Metadiscourse Functions in English and Persian Sociology Articles: A Study in Contrastive Rhetoric

• Authors: Hossein Shokouhi , Amrollah Talati Baghsiahi
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This study on contrastive rhetoric reports on metadiscourse functions in sociology articles in Persian and English. The results have revealed a higher number of metadiscourse elements in the English texts. Among the different metadiscourse elements used, text connectors are the most frequently employed in both languages. Modality markers are the second most frequent in both languages although the English writers used nearly twice the number of these markers. Overall, it is found that the frequency of textual metadiscourse markers is greater than the interpersonal markers in both language samples. It was further revealed that the Persian writers of sociology texts are less interested in explicitly orienting the readers and some of the main points in an article, especially in the concluding section, are left for the readers to infer. This, we believe, is the result of less reliance on academic writing in the educational system of the country. Instead, the Iranians are largely encouraged to employ a flowery language and rhetoric to decorate their writing in their school years which makes them less attentive of their readers.

Keywords

EN

Metadiscourse; rhetoric; Persian; English; sociology texts

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Journal: Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics
• Year: 2009
• Volume: 45
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 549-568

Dates

published

2009-12-01

online

2010-01-13

Contributors

author

Hossein Shokouhi

• Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz

author

Amrollah Talati Baghsiahi

• Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz

References

• Clyne, M.G. 1981. "Culture and discourse structure". Journal of Pragmatics 5(1). 61-66.[Crossref]
• Clyne, M.G. 1984. "Linguistics and written discourse in particular languages: Contrastive studies in English and German". Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 3(1). 38-49.
• Connor, U. 1996. Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Crismore. A., R. Markkanen and M.S. Steffensen. 1993. "Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students". Written Communication 10(1). 39-71.[Crossref]
• Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., M. Yelasco-Sacnstan, A. Arribas-Bano, and E. Samaniego-Fernandez. 2001. "Persuasion and advertising English: metadiscourse in slogans and headlines". Journal of Pragmatics 33(10). 1291-130.[Crossref]
• Hallidav. M.A.K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. New York: Elsevier North-Holland, Inc.
• Hallidav, M.A.K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. (2nd ed.) London: Edvard Arnold.
• Hinds. J. 1987. "Readers vs. writers responsibility: A new typology". In: Connor, U. and R.B. Kaplan (eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Weslev. 141-152.
• Holmes, R. 1997. "Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research articles discussion sections in three disciplines". English for Specific Purposes 16(2). 321-337.
• Hyland. K. 1998. "Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse". Journal of Pragmatics 30(3). 437-455.[Crossref]
• Hyland, K. 1999. "Talking to student: metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks". English for Specific Purposes 18(1). 3-26.
• Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
• Kaplan, R.B. 1966. "Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education". Language Learning 16(1). 1-20.[Crossref]
• Kaplan, R.B. 1984. "Introduction". Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 3(1). 1-15.
• Leki, I. 1991. "Twenty five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies". TESOL Quarterly 25(1). 123-143.[Crossref]
• Mauranen. A. 1993. "Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts". English for Specific Purposes 12(1). 3-22.
• Moreno, A.I. 1997. "Genre constrains across languages: Causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs". English for Specific Purposes 16(2). 161-179.
• Myers, G. 1989. "The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles". Applied Linguistics 10(1). 1-35.[Crossref]
• Noor, R. 2001. "Contrastive rhetoric in expository prose: Approaches and achievements". Journal of Pragmatics 33(3). 255-269.[Crossref]
• Salager-Meyer, F. 1994. "Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse". English for Specific Purposes 13(2). 149-170.
• Shokouhi, H. 2007. "A functional analysis of rhetorical organization of recognition and production tasks by EFL learners". Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication 34. 717-734.
• Swales, J. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Valero-Garces, C. 1996. "Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts". English for Specific Purposes 15(2). 279-294.
• Vande Kopple, W.J. 1985. "Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse". College Composition and Communication 36(1). 82-93.
• Vande Kopple, W.J. 2002. "Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric". In: Barton, E. and G. Stygall (eds.), Discourse studies in composition. Gresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc. 91-114.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10010-009-0026-2