<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>This study investigates the use of interactive metadiscourse markers in first language (L1) and second language (L2) English editorials. It also identifies how L1 and L2 editorials differ in the use of these markers. To this end, the study utilizes Hyland’s (2019) model of interactive metadiscourse to analyse – based on a descriptive approach – 80 editorials collected from two highly reputed newspapers: <italic>The Guardian</italic> and <italic>The Jordan Times</italic>, distributed evenly. The data were analysed both quantitatively, using SPSS tests to identify significant differences (if any) between the two sets of editorials, and qualitatively to enrich our understanding of the functions of interactive metadiscourse markers in editorials. The analysis revealed that there is no significant difference in the use of interactive metadiscourse markers between the two corpora. However, there is a slight variation in the use of individual interactive markers such as frame markers and evidentials. The findings are discussed in the light of theories of metadiscourse and previous literature. The study provides implications for L2 learning and teaching in terms of how interaction in written discourse is achieved in the L2.</p>
</abstract>

This study investigates the use of interactive metadiscourse markers in first language (L1) and second language (L2) English editorials. It also identifies how L1 and L2 editorials differ in the use of these markers. To this end, the study utilizes Hyland’s (2019) model of interactive metadiscourse to analyse – based on a descriptive approach – 80 editorials collected from two highly reputed newspapers: The Guardian and The Jordan Times, distributed evenly. The data were analysed both quantitatively, using SPSS tests to identify significant differences (if any) between the two sets of editorials, and qualitatively to enrich our understanding of the functions of interactive metadiscourse markers in editorials. The analysis revealed that there is no significant difference in the use of interactive metadiscourse markers between the two corpora. However, there is a slight variation in the use of individual interactive markers such as frame markers and evidentials. The findings are discussed in the light of theories of metadiscourse and previous literature. The study provides implications for L2 learning and teaching in terms of how interaction in written discourse is achieved in the L2.

Interactive metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English: Evidence from editorials

Topics in Linguistics

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

{"article-title":"Interactive metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English: Evidence from editorials"}

This study investigates the use of interactive metadiscourse markers in first language (L1) and second language (L2) English editorials. It also identifies how...

Interactive metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English: Evidence from editorials

Online veröffentlicht: 28. Juni 2023

Seitenbereich: 55 - 66

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2023-0004

Schlüsselwörter
Interactive metadiscourse, newspaper editorials, L1 English, L2 English

© 2023 Sharif Alghazo et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Interactive metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English: Evidence from editorials

Online veröffentlicht: 28. Juni 2023

Seitenbereich: 55 - 66

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2023-0004

SchlüsselwörterInteractive metadiscourse, newspaper editorials, L1 English, L2 English

© 2023 Sharif Alghazo et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Schlüsselwörter
Interactive metadiscourse, newspaper editorials, L1 English, L2 English