Abstract

This paper investigates the use of metadiscourse to explore the effectiveness of metadiscourse in practical writings of TEM 4 from English majors of Huaiyin Normal University through a case study. Based on Hyland’s interpersonal model of metadiscourse, 142 pieces of compositions are collected to explore the usual types of metadiscourse used in learners’ writings. Findings show that students use more interactional metadiscourse than interactive meadiscourse and they use self mentions, engagement markers and transitions the most and endophoric markers and evidentials the least. Besides, a comparative analysis of the difference of metadiscourse is made between the writings of high marks and those of low marks, which are given by teachers of writing lesson according to standard for evaluation of TEM 4. Findings indicate that the frequency and proportion of metadiscourse are different in the writings of high marks and low marks, namely, more interactive resources in group of high marks but more interactional resources in group of low marks. And students of high marks use metadiscourse in a more various way, especially use frame markers more frequently. The students of lower marks use interactional resources more frequently, such as hedges, self mentions and engagement markers.

In this way, the paper suggests that writing teachers should pay more attention to teaching metadiscourse knowledge to improve learners’ writing ability.

Keywords: metadiscourse; interactive resources; interactional resources; practical writing; TEM 4

Contents

Abstract

摘要

1. Introduction-1

1.1Background of this study-1

1.2 Significance of this study-2

1.3 The overall structure of this study-2

2. Literature Review-3

2.1 Definition of metadiscourse-3

2.2 Classifications of metadiscourse-5

2.3 Relevant studies at home and abroad-9

3. Methodology-10

3.1 Research questions-10

3.2 Participants-11

3.3 Instruments-11

3.4 Data collection-12

4. Findings and Discussion-12

4.1 Types of metadiscourse used in writings of TEM 4-12

4.2 Frequency and proportion of metadiscourse-14

4.3 Statistic analysis of interactive resources-15

4.4 Statistic analysis of interactional resources-15

4.5 Discussion-16

5. Conclusions and Implications-19

5.1 Conclusions-19

5.2 Implications-20

Works Cited-21