan/124/
Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068-3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
Nguyen, T. T. L., & Pramoolsook, I. (2015). Move analysis of Results-Discussion chapters in TESOL master’s theses written by Vietnamese students. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 21(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.17576/3l-2015-2102-01
Nugrahani, V. E. & Bram, B. (2020). Meta-discourse markers in scientific journal articles. Langkawi: Journal of The Association for Arabic and English, 6(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.31332/lkw.v6i1.1528
Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7
Safnil, A. (2013). A genre-based analysis on Discussion section of research articles in Indonesian written by Indonesian speakers. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(4), 50-70. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i4.3773
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparative study of English and French research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90003-8
Soodmand A, H., Doosti, M., & Movassagh, H. (2018). A comparative study of generic structure of applied linguistics and chemistry research articles: The case of discussions. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 28-56. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2018.13404
Sultan, M. A. (2011). Metadiscourse in Arabic and English research article abstracts. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30(4), 457-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X11415558
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58
Tran, T. Q., & Duong, T. M. (2013). Hedging: A comparative study of research article results and discussion section in applied linguistics and chemical engineering. English for Specific Purposes World, 41(14), 1-13.
Ulya, S. (2022). Rhetorical moves variations of research article discussion sections published in reputable journals. Premise: Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 632- 645. https://doi.org/10.24127/pj.v11i3.5615
Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In F. Bar-ton & C. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 91-113). Hampton Press.
Yang, R. Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(02)00026-1
Yassaman, H. M., & Elham, Y. (2019). A genre-analysis of the Discussion section of Iranian and English ELT theses: A comparative study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(12), 1611-1623. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0912.19
Zahra, S. D., Helen, T., & Ain, N. A. (2017). Rhetorical structure of integrated Results and Discussion chapter in master’s dissertation across disciplines. Discourse and Interaction, 61-83. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2017-2-61
Copyright (c) 2026 National Research University Higher School of Economics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the Copyright Notice.
