Definition:
Metadiscourse is the language that writers or speakers use to refer to, organize, and evaluate their own discourse. Rather than communicating content directly, metadiscourse communicates about the communication: signaling text structure, hedging claims, expressing attitudes, engaging readers, and managing interpersonal relationships in the text. The term is associated with Ken Hyland, whose comprehensive framework (2005, Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing) has been widely influential in academic writing research and pedagogy. Metadiscourse is particularly studied in academic writing, where its use reflects both rhetorical competence and disciplinary convention — and is an important dimension of L2 academic literacy.
Hyland’s Metadiscourse Framework
Hyland (2005) organizes metadiscourse into two major categories:
Interactive metadiscourse (helps the reader/listener navigate the text):
| Device | Function | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Frame markers | Signal discourse stages, goals | firstly, to conclude, in summary, the purpose of this paper |
| Code glosses | Elaborate or clarify meaning | that is, for example, in other words, namely |
| Endophoric markers | Reference to other text parts | as noted above, see Figure 3, in the following section |
| Evidentials | Attribute information to sources | according to X, Y argues that, following Smith |
| Transitions | Signal logical/semantic relations | however, therefore, and, but, in addition |
Interactional metadiscourse (involves the reader/manages the relationship):
| Device | Function | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Hedges | Signal epistemic doubt, avoid commitment | might, perhaps, it seems, probably, I believe |
| Boosters | Emphasize certainty or shared knowledge | clearly, obviously, certainly, demonstrate, show |
| Attitude markers | Express writer’s attitude | unfortunately, surprisingly, it is important to note |
| Self-mentions | Refer to author(s) explicitly | I, we, my, our |
| Engagement markers | Explicitly address reader | consider, note that, as you can see, we can observe |
Why Metadiscourse Matters
In academic writing:
Academic prose is densely metadiscursive — writers constantly signal structure, hedge claims, attribute evidence, and engage readers. L2 academic writers who lack metadiscursive competence produce texts that:
- Fail to signal argument structure (readers are lost)
- Over-assert or under-hedge claims (appear naive or reckless/non-committal)
- Miss disciplinary conventions (overly hedged in some disciplines, under-hedged in others)
- Sound robotic or impersonal vs. engaging
Disciplinary variation:
Different academic disciplines use metadiscourse differently:
- Sciences: high evidential use, moderate hedging, low self-mention
- Humanities: higher self-mention, more attitudinal markers, more explicit engagement
- Business writing: higher booster use, more direct reader engagement
Metadiscourse and L2 Writing Development
L2 learners at lower proficiency:
- Use fewer transitional devices
- Hedge less than native academic writers
- Use fewer code glosses (definitions, elaborations)
- Underuse endophoric references (don’t cross-reference sections)
As proficiency advances, writers acquire more sophisticated metadiscursive resources, though the acquisition of disciplinary-appropriate hedging norms is especially challenging (it requires both linguistic and sociocultural knowledge).
Metadiscourse in Japanese
Japanese academic and formal writing has its own metadiscursive conventions:
- Hedging: 〜と思われる, 〜と考えられる, 〜のではないだろうか — indirect hedges are highly conventionalized
- Discourse structuring: まず〜次に〜最後に for sequence; しかし, 一方, 加えて for contrast/addition
- Reader engagement: 〜ご存知のように (“as you may know”) — audience-addressing metadiscourse
- Evidentials: によれば (ni yore ba, “according to”), 〜によると — attribution markers
- Japanese academic writing has been criticized by some Western academics as structurally less explicit (fewer frame markers) — this is a metadiscursive convention difference, not a logical weakness
History
The concept of metadiscourse was introduced by Zellig Harris in 1959 to describe linguistic elements that organize and comment on discourse rather than contributing propositional content. Vande Kopple (1985) developed the first systematic taxonomy of metadiscourse markers, distinguishing textual metadiscourse (organizing the text: transitions, frame markers, code glosses) from interpersonal metadiscourse (engaging the reader: hedges, boosters, attitude markers). Hyland (2005) refined the framework into a widely-used model distinguishing interactive metadiscourse (guiding the reader through text) from interactional metadiscourse (involving the reader in argumentation). Metadiscourse became a major research topic in academic writing instruction, particularly for L2 writers producing English academic prose.
Common Misconceptions
“Metadiscourse is just filler language.”
Metadiscourse performs essential communicative functions: guiding reader interpretation, signaling rhetorical organization, modulating claim strength, and establishing writer-reader rapport. Removing metadiscourse from academic writing makes text harder to follow, not more efficient.
“More metadiscourse is always better.”
Excessive metadiscourse (over-hedging, redundant transitions, unnecessary reader addresses) makes writing wordy and tentative. The skill is using metadiscourse strategically — enough to guide interpretation without overwhelming the content.
“Metadiscourse is the same across languages and cultures.”
Metadiscourse conventions vary significantly across languages and academic traditions. English academic writing uses more hedging and reader engagement than Japanese or Chinese academic prose. L2 writers transferring L1 metadiscourse patterns may appear either too direct or too indirect for the target audience.
“Metadiscourse doesn’t matter for spoken language.”
Spoken discourse relies heavily on metadiscourse: “so basically,” “the point is,” “what I mean is” are all oral metadiscourse markers that organize and manage conversation. L2 speakers benefit from mastering spoken metadiscourse for fluent discourse management.
Criticisms
Metadiscourse research has been criticized for boundary problems — the definition of what counts as metadiscourse versus propositional content is contested, and different researchers include different markers in their analyses. This inconsistency makes cross-study comparison difficult and raises questions about whether “metadiscourse” is a coherent category or a loose grouping of diverse linguistic functions.
Hyland’s (2005) framework, while widely adopted, has been challenged for its reliance on English academic writing data — the categories may not transfer cleanly to other registers, genres, or languages. The pedagogical application has also been questioned: explicit metadiscourse instruction sometimes produces formulaic writing where students mechanically insert transition markers and hedges without understanding their discourse functions.
Social Media Sentiment
Metadiscourse is not discussed by name in general language learning communities. It appears primarily in academic writing and IELTS/TOEFL preparation contexts, where specific metadiscourse markers (transition words, hedging phrases) are taught as essay-writing skills. Reddit’s r/IELTS and similar communities share lists of “linking words” and “academic phrases” that are effectively metadiscourse inventories.
In Japanese learning communities, the equivalent discussion involves formal writing connectors (したがって, 一方で, つまり) taught for academic or business writing proficiency.
Practical Application
- Learn genre-appropriate metadiscourse — Academic writing, business email, and casual conversation each use different metadiscourse patterns. Study examples from your target genre.
- Master transitions — Connectors like “however,” “therefore,” “in addition” (English) or しかし、そのため、さらに (Japanese) organize text and signal logical relationships for the reader.
- Use hedges appropriately — Academic and professional communication requires claim modulation: “This suggests…” rather than “This proves…” Learn the hedging conventions of your target language and register.
- Study reader engagement markers — Questions, inclusive “we,” and attitude markers create writer-reader rapport. These vary culturally and must be learned for each target language context.
Building vocabulary through Sakubo provides the lexical foundation needed for metadiscourse marker recognition during Japanese reading.
Related Terms
See Also
Research
Hyland (2005) established the dominant metadiscourse framework used in L2 writing research. His analysis of large academic corpora demonstrated systematic patterns of metadiscourse use across disciplines, finding that social sciences use more interpersonal metadiscourse than natural sciences.
Cross-linguistic metadiscourse research (Hyland & Tse, 2004; Ädel, 2006) revealed significant differences in metadiscourse conventions across languages and cultures — findings with direct implications for L2 writing instruction. Crismore et al. (1993) compared Finnish and American student writing, finding different metadiscourse patterns that reflected cultural communication norms. For Japanese academic writing specifically, Kobayashi (2009) documented lower frequencies of reader engagement markers and hedging compared to English academic prose, representing a transfer challenge for Japanese learners of English academic writing.