Interactive Metadiscourse Use in Popular Science Subgenres

Akoto, O. Y. (2020). Metadiscourse within a discipline: A study of introduction and literature review chapters of sociology masters’ theses. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 471-480. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i2.28588

Alghazo, S., Al-Anbar, K., Altakhaineh, A. R. M., & Jarrah, M. (2023). Interactive metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English: Evidence from editorials. Topics in Linguistics, 24(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2023-0004

Alharbi, S. H. (2021). An investigation of Metadiscourse features in applied linguistics academic research articles and master’s dissertations. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 12(1), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.12n.1.p.46

Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc (Version 3.5.8). [Computer Software]. Waseda University. Retrieved from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp

Belas, O. (2014). Popular science, pragmatism, and conceptual clarity. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 6(1), 1-14.

                https://doi.org/10.4000/ejpap.514

Bellés-Fortuño, B. (2016). Popular science articles vs scientific articles: A tool for medical education. In P. Ordoñez-Lopez & N. Edo-Marza (Eds.), Medical discourse in professional, academic and popular settings, (pp.55-75). Multilingual Matters.

                https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096268-005

Carri´o-Pastor, M. L. C. (2021). The assessment of metadiscourse devices in English as a foreign language. Assessing Writing, 50 (1), 1-12.

                https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100560

Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2022). Looking into English-medium instruction teachers’ metadiscourse: An ELF perspective. System, 105 (2), 102-117.

                https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102730

Firdaus, A., & Shartika, M. (2021). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers and appraisal portrayed in BBC’s corona virus news report. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 529 (Iconetos 2020), 794-802.

                https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210421.115

Fu, X., & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122–144. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.7.1.05fu

Ghahremani Mina, K. G., & Biria, R. (2017). Exploring interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in discussion sections of social and medical science articles. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(4), 11–29.

                https://doi.org/10.29252/ijree.2.4.11

Hastomo, T., & Aminatun, D. (2023). An analysis of metadiscourse markers in online news media: Qualitative research. Journal of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95-103. https://doi.org/10.32493/LJLAL.V5I1.27602

Herriman, J. (2022). Metadiscourse in English instruction manuals. English for Specific Purposes, 65(2), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.10.003

Huang, J., Xiao, W., & Wang, Y. (2023). Use of metadiscourse for identity construction in tourist city publicity: A comparative study of Chinese and Australian social media discourse. Heliyon, 9(12), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23122

Hudoshnyk, О., & Krupskyi, O. P. (2022). Science and comics: From popularization to the discipline of comics studies. Історія Науки І Техніки, 12(2), 210–230.

                https://doi.org/10.32703/2415-7422-2022-12-2-210-230

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. Continuum

Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116–127.

                https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003

Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2020). Text-organizing metadiscourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21(1), 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00039.hyl

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2022). Metadiscourse: The evolution of an approach to texts. Text & Talk, 44(3). 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2021-0156

Jiménez, F. S. (2005). Metadiscourse in research and popular science articles or how to please the audience: A cross-generic and intra-generic analysis in search of a common metadiscursive core. IPRA International Conference, July 2005.Riva del Grada, Italy. http://roderic.uv.es/handle/10550/31134

Khedri, M., & Basirat, E. (2022). Interactive metadiscourse in dentistry research articles: Iranian vs non-Iranian academic writers. Discourse and Interaction, 15(2), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.5817/di2022-2-77

Kopple, W. J. V. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609

Memon, M. A., Pathan, H. and Memon, S. (2021). An intercultural investigation of interactive metadiscourse markers in research articles by Pakistani and British engineers.Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 3(2), 51-72.

                https://journals.au.edu.pk/ojscrc/index.php/crc/article/view/103

Moirand, S., Reboul-Touré, S., & Ribeiro, M. P. (2016). Popular science at the crossroads of new linguistic spheres. Bakhtiniana: Revista de Estudos Do Discurso, 11(2), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1590/2176-45732387

Myers, G. (1991). Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse Processes, 14(1), 1–26.

                https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544772

Myers, G. (2003). Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445603005002006

Nugrahani, V. E., & Bram, B. (2020). Metadiscourse markers in scientific journal articles. Journal of the Association for Arabic and English, 6(1), 1-16.

                https://doi.org/10.31332/lkw.v6i1.1528

Orellana, M. Á. L. (2012). Popularising scientific discourse. Universitat De València, 17(17), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.7203/qfilologia.17.3379

Pandey, B., Shalini, S., & Kumar, G. (2022). Evaluation of science communication on social media: A content analysis of Facebook pages. International Journal of Health Sciences, 6(5), 6111–6131.  https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS5.10497

Pilkington, O. A. (2016). Popular science versus lab lit: Differently depicting scientific apparatus. Science as Culture, 26(3), 285–306.

                https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2016.1255722

Pilkington, O. A. (2018). The fictionalized reader in popular science: Reader engagement with the scientific community. Text & Talk, 38(6), 753–773.

                https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2018-0022

Pilkington, O. A. (2019). Definitions of scientific terminology in popular science books: An examination of definitional chains. Science Communication, 41(5), 580–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019861397

Ruonan, L., & Al-Shaibani, G. K. S. (2022). An investigation into the use of metadiscourse in undergraduates’ abstracts in social sciences. Topics in Linguistics, 23(2), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2022-0010

Saidi, M., & Saiedi, M. (2020). How do scientists reach their target audience? Academic and popular science articles in nutrition. Nutrition and Food Sciences Research, 7(4), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.29252/nfsr.7.4.1

Turney, J. (2007). Boom and bust in popular science. Journal of Science Communication, 6(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.06010302

Vande Kopple, W. J. V. (2012). The importance of studying metadiscourse. Applied Research in English, 1(2), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609

Yin, M. (2022). A study on interactive metadiscourse in China-related reports from the New York Times during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 4(11), 193-197. https://doi.org/10.53469/jssh.2022.4(11).40