PERTANIKA JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

This article details an attempt to understand better how first-year doctoral students construct persuasive arguments in academic writing by exploring the patterns of boosters in drafts of doctoral research proposals. Eight Malaysian first-year ESL doctoral students produced 43 drafts of doctoral research proposals across four areas of study in education during their first year of doctoral studies. These drafts were analysed by coding the various linguistic items used to persuade readers of a text, and the analysis was based on Hyland’s (2005) model of metadiscourse. Results show that the (i) overall frequency of booster markers used is relatively low (n=158), reinforcing the argument that first-year doctoral students lack understanding about the interaction between booster markers and the context in a more complicated discussion in academic writing such as the doctoral research proposal. Then, the (ii) further analysis of booster marker sub-categories indicates that Malaysian first-year doctoral students struggle to make appropriate booster markers with different meanings and strengths in academic writing when used in context. Therefore, our study suggests that direct and explicit teaching of using various booster markers categories should be implemented in postgraduate writing courses to heightened the students’ perceptiveness regarding semantic features associated with creating convincing arguments in academic writing.

• Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.4) [Computer Software]. Waseda University. http://www.laurenceanthony.net/

• 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

• Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of Stance in English lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9, 93-124. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93

• Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetorical Review, 8(1), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198909388880

• Crismore, A., & Kopple, W. J. V. (1997). Hedges and readers: Effects on attitudes and learning. In S. Markkanen & H. Schroder (Eds.). Hedging and discourses: Approaches to the analysis of pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 83-114). Walter de Gruyter and Company.

• Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003

• Demir, C. (2017). Competence in lexical boosters and nativeness in academic writing of English: The possible relation. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 593-614. https://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/647/333

• Farnia, M., & Mohammadi, N. (2019). Cross-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in persuasive local newspaper articles. Discourse and Interaction, 11(2), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2018-2-27

• Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., Velasco-Sacristan, M., Arribas-Bano, A., & Samaniego-Fernandez, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(8), 1291-1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80026-6

• Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academics ESL writing. Routledge

• Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first-year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001

• Hong, H., & Cao, F. (2014). Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing: A corpus based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(2), 201-224. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19.2.03hon

• Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English and Chinese medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007

• Hyland, K. (1998a). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text & Talk, 18(3), 349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349

• Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and context. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5

• Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341-367. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.341

• Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145

• Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001

• Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.

• 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. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. Continuum.

• Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143. http://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220

• Hyland, K. (2015). Teaching and researching writing. Routledge.

• Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007

• Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

• Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3

• 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

• Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612471476

• Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate’s student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33(3), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004

• Li, T., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 345-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004

• Lo, Y. Y., Othman, J., & Lim, J. W. (2020). The use of metadiscourse in academic writing by Malaysian first-year ESL doctoral students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 271-281. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i1.25069

• Matsuda, P. K., Saenkhum, T., & Accardi. S. (2013). Writing teachers; perceptions of the presence and the needs of second language writers: An institutional case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 68-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.10.001

• Mur-Duenas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068-3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002

• Musa, A., Hussin, S., & Ho, I. A. (2019). Interaction in academic L2 writing: An analysis of interactional metadiscourse strategies in Applied Linguistics research articles. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature ®, 25(3), 16-32. http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2019-2503-02

• Ngampradit, K. (2020). A corpus-based study of metadiscoursal boosters in applied linguistics dissertations written in Thailand and in the United States. In Variation in time and space (pp. 321-350). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110604719-013

• Orta, I. V. (2010). A contrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the expression of epistemic stance in business management research articles in English and Spain. Iberica, 19, 77-96. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2870/287024099005.pdf

• Peacock, M. (2006). A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles, Corpora, 1, 61-84. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2006.1.1.61

• Rea-Dickins, P. (2004). Understanding teachers as agents of assessment. Language Testing, 21(3), 251-258. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt283ed

• Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M., & Aijmer, K. (2003). The expectation marker of course in a cross-linguistic perspective. Languages in Contrast, 4(1), 13-43. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.4.1.03sim

• Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge University Press.

• Takimoto, M. (2015). A corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836

• Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0

• Vazquez, O. I., & Giner, D. (2009). Writing with conviction: The use of boosters in modelling persuasion in academic discourses. Revista Alicantina Estudios Ingleses, 22, 219-237. https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2009.22.14