1. Introduction

This chapter introduces the importance of research articles in communicating with the disciplinary community and the challenges faced by novice writers in achieving disciplinary persuasion. It also highlights the lack of evidence on how writing practices on different research subjects within a discipline diverge in a single journal. The study focuses on Applied Linguistics and aims to explore the use of metadiscourse in the journal's papers to understand the impact of different knowledge-making practices on research presentation.

2. Applied Linguistics, Metadiscourse, and Academic Persuasion

1) Applied linguistics seeks to make connections between scholarly discourses, theories, and research methods from a broad range of linguistic and other relevant areas of study, with a focus on areas such as language acquisition, discourse analysis, language planning, and bilingualism.

2) The most salient research topics published in applied linguistics are language acquisition and discourse analysis, and literature has shown that applied linguists often craft persuasive texts with a range of rhetorical strategies, including the use of metadiscourse.

3) Metadiscourse allows writers to build a relationship with readers by organizing their texts to help readers understand, interpret, and react to the content. It includes elements such as transitions, frame markers, endophoric markers, evidentials, and code glosses, which guide readers through the text and reflect the writers' goals and intentions.

4) Previous studies have found disciplinary variation and differences in the use of interactive metadiscourse in different genres and disciplines, including a comparison across hard and soft sciences and between quantitative and qualitative research articles.

5) This study aims to compare the use of interactive metadiscourse in research articles published on language acquisition and discourse analysis in applied linguistics to further explore the impact of research paradigms and epistemological inquiries in the field.

3. Corpus and Methods

This chapter describes the creation of two corpora, the LA corpus and the DA corpus, from research articles published in Applied Linguistics between 2014 and 2019. The corpora were analyzed using Hyland's list of metadiscourse markers, which was searched using the concordancer AntConc. The study omitted certain markers and manually checked occurrences to ensure they were functioning as interactive metadiscourse. Statistical significance was determined using the log-likelihood test.

4. Findings: Interactive Metadiscourse in Applied Linguistics

This chapter discussed the findings from a corpus-based study on interactive metadiscourse in applied linguistics. Results showed that evidentials were most frequent and frame markers least frequent in both research subjects. Language acquisition used significantly more interactive metadiscourse than discourse analysis, particularly in the use of transition markers, code glosses, and evidential markers. The higher frequency in language acquisition may be due to its experimental orientation and the intricate relationship between experimental variables. Transitional markers were used for additive, comparative, and consequential relations between claims and arguments, and were more frequently used in language acquisition. Code glosses in the form of exemplification and reformulation were also used more frequently in language acquisition, potentially to illustrate complex relevance. Evidential markers were significantly more often used in language acquisition than discourse analysis, demonstrating the importance of intertextual reference and the accreditation of disciplinary knowledge.

5. Discussion

Research in applied linguistics reveals similar use of metadiscourse resources between language acquisition and discourse analysis, indicating rhetorical homogeneity in soft-knowledge fields. Significant differences were found between the two subjects, with language acquisition reporting higher frequencies of addition, consequence, reformulators, and non-integral citations, while discourse analysis used more exemplifiers, linear and non-linear references, and topic shifts. These differences align with the distinct research paradigms and knowledge-making ways of the two subjects. The complex nature of language acquisition research, which often involves multidisciplinary approaches and the need for a multi-layered expression of arguments, accounts for these differences in metadiscourse use. Similarly, the focus on causality evidence and the burgeoning scale of academic publications in language acquisition research leads to the heavier use of certain metadiscourse markers, whereas discourse analysis, focused on describing texts and their communicative purposes, requires a non-linear integration of research findings and consequently uses specific metadiscourse markers more frequently.

6. Conclusion and Implications

This chapter discusses the findings of the study on the use of metadiscourse markers in research articles of language acquisition and discourse analysis published in Applied Linguistics. It highlights the differences in rhetorical preferences between the two sub-disciplines and attributes these differences to research paradigms. The chapter also emphasizes the importance of considering disciplinary influences on the use of metadiscourse and suggests further research involving disciplinary experts to explore the use of metadiscourse in specific academic communities. Additionally, the chapter discusses the theoretical and practical implications of the research, especially for the teaching of English for Academic Purposes, and emphasizes the need for targeted instructions for EAP teachers and international publication success for scholars in language acquisition and discourse analysis.