World Applied Sciences Journal 20 (1): 01-06, 2012 ISSN 1818-4952 © IDOSI Publications, 2012 DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2012.20.01.1530 Corresponding Author: Helen Tan, Chan Swee Heng, Ain Nadzimah Abdullah, Universiti Putra Malaysia. 1 A Proposed Metadiscourse Framework for Lay ESL Writers Helen Tan Chan Swee Heng, Ain Nadzimah Abdullah, Universiti Putra Malaysia Abstract: In the past two decades, writing scholars [1-3] have tried to make sense of the functions and forms of metadiscourse in writing. In doing so, each of these scholars have designed varied metadiscourse frameworks that illustrate the different categories, functions and linguistic realizations so as to capture the use of metadiscourse more succinctly. The intention of this study is to review existing metadiscourse frameworks and to plug the gap that could exist for a more comprehensive framework for effective use by lay ESL writers. The underlying postulation is that various frameworks may have different assumptions, and thus to meet the needs of lay ESL writers, a different approach is likely needed. Key words: Metadiscourse Metadiscourse framework Lay ESL writers Academic writing organizational discourse markers and interpersonal discourse markers INTRODUCTION To begin with, Vande-Kopple’s [3] Classification of The study of metadiscourse in academic writing has about discourse” and he explains that writers usually long been the interest of writing scholars [1, 4, 5]. Far from write on two levels. The first is to deliver propositional being an arid and a detached piece of writing, academic content. At the second level, which is the metadiscoursal writing is inherently persuasive [6, 7]. This is becausein level, the writers try to connect with their readers through advancing their knowledge, academic writers do not only the following means such as organizing, classifying, state factual information but also engages his readers by interpreting, evaluating and reacting to the propositional revealing their stance to their propositions. This can content [3]. This framework follows a more traditional be done effectively through the use of appropriate interpretation of textual functions which focuses on metadiscourse. Its importancein academic writings language used by writers to comment on or to organize (e.g.: student assignments, theses and research articles) the propositional content. In doing so, Vande-Kopple [3] stems from the understanding that metadiscourse forms divides metadiscourse into two broad domains: textual the specialized language of academia [1]. A metadiscourse and interpersonal metadiscourse. Textual metadiscourse framework is often resorted by many researchers to helps writers link and relate individual propositions so explain their work on metadiscoursal features [5, 8-11]. that they form a cohesive and coherent text. On the other In the early years, much of the metadiscourse literature hand, the interpersonal metadiscourse provides the would have focused on Vande-Kopple’s [3] and writers the avenue to signal their personalities and their Crismore, Markkanen and Steffensen’s [2] work with reactions to the propositional content of the text. Textual Hyland’s [12] work as a later contribution. Apart from metadiscourse is exemplified through the use of word the reliance on the major metadiscourse frameworks, connectives and code glosses while the interpersonal work on metadiscourse could also be branched into metadiscourse is realized through the use of illocution the specifics such as discourse markers [13], self-identity markers, validity markers, narrators, attitude markers [14, 15] and engagement markers [16]. These research and commentary [3]. into the specifics points to their contributions to Using Vande-Kopple’s [3] classification system of successful academic writing. The three major metadiscourse as a point of reference, Crismore, et al. [2] frameworks on metadiscourse [2, 3, 12] are reviewed in see it fit to collapse some categories and create new ones this paper to establish the elements that aid textual as they respond to metadiscourse efficacy. They called comprehension. their taxonomy “A Revised Classification System for Metadiscourse defines metadiscourse as “discourse