One issue, two genres
A comparison of interactional metadiscourse in the news
This study compares the use of interactional metadiscourse in a British newspaper, the Daily Mail, and a British news magazine, The Economist, in reporting on the Brexit referendum. We adopted Hyland’s (
2005a: 48–54) framework to analyze hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagements, and self-mentions. One hundred news articles were randomly selected from online archives from February to June in 2016, during which time the debatable issue was discussed ardently. Quantitative and qualitative results of this study revealed both similarities and differences between the newspaper and the news magazine in the use of interactional metadiscourse. For example, quantitatively, the frequencies of boosters in both genres were similar; however, the newspaper used much more engagement markers and self-mentions whereas the magazine used more hedges and attitude markers. Qualitatively, while most self-mentions were the same in both genres, a unique choice of self-mentions was found in the news magazine.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Purpose of the study and research questions
- 2.Literature review
- 2.1Analytical framework of metadiscourse
- 2.2Previous research on metadiscourse
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1The issue: The Brexit referendum
- 3.2Data collection
- 3.3Data analysis
- 4.Results
- 4.1Hedges
- 4.2Boosters
- 4.3Attitude markers
- 4.4Engagement markers
- 4.5Self-mentions
- 5.Interactional metadisourse in journalistic genres
- 6.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
-
References
References (42)
References
Ahangari, Saeideh and Mozhgan Kazemi. 2014. “A content analysis of ‘Alice in Wonderland’ regarding metadiscourse elements.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English literature 31: 10–18.
Alshahrani, Ali Ayed S. 2015. “A cross-linguistic analysis of interactive metadiscourse devices employment in native English and Arab ESL academic writings.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 5, 8 (August): 1535–1542.
Amiryousefi, Mohammad, and Abbas Eslami Rasekh. 2010. “Metadiscourse: Definitions, issues and its implications for English teachers.” English Language Teaching 3, 4 (December): 159–167.
Anthony, Laurence. 2012. AntConc (Version 3.3.2) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Accessed November 30, 2017. [URL]
Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC). n.d. “Who We Are.” Accessed April 8, 2017 [URL]
Boshrabadi, Abbas Mehrabi, Biria Reza and Zahra Zavari. 2014. “A Cross Cultural Analysis of Textual and Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers: The Case of Economic Articles in English and Persian Newspapers.” Advances in Language and Literary Studies 5, 2 (April): 59–66.
Bunton, David. 1999. “The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses.” English for Specific Purposes 18, 1 (December): 41–56.
Clark, H. Herbert, and Richard J. Gerrig. 1990. “Quotations as demonstrations.” Language 66, 4 (December): 764–805.
Crismore, Avon. 1989. Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.
Crismore, Avon, and Rodney Farnswarth. 1990. “Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse.” In The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse, ed. by Walter Nash, 118–136. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Crismore, Avon, Raija Markkanen, and Margaret S. Steffensen. 1993. “Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students.” Written Communication 10,1 (January): 39–71.
Dafouz Milne, Emma. 2003. “Metadiscourse revisited: a contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Regreso al metadiscurso: estudio contrastivo de la persuasión en el discurso professional.” Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 111 (January): 29–52.
Dafouz Milne, Emma. 2008. “The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 40,1 (January): 95–113.
Farnia, Maryam and Nahid Mohammadi. 2018. “Cross-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in persuasive local newspaper articles.” Discourse and Interaction 11,2: 27–44.
Feng, Miao, Paul R. Brewer, and Barbara L. Ley. 2012. “Framing the Chinese baby formula scandal: A comparative analysis of US and Chinese news coverage.” Asian Journal of Communication 22, 3 (April): 253–269.
Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A., Marisol Velasco-Sacristán, Ascensión Arribas-Baño, and Eva Samaniego-Fernández. 2001. “Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines.” Journal of Pragmatics 33,8 (August): 1291–1307.
Ho, Victor. 2016. “Discourse of persuasion: A preliminary study of the use of metadiscourse in policy documents.” Text and Talk 36, 1 (April): 1–21.
Hu, Guangwei, and Feng Cao. 2011. “Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals.” Journal of Pragmatics 43, 11 (September): 2795–2809.
Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, Ken. 2004. “Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 13, 2 (June): 133–151.
Hyland, Ken. 2005a. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, Ken. 2005b. “Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.” Discourse Studies 7, 2 (May): 173–192.
Hyland, Ken. 2007. “Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse.” Applied Linguistics 28, 2 (June): 266–285.
Jensen, Astrid. 2009. “Discourse strategies in professional e-mail negotiation: A case study.” English for Specific Purposes 28, 1 (January): 4–18.
Khedri, Mohsen, Chan Swee Heng, and Seyed Foad Ebrahimi. 2013. “An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines”. Discourse Studies 15, 3 (April): 319–331.
Malenkina, Nadezhda, and Stanislav Ivanov. 2018. “A linguistic analysis of the official tourism websites of the seventeen Spanish autonomous communities.” Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 91: 204–233.
Martin, James R., and Peter R. R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mu, Congjun. 2010. “A Contrastive analysis of metadiscourse in Chinese and English editorials.” Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice 41: 35–43.
Mur-Dueñas, Pilar. 2010. Attitude markers in business management research articles: A crosscultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20, 1 (February): 50–72.
Sedaghat, Azam, Reza Biria, and Yaghoub Asadi Amirabadi. 2015. “Cross cultural analysis of hedges in Persian and English editorial columns.” International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World 8, 1 (January): 37–50.
Suau-Jiménez, Francisca and Rosana Dolón-Herrero. 2007. “The importance of metadiscourse in the genre ‘promotion of touristic services and/or products’: differences in English and Spanish.” In Language for Specific Purposes: Searching for Common Solutions, ed. by Dita Gálová, 143–186. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Sukma, Bayu Permana. 2017. “Interpersonal metadiscourse markers as persuasive strategies in Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign speeches.” Aksara 29, 2 (December): 283–292.
Sukma, Bayu Permana, and Eva Tuckyta Sari Sujatna. 2014. “Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in opinion articles.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature 3, 2 (March): 16–21. . [06/04/17]
Vande Kopple, William J. 1985. “Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse.” College Composition and Communication 36, 1 (February): 82–93.
Vázquez-Orta, Ignacio, and Diana Giner. 2009. “Writing with conviction: The use of boosters in modelling persuasión in academic discourses.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 221 (November): 219–237.
Vergaro, Carla. 2004. “Discourse strategies of Italian and English sales promotion letters.” English for Specific Purposes 231, 21: 181–207.
Yagiz, Oktay, and Cuneyt Cuneyt. 2015. A comparative study of boosting in academic texts: A contrastive rhetoric. International Journal of English Linguistics 5, 4 (July): 12–28.
Yazdani, Sara, Shahla Sharifi, and Mahmoud Elyassi. 2014a. “Interactional metadiscourse in English and Persian news articles about 9/11.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 4, 2 (February): 428–434.
Yazdani, Sara, Shahla Sharifi, and Mahmoud Elyassi. 2014b. “Exploring hedges and boosters in 9/11 English front page news articles.” Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities 4, 3 (March): 301–313.
Yazdani, Akram, and Hadi Salehi. 2017. “Comparing metadiscourse markers employed in English and Persian online headlines.” International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning 6,4 (September): 91–97.
Yeganeh, Maryam Tafaroji, Issa Mellati Heravi, and Abdolrasoul Sawari. 2015. “Hedge and booster in newspaper articles on Iran’s presidential election: A comparative study of English and Persian articles.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 1921 (June): 679–683.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Chen, Songyun & Jiajin Xu
2024.
Interdisciplinary variations of metadiscursive verb patterns in English research articles.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 34:2
► pp. 603 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.