Abstract
Given the interest in the study of metadiscourse as the communication of ideas and the way people use language in different communicative situations, this paper attempted to find the degree of confluence between metadiscourse markers from different studies and to show how patterns of metadiscourse analysis based on various written genres can be applied to a wider range. The mean values for the frequency of marker use and their respective deviations were determined by comparing a significant number of studies on metadiscourse elements. To ensure comparability, those following Hyland’s model were chosen. The units of analysis were grouped into two broad categories based on discursive characteristics: Academic genres (research articles, theses, and textbooks) and non-academic genres, which included documents ranging from newspaper editorials or opinion columns to Internet texts and other forms of digital communication. The results of our study highlight that the disparity in interactive markers between academic and non-academic texts is relatively small. This difference has been identified by previous studies, and it is confirmed herein that the difference may be related to the use of academic language, the topic, or the object of study. In contrast, the mean values of the interactive markers in non-academic texts are considerably higher than those in academic texts. At the same time, the texts seem to be organised along two axes (interactional and interactive) in distinct areas. Despite our initial assumptions that the data would be subject to individual variations, that differences would be found between different sections of the same genre within the same academic discipline, and that the results would vary if certain texts were added or excluded, we observed certain trends in the behaviour of the documents, although it prevailed that, within each category, the texts should be studied individually.
Highlights
In the context of this study, we understand language as a tool for social interaction and communication [1]
Tannen, and Hamilton [4] referred to discourse as being understood through three fundamental categories: (1) As that which extends beyond the sentence, (2) as language use, or (3) as a social practice that includes non-linguistic aspects: “Metadiscourse embodies the idea that communication is more than just the exchange of information, goods or services, and involves the personalities, attitudes, and assumptions of those who are communicating” [5]
Metadiscourse guides how a message is interpreted, because it reflects the linguistic expression of sociocultural reality
Summary
In the context of this study, we understand language as a tool for social interaction and communication [1]. Given this definition, one can recognise that the genre, metadiscourse, and research concerning these two concepts are essential for our understanding of the concept of communication [2]. Metadiscourse guides how a message is interpreted, because it reflects the linguistic expression of sociocultural reality. This allows us to clarify essential details such as what the author is trying to say, his opinion
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have