EVA NUR MAZIDAH, 121414253004 (2016) A COMPARISON OF THE INTERACTIVE AND INTERACTIONAL METADISCOURSE IN THE ABSTRACTS OF ARTICLES WRITTEN BY INDONESIAN SCHOLARS AND L1ES SCHOLARS. Thesis thesis, Universitas Airlangga.
|
Text (ABSTRAK)
TIL 03-17 Maz c Abstrak.pdf Download (90kB) | Preview |
|
![[img]](https://repository.unair.ac.id/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text (FULLTEXT)
TIL 03-17 Maz c Sec.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB) | Request a copy |
Abstract
An abstract plays an important role in an article because it becomes the face of the whole paper. Besides, voluntarily or involuntarily when writing an abstract, a writer also applies metadiscourse markers to communicate effectively by organizing, interacting, and showing the stance. Thus, the application of metadiscourse in an abstract becomes an interesting object to examine. This study is aimed at examining interactive and interactional metadiscourse suggested by Hyland (2005) in 50 abstracts written by Indonesian scholars and 50 abstracts written by L1ES scholars, 100-250 word range, taken from TEFLIN journal and ELT journal. The results show that L1ES scholars apply more metadiscourse markers than Indonesian scholars (137.03 versus 116.67). L1ES in details apply more code glosses, transition markers, hedges, attitude markers, engagement markers, and self-mentions, while Indonesian scholars apply more frame markers, evidentials, and boosters, and the similar result is found in endophoric markers (8.9 for both groups of scholars). But, from overall cases and variants, metadiscourse markers by Indonesian scholars are more varied than those of L1Es scholars (944 versus 924 cases, 167 versus 148 variants). Differences are mostly influenced by cultural interferences (Friedlander, 1987; Hyland, 2005; Abdi, 2009; Sanjaya et al., 2015; Mu et al., 2015). Apart from what causes the differences, the result of T-test shows that the difference in metadiscourse markers applied by both scholars is not significant. It means that metadiscourse markers applied by both groups of scholars are similar.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Thesis) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Additional Information: | KKB KK2 TIL.03/17 Maz c | |||||||||
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | abstract, interactional, interactive, metadiscourse, research article | |||||||||
| Subjects: | P Language and Literature > P Philology. Linguistics | |||||||||
| Divisions: | 12. Fakultas Ilmu Budaya > S2 Kajian Sastra dan Budaya | |||||||||
| Creators: |
|
|||||||||
| Contributors: |
|
|||||||||
| Depositing User: | Mr Binkol2 2 | |||||||||
| Date Deposited: | 08 Jan 2018 02:48 | |||||||||
| Last Modified: | 08 Jan 2018 02:48 | |||||||||
| URI: | http://repository.unair.ac.id/id/eprint/67408 | |||||||||
| Sosial Share: | ||||||||||
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |