Contrastive Study of Metadiscourse Features in Research Article Discussion Sections Authored by English and Arab Native Speakers

This study investigates the deployment of metadiscourse resources in the Discussion sections of research articles authored in two languages: English and Arabic. It explores differences in the use of metadiscourse markers and whether these variations stem from linguistic and cultural distinctions between the two languages. A total of 40 Discussion sections from research articles written by English- and Arabic-speaking academics in the fields of Education and Applied Linguistics are analyzed based on Hyland’s (2005) analytical framework. The findings reveal the employment of both Interactive and Interactional metadiscourse markers, with a preference for using more Interactives over Interactionals, assuming that the authors in both groups seek to enhance textual coherence over achieving interpersonal values. The results also show notable differences in the deployment of Interactive and Interactional resources, reflecting the influence of linguistic and cultural factors. For example, while English-language authors prefer using more hedges to express tentativeness, their Arabic-language counterparts tend to employ more boosters, indicating a more assertive authorial position. These implications may enhance awareness among novice authors regarding the significant role of metadiscourse in crafting persuasive arguments in academic writing, particularly for Arab academics seeking to publish and engage with international scholarly communities.