ABSTRACT
Metadiscourse markers work as rhetorical devices used by writers to offer guidance to readers in their interpretation, organize information, and engage audiences within the framework of their discipline. This study addresses how academic discipline affects the use of metadiscourse markers in expository writing by Law and Science undergraduate and postgraduate students. Data collection involves 191 essays written in response to the same prompt, followed by qualitative analysis based on Vande Kopple's taxonomy of metadiscourse categories. The quantitative analysis, through t-test revealed differences based on discipline, with Science undergraduates using significantly more connectives while Law undergraduates used significantly more emphatics. At the postgraduate level, Law students used significantly more code glosses and hedges than Science students, who favoured emphatics. Law students across levels showed a tendency to avoid commentary markers, suggesting low engagement with readers. These results reveal how disciplinary conventions mold metadiscourse behaviour, which in turn affects how writers negotiate coherence, stance and interaction with the reader.
