Engagement Markers in Indonesian Scholars’ Academic Writing to Establish Rapport with Readers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v13i2.6292Keywords:
academic writing, engagement markers, Indonesian scholarsAbstract
This study presents a corpus-based analysis of engagement markers in applied linguistics research articles (RAs) authored by Indonesian scholars. While previous research has explored metadiscourse broadly, this investigation focuses specifically on the strategic use of interpersonal features to build reader rapport. A specialized corpus of 20 RAs (104,110 words) from four Scopus-indexed journals (2020–2024) was compiled and analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. The analysis, conducted with the Sketch Engine tool, applied a modified version of Hyland and Jiang’s (2016) model of engagement markers. The results indicate a strong preference for knowledge-oriented engagement, with knowledge appeals being the most frequent strategy (1.59 per 1,000 words), predominantly realized through explicit markers of routine conditions. Notably, rhetorical questions were absent from the corpus. Pronominal choice revealed a distinct use of first-person plural pronouns (we, us, our) to foster solidarity and direct reader interpretation, while personal asides were employed to clarify arguments. In terms of directives, references to physical acts (e.g., “see Table 3”) were markedly more common than cognitive or textual acts. These findings suggest a stylistic convention in Indonesian academic writing that prioritizes formality and collective objectivity, potentially at the expense of more direct dialogic interaction. The study concludes by offering practical pedagogical implications for academic writing instruction, suggesting that Indonesian scholars can enhance the persuasive impact and international visibility of their work by strategically diversifying their engagement strategies to foster a more involved reader dialogue.
References
Adila, D. (2016). The rhetorical style of Indonesian authors’ citation in English research article’s introductions. Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on English Language and Teaching (ISELT-4), 4(1), 156–164.
Almakrob, A. Y. (2023). How do Arab writers interact with their readers? An analysis of the use of metadiscourse markers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 13(6), 1591–1600. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1306.29
Al-Subhi, A. S. (2022). Metadiscourse in online advertising: Exploring linguistic and visual metadiscourse in social media advertisements. Journal of Pragmatics, 187, 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.027
Aziz, S., & Riaz, F. (2024). Interacting with the audience: Metadiscourse markers in top ten impact factor journal article abstracts in applied linguistics. Journal of Applied Linguistics and TESOL (JALT), 7(4), 45–78.
Bagherkazemi, M., Sokhanvar, F., & Shadmehr, M. (2021). Stance and engagement markers in quantitative and qualitative applied linguistics research articles: The discussion section in focus. Konińskie Studia Językowe, 9(3), 379–400. https://doi.org/10.30438/ksj.2021.9.3.5
Bannigan, K., & Watson, R. (2009). Reliability and validity in a nutshell. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18(23), 3237–3243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02939.x
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Di Carlo, G. S. (2015). Stance in TED talks: Strategic use of subjective adjectives in online popularisation. Ibérica, 29, 201–222. www.ted.com
Diab, A. (2022). The political-economy of publishing in social science journals: A review Study. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 25(3), 1–6. https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
Dontcheva-Navrátilová, O. (2021). Engaging with the reader in research articles in English: Variation across disciplines and linguacultural backgrounds. English for Specific Purposes, 63, 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.02.003
Dontcheva-Navrátilová, O. (2023). Writer-reader interaction in L2 learner academic discourse: Reader engagement in Czech students’ master’s theses. Linguistica Pragensia, 33(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.14712/18059635.2023.2.2
El-Dakhs, D. A. S. (2018). Comparative genre analysis of research article abstracts in more and less prestigious journals: Linguistics journals in focus. Research in Language, 16(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2018-0002
El-Dakhs, D. A. S., Mardini, L., & Alhabbad, L. (2024). The persuasive strategies in more and less prestigious linguistics journals: focus on research article abstracts. Cogent Arts and Humanities, 11(1), 2325760. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2024.2325760
Handayani, A., Drajati, N. A., & Ngadiso. (2020). Engagement in high-and low-rated argumentative essays: Interactions in Indonesian students’ writings. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.17509/IJAL.V10I1.24957
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549–574. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005
Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215–239. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.215
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003
Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (Kevin). (2016). “We must conclude that …”: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003
Hyland, K., Paltridge, B., & Wong, L. L. C. (2021). The bloomsbury handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Hyland, K., & Zou, H. (Joanna). (2022). Pithy persuasion: Engagement in 3 minute thesis presentations. Applied Linguistics, 43(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amab017
Ismayanti, D., Said, Y. R., Usman, N., & Nur, M. I. (2024). The Students Ability in Translating Newspaper Headlines into English A Case Study. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 12(1), 108-131.
Ishak, C. N., Basthomi, Y., Widiati, U., Hidayati, M., & Yannuar, N. (2021). See: How Indonesian student writers use directives in academic texts. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 8(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.20448/JOURNAL.509.2021.81.65.76
Jiang, F. (Kevin), & Ma, X. (2018). ‘As we can see’: Reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.05.003
Kemp, J. (2024). How do I know this Law corpus is reliable and valid? Using a representativeness argument for corpus validation. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 4(3), 100099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2024.100099
Larsson, T., Paquot, M., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Inter-rater reliability in learner corpus research: Insights from a collaborative study on adverb placement. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 6(2), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.20001.lar
Masruddin, M., & Nasriandi, N. (2022). Lexical and Syntactical Errors Performed by Junior High School Student in Writing Descriptive Text. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 10(1), 1094-1100.
Miller, D., & Biber, D. (2015). Evaluating reliability in quantitative vocabulary studies: The influence of corpus design and composition. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(1), 30–53. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.1.02mil
Nur, S., Arsyad, S., Zaim, M., & Ramadhan, S. (2021). Interacting with readers: How non-native authors of English use meta-discourse markers in their research article abstracts published in English medium journals. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(1), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.52462/jlls.14
Paltridge, B. (2022). Discourse analysis: An introduction (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
Qiu, X., & Jiang, F. (Kevin). (2021). Stance and engagement in 3 MT presentations: How students communicate disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 51(100976), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100976
Sahragard, R., & Yazdanpanahi, S. (2017). English engagement markers: A comparison of humanities and science journal articles. Language Art, 2(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.22046/LA.2017.06
Saidi, M., & Karami, N. (2021). Interactional metadiscourse markers in applied linguistics reply articles. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 22, 64–77. https://doi.org/10.32038/LTRQ.2021.22.05
Sharipova, A. A. (2019). The role of sketch engine in multiple types of corpora. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(11), 250–254. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.K1307.0981119
Spooren, W., & Degand, L. (2010). Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2010.009
Tikhonova, E. V., Kosycheva, M. A., & Golechkova, T. Y. (2023). Establishing rapport with the reader: Engagement markers in the discussion section of a research article. Integration of Education, 27(3), 354–372. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.112.027.202303.354-372
Tunison, S. (2023). Content Analysis. In J. M. Okoko, S. Tunison, & K. D. Walker (Eds.), Varieties of Qualitative Research Methods: Selected Contextual Perspectives (pp. 85–90). Springer.
Zahro, F., Irham, & Degaf, A. (2021). Scrutinizing metadiscourse functions in Indonesian EFL students: A case study on the classroom written and spoken discourses. MEXTESOL Journal, 45(2), 1–14.
Zou, H. (Joanna), & Hyland, K. (2021). A tale of two genres: Engaging audiences in academic blogs and three minute thesis presentations. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 41(2), 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2021.1918630
Zou, H. (Joanna), & Hyland, K. (2024). “Let’s start with the basics of the virus”: Engaging the public in two forms of explainers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 68(101353), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101353
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Titah Afandi, Adi Sutrisno
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See the Effect of Open Access)
