Volume 7, Issue 1 (3-2022)
IJREE 2022, 7(1): 72-85 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Matroudy M, Ebrahimi S F. Functional Analysis of Reflexive Metadiscourse in Dissertation Defense Sessions. IJREE 2022; 7 (1)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-601-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-601-en.html
English Department, Shadegan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shadegan, Iran
Abstract: (2238 Views)
Metadiscourse as one of the pivotal multifunctional linguistic features in spoken and written discourse has been investigated from two points of view; narrow and broad. In narrow point of view of metadiscourse, reflexivity in discourse is focused. Among the two points of view of metadiscourse, reflexivity is mostly used in spoken discourse, thus this study aims to trace the realization of functions of reflexivity metadiscourse in PhD dissertation sessions. To meet this end, four PhD dissertation defense sessions (totally 56837 words) were selected to make the corpus of this study. The transcription of the four sessions were analyzed for reflexive metadiscourse markers functions based on the model that includes four functional categories; “metadiscourse comments”, “discourse organization”, “speech act labels”, and “references to the audiences.” The results showed that disciplinary speaking conventions have the most pivotal and significant impose on speakers to use categories of reflexive metadiscourse. For instance, it was found that in defense session on “Fosil Plant”, the “reference to audience” was the most frequent category while in defense session on “Music”, the “metalinguistic comments” has received the greatest attention for speakers. Findings of this study could contribute to the existing literature by helping EFL PhD candidates to understand and appropriately use reflexive metadiscourse markers.
Keywords: defense session, metadiscourse, PhD Dissertation, reflexive metadiscourse, spoken genre, MICASE
References
1. Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [DOI:10.1075/scl.24]
2. Adel, 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. doi: 10.35360/njes.218 [DOI:10.35360/njes.218]
3. Adel, A. (2012). Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 81-92. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004]
4. Björkman, B. (2011). Pragmatic strategies in English as a lingua franca: Ways of achieving communicative effectiveness. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 950-964. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.033 [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.033]
5. Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
6. Farnia, M., & Mohammadi, N. (2018). Cross-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in persuasive local newspaper articles. Discourse and Interaction, 11(2), 27-44. [DOI:10.5817/DI2018-2-27]
7. Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1), 29-53. http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~prokofieva/CandidacyPapers/Hinkel_Hedging.pdf
8. Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students' timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53-68. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001]
9. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
10. Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116-127. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003]
11. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007]
12. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). In this paper we suggest: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001]
13. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2019). Points of reference: Changing patterns of academic citation. Applied Linguistics, 40(1), 64-85. [DOI:10.1093/applin/amx012]
14. Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272. [DOI:10.1016/1060-3743(95)90012-8]
15. Kashiha, H. (2018). Malaysian ESL students' metadiscourse in essay writing. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 8(3), 193-201. doi: [DOI:10.12973/ojcmt/2650]
16. Kashiha, H. (2022). Academic lectures versus political speeches: Metadiscourse functions affected by the role of the audience. Journal of Pragmatics, 190, 60-72. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.003]
17. Kashiha, H., & Marandi, S. (2019). Rhetoric-specific features of interactive metadiscourse in introduction moves: A case of discipline awareness. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 37(1), 1-14. [DOI:10.2989/16073614.2018.1548294]
18. Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46, 39-54. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009]
19. 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, 52-62. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.005]
20. Li, Z., & Xu, J. (2020). Reflexive metadiscourse in Chinese and English sociology research article introductions and discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 159, 47-59. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.003]
21. 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, 97-109. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2018.04.002]
22. Mauranen, A. (2010). Features of English as a lingua franca in academia. Helsinki English studies: electronic journal of the Department of English at the University of Helsinki, 6, 6-28. https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/publications/features-of-english-as-a-lingua-franca-in-academia
23. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge University Press.
24. Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta‐talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3‐4), 199-236. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00021.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00021.x]
25. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78. [DOI:10.1093/applin/22.1.58]
26. Thomson, J. J. (2020). Metadiscourse in upper secondary pupil essays: Adapting a taxonomy. Nordic Journal of Literacy Research, 6(1). doi: [DOI:10.23865/njlr.v6.1720]
27. Van de Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93. [DOI:10.2307/357609]
28. Zare, J., & Tavakoli, M. (2017). The use of personal metadiscourse over monologic and dialogic modes of academic speech. Discourse Processes, 54(2), 163-175. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1116342 [DOI:10.1080/0163853X.2015.1116342]
29. Zhu, Y. (2018). An intercultural analysis of personal metadiscourse in English and Chinese commencement speeches. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(5), 100-110. https://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/alls/article/view/4808 [DOI:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.5p.100]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
