Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 36:1 (2023) ► pp.329–351

Identification of metadiscourse markers in bachelor’s degree theses in Spanish

Introduction of a text mining tool

ORCID logo | Universidade de Vigo
ORCID logo | Universidade de Vigo
ORCID logo | Universidade de Vigo
This article introduces a text mining tool that can automatically extract information using Hyland’s analysis model as a theoretical framework to analyse the use and characteristics of metadiscourse in large quantities of academic texts. To verify its validity, we present the results obtained using this tool on various bachelor’s degree theses with a particular focus on the field of engineering. Our results on a 6.9 million-word corpus extracted from 680 bachelor’s theses available online show that interactive metadiscourse markers are prevalent in engineering bachelor’s theses as well as in the authors’ metadiscourse patterns. In addition, we compared our results with previous research on metadiscourse markers. Our study can be used to identify the usage of various types of metadiscourse markers during the production of texts and for the development of software applications involving quantitative linguistic methods for the production of academic texts.
Keywords: metadiscourse, metadiscourse markers, corpus analysis, interactive markers, interactional markers, software program, text mining, bachelor thesis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Hypothesis and objectives
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Description of the program
    • 3.2Validity
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 2 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.20055.mig
References (51)
References
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Akbarpour, M., & Sadeghoghli, H. (2015). The study on Ken Hyland’s interactional model in OUP publications. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3 (4), 266–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexa, M., & Zuell, C. (2000). Text analysis software: Commonalities, differences and limitations: The results of a review. Quality and Quantity, 34 (3), 299–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ananiadou, S., & McNaught, J. (2005). Text mining for biology and biomedicine. Artech House.Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2012). AntConc (Version 3.3.5) [computer software]. Waseda University. Available from [URL]
Anthony. (2013). A critical look at software tools in corpus linguistics. Linguistic Research 30 (2), 141–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azorín, F., & Sánchez-Crespo, J. L. (1986). Métodos y aplicaciones del muestreo [sampling methods and applications]. Alianza.Google Scholar
Barlow, M. (2000). MonoConc Pro (Version 2.2) [computer software]. Available from [URL]
Behnam, B., & Mollanaghizadeh, N. (2015). A comparative study of metadiscourse markers in some selected news programs on VOA: The case of regular English programs vs. special English programs. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 5 (1), 242–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheaffer, R. L., Mendenhall, W., & Ott, L. (2007). Elementos de muestreo (6th ed.). [elements of sampling]. Grupo Editorial Iberoamérica.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. M., & Hersh, W. R. (2005). A survey of current work in biomedical text mining. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 6 (1), 57–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What it is and how it is used in school and non-school social science texts. Retrieved from [URL]
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in the language and conventions of academic discourse (pp. 188–136). Sage.Google Scholar
De la Calle, G., García-Remesal, M., Nkumu-Mbomio, N., Kulikowski, C., & Maojo, V. M. (2012). e-MIR2: A public online inventory of medical informatics resources. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 12 (1), 82–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30 (4), 437–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Talking to students: metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1), 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9 (2), 125–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivorra Pérez, F. M. (2014). Cultural values and their correlation with interactional metadiscourse strategies in Spanish and US business websites. ATLANTIS Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 36 (2), 73–95.Google Scholar
Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes, 46 1, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jin, X., & Shang, Y. (2016). Analyzing metadiscourse in the English abstracts of BA theses. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 7 (1), 210–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., & Grefenstette, G. (2003). Introduction to the special issue on the web as corpus. Computational Linguistics, 29 (3), 333–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhi, D., & Mojood, M. (2014). Metadiscourse in newspaper genre: A cross-linguistic study of English and Persian editorials. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98 1, 1046–1055. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteeva, M., & Mauranen, A. (2018). Digital academic discourse: Texts and contexts. Introduction. Discourse, Context & Media, 24 1, 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Le, E. (2004). Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and editorialist’s authority. Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (4), 687–714. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46 (3), 39–54. DOI logo
Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33 1, 21–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, K. L., & Evans, S. (2012). Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. English for Specific Purposes, 31 (3), 150–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (2013). Mediated frameworks for participation. In M. Böck & N. Pachler (Eds.), Multimodality and Social Semiosis (pp. 79–88). Routledge.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse reflexivity – A discourse universal? Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9 (2), 13–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31 (3), 161–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mur Dueñas, P. (2007). ‘I/we Focus on…’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6 (2), 143–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (12), 3068–3079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orgeira-Crespo, P., Míguez-Álvarez, C., Cuevas-Alonso, M., Doval-Ruiz, M. A. (2020). Decision algorithm for the automatic determination of the use of non-inclusive terms in academic texts. Publications, 8 (3), 41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saidian, S., & Jalilifar, A. (2016). “Mayhem! Absolute Mayhem!” Exploring the promotional metadiscursive features in the sportscasts of the 2014 FIFA World Cup semifinal between Brazil and Germany. Discourse, Context and Media, 14 1, 9–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saki, M. (2019). Metadiscourse and stance-taking in prefaces: A diachronic analysis. In S. Carter-Thomas & C. E. Hamilton (Eds.), Science, Systemic Functional Linguistics and Language Change: A Festschrift for David Banks (pp. 121–139). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13 (2), 149–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. (2012). WordSmith Tools (Version 5.0) [Computer Software]. Available from [URL]
Shokouhi, H., Norwood, C. & Soltani, S. (2015). Evidential in Persian editorials. Discourse Studies, 17 (4), 449–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorahi, M., & Shabani, M. (2016). Metadiscourse in Persian and English research article introductions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6 (6), 1175–1182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suau Jiménez, F. (2015). Quality translation of hotel websites: Interpersonal discourse and customer’s engagement. Onomázein, 32 1, 152–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (2012). L2 learners’ use of metadiscourse markers in online discussion forums. Issues in Language Teaching (ILT), 1 (1), 93–121.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. K. (1992). Sampling. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36 1, 63–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In F. Barton & C. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 91–113). Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Wei, J., Li, Y., Zhou, T., & Gong, Z. (2016). Studies on metadiscourse since the 3rd millennium. Journal of Education and Practice, 7 (9), 194–204.Google Scholar
Xiao, W., & Sun, S. (2020). Dynamic lexical features of PhD theses across disciplines: A text mining approach. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 27 (2), 114–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoon, H., & Römer, U. (2020). Quantifying disciplinary voices: An automated approach to interactional metadiscourse in successful student writing. Written Communication, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M. (2019). Exploring personal metadiscourse markers across speech and writing using cluster analysis. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 26 (4), 267–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar