Qatari student writers’ metalinguistic understanding of transitions in L2 English written argument

Figures & data

Table 1. English-Arabic corpus make-up.

Corpus	# texts	Mean no. of words per text	SD	Range in word length per text	Corpus Tokens
Arabic	195	498.71	84.56	251–808	97,248
English	195	504.51	94.87	263–1158	98,379

Table 2. The framework for analysis.

Interactive Metadiscourse	Interactional Metadiscourse
Transitions Frame markers Endophoric markers Code glosses Evidentials	Engagement: Directives; Interjections; Appeals to Knowledge; Questions; Reader Pronouns Stance and Attitude: Attitude Markers; Boosters; Hedges

Table 3. Guiding principles for transitions (from Hyland, 2005, p. 51).

Relation	External	Internal
Addition	Adding activities	Adding arguments
Comparison	Comparing and contrasting events, things and qualities.	Comparing and contrasting arguments and evidence
Consequence	Exploring why and how things happen.	Drawing conclusions or countering arguments

Table 4. Search success with interactive metadiscourse in English.

Interactive	DocuScope Tagging	Actual Occurrences	Overall accuracy (%)
Transitions	7,286	2,854	39.17
Frame markers	1,332	565	42.42
Endophoric markers	184	37	20.11
Code glosses	1,238	1,103	89.10
Evidentials	35	27	77.14

Table 5. Interactive metadiscourse across English and Arabic essays.

Interactive	English raw (relative frequency) tokens	English median	Arabic raw (relative frequency) tokens	Arabic median
Transitions	2,632 (26.75)	12.00	1,695 (17.43)	8.00
Frame Markers	448 (4.55)	2.30	542 (5.57)	3.00
Endophoric Markers	32 (0.33)	0.16	1 (0.01)	0.00
Code Glosses	679 (6.90)	3.00	424(4.36)	2.00
Evidentials	16 (0.16)	0.00	2 (0.02)	0.00
TOTAL	3,807 (38.70)		2,664 (27.39)

Table 6. The outcomes of the deductive coding of comments on interactive metadiscourse.

Interactive Category	Interviews Represented	Number of comments
Transitions	62	111
Evidentials	18	31
Frame Markers	23	29
Code Glosses	8	9
Endophoric Markers	0	0
Total	71	180

Table 7. The outcomes of the inductive coding of comments on transitions.

Transitions sub-codes	Definition	Interviews Represented	Number of Comments
Linking and Connecting	Comments which refer to the linking function of transitions, including references to sequencing	31	39
Awareness of Function	Comments which refer to the function of the transition words, e.g. to provide additional information, to contrast, or to express consequence	17	22
Ideational Focus	Comments which refer principally to transition words in relation to ideas and their arrangement, including moving between ideas	13	16
Coherence, Cohesion and Flow	Comments which refer to how transition words and phrases contribute to the overall cohesion, coherence or flow of the writing	11	13
Giving Examples or Unelaborated Comments	Comments which simply identified examples of the transition words or made generalised statements about transitions.	12	14
Conflation	Comments which discuss words and phrases from different metadiscoursal categories as part of the discussion of transition words	6	7

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.

 Google Scholar