Rhetorical structure and metadiscourse markers of local and international agriculture research abstracts

How Innovative Authors Of English Use MetaDiscourse Markers

The use of appropriate rhetorical moves (RMs) and meta-discourse markers (MMs) improve the argumentative and persuasive force of academic texts, such as essays, thesis, seminar papers, and articles. However, authors from different language backgrounds and levels of expertise may use different RMs and MMs when writing in a foreign language. This study is aimed at describing how Indonesian authors in Applied Linguistics use RMs and MMs in their research article abstracts (RAAs) published in international and local journals. 20 RAAs published in international journals and 20 RAAs published in local journals were chosen for the corpora of this study. Swales (2009) five rhetorical moves for RAAs and Hyland's (2005) taxonomy of MMs were used as models in the analyses. The results reveal that different from international journal readers’ expectations, Indonesian authorsin Applied Linguistics use only 3 Moves (Moves 2, 3 & 4) classified as obligatory and 2 Moves (Moves 1 & 5) conventional. Also, they use interactive MMs far more frequently in Moves 3 and 4 because these two moves are relatively longer than the other three moves. As found in other similar studies, the Indonesian authors use interactive MMs far more frequently than interactional MMs because they concern more about their text cohesion, coherence, and convincing rather than their interaction with the potential readers.

Mapping the Landscape of Technology-Related Research on Foreign Language Anxiety: A Bibliometric Review (2001–2025)

Examination of publishing patterns, top journals, authors, and institutions, records of international collaboration, and the thematic structure of the field using bibliometric performance indicators and scientific mapping approaches indicates a consistent and incredibly rapid rise in publications during the past ten years.

A bibliometric mapping of discourse analysis research in Türkiye: Trends, collaboration and scholarly impact

This article, which presents a bibliometric analysis of discourse analysis research in Türkiye, systematically evaluates nearly 50 years of production in the field using the Scopus database. The findings of the research indicate that discourse studies in Türkiye are predominantly concentrated in the social sciences and humanities. The most prominent thematic concentrations are on political discourse, nationalism, populism, gender, and European Union debates. While Critical Discourse Analysis stands out as the dominant methodological approach, innovative techniques such as multimodal analysis or corpus-based methods appear to be insufficient. An examination of language preferences reveals that English is overwhelmingly preferred for global visibility, while Turkish remains an important local production language. Institutional performance analyses reveal that Bilkent, Koç, and Boğaziçi universities hold leading positions in terms of both publication volume and citation impact. An examination of collaborative networks among authors reveals that individuals such as Deniz Zeyrek and Bedrettin Yazan play a central role. However, it is also true that a significant portion of the 2,883 authors remain outside these collaborative networks. International collaborations and citation rates demonstrate that the integration of researchers in Türkiye with the global academy is becoming increasingly stronger, but this interaction can be further enhanced. The study also points to significant gaps in the existing literature. The limited number of discourse studies in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, the inadequate research in contemporary contexts such as digital platforms and artificial intelligence, and the limited methodological diversity are among the most prominent shortcomings.

The current issue and full text archive or this journal is available at

Understanding the Rhetorical Structure of Experimental Aerospace Engineering Research Articles

Background: Composing research articles (RAs) for international publication poses considerable challenges for novice writers, particularly in mastering rhetorical structure. Literature review: Previous studies have shed light on the rhetorical structure of RAs in various disciplines and demonstrated that their structure is specific to and depends on disciplines and subdisciplines, but no study has touched upon the rhetorical structure of RAs in aerospace engineering (AE), a cutting-edge field characterized by advanced technological innovation and complex experimental reports. Research questions: 1. What is the rhetorical structure of experimental AE RAs? 2. How does this structure differ from those in other engineering subdisciplines? Methodology: A corpus of 40 experimental RAs in the AE field was compiled based on disciplinary experts’ recommendations and journal impact factors. Then, a rhetorical move–step analysis was conducted on the corpus. Results and discussion: The analysis identified 12 rhetorical moves and 48 rhetorical steps in total. Compared with prior studies on RAs in other engineering subdisciplines, differences were observed at both the move and step levels, particularly in the description of experimental design and the experiments. These results highlight the distinctive rhetorical practices of AE RAs. Conclusion: The findings have significant implications for the writing of AE RAs and its teaching, enhance understanding of rhetorical variations in engineering communication, and inform English for Specific Purposes instruction and professional writing training in engineering contexts. More broadly, this study also contributes to technical and professional communication by revealing how rhetorical conventions shape the organization and presentation of experimental knowledge in engineering research.

Digital discourse research in linguistics (2010-2025): A bibliometric and content analysis

This study integrates bibliometric visualization with content coding to clarify the development, knowledge structure, and research gaps of digital discourse studies, offering directions for future interdisciplinary inquiry.