Result of this study demonstrates that English native writers and non-native English writers (Arab-English) of English (linguistic) research articles differ in their use of metadiscourse devices. It shows that native English writers use more interactive (i.e., frame markers, evidentials, transitions, code glosses, and endophoric markers) and interactional metadiscouse markers (i.e., hedges, engagemnt markers, self-mentions, boosters, and attitude markers) than their non-native counterparts in their linguistic research articles. Result of this study corroborate the result of previous studies that demonstrated significantly larger use of metadiscouse markers in research articles written by Native English writers and non-Native English writers (Demir, 2017; Steffensen & Cheng, 1996; Mauranen, 1993; Hyland, 1999; Hyland, 2005; Scollon, 1994; Ohta, 1991).

This result suggests that the writers’ language background or native language may influence the use of metadiscourse devices in their research articles.This result may also suggest that native English writers have mastered the use of metadiscourse devices in research articles than non-native writers and thus tend to write higher rated research articles or essays with well integrated metadiscourse markers than non-native writers. This is in line with the view by Intaraprawat and Steffensen and Cheng (1996) that highly rated essays written by ESL university students had significantly more metadiscourse markers than lowly rated essays. According to Intaraprawat and Steffensen and Cheng (1996) good essay writers used significantly more metadiscourse markers in their texts than poor essay writers.

For example, Keshavarz and Kheirieh (2012) found that native English writers and non-native (Iranian) writers from the civil engineering and applied linguistics differ in their use of metadiscourse markers in English research articles (RAs). Keshavarz and Kheirieh (2012) noted that native English writers and non-native (Iranian) writers use metadiscourse markers differently.

In a similar study, Mauranen (1993) found a correlation between first language and the use of metadiscourse devices. Mauranen (1993) studied English texts authored by Anglo-American (Native English writers) and Finnish students (Non-native English writers) with a view to determining the differences in their use of metadiscourse devices at the text. Result revealed that more metadiscourse markers in the text written by Anglo-American than the text written by Finnish writers. Mauranen (1993) argued that the differences in the use of metadiscourse markers in research articles between native English writers and non-native English writers may be attributed to differences in the norms of the two cultures: rhetorical explicitness and politeness. For example, Mauranen (1993) noted that writers of Finnish have the tendency to guide the readers of their text through it; it less of a reader-oriented language, and this characteristic is revealed in the Finnish learners’ English writing. Mauranen also linked the difference in writer’s communication with readers to differences between the cultures in norms of rhetorical explicitness and politeness. According to Mauranen, Anglo-Americans often try to be explicit in their writing in an attempt to give readers the feeling of easiness and comfort.

The present study also revealed that native English writers more frequently use some subcategories of metadiscourse markers: self-mentions, hedges, evidential and boosters than their non-native counterparts. This view is captured in the comment by Hyland (2005) that native English speakers (i.e., Anglo-American academic English)  tend to use more recent citations as evidential. Hyland (1999) further noted that native English writers of Western writers employ evidential in the social context of writing to persuade their readers and as a means to give their readers justification for arguments.

Other studies (e.g., Scollon, 1994; Ohta, 1991) supported the finding of this study by observing that English writers tend to use more self-mentions than non-native English (Arab) writers in their English research articles because they (Arab writers) prefer using collective ways to express opinion or identity. According to Ohta (1991) non-native English writers often seek to hide direct involvement in a written text by avoiding self-mention. Supporting this view, Scollon (1994) argued that teachers of Asian students often advice to be more polite and formal by avoiding self-mentioning in written texts. Ohta (1991) further advanced that this cultural difference in the avoidance of self-mentions signal is reflected in the use of self-mention in linguistic research articles as demonstrated here.

 
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?