An analysis of interactive and interactional strategies in Conclusions and Discussion sections in Masters Theses



Visitas a la página del resumen del artículo:  1029  

Archivos adicionales


Publicado: 01-12-2017


  • Eva M. Mestre-Mestre (ES) Universitat Politècnica de València


Significant amount of literature has been dedicated to study academic and scientific writing. Prolific work has studied specific sections of Research Articles (RA) (Dudley-Evans, 1994; Parkinson, 2011). Complementary to this, some studies look into variation between Native (NE) and Non-Native (NNE) English speaking writers. Of interest are also studies exploring academic writing other than RA, as postgraduate writings (Hyland 2004), or comparing RAs to students’ writings. The present work analyses the strategies used in the Conclusions and Discussion sections of Masters Theses (MTs) written by students based on the Metadiscourse Markers (MDM) (Hyland, 2005) they use in them. For the study, a corpus of 30 dissertations written in English (15 by NNE and 15 by NE) is compared. Noticeable NE/NNE differences have been found in the use of MDM. Some conclusions are these differences must be addressed when teaching academic writing.

Palabras clave


Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Cómo citar

Mestre-Mestre, E. M. (2017). An analysis of interactive and interactional strategies in Conclusions and Discussion sections in Masters Theses. Pragmalingüística, (25), 416–438. Recuperado a partir de

Biografía del autor/a

Eva M. Mestre-Mestre, Universitat Politècnica de València

Departament de Lingüística Aplicada.

Profesor Contratado Doctor.


ADAMS SMITH, D.E. (1984). Medical discourse: aspects of author’s comment. English for Specific Purposes 3, 25–36.

BAZERMAN, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press

Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 47-59.

CARRIÓ-PASTOR, M. L. (2013). A contrastive study of the variation of sentence connectors in academic English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(3), 192–202.

CONDUIT, A., & MODESTO, D. (1990). An investigation of the generic structure of the materials/methods section of scientific reports. Australian Review ofApplied Linguistics, Series S, No. 6, 109-134.

COOPER, C. (1985). Aspects ofarticle introduction in IEEEpublications. Unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, University of Aston, UK.

CRISMORE, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Flowerdew,

CRISMORE, A., Markkanen, R. and Steffensen M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10(1): 39-71.

CROOKES, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7, 57–70.

DEL SAZ RUBIO, M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258–271.

DUDLEY-EVANS, T. (1986). Genre analysis: an investigation of the introduction and discussion sections of M.Sc. dissertations. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Talking about text (Discourse Analysis Monographs No. 13, English Language Research). University of Birmingham.

DUDLEY-EVANS, T., & HENDERSON, W. (1990). The organization of article introductions: Evidence of change in economics writing. In T. Dudley-Evans & W. Henderson (Eds) The language of economics: the analysis of economic discourse. London: Modern English Publications/British Council.

GABRIELATOS, C., MCENERY, T. (2005) Epistemic modality in MA dissertations. In Fuertes Olivera, P.A. (Ed) (2005). Lengua y Sociedad: Investigaciones recientes en linguistica aplicada. Linguistica y Flilogia no.61 Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid. 311-331.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. (1993). On the language of physical science. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science (pp. 54–68). London: The Falmer Press.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold

HARTLEY, J. (2008). Academic writing and publishing - A practical handbook. New York and London: Routledge.

HARWOOD, N. (2005). ‘We do not have a theory.The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26, 343-375.

HEWINGS, M. (1993). The end! How to conclude a dissertation. In G. M. Blue (Ed.), Language, learning and success: Studying through English. London: Modern English Publications, 105-112.

HOLMES, R. (1997). Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 321–337.

HOPKINS, A., & Dudley-Evans, A. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113–122.

HUNSTON, S. And Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in Text : Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford University Press: UK.

HYLAND, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437–455.

HYLAND, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341–367.

HYLAND, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Pearson.

HYLAND, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226.

HYLAND, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.

IGLESIAS-MORENO, Á. E. (2001). Native speaker–non-native speaker interaction: the use of discourse markers. Elia, 2(1996), 129–142. Retrieved from angela.pdf

LUUKA, M. R. (1994). Metadiscourse in academic texts. In B. L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Text and talk in professional context (pp. 77–88). Uppsala, Sweden: ASLA.

MARTÍNEZ, I. (2001). Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of contrastive structure. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 227–247.

MAURANEN, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3–22.

MELANDER, B., SWALES, J. M., & FREDRICKSON, K. M. (1997). Journal abstracts from three academic fields in the United States and Sweden: National or disciplinary proclivities?. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Intellectual styles and cross-cultural communication (pp. 251–272). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

MESTRE-MESTRE, E. M., & CARRIÓ PASTOR, M.L. (2012). A pragmatic analysis of errors in University students’ writings in English. English for Specific Purposes World, 12(35), 1–13.

MORENO, A. (1997). Genre constraints across languages: Causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs. English for Specific Purposes, 16(3), 161–179.

MORENO, A. (1998). The explicit signalling of premise-conclusion sequences in research articles: A contrastive framework. Text, 18(4), 545–585.

PALTRIDGE, B. (2002). Thesis and dissertation writing: an examination of published advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 125-143.

PEACOCK, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479-497.

PRIOR, P. (1998). Writing disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

ROMERO-TRILLO, J. (2002) The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 769-784

SALAGER-MEYER, F. (1990). Discoursal flaws in medical English abstracts: A genre analysis per research and text type. Text, 10, 365–384.

SAMRAJ, B. (2000). Discursive practices in graduate-level content courses: The case of environmental science. Text, 20, 347-371.

SAMRAJ, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1-17.

SAMRAJ, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 141–156.

SCHIFFRIN, D. 1980. Metatalk: Organisational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry 50: 199-236.

SOLER-MONREAL, C. & L. GIL-SALOM (2010). “Moves, steps and linguistic signals in RA Discussion sections”. In W. Hahn & C. Vertan, C. (eds.), Fachsprachen in der Weltweiten Kommunikation / Specialised Language in Global Communication. Series Sprache in der Gesellschaft, Band 30 / Language in the Society 30, 519-528. Bern: Peter Lang.

SOLER-MONREAL, C. (2016). A move-step analysis of the concluding chapters in computer science PhD theses, 32, 105–132.

SWALES, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

SWALES, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

SWALES, J. M., & FEAK, C. B. (2000). English in today’s research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

SWALES, J. M., & NAJJAR, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4, 175–191.

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, S23eS40.

TAYLOR, G., & CHEN, T. (1991). Linguistic. cultural and subcultural issues in 336 R. Holmes contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese texts. Applied Linguistics, 3, 319-336.

THOMPSON, D. (1993). Arguing for experimental “facts” in science: a study of research article results sections in biochemistry. Written Communication, 10, 106-128.

VALERO-GARCES, C. 1996. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English Economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 15(4): 279-294.

Williams, I. (1999). Results sections of medical research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(4), 347–366.

WOOD, A. (2001). International scientific English: the language of research scientists around the world. In: Flowerdew, J., Peacock, M. (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 71–83.

YAKHONTOVA, T. (1997). The signs of a new time: academic writing in ESP curricula of Ukrainian universities. In: Duszak, A. (Ed.), Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 103–112.

YANG, R., & ALLISON, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365–387.