چكيده
The investigation of metadiscourse markers within the discussion sections of English research articles and dissertations in academic writing remains insufficiently explored. This study aimed to address this gap by examining how academic writers employ metadiscourse in their academic writing, focusing on the discussion sections of PhD dissertations and research articles. Utilizing Hyland’s (2005) model of metadiscourse, a corpus of 50 English PhD dissertations and 50 research articles in applied linguistics was analyzed to uncover patterns in metadiscourse usage. The findings revealed that academic writers predominantly employ interactive metadiscourse markers, particularly transitions and evidentials, to enhance coherence and clarity. Transitions emerged as the most frequently used markers, followed by evidentials, whereas endophoric markers were least utilized, likely due to the lesser need for cross-referencing in discussion sections. In terms of interactional metadiscourse, hedges were the most commonly used markers, accompanied by boosters. Research articles exhibited a higher prevalence of self-mentions compared to dissertations. These findings contribute to a deeper comprehension of metadiscourse practices academic writing and provide valuable insights for academic writers to enhance their discussion sections, adhering to academic norms and bolstering the persuasiveness of their scholarly discourse
