Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Device in Academic Texts

The study examined the use of met discourse in the academic writing of Filipino writers in Applied Linguistics and Business Administration. It determined the ways advanced writers use language to make their writings organized, informative and persuasive and the factors that may account for the differences in linguistic preferences. The study used the descriptive-qualitative research method. To analyze the data, Hyland's (2005) Model of Met discourse in Academic Writing, Salager-Meyer's (1997) Taxonomy of hedges, Halliday and Hasan's (1976) concept of cohesion and Samraj's (2008) classifications of citations were used. The findings revealed a higher use of Interactive met discourse than Interactional met discourse in the academic texts in both disciplines. The most frequently used are Transitions and Hedges and the least employed are Self-mentions and Frame markers. Transitions, Code glosses, and Endophoric markers were used to guide readers and make their writings coherent and informative. The use of Hedges indicates cautious writers and the low presence of Engagement markers and Self-mentions suggests objectivity. The writer's primary purpose, the writing convention policy and individual rhetorical strategy account for the differences in the writers' linguistic preferences. Based on the findings, the study concludes writers use different met discourse to guide, persuade and engage with their readers. The study recommends the teaching of met discourse in the writing courses to improve students writing performance. A similar study on met discourse use in other disciplines is recommended to look into the rhetorical preferences of other writers and their ways by which they use language to guide their readers in reading their texts.