INTERACTIONAL META-DISCOURSE  IN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS INTRODUCTIONS  BY ENGLISH STUDENTS OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF BENGKULU

Eki Saputra; Annita Intan Putri

Eki Saputra Universitas Muhammadiyah Bengkulu
Annita Intan Putri Universitas Muhammadiyah Bengkulu

Keywords: Interactional meta-discourse, Introduction of Undergraduate thesis, background of undergraduate thesis.

Abstract

The aims of this research are at investigating the interactional meta-discourse and the most dominant interactional meta-discourse category in the background of the undergraduate thesis introductions written by English students of Muhammadiyah University of Bengkulu. This study involved thirty-three backgrounds of the undergraduate thesis introductions by English students of Muhammadiyah University of Bengkulu in 2019 academic year. This study followed the meta-discourse framework of Hyland (2009) in investigating the interactional meta-discourse in the corpus of the research. The results of this research show that five categories of interactional meta-discourse found in the in the backgrounds of the undergraduate thesis introductions written by English students of Muhammadiyah University of Bengkulu in 2019 academic year, namely 216 or 37.3% hedges, 166 or 28.6% attitude markers, 104 or 18% self-mention, 77 or 13.2% boosters, and 16 or 2.9% engagement markers. In addition, the most dominant of interactional meta-discourse category found in the backgrounds of the undergraduate thesis introductions is hedges. The findings of this research give implications for the students in order to include more frequent and vary of interactional meta-discourse in writing the backgrounds of the undergraduate thesis introductions.

References

Arikunto, S. 2009. Panduan Penelitia Untuk Pemula. Jakarta: RinekaCipta.
Azar, A. S., & Hashim, A. (2019). The impact of attitude markers on enhancing evaluation in the review article genre. GEMA Online: Journal of Language Studies, 19(1): 153-173.
Brown, J. D. 1996. Testing in Language Programs. Saddle River, NJ : Practice Hall Regents.
Dafouz-Milne, E. 2008. The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonalmetadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion:A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40: 95-113.
Estaji, M., & Vafaeimehr, R. 2015. A comparative analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in the Introduction and Conclusion sections of mechanical and electrical engineering research papers. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3 (1): 37-56.
Farahani, M. V. 2019. Metadiscourse in Academic English Texts: A Corpus-based Probe into British Academic Written English Corpus. Studies about languages, 34: 56-73.
Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., et al. (2001). Persuasion and Advertising English: Metadiscourse in Slogans and Headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 1291-1307.
Hui, J & Na, B. 2008. Use Metadiscourse Markers in Allocating SLA learners’ attention. USA: Sino-US English Teaching, 5 (11): 1-5.
Hyland, K. 1998. Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 437-455.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication, 18(4): 549-574.
Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Jalilifar, A., & Alipour, M. 2007. How explicit instruction makes a difference: metadiscourse markers and EFL learners’ readingcomprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38 (1): 35-52.
Kitjaroenpaiboon, W.,& Getkham, K. 2015. An analysis of interactional metadiscourse devices in communication artsresearch articles. International Journal of Management and Applied Science, 1 (9): 125-131.
Mohamed, A. F.B., & Rashid, R. B. A. 2017. The Metadiscourse Markers in Good Undergraduate Writers’ Essays Corpus. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7 (6): 2013-2020.
Nugroho, A. 2019. Exploring metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: a cross-cultural study. Journal of English and Cultre, 2(2): 113-127.
Oulu Business School. 2012. Guidelines for Writing a Thesis. Oulu: University of Oulu. Retrieved from: https://www.oulu.fi/sites/default/files/content/Guidelines.pdf. May 5th, 2020
Sanford, S. G. 2012. A comparison of metadiscourse markers and writings quality in adolescent written narratives. A Master Thesis. Missoula: University of Montana. Retrieved from: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2385&context=etd. March 15th, 2020.
Suhono, & Haikal. 2018. Interactive metadiscourse and interactional metadiscourse categories of students’ international program school based on gender. Indonesian Journal of English Education, 5 (1): 1-11.