Volume 5, Issue 2 (6-2020)                   IJREE 2020, 5(2): 13-28 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Karami Y, Lohran Poor M. A Comparative Corpus-Based Analysis of Using Hedging, Boostering, and Self-Mentioning Metadiscourse Markers in Persian and English Psychology Books. IJREE 2020; 5 (2)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-275-en.html
Ilam University, Ilam, Iran
Abstract:   (5162 Views)
Metadiscourse is a set of linguistic ties used to communicate attitudes and denote the grammatical attributes of a text. The present study was conducted to inspect using hedging, boostering, and self-mentioning metadiscourse markers in the well-known Persian and English psychology books. Based on the chosen corpora of the study, this inquiry purposed to realize what the general preferences are in the use of hedging, boostering, and self-mentioning metadiscourse markers in Persian and English psychology books. The corpora of four psychology books, two by Persian- speaking psychologists and two by English-speaking psychologists, were chosen and analyzed based on Hyland’s (2005) model of metadiscourse. The data obtained and collected from the chosen corpora were analyzed by Ant Conc 3.5.7 and SPSS statistical software. By analyzing the corpora of the study quantitatively, it is resulted that Persian-speaking psychologists used more metadiscourse markers than that of English-speaking psychologists in their books. Secondly, it is detected that Persian-speaking psychologists used fewer hedging metadiscourse markers in their books than that of their English-speaking counterparts. Thirdly, it is found that Persian-speaking psychologists used more boostering metadiscourse markers in their books than that of their English-speaking counterparts. Next, it is realized that Persian-speaking psychologists used more singular first-person self-mentioning metadiscourse markers in their books; however, their English-speaking counterparts used more plural third-person self-mentioning metadiscourse markers in their books. In addition, textual analysis has shown the difference of Persian and English sub-corpora in using hedging, boostering, and self-mentioning metadiscourse markers. 
Full-Text [PDF 861 kb]   (1145 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

1. Amiryousefi, M., & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Definitions, issues, and its implications for English teachers. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 159-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p159 [DOI:10.5539/elt.v3n4p159]
2. Atai, M. R., & Sadr, L. (2008). A cross-cultural study of hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistics research articles. Teaching English Language (Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran), 2(7), 1-22. https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=162198
3. Beauvais, P. J. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written communication, 6(1), 11-30. [DOI:10.1177/0741088389006001002]
4. Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. J. Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 279-296. [DOI:10.1177/0741088389006001002]
5. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003]
6. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004]
7. Ebadi, S., Rawdhan, A. S., & Marjal, B. E. (2015). A comparative study of the use of metadiscourse markers in Persian and English academic papers. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(4), 28-41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276028305_A_Comparative_Study_of_the_Use_of_Metadicourse_Markers_in_Persian_and_English_Academic_Papers
8. Falahati, R. (2006). The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles. Proceedings of the 22nd North West Linguistics Conference (NWLC22), Burnaby: Simon Fraser University, 1, 99-112.
9. Ghahari, S. H., & Zarghami, M. (2007). Schizophrenia .Tehran: Qhatre Publication.
10. Ghahremani Mina, K., & Biria, R. (2017). Exploring interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in discussion sections of social and medical science articles. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(4), 11-29. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-71-en.html [DOI:10.29252/ijree.2.4.11]
11. Gholami, J., & Ilghami, R. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and journal impact factor: Non-native writers vs. native writers. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 44(4), 349-360. doi:10.1002/bmb.20961 [DOI:10.1002/bmb.20961]
12. Gholami, M., Tajalli, G., & Shokrpour, N. (2014). An investigation of metadiscourse markers in English medical texts and their Persian translation based on Hyland's model. European Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 1-41. http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/An-Investigation-Of-Metadiscourse-Markers-In-English-Medical-Texts-And-Their-Persian-Translation-Based-On-Hylands-Model2.pdf
13. Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007]
14. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles (Vol. 54). John Benjamins Publishing. doi: [DOI:10.1075/pbns.54]
15. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 479-480. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00593_9.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00593_9.x]
16. 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]
17. Jiang, H., & Bian, N. (2008). Use of metadiscourse in allocating SLA learners' attention. Sino-US English Teaching, 5(11). doi:10.17265/1539-8072/2008.11.001
18. Jomaa, N. J., & Alia, M. M. (2019). Functional analyses of metadiscourse markers in L2 students' academic writing. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 10(1), 361-381. [DOI:10.24093/awej/vol10no1.30]
19. 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, 5(18), 69-83. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316167809_Metadiscourse_Markers_in_the_Abstract_Sections_of_Persian_and_English_Law_Articles
20. Khedri, M., Heng, C. S., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319-331. [DOI:10.1177/1461445613480588]
21. Kim, C. H., & Suh, H. W. (2014). Epistemic rhetorical stance: Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 students' English writings. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 22(2), 61-93. doi: 10.24303/lakdoi.2014.22.2.61 [DOI:10.24303/lakdoi.2014.22.2.61]
22. Kuhi, D., & Mojood, M. (2014). Metadiscourse in Newspaper Genre: A Cross-linguistic Study of English and Persian Editorials. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1046-1055. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.515]
23. Marandi, S. (2003). Metadiscourse in Persian/English master's theses. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 23-24. https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=5105
24. Moghadam, F. D. (2017). Persuasion in journalism: A study of metadiscourse in texts by native speakers of English and Iranian EFL Wwriters. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(6), 428-434. doi:10.17507/tpls.0706.11 [DOI:10.17507/tpls.0706.11]
25. Metzl, J. (2011). The protest psychosis: How schizophrenia became a black disease. New York: Beacon Press.
26. Oldham, J., & Bone, S. (1994). Paranoia. Madison: International Universities Press.
27. Peyvastegar, M. (2012). Paranoia. Tehran: Avaye Noor Publication.
28. Pooresfahani, A. F., Khajavy, G. H., & Vahidnia, F. (2012). A contrastive study of metadiscourse elements in research articles written by Iranian applied linguistics and engineering writers in English. English Linguistics Research, 1(1), 88-96. [DOI:10.5430/elr.v1n1p88]
29. Samaie, M., Khosravian, F., & Boghayeri, M. (2014). The frequency and types of hedges in research article Introductions by Persian and English native authors. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1678-1685. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.593]
30. Tavakoli, M., Amirian, Z., & Moslemi, F. (2012). Analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers across applied linguistics disciplines: Focusing on EFL learners' perception. Iranian EFL Journal, 8(5), 99-113.
31. Toumi, N. (2009). A model for the investigation of reflexive metadiscourse in research articles. Language Studies Working Papers, 1, 64-73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285473524_A_model_for_investigation_of_reflexive_metadiscourse_in_research_articles_University_of_Reading
32. Yang, H. (2006). A comparative study of scientific hedging by Chinese writers and English writers. Language Education papers, 3(3), 58-62.
33. Yazdani, S., Sharifi, S., & Elyassi, M. (2014). Interactional metadiscourse in English and Persian news articles about 9/11. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 428. [DOI:10.4304/tpls.4.2.428-434]
34. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1997). Refining and Applying Views of Metadiscourse. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (48th, Phoenix, AZ, March 12-15, 1997), 1-19. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED411539.pdf
35. Vande, K. W. (1984). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93. doi: 10.2307/357609 https://www.jstor.org/stable/357609 [DOI:10.2307/357609]
36. Williams, J. (1980). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Boston: Scott Foresman. The University of Chicago Press, 1-208.
37. 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. http://research.iaun.ac.ir/pd/mansouri/pdfs/PaperM_9454.pdf
38. Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 42-50. doi: 10.5539/elt v4n1p42 [DOI:10.5539/elt.v4n1p42]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | International Journal of Research in English Education

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb