miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

ENDOPHORIC SIGNPOSTING: A CONTRASTIVE

STUDY OF TEXTUAL REFERENCES IN L2 CZECH

MASTER’S THESES AND NATIVE ENGLISH

ACADEMIC WRITING

MARCADORES ENDOFÓRICOS: UN ESTUDIO

CONTRASTIVO DE LAS REFERENCIAS TEXTUALES

EN EL INGLÉS ACADÉMICO DE TRABAJOS

FIN DE MÁSTER ESCRITOS POR ESTUDIANTES

CHECOS EN INGLÉS COMO SEGUNDA LENGUA

Y POR HABLANTES NATIVOS

https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20249976

MARIE LAHODOVÁ VALIŠOVÁ

Masaryk University, Czech Republic

marie.lahodova@med.muni.cz

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6411-0012>

Abstract

The aim of this study is to contribute to cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary

discourse analysis, shedding light on English L2 learners’ metadiscursive practices.

Focusing on a specialised learner corpus of English-medium Master’s theses

written by Czech university students, the research explores the occurrence of

endophoric markers and their characteristics. To enable cross-linguistic and cross-

cultural comparison, a reference corpus of representative L1 English academic

discourse was compiled. A new taxonomy used here, which draws on Hyland’s list

of endophoric markers (2005) and an extensive literature review, categorises

endophoric markers into three groups: purely directional, markers using specific

words, and a category combining the first two. The study investigates the

occurrence and function of these markers, focusing on anaphoric, cataphoric, and

non-directional references. It also aims to identify differences in the usage of

endophoric markers in English between L2 novice writers and experienced L1

academic writers, providing insights into trends and patterns in the employment of

endophoric markers in academic writing in a way that accounts for disciplinary and

linguistic factors. The results reveal higher endophoric marker frequencies in the

Master’s Thesis Corpus, suggesting distinctive discourse patterns among Czech

learners using English as an L2, with a predominance of specific endophoric

markers and notable cross-disciplinary variation.

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Keywords: metadiscourse, endophoric markers, Master’s thesis, academic

discourse, cross-cultural analysis.

Resumen

El objetivo de este estudio es contribuir al análisis del discurso intercultural e

interdisciplinar, arrojando luz sobre las prácticas metadiscursivas de los estudiantes

de inglés como segunda lengua. La investigación, basada en un corpus especializado

de Trabajos de Fin de Máster en lengua inglesa escritos por estudiantes universitarios

checos, explora el uso de marcadores endofóricos y sus características. Para permitir

la comparación interlingüística e intercultural, se compiló un corpus de referencia

que representa el discurso académico en inglés de hablantes nativos.

Se utiliza una nueva taxonomía que, basada en la lista de marcadores endofóricos

de Hyland (2005) y en una extensa revisión bibliográfica, clasifica los marcadores

endofóricos en tres grupos: puramente direccionales, marcadores que utilizan

palabras específicas y una categoría que combina los dos primeros. El estudio

explora dónde cuándo y cómo aparecen estos marcadores y la función que tienen,

centrándose en las referencias anafóricas, catafóricas y no direccionales. También

pretende identificar las diferencias que hay en el uso de marcadores endofóricos

entre escritores noveles para quienes el inglés es su segunda lengua y escritores

académicos expertos para quienes el inglés es su primera lengua. Así mismo, tiene

como objetivo proporcionar información sobre tendencias y patrones en el empleo

de marcadores endofóricos en la escritura académica en lengua inglesa, teniendo

en cuenta la influencia en su uso de factores disciplinares y lingüísticos.

Los resultados revelan una mayor frecuencia de marcadores endofóricos en el

corpus de Trabajos de Fin de Máster, lo que sugiere patrones discursivos distintivos

entre los estudiantes checos que utilizan el inglés como segunda lengua, con

predominio de marcadores endofóricos específicos y notables variaciones entre

disciplinas.

Palabras clave: metadiscurso, marcadores endofóricos, Trabajos de Fin de Máster

(TFM), discurso académico, análisis intercultural.

1. Introduction

Over the past two decades, metadiscourse has received considerable attention in

English for academic purposes research. Metadiscourse markers in academic genres

have been analysed using Hyland’s (2005) classification scheme and in the models

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

published by Mauranen (1993) and Ädel (2006). Endophoric markers have been

examined alongside other features of metadiscourse across various genres,

languages, and disciplines, as well as over time. This study adopts Hyland’s (2005)

interpersonal model of metadiscourse, which distinguishes between the interactive

and interactional categories of metadiscourse. Interactional metadiscourse devices

aim to engage the reader with the text (e.g. hedges, boosters, attitude markers),

while interactive metadiscourse markers aim to guide the reader through the text

(e.g. frame markers, endophoric markers, evidentials).

Endophoric markers play a crucial role as metadiscourse devices, enabling writers

to reference elements within the same text (e.g. as mentioned above, in Section 3

below). This, in turn, makes it easier for readers to make connections between

different parts of the text and comprehend the author’s argumentative structure.

As Hyland states, these markers “make additional ideational material salient and

therefore available to the reader” (2005: 51). By “referring to earlier material or

anticipating something yet to come”, writers help the reader “steer to a preferred

interpretation or reading of the discourse” (2005: 51).

It is widely acknowledged that endophoric markers are crucial metadiscourse

elements frequently employed in various forms of writing, such as books, research

articles (RAs), student essays, Master’s theses (MTs), and PhD dissertations. They

act as signposts, guiding readers to specific facts, examples, methods, and research

findings presented elsewhere in the text. However, endophoric markers are

typically studied in conjunction with other categories of interactive metadiscourse,

rather than as a distinct metadiscourse category.

Cross-linguistic variations in the use of metadiscourse including endophoric

markers have been studied in RAs, MTs and essays written in English and other

languages, such as Chinese (Kim and Lim 2013; Mu et al. 2015), Spanish (Mur-

Dueñas 2011; Lee and Casal 2014), Catalan and Spanish (Martín-Laguna and

Alcón 2015) and French and Norwegian (Dahl 2004), among others.

Several studies have explored metadiscourse use in learner academic writing in

English, comparing L1 and L2 users and various proficiency levels (e.g. Liao

2020). Ädel (2006) discovered that Swedish students tended to overuse

metadiscourse markers in their L2 English essays compared to American and

British university students, indicating potential issues with communicative

competence. In contrast, Burneikaitė’s (2008, 2009) study comparing L1 and L2

MTs in English by students in Britain and Lithuania produced different results.

The underuse of endophoric markers by L2 Lithuanian students was argued to be

a consequence of their “inexperience in structuring lengthy texts” (Burneikaitė

2008: 45). Kobayashi (2017) investigated the developmental patterns of

metadiscourse in L2 English essays by Asian learners with diverse L1 backgrounds,

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

identifying varying frequencies of metadiscourse use across proficiency levels.

These differences were attributed to the learners’ L1 rhetorical strategies rather

than their lexical or grammatical competence or level of proficiency.

A wide range of cross-disciplinary studies have revealed varying frequencies and

uses of endophoric markers in complete RAs (Cao and Hu 2014; Hyland and

Jiang 2020) as well as in RA introductions (Del Saz Rubio 2011; Kawase 2015)

and abstracts (Khedri et al. 2013; El-Dakhs 2018). Cao and Hu (2014) studied

the use of endophoric markers in quantitative and qualitative RAs in three soft

disciplines (applied linguistics, education and psychology). Clear cross-disciplinary

differences were identified: the applied linguistics and education RAs employed

linear references (i.e. forward or backward references) more frequently than the

psychology RAs. Nevertheless, on the whole non-linear endophoric reference

dominated (e.g. see Table 1, in Fig. 2, as demonstrated in Excerpt 3). Hyland (2005)

noted that within soft disciplines, endophoric markers serve as a mechanism to

enhance discourse, with a primary goal of facilitating readers’ swift and direct

access to relevant information distributed across various sections of the text.

In recent years, there has been significant attention given to the evolving

understanding of interactive metadiscourse in academic writing, particularly in

RAs, with a focus on its use across diverse disciplines, both soft and hard. Khedri

et al. (2013) analysed 60 RA abstracts in applied linguistics and economics; Dahl

(2004) examined 180 RAs in medicine, economics, and linguistics; Khalili and

Aslanabadi (2014) studied 20 RAs in dentistry; and Celiešienė and Sabulyte

(2018) compared metadiscourse marker usage in RAs in informatics, energy, and

civil engineering. The results indicated that hard science texts employ more visual

elements, which accounts for the frequent use of endophoric markers and code

glosses. This practice ensures effective signposting and accurate interpretation by

the reader of the information provided. Another cross-disciplinary research study

compared Master’s and doctoral dissertations across six disciplines written in

English by L2 Hong Kong students (Hyland 2004). The results revealed that

students in the hard disciplines, particularly those in engineering, demonstrated a

relatively higher use of endophoric markers. This highlighted “the multi-modal

nature of scientific discourse” (Hyland 2004: 147) and the increased dependence

on arguments requiring frequent reference to elements such as tables, figures,

examples, and photographs. Hyland and Jiang (2020) conducted a diachronic

study analysing a corpus of 2.2 million words from articles in top journals across

four academic disciplines, aiming to explore changes in interactive metadiscourse

usage since 1965. The results indicate an increased usage of endophoric markers in

English across diverse disciplines over the past 30 years. This upward trend seems

to reflect a growing tendency for texts to become more explicit, employing

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

techniques like exemplification, illustration, and referencing tables and graphical

data to clarify associations (Hyland and Jiang 2020).

Research into endophoric markers extends beyond RAs and includes other genres

such as undergraduate essays (Ädel 2006), MTs (Lee and Casal 2014), postgraduate

dissertations (Hyland and Tse 2004; Kawase 2015), and university textbooks

(Hyland 1999). Bunton’s (1999) study on postgraduate dissertations revealed

that higher level endophoric references, i.e. those referring to larger portions of

text or operating over greater distances, were more frequent. This phenomenon

was attributed to the length of the texts. However, considerable variations among

writers were also reported.

To date, research on Czech English-medium learner discourse has been limited to

a handful of studies that concentrate on individual metadiscourse markers, such as

sentence linkers (Vogel 2008; Povolná 2012), code glosses (Guziurová 2022),

attitude markers (Jančaříková 2023) and self-mention (Dontcheva-Navrátilová

2023). However, there have been no investigations into the use of endophoric

markers by Czech students in English.

As noted above, few studies to date have focused on metadiscourse in L2 MTs

across soft disciplines. This paper aims to fill this gap by examining endophoric

markers in L2 MTs written in English by Czech university students. Two corpora

were compiled for this purpose: the Master’s Thesis Corpus (MT_LLE) and the

Research Article Corpus (RA_LLE). These corpora were used to compare and

contrast the use of endophoric markers by English L2 and L1 writers, examining

differences across levels of writing expertise and linguacultural dimensions.

Additionally, the realisation of endophoric markers is compared across three

disciplines, i.e. linguistics, literary studies, and education. These disciplines are

integral to English studies at Czech universities, and the MTs included in the L2

corpus focus on these specific areas. A new taxonomy was devised and used in the

analysis (for more details concerning the taxonomy, see Section 2.4).

This study seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. What is the frequency of occurrence, realisation, and function of endophoric

markers in English-medium L2 (Czech) MTs and L1 published RAs?

2. What are the similarities and differences in the frequency of occurrence,

realisation, and function of endophoric markers in English-medium L2

(Czech) MTs and L1 published RAs?

3. What are the similarities and differences in the frequency of occurrence,

realisation, and function of endophoric markers in the three disciplines in

English-medium L2 (Czech) MTs and L1 (English) published RAs?

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

2. Data and Methodology

2.1. Corpus Characteristics and Compilation

For the present study, two distinct corpora were compiled: the Master’s Thesis

Corpus (MT_LLE) and the Research Article Corpus (RA_LLE). Each of these

corpora will be discussed in the following section, accompanied by an explanation

of the selection criteria applied.

The analysis of endophoric markers was conducted on a specialised learner corpus of

English-medium MTs written by Czech university students majoring in English

language and literature, either at the Faculty of Arts or the Faculty of Education of

Masaryk University in Brno. The corpus comprises theses written and submitted

from 2010 to 2018. The following additional criteria were applied: the authors’

native/first language is Czech (L1), and only theses awarded high grades, that is, ‘A’

(‘Excellent’/‘Merit’), were included. A total of 48 MTs were included in the corpus,

distributed equally across three academic disciplines: linguistics, literary studies, and

education, with 16 theses drawn from each discipline. Prior to the analysis, all MTs

underwent a refinement process, which involved the removal of elements such as

abstracts, citations, tables, and figures. This approach ensured that the analysis

focused exclusively on the students’ written discourse in running text found within

the MT macrostructure. The corpus comprises a total of 948,000 words.

In order to investigate typical elements of metadiscourse in the MT corpus, it was

necessary to compile a reference corpus representing L1 English academic

discourse. Due to the fact that there is no corpus of English L1 MTs available, the

reference corpus (RA_LLE) comprises RAs authored by scholars who are native

English speakers and affiliated with universities in Britain or the United States. The

authors’ native speaker status (L1) is indicated by their names, affiliations, and

CVs. The selection process exclusively considered articles from the same three

fields or disciplines as in the MT corpus, i.e. linguistics, literary studies, and

education. These articles were single-authored, produced between 2010 and

2018, and published in widely recognised international journals indexed in the

Web of Science database. Linguistics articles were sourced from Discourse &

Communication, the Journal of Pragmatics, and Applied Linguistics. Literary

studies articles were selected from Eighteenth-Century Fiction, New Literary

History, and SEL: Studies in English Literature. Articles focusing on educational

themes were taken from Language and Education, Language Teaching Research,

and Language Learning. The corpus comprises 36 articles (12 articles per

discipline), all of which have undergone the same cleaning process applied in the

MT_LLE corpus. The total word count for this corpus is 243,000 words (see

Table 1 below).

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Corpus No. of texts Word count Disciplines

MT_LLE 48 948,000 Linguistics, literary studies, education

RA_LLE 36 243,000 Linguistics, literary studies, education

Table 1. Composition of the MT_LLE and RA_LLE

2.2. Corpus Comparison and ‘Tertium Comparationis’

Due to the unavailability of MTs authored by L1 English writers, no reference

corpus could be compiled. Flowerdew (2015) aligns with Tribble (2002) in

suggesting that in the absence of a directly comparable corpus, concessions must

be made, and an ‘analogue’ corpus can be used. This refers to a corpus that closely

resembles student writing in terms of genre and discipline (Flowerdew 2015: 60).

The approach adheres to the ‘tertium comparationis’ criteria advocated by Connor

and Moreno (2005: 155; see also Moreno 2008: 25). Therefore, the reference

corpus of RAs (RA_LLA) was carefully compiled to mirror the MT_LLE corpus as

closely as possible. Despite the differences between MTs and RAs in their aims,

scope, audience, and criteria (Paltridge 2002; Flowerdew 2015), it has been

argued that “there are significant overlaps in lexico-grammar and rhetorical

functions” (Flowerdew 2015: 60). As certain sections of MTs (or dissertations)

may eventually evolve into RAs (Swales 1990: 178), previous research on

metadiscourse has often juxtaposed MTs with RAs, serving as potential templates

for inexperienced writers (see, for instance, Koutsantoni 2006; Pujol Dahme and

Selfa Sastre 2015; Abdollahzadeh 2019; Qiu and Ma 2019).

The MT_LLE corpus and RA_LLE corpus are fully comparable in terms of

disciplines (linguistics, literary studies, and education), as well as the time span in

which they were written (2010-2018). The analysis of the corpora thus incorporates

the concept of intercultural, cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary variation.

While it is worth noting that the sizes of these corpora vary, the primary focus of

this study is to explore the occurrence of endophoric markers in theses written in

English by Czech native speakers. To mitigate the discrepancies in corpus size, the

research findings were normalised to occurrences per 10,000 words, and the log-

likelihood ratio test was applied to account for size differences. This approach

allows for drawing reliable conclusions while acknowledging the inherent

limitations of the differing corpus sizes.

2.3. Procedure

Both corpora were compiled and searched using SketchEngine software (Kilgarriff

et al. 2004). Statistical significance was determined using the non-parametric log-

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

likelihood test, following common practice in specialised corpus analysis. A

significance level of <0.05 was established, with very low p-values indicated as

<0.001.

Based on Hyland’s (2005) list of endophoric markers and a comprehensive review

of the relevant literature, a list of endophoric markers was compiled and searched

within the corpora. After this initial stage, additional items identified as potential

endophoric markers (e.g. extract, excerpt, here) were added to the list. It was

required that every instance of potential endophoric markers be examined in

context to ensure that they functioned as expected. According to Hyland and Tse

(2004), who drew on Bunton’s (1999) distinction between ‘research acts’ and

‘writer acts’, each potential discourse marker must be assessed to determine

whether it carries propositional value (Example 1) or metadiscoursal value

(Example 2) (Hyland and Tse 2004: 166).

(1) It was not enough for the teachers to value students’ voices in the

discussion; many of them felt they had to vanish completely, following

procedures for discussion that completely removed the teacher from

participation. (RA_EDU_04)

(2) The following extracts show other instances of Cherry’s praise of Canadian-

born ice hockey players while at the same time reiterating their Canadian

regional allegiance and affinity. (MT_LIT_03)

The token following is used as a metadiscoursal device in Example 2; however, in

the context of Example 1, it signals discourse-external relations.

Furthermore, within the dimension of interactive metadiscourse, careful attention

has to be given to certain markers, which could be assessed either as frame markers

or as endophoric markers, based on the context. Below are two examples of the

token analysis in context (Examples 3 and 4):

(3) I turn now to an analysis of what these contrasts mean in terms of language

use. (RA_LIN_12)

(4) Nevertheless, as demonstrated in the analysis, considerable attention to

the choice of lexico-grammatical items needs to be paid. (MT_LIN_09)

In Example 3, the word analysis introduces or frames the content that follows and

is typically categorised as a frame marker, labelling the stage of the discourse based

on Hyland’s theory of metadiscourse. In Example 4, the phrase in the analysis

functions as an endophoric marker, referring to the specific analysis within the

same text for content and clarification.

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

2.4. Taxonomy

When analysing endophoric markers, authors typically provide a list of such

markers or offer a few examples (Hyland and Tse 2004; Hyland 2005). Bunton

(1999), influenced by Mauranen’s (1993) research on metatext and text

reflexivity and by Crismore and Farnsworth’s (1990) terms of reviews and

previews, created a taxonomy of endophoric markers. He referred to them as

‘text references’ and proposed a taxonomy that distinguishes between linear and

non-linear text references. Linear text references are explicit references to other

parts of the linear text. They are further categorised based on the direction of the

reference as reviews “looking back, repeating, summarising or referring to an

earlier stage of the text” (e.g. as noted earlier in the paper), previews “looking

forward, anticipating, summarising or referring to a later stage of the text” (e.g.

the next section), and overviews “looking in both directions, referring to the

current stage of the text in overall terms” (Bunton 1999: 45). It is worth noting

that ‘overviews’ in this context concern references that consider the text from a

broader perspective —e.g. “This was only used by X among the (subjects)

examined in this thesis” (Bunton 1999: 46). Bunton also showed the level of

reference (scope), which may refer to the written discourse as a whole or to a

specific chapter. Additionally, he explored the distance to the text segment being

referred to. Non-linear text references are explicit references to tables, figures,

charts, or appendices.

This taxonomy, expanded using Hyland’s (1999, 2005) theory of metadiscourse

to distinguish between endophoric and frame markers, served as a valuable

framework in Cao and Hu’s (2014) analysis of RAs. Burneikaitė (2009)

incorporated Bunton’s (1999) classification of metatext into her work, which

resulted in a classification that divides endophoric markers into non-linear and

linear text references. As with Bunton’s taxonomy, non-linear text references cover

elements like appendices, tables, figures, charts, graphs, and diagrams. Concerning

linear text references, the author classified them into several levels: thesis-level

markers (e.g. paper, study, thesis, analysis, dissertation, research (work), essay, article,

project), chapter/section-level markers (e.g. chapter, (sub)section, part, paragraph),

sentence-level markers (e.g. example, instance, illustration, sentence, case) and

vague markers (e.g. above, below, further, following, previously, what follows,

remainder) (Burneikaitė 2009: 13).

In an attempt to capture and categorise all instances of endophoric markers

identified in the corpora. I propose the following taxonomy. While it has some

similarities with Bunton’s taxonomy, it is primarily based on Hyland’s definition of

metadiscourse and the interactive dimension, taking into account additional

elements identified in the data.

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

I partially agree with the decision to divide endophoric markers into linear and

non-linear elements. However, when analysing the corpora, I came across

instances of endophoric markers that might be classified as non-linear according

to existing taxonomies, although their context and function indicated otherwise.

For example, the marker table in the following sentences does not qualify as an

example of non-linear reference since it refers back or ahead (see Examples in 5).

(5) As we have seen, the focus on significance also leads researchers astray in

suggesting that nonsignificant findings should not even be reported, as in

Table 1 above; not reporting full findings only helps to further obscure

what was observed in the data and why patterns might or might not have

been statistically significant in the first place. (RA_EDU_11)

Table 1 below represents only a sample of relevant verbs (i.e. verbs related

to the issue of existence or appearance on the scene) as presented in the

book. (MT_LIN_02)

For that reason, I abandoned the distinction between linear and non-linear and in

its place propose the following taxonomy (see Table 2).

Endophoric markers are categorised into three groups: purely directional markers,

markers using specific words, and a category that combines the first two. Markers

using specific words can refer to the entire discourse (article, essay, here [non-

directional reference], paper, study, thesis, work), to individual parts of the discourse

(analysis, chapter/subchapter, conclusion, discussion, introduction, page, paragraph,

part, section/subsection) or to items incorporated into the discourse (appendix,

chart, diagram, example, excerpt, extract, figure, here [either as backward or

forward reference], table). These markers can refer back or ahead by the use of

tenses (Examples in 6) or immediate context (Example 7).

(6) In the examples analysed so far, I have shown how the interview is designed

to foreground the IE’s feelings and thoughts, to be collaborative rather

than confrontational, and to establish a version of events in terms of what

happened to her personally. (RA_LIN_01)

These key concepts will be applied in the analysis of online weight loss

advertising. (MT_LIN_13)

(7) The items in the FLCAS (Horwitz et al., 1986) reflect the above

mentioned characteristics of an anxious student, as we can see in these

examples: <EXAMPLE>, or <EXAMPLE>. (MT_EDU_09)

Moreover, they can also serve as non-directional endophoric markers, pointing to the

current discourse, section, or incorporated item itself (Examples in 8). When combined

with clearly directional markers, thus labelled as combined endophoric markers, they

can, of course, serve as anaphoric and cataphoric signposting markers (Example 9).

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

categories

Subcategories

MT_LLE RA_LLE LL G2 p-value

n pttw n pttw

Purely

directional 608 6.4 60 2.5 64.6176 <0.001

Specific 2,079 21.9 509 21.0 0.8714 0.3506

Reference to the

entire written

discourse 234 2.4 132 5.4 47.8588 <0.001

Reference to

individual parts

of the written

discourse

927 9.8 69 2.9 140.9983 <0.001

Reference to

items

incorporated

into the written

discourse

918 9.6 308 12.7 15.9739 <0.001

Combined 1,256 13.2 128 5.3 127.0166 <0.001

TOTAL 3,943 41.6 697 28.7 89.3992 <0.001

Table 3. General frequency of endophoric markers across the corpora (Abbreviations: n:

number; pttw: per ten thousand words)

Comparing the three categories of endophoric markers (purely directional, specific,

and combined), the highest frequency of endophoric references in both corpora

was associated with specific endophoric markers. The frequency of specific markers

was nearly the same in the MT_LLE and RA_LLE corpora (21.9 and 21.0,

respectively; LL test, p-value 0.3506), which may indicate a genre-related trend in

research writing. This aspect will be examined further in a cross-disciplinary

analysis of specific endophoric references later in this section.

Another salient observation regarding specific reference and its three subcategories

is the frequency of referencing items integrated into the discourse. This referencing

frequency was notably higher in the RA_LLE corpus (12.7 occurrences) compared

to the MT_LLE corpus (9.6 occurrences), and this difference was found to be

statistically significant (p-value < 0.001). In contrast, combined endophoric

markers were more prevalent in the MT_LLE corpus (13.2) than in the RA_LLE

corpus (5.3), and again this difference was statistically significant (p-value <

0.001). Similar results have been found in engineering RAs, where a greater

density of lexical bundles occurred (e.g. is shown in Figure) (Hyland 2008). This

may suggest that Czech undergraduate students tend to be exceptionally clear or

meticulous when directing their readers to specific parts of their discourse in

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

English-medium theses. They emphasise this by using multiple endophoric

markers simultaneously, as illustrated in Example 14.

(14) It has been mentioned in the opening paragraph of this section (see page 49)

that in his novel Ellis attributes the rampant indifference that leads to the

collapse of communication not only to the influence of television but also

of glossy magazines. (MT_LIT_05)

Within each category of endophoric markers (i.e. purely directional, specific, and

combined), endophoric markers can be categorised as anaphoric or cataphoric.

Additionally, specific reference markers can also be classified as non-directional

(see Table 2).

Concerning the overall distinctions among anaphoric, cataphoric, and non-

directional references, Table 4 provides a summary of the data in both the RA_

LLE and MT_LLE corpora. Anaphoric reference predominates over cataphoric

in both corpora, as authors tend to revisit previously mentioned content,

reinforcing the reader’s recollection of already presented knowledge. Anaphoric

reference occurs most frequently among Czech L2 English student writers, at a

rate of 16.3 occurrences per 10,000 words, while L1 English expert writers

predominantly use non-directional reference, with a frequency of 13.2 instances

per 10,000 words. This difference is statistically significant (p-value < 0.001).

However, the difference in the use of non-directional reference between the

MT_LLE and RA_LLE corpora was not found to be statistically significant

(p-value 0.0952).

MT_LLE

pttw

RA_LLE

pttw LL G2 p-value

Anaphoric reference 1,548 16.3 246 10.7 54.4399 <0.001

Cataphoric

reference 1,273 13.4 131 5.4 126.7413 <0.001

Non-directional

reference 1,122 11. 8 320 13.2 2.7844 0.0952

Table 4. Anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional endophoric markers across the corpora

In Lee and Casal’s (2014) investigation of engineering MTs, the results indicated

that L1 English writers directed readers’ attention to previously and subsequently

discussed material equally. In contrast, Spanish L1 authors primarily included

vague anaphoric reference markers. It is worth noting that Czech students use all

three types of reference at comparable frequencies, ranging from 11.8 to 16.3

occurrences in their English-medium theses. Expert English L1 writers, conversely,

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

exhibit a clear preference for non-directional and anaphoric reference, with

frequencies of 13.2 and 10.7 occurrences per 10,000 words, respectively.

Anaphoric markers, which were used both purely directionally and in combined

phrases, were counted collectively, and the comparison of their frequency across

the corpora can be seen in Figure 1. The most frequently used anaphoric markers

in all three corpora were the words above (frequency of 4.8 in MT_LLE and 2.0 in

RA_LLE) and previous/ly (2.0 in MT_LLE and 0.7 in RA_LLE). This aligns with

the findings of Hyland and Jiang (2020), who identified above as the most

frequently used linear marker in both 1965 and 1985. The third most frequently

used anaphoric marker in the MT_LLE corpus was already, occurring at a rate of

1.4, in contrast to its significantly lower incidence in the RA_LLE corpus, where

its frequency was 0.2. This vague anaphoric reference is not commonly used in

English; however, in Czech, the formal phrase “jak již bylo zmíněno” [as has

already been mentioned] is a frequently used anaphoric marker within academic

discourse. Therefore, the more frequent use of the marker already by Czech

students when writing in English might be attributed to cross-linguistic influence

from the Czech language.

Figure 1. Anaphoric reference markers (purely directional and combined, counted together)

Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of cataphoric reference markers across the

corpora. The two most commonly used cataphoric markers were consistent across

both corpora: following (frequency of 6.0 in MT_LLE and 2.2 in RA_LLE) and

below (1.8 in MT_LLE and 1.3 in RA_LLE). Czech students and expert writers

used next at a similar frequency (0.6 and 0.5, respectively). Czech students also

employed the marker further (on), but this marker did not appear in the RA_LLE

corpus. A similar pattern was observed with the marker subsequent/ly, which was

absent from the RA_LLE corpus.

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

The following part of the results section will examine cross-disciplinary variations

regarding the occurrence, realisation, and frequency of endophoric markers. A

more in-depth exploration is provided for specific endophoric markers and their

three subcategories, as these markers were the most frequent form of endophoric

reference across both corpora.

Table 5 presents the distribution of references to the entire discourse, drawing data

from the category of endophoric reference using specific expressions. When

referencing their written discourse, authors predominantly employed terms such as

thesis and work in MTs, and article and study in RAs. The second most frequently

used term in the MT_LLE was here, which ranked third in the RA_LLE corpus.

However, it had a higher frequency than in MT_LLE, with 1.2 occurrences per

10,000 words. Here functioned as a self-reference word to denote the thesis or

article itself. In parts of the corpora it was challenging to discern whether the

reference pointed to the entire discourse or a specific part (e.g. a section) (see

Examples 15 and 16). Consequently, all instances of here referring to the entire

discourse or its parts were included in the count.

(15) The interview excerpts considered here come from a larger ethnographic

project involving individuals who immigrated to a small Midwestern city

in the US, which I have named Midtown, and who were enrolled in free

ESL classes offered by a social services agency. (RA_LIN_09)

(16) In conclusion I would like to say that I hope I have correctly grasped the

issues compiled in this section, however, I rather apologize here for any

prospective misinterpretation. (MT_LIT_04)

Figure 2. Cataphoric reference markers (purely directional and combined, counted together)

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Reference to the entire

written discourse

MT_LLE RA_LLE

n pttw n pttw

article 0 0.0 42 1.7

essay 0 0.0 8 0.3

here 41 0.4 29 1.2

paper 20 0.2 18 0.7

study 19 0.2 32 1.3

thesis 119 1.3 0 0.0

work 35 0.4 3 0.1

TOTAL 234 2.5 132 5.4

Table 5. Distribution of reference to the entire written discourse (in specific category only)

As mentioned above, endophoric reference to individual parts of the discourse and

to items incorporated into the discourse reveals similarities in the research-oriented

genre (theses and articles). Therefore, a closer examination of these two

subcategories, especially investigation of cross-disciplinary variations among the

three disciplines (linguistics, literary studies, and education), would be insightful.

Table 6 summarises the distribution of references to individual parts of the written

discourse, drawing data from the specific-only and combined categories and

counting them together. The relative frequencies clearly indicate that referencing

individual parts of the written discourse was significantly higher in MT_LLE than

in RA_LLE across all three disciplines, possibly explained by the length of the

research genre. While references to chapters and subchapters were the most frequent

endophoric markers across all three disciplines of MT_LLE, such references were

naturally absent in RA_LLE, as these are not part of the texts. Reference to sections

and subsections occurred across all three disciplines, with the incidence consistently

higher in MT_LLE than in RA_LLE.

Concerning frequency of references to specific parts of discourse across

disciplines, linguistics showed the highest occurrence of endophoric reference in

both MA_LLE and RA_LLE (19.7, 9.4 respectively). However, upon closer

examination of specific references to analysis and discussion, which appear in

both research genres and are considered core parts of each research study, clear

differences emerge.

Reference to analysis was more frequent in RAs than in MTs in linguistics and

education studies, highlighting the significance of analysis sections in RAs, as

recognised by expert writers. Reference to discussion was also more frequent in

RAs in linguistics, with the same frequency found in MTs and RAs in education.

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Reference to pages, frequently mentioned in lists of endophoric markers in

various studies of RAs (cf. Hyland 2005; Lee and Casal 2014), was absent from

RAs in all three disciplines, and in the MT corpus only 19 instances were

found.

Based on the description so far and the contents of Table 6, it is evident that

reference to individual parts of the discourse was lowest in literary studies MTs and

RAs. This is explained by the focus of the discipline itself; as analysis and discussion

are distributed throughout the discourse in literary studies, there is no clear

tendency to refer to them explicitly.

Reference to

individual parts of the

written discourse

Linguistics Literary studies Education

MT_LIN RA_LIN MT_LIT RA_LIT MT_

EDU RA_EDU

pttw pttw pttw pttw pttw pttw

analysis 3.3 4.0 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.4

chapter/subchapter 4.4 0.0 4.1 0.0 8.8 0.0

conclusion 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0

discussion 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2

introduction 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0

page 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

paragraph 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0

part 4.4 0.1 1.3 0.4 3.0 0.1

section/subsection 6.1 4.2 0.8 0.6 2.2 1.2

TOTAL 19.7 9.4 8.8 1.1 15.0 1.9

Table 6. Distribution of reference to individual parts of the written discourse (data taken from

specific and combined category, counted together)

Table 7 illustrates the distribution of references to items incorporated into the

discourse, with data taken from the specific-only and combined categories and

counted together. Once again, endophoric markers are used significantly less in

the discipline of literary studies in both MTs and RAs. The highest frequency

was identified in linguistics studies in both MTs and RAs (with the frequency

almost equal), while in the discipline of education, RAs displayed much higher

use of these markers than MTs (15.2 to 9.6, respectively).

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Reference to items

incorporated into

the discourse

Linguistics Literary studies Education

MT_LIN RA_LIN MT_LIT RA_LIT MT_EDU RA_EDU

pttw pttw pttw pttw pttw pttw

appendix 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 2.2 0.2

chart 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0

diagram 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

example 8.9 5.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 3.4

excerpt 0.5 4.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.9

extract 2.5 7. 9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

figure 2.3 4.8 0.0 0.4 2.6 2.0

here 3.0 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.6

table 7. 8 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.6 6.0

TOTAL 28.2 26.8 1.7 1.1 9.6 15.2

Table 7. Distribution of reference to items incorporated into the discourse (data taken from

specific and combined category, counted together)

Regarding the actual words used in the endophoric markers, the most frequently

used references to incorporated items in linguistics MTs were example, table, and

here, whereas in linguistics RAs, they were extract, example, excerpt, and figure. In

literary studies MTs and RAs, the most frequent references were example and here.

The endophoric marker here is used either as an anaphoric marker (Example 17) or

a cataphoric marker (Example 18), often substituting for words such as example,

extract, excerpt, etc.

(17) Initially putting laughter and tears together, Hazlitt soon adopts the

conventional approach of having tears signify pathos and laughter

embodying derision: <EXAMPLE>. While laughter is not a sign of pity

here, it is indicative of the sympathetic imagination since laughter reflects

our capacity to discern what is “unreasonable and unnecessary” in others

and act accordingly. (RA_LIT_10)

(18) Let me demonstrate it on a few examples here: <EXAMPLE>. Simple

structured compliments such as <EXAMPLE> or <EXAMPLE> are often

exploited by the characters as well (10.2%). (MT_LIN_11)

In the education MT corpus, the most frequently used reference words in this

subcategory were table, figure, and appendix/appendices, while in the education

RA corpus, they were table, example, and figure. In education RAs, references to

tables were twice as frequent as in MTs (6.0 and 2.6, respectively). References to

figures were almost the same in MTs as in RAs. Another distinction was that

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

authors of MTs across all three disciplines made more references to appendix/

appendices. Once again, the variation is attributed to the structural norms of RAs

in different journals, where appendices are not common, while in MTs, use of

appendices is frequent.

The occurrence of endophoric reference to items incorporated into discourse,

especially to visual aids like figures and tables, is notably scarcer in literary studies

than in linguistics and education. This scarcity can be explained by the primary

focus in literary studies on descriptive analysis, introduction of and commentary

on quotes from literary works or secondary sources, and presentation of important

examples.

When combining references to examples, excerpts, extracts, and here in linguistics,

authors in both MTs and RAs relied on them more than authors writing within the

field of education (14.9 in MTs and 19.6 in RAs in linguistics compared to 1.4 in

MTs and 6.9 in RAs in education). In contrast, references to findings summarised

using visual materials (e.g. charts, diagrams, figures, and tables), the differences were

less pronounced. Authors of RAs in education showed a higher reliance on these

visual materials (8.1 in RA_EDU, 6.1 in MT_EDU), whereas in MTs this type of

reference was more frequent in linguistics (11.8 in MT_LIN, 6.7 in RA_LIN).

4. Conclusion

The extent to which endophoric markers are explicitly taught in academic English

writing courses varies. In many courses, the primary focus is on teaching students

to structure their writing, develop arguments, use evidence, and cite sources

properly. However, depending on the course’s curriculum, the instructor’s

approach, and the students’ proficiency levels, endophoric markers can be covered

to some extent. These markers are crucial for ensuring coherence and cohesion in

academic writing. Endophoric signposting helps readers understand the

relationships between different parts of the text and navigate the content smoothly,

making it particularly important in longer and more complex pieces of writing,

such as the MT.

The analysis of endophoric markers across the Master’s Thesis Corpus (MT_LLE)

and the reference corpus, the Research Article Corpus (RA_LLE), has revealed

distinctive patterns in how Czech university students majoring in English language

and literature use these markers compared to L1 English-speaking writers.

A new taxonomy of endophoric markers was developed for this study. The

taxonomy categorises endophoric markers into purely directional, specific, and

combined markers, enabling a more nuanced understanding of how these markers

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

function in different contexts. The overall findings revealed that the MT_LLE

corpus contained a significantly higher frequency of endophoric markers (41.6

per 10,000 words) as compared with the reference corpus (28.7 per 10,000

words in RA_LLE). This difference can be attributed to the respective length of

the two types of written discourse, as described in other research studies (cf.

Bunton 1999). However, discourse length cannot be the sole factor influencing

the use of endophoric markers. Crismore et al. (1993) suggest that the use of

metadiscourse is closely linked to socio-cultural contexts. This is consistent with

the findings reported in a study by Afzaal et al. (2021) on the use of metadiscourse

markers, comparing introductions of MTs written in Chinese and US universities.

The lower use of metadiscourse markers found in Chinese introductions was

attributed not only to the shorter length of the texts but also to socio-cultural

factors. In Chinese writing, readers are required to take on a larger role in

determining the relationship of specific sections within the text as a whole (Afzaal

et al. 2021: 12).

The more frequent use of certain types and realisations of endophoric markers in

RA_LLE suggests a clear link to the function of endophoric markers as used by

expert writers. Notably, combined endophoric markers integrating specific and

purely directional markers were more prevalent in the MT_LLE corpus, indicating

a comprehensive approach by Czech students in guiding readers within their

English written discourse, albeit suggestive of their inexperience. Conversely,

specific markers referring to the entire discourse, individual parts, or items

incorporated into the discourse were equally prevalent in both the MT_LLE and

RA_LLA corpora (21.9 and 21.0, respectively; LL test, p-value 0.3506), suggesting

a shared emphasis on signposting and guiding readers through research-genre

texts. Furthermore, within this category, referencing to the discourse itself or to

items incorporated into the written discourse prevailed in RA_LLE compared to

MT_LLE, and the results were found to be statistically significant.

The examination of anaphoric, cataphoric, and non-directional reference highlights

further differences between the corpora that cannot be explained solely by the

length of the texts that make up the corpora but rather by the function of particular

endophoric markers. Anaphoric reference dominates in Czech L2 English student

writing, whereas English-speaking expert writers primarily employ non-directional

reference, indicating a difference in the use of markers between Czech students

and experienced L1 English-speaking writers. Similarly, Cao and Hu (2014)

identified a prevalence of non-directional reference in their study. Therefore,

academic English courses that emphasise the significance of non-directional

reference, as observed in expert writing, can enhance students’ proficiency in the

use of English academic discourse.

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Cross-disciplinary analysis also revealed variations in the use of endophoric

markers. For instance, linguistics exhibited a higher occurrence of endophoric

reference in both the MT_LLE and RA_LLE corpora. On the other hand, MTs

in education displayed a significantly lower incidence of these markers than RAs

in the same discipline. This is something that can be addressed by instructors of

academic English by encouraging students to use more endophoric reference

when presenting their results in the discipline of education. They could reference

items integrated into their discourse, such as tables and examples, based on and

closely related to either the quantitative or qualitative methods of their research

study.

Academic writing instruction in English and coursebooks typically cover

metadiscourse and include exercises for practising specific structures. However,

endophoric markers are often treated as implicit knowledge that everyone is

expected to possess and use. Consequently, there tends to be a lack of exercises

with which to practice this aspect.

These findings highlight the potential for enhancing English academic writing

courses, enabling students to develop skills for effectively communicating their

ideas and arguments in written form. Additionally, students should be familiarised

with the conventions of English academic discourse in their discipline, including

the use of endophoric markers. One approach could involve students identifying

endophoric markers in samples of specific text genres, thereby making their implicit

knowledge about the use of endophoric markers explicit. Moreover, instruction on

metadiscourse, including endophoric markers, can be integrated with introductory

lessons on using corpus tools and building their own corpora. Awareness-raising

activities could be employed to compare the use of endophoric markers in expert

writing within their discipline with their own written output. Such activities can

facilitate their development as proficient and knowledgeable writers and corpus

users, which can later assist them in constructing their own corpora and conducting

research.

I acknowledge several limitations in this study. Firstly, there was a discrepancy in

the size of the corpora, suggesting a need for an increase in the size of the reference

corpus. To address this issue, the research findings were normalised to occurrences

per 10,000 words. Additionally, there is potential for further research, including

the addition of another reference corpus, such as one made up of PhD dissertations

written in English (L2) by Czech university students, to investigate developmental

patterns. Further research could also involve a broader range of disciplines, possibly

including the hard sciences. Despite these limitations, the corpus-based analysis

provided valuable insights into how Czech students use endophoric markers in

their MTs across three disciplines in the humanities.

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Czech Science Foundation grant 21-12150S

Intercultural variation in writer-reader interaction in English-medium academic

discourse by Czech and Anglophone novice writers.

Works Cited

AbDOLLAHzADEH, Esmaeel. 2019. “A Coss-cultural Study of Hedging in Discussion Sections by

Junior and Senior Academic Writers”. Ibérica 38: 177-202.

ÄDEL, Annelie. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Publishing. <https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24>.

AfzAAL, Muhammad, Muhammad Ilyas CHIsHtI, Chao LIu and Chenxia zHAng. 2021. “Metadiscourse

in Chinese and American Graduate Dissertation Introductions”. Cogent Arts & Humanities: 8 (1).

<https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2021.1970879>.

buntOn, David. 1999. “The Use of Higher Level Metatext in Ph.D. Theses”. English for Specific

Purposes 18: 41-56. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00022-2>.

buRnEIkAItė, Nida. 2008. “Metadiscourse in Linguistics Master’s Theses in English L1 and L2”.

Kalbotyra 59 (3): 38-47.

buRnEIkAItė, Nida. 2009. “Endophoric Markers in Linguistics Master’s Theses in English L1 and

L2”. Žmogus ir žodis 3: 11-16.

CAO, Feng and Guangwei Hu. 2014. “Interactive Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A

Comparative Study of Paradigmatic and Disciplinary Influences”. Journal of Pragmatics 66: 15-

31. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007>.

CELIEŠIEnė, Vilija and Erika sAbuLytE. 2018. “Metadiscourse Markers in Technical Texts”. International

Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture 5 (4): 1-14.

CRIsMORE, Avon and Rodney fARnswORtH. 1990. “Metadiscourse in Popular and Professional

Science Discourse”. In Walter, Nash (ed.) The Writing Scholar. Studies in Academic Discourse.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage: 119-136.

CRIsMORE, Avon, Raija MARkkAnEn and Margaret s. stEffEnsEn. 1993. “Metadiscourse in Persuasive

Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students”. Written

Communication 10 (1): 39-71. <https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002>.

COnnOR, Ulla and Ana I. MOREnO. 2005. “Tertium Comparationis: A Vital Component in Contrastive

Rhetoric Research”. In Bruthiaux, Paul, Dwight Atkinson, William Eggington, William Grabe and

Vaidehi Ramanathan (eds.) Directions in Applied Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Robert B.

Kaplan. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters: 153-164. <https://doi.

org/10.21832/9781853598500-015>.

DAHL, Trine. 2004. “Textual Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A Marker of National Culture or

of Academic Discipline?” Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1807-1825. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

pragma.2004.05.004>.

DEL sAz RubIO, M. Milagros. 2011. “A Pragmatic Approach to the Macro-structure and

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Metadiscoursal Features of Research Article Introductions in the Field of Agricultural Sciences”.

English for Specific Purposes 30 (4): 258-271. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002 >.

DOntCHEVA-nAVRÁtILOVÁ, Olga. 2023. “Self-mention in L2 (Czech) Learner Academic Discourse:

Realisations, Functions and Distribution across Master’s Theses”. Journal of English for

Academic Purposes 64: 1475-1585. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101272>.

EL-DAkHs, Dina Abdel Salam. 2018. “Why Are Abstracts in PhD Theses and Research Articles

Different? A Genre-specific Perspective”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 36: 48-60.

<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.09.005>.

fLOwERDEw, Lynne. 2015. “Using Corpus-based Research and Online Academic Corpora to Inform

Writing of the Discussion Section of a Thesis”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20: 58-

68. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.06.001>.

guzIuROVÁ, Tereza. 2022. “Glossing an Argument: Reformulation and Exemplification in L2

Master ’s Theses”. Topics in Linguistics 23 (2): 18-35. <https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2022-0009>.

HyLAnD, Ken. 1999. “Talking to Students: Metadiscourse in Introductory Coursebooks”. English

for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 3-26. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2>.

HyLAnD, Ken. 2004. “Disciplinary Interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing”.

Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 133-151. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001 >.

HyLAnD, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.

HyLAnD, Ken. 2008. “Academic Clusters: Text Patterning in Published and Postgraduate Writing”.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18: 41-62.

HyLAnD, Ken and Feng Kevin JIAng. 2020. “Text-organizing Metadiscourse: Tracking Changes in

Rhetorical Persuasion”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21 (1): 137-164. <https://doi.org/10.1075/

jhp.00039.hyl>.

HyLAnD, Ken and Polly tsE. 2004. “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal”. Applied

Linguistics 25 (2): 156-177. <https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156>.

JAnčAříkOVÁ, Renata. 2023. “Attitude Markers in L2 Learners’ Academic Writing: A Case Study of

Master’s Theses by Czech Students Compared to L1 Students’ Writings”. Brno Studies in English

49 (1): 5-31. <https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2023-1-1>.

kAwAsE, Tomoyuki. 2015. “Metadiscourse in the Introductions of PhD Theses and Research

Articles”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20: 114-124. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

jeap.2015.08.006>.

kHALILI, Assef and Majid AsLAnAbADI. 2014. “The Use of Metadiscourse Devices by Non-native

Speakers in Research Articles”. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Discourse Analysis 2 (2): 21-

34. <https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2017.13648>

kHEDRI, Mohsen, Chan Swee HEng and Seyed Foad EbRAHIMI. 2013. “An Exploration of Interactive

Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Research Article Abstracts in Two Disciplines”. Discourse

Studies 15 (3): 319-331. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613480588>.

kILgARRIff, Adam, Pavel RyCHLy, Pavel sMRz and David tugwELL. 2004. “ITRI-04-08 the Sketch

Engine”. Lexical Computing. Available from <https://www.sketchengine.eu/>.

kIM, Loi Chek and Jason Miin-Hwa LIM. 2013. “Metadiscourse in English and Chinese Research

Article Introductions”. Discourse Studies 15 (2): 129-146. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612471476>.

kObAyAsHI, Yuichiro. 2017. “Developmental Patterns of Metadiscourse in Second Language

Writing”. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 21 (2): 41-54. <https://doi.

org/10.25256/PAAL.21.2.3>.

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

kOutsAntOnI, Dimitra. 2006. “Rhetorical Strategies in Engineering Research Articles and Research

Theses: Advanced Academic Literacy and Relations of Power”. Journal of English for Academic

Purposes 5: 19-36. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.002>.

LEE, Joseph J. and J. Elliott CAsAL. 2014. “Metadiscourse in Results and Discussion Chapters: A

Cross-linguistic Analysis of English and Spanish Thesis Writers in Engineering”. System 46: 39-

54. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009>.

LIAO, Jianling. 2020. “Metadiscourse, Cohesion, and Engagement in L2 Written Discourse”.

Languages 25 (5): 1-21. <https://doi.org/10.3390/languages5020025>.

MARtín-LAgunA, Sofía and Eva ALCón. 2015. “Do Learners Rely on Metadiscourse Markers? An

Exploratory Study in English, Catalan and Spanish”. Social and Behavioral Sciences 173: 85-92.

<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.035>.

MAuRAnEn, Anna. 1993. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study.

Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

MOREnO, Ana I. 2008. “The Importance of Comparable Corpora in Cross-cultural Studies”. In

Connor, Ulla, Ed Nagelhout and William V. Rozycki (eds.) Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to

Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 25-41.

Mu, Congjun, Lawrence Jun zHAng, John EHRICH and Huaqing HOng. 2015. “The Use of

Metadiscourse for Knowledge Construction in Chinese and English Research Articles”. Journal

of English for Academic Purposes 20: 135-148. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003>.

MuR-DuEñAs, Pilar. 2011. “An Intercultural Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Research

Articles Written in English and in Spanish”. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3068-3079. <https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002>.

PALtRIDgE, Brian. 2002. “Thesis and Dissertation Writing: An Examination of Published Advice

and Actual Practice”. English for Specific Purposes 16: 61-70. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-

4906(00)00025-9>.

POVOLnÁ, Renata. 2012. “Causal and Contrastive Discourse Markers in Novice Academic Writing”.

Brno Studies in English 38 (2): 131-148. <https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2012-2-8>.

PuJOL DAHME, Ana and Moisés sELfA sAstRE. 2015. “The Transition from University to Publication:

and English”. Ibérica 30: 155-181.

QIu, Xuyan and Xiaohao MA. 2019. “Disciplinary Enculturation and Authorial Stance: Comparison

of Stance Features among Master’s Dissertations, Doctoral Theses, and Research Articles”.

Ibérica 38: 327-348.

swALEs, John. 1990. Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:

Cambridge U.P.

tRIbbLE, Christopher. 2002. “Corpora and Corpus Analysis: New Windows on Academic Writing”.

In Flowerdew, John (ed.) Academic Discourse. London: Longman: 131-149. <https://doi.

org/10.4324/9781315838069>.

VOgEL, Radek. 2008. “Sentence Linkers in Essays and Papers by Native vs. Non-native Writers”.

Discourse and Interaction 1 (2): 119-126.

Received: 10/12/2023

Accepted: 03/04/2024

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.