Investigating the Functions of Meta-Discourse Markers in Arabic Academic Writing: A Comparative Study of Iranian and Arab Writers

Mahdi Moqadasi Nia, Rasool Dehghanzad

Abstract


The present study aims to investigate the differences between Iranian (Persian-speaking) and Arab writers in the use of meta/discourse markers in Arabic academic writing. Emphasizing analysis at both the functional and individual marker levels, this study sought to answer the main research question of whether a significant difference exists between the two groups of writers in their use of meta/discourse markers. The research methodology was quantitative and corpus-based. The data comprised 200 academic article abstracts in the humanities and social sciences, selected through purposive sampling (100 abstracts by Iranian writers and 100 abstracts by Arab writers). meta/discourse markers were classified into 12 functions and 87 individual markers based on an integrated framework drawing on models by Fraser (2006) and Hyland (2005). Data were analyzed using Generalized Linear Models with a negative binomial distribution in SPSS software.

The findings revealed that at the functional level, the pattern of discourse marker use did not differ significantly between the two groups (p = 0.063), with both groups employing additive, referential, explanatory, and introductory functions most frequently. However, at the level of individual markers, a significant difference was observed between the two groups (p < 0.001). The marker wa (‘and’) was the most frequent marker overall, accounting for 38.1% of all uses, and was used significantly more often by Arab writers. Arab writers also made significantly greater use of the markers bal (contrastive), min khilāl (referential), qad (hedging), and mithl (explanatory). In contrast, Iranian writers employed introductory verbal markers such as yatanāwal, yuḥāwil, and yas‘ā, as well as inferential markers like aẓharat natā’ij... and tawuṣṣala, significantly more frequently.


Keywords


Meta/Discourse Markers; Arabic Academic Writing; Contrastive Analysis; Arabic for Specific Purpose.

References


Alenizy, K. S., Al-Thunayyan, A. A., & Alhuqbani, M. N. (2024). Analysis of discourse markers and their combinations in nonnative academic writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 15 (6), 2010-2019.

Assassi, T., & Merghmi, K. (2023). Formulaic sequences and meta-discourse markers in applied linguistics research papers: A cross-linguistic corpus-based analysis of native and non-native authors' published articles. Academicus International Scientific Journal, 27, 154-175.

Bal Gezegin, B., & Bas, M. (2020). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of research articles and book reviews. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6 (1), 45-62.

Basheer, N. (2019). Connectors in the Writing of Native and Non-Native Arabic Speakers: similarities, differences and a teaching model. In The Arabic Classroom (pp. 199-218). Routledge.‏

Boginskaya, O. (2024). A contrastive analysis of metadiscourse patterns in academic texts by non-native authors. Lengua y Habla, 28, 280-297.

Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.

Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 189-204). Elsevier.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.

Hardin, J. W., & Hilbe, J. M. (2012). Generalized linear models and extensions (3rd ed.). Stata Press.

Haruna, H. H., Ibrahim, B., Haruna, M., Ibrahim, B., & Yunus, K. (2018). Metadiscourse in students’ academic writing: case study of Umaru Musa Yar’adua University and Al-Qalam University Katsina. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(7), 83-92.

Hayisama, F., Shah, M. I. A., & Adnan, W. N. A. W. (2019). Rhetorical style across cultures: An analysis of metadiscourse markers in academic writing of Thai and Malaysian students. LSP International Journal, 6 (1).

Hsu, J. C., & Nelson, B. (1998). Multiple comparisons in the general linear model. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 7(1), 23–41.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.‏

Iranian Association of Arabic Language and Literature Scientific Research Journal. (2019–2021). Issues 58–77.

Ismail, M. R., & Che Mat, A. (2026). Bridging the gap between perceptions and reality in Arabic writing proficiency among Malaysian higher education students: A triangulation approach. Ijaz Arabi: Journal of Arabic Learning, 9 (1), 482-489.

Khedri, M., & Basirat, E. (2022). Interactive metadiscourse in dentistry research articles: Iranian vs non-Iranian academic writers. Discourse and Interaction, 15(2), 77-100.‏

Khedri, M., Swee Heng, C., & Bee Hoon, T. (2013). Cross-disciplinary and cross-linguistic perspectives on metadiscourse in academic writing. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 31(1), 129-138.‏

Lark Journal of Philosophy, Linguistics, and Social Sciences. (2024–2025). Volumes 17(1–4) and 18(1–4).

Lee, S. (2009). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A corpus-based study of expert, L1 and L2 postgraduate student text (Doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University).‏

Leńko-Szymańska, A. (2008). Non-native or non-expert? The use of connectors in native and foreign language learners’ texts. Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère, (27), 91-108.

Livingstone, K. A. (2019). Examining the use of metadiscourse markers in academic writing. International journal of literature, language and linguistics, 5(3), 244-254.‏

McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.

Mirshamsi, A. S., & Allami, H. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master's theses. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 5(2), 23-40.

Nursa'adah, S., Syihabuddin, & Supriadi, R. (2026). Interactive metadiscourse in Arabic abstracts: A comparative study of Kitābah implications for native and non-native writers. Alibbaa': Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Arab, 7 (1). 181-205.

Pahlevannezhad, M. R., & Alinezhad, B. (2012). Contrastive Rhetorics and the Study of Metadiscourse in Persian Native Speakers’ and Arab Learners’ Compositions. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 1(1), 79-100.‏

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544.

Pearson, W. S., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2023). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A systematic review. Lingua, 293, 103561.

Sanosi, A. B., & Mohammed, A. S. E. (2024). A corpus-based analysis of Arab scholars' use of interactional metadiscourse markers. International Journal of English Linguistics, 13(2), 188-200.

Zare, S. (2020). The effect of "pattern practice in translation" on developing Persian speaking Arabic students' writing skill. Language Related Research, 11 (1), 277-300.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.18860/ijazarabi.v9i3.41372

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Mahdi Moqadasi Nia, Rasool Dehghanzad

License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/