A preliminary study of interactional metadiscourse in discussion sections: Comparing native English and Turkish non-native English authors in q1 SSCI-indexed and locally indexed non-q-rated education journals

Abstract

This preliminary study examines the use of interactional metadiscourse markers (IMMs) in the discussion sections of education research articles (ERAs) authored by native English speakers (NSEs) publishing in Q1 SSCI-indexed journals and Turkish authors with English as an additional language (EAL) publishing in locally indexed or non-indexed journals. The corpus comprised 30 single-authored ERAs, with 15 from each author group. Analyses of IMMs, conducted both manually and with computer-assisted tools, were guided by Hyland’s (2005a) framework. Log-likelihood tests revealed significant differences in the frequency and distribution of IMMs: NSE authors employed more IMMs across all categories, particularly hedges, boosters, self-mentions, and engagement markers, often demonstrating greater variety and rhetorical flexibility. In contrast, Turkish EAL authors displayed a preference for impersonal self-mentions and attitude markers, especially evaluative adjectives, and showed less frequent use of explicit reader engagement features. These findings highlight contrasting rhetorical strategies, with NSE authors constructing more dialogic and strategically hedged arguments. These differences suggest varying rhetorical preferences that may be shaped by prior academic literacy experiences, publication contexts, and disciplinary conventions. The study emphasizes the need for pedagogical interventions to support broader awareness and strategic use of IMMs and their rhetorical functions across academic writing contexts. Implications for teaching and recommendations for journal editorial boards are discussed to support the academic enculturation of novice scholars aspiring to publish in high-impact international journals.