About journal

KOME is a theory and pure research-oriented journal of communication studies and related fields. Therefore theoretical researches and discussions that help to understand better, or reconceptualize the understanding of communication or the media are its center of interests; being either an useful supplement to, or a reasonable alternative to current models and theories. Given the connection between theory and empirical research, we are open to submissions of empirical papers if the research demonstrates a clear endorsement of communication and media theories. We are also committed to the ideas of trans- and interdisciplinarity and prefer topics that are relevant for more than one special discipline of social sciences. Articles published in KOME should represent the diversity that comprises the study of communication and related disciplines, regardless of philosophical paradigms and in favor of methodological pluralism. KOME encourage the use of non-sexist language in research writing.

object(Publication)#1026 (6) { ["_data"]=> array(27) { ["id"]=> int(7607) ["accessStatus"]=> int(0) ["lastModified"]=> string(19) "2024-06-26 21:51:36" ["sectionId"]=> int(133) ["seq"]=> int(0) ["submissionId"]=> int(7483) ["status"]=> int(5) ["version"]=> int(1) ["categoryIds"]=> array(0) { } ["citationsRaw"]=> string(15743) "Al-Khasawneh, F. M. (2017). A genre analysis of research article abstracts written by native and non-native speakers of English. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(1), 1–13. Alonso-Almeida, F. (2014). Evidential and epistemic devices in English and Spanish medical, computing and legal scientific abstracts: A contrastive study. In M. Bondi & R. Lorés Sanz (Eds.), Abstracts in Academic Discourse. Variation and Change (pp. 21–42). Bern: Peter Lang. Azar, A. S., Praemela, H., Farook, I. M. & Romli, N. H. (2022). A Comparative Analysis of Stance Features in Research Article Introductions: Malaysian and English Authors. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 22(2), 261–287. Online: https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2202-14 Belyakova, M. (2017). Análisis contrastivo inglés-ruso de resúmenes de artículos de investigación del ámbito de geociencias [English–Asian cross-linguistic comparison of research article abstracts in geoscience]. Estudios de Lingüística Universidad de Alicante, (31), 27–45. Online: https://doi.org/10.14198/ELUA2017.31.02 Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bogdanović, V. & Mirović, I. (2018). Young researchers writing in ESL and the use of metadiscourse: Learning the ropes. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(4), 813–830. Online: https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0031 Boginskaya, O. (2022a). Functional categories of hedges: A diachronic study of Russian research article abstracts. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 26(3), 645–667. Online: https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30017 Boginskaya, O. (2022b). Cross-disciplinary variation in metadiscourse: A corpus-based analysis of Russian-authored research article abstracts. Training, Language and Culture, 6(3), 55–66. Online: https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442X-2022-6-3-55-66 Boginskaya, O. (2023). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in English Research Article Abstracts Written by Non-Native Authors: A Corpus-Based Contrastive Study. Ikala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 28(1), 139–154. Online: https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v28n1a08 Bondi, M. (2014). Changing voices: Authorial voice in abstracts. M. Bondi & R. Lorés Sanz (Eds.), Abstracts in Academic Discourse. Variation and Change (pp. 243–270). Bern: Peter Lang. Online: https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0701-2 Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 211–247. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90196-2 Čmejrková, S. (2007). The (re)presentation of the author in Czech and Slovak scientific texts. Jezik in Slovstvo, 52(3–4), 21–31. Dawang, H. (2006). A tale of two English-language publication contexts for Chinese scientists – recontextualization in the coalesced Results and Discussion section. In C. Pérez-Llantada, R. Plo Alastrué & C. P. Neumann (Eds.), Actas de V Congreso Internacional AELFE / Proceedings of the 5th International AELFE Conference (pp. 19–28). Universidad de Zaragoza. Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2013). Authorial presence in academic discourse: Functions of author-reference pronouns. Linguistica Pragensia, 23(1), 9–30. Duszak, A. (1994). Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(3), 291–313. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90003-5 Galtung, J. (1981). Structure, culture, and intellectual style: An essay comparing saxonic, teutonic, gallic and nipponic approaches. Social Science Information, 20(6), 817–856. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/053901848102000601 Gessesse, C. M. (2016). An investigation into the macro rhetorical structures of the EFL research abstracts of graduates of 2013: The case of Bahir Dar University in Ethiopia. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 6(1), 1–22. Online: https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/2534 Gnutzmann, C. (1989). Sprachliche Indikatoren zur Explizierung von ‘Zielsetzungen’ im Englischen und Deutschen. Ms. eines Vortrags auf dem 9 IDV-Kongress in Wien 13, 10–15. Gu, J. Z. (2008). Rhetorical clash between Chinese and Westerners. Intercultural Communication Studies, 17(4), 44–51. Harris, Z. (1959). Computable syntactic analysis. Transformations and Discourse Analysis Papers, 15. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 360–386. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00040-9 Hinds, J. (1987). Reader Versus Writer Responsibility: A New Typology. In U. Connor & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Texts (pp. 141–152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hryniuk, K. (2018). Expert-Like Use of Hedges and Boosters in Research Articles Written by Polish and English Native-Speaker Writers. Research in Language, 16(3), 263–280. Online: https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2018-0013 Hu, G. & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795–2809. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007 Hyland, K. (2002a). Directives: Argument and Engagement in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215–239. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.215 Hyland, K. (2002b). Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8 Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse. Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1–23. Online: https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.8.2.49151 Hyland, K. & Jiang, F. K. (2016). ‘We must conclude that...’: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 29–42. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003 Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177. Online: http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156 Hyland, K. & Zou, H. (2021). “I believe the findings are fascinating”: Stance in three-minute theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 50. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100973 Işık-Taş, E. E. (2018). Authorial identity in Turkish language and English language research articles in Sociology: The role of publication context in academic writers’ discourse choices. English for Specific Purposes, 49, 26–38. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.10.003 Ji, X. (2015). Comparison of abstracts written by native speakers and second language learners. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 5(5), 470–474. Online: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2015.55041 Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Communication. Language Learning, 16(1–2), 1–20. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x Kaplan, R. (1972). The Anatomy of Rhetoric. Prolegomena to a Functional Theory of Rhetoric. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development. Khajavy, G. H., Asadpour, S. F. & Yousefi, A. (2012). A Comparative Analysis of Interactive Metadiscourse Features in Discussion Section of Research Articles Written in English and Persian. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 147–159. Online: https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i2.1767 Khoutyz, I. (2015). Engagement in written academic discourse: A cross-cultural study of Russian and English research articles. International Journal of Russian Studies, 4(2), 135–160. Kim, L. C. & Lim, J. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129–146. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612471476 Kobayashi, Y. (2016). Investigating Metadiscourse Markers in Asian Englishes: A Corpus-Based Approach. Language in Focus Journal, 2(1), 19–35. Online: https://doi.org/10.1515/lifijsal-2016-0002 Koutsantoni, D. (2004). Attitude, certainty and allusions to common knowledge in scientific research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(2), 163–182. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2003.08.001 Kozubíková Šandová, J. (2021). Interpersonality in research article abstracts: a diachronic case study. Discourse and Interaction, 14(1), 77–99. Online: https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2021-1-77 Kustyasari, D., Basthomi, Y. & Anugerahwati, M. (2021). Interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in research articles of Indonesian expert writers. Journal of English Education Society, 6(1), 90–95. Online: https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v6i1.1082 Lee, J. J. & Casal, E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46(1), 39–54. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009 Lee, J. J. & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21–34. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004 Li, Z. & Xu, J. (2020). Reflexive metadiscourse in Chinese and English sociology research article introductions and discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 159(2), 47–59. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.003 Li, T. & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 345–356. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004 Liu, C. (2007). The empirical study on the use of metadiscourse in argumentative writing. Journal of Hebei Normal University of Science & Technology (Social Science), 6(1), 29–33. Lu, X. (2000). The influence of classical Chinese rhetoric on contemporary Chinese political communication and social relations. In D. R. Heisey (Ed.), Chinese Perspective in Rhetoric and Communication (pp. 3–23). Stamford, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Maamuujav, U., Olson, C. B. & Chung, H. (2021). Syntactic and lexical features of adolescent L2 students’ academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 53. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100822 Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Mikolaychik, M. (2019). Lexical Hedging in English Abstracts of Asian Economics Research Articles: A Corpus-Based Study. Science Journal of Volgograd State University, Linguistics, 19(5), 38–47. Online: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2020.5.4 Mur-Dueñas, P. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 50–72. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00228.x Mur-Dueñas, P. & Šinkūnienė, I. (2016). Self-reference in research articles across Europe and Asia: A review of studies. Brno Studies in English, 42(1), 71–92. Online: https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2016-1-4 Paradiž, M. (2020). Competing for Funding. Contrasting Slovene and British Genre Conventions in Research Grant Proposals. In A. Pisanski Peterlin & T. M. Južnič (Eds.), Academic Writing from Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Exploring the Synergies and Interactions (pp. 144–173). Ljubljana University Press. Online: https://doi.org/10.4312/9789610603085 Park, Y. S. & Kim, B. S. (2008). Asian and European American Cultural Values and Communication Styles Among Asian American and European American College Students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(1), 47–56. Online: https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.14.1.47 Perales-Escudero, M. & Swales, J. (2011). Tracing convergence and divergence in pairs of Spanish and English research article abstracts: The case of Ibérica. Ibérica, (21), 49–70. Pisanski Peterlin, A. (2005). Text-organising metatext in research articles: An English–Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 307–319. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.11.001 Qi, X. & Liu, L. (2007). Differences between Reader/Writer Responsible Languages Reflected in EFL Learners’ Writing. Intercultural Communication Studies, 16(3), 148–159. Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta-talk: Organisational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 199–236. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00021.x Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 327–341. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00049-3 Swales, J. M. & Burke, A. (2003). “It’s really fascinating work”: Differences in Evaluative Adjectives across Academic Registers. In P. Leistyna & Ch. F. Meyer (Eds.), Corpus Analysis. Language Structure and Language Use (pp. 1–18). Rodopi. Online: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004334410_002 Tang, R. & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18(Suppl. 1), S23–S39. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5 Yoon, S. (2011). Is Korean Really a Listener-Responsible Language Like Japanese? A Contrastive Analysis of Discourse in Apologies between Korean and Japanese. Acta Linguistica Asiatica, 1(3), 73–94. Online: https://doi.org/10.4312/ala.1.3.73-94 Van Bonn, S. & Swales, J. (2007). English and French journal abstracts in the language sciences: Three exploratory studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 93–108. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.04.001 Vassileva, I. (1998). Who am I/who are we in academic writing? A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 163–190. Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83–102. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0 Walková, M. (2018). Author’s self-representation in research articles by Anglophone and Slovak linguists. Discourse and Interaction, 11(1), 86–105. Online: https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2018-1-86 Yakhontova, T. (1997). The signs of a new time: Academic writing in ESP curricula of Ukrainian universities. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse (pp. 323–341). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Online: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.103 Xiong, D. (2007). A Comparison Between English and Chinese Metadiscourse. Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University, 7(6), 101–105. Wu, S. M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 254–271. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.006 Wu, G. & Zhu, Y. (2015). Self-mention and authorial identity construction in English and Chinese research articles: A contrastive study. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 10(2), 133–158. Online: https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v10i2.28557 Zou, H. & Hyland, K. (2020). Academic blogging: Scholars’ views on interacting with readers. Ibérica, (39), 267–294. Online: https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.39.267" ["copyrightYear"]=> int(2024) ["issueId"]=> int(593) ["licenseUrl"]=> string(43) "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0" ["pub-id::doi"]=> string(19) "10.17646/KOME.of.12" ["abstract"]=> array(1) { ["en_US"]=> string(991) "

There is a perception that the influence of culture-specific rhetorical styles means that academic writing can include a great deal of variety. This study aims to test this hypothesis by exploring the role of rhetorical styles in the choice of interactional metadiscourse by academic writers with different cultural backgrounds. Linguistics research article abstracts by L2 writers from Asian and Slavic countries were used in this contrastive study based on Hyland’s (2005a) model of metadiscourse. Using quantitative and qualitative analysis methods, the study revealed that English-language academic discourse by Slavic writers contained a larger number of hedges and attitude markers and a smaller number of boosters. In contrast to Slavic writers, Asian scholars left far fewer traces of themselves and took more explicitly involved positions. The paper contributes to intercultural pragmatics and may have some implications for English as a lingua franca in academic settings.

" } ["copyrightHolder"]=> array(1) { ["en_US"]=> string(15) "Olga Boginskaya" } ["prefix"]=> array(1) { ["en_US"]=> string(3) "The" } ["subtitle"]=> array(1) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" } ["title"]=> array(1) { ["en_US"]=> string(82) "Effect of Rhetorical Styles on Metadiscourse Choices of Culturally Diverse Authors" } ["locale"]=> string(5) "en_US" ["authors"]=> array(1) { [0]=> object(Author)#1033 (6) { ["_data"]=> array(15) { ["id"]=> int(9539) ["email"]=> string(24) "olgaa_boginskaya@mail.ru" ["includeInBrowse"]=> bool(true) ["publicationId"]=> int(7607) ["seq"]=> int(0) ["userGroupId"]=> int(339) ["country"]=> string(2) "RU" ["orcid"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(0) "" ["affiliation"]=> array(1) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" } ["biography"]=> array(1) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" } ["familyName"]=> array(1) { ["en_US"]=> string(10) "Boginskaya" } ["givenName"]=> array(1) { ["en_US"]=> string(4) "Olga" } ["preferredPublicName"]=> array(1) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" } ["submissionLocale"]=> string(5) "en_US" } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) } } ["keywords"]=> array(1) { ["en_US"]=> array(5) { [0]=> string(16) "rhetorical style" [1]=> string(13) "metadiscourse" [2]=> string(25) "research article abstract" [3]=> string(18) "academic discourse" [4]=> string(16) "cultural context" } } ["subjects"]=> array(0) { } ["disciplines"]=> array(0) { } ["languages"]=> array(0) { } ["supportingAgencies"]=> array(0) { } ["galleys"]=> array(1) { [0]=> object(ArticleGalley)#1030 (7) { ["_submissionFile"]=> NULL ["_data"]=> array(9) { ["submissionFileId"]=> int(33805) ["id"]=> int(5861) ["isApproved"]=> bool(false) ["locale"]=> string(5) "en_US" ["label"]=> string(3) "PDF" ["publicationId"]=> int(7607) ["seq"]=> int(0) ["urlPath"]=> string(0) "" ["urlRemote"]=> string(0) "" } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(true) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) } } } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) }

Current Issue

12. Volume, 1. Number | 2024