Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: An Analysis of Human and GPT-Generated Academic Writing

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

English Department, Faculty of Letters & Humanities, Shahrekord University, Iran

Abstract

As the boundaries between human and machine-authored academic texts continue to blur, there is a compelling need to evaluate how artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content navigates the landscape of interpersonal engagement and persuasion in research articles. This investigation examined the functional role of interactional metadiscourse markers in academic texts authored by humans versus those generated by ChatGPT. Relying on Hyland's (2005) metadiscourse framework, this research study compared the frequency, rhetorical function, and contextual use of five key interactional markers in the conclusion and discussion sections of 40 applied linguistics research articles. Results from a mixed-methods corpus-based discourse analysis revealed significant differences in rhetorical style and communicative intent. The human-authored texts employed more hedges, engagement markers, and attitude markers, indicating a more cautious, evaluative, and reader-aware stance. In contrast, the AI-generated texts overused self-mentions and lacked contextual subtlety, often resulting in a more expository and impersonal tone. These findings highlight AI's current limitations in replicating the rhetorical sensitivity required in academic writing and suggest the continued need for critical human oversight in AI-assisted scholarly communication.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

AbdAlgane, M., Ali, R., Othman, K., Ibrahim, I. Z. A., Alhaj, M. K. M., MT, E., & Ali, F. S. A. (2026). Exploring AI-generated texts vs. human-written texts in EFL academic writing: A case study of Qassim University in Saudi Arabia. World Journal of English Language, 16(2), 114-131.
Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2020). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Amirjalili, F., Neysani, M., & Nikbakht, A. (2024). Exploring the boundaries of authorship: A comparative analysis of AI-generated text and human academic writing in English literature. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1347421. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1347421
Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.2.0) [Computer software]. Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
Baofang, L., & Shamsudin, S. (2023). A corpus-based analysis of interactive metadiscourse in chemistry theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 61, Article 101222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101222
Benelhadj, F. (2025). How do master's students link their ideas? A comparative lexico-grammatical analysis of conjunctions in professional master's dissertations and their cited research articles. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2025.50020.3571
Bhatia, V. K. (2020). Academic discourse: Genre, rhetoric and identity. Routledge.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2021). Register, genre, and style (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Gray, B. (2023). AI writing tools and academic discourse: Challenges and opportunities. Written Communication, 40(1), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883221101923
Bruce, I. (2022). Constructing critical stance in academic writing: Authority and voice. Bloomsbury Academic.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
Dahl, T. (2021). Metadiscourse in research article conclusions across disciplines. Linguistics and Education, 64, Article 100942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2021.100942
Dreyfus, S., Humphrey, S., Mahboob, A., & Martin, J. R. (2021). Genre pedagogy in higher education: The SLATE project. Palgrave Macmillan.
Esfandiari, R., & Allaf-Akbary, M. (2024). Assessing interactional metadiscourse in EFL writing through intelligent data-driven learning: The Microsoft Copilot in the spotlight. Language Testing in Asia, 14, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-024-00326-9
Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30, 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 191–218). Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2011). Disciplines and discourses: Social interactions in the construction of knowledge. In D. Starke-Meyerring et al. (Eds.), Writing in Knowledge Societies (pp. 171–192). The WAC Clearinghouse; Parlor Press.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2025). Metadiscourse in AI-generated versus student academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 62, Article 101273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101273
Khajavi, Y., & Ezhdehakosh, M. (2025). Enhancing language teacher education: exploring the integration of ai-powered tools in preservice teacher education. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 174-191. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2024.48226.3405
Khedri, M., & Kritsis, K. (2018). Metadiscourse in applied linguistics and chemistry research article introductions. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 47-73. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2018.13793
Kuteeva, M., & Mauranen, A. (2022). Genre-specific use of metadiscourse in AI-generated and human-authored texts. English for Specific Purposes, 65, 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.01.003
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Li, Y. (2023). ChatGPT as a writing aid for non-native speakers: Pedagogical perspectives. Language Learning & Technology, 27(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langlt.2023.01.005
OpenAI. (2023). Introducing ChatGPT. https://openai.com/chatgpt
Pearson, L., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2023). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A systematic review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 62, Article 101262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101262
Pham, T., & Wang, Y. (2023). AI in academic writing: A corpus-based comparison of metadiscourse. Language Teaching Research, 27(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221112345
Shalevska, A. (2024). Hedges and boosters in AI vs. human-written essays. Applied Linguistics Review, 15(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2023-0021
Sudajit-apa, M. (2025). Dismantling the discursive representation of women in AI-generated life-changing narratives: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 38-54. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2024.46100.3232
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2021). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
Tang, M. (2023). Exploring rhetorical strategies in AI-generated scholarly writing. Discourse Studies, 25(1), 104–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456221112345
Xu, L. (2025). AI and genre awareness: A comparative analysis of research abstracts. ESP Today, 13(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2025.13.1.2
Yu, J., & Chen, L. (2024). The rhetorical shortcomings of AI-generated academic texts. Computers and Composition, 67, 102788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2023.102788
Zeng, Q., Luo, Y., & Hu, G. (2024). Analyzing self-mention use in AI-generated academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 63, Article 101847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101847
Zhang, W., & Liao, X. (2023). Enhancing writing fluency through AI assistance: Insights from EFL classrooms. System, 114, 102967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.102967
Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly
Volume 45, Issue 4
September 2026
Pages 85-108

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 06 June 2026
  • Revise Date: 24 August 2026
  • Accept Date: 07 September 2026

Share

How to cite

Statistics