Cite this article as: Umar, S. A. (2026). An analysis of metadiscourse marker utilization in the essay writing of NCE II students. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 2(1), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2026.v02i01.010
By
Sani Abubakar Umar
Department of Languages,
Yusuf Bala Usman College
of Education and Legal Studies,
Daura, Katsina State,
Nigeria
saniumarabubakar226@gmail.com
+234 704 797 2763
&
Prof. Aliyu Kamal
Department of English
and Literary Studies
Bayero Universty Kano
Abstract
Metadiscourse markers
are essential linguistic devices that writers employ to guide readers through a
text, enhance coherence, and establish interaction between the writer and the
audience. This paper examines the extent to which Nigerian Certificate in Education
(NCE) II students utilize metadiscourse markers in their essay writing.
Employing a qualitative descriptive research design, the study used an
expository essay test to collect data from a purposive sample of 180 NCE II
students drawn from a population of 297 across two Colleges of Education in
Katsina State, Nigeria. Data were analysed using Hyland’s (2005) taxonomy of
interactive and interactional markers as the analytical framework. Findings
indicate that while students demonstrated some awareness of basic
metadiscoursefeaturesnotably transition markers (14.2%) and engagement markers
(11.6%) their overall usage remained largely inconsistent and uneven.
Evidential markers (0.1%), endophoric markers (0.3%), and attitude markers
(0.5%) were virtually absent, reflecting significant deficiencies in source
integration, intra-textual referencing, and stance expression. The study
concludes that explicit and systematic instruction in metadiscourse awareness
is essential for improving the academic writing competence of pre-service
teachers at the NCE level.
Keywords: Metadiscourse markers, academic writing, textual coherence,
reader–writer relationship, expository essay writing, Hyland’s taxonomy
1.0 Introduction
This paper analyses the
utilization of metadiscourse markers in the essay writing of NCE II students at
Colleges of Education in Katsina State, Nigeria. It identifies the frequency,
patterns, and appropriateness of their usage, and assesses how these linguistic
resources contribute to coherence, stance, and reader engagement. Effective
academic writing requires writers to guide their readers, organize their
arguments systematically, and establish meaningful rhetorical connections with
their audiencefunctions central to metadiscourse markers, the linguistic
devices writers use to structure texts, signal transitions, express stance, and
engage readers in meaning-making (Hyland, 2005). In Nigerian Colleges of
Education, students tend to prioritize content over textual organization and
reader engagement strategies (Hyland & Jiang, 2018), producing essays that
may be rich in ideas yet deficient in coherence, logical progression, and
persuasive force. Since the NCE programme prepares future teachers who will in
turn develop writing skills in younger learners, investigating how NCE II
students deploy metadiscourse markers is both timely and pedagogically
significant. The study contributes to an improved understanding of how
developing writers manage discourse organization and interpersonal meaning in a
Nigerian educational context.
1.1 Problem Statement
Despite the acknowledged
importance of metadiscourse markers in producing coherent, persuasive, and
reader-oriented academic texts, evidence of adequate metadiscourse competence
among NCE II students in Nigerian Colleges of Education remains limited. Preliminary
observations in Katsina State indicate that students’ essays are frequently
characterized by poor textual organization, weak argumentation, and inadequate
reader–writer engagementweaknesses consistent with limited metadiscourse
awareness. Existing Nigerian studies have focused primarily on undergraduate
university students (Okoro, 2013; Olajide, 2017; Oluwatoyin, 2018), leaving NCE
studentsa critical population of pre-service teacherscomparatively
underrepresented in the literature. There is, therefore, a need to investigate
the extent and nature of metadiscourse marker utilization among NCE II students
to generate evidence-based insights for pedagogical intervention in writing
instruction.
1.2 Research Questions
and Objectives
This study is guided by
the following research questions:
i. What is the frequency
distribution of interactive metadiscourse markers in the essay writing of NCE
II students in Colleges of Education in Katsina State?
ii. What is the frequency
distribution of interactional metadiscourse markers in their essays?
iii. How appropriate is the
utilization of metadiscourse markers in terms of academic register?
Correspondingly, the
study aims to:
i. Identify the frequency
of interactive metadiscourse markers in the essay writing of NCE II students.
ii. Determine the frequency
of interactional metadiscourse markers in their essays.
iii. Evaluate the
appropriateness of metadiscourse marker utilization in terms of academic
register.
2.0 Literature Review
2.1 Concept and Taxonomy
of Metadiscourse Markers
The concept of
metadiscourse has received considerable scholarly attention in applied
linguistics and discourse studies. Initially introduced by Harris (1959) as a
means of distinguishing between propositional and non-propositional elements of
discourse, the concept was subsequently developed by Vande Kopple (1985) and
Crismore (1989). Hyland (1998, 2005, 2017) significantly advanced the concept
by offering a comprehensive model situated within a socio-rhetorical framework,
emphasizing metadiscourse’s dual role in textual organization and interpersonal
interaction. According to Hyland (2005), metadiscourse markers are broadly
classified into two principal categories: interactive markers, which guide
readers through a text, and interactional markers, which express the writer’s
stance and engage readers dialogically.
Hyland (2005) identifies
five interactive marker types: transitions (e.g., ‘however’, ‘therefore’),
signalling semantic relationships between clauses (Mauranen, 1993); frame
markers (e.g., ‘firstly’, ‘in conclusion’), signalling discourse boundaries
(Abdi, 2002); endophoric markers (e.g., ‘as mentioned above’), creating
intra-textual coherence (Crismore, 1989); evidentials (e.g., ‘according to’),
enhancing credibility through source attribution (Ädel, 2006); and code glosses
(e.g., ‘for example’, ‘in other words’), clarifying meaning through
exemplification (Hyland, 2007). The five interactional marker types are: hedges
(e.g., ‘might’, ‘perhaps’), reducing propositional force (Holmes, 1990);
boosters (e.g., ‘clearly’, ‘in fact’), emphasizing certainty (Hyland & Tse,
2004); attitude markers (e.g., ‘importantly’, ‘unfortunately’), revealing
evaluative stance (Crismore et al., 1993); self-mentions (e.g., ‘I’, ‘we’),
establishing authorial presence (Tang & John, 1999); and engagement markers
(e.g., ‘consider’, ‘note that’), directly involving the reader (Hyland, 2001).
3. Theoretical Framework
This study is anchored
in Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal model of metadiscourse. The framework provides
a systematic taxonomy that distinguishes between the interactive and
interactional dimensions of academic writing, offering a comprehensive
analytical lens for examining how writers simultaneously manage discourse
organization and reader engagement. This dual-function orientation makes it
particularly appropriate for evaluating the rhetorical competence of developing
writers such as NCE II students. The model has been extensively validated and
applied across diverse writing contexts, demonstrating its robustness as an
analytical instrument (Dafouz-Milne, 2008; Kuhi &Mojood, 2014; Lee & Deakin,
2016; Alkhatlan, 2019). Thus, empirical research has consistently demonstrated
that expert writers make strategic use of both interactive and interactional
markers to achieve coherence, persuasion, and disciplinary credibility
(Dafouz-Milne, 2008; Kuhi &Mojood, 2014). In contrast, novice
writersparticularly in EFL and ESL contextstend to underuse or misuse these
markers, producing writing that lacks cohesion, rhetorical nuance, and
authorial presence (Hyland & Tse, 2004; Ädel, 2006). Alkhatlan (2019) found
that Saudi EFL students employed more interactive than interactional markers
overall, with transitions most frequent and endophoric and attitude markers
least frequent, concluding that students require greater training in
interactional metadiscourse to improve the persuasive quality of their writing.
El-Dakhs (2020) compared metadiscourse use in argumentative essays by native
speakers of English (NSE), EFL, and ESL learners, finding that EFL students
employed more frame markers than NSE counterparts, while interactional marker
patterns varied by proficiency level.
Abdullah et al. (2020)
analysed interactional metadiscourse in newspaper articles by Malaysian and
South Korean authors, finding that hedges, boosters, engagement markers, and
attitude markers were employed to varying degrees while self-mentions were absent
in both texts. Oluwatoyin (2018) observed that self-mention markers were the
most frequent metadiscourse feature in Nigerian undergraduate project reports.
In the Nigerian educational context, Okoro (2013) documented limited
organizational marker use among undergraduates, while Olajide (2017) identified
persistent challenges in sustaining logical essay progression, suggesting that
Nigerian students often lack adequate exposure to the functional use of
metadiscourse. The present study extends this body of research by focusing on
NCE II students in Katsina State.
4. Methodology
A qualitative
descriptive research design was employed to examine the frequency and
appropriateness of metadiscourse marker utilization in student essays. Content
analysis served as the primary analytical method, enabling systematic and
replicable identification of metadiscourse features across a large corpus of
student writing. The target population comprised 297 NCE II students enrolled
across two Colleges of Education in Katsina State, Nigeria. A purposive
sampling technique was employed to select 180 participants based on
availability and willingness to participate in the study. The two institutions
were selected to represent the diversity of College of Education settings in
the state.An expository essay test served as the data collection instrument, comprising
a single writing task in which participants were instructed to produce a
500-word essay on the topic: “The Importance of Smartphones in Our Lives.” This
topic was deliberately selected for its familiarity to participants, minimizing
the likelihood that content unfamiliarity would interfere with writing
performance and the natural deployment of metadiscourse features. The test was
administered under supervised conditions during scheduled class periods; all
completed essays were assigned participant numbers (P1–P180) for anonymity.
Each of the 180 essays was subsequently manually coded using Hyland’s (2005)
taxonomy across all ten marker categories. Frequency counts and percentage
frequencies were calculated to facilitate comparison.
4.1 Results
Table 1 presents the
frequency distribution of the ten metadiscourse marker categories identified in
the 180 student essays.
Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Metadiscourse Markers in NCE II
Student Essays (N = 180)
|
Marker Category |
Average Frequency per Essay (%) |
|
Transition Markers |
14.2 |
|
Engagement Markers |
11.6 |
|
Self-Mentions |
9.8 |
|
Frame Markers |
2.7 |
|
Hedges |
2.3 |
|
Boosters |
1.8 |
|
Code Glosses |
1.5 |
|
Attitude Markers |
0.5 |
|
Endophoric Markers |
0.3 |
|
Evidential Markers |
0.1 |
As Table 1 shows, the
results reveal considerable variation in the frequency of metadiscourse marker
utilization across all ten categories. Transition markers (14.2%), engagement
markers (11.6%), and self-mentions (9.8%) dominated the corpus, collectively
accounting for the majority of all metadiscourse instances. By contrast,
evidential (0.1%), endophoric (0.3%), and attitude markers (0.5%) were
virtually absent. Notably, interactional markers collectively exceeded
interactive markers in overall frequencya pattern that diverges from findings
reported in most prior studies of academic writing (Prasetyanti et al., 2023;
Nugrahani& Bram, 2020). The analysis of individual marker categories is
presented in the following section.
Analysis of Metadiscourse
Marker Usage in NCE II Student Essays
This section presents a
detailed analysis of each of the ten metadiscourse marker categories identified
in the corpus of NCE II student essays. Examples are drawn directly from the
collected essays and are referenced by participant number.
Interactive Metadiscourse Markers
Interactive markers
guide readers through a text by improving organization and comprehension. The
five categoriestransition markers, frame markers, code glosses, endophoric
markers, and evidential markersare examined in turn.
Transition Markers
Transition markerssuch
as ‘however’, ‘moreover’, ‘therefore’, ‘in addition’, ‘but’, ‘so’, and
‘because’establish logical connections between ideas and enable readers to
follow the progression of arguments. As indicated in Table 1, transition
markers were the most frequently utilized category at 14.2%, with individual
students employing them up to 33 times per essay (P159: 26 instances; P154: 24;
P140: 23). The following excerpt illustrates the tendency:
The importance of smartphones in our lives cannot be
overemphasized. It has brought about so many benefits and improvements to our
lives. Smartphones made communication easy. This is one of the main benefits of
smartphones. You can call or message a family, friends, partner or accomplice
at the comfort of your home and have whatever discussion you want to have
wherever the person may be in the world. Smartphones have also helped us so
much in the area of education. (P140)
While the excerpt
demonstrates some awareness of textual cohesion through the use of additive
connectors, it reveals an over-reliance on simple linking words at the expense
of more sophisticated causal and concessive relations. As Hyland and Jiang
(2018) observe, novice writers frequently overuse transitions at the expense of
other markers, producing monotonous or formulaic prose. This tendency was
consistently observed across the corpus, suggesting that students’ awareness of
textual cohesion has not yet matured into the strategic deployment of diverse
transition types.
Frame Markers
Frame markers: such as
‘first’, ‘secondly’, ‘in conclusion’, ‘in summary’, ‘finally’, and ‘to begin
with’signal discourse boundaries and rhetorical structure, enabling readers to
navigate the text and anticipate the development of arguments. Frame markers
were minimally utilized in the corpus, recording only 2.7% of all marker
instances. The following excerpt illustrates their near-absence:
The smartphone has revolutionized my life, transforming the way I
communicate, access information, and manage daily tasks. Its importance cannot
be overstated. With a smartphone, I stay connected with loved ones, colleagues,
and friends through social media, messaging apps, and video calls. Instant
access to information enables me to stay updated on news, trends and knowledge.
Mobile banking and digital payments simplify financial transactions. (P102)
No frame markers are
employed in this excerpt, resulting in a structurally undifferentiated text in
which ideas are presented sequentially without explicit organizational
signposting. As Kafipour et al. (2018) observe, proficient writers employ frame
markers to establish a clear roadmap for their text; their absence leaves
readers without structural guidance and weakens overall coherence.
Code Glosses
Code glosses: such as
‘for example’, ‘in other words’, ‘that is’, ‘such as’, and ‘namely’clarify
meaning through restatement, elaboration, or exemplification. The corpus
revealed limited use of code glosses, with most students recording only 1–3
instances and the category representing 1.5% of all marker occurrences. The
following excerpt is illustrative:
The importance of smartphones in the modern era is undeniable, as
these handheld devices have revolutionized the way we communicate, access
information, and navigate our surroundings. With smartphones, we can stay
connected with friends and family no matter where we are in the world. (P137)
Participant 137 employs
no code glosses, leaving key claims unelaborated and unsupported by
illustrative examples. According to Hyland (2017), code glosses are essential
for supporting arguments and enhancing reader understanding; their absence
renders ideas vague and underdeveloped, reducing the communicative
effectiveness of the essay.
Endophoric Markers
Endophoric markers: such
as ‘as mentioned above’, ‘see Table 1’, and ‘as noted earlier’direct readers to
other parts of the text, creating intra-textual coherence. These markers were
almost entirely absent from the corpus (0.3%), with even simple expressions
such as ‘as I mentioned earlier’ rarely employed. The following excerpt
illustrates a text in which all ideas are presented as new, without any
intra-textual cross-referencing:
Smartphones enable us to manage our lives more efficiently. We can
check emails, calendar reminders, and ensure we stay organized. Apps have made
financial transactions and online sharing seamless and convenient. Smartphones
have revolutionized the way we live, communicate, and access important
information. These handheld devices have become an indispensable part of
internet and daily life. (P73)
The absence of
endophoric markers in this excerpt reflects an inability to connect ideas
across the discourse, weakening cohesion. Tafreshi and Rahimi (2021) note that
novice writers often neglect endophoric markers, leading to weaker
intra-textual connections. Their near-total absence in this corpus confirms
that NCE II students have not yet internalized the practice of organizing
discourse through explicit intra-textual referencing
Evidential Markers
Evidential markers: such
as ‘according to recent studies’, ‘as stated by’, and ‘research has shown
that’lend credibility to arguments by grounding claims in external sources or
established knowledge. Evidential markers were virtually absent in the corpus
(0.1%), with many students recording zero instances. The following excerpt is
representative:
The smartphone has revolutionized our lives in countless ways,
becoming an indispensable tool in our daily routines. Its significance extends
beyond communication, transforming the way we access information, navigate, and
manage our lives. With internet access, we can instantly research, learn, and
stay updated on global events. This has bridged the knowledge gap, enabling us
to make informed decisions. (P112)
Despite the writer’s
evident effort to develop a coherent argument, no attempt is made to support
claims through external sources or authoritative references. The near-total
absence of evidential markers across the corpus reflects a broader challenge in
engaging with external knowledge to authenticate arguments. As Hyland and Tse
(2004) emphasize, evidential markers are critical for enhancing the credibility
of arguments in academic writing; their absence significantly weakens the
academic register of these essays.
Interactional
Metadiscourse Markers
Interactional markers
involve readers in the discourse and express the writer’s stance, attitude, or
degree of certainty. The five categorieshedges, boosters, attitude markers,
self-mentions, and engagement markersareanalysed below.
Hedges
Hedges: such as ‘might’,
‘perhaps’, ‘possibly’, and ‘it seems that’reduce the force of propositions,
convey tentativeness, and acknowledge alternative viewpoints (Sehrawat, 2014).
Notwithstanding these functions, hedges were underutilized in the corpus at
2.3%. The following excerpt is representative:
Mobile phones are very important in our lives. Mobile phones are
very advantageous and help us in making our lives easier and convenient. They
help us communicate with our loved ones. Smartphones have become a very
important form of information in these days; it is impossible for a person to
be unable to call someone who lives outside the country. (P58)
The excerpt exhibits a
highly assertive tone devoid of epistemic hedging, presenting all propositions
as absolute truths. This reflects a limited awareness of academic conventions
in which knowledge is typically presented as tentative and subject to revision.
According to Hyland (2017), minimal use of hedges reflects over-assertiveness
or an inadequate awareness of academic register, both of which undermine a
writer’s credibility.
Boosters
Boosters: such as
‘definitely’, ‘clearly’, ‘certainly’, ‘really’, ‘very’, and ‘in fact’express
the writer’s confidence and conviction toward the information presented.
Boosters recorded 1.8% of marker instances in the corpus. The following excerpt
illustrates their use:
Smartphones are a form of connection from one person to another or
from one place to another. They are very important in my life because I can
witness many events that happen in my country. I browse things that I do not
know the meaning of and I use the phone to read. It is very helpful. (P47)
While Participant 47
employs ‘very’ on multiple occasions (P47: 6 instances), these are
predominantly informal intensifiers rather than the precise academic boosters
characteristic of formal writing. The limited and formulaic use of boosters
across the corpus suggests that students have not yet developed the capacity to
strategically deploy emphasis in the service of persuasive argumentation.
Attitude Markers
Attitude markers: such
as ‘unfortunately’, ‘surprisingly’, ‘importantly’, and ‘remarkably’indicate the
writer’s affective evaluation of propositions. Attitude markers were among the
least utilized categories (0.5%). The following excerpt illustrates their
absence:
The importance of smartphones in the modern era is undeniable.
These handheld devices have revolutionized the way we communicate, access
information, and navigate our surroundings. With smartphones, we can stay
connected with friends and family no matter where we are in the world.
Smartphones have made communication faster and more convenient. (P137)
Despite addressing a
subject that lends itself to evaluative commentary, Participant 137 employs no
attitude markers, depriving the essay of expressive depth and evaluative
perspective. As Gholami and Jabbari (2020) note, the absence of attitude
markers reduces the expressive depth of academic writing, making texts less
engaging and less rhetorically effective.
Self-Mentions
Self-mentions: such as
‘I’, ‘my’, ‘we’, and ‘us’signal the author’s explicit presence in the text
(Hyland, 2005). Self-mentions ranked second in the corpus (9.8%). The following
excerpt is illustrative:
Here are some of the important uses of smartphones: smartphones
are very important to us because we make use of them for many things, like the
internet. Here are some of the important features of smartphones: they are
technology items created to make things very easy for people of the world and
for themselves. (P88)
Participant 88 employs
first-person pronouns 21 times in the essay, reflecting deliberate projection
of personal presence. While self-mentions can legitimately signal authorial
agency, excessive use of ‘I’ and ‘we’ can compromise academic objectivity (Hyland,
2017). This pattern was consistent across the corpus, suggesting that students
rely on self-reference as a primary means of reader engagement rather than
developing more sophisticated rhetorical strategies.
Engagement Markers
Engagement markerssuch
as ‘consider’, ‘note that’, ‘you must’, ‘have to’, and ‘you can see’directly
address the reader and encourage participation in meaning-making (Hyland,
2001). Engagement markers represented 11.6% of the corpus, exhibiting
significant variability (P9: 37 instances; P159: 24). The following excerpt
illustrates their use:
Smartphones are the mirror of life because they help us
communicate when we are at a distance. They allow you to stay connected with
your beloved family, friends, and colleagues across geographical boundaries.
Without smartphones, you cannot communicate with your family or friends when
you are far from them. It promotes better understanding of your studies. (P9)
Participant 9 employs
the second-person pronoun ‘you’ extensively, creating reader-directedness but
at the cost of academic formality. As Lee and Deakin (2016) argue, effective
engagement in academic writing requires subtlety; excessive use of direct address
renders the prose conversational rather than academic. This tendency was
pervasive in the corpus, suggesting that students understand the principle of
reader engagement but have not yet mastered its academic register.
4. Discussion and major
findings
The analysis reveals
several notable trends in metadiscourse marker utilization with significant
implications for students’ rhetorical competence and pedagogical practice. The
most striking finding is the pronounced dominance of transition markers and engagement/self-mention
markers at the expense of more rhetorically sophisticated features,
particularly evidentials, endophoric markers, attitude markers, and code
glosses.The prevalence of transition markers (14.2%) is broadly consistent with
prior research: Khajavy et al. (2012) identified transitions as the most
frequent interactive markers in sociological research articles. However, NCE II
students predominantly relied on simple additive connectors such as ‘also’,
‘and’, and ‘but’ rather than the varied causal, adversative, and concessive
relations that characterize mature academic writing (Hyland & Jiang, 2018).
The high frequency of engagement markers (11.6%) superficially resembles
findings in less formal writing contexts (Rahmati &Khamsah, 2020); however,
the extensive use of direct address forms such as ‘you’ (P9: 37 instances)
reflects a conversational rather than academic orientation, consistent with Lee
and Deakin’s (2016) caution that excessive engagement markers compromise
register formality.
The underutilization of
frame markers (2.7%) and code glosses (1.5%) points to significant gaps in
organizational signposting and meaning elaboration. El-Dakhs (2020) found that
even native English speakers demonstrate greater command of frame markers than
EFL learners, suggesting this dimension requires explicit instruction. The
near-total absence of evidential (0.1%) and endophoric markers (0.3%) is the
most consequential finding, indicating that NCE II students have not developed
the source-integration and intra-textual referencing strategies expected of
academic writers. The minimal use of hedges (2.3%) and attitude markers (0.5%)
further reflects a limited stance-taking repertoire, leaving essays
epistemically over-assertive and rhetorically flat.The reversal of the typical
interactive–interactional hierarchywith interactional markers collectively
exceeding interactive onesis a notable divergence from most academic writing
research (Prasetyanti et al., 2023; Nugrahani& Bram, 2020). This pattern
likely reflects the familiar, everyday essay topic, which may have encouraged a
conversational writing style at the expense of the organizationally disciplined
prose required in academic discourse. These findings collectively underscore
the need for systematic, explicit metadiscourse instruction in Colleges of
Education.
5. Findings
The findings of this
study are presented in alignment with the three research questions:
Research Question 1:
Frequency of Interactive Metadiscourse Markers
iv. Transition markers
(14.2%) dominated the interactive category, reflecting basic cohesion
awareness; however, overuse of simple additive connectors signals
underdeveloped rhetorical variety.
v. Frame markers (2.7%) and
code glosses (1.5%) were rarely employed, indicating limited capacity for
explicit discourse organization and meaning clarification.
vi. Endophoric (0.3%) and
evidential markers (0.1%) were virtually absent, reflecting significant
deficiencies in intra-textual referencing and source integration respectively.
Research Question 2: Frequency of Interactional
Metadiscourse Markers
vii. Engagement markers
(11.6%) and self-mentions (9.8%) dominated the interactional category,
reflecting a strong but often informal reader-orientation and prominent
authorial presence.
viii. Hedges (2.3%) and
boosters (1.8%) were underutilized, suggesting insufficient epistemic awareness
for formal academic register.
ix. Attitude markers (0.5%)
were almost entirely absent, indicating limited capacity for explicit
evaluative stance-taking in academic writing.
Research Question 3: Appropriateness of Metadiscourse Marker Utilization
x. Marker utilization was
frequently inappropriate: transition markers relied predominantly on simple
additive connectors; engagement markers created an informal tone through
excessive direct address; and self-mentions compromised academic objectivity.
xi. The higher overall
frequency of interactional over interactive markers is inconsistent with
academic writing conventions and reflects an underdeveloped understanding of
contextual register norms.
xii. The virtual absence of
evidential markers represents the most critical gap, reflecting students’
inability to integrate external sources and establish the intertextual
credibility essential in academic discourse.
6. Conclusion
This study has examined
the utilization of metadiscourse markers in the essay writing of NCE II
students at two Colleges of Education in Katsina State, Nigeria, with reference
to Hyland’s (2005) interactive and interactional taxonomy. The analysis reveals
that while students demonstrate some basic metadiscourseawarenessparticularly
in their use of transition, engagement, and self-mention markerstheir overall
deployment of metadiscourse features remains restricted, uneven, and frequently
inappropriate in terms of academic register. Critical categories such as
evidential markers, endophoric markers, attitude markers, and code glosses were
either virtually absent or minimally present, resulting in essays that lacked
academic credibility, persuasive depth, and effective reader–writer
interaction.
These findings indicate
that NCE II students’ writing reflects a limited and developing metadiscourse
repertoire, characterized by reliance on basic cohesive devices at the expense
of advanced rhetorical strategies. Such weaknesses mirror broader challenges in
academic writing documented among Nigerian undergraduates (Okoro, 2013;
Olajide, 2017), confirming that systematic pedagogical intervention in metadiscourse
instruction is urgently needed at the NCE level. Writing courses at Colleges of
Education should integrate explicit instruction in the identification and
strategic use of both interactive and interactional markers across academic
genres, thereby equipping pre-service teachers with the discursive competence
essential for both their own academic success and their future effectiveness as
writing instructors.
References
Abdi, R. (2002).
Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and
identity. Discourse Studies, 4 (2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101
Abdullah, R., Rahmat, N.
H., & Zawawi, F. Z. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse markers in online
newspaper articles: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10 (11), 149–161.
Ädel, A.
(2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins.
Alkhatlan, A. (2019).
The use of metadiscourse markers in Saudi EFL students’ research articles. Arab
World English Journal, 10 (3), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no3.20
Crismore, A.
(1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. Peter Lang.
Crismore, A., Markkanen,
R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study
of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written
Communication, 10 (1), 39–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008).
The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the
construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of
newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40 (1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
El-Dakhs, D. A. S.
(2020). Metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays by native speakers, ESL,
and EFL learners. Journal of Language and Education, 6 (2), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2020.9769
Gholami, J., & Jabbari,
M. J. (2020). The use of attitude markers in academic writing across
disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45, 100853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100853
Harris, Z. (1959). The
transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics,
1 (1), 27–29.
Holmes, J. (1990).
Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication,
10 (3), 185–205.
Hyland, K. (1998).
Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of
Pragmatics, 30 (4), 437–455.
Hyland, K. (2001).
Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic writing. Written
Communication, 18 (4), 549–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005
Hyland, K.
(2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2007).
Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied
Linguistics, 28 (2), 266–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm011
Hyland, K. (2017).
Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113,
16–29.
Hyland, K.
(2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury
Academic.
Hyland, K., & Jiang,
F. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary
metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001
Hyland, K., & Tse,
P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied
Linguistics, 25 (2), 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Kafipour, R., Mahmoudi,
E., & Khojasteh, L. (2018). Interactive metadiscourse markers in research
articles of applied linguistics and chemistry. Research in Applied Linguistics,
9 (1), 38–63.
Khajavy, G. H.,
Asadpour, S. F., & Yousefi, L. (2012). Interactive metadiscoursal features
in sociological research articles: A cross-linguistic study of English and
Persian. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2 (3), 547–554. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.3.547-554
Kuhi, D., &Mojood,
M. (2014). A contrastive study of metadiscourse markers in research articles
written by Iranian applied linguists and native speakers of English. English
Language Teaching, 7 (3), 79–92.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004
Mauranen, A.
(1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Peter Lang.
Nugrahani, F., &
Bram, B. (2020). Metadiscourse markers in the results and discussion sections
of EFL research articles. LLT Journal, 23 (1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.2020.230106
Okoro, O. (2013).
Coherence in Nigerian undergraduates’ essays: Problems and prospects. Journal
of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 4 (2), 22–31.
Olajide, S. B. (2017).
Rhetorical weaknesses in Nigerian students’ academic writing: Pedagogical
implications. Nigerian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20 (1), 45–61.
Oluwatoyin, F. L.
(2018). Interpersonal metadiscourse in Nigerian undergraduate projects: A
sociolinguistic perspective. Ilorin Journal of Linguistics, 4 (2), 112–129.
Prasetyanti, R. T.,
Tongpoon-Patanasorn, A., & Sahan, S. (2023). Metadiscourse markers in
dissertation introductions by native English and Indonesian writers. Studies in
English Language and Education, 10 (2), 563–582. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i2.29745
Rahmati, P.,
&Khamsah, S. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse features in online
entertainment articles. International Journal of Language and Communication,
7 (1), 18–27.
Sehrawat, P. (2014). The
use of hedges in academic writing: A pragmatic analysis. International Journal
of English Language and Linguistics Research, 2 (3), 375–381.
Tafreshi, M., &
Rahimi, M. (2021). Endophoric markers in student academic writing: Implications
for coherence. Journal of Language and Translation, 11 (1), 45–60.
Tang, R., & John, S.
(1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic
writing through the first-person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18,
S23–S39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5
Vande Kopple, W. J.
(1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and
Communication, 36 (1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
0 Comments