Reflexive Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Interviews: A Frequency and Functional Study

Subject Areas :

Oranoos  Rezaei ¹ (English department, Bushehr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran)
Seyed Foad  Ebrahimi ² (English department, Shadegan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shadegan, Iran)
Saeed  Yazdani ³ (English department, Bushehr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran)

Received: 2022-04-07 Accepted : 2022-09-30 Published : 2022-12-01

Keywords: Metadiscourse,      Keywords: Interview, MICASE, Personal Pronoun, Reflexive Metadiscourse ,

Abstract :

There are two different trends for the study of metadiscourse, including interactive and reflexive. The reflexive model suggested by (Mauranen, 1993) and (Ädel, 2010) cares about reflexivity in language. As reflexivity plays a pivotal role in spoken genres, this study aimed to study the frequency and functions of reflexive metadiscourse markers in academic interviews. Hence, this study focused on a corpus of three academic interviews carried out in English native academic context that was taken from “The Michigan Corpus of Academe Spoken English” (MICASE). The corpus was analyzed using the model by Ädel that includes four functional categories of metalinguistic comments, discourse organization, speech act labels, and references to the audiences. The results showed that about one-quarter of the personal pronouns were metadiscourse. Besides, among the personal pronouns that perform metadiscourse function, singular first-person pronoun was the most frequent while plural first-person pronoun was very rare. It was also found that among the four functions, the interviewees and interviewers paid more attention to metalinguistic comments and references to the audience. The results of this study could add to the knowledge of those participating in interviews in general and in the academic context in particular.

References:

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Vol. 24. John Benjamins Publishing.

Ädel, 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.

Aguilar, M. (2008). Metadiscourse in academic speech: A relevance-theoretic approach. . Peter Lang.

Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study.

Charles, M. (2013). English for academic purposes. In The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 137-153). Paltridge Brian and Sue Starfield (West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 149-181.

Dastjerdi, H. V., & Shirzad, M. (2010). The impact of explicit instruction of meta-discourse engineering writers in English. . English Linguistics Research, 1(1), 88-96.

Ghaffari, J., Behjat, F., & Rostampoor, M. (2015). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers instruction and Iranian EFL learner's writing skills. Iranian EFL Journal, 11(1), 417-440.

Gold Sanford, S. (2012). A comparison of metadiscourse markers and writing quality in adolescent written narrative. University of Montana: Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional].

Harris, Z. (1959). Linguistic transformations for information retrieval //Papers in Structural and Transformational Linguistics. Dordrecht: D.Reidel,1970 (original work published 1959).

Hashemi, M., Azizinezhad, M., & S., D. (2012). Using task-based language teaching, learning practically in English classe. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 526-529.

Hockett, C. (1977). The View from Language: Selected Essays 1948- 1974. . Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters, and lexical invisibility: Noticing

modifiers in academic texts. L. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Oxford: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. . Oxford: Continuum.

Jakobson, R. (1980). The framework of language. Michigan: Michigan Studies in the Humanities.

Jalilifar, A., & Alipour, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners' reading comprehension skill. . Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1), 35-52.

Lucy, J. (1993). Reflexive Language and the Human Disciplines. . In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metalinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Luukka, M. R. (1992). Metadiscourse in academic texts. (Paper presented at Conference on Discourse and the Professions, Uppsala, Sweden, 1992).

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Matroudy, M., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2022). Functional Analysis of Reflexive Metadiscourse in Dissertation Defense Sessions [Research]. International Journal of Research in English Education, 7(1), 72-85. https://doi.org/10.52547/ijree.7.1.72

Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. . English for specific Purposes, 12(2), 3-22.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. . English for specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22.

Parvaresh, V., & Nemati, M. (2008). Metadiscourse and reading comprehension: The effect of language & proficiency. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5(2), 220-239.

Pérez, M. A., & Macià, E. A. (2002). Metadiscourse in Lecture Comprehension: Does it Really Help Foreign Language Learners? Atlantis, 3-21.

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.

Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta‐talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3-4), 199-236.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. . Cambridge University Press.

Tafaroji Yeganeh, M., & Ghoreyshi, S. M. (2015). Exploring gender differences in the use of discourse markers in Iranian academic research articles. . Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 684-689.

Taghizadeh, M., & Tajabadi , F. (2003). Metadiscourse in essay writing: An EFL case Department of foreign languages, university of Tehran, Tehran , Iran.].

Thompson, S. E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation, and the signaling of organization in academic lectures. Journal of English for academic purposes, 2(1), 5-20.

Van Dijk, T. A., Ting-Toomey, S., Smitherman, G., & Troutman, D. (1997). Discourse, ethnicity, culture and racism. In Discourse as interaction in society. Van Dijk, Teun A. (London: Sage, 1997).

Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College composition and communication, 36, 82-93.

Zare, J., & Tavakoli, M. (2016). The use of personal metadiscourse over monologic and dialogic modes of academic speech. Discourse Processes, 54(2), 163-175.

Zhu, Y. (2018). An  Intercultural Analysis of personal metadiscourse in English , Chinese Commencement Speeches. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(5), 100-110.