آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 41 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 1,116 |
| تعداد مقالات | 13,678 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 48,552,754 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 12,303,189 |
A pragmatic Analysis of Personal Metadiscourse and Politeness Principle across Genres: From Relevance to Adaptation | ||
| Two Quarterly Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning University of Tabriz | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 12، شماره 25، شهریور 2020، صفحه 1-31 اصل مقاله (587.64 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/elt.2020.10674 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
Omid Allaf-Akbary1؛ Rajab Esfandiari  2؛ Abbas Ali Zarei3
| ||
| 1Department of English Language, Faculty of Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University | ||
| 2Assistant Professor , Department of English Language , Faculty of Humanities , Imam Khomeini International University , Qazvin , Iran. | ||
| 3Associate professor, Department of English Language, Faculty of Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This study investigated personal metadiscourse units across genres. Based on Ädel’s (2006) taxonomy of the discourse functions of personal metadiscourse and Leech’s (2014) grand strategy of politeness, three spoken genres were compared in terms of the use of personal metadiscourse functions and politeness maxims. To that end, a 3,034,025-word corpus consisting of Panel discussion in politics, Interviews with actors, and Comedies genres, which included 30 audio and video transcriptions, was developed. Explicitness, world of discourse, current discourse, speaker qua speaker and listener qua listener were used to identify metadiscourse units. We examined the total frequencies of all personal metadiscourse units used in the corpus. The results of corpus analysis showed that 19.6% of metadiscourse units occurred in comedies, which was the highest among the three genres. The most commonly used metadiscourse units appeared in speaker-oriented metadiscourse with 10.2% in interviews. The results also revealed that in panel discussion the speakers focused more on their own ideas than the listeners or participants. Results of chi-square analysis showed that English speakers used speaker-oriented, participant-oriented, and listener-oriented metadiscourse types statistically significantly differently. A statistically significant difference between speaker-, participant-, and listener-oriented units was found. Results also revealed that speakers in different genres are willing to use such maxims as opinion reticence and modesty more frequently than other maxims. The paper concludes with proposing a new model for analyzing metadiscourse. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Genres؛ Metadiscourse؛ Politeness Principle | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288–297.
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97. Ädel, A. (2017). Remember that your reader cannot read your mind: Problem/solution-oriented metadiscourse in teacher feedback on student writing. English for Specific Purposes, 45(1), 54-68.
Beauvais, P. J. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 6(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088389006001002 Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text-interdisciplinary journal for the study of discourse, 9(1), 93-124. Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2005). Confronting the ethics of qualitative research. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18(3), 157-181.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bu, J.M. (2014). Towards a pragmatic analysis of metadiscourse in academic lectures: from relevance to adaptation. Discourse Studies, 16(4), 449-472.
Crosthwaite, P., Cheun, L., & Jiang, F. (2017). Writing with attitude: stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for specific purposes, 46, 107-123. Flowerdew, J. (2015). Revisiting metadiscourse: Conceptual and methodological issues concerning signaling nouns. Iberica, 29(4), 15-34. Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Halliday, M. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C. M.I.M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Ho & Li (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33(2), 53-68.
Hong, HQ & Cao, F. (2014) Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 19(2): 201-224
Hunston, S., & Thimspon, G. (eds.) (2001). Evaluation in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. New York, NY: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2015). Metadiscourse. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel(Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 998-1006). West Sussex, UK:John Wiley & Sons,Inc.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113(4), 16-29.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in scholastic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Hyland, K., & Guinda, C. S. (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(1), 1325-1353.
Jiang, K., & Hyland, K. (2015). “The fact that”: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529-550.
Jiang, X., Li, Y., & Zhou, X. (2013). Is it over-respectful or disrespectful? Differential patterns of brain activity in perceiving pragmatic violation of social status information during utterance comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 51(11), 2210-2223.
Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20(7), 114-124.
Lee, J. J., Subtirelu, N.C. (2015). Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 37(1), 52–62.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of politeness. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lim, T. S., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human communication research, 17(3), 415-450.
Liu, F. (2012). A study of principle of conversation in advertising language. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(12), 2619-2623.
Liu, Y. & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34(7), 97-109.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse reflexivity—a discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 13–40.
Pérez-Llantada, C., Ferguson, R. Plo, G. & Gibson, R (2010). You don’t say what you know, only what you can: The perceptions and practices of senior Spanish academics regarding research dissemination in English”. English for Specific Purposes, 30(2), 18-30.
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(5), 82–93.
Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Yaqubi, M., Saeed, K., & Khaksari, M. (2016). Conversational Maxim View of Politeness: Focus on Politeness Implicatures Raised in Performing Persian Offers and Invitations. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(1), 52-58.
Zhou, L. & Zhang, S.J. (2018). Trends for focused topics of face, politeness and impoliteness: A mapping-knowledge-domain analysis. Computer-Assisted Foreign Language Education, 184(5), 106-112.
Zhu, W. (2012). A study of upward request emails: Managing a harmonious relationship in three academic discourse communities of Britain and China (Doctoral dissertation, the University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.) Retrieved from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3168/1/Resubmssion. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 858 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,880 |
||
