Interpersonal Meaning in RAs: Some Traces of Modality

Wawan Hendrawan, Eva Tuckyta Sari Sujatna, Ekaning Krisnawati, Nani Darmayanti


Studies on interpersonal meaning have been well documented. However, few studies explored interpersonal meaning in the area of research articles. In responding to this, the present study tried to reveal interpersonal meaning in RAs’ discussion sections. The data taken were from five reputable international journals categorized in the subject of language and linguistics indexed by Scopus with the SJR value above one. Having been analyzed by using the theory of modality from Halliday (1994), the data demonstrated that three types of modality values were identified such as high, middle, and low. In addition, there were some disparities among the results investigated. If sequenced, the low outnumbered the middle and the high values. This suggested that the authors had different assessments towards the topics written.

Full Text:



Abdollahzadeh, E. 2011. Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 288-297.

Adejare, R.A. 2014. The manifestation of mood and modality in texts. English Linguistics Research, 3(1), 18-27.

Aripin, A. 2018. How non-native writers realize their interpersonal meaning? Lingua Cultura, 12(2), 155-161.

Bazerman, C. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Bice, K. & Kroll, J.F. 2019. English only? Monolinguals in linguistically diverse contexts have an edge in language learning. Brain and Language, 196, 1-12.

Bower, K. 2019. School leaders’ perspectives on content and language integrated learning in England. Language, Culture and Curriculum.

Citraresmana, Elvi. 2020. Conceptual meaning of secretary in academic students of secretary’s cognition in Bandung. Teknosastik: Jurna Bahasa dan Sastra, 18(1), 42-49.

Cheng, W., Lam, P.W.Y. & Kong, K.C.C. 2019. Learning English through workplace communication: Linguistic devices for interpersonal meaning in textbooks in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 55, 28-39.

Cheng, F.W. & Unsworth, L. 2016. Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 43-57.

Creswell, J.W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 2nd Edition. California: Sage Publication.

Crismore, A., Markannen, R., Steffensen, M.S. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish University students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.

Dobakti, L. 2014. The use of hedges in the discussion section of qualitative and quantitative research articles. The Asian ESP Journal, 10(2), 163-190.

Ebrahimi, S.F. 2016. Across disciplinary study of marked theme in method sections. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 4(3), 689-699.

Eggins, S. & Slade, D. 1997. Analyzing casual conversation. London: Cassell.

Feng, H. & Liu, Y. 2010. Analysis of interpersonal meaning in public speeches—a case study of Obama’s speech. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6), 825-829.

Geng, Y. & Wharton, S. 2019. How do thesis writers evaluate their own and others’ findings? An appraisal analysis and a pedagogical intervention. English for Specific Purposes, 56, 3-17.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd Edition. Great Britain: Edward Arnold.

Hidayat, D. N., Abrizal. Alek. 2018. A multimodal discourse analysis of the interpersonal meaning of a television advertisement in Indonesia. IJEE: Indonesian Journal of English Education, 5(2), 119-126.

Holtz, M. 2011. Lexico-grammatical properties of abstracts and research articles: A corpus-based study of scientific discourse from multiple disciplines. Accessed from

Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Jones, S.D. & Brant, S. 2019. Do children really acquire dense neighbourhoods? Journal of Child Language, 46(5), 1-14.

Kaiser, E. 2019. Linguistic consequences of event segmentation in visual narratives: Implications for prominence. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34, 1-7.

Khansari, D. 2018. Comparison of rhetorical moves in the method sections of two disciplines. The Asian ESP Journal, 14(7.1), 163-192.

Martinez, I. A. 2001. Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity structure. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 227-247.

Nan, Y. & Liu, L. 2013. Investigating the interpersonal and textual meaning of Steve Jobs’ Stanford speech in terms of Hyland’s metadiscourse theory. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 1(4), 90-96.

Pranoto, Budi Eko & Afrilita, Lidia K. 2018. The organization of words in mental lexicon: evidence from word association test. Teknosastik: Jurna Bahasa dan Sastra, 16(1), 26-33.

Robey, A. 2019. The benefits of testing: Individual differences based on student factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 108, 1-17.

Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wharton, S. 2012. Epistemological and interpersonal stance in a data description task: Findings from a discipline-specific learner corpus. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 261-270.

Yuliana, D. & Imperiani, E.D.A. 2017. The realization of interpersonal meaning in course newsletters: A systemic functional linguistic perspective. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 181-188.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Wawan - Hendrawan

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Teknosastik: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra
: Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia
Address: Zainal Abidin Pagaralam Street 9-11, Bandar Lampung, Indonesia

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License