Keywords
ChatGPT
corpus linguistics
EFL academic writing
Metadiscourse
How to Cite
Abstract
As research into the potential of artificial intelligence in education has grown, several studies have explored the impacts of AI on students' writing. However, crucial aspects of students' academic writing and how AI influences them remain understudied. This gap is unfortunate because the increasing number of students and teachers using AI models for academic writing requires understanding their roles and potential. To address this, the present study examines how ChatGPT uses metadiscourse when revising students' writing. Using a corpus of 240 texts with 85000 tokens written by EFL students and revised by ChatGPT 4o, the study applied a corpus linguistics method to examine the normalized frequency and percentage ranges of Metadiscourse Markers (MDMs) as categorized by Hyland's (2005) framework in both original and revised texts. It also used T-tests to assess the statistical significance of differences in MDM use across the two subcorpora. Results reveal varied distribution patterns across different MDM categories and subcategories. Interestingly, AI revisions tend to emphasize interactional resources more than text-organizing devices. At the subcategory level, attitude markers increased significantly after AI intervention, while transitions significantly decreased in the AI versions. However, all other differences are not statistically significant, indicating that MDM usage in students' writing and AI revisions remains generally comparable. The findings suggest that AI revisions should be complemented by human oversight and can effectively support the development of academic writing. They provide insights into the potential of AI interventions and open avenues for further research in broader settings. It is recommended that future research consider writing from other disciplines, adopt a longitudinal design, and test other common AI models.
References
[1] K. Hyland, “Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse,” J. Pragmatics, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 437–455, Oct. 1998. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5. (in English)
[2] A. Crismore, R. Markkanen, and M. S. Steffensen, “Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students,” Written Commun., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 39–71, Jan. 1993. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002. (in English)
[3] P. A. Fuertes-Olivera, M. Velasco-Sacristán, A. Arribas-Baño, and E. Samaniego-Fernández, “Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines,” J. Pragmatics, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1291–1307, Aug. 2001. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80026-6. (in English)
[4] F. Hayisama, M. I. A. Shah, and W. N. A. W. Adnan, “Rhetorical style across cultures: An analysis of metadiscourse markers in academic writing of Thai and Malaysian students,” LSP Int. J., vol. 6, no. 1, Jun. 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v6n1.76. (in English)
[5] L. Yanfei, E. B. Marzuki, J. Ramanair, and Z. Baoying, “A review of metadiscourse research,” J. Publ. Health, vol. 5, no. 2, Apr. 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.63332/joph.v5i2.729. (in English)
[6] M. Alkhathlan, “Metadiscourse in academic writing: An investigation of Saudi EFL students’ research articles,” Linguist. Lit. Stud., vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 220–225, Sept. 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.13189/lls.2019.070505. (in English)
[7] T. Vesić Pavlović and D. Đorđević, “The use of metadiscourse markers in essays written by ESP university students,” Geogr. & Fis. Fac. J., vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 233–249, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.19090/gff.2020.5.233-249. (in Serbian)
[8] V. E. Nugrahani and B. Bram, “Metadiscourse markers in scientific journal articles,” Lett. Knowl. Work., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 1, Jun. 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.31332/lkw.v6i1.1528. (in English)
[9] A. S. Al-Subhi, “Metadiscourse in online advertising: Exploring linguistic and visual metadiscourse in social media advertisements,” J. Pragmatics, vol. 187, pp. 24–40, Jan. 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.027. (in English)
[10] J. Feng, J. Tang, Y. Xia, and C. Zhu, “Persuasion strategies of the major powers on social media: An analysis of the metadiscourse from the Chinese and American spokespersons’ tweets,” Emerg. Media, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 698–723, 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/27523543241283645. (in English)
[11] F. Amirjalili, M. Neysani, and A. Nikbakht, “Exploring the boundaries of authorship: A comparative analysis of AI-generated text and human academic writing in English literature,” Front. Educ., vol. 9, p. 1347421, Mar. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1347421. (in English)
[12] M. Alia and A. M. Aliia, “How AI tools affect discourse markers when paraphrased,” in Using AI Tools in Text Analysis, Simplification, Classification, and Synthesis, IGI Glob. Sci. Publ., 2025, pp. 319–348. (in English)
[13] K. Hyland, Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing, London; New York: Continuum, 2005. (in English)
[14] W. J. V. Kopple, “Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse,” Coll. Compos. Commun., vol. 36, no. 1, p. 82, Feb. 1985. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/357609. (in English)
[15] K. Hyland, “Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing,” Nord. J. Engl. Stud., vol. 9, no. S2, pp. 125–143, Jun. 2010. doi: https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220. (in English)
[16] K. Hyland and P. Tse, “Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal,” Appl. Linguist., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 156–177, 2004. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156. (in English)
[17] E. Dafouz-Milne, “The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse,” J. Pragmatics, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 95–113, Jan. 2008. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003. (in English)
[18] F. H. Gai and Y. Wang, “Correlated metadiscourse and metacognition in writing research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-cultural study,” Front. Psychol., vol. 13, p. 1026554, Nov. 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1026554. (in English)
[19] D. J. Woo, H. Susanto, C. Yeung, K. Guo, and A. Fung, “Exploring AI-generated text in student writing: How does AI help?,” Lang. Learn. Technol., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 183–209, Jun. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/73577. (in English)
[20] R. Godwin-Jones, “Generative AI, pragmatics, and authenticity in second language learning,” Oct. 18, 2024, arXiv:2410.14395. doi: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.14395. (in English)
[21] F. (Kevin) Jiang and K. Hyland, “Does ChatGPT argue like students? Bundles in argumentative essays,” Appl. Linguist., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 375–391, Jun. 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amae052. (in English)
[22] F. (Kevin) Jiang and K. Hyland, “Rhetorical distinctions: Comparing metadiscourse in essays by ChatGPT and students,” English Spec. Purp., vol. 79, pp. 17–29, Jul. 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2025.03.001. (in English)
[23] L. Biber, S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan, Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Harlow: Pearson Education, 1999. (in English)
[24] J. Sinclaire, Sinclair, J. (Ed.) (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford, UK Oxford University Press. - References - Scientific Research Publishing. Oxford university press, 1991. (in English)
[25] L. Cheung and P. Crosthwaite, “CorpusChat: integrating corpus linguistics and generative AI for academic writing development,” Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn., pp. 1–27, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2025.2506480. (in English)
[26] K. Hyland, Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing, Int. J. Appl. Linguist., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 41–62, 2008. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00178.x. (in English)
[27] K. Csürös, C. Gherasim, and M. Chitez, “Corpus integration in L2 discipline-specific writing courses: A cross-linguistic didactic intervention study,” J. Acad. Writing, vol. 15, no. S2, pp. 1–14, Apr. 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v15iS2.1119. (in English)
[28] A. S. Al-Subhi, “Interactional meta-discourse and phraseology in newspaper editorials during the Russia-Ukraine War,” Online J Commun Media Technol, vol. 13, no. 3, p. e202331, July 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/13259. (in English)
[29] R. Esfandiari and O. Allaf-Akbary, “Assessing the Impact of Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT on EFL Learners’ Interactional Metadiscourse in Argumentative Writing,” Innoeduca, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 47–73, 2025, [Online] Available: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/10227710.pdf (in English)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Abdulaziz Sanosi