METADISCOURSE AWARENESS AND READING COMPREHENSION IN ESP CONTEXT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32461/2226-3209.3.2018.176892Анотація
Abstract. Current theories of reading state that reading is neither passive and bottom-up nor top-down
processes, but rather an active process including both lower and higher level processes working interactively. With metadiscourse awareness and strategies for using it, readers can understand the author’s intentions better (Crismore, 1990). Thus, the present study investigated the effect of explicit metadiscourse (MD) markers instruction on EFL learners’ immediate and delayed reading comprehension improvement by using metadiscoursal taxonomies proposed by Hyland (2005) in ESP classes (Accounting). For this end, 60 homogenous female participants out of the pool of 84 in two intact classes (30 in each class) were selected through Reading and Writing sections of Preliminary English Test (PET) and then the classes were randomly assigned into two groups, namely, experimental and control ones. The participants were of the same English proficiency level (i.e., at intermediate level). A meaningful guarantee for the homogeneity of the participants was obtained through a series of independent samples t-tests. Each group was instructed for 7 sessions, once a week. They received the same instruction in all the language skills and components except for the reading comprehension. The only difference between two groups was in teaching and learning MD markers. The experimental group received explicit instruction of MD markers for 7 sessions. However, the control group received no specific instructions in MD markers. The results of an independent-samples t-test revealed that the experimental groups receiving explicit MD markers instruction performed much better than the control group.
Key words: Metadiscourse markers, Reading comprehension, EFL learners.
Посилання
Aidinlou, N. S., & Vafaee, A. (2012). The Effect of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers on Iranian
EFL high school learners' reading comprehension. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(6), 6210-6214.
Alderson, J. C. (2005). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern
Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
Anderson, N. L. (2012). Reading instruction. In A. Burns and J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to
pedagogy and practice in second language teaching (pp. 218-225). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Behnam, B., & Babapour, M. (2015). EFL learners’ reading comprehension ability in the light of metadiscourse
awareness. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(9), 1850-1856.
Camiciottoli, B C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP comprehension: an exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign.
Language, 15(1), 15-33.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Crismore, A. (1990). Metadiscourse and discourse processes: Interactions and issues. Discourse Processes, 13,
-205.
Crismore, A. (2004). Pronouns and metadiscourse as interpersonal rhetorical devices in fundraising letters: a
corpus linguistic analysis. In U. Connor and T. A. Upton (Ed), Discourse in the professions. Perspectives from corpus
linguistics (pp. 307-330). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Crismore, A., Abdollahzadeh, E. (2003). A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context. Nordic
Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 195-219.
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.
Crismore, A., & Vande Kopple, W. J. (1997). Hedges and readers: Effects on attitudes and learning. In S.
Markkanen & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in
academic texts (pp. 83-114). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Dastgoshadeh, A. (2001). Reading comprehension of EFL students using metadiscourse (Unpublished master's
dissertation). University of Tehran, Tehran.
Gholami, M., Tajalli, G. H., & Shokrpour, N. (2014). An investigation of metadiscourse markers in English
medical texts and their Persian translation based on Hyland’s model. European Journal of English Language and
Literature Studies, 2(2), 1-41.
Gilbert, J. (2010). Constructivism within the second language classroom. Boison State University. Retrieved
from http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/gilbertj/504/synthesis.pdf
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2001). Reading for academic purposes: Guidelines for the ESL/EFL teacher. In M.
Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.) (pp. 187–205). Boston: Heinle &
Heinle Publishers.
Hashemian, M., Rahimi Domakani, M., & Rahmati, Z. (2012). Metadiscourse and L2 reading comprehension:
the effect of genre and L2 proficiency. International Journal of English and Literaturem 2(1), 62-73.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics,
, 437-455.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interaction in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English
Studies, Spesial Issue, Metadiscourse, 9(2), 125-143.
Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 4(3), 263–272.
Jalilifar, A., & Alipour, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1), 127-148.
Jalififar, A. R., & Shooshtari, Z. G. (2011). Metadiscourse Awareness and ESAP Comprehension. Journal of
College Reading and Learning, 41(2),53-74.
Jenkinson, R. (1998). The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins.
Karimi, L., Tabrizi, A. R. N., & Sadeghoghli, H. (2013). The effect of explicit instruction of metadiscourse awareness on developing Iranian EFL learners' reading comprehension and its relationship to the learners' memory. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(2), 262-273.
Kumpf., E. P. (2000) Visual metadiscourse: Designing the considerate text. Technical Communication
Quarterly,9(4), 401_424.
Lynch, B., & Hudson, T. (1991). EST Reading. In M. Celce-Murcia ( Ed. ), Teaching English as a second or foreign Language (2nd ed.) (pp. 216–232). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Parvaresh, V., & Nemati, M. (2008). Metadiscourse and Reading Comprehension: The Effects of Language and
Proficiency. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5(2), 220–239.
Rasti, I. (2011). Involving the reader in the text: Engagement markers in native and non-native student
argumentative essays. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Liverpool.
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND.
Stanovich, K. (1991). Changing models of reading and reading acquisition. In L. L. Reiben & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and implications (pp. 19-31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tavakoli, M., Dabaghi, A., & Khorvash, Z. (2010). The Effect of metadiscourse awareness on L2 reading comprehension: A case of Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 92-102.
Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93.
Williams, J. M. (1981). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zarrati, Z., Nambiar, R. M. K., & Massum, T. N. R. (2012). Effect of Metadiscourse on Reading Comprehension of
Iranian EFL Learners. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 20(3), 27-38.
##submission.downloads##
Номер
Розділ
Ліцензія
Автори, які публікуються у цьому журналі, погоджуються з наступними умовами:
1. Автори залишають за собою право на авторство своєї роботи та передають журналу право першої публікації цієї роботи на умовах ліцензії Creative Commons Attribution License, котра дозволяє іншим особам вільно розповсюджувати опубліковану роботу з обов'язковим посиланням на авторів оригінальної роботи та першу публікацію роботи у цьому журналі.
2. Автори мають право укладати самостійні додаткові угоди щодо неексклюзивного розповсюдження роботи у тому вигляді, в якому вона була опублікована цим журналом (наприклад, розміщувати роботу в електронному сховищі установи або публікувати у складі монографії), за умови збереження посилання на першу публікацію роботи у цьому журналі.
3.Політика журналу дозволяє і заохочує розміщення авторами в мережі Інтернет (наприклад, у сховищах установ або на особистих веб-сайтах) рукопису роботи, як до подання цього рукопису до редакції, так і під час його редакційного опрацювання, оскільки це сприяє виникненню продуктивної наукової дискусії та позитивно позначається на оперативності та динаміці цитування опублікованої роботи.
