Persuasión y cierre en el trabajo fin de máster: Estudio comparativo del metadiscurso interaccional en estudiantes hispanohablantes y sinohablantes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58221/mosp.v120i1.58895Keywords:
persuasion, interactional metadiscourse, master's thesis, Conclusion section, Spanish academic discourse, comparative studyAbstract
This paper compares the use of interactional metadiscourse to fulfill the persuasive function in the Conclusion section of Linguistics master’s theses written in Spanish by native Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking students. Using the analytical model of Hyland (2005a) and two comparable corpora consisting of a total of 64 conclusions, the study identifies a wide variety of similarities and differences in the overall frequency, category distribution, and linguistic realizations of interactional metadiscourse. In addition, the causes of the relevant findings are analyzed from the perspectives of academic Spanish proficiency, the influence of linguistic disciplinary conventions and sociocultural factors, and the language contrast between Spanish and Mandarin Chinese. In summary, this study corroborates the existence of a variation in the metadiscourse use in Spanish academic discourse, which is linked to the native languages of the authors, and explains the reasons that may lead to the variation. The importance of integrating interactional metadiscourse and part-genre features into the academic Spanish teaching are also discussed.
Downloads
References
Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(1), 1–16.
Acín Villa, E. (2016). La atenuación en las “Conclusiones” de las tesis de doctorado. Textos en proceso, 2(1), 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17710/tep.2016.2.1.1acinvilla
Bisbe Bonilla, L. (2021). “Lo que aquí pretendemos destacar es”: El metadiscurso interpersonal como orientación interpretativa en artículos de Antropología. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios del Discurso, 21(2), 4–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35956/v.21.n2.2021.p.4-26
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410899
Brown, P. y Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of PhD conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.004
Cañada Pujols, M. D. y Bach, C. (2022). Marcadores metadiscursivos interaccionales en resúmenes de TFG: ¿Indicadores de dominio del género? Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 90, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.5209/clac.81301 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5209/clac.81301
Cao, Y. y Yang, J. (2018). El desarrollo del posgrado en filología hispánica en China desde el enfoque de los temas de tesis: El caso de SISU. PUBLICACIONES, 48(1), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.30827/publicaciones.v48i1.7330 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30827/publicaciones.v48i1.7330
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019). Different ways to express personal attitudes in Spanish and English engineering papers: An analysis of metadiscourse devices, affective evaluation and sentiment analysis. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 15(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2019-0004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2019-0004
Chen, C. y Zhang, L. J. (2017). An intercultural analysis of the use of hedging by Chinese and Anglophone academic English writers. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-2009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-2009
Ciapuscio, G. y Otañi, I. (2002). Las conclusiones de los artículos de investigación desde una perspectiva contrastiva. Revista del Instituto de Investigaciones Lingüísticas y Literarias RILL, 15, 117–133.
Connor, U. M. y Moreno, A. I. (2005). Tertium comparationis: A vital component in contrastive rhetoric research. En P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. Eggington, W. Grabe y V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in Applied Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 153–164). Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.27710949.17
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. Peter Lang.
Deng, L., He, P. y Gao, X. (2025). Move-stance connection in Chinese and English research article conclusion sections: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 76, 101520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101520 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101520
Echeverría Sánchez, L. F. (2021). Organización retórica de la movida conclusión en ensayos de filosofía. Cuadernos de Lingüística Hispánica, 37, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.19053/0121053X.n37.2021.12252 DOI: https://doi.org/10.19053/0121053X.n37.2021.12252
Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15, 29–53.
Hu, G. y Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795–2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
Hu, G. y Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.002
Hyland, K. (2001a). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005
Hyland, K. (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. The University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
Hyland, K. y Jiang, F. K. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001
Hyland, K. y Jiang, F. K. (2024). Metadiscourse: The evolution of an approach to texts. Text & Talk, 44(3), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2021-0156 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2021-0156
Jiang, F. K. y Hyland, K. (2025). Rhetorical distinctions: Comparing metadiscourse in essays by ChatGPT and students. English for Specific Purposes, 79, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2025.03.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2025.03.001
Lafuente-Millán, E. (2014). Reader engagement across cultures, languages and contexts of publication in business research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12019
Liu, Y. y Chen, Y. (2020). Contrastive study on stance markers in MA Theses in Applied Linguistics by Chinese and American students. Foreign Languages in China, 17(02), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.13564/j.cnki.issn.1672-9382.2020.02.011
Lee, J. J. y Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009
Lorés-Sanz, R. (2006). ‘I will argue that’: First person pronouns and metadiscoursal devices in RA abstracts in English and Spanish. ESP across cultures, 3, 23–40.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A textlinguistic study. Peter Lang.
Moreno, A. I. (2022). To be, or not to be, self-critical? Writing discussion and/or closing sections in English and Spanish social science research articles. ESP Today, 10(2), 221–244. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2022.10.2.2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2022.10.2.2
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2007). ‘I/we focus on…’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00228.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00228.x
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068–3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1
REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA: Banco de datos (CORPES XXI) [en línea]. Corpus del Español del Siglo XXI (CORPES). https://www.rae.es/banco-de-datos/corpes-xxi
Rojo, G. (2021). Introducción a la lingüística de corpus en español. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003119760
Sabaj Meruane, O., Toro Trengove, P. y Fuentes Cortés, M. (2011). Construcción de un modelo de movidas retóricas para el análisis de artículos de investigación en español. Onomázein, (24), 245–271. https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.24.11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.24.11
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2
Sánchez-Jiménez, D. (2022). Variación lingüística de la cortesía verbal en el discurso académico escrito: Atenuación e intensificación de la voz del autor en la evaluación de las fuentes. Revista Signos, 55(108), 260–286. https://revistasignos.cl/index.php/signos/article/view/566 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342022000100260
Sun, S. A. y Jiang, F. K. (2024). Analyzing metadiscourse in L2 writing for academic purposes: Models and approaches. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3(3), 100149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100149 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100149
Thompson, P. (2016). Genre approaches to theses and dissertations. En K. Hyland y P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 379–391). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315657455-35
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609 DOI: https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198511781
Williams, J. M. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity & grace. Scott Foresman.
Wang, J. y Jiang, F. K. (2018). Epistemic stance and authorial presence in scientific research writing: Hedges, boosters and self-mentions across disciplines and writer groups. En P. Mur-Dueñas y J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Intercultural perspectives on research writing (pp. 195–216). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18.09wan
Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008
Yao, G. (2022). Metadiscourse use in Spanish academic writing: Exploring the interface of nativeness and expertise [Tesis de doctorado, Universidad de Murcia].
Yao, G. y Sun, W. (2025). Hedging use in Spanish academic writing: A contrastive corpus-based study. Ibérica, (50), 203–232. https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2785.50.203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2785.50.203
Zhou, H. y Jiang, F. K. (2023). ‘The study has clear limitations’: Presentation of limitations in conclusion sections of PhD dissertations and research articles in applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 71, 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.001
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fulin Wang, Yufei Cao
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The full license and copyright terms for Moderna Språk can be found under the journal's Open Access Policy.
