This article reports on a study that explored cross-disciplinary variation in the use of metadiscourse markers in advanced-level student writing, put forward as a realistic target for novice writers. Starting from the stance and engagement categories included in Hyland’s model, we first conducted a comprehensive quantitative analysis of interactional metadiscourse across disciplines. For this analysis, we used an automated processing tool that generates quantity scores for each metadiscourse category. We then carried out a detailed qualitative analysis of selected items that contributed significantly to these category scores. The data for our analyses come from a corpus of 829 student papers from 16 different disciplines. The results showed notable differences in students’ use of metadiscourse features across academic divisions and disciplines. We suggest that this offers evidence of advanced students’ ability to express interactional strategies that are in line with disciplinary expectations. We also found, however, that disciplines that fall into the same academic division were not necessarily similar in their use of interactional metadiscourse, which calls into question the usefulness of existing disciplinary groupings. The findings of this study offer insights into how to build an appropriate writerly stance in different academic communities.

本文报道了一项研究，该研究探讨了在高级学生写作中使用元话语标记的跨学科变化，并被提出作为新手作家的现实目标。从海兰德模型中包含的立场和参与类别开始，我们首先对跨学科的交互元话语进行了全面的定量分析。对于此分析，我们使用了一种自动处理工具，该工具可以为每个元论述类别生成数量分数。然后，我们对选定的项目进行了详细的定性分析，这些项目对这些类别的得分有显着贡献。我们的分析数据来自来自16个不同学科的829个学生论文。结果表明，跨学科和学科的学生在使用元话语功能方面存在显着差异。我们建议，这提供了进阶学生表达与学科期望相符的互动策略的能力的证据。但是，我们还发现，属于同一学术部门的学科在交互元话语的使用上不一定相似，这使现有学科组的有用性产生了疑问。这项研究的发现为如何在不同的学术团体中建立适当的作家立场提供了见解。这就质疑了现有学科分组的有效性。这项研究的发现为如何在不同学术界树立适当的作家立场提供了见解。这就质疑了现有学科分组的有效性。这项研究的发现为如何在不同的学术团体中建立适当的作家立场提供了见解。