A Content Analysis of ‘Alice in Wonderland’ Regarding Metadiscourse Elements

Saeideh Ahangari, Mozhgan Kazemi

Abstract


Metadiscourse is an appealing field of inquiry which plays an important role in organizing and producing persuasive writing, based on the norms and expectations of people involved. The fuzziness of the term Metadiscourse remains obscure as it is seen in the literature. Having based this work on Ken Hyland’s framework for Metadiscourse, the researchers applied his definition and classification of the term. Hyland describes Metadiscourse as the linguistic resources used to organize a discourse or the writer’s stance towards either its content or the reader. He has divided Metadiscourse into two broad groups: Interactive and Interactional. The former being subcategorized into: Transitions, Frame markers, Endophoric markers, Evidentials, and Code-glosses. And the later being divided into Hedges, Boosters, Attitude markers, Engagement markers, and Self-mentions (Hyland, 2005). Focusing on these categorizations, the researchers would try to shed light on the Metadiscourse features applied in “Alice in Wonderland”, selected from the ‘Complete Illustrated Lewis Carroll’, and see how and to what extent Lewis Carroll has applied these Metadiscourse markers to make his story more impressive and persuasive. Of course, Hedges have not been counted in this novel because of the many works done about this marker earlier. The results of the study showed that the frequencies in Interactive/Interactional Metadiscourse groups have no meaningful differences. However, the frequencies demonstrate that the author has been fully aware of the norms of writing. The results of the study have pedagogical implications for teaching English Literature for literature students and language learners at pre-, upper-, and high-intermediate levels of language learning courses.

 


Keywords


Metadiscourse, interactive, interactional, literary genre, content analysis

Full Text:

PDF

References


Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written

in English by English and Norwegian speakers. Studies about Linguistics 5, 1-7.

Breivega, K. R., Dahl, T. & Flottum, K. (2002). Traces of self and others in research articles. A comparative study pilot study of English, French and Norwegian research articles in medicine, economics, and linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 218-239.

Bunton, D. (1999). ‘The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses.’ English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56.

Crismore, A. & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91-112.

Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.

Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse, 118-36. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Crismore. Avon, R., Markkanen, & Margaret S. Steffensen (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10(1): 39 – 71.

Dahl T. (2004). ‘Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline. Journal of Pragmatics 36, pp. 1807-1825

Duszak, A. (1994). ‘Academic discourse and intellectual style.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 21(3), 291-313.

Fuertes-Olivera, P., Velasco-Sacristan, M., Arribas-Bano, A. & Samaniego Fernandez, E. (2001). ‘Persuasion and advertising English: metadiscourse in slogans and headlines.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1307.

Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: an introduction to written discourse analysis. London and New York: Routledge.

Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds) (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: OUP.

Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1), 3 - 26.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. and Polly Tse (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25(2): 156 -177.

Lautamatti, L. (1987). Observations on the development of the topic of simplified discourse. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.) Writing across languages, 87-114. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Martin, J. (2000). ‘Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English’. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: OUP, 142-75.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publisher.

Melander, B., Swales, J., & Fredrickson, K. (1997). Journal abstracts from three academic fields in the United States and Sweden: national or disciplinary proclivities? In Duszak, A. (Eds.), Culture and styles of academic discourse. Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter, 251-272.

Meyer, B. (1975). The Organization of Prose and its Effect on Memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Social Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction, 50, 199-236.

Thompson, G. (2001). ‘.’ Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.

Valero-Garces, Carmen (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 15(4), 279 – 294.

Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Explorations in applied linguistics (2). Oxford: OUP.

Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Boston: Scott Foresman.

Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2007). Metadiscourse in Academic Prose: A contrastive analysis of English and Persian research articles. The Asian ESP Journal, 3(2), 24-40.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.3p.10

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.