Metadiscourse Matters: Definitions, Models, and Advantages for ESL/ EFL Writing

Metadiscourse (MD) has emerged as a central concept in understanding how writers organize ideas, engage with readers, and construct meaning beyond the propositional content of texts. Rooted in discourse analysis, MD refers to the linguistic devices that help guide readers through a text, highlight the writer’s stance, and signal the intended interaction between writer and audience. This paper explores the multiple dimensions of MD by first clarifying its definitions and theoretical foundations. It then examines influential models, particularly Hyland’s (2005) interactive and interactional framework, which has been widely adopted in academic writing research. The discussion highlights how these models provide a systematic lens for analysing writing practices and understanding how writers manage coherence, persuasion, and engagement. Special attention is given to the role of MD in English as a Second Language (ESL) and English for Foreign Language (EFL) contexts, where learners often struggle with producing texts that are both linguistically accurate and rhetorically effective. The paper argues that explicit awareness and instruction of MD markers can significantly enhance ESL learners’ ability to produce clear, organized, and reader-friendly writing. Ultimately, this study underscores the importance of MD as both a theoretical construct and a practical pedagogical tool in advancing ESL learners’ academic literacy.

ESL writing, Metadiscourse advantages, Metadiscourse definition

1. Abdi, R., 2002, Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies 4(2), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic journal of English studies, 9(S2), 1-11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Anwardeen, N., Luyee, E.,Gabriel, J.,Mousavi Maleki, S. A., Rezvani Kalajahi, S.A. (2013). An Analysis: The Usage of Metadiscourse in Argumentative Writing by Malaysian Tertiary Level of Students. English Language Teaching. 6. DOI: 10.5539/elt.v6n9p83 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ariannejad, Aida & Osam, Ulker & Yigitoglu, Nur. (2019). A comparative investigation of metadiscourse in English and Persian architectural research articles. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. 55. 01-25. 10.1515/psicl-2019-001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Asghar, J. (2015). Metadiscourse and Contrastive Rhetoric in Academic Writing: Evaluation of a small academic corpus. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(2), 317-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0602.11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91-112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written communication, 10(1), 39-71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A crosslinguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics. 36 (10): 1807-1825 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Ekawati, R & Rosyiidah, AA. (2022). Metadiscourse Markers in English Essays Written by Indonesian Students in EFL Setting. Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia. 10(2) DOI : 10.22460/eltin.v10i2.p%p [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Goltaji, F and Hooshmand, M. (2022). The Study of Interactive Metadiscourse Markers in TEFL Textbooks Written by Native vs. Non-Native Authors. Journal of English Language Research Volume 3, Number 1, July 2022, (pp. 27-38). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Harris, Z. (1959). The Transformational Model of Language Structure. Anthropological Linguistics 1 (1): 27-29 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Heng, C., & Tan, H. (2010). Extracting and comparing the intricacies of metadiscourse of two written persuasive corpora. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 6(3), 124-146. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for specific purposes, 18(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 37 (9). 1325-1353 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role and context. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Lautamatti, L. (1978). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. AFinLAn vuosikirja, 71-104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. 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, 21-34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Lo, Y. Y., Othman, J., & Lim, J. W. (2021). Mapping the Use of Boosters in Academic Writing by Malaysian First-Year Doctoral Students. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 29(3). https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.3.23 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Lotfi, S. A. T., Sarkeshikian, S. A. H., & Saleh, E. (2019). A cross-cultural study of the use of metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays by Iranian and Chinese EFL students. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 6(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2019.160154 0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lu, L. (2011). Metadiscourse and genre learning: English argumentative writing by Chinese undergraduates (Unpublished Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR.http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b4599670 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge university press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Marandi, S. (2002). Contrastive EAP rhetoric: Metadiscourse in Persian vs. English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tehran University, Tehran, Iran. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Peter Lang. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Mat Zali, M., Mohamad, R., Setia, R., Raja Baniamin, R., & Mohd Razlan, R. (2020). Comparisons of Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse among Undergraduates. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(4), 21-30. doi:10.24191/ajue.v16i4.11946 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Mat Zali, M., Mohamad, R., Setia, R., Raja Baniamin, R., & Mohd Razlan, R. (2019). Interactional Metadiscourse Analysis of Evaluative Essays. ESTEEM Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Vol. 5, February 2020, 120-129 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Mat Zali, M., Abdul Rahman, N. A., & Setia, R. (2024). Exploring interactive and interactional metadiscourse in expository writings of ESL hard science and soft learners. Borneo Academica, 8(2), 116-129. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Mohamed, A. F., Rashid, R. A., Lateh, N. H. M. & Kurniawan, Y. (2021). The Use of Metadiscourse in Good Malaysian Undergraduate Persuasive Essays. INSANIAH: Online Journal of Language, Communication, and Humanities [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Mohd Noor, N., & Mohamed Alam, A. F. (2017). Corpus analysis of metadiscourse in undergraduate academic projects. International Journal of Modern Languages and Applied Linguistics (IJMAL), 1(1), 24-34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Pham, D. T. A. (2024). Metadiscourse markers in L2 source-based informative essays: An analysis of texts written by L2 undergraduate students (Master's thesis, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Rahmat, N. H., Abdullah, N. A. T., Yahaya, M. H., Yean, C. P., & Whanchit, W. (2020). Gender differences on the use of metadiscourse on reflective essays: A case study of inbound students. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 10(5), 248-261. DOI: 10.18488/journal.1.2020.105.248.261 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Shafqat, A., Arain, F., & Dahraj, M. T. (2020). A Corpus Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers Used in Argumentative Essays by Pakistani Undergraduate Students. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(04), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.37200/ijpr/v24i4/pr201013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse. Sociological Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction 50: 199-236 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text & Talk, 15(1), 103-128. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Vande Kopple, W. J. (2002). From the dynamic style to the synoptic style in spectroscopic articles in the physical review: Beginnings and 1980. Written Communication, 19(2), 227-264. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Ventola, E. & Mauranen, A. (1991). Non-native writing and native revising of scientific articles. In Ventola, E. (ed.) (1991). 457-492. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Williams, R. (1983). Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York: OUP. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Zahro, F., Irham, I., & Degaf, A. (2021). Scrutinizing metadiscourse functions in Indonesian EFL students: a case study on the classroom written and spoken discourses. MEXTESOL, 45(2), 1-14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluating the Impacts of Mind Mapping Strategy on Developing EFL Students’ Critical Reading Skills
• Significance of Reading Instructions for Language Improvement in Children with Down Syndrome
• Prenasalised Consonants in Liangmai
• Blank Minds and Stuck Voices: Understanding and Addressing Cognitive Anxiety in High-Stakes ESL Speaking Tests
• Bilingual Play and Social Identity: Code-Mixing among Malaysians on X (Twitter)