Interaction in two journalistic genres
A study of interactional metadiscourse
The study of interactive features of language has been a very productive source of insights into written discourse in recent years, revealing the ways that writers engage with readers to successfully persuade them of a particular viewpoint in a range of different genres and contexts. While a variety of approaches have illuminated our understanding of these features, the concept of interactional metadiscourse has been particularly valuable in revealing how writers project themselves into their discourse to signal their understandings of their material and their audience. In this paper we draw on Hyland’s (2005a) model of metadiscourse to explore some of the ways that interaction contributes to the success of two journalistic genres: popular science and opinion articles. Examining 200 popular science and 200 opinion texts, we show that despite the broadly similar audience and sources of these genres, authors structure their interactions very differently, contributing to the rhetorical distinctiveness of these genres. The paper not only offers a detailed account of interactional metadiscourse in these genres, but illustrates how interpersonal connections are accomplished for particular persuasive purposes in everyday public texts.
Keywords: boosters, interactional metadiscourse, attitude markers, popular science, opinion texts, engagement features
Published online: 28 April 2014
Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan.
1989 Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9: 93–124.
Chafe, Wallace L. and Johanna Nichols (
eds.) 1986 Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
1983 The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
Connor, Ulla and Thomas A. Upton (
Dueñas, Pilar Mur.
Gillaerts, Paul and Freek Van de Velde.
1994 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd edition. London: Edward Arnold.
2002a What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text 22 (4): 529–557.
2005a Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, Ken and Carmen Sancho Guinda (
Hyland, Ken and Polly Tse.
Kim, Chul-Kyu and Geoff Thompson.
Kinneavy, James E..
Markkanen, Raija and Hartmut Schröder (
eds.) 1997 Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Martin, James R..
2000 Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston and Geoff Thompson (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 142–175.
Martin, James R. and Peter R.R. White.
2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave/Macmillan.
1993 Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfort: Peter Lang.
1992 An Uncommon Tongue. London and New York: Routledge.
Pellechia, Marianne G..
Proctor, Katarzyna and Lily I-Wen Su.
Thompson, Geoff and Puleng Thetela.
1995 The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text 15 (1): 103–127.
Thompson, Geoff and Susan Hunston.
2000 Evaluation: An introduction. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston and Geoff Thompson (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–27.
Vande Kopple, William J..
1996 Personal Pronouns in Everyday English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, Peter R.R..
2003 Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23 (2): 259–284.
Cited by other publications
Bagheri, Fatemeh & Liming Deng
Colussi, Juliana & Paula Melani Rocha
Farnia, Maryam & Nahid Mohammadi
Lee, William Wai Lam
Pilkington, Olga A.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.