[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-589633-105":59,"doc-detail-589633-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","interactional-markers-in-english-medical-research-articles-written-by-iranian-and-native-authors-a-contrastive-metadiscourse-analysis-of-method-section","Interactional Markers in English Medical Research Articles Written by Iranian and Native Authors: A Contrastive Metadiscourse Analysis of Method Section","","The study investigates whether interactional markers differ significantly across groups of Iranian ISI authors, Iranian non-ISI authors, and native authors in English medical research article method sections. Ninety method sections from articles published between 2005 and 2010 were examined. Hyland’s taxonomy of metadiscourse markers guided the analysis, followed by quantitative and qualitative comparisons and Chi-Square tests. Results at p=0.05 indicate significant differences in self-mentions across native/Iran ISI, native/Iran non-ISI, and Iran ISI/Iran non-ISI comparisons, and significant differences between native and Iran ISI groups for boosters.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/interactional-markers-in-english-medical-research-articles-written-by-iranian-and-native-authors-a-contrastive-metadiscourse-analysis-of-method-section/589633/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/interactional-markers-in-english-medical-research-articles-written-by-iranian-and-native-authors-a-contrastive-metadiscourse-analysis-of-method-section/589633.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Cipher","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":52},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the research purpose of the study?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The study determines whether significant differences exist among Iranian ISI, Iranian non-ISI, and native authors regarding the use of interactional markers in method sections.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How was the data collected and analyzed?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Ninety method sections from English medical research articles (2005–2010) were examined, and Hyland’s (2005) taxonomy of metadiscourse markers was used. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were followed by Chi-Square tests.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What were the key statistical findings?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"At p=0.05, significant differences were found in binary comparisons for self-mentions, and a significant difference appeared between Native and Iran ISI groups for boosters.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},589633,1792189886,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":52,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},687208528416,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","Advances in Language and Literary Studies  \nISSN: 2203-4714  \nVol. 5 No. 4; August 2014  \nCopyright © Australian International Academic Centre, Australia  \nInteractional Markers in English Medical Research Articles Written by Iranian and Native Authors: A Contrastive Metadiscourse Analysis of Method Section  \nFariba Ghadyani (Corresponding Author)  \nEnglish Language Department, Sheikh-e-Bahaee University, Isfahan, Iran  \nE-mail: [ghadyani.fa@gmail.com](ghadyani.fa@gmail.com)  \nMohammad Hassan Tahririan  \nEnglish Language Department, Sheikh-e-Bahaee University, Isfahan, Iran  \nE-mail: [tahririan@shbu.ac.ir](tahririan@shbu.ac.ir)  \nDoi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.4p. 137  \nURL: [http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.4p.137](http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.4p.137)  \nReceived: 11/06/2014  \nAccepted: 18/07/2014  \nAbstract  \nTo determine the issue of whether there were any significant differences between the groups including Iran ISI, Iran non- ISI, and native authors in binary comparisons as for employing interactional markers, the present study was conducted. To collect the data, 90 'method sections' of English medical research articles within Iranian ISI, Iranian nonISI, and native ISI journals written by Iranian and native authors published between 2005 and 2010, were examined. Asthe model of analysis, Hyland's (2005) taxonomy of metadiscourse markers was used. After performing quantitative and qualitative analyses of the interactional markers, Chi-Square tests were run. The results of the study at p= 0.05 revealed significant differences in binary comparisons made up of native / Iran ISI, native / Iran non-ISI, and Iran ISI/ Iran nonISI as for employing self-mentions. The findings also demonstrated a significant difference between Native and Iran ISI groups for using boosters. These differences may be influenced by the writers' mother tongue, culture and also by their lack or limited awareness of the rhetorical conventions of English medical academic research writing which are needed to be taken into consideration.  \nKeywords: metadiscourse analysis, interactional marker, method section, medical research article, Iranian, ISI journal 1. Introduction  \nDue to increasing importance of English language as the dominant international language of research (Swales, 2004), it is expected that speakers of other languages, especially those who are engaged in ESP and EAP communicate effectively in a global context. Furthermore, writing persuasive scientific academic texts, per se, in second or foreign language writing for being accepted, and published in particularly, internationally indexed or prestigious journals is a fundamental means of securing scientific change (Livnat, 2012) . Medicine is no exception to this rule as medical research articles are the genre, the mastery of which is very important to the professional success of researchers. According to Swales (1990), the researchers' career is almost entirely dependent on their ability to write successful academic articles, publish them in the reputed journals, and ultimately cause others to cite them. In fact as he argues (1990), writers of medical research articles within their discourse community need to know how to write in accordance with the social aims, the form, the structure and the formulations that reflect the structure of the specific disciplinary community, that is, its norms, and conventions .  \nSwales introduced a prototypical structure and various formal features as signaling moves (Lewin, Fine, & Young, 2001; Samraj, 2002a;Samraj,2002b) in English-written article introductions in a range of disciplines in his seminal work (1990)as the three-part CARS (Creating a Research Space) model. His work were followed by a group of researchers who have sought to describe the conventional rhetorical structure of the articles within various parts of them through move analysis identifying distinct rhetorical units that perform coherent communicative functions(Swales, 2004)","cbCaijlozHWrwxeG","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijlozHWrwxeG","pdf",361235,14,"English","# Abstract\n# Keywords\n# Introduction","[{\"question\":\"What is the research purpose of the study?\",\"answer\":\"The study determines whether significant differences exist among Iranian ISI, Iranian non-ISI, and native authors regarding the use of interactional markers in method sections.\"},{\"question\":\"How was the data collected and analyzed?\",\"answer\":\"Ninety method sections from English medical research articles (2005–2010) were examined, and Hyland’s (2005) taxonomy of metadiscourse markers was used. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were followed by Chi-Square tests.\"},{\"question\":\"What were the key statistical findings?\",\"answer\":\"At p=0.05, significant differences were found in binary comparisons for self-mentions, and a significant difference appeared between Native and Iran ISI groups for boosters.\"}]","Interactional Markers in English Medical Research Articles Written by Iranian and Native Authors: A Contrastive Metadiscourse Analysis of Method Section | PDF",1792067805,35]