Malaysian ESL Students’ Perception of Metadiscourse in Essay Writing 

Hadi Kashiha 1 *
More Detail
1 University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp. 193-201.
OPEN ACCESS   2455 Views   1901 Downloads   Published online: 15 Jul 2018
Download Full Text (PDF)


This study investigated the use of metadiscourse markers and highlighted the problems that Malaysian ESL students face in writing essays. An action research approach using both quantitative and qualitative analyses were used to explore metadiscoure usage. The subjects of this study were diploma students who had enrolled in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course in a private college in Malaysia. A total of 143 scripts of the essays written in the essay writing section of the final examination were assessed and analyzed using Hyland’s (2005a) interpersonal model of metadiscourse. Results revealed that transitions were the most frequently used interactive metadiscourse, making up 54% of the total interactive markers, while evidentials were the least frequently occurring with only 2 occurrences. Under the interactional resources, engagement markers were found to be the most favored, accounting for 40.7% of the interactional markers, while attitude markers appeared the least with only 3 occurrences. The findings of this study suggest that metadiscourse practices play a crucial role in creating a cohesive and a coherent piece of writing. In addition, ESL students need to be explicitly instructed on the communicative function of metadiscourse markers in academic writing.


Kashiha, H. (2018). Malaysian ESL Students’ Perception of Metadiscourse in Essay Writing . Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 8(3), 193-201.


  • Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse as an indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies. 4, 139–145.
  • Alarcon, J. B., & Morales, K. N. S. (2011). Grammatical cohesion in students’ argumentative essay. Journal of English and Literature, 2(5), 114-127.
  • Dueraman, B. (2007). Cohesion and coherence in English essays written by Malaysian and Thai medical students. In Proceedings from Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference.
  • Ghasemi, M. (2013). An Investigation into the Use of Cohesive Devices in Second Language Writings. Theory and Practice In Language Studies, 3(9), 1615-1623.
  • Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman: London.
  • Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 30, 437-455.
  • Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum, London.
  • Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192.
  • Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics. 28(2), 266-285.
  • Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
  • Hyland, K (2000) Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman
  • Hyland, K (2000) Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman
  • Hyland, K. (2013). Discourse Studies Reader- Essential Excerpts. London: Bloomsbury
  • Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (Eds.),
  • Ismail, N., Hussin, S., & Darus, S. (2012). ESL Tertiary Students' Writing Problems and Needs: Suggested Elements for an Additional Online Writing Program (IQ-Write) for the BEL 311 Course. International Journal Of Learning, 18(9), 69-80.
  • Khedri, M. , Ebrahimi, S. F. & Chan, S. H. (2013). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Research Article Result and Discussion Sections. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19 (1), 65 – 74.
  • Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates, System, 33(4), 623-636.
  • Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes. 13, 3-22.
  • Paltridge, B. (1996). Genre, text type, and the language learning classroom. ELT Journal, 50(3), 237-243
  • Sinicrope, C. (2007). Revisiting Cohesive Devices in Academic L2 English Writing: What Do Successful Writers Use? Sociolinguistics: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  • Ting, S. H., & Tee, P. F. (2008). TESL Undergraduates’ Ability to Handle Academic Text-types at University Malaysia Sarawak. An International Journal of Asian Literatures, Cultures and Englishes, 2(2), 85-100.
  • Vande Kopple & W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication. 36, 82-93.
  • Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Boston: Scott Foressman.