Analyzing textual metadiscourse: Ways of establishing the interaction between the author and the reader according to the theory of Ken Hyland (2005), with the theme of Covid-19.

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

A faculty member and a lecturer at Tafresh university.

Abstract

The ability to present an idea, prove it and get its acceptance is one of the essential skills in communication situations. This theory analyzes the author's text and the extent of the reader's understanding and interaction with the author's text.The purpose of this research is a comparative analysis of the interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in three sets of Persian editorials, psychological and environmental articles with the theme of COVID-19, based on the theory of Ken Hyland, a linguist in the field of applied linguistics. The method of this corpus-based research is quantitative and qualitative and data are shown in tables and charts. The results of the research indicate that in terms of the number and frequency of metadiscourse markers, the psychological articles in the interactive category, and the editorials in the distance and engagement categories have the largest number of metadiscourse markers in total.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  • افشارپور، اکرم (1394). بررسی مقایسه‌ای فراگفتمان تعاملی در مقالات پژوهشی فارسی در علوم مختلف، پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، دانشکده ادبیات و زبان‌های خارجی.
  • پهلوان‌نژاد، محمدرضا؛ علی‌نژاد، بتول (1391). «بلاغت مقابله‌ای و بررسی فراگفتمان در انشاهای توصیفی فارسی‌ زبانان و فارسی آموزان عرب». پژوهش‌نامۀ آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی زبانان. سال اول، شماره 1: 79-
  • حافظ‌نیا، محمدرضا (1399). مقدمه‌ای بر روش تحقیق در علوم انسانی. سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها. تهران: سمت.
  • قلی فامیان، علیرضا (1393). «موضع‌گیری و مشارکت‌جویی در مقالات نقد کتاب‌های ادبیات فارسی». فصلنامه تخصصی نقد ادبی. دوره هفتم، شماره 26: 49-66.
  • قلی‌فامیان، علیرضا؛ کارگر، مریم (1392). «تحلیل مقالات نقد کتاب‌های زبان‌شناسی ایران بر اساس الگوی فراگفتمان هایلند». مجله پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی، دوره پنجم، شماره 2: 37-52.
  • Adel, Annelie (2005). On the boundaries between evaluation and metadiscours: Strategies in academic discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, p. 153-162.
  • Adel, Annelie and Randi Reppen Randi (2008). Corpora and discourse: The challenges of different settings. Volume 31. John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Adel, Annelie. (2003). The Use of Metadiscourse in Argumentative Writing by Advanced Learners and Native Speakers of English. PhD thesis, Goteborg, Sweden: G Goteborg University.
  • Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Becher, Tony, & Trowler, Paul R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines (2nd ed.). Society for Research into Higher
  • Bunton, D. (1999). “The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses”. English for Specific Purposes, 18: S41-S56.
  • Burneikaitė, N. (2008). “Metadiscourse in Linguistics Master’s Theses in English L1 and L2”. Kalbotyra, 59(3): 38-47.
  • Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). “Metadiscourse and, ESP comprehension: an exploratory study”. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1): 15-33.
  • Chen, X., Zhang, Y. (2023). “Metadiscourse in Political Discourse: A Comparative Analysis of News Articles from Different Countries”. Journal of Pragmatics, 133: 1-18.
  • Cheng, X. and Steffensen, M. (1996). “Metadiscourse: a technique for improving student writing”. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2): 149-81.
  • Crismore, A. & Farnsworth, R. (1990). "Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse". The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse, 118-36.
  • Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.
  • Crismore, A. (2004). "Pronouns and metadiscourse as interpersonal rhetorical devices in fundraising letters": A corpus linguistic analysis.Journal of Applied Analysis. (2) 27 .:93-319.
  • Ghahremani, Khadije, Biria, Reza (2017). 'Exploring Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Discussion Sections of Social and Medical Sciences'. International Journal of Research in English Education.
  • Griffin, K. (2011). Language and the social mind.Cambridge University Press.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd Ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
  • Halliday, M. A. K., Hasan, R. (1976). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd Ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
  • Harris, Z. (1959), “The Transformational Model of Language Structure”. Anthropological Linguistics, 1 (1): 27-29.
  • Hinds, S. (2018). Discourse and power in digital media: Dialogic approaches. Routledge.
  • Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). "Metadiscourse in scholastic writing": a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2): 156-177.
  • Hyland, K. (2005). London: Continum.
  • Intaraprawat, P. and Steffensen, M. (1995). "The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays". Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3): 253-72.
  • Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Vols 1 & 2. Cambridge: CUP.
  • Martínez A. C. L. (2004). "Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish university students". Discourse Markers in Expository Writing. 8, 63-80.
  • Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. A text linguistic study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  • Norrick, N. R. (2001). “Discourse markers in oral narratives”. Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 849-78.
  • Robertson, J. (2011). Discourse analysis.Bloomsbury Publishing.
  • Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse. Sociological Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction 50: 199-236.
  • Shaw, Philip. (2009). 'Linking Adverbials in Student and Professional Writing in Literary Studies: What Makes Writing Mature'. Bloomsbury Publication. pp. 215-35.
  • Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Taavitsainen, L. (1999). "Metadiscourse practices and the evolution of early English medical writing". Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English.
  • Valero-Garces, C. (1996). 'Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Spanish-English Economics texts'. English for Specific Purposes, 15(4), 279-94.
  • Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). 'Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse'. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
  • Vande Kopple, W. J. (1997). 'Refining and applying views of metadiscourse'. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on Composition and Communication (48th), Phoenix, AZ.
  • White, P. (2003). 'Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance'. TEXT - Special Issue on Appraisal, 23(3).
  • Williams, J. (1981), Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace (Eds.). Boston: Scott, Foresman.
  • Wilson, Shomir (2012). 'The creation of a corpus of English metalanguage'. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Long Papers-Volume 1. Association for Computational Linguistic. 638–646.
  • Yates, S. (2020). "Interpersonal metadiscourse in academic writing: A corpus-based analysis of modality, affect, and humor". Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 52, 102001.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics