Interpersonal metadiscourse in persuasive journalism: a study of texts by American and Iranian EFL columnists
List of Authors
  • Noorian, Mina

Keyword
  • Contrastive rhetoric, EFL (English as a Foreign Language) writers, Genre, Metadiscourse markers, Newspaper discourse, Persuasive writing

Abstract
  • Interpersonal metadiscourse refers to aspects of a text which reflect the writer’s position towards both the content in the text and the reader. This study aimed to explore the role of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in persuasive writing. For this purpose, two elite newspapers in the United States and Iran, The New York Times and Tehran Times respectively, were chosen. Based on a textual analysis of 12 opinion articles (6 from each newspaper), this investigation intended to find out whether American and Iranian EFL writers employed the same amounts of interpersonal markers (hedges, certainty markers, commentaries, attitude markers, and attributors) in their texts. The findings revealed that interpersonal metadiscourse was present in both sets of data, but that there were significant differences between the two groups regarding the occurrences of interpersonal markers, specifically in the case of commentaries. The results suggested that different factors interacted in the choice of metadiscourse markers in newspaper opinion articles written by American and Iranian EFL columnists: culture-driven preferences, genre-driven conventions, and Iranian EFL writers’ extent of foreign language experience. The study also stressed the need for more contrastive studies in the area of metadiscourse and more attention to this important element in L2 writing courses.

Reference
  • Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.
    Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Abdollahzadeh, E. (2007). Writer’s presence in Persian and English newspaper editorials. Paper presented at the International Conference on Systemic Functional Linguistics in Odense, Denmark.
    Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 28-44.
    Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Crismore, A. (1983). The rhetoric of social studies textbooks: Metadiscourse. (ERIC Document Reproduction in Service No. ED 239 226).
    Crismore, A. (1984). The case for a rhetorical perspective on learning from texts: Exploring metadiscourse. (ERIC Document Reproduction in Service No. ED 257 035).
    Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
    Crismore, A., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2010). A review of recent metadiscourse studies: the Iranian context. NJES, 9(2), 195-219.
    Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 118136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
    Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
    Dafouz, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11, 29-52.
    Dafouz, E. (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, 95-113.
    Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
    Elbow, P. (1991). Reflections on academic discourse: How it relates to freshmen and colleagues. College English, 53(2), 135-155.
    Faghih, E., & Rahimpour, S. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 92-107.
    Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge.
    Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., Velasco-Sacristán, M., Arribas-Baño, A., & Samiengo-Fernández,
    E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1307.
    Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
    Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
    Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
    Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Oxford: Continuum.
    Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural communication. Journal of Language Learning, 1(1), 1-20.
    Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In: U. Connor and R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 texts. Redwood, CA: Addison-Wesley.
    Kumpf, E. P. (2000). Visual metadiscourse: Designing the considerate text. Technical Communication Quarterly, 9(4), 401-424.
    Le, E. (2004). Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and editorialist‟s authority. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 687-714.
    Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    Simin, S., & Tavangar, M. (2009). Metadiscourse knowledge and use in Iranian EFL writing. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(1), 230-255.
    Steffensen, M. S., & Cheng, X. (1996). Metadiscourse and text pragmatics: How students write after learning about metadiscourse. In: L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning. Monograph series: Vol. 7. (pp. 153-171). (ERIC Document Reproduction in Service No. ED 400 709).
    Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
    Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
    Vergaro, C. (2002). „Dear Sirs, what would you do if you were in our position?‟: Discourse strategies in Italian and English money chasing letters. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1211-1233.
    Williams, J. M. (1981). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co.