Exploring Metadiscourse Markers in Students’ Persuasive Email Requests to University Professors

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor,, Department of English Language and Literature, Payame Noor University, Tehran

2 English Department, Shadegan Branch. Islamic Azad University, Shadegan, Iran

Abstract

One of the methods of persuasion in academic linguistic interactions is the use of metadiscourse markers. These markers are a tool to facilitate communication, increase the readability of the text, establish a relationship with the readers and involve them, and avoid rejecting the author's interpretations. The purpose of this study is to explore meta-discourse markers in academic correspondence between students and professors. To this end, 200 student e-mails (13,103 words in size) were randomly selected between 2019 and 2022, and were analyzed based on Hyland's (2005) model of meta-discourse markers with two categories of interactive metadiscourse markers (including transitive markers, frame markers, endophoric markers, evidentials and code glosses) and interactional metadiscourse markers (including hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers). The relationship between the frequency of either of interactive or interactional markers with one of the Aristotle's rhetorical triangle (i.e., logos, ethos and pathos) (Hyland, 2005) is also discussed. Results show that the use of interactional metadiscourse markers was more than interactive metadiscourse markers in the corpus. Also, the engagement marker as an indicator of appealing to pathos was the most frequently used interactional markers in the corpus. In addition, transitive markers, as an indicator of appealing to logos, has the highest frequency among interactive metadiscourse markers. The results of this study conform to the previous findings that the use of metadiscourse markers depend on the context and genre in which it is used.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

منابع فارسی
پهلوان­نژاد، محمدرضا و علی­نژاد، بتول (1391). «بلاغت مقابله­ای و بررسی فراگفتمان در انشاهای توصیفی فارسی­زبانان فارسی­آموزان عرب». آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی­زبانان،1(1)، 79-100.
رضائی، فاطمه، رهبر، بهزاد و اروجی، محمدرضا (1401). «ارزیابی ادب گوینده و منزلت اجتماعی نابرابر و برابر در محیط دانشگاهی با توجه به متغیر جنسیت»، زبان­پژوهی، 14(45)، 9-32.
طارمی، طاهره، تاکی، گیتی، یوسفیان، پاکزاد (1398). «واکاوی پیکره­بنیاد فراگفتمان تبادلی در مقالات علمی ـ پژوهشی فارسی: انگاره هایلند (2005)». پژوهش­های زبانی، 10(2)، 129-151.
عبدی، رضا (1388). «به‌کارگیریِ راهبردهای فراگفتمان در مقالات علمی ـ پژوهشی فارسی و انگلیسی: مطالعة هنجارهای ژانری جامعة گفتمانی در مقاله‌های فارسی»، زبان و زبان‌شناسی، 5(9)، 93-104.
علوی، سیده زهره، و زارع، آمنه (1401). «مقایسۀ کنش­های­گفتاری درخواست و عذرخواهی در تعاملات دانشجویان یک­زبانۀ فارسی و دوزبانۀ ترکی ـ فارسی»، زبان فارسی و گویش­های ایرانی، 7(2)، 157-172.
یزدانی، سارا، شریفی، شهلا و الیاسی، محمود (1395). «بررسی مقایسه­ای فراگفتمان­های اخبار روزنامه­های انگلیسی و فارسی در مورد حادثۀ یازده سپتامبر»، زبان­شناسی و گویش­های خراسان، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، 8(15)، 51-27.
References
Abdi, R. (2009). “Metadiscourse strategies in Persian and English research articles”. Language and Linguistics, 9(9), 93-104. [In Persian]
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). “Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers”. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 288-297.
Alavi, S. Z., & Zare, A. (2023).”The comparison of speech act by Persian monolingual (Persian) and Turkish Persian bilingual students”. Persian Language and Iranian Dialects, 7(2), 157-182. [In Persian]
Baron, N. (2000). Alphabet to email: How written English evolved and where it's heading. Routledge, New York.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S. (1996). “Requests and status in business correspondence”. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 635-662.
Del Saz-Rubio, M. M. (2011). “A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of agricultural sciences”. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 258-271.
Evans, S. (2012). “Designing email tasks for the business English classroom: Implications from a study of Hong Kong's key industries”. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 202-212.
Farnia, M., & Mohammadi, N. (2018). “Cross-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in persuasive local newspaper articles”. Discourse & Interaction, 11(2), 27-44.
Farnia, M., Ypsilandis, G., & Ghasempour, B. (2019). “Intracultural Iranian persuasion: the case of scholarship application letters”. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 51, 1-19.
Gains, J. (1999). “Electronic mail e a new style of communication or just a new medium?: An investigation into the text features of e-mail”. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 81-101.
Gimenez, J. C. (2006). “Embedded business emails: meeting new demands in international business communication”. English for Specific Purposes, 25(2), 154- 172.
Hajian, S. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in English and Persian articles on literature. MA Thesis. Shiraz University.
Hagge, J., & Kostelnick, C. (1989). “Linguistic politeness in professional prose: a discourse analysis of auditors’ suggestion letters, with implications for business communication pedagogy”. Written Communication, 6(3), 312-339.
Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2019). “Applied linguistics faculty members’ perceptions of (im)politeness and (in)appropriateness of L2 learners’ e-mail requests”. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 38(1), 119-155.
HeidariTabrizi, H. (2017). A comparative study of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in sales contract written by English natives vs. Iranian non-natives. RALs. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language, Discourse and Pragmatics, 8, 75-83.
Hopkinson, C. (2021). “Realizations of oppositional speech acts in English: a contrastive analysis of discourse in L1 and L2 settings”. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(2), 163-202.
Ho, V. (2016). “Discourse of persuasion: a preliminary study of the use of metadiscourse in policy documents”. Text Talk, 36(1) 1-21.
Ho, V. (2018). “Using metadiscourse in making persuasive attempts through workplace request emails”. Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 70-81.
Hyland, K. (1998a). “Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in CEOs' letter”. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224-245.
Hyland, K. (1998b). “Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse”. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2007). “Applying a gloss: exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse”. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 266-285.
Hyland, K. (2008). “Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: representing self and others in research writing”. International Journal of English Studies, 8, 1-23.
Hyland, K. (2015). “Metadiscourse”. In K. Tracy (ed.) International encyclopedia of language and social interaction.  Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). “Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research article”. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12-25.
Jensen, A. (2009). “Discourse strategies in professional e-mail negotiation: a case study”. English for Specific Purpose, 28, 4-18.
Karimi, K., Maleki, M., & Farnia, M. (2017). “Metadiscourse markers in the abstract sections of Persian and English law articles”. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research (IJFLTR), 5(18), 69-83.
Martin, J., Christie, F., & Rothery, J. (1987). Social processes in education: a reply to Sawyer and Watson (and others). In: I. Reid, (Ed.). The Place of Genre in Learning: Current Debates (pp. 46-57). Deakin University Press, Geelong, Australia.
Pahlevannezhad, M. R., & Alinezhad, B. (2012). “Contrastive rhetorics and the study of metadiscourse in Persian native speakers’ and Arab learners’ compositions”. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages (JTPSOL), 1(1), 79-100. [In Persian]
Rezaee, F., Rahbar, B., & Oroji, M. (2023). “Evaluation of the speaker's politeness based on unequal social status and the gender of the audience with equal social status in the university environment”. Zabanpazhuhi (Journal of Language Research), 14(45), 9-39. [In Persian]
Shekouhi, H., & Talati BaghSiahi, A. (2009). “Metadiscourse functions in English and Persian sociology articles: A study in contrastive rhetoric”. Pozań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 45(4), 549- 568.
Simon, B. (2004). Identity in modern society: A social psychological perspective. Blackwell, UK.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In: H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (2nd ed.) (pp. 11-47). Continuum, London: New York.
Taremi, T., Taki, G., & Yousefian, P. (2020). “The corpus- based investigation of interactive metadiscourse in the Persian research articles: Hylandʼs model (2005)”. Journal of Language Researches, 10(2),129-15. [In Persian]
Townley, A. R., & Jones, A. (2016). “The role of emails and covering letter in negotiating a legal contract: a case study from Turkey”. English for Specific Purposes, 44, 68-81.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). “Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93.
Yazdani, S., Sharifi, S., & Elyasi, M. (2017). “A comparative study of metadiscourse markers in English and Persian news reports about the September 11 event”. Journal of Linguistics and Khorasan Dialects, 8(15), 27-51. [ In Persian]
Linguistic Studies: Theory and Practice
Volume 2, Issue 2 - Serial Number 4
Winter 2024
March 2024
Pages 173-201

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 01 January 2025
  • Revise Date: 03 February 2025
  • Accept Date: 04 March 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics