Engagement Markers for Addressing Readers as Communicators in Academic Writing
The Zanco Journal as a Case Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14500/kujhss.v9n2y2026.pp715-726Keywords:
Engagement Markers, Written Discourse, Writer-Reader Interaction, Zanco Journal, Corpus LinguisticsAbstract
Showcasing the interpersonal aspect of language nowadays is important for academic writers to establish relationships with their readers, fostering the function of language as a social practice. Engagement is about how the writer explicitly builds relationships with readers through their text. Recently, this area has drawn scholars’ attention, mostly investigating disciplinary and culturally based variances in the use of engagement markers. However, this field still lacks research on identifying a set of linguistic features that are involved in promoting writer-reader interaction. Therefore, the present study aims to explore the forms and functions of engagement markers used in articles published in the Zanco journal. This is a corpus-based quantitative research in which #Lancsbox 6.0 online software was employed to identify the engagement markers used and count the frequency of each one. The study reveals that there is a need for further studies to investigate readers’ perceptions of these identified engagement markers to gauge their rhetorical potency. The findings revealed that Appraisal resources (76%) were used significantly more often than Hyland’s engagement markers (24%), indicating a strong preference for evaluative and stance-based strategies. Pronouns were the most common resource (101), whereas rhetorical questions were entirely absent. The findings from this study can set a benchmark for the pedagogical framework used in improving academic writing skills. The study reveals that there is a need for further studies to investigate readers’ perceptions of these identified engagement markers to gauge their rhetorical potency.
Downloads
References
Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going : A Taxonomy of Metadiscourse in Spoken and Written Academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69–97. https://doi.org/10.35360/NJES.218
Alaghbary G. S. (2023). Is stylistics a hard science? Intersubjective positioning in Language and Literature research article abstracts between 2013 and 2022. Heliyon, 9(11), e22114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22114
Arjomandi, A., Seufert, J. H., O'Brien, M., & Rossetto, L. C. (2021). An empirical study of business student engagement with active teaching strategies: A comparison of first year and senior students. American Business Review, 24(1), 5.
Boginskaya, O. A. (2023). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in English Research Article Abstracts Written by Non-Native Authors: A Corpus-Based Contrastive Study. Ikala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 28(1), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v28n1a08
Brezina, V., Weill-Tessier, P., & McEnery, T. (2020). #LancsBox 5.x and 6.x [software].
Available at: http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox.
Brezina, V., Timperley, M., & McEnery, T. (2018). #LancsBox 4.x [software]. Available at: http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox.
Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Wattam, S. (2015). Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 139-173.
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chan, C. M., & Pan, S. L. (2008). User engagement in e-government systems implementation: A comparative case study of two Singaporean e-government initiatives. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(2), 124-139.
Chou, I. C., Li, W., & Liu, K. (2023). Representation of interactional metadiscourse in translated and native English: A corpus-assisted study. PLOS ONE, 18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284849
Dueñas, P. M. (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.
Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763-782): Springer.
Fu, X., & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres: a study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122–144. https://doi.org/10.1075/ETC.7.1.05FU
Gallagher, T. L., Bennett, S., Keen, D., & Muspratt, S. (2017). Examining learner engagement strategies: Australian and Canadian teachers’ self-report. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(1), 51-64.
Gong, H., Liu, L., & Cao, F. (2021). A Cross-Linguistic Study of Interactional Metadiscourse in English and Chinese Research Articles by the Same Chinese Scholars. Journal of Language Identity and Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2021.1932504
Haji, S. S., & Abdulla, K. H. (2020). The Use of Hedging Devices in English Texts Written by English and Kurdish Academics: A Comparative Study. Twejer Journal, 3(1), 1037-1076.
Hint, H., Lemendik, H., Johansson, C., & Leijen, D. A. J. (2024). Decoding Metadiscourse Markers in Estonian Academic Texts: A Language-Specific Perspective. Written Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883241286901
Holquist, M. (2002). Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203425855
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction, and the construction of knowledge: representation of self and others in research writing. IJES, 8 (2), pp. 1-23.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: what is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, pp. 16-29.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury.
Jalongo, M. R. (2023). Writing for an Audience: Discourse Communities Scholarly Writing: Publishing Manuscripts That Are Read, Downloaded, and Cited (pp. 71-90): Springer.
Jin, H. (2015). A Corpus-Based Study on Engagement in English Writing. English Teaching, 70(2).
Kim, H. (2016), JR Martin and PRR White (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 278 pages. 담화와인지, 23(2), 171-178.
Koutsantoni, D. (2004b). Attitude, certainty and allusions to common knowledge in scientific research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 163-182.
Koutsantoni, D. (2004ba). Relations of power and solidarity in scientific communities: A cross-cultural comparison of politeness strategies in the writing of native English speaking and Greek engineers. Multilingua-journal of Cross-cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 23, 111-143.
Mackinlay, E. (2002). Engaging with Theories of Dialogue and Voice: Using Bakhtin as a Framework to Understand Teaching and Learning Indigenous Australian Women’s Performance. Research Studies in Music Education, 19(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X020190010501
Mou, B. (2010). On constructive-engagement strategy of comparative philosophy. Comparative Philosophy, 1.
Müller, K., Salö, L., & Sörlin, S. (2024). Quality from within: Entry points to research quality in the humanities. Research Evaluation, 33, Article rvae029. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae029
Prudenciano, J. B., & Raymundo, J. L. (2024). Metadiscourse Markers in Senior High School Students Academic Papers: A Constructed Learner Corpus-Based Investigation. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature & Translation, 7(10).
Qiu, X., Wang, Y. (Arthur), Dartey, E. A., & Kim, M. (2024). Interactional metadiscourse in expert and student disciplinary writing: Exploring intrageneric and functional variation. English for Specific Purposes. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.10.007
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
Rasti, I. (2011). Involving the Reader in the Text: Engagement Markers in Native and Non-native Student Argumentative Essays [Doctoral thesis, University of Liverpool].
Seyyedi, K. (2024). Rhetorical Analysis of Engagement in Discussion Section of Doctoral Dissertations Written by Kurdish Native Speakers. Cihan University-Erbil Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 8(1), pp 72-76. DOI: 10.24086/cuejhss.vol8n1y2024.pp 72-76
Toska, B. (2008). Dialogizing Communication through Pragmatic Markers. ELOPE, 5, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.4312/ELOPE.5.1-2.89-98
Vega Garrido, M. E. (2019). Characterizing level iv students’ use of engagement resources in academic writing in English: An exploratory study from a systemic functional perspective. Universidad del Norte.
Vergie, M. P. (2025). Academic Writing in an ODeL Institution: Stance and Engagement in Study Guides for First-year Students. UnisaRxiv.
Yuvayapan, F. & Yakut, İ. (2021). Engagement markers in L1 and L2 English academic writing: the case of master’s and doctorate theses. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University Journal of Social Sciences, 18 (3), 1658-1670. DOI: 10.33437/ksusbd.963087
Xu, X., & Nesi, H. (2019). Differences in engagement: A comparison of the strategies used by British and Chinese research article writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 121-134.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Lana D. Miran, Dr.Nala N Khorsheed
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
