This paper aimed to investigate the use of metadiscourse markers in scientific journal articles. Data of this qualitative research consisted of metadiscourse markers collected from eight journal articles of a special edition published by LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching. The collected metadiscourse markers used in the journal articles were analyzed using discourse analysis based on ten metadiscourse marker categories. Results showed that the analysed journal articles contained 708 metadiscourse markers, with more interactive metadiscourse markers, reaching 529 occurrences, than interactional metadiscourse markers, occurring 179 times. Transitions, such as “but” and “thus”, with 249 occurrences, were the most frequently-used metadiscourse marker and boosters, such as “in fact” and “definitely”, with 24 occurrences, were the least productive marker. Thus, readers can gain a better understanding of the use of metadiscourse markers when using English. It is expected that English language learners and instructors can benefit from the results of this study, particularly concerning the use of metadiscourse markers in academic writing.
Collaboration network of the authors
14 authors ·
16 co-authorship links
Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.
Sanata Dharma University
Affiliation unknown
Different organisations
Same organisation
Affiliation unknown
Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.