Search

The need for proficiency in academic writing has never been more important due to its significance for academic success and professional growth. The skills required in academic writing range from research to critical thinking and communication skills. It develops holistic intellectual development and will help one run a successful professional life, more so in highly researchoriented areas where publications become highly valued. This paper has attempted to fill up the research gaps created by the lack of research into corpus linguistic and corpus-based studies in general within the parameters of Philippine academic writing, with its insufficiency of known studies on metadiscourse markers in particular. This paper examined the use of metadiscourse markers in a researcher-constructed 120,000-word corpus of academic papers written by Grade 11 Senior High School students, namely, concept papers, position papers, reaction papers, and scientific reports. Specifically, the research determined the metadiscourse markers used by students and their frequency across text types, as well as qualitative analysis of their contextual usage. In the current study, it is revealed that students utilize a wide array of interactive and interactional markers, drawing on Hyland's taxonomy of metadiscourse markers (2005) and AntConc V. 3.5.8, a corpus analysis software. The study revealed a predominant use of interactive over interactional metadiscourse markers, with a notable emphasis on transitions within the interactive category. Qualitative analysis also showed that transitions and engagement markers serve various functions, such as clarifying relationships within the text, structuring arguments, and providing additional information for better understanding. Interactional resources were also employed to convey the writer's stance, engage the reader, and present a balanced view by acknowledging different perspectives. Hence, the findings highlighted that text type, rhetorical purpose, and the use of metadiscourse markers interact closely in shaping how the writer communicates and accomplishes their purpose effectively. Future research should address writing ability and experience as factors influencing the choice of metadiscourse markers and examine their variation of use across academic and nonacademic settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]