ISSN 1799-2591

Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 12, No. 9, pp. 1873-1879, September 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1209.21

The Contrastive Rhetoric: The Distinction in the

Use of the Metatext, Preview and Review, in the
Result and the Discussion Section by Saudi and
Chinese Researchers
Rand K. Alduwayghiri
Department of English Language and Translation, College of Arabic Language and Social Studies, Qassim University,
Qassim, Saudi Arabia

Abstract—The contrastive rhetoric focuses on the impact of the culture of the writers on the language that they
use as well as the organization that they adapt. Hence, the current study sheds the light on the similarities and
the differences in the way that Saudi and Chinese researchers use the metatexts, the previews and the reviews.
The investigation accounts for the frequencies and the relevant percentages of the use of the previews and the
reviews in the results and discussion section in Saudi and Chinese research articles. The findings show Saudi
and Chinese researchers have similar tendency in applying the metatexts in the research articles. The use of
the preview is close with an increase in the Chinese research articles, whereas Saudi researchers adapted the
reviews higher than the Chinese researchers. The results are significant for the pedagogical purposes as they
provide insight regarding the writing pattern by different linguistic background.

Index Terms—contrastive rhetoric, metatext, research articles

I. INTRODUCTION
In the recent years, English as a Foreign Language (EFL) has played an essential role around the world. Lan et al.
(2007) stated that as a result of the globalization recently, English has become the international language in academia,
commerce, and technology. Bland (2015) supported that English language teaching aims at achieving high proficiency
as well as the improvement of the linguistic proficiencies, especially with regard to the writing skills. As a result of
focusing on the quality of language teaching, both the teachers and the scholars are interested in reaching a high level of
proficiency in the outcome of the writing.
In general, Al Fadda (2012) elaborated that the skill of writing is not easy to be mastered. This skill is extremely
important to be applied correctly for the successful outcome. Furthermore, the writing consumes a lot of time and
efforts to develop. Mohan and Lo (1985) find that the students struggle to write, especially within the second language
learners. Therefore, Hyland (2003) stated that teaching this skill is not easy as well, especially in the second language
and the foreign language classroom settings. One possible suggestion to overcome this difficulty is with regard to the
contrastive rhetoric schemata. Kaplan (1966) is the leader of this movement.
Kaplan created the assumption of the linguistic relativity. Moreover, it is concerned with the rhetorical aspects that
each language is unique to the relevant language as well as the culture. Casanave (2004) emphasized on the assumption
that the differences reveal the characteristics as well as the difficulties for foreign language learners. Therefore, it is
important to investigate the differences in the use of the metatext, the preview and the review, as the current study will
contribute into gaining a deep understanding of the linguistic features towards the pedagogical purposes.
A. Statement of the Problem
This study aims at identifying whether the distinction exists a between the English used by the Saudi and the Chinese
researchers. It is important to see the particular impact of learning an additional language among the non-native learners
with different native languages. The learners from Asia are also believed to face more problems in the academic writing
(Casanave & Hubbard, 1992). Hence, it is essential to look into the unique system of the second language learning. In
addition, the study attempts to explain the similarities and the differences between the use of the metatext categories,
the previews and the reviews, in the Saudi English and the Chinese English.
B. Research Question
This study raises the following question that seeks to answer:
At what point does the use of the metatext, the previews and the reviews, categories appear to be similar and/or
different between the Saudi and the Chinese researchers?
C. The Significance of the Study

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

1874 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

This study aims at examining the contrastive rhetoric in the use of the metatext, the previews and the reviews, in the
research articles that are written by the Saudi and the Chinese researchers. It is significant since the purpose of teaching
the second language writing is reaching the native like competence. Hence, it is helpful to understand the patterns that
the non-native writers follow. In addition, it might give the insight regarding the patterns that the writers have been
avoiding as well. The investigation is an essential tool for the researchers as well as the Saudi and the Chinese teachers
to consider for teaching the linguistic features in the English language. Kaplan (1988) stated that “the interest was
primarily in finding solutions to an immediate pedagogical problem” (p. 277). It is also beneficial to present the written
outputs with a high level of proficiency. Grabe and Kaplan (1989, 1996) pointed out that it is helpful for the teachers in
the second language writing class as they are going to be familiar with the following sections:
1. Knowledge of rhetorical patterns of arrangement and the relative frequency of various patterns (e.g.,
exposition/ argument, classification, definition, etc.)
2. Knowledge of composing conventions and strategies needed to generate text (e.g., prewriting, data
collection, revision, etc.)
3. Knowledge of the morphosyntax of the target language, particularly as it applies at the intersentential level
4. Knowledge of the coherence-creating mechanisms of the target language
5. Knowledge of the writing conventions of the target language in the sense of both frequency and distribution
of types and text appearance (e.g., letter, essay, report)
6. Knowledge of the audience characteristics and expectations in the target culture
7. Knowledge of the subject to be discussed, including both “what everyone knows” in the target culture and
specialist knowledge. (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p. 200).

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Contrastive Rhetoric
In general, the term, rhetoric, is defined as the organizational patterns of the rather than the Aristotle concepts.
Liebman (1992) stated that the five elements of Aristotle which are the invention, the memory, the arrangement, the
style, and the delivery are presented in one element which is the arrangement. Kaplan (1987) argues that this field is
interested in the cultural thought patterns revisited as they are reflected on the writing.
Kaplan (1966) stated that each language, along with its culture, has its own unique paragraph order. In addition, the
core of the learning process of a particular language is the master level of understanding the logical system. Kaplan
(1980) also claimed that the basic concept remains valid which reveals that there is indeed a preferable order in writing.
Hence, the primary focus of the contrastive rhetoric is the form.
Grabe and Kaplan (1996) provide the advantages of revealing the linguistic differences of writing using the
contrastive rhetoric. Moreover, they look at the rhetorical differences in the written discourses of various languages for
the sole purpose of addressing these differences directly. Understanding these differences in a consciousness manner is
extremely helpful as the second language writers can start to comprehend the writing pattern of the native writers as
well as achieve a more native-like manner or in order to be more acceptable to the native speakers of the target language.
Connor (1998) assumed that the contrastive rhetoric serves a pedagogical purpose. In addition, Kaplan (1988) claims
that it is descriptive rather than predictive. “the interest was primarily in finding solutions to an immediate pedagogical
problem” (Kaplan, 1988, p. 277). Casanave (2004) also stated that the work of the contrastive rhetoric is in the textual
and the pedagogical aspects rather than the philosophical connections regarding the language, the mind, and the reality.
B. The Metatext
The metatext of the discourse is defined as “the linguistic material in texts, whether spoken or written, that does not
add anything to the propositional content but that is intended to help the listener or reader organize, interpret, and
evaluate the information given” (Crismore et al., 1993, p. 40). The primary purpose of investigating in this field is the
examination of the cultural differences in the application of metatext by the authors from different cultural backgrounds.
Hence, the metatext is a notion that represents an expanded meaning.
Various studies consider the concept of metatext to not being fixed toward the same type of the phenomena.
Furthermore, the researchers examine different aspects of the metatext since it is based on the focus of the type of the
occurrences. An interesting way of focusing on one aspect of metatext in writing is with regard to the work of
Mauranen (1993). The scholar also concentrates on the notion of metatext as the text-organizing role, which is similar
to Halliday’s (1973) view of the textual function.
Mauranen (1993) defines the term (the metatext) as “text about the text itself” to which it encompasses the elements
in the text in terms of the primary function as well as the propositional content. Furthermore, the writers adapt the
metatextual elements in order to serve the purpose of textual organization primarily. Therefore, this concept can expand
to interpret the main elements such as the connectors, the reviews, the previews, and so forth. The current study
concentrates on the categories of the metatext of Mauranen (1993) which are the previews and the reviews as they serve
the textual function within the analysis the articles.
C. The Application of Metatext in the Studies

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 1875

A belief used to be common that the metadiscourse in the research articles have a similar function in their rhetorical
features. However, Kawase (2015) suggested the contrast. Furthermore, Kawase investigates the construction of the
metadiscourse as a rhetorical device in a different manner in these texts. Kawase’ study looks into how the research
writers construct the metadiscourse in the introductions of their PhD theses in the published research articles. The
investigation of Kawase (2015) reveals that these discrepancies result from the genre-specific elements that the authors
of PhD thesis show the previews in the introductory section.
Likewise, Ozdemir and Longo (2014) examine the use of the metadiscourse in the abstract of the thesis by comparing
the use from different cultures. The findings reveal that the cultural differences among the adaption of the
metadiscourse are clearly evident in terms of the type used and the amount.
Understanding the function of the metatext is extremely significant for not only the professional writers, but also the
students. Furthermore, Chang (2014) stated that the metatext is a prominent feature of the various types of the academic
discourse. Yet, few studies have provided enough attention to the empirical work about the effects of the metatext
devices on English writing skills and the improvement of writing Chinese college students. The findings suggested that
the metatext is helpful for the instructions, especially with regard to the direct teaching of metatext since it has a
positive influence on students. Therefore, these sorts of studies indeed provide a significant contribution to the theory of
metatext as well as the pedagogical suggestions for the classroom English writing instructions.

III. METHODOLOGY

A. Study Corpus
The researcher selected ten research articles (see Appendix). Five of the research articles are written by Saudi
researchers, whereas the other five articles are written by Chinese researchers. Furthermore, the researcher examines the
result and the discussion section carefully in order to identify the areas of using the preview and the review in the
research papers. As Tarrayo (2011) advocated, the reason behind choosing the results and the discussion section is duo
to the nature of this section as being a long section. Any quotation is going to be eliminated as it is not directly written
by the researchers. The researcher based the selection of the research articles on following criteria:
o The discipline: the chosen research articles are from the field of linguistics, especially with regard to the theories
and practices that are related to the language.
o The journal: the researcher selects the research articles from Theory and Practice in Language Studies which is a
journal dedicated to promote the scholarly informative articles among the teachers and the researchers in the field of
language by the Academy Publication.
B. Research Procedure
The study involves the systematic analysis of the results and the discussion section. The researcher followed the
Mauranen’s categories of the metatext in order to answer the research questions. Mauranen (1993) stated that Reviews
focus on looking backward, recalling, summing, or pointing to a previous part in the text, whereas previews often look
onward, predicting, explaining, or connecting to a future point in the text. The research articles are studied in three main
stages. Firstly, the researcher read and analyzed in order to find the samples of the previews and the reviews in the
research articles. The next step entails looking at relevant features of the elements that have been designated as the
preview and the review for each text. Finally, the study involves the parallel comparison of the quantitative findings. In
addition, the length of the results and the discussion section is varied. Therefore, the relative frequency of the previews
and the reviews is presented in relation to the number of words in each corpus. The researcher utilizes a word counting
tool for this purpose.

IV. RESULTS
The present study aims at shedding the light on the similarities and the differences in the ways of writing by foreign
language writers according to the theory of the contrastive rhetoric. Furthermore, the investigation focuses on the
distinction in adapting the metatext, the previews and the reviews, by Saudi and Chinese researchers. The following are
directly quoted examples of the use of the previews and the reviews from Saudi and Chinese researchers.
Examples of Preview from Saudi Research Articles:
o The research in this regard sought to determine the effectiveness of UOVs in the perception of /p/ and /b/
through the following question: “What is the difference in the perception of /b/ and /p/ when pronunciation is
taught with and without UOVs?” (Alshehri, 2022, p. 1551).
o This will also affect their positive experience in receiving audio feedback from instructors. (Alharbi &
Alghammas, 2021, p. 1569).
o The present study is an attempt to investigate the attitudes of Saudi non-English major students towards
learning English and its importance in today's world. (Alsubaie, 2021, p. 1626).
o These themes are arranged subsequently into various subcategories (sub-themes) as seen in Table 1 below.
(Alhazmi, 2021, p. 1687).
Examples of Review from Saudi Research Articles:

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

1876 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

o As shown above, the value of (T) is not significant, which indicates that there are no differences in the
average achievement of the writing course between students studying with native teachers and students
studying with non-native teachers. (Al Roomy, 2022, p. 1664).
o As shown in Table 7, the value of the eta squared in the posttest was 0.0. (Alshehri, 2022, p. 1551).
o This finding does not only support empirical studies on the value of instructors’ formative feedback
(Hennessy & Forrester, 2014; Ice et al., 2010; Lunt & Curran, 2010; Olesova et al., 2011), but also
contributes to our understanding of conceptualization of such feedback as scaffolding or assistance from the
sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978). (Alharbi & Alghammas, 2021, p. 1569).
o Table 3 shows that the mean average of the participants' attitudes towards learning English was (2.33), and the
standard deviation was (0.28). (Alsubaie, 2021, p. 1625).
Examples of Preview from Chinese Research Articles:
o In this section, we will investigate the topological structure (including topological point, topological set and
topological field) of Confucian Words by comparing them with those of Biblical words in five E-C
dictionaries. (Hu, 2022, p. 1595).
o Considering the present study, we analyze the assemblage status of topological field from the two
perspectives: Point/ Set Ratio and Field Density. (Hu, 2022, p. 1596).
o Despite their low self-assurance, all the students are eager to improve their English speaking ability and are in
urgent need of guidance and help from teachers (See Chart III). (Chen, 2021, p. 1614).
o As shown in the two charts below, 88.37% of the students hope to continue practicing their oral English via
Sharedaka. (Chen, 2021, p. 1617).
Examples of Review from Chinese Research Articles:
o From table 4, we can conclude that both the Point/Set ratio and Field Density imply that the assemblage of
Biblical words enjoys higher proportion than that of Confucian words. (Hu, 2022, p. 1596).
o The data above indicates that, compared with Biblical words, Confucian words have heterogenic topological
components, featured with simplification and discreteness. (Hu, 2022, p. 1597).
o Figure 7 consists of two parts, the left and right parts depicting similar scenes, i.e. different doors holding the
child's hand. (Wang, 2022, p. 547).
o As shown in Table 1, the average score was 66.50 before applying the POA-based flipped classroom teaching
model. (Liu & Zhang, 2022, p. 1653).
In addition, Table 1 illustrates the frequencies as well as the percentages in the use of the previews and the reviews in
both the Saudi and the Chinese research articles.
TABLE 1
THE FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES OF THE METATEXTS: THE PREVIEWS AND THE REVIEWS
Preview Preview Review Review
Percentage percentage
Saudi Research 56 41.5 79 58.5
Articles
Chinese Research 47 42.7 63 57.3
Articles
Total 103 84.2 142 115.8
Note: the analysis accounts for the frequencies and percentages of the metatexts, the previews and the reviews in
Saudi and Chinese research articles.

From Table 1, the data is insightful to interpret the use of the previews and the review as well as indicating the
similarities and the differences in an accurate manner. With regard to the previews, Saudi researchers appear to use it
more frequently than the Chinese researchers with 56 occurrences in the Saudi research articles and 47 for the Chinese
research articles. However, the relevant percentage of the previews is 42.7 per cent with the Chinese research articles,
which is higher than the percentage of the Saudi research articles, 41.5 per cent in the metatext, the previews. On the
other hand, the Saudi researchers adapted the reviews in a larger rate by 79 occurrences, whereas the occurrences of the
review in the Chinese research articles are 63. Similarly, the Saudi research articles show 58.5 per cent in the usage of
the review, and the Chinese research articles are 57.3 per cent. In addition, these findings need to be evaluated in
relation to the word count. Table 2 reveals the data in detail.
TABLE 2
THE USE OF THE PREVIEW AND THE REVIEW WITH REGARD TO THE WORD COUNT
Word Preview Review Preview and Review
Count Percentage Percentage percentage
Saudi Research 33,263 2.15 4.56 6.71
Articles
Chinese Research 26,465 2.38 3.81 6.19
Articles

Note: the data illustrates the use of the metatexts, the preview and the review, which is connected to the word count
in the Saudi and Chinese research articles.

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 1877

In Table 2, the metatexts, the previews and the reviews, in the Saudi and Chinese research articles are matched with
the word count. The percentage of the preview in relation to the word count is 2.15 per cent for the Saudi research
articles and 2.38 per cent for the Chinese research articles. From these findings, it is apparent that the percentage of the
Chinese research articles is higher than the Saudi research articles. However, the review usage shows expanding
findings. Furthermore, the Saudi research articles reveal a larger rate in the use of the review by 4.56 per cent, whereas
the Chinese research articles have 3.81 per cent.
These findings illustrate that the use of the metatexts, the previews and the reviews, varies between the Saudi and the
Chinese researchers. Furthermore, the Chinese researchers adapted the previews more frequent than the Saudi
researchers. On the other hand, the Saudi researchers used the previews more than the Chinese researchers.

V. DISCUSSION
The present study aims at investigating the metatexts from the point of view of the contrastive rhetoric. Moreover,
the investigation focuses on the similarities and the differences in the use of the previews and the reviews by Saudi and
Chinese researchers. The findings show that the usage varies between the researchers. This variation can be further
explained due to the different thought patterns as a result of the cultural impact on writing, which is consistent with the
claim of Kaplan (1987). In addition, the findings suggest that the cultural differences might have a great effect on the
writing, particularly the academic writing, which may cause difficulties in writing. This outcome goes in line with
Casanave and Hubbard (1992).
In the present study, the findings are essential for the pedagogical purpose as supported by Connor (1998).
Furthermore, the examination of the metatexts, the previews and the reviews, reveals that the Saudi researchers tend to
use the review at a higher frequency rate than the Chinese researchers and vice versa with regard to the preview. This is
due to the claim of Casanave (2004) who argues that there is a strong interconnection between the language and the
mind which is also tied to the surrounding reality of the writers. In addition, these findings provide immediate
pedagogical problems as stated by Kaplan (1988). In other words, the results are helpful to reveal the areas of difficulty
in order to yield the improvements as well. By examining the metatexts, the pedagogical decisions will be applied
appropriately.
As the necessity of the metatexts is reinforced by the study of Mauranen (1993), examining the previews and the
reviews in the research articles shows the textual function as they are analyzed. The results show that the Saudi
researchers used the previews and the reviews at a different rate than the Chinese researchers because of the cultural
differences which go in accordance with the study of Ozdemir and Longo (2014). Therefore, the evidence reveals that
there are factors that impact the writing outcome, particularly with regard to the metatexts, other than the linguistic
knowledge such as the cultural background of the writers.
A. Limitations of the Study
The current study accounts for some shortages that should be addressed clearly. Firstly, the investigation is
conducted to one major of the research paper. Hence, researchers from different majors might choose to apply different
patterns of writing, including the use of the metatexts. The findings may not be consistent with the other types in these
fields of writing.
B. Future Implications
The current investigation focuses on the use of the metatexts, the previews and the reviews, by the Saudi and the
Chinese researchers. Some recommendations include the examination of the other textual patterns in order to examine
the similarities as well as the differences for the pedagogical purposes. In addition, other different examinations may
look into the similarities and the differences in the use of the metatexts, the preview and the review, from other groups
that have cultural differences as well.

VI. CONCLUSION
The contrastive rhetoric is concerned with the interconnection between the language and the culture, particularly in
the order of the paragraph. The metatexts are also significant as they concentrate on the organization of the information
which is tied with the culture of the writers. Hence, the current study aims at investigating the similarities and the
differences in the use of the metatexts, the previews and the reviews, in the results and the discussion section between
Saudi and Chinese researchers. The findings reveal that the Saudi researchers used the previews and the reviews at a
different rate than the Chinese researchers. These findings are insightful for pedagogical implications.

APPENDIX. THE CORPUS

A. Research Articles Written by Saudi Researchers:

Al Roomy, M. A. (2022). An examination of students’ English achievements taught by native versus non-native
English teachers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 12(8), 1641-1647. Academy Publication.

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

1878 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1208.22
Alharbi, M. A., & Alghammas, A. (2021). Teacher written vs. audio feedback on undergraduates’ written
assignments. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 11(12), 1562-1570. Academy Publication.
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1112.08
Alhazmi, A. A. (2021). The ideology of language purism in online interaction of Arabic speakers. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies. 11(12), 1684-1694. Academy Publication. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1112.22
Alshehri, F. A. (2022). Ultrasound overlay video effectiveness in teaching pronunciation to young EFL learners.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 12(8), 1545-1555. Academy Publication.
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1208.10
Alsubaie, N. J. (2021). Attitudes of Saudi non-English major students towards learning English. Theory and Practice
in Language Studies. 11(12), 1622-1629. Academy Publication. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1112.14
B. Research Articles Written by Chinese Researchers:
Chen, S. (2021). The influence of teacher audio feedback via WeChat Mini Program Sharedaka on Chinese college
students’ English speaking ability. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 11(12), 1610-1621. Academy
Publication. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1112.13
Hu, W. (2022). On the translation topology of Confucian words in C-E dictionary: Structural comparison and feature
analysis. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 12(8), 1592-1601. Academy Publication.
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1208.15
Liu, G., & Zhang, M. (2022). The combination of production-oriented approach and flipped classroom teaching
model: An experimental research in the listening and speaking class in Chinese senior high school. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies. 12(8), 1648-1658. Academy Publication. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1208.23
Tang, Z. (2021). Analysis of conversational interaction in the listening discourse of test for English majors-8. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies. 11(12), 1647-1654. Academy Publication. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1112.17
Wang, G. (2022). Multimodal metaphor construction and cognitive analysis in educational cartoons. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies. 12(3), 543-550. Academy Publication. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1203.14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
After praising Allah for giving me strength and patience to complete the task, I would like to express my gratitude to
the people who helped me greatly. I would like to thank the team of the journal of Theory and Practice in Language
Studies for the collaboration. I would also like to thank the authors mentioned in the appendix for their insightful
research articles. I express my deepest gratitude to my parents and my family for their continued support and
encouragement. The researcher would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research, Qassim University for funding
the publication of this project.

REFERENCES
[1] Al Fadda, H. (2012). Difficulties in academic writing: From the perspective of King Saud University postgraduate students.
English Language Teaching, 5(3), 123-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n3p123
[2] Bland, J. (Ed.). (2015). Teaching English to young learners: Critical issues in language teaching with 3-12 year olds.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
[3] Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
[4] Casanave, C. P., & Hubbard, P. (1992). The writing assignments and writing problems of doctoral students: Faculty
perceptions, pedagogical issues, and needed research. English for specific purposes, 11(1), 33-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-
4906(92)90005-U
[5] Chang, L. (2014). The relationship between metatext and college students’ writing quality. In Proceedings of the 2014 2nd
International Conference on Advances in Social Science, Humanities and Management. 2nd International Conference on
Advances in Social Science, Humanities, and Management (ASSHM-14). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/asshm-
14.2014.30
[6] Connor, U. (1998). Contrastive rhetoric: Developments and challenges. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International Review of
English Studies, 33, 105–116.
[7] Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. Written Communication, 10(1),
39–71.
[8] Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1989). Writing in a second language: Contrastive rhetoric. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.),
Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 263–283). New York: Longman.
[9] Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York: Longman.
[10] Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
[11] Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[12] Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20.
[13] Kaplan, R. B. (1980). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. In K. Croft (Ed.), Readings on English as a second
language for teachers and teacher trainees 2nd ed. (pp. 399–418). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
[14] Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages:
Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9–21). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 1879

[15] Kaplan, R. B. (1988). Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes toward a theory of contrastive rhetoric. In A. C.
Purves (Ed.), Writing across language and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[16] Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes. 20, 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.006
[17] Lan, Y., Sung, Y., & Chang, K. (2007). A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning system for collaborative early EFL
reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 130-151.
[18] Liebman, J. D. (1992). Toward a new contrastive rhetoric: Differences between Arabic and Japanese rhetorical instruction.
Journal of Second Language Writing. 1, 141–166.
[19] Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish–English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes,
12, 3–22.
[20] Mohan, B., & Lo, W. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly,
19(3), 515-534.
[21] Ozdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences. 141, 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011
[22] Tarrayo, V. (2011). Metatext in results-and-discussion sections of ESL/EFL research: A contrastive analysis of Philippine
English, Taiwanese English, and Iranian English. i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching. 1(3), 39-52.
10.26634/jelt.1.3.1594.

Rand K. Alduwayghiri is a master degree student of applied linguistics program in Qassim University, Saudi Arabia. Rand has a
bachelor degree in English language and translation from Qassim University.

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION