بررسی مقابله ای فراگفتمان در بخش سرمقاله ی روزنامه های فارسی و انگلیسی

Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسی

داود کوهی ¹ ( English Language Department, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh Branch, Maragheh, Iran )
منیژه موجود ² ( English Language Department, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh Branch, Maragheh, Iran )

Received: 2016-02-08 Accepted : 2016-02-08 Published : 2012-05-21

Keywords: فرهنگ, ژانر, عناصر فراگفتمانی, سرمقاله, بلاغت مقابله ای,

Abstract :

انگیزه اصلی این پژوهش مقابله ای ، از نیاز به کنکاش بیشتر درباره ی تاثیر عوامل فرهنگی و قواعد ژانری بر استفاده از عناصر فراگفتمانی بر می خیزد.  در راستای چنین انگیزه ای پیکره ای مشتمل بر 60 سر مقاله  (انگلیسی و فارسی) از 10 روزنامه ی ایرانی و آمریکایی انتخاب شده و بر اساس الگوی فراگفتمانی هایلند  (2005) مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفت. از میان نتایج تجزیه و تحلیل ، می توان به نقش مهم نشان گرهای عاطفی ، به عنوان یکی از زیر مقوله های عناصر فراگفتمان ، در ایجاد فضای اقناعی اشاره نمود. به طور کلی ، نتایج حاصله نشان داد که قواعد ژانری نقشی تعیین کننده بر استفاده ی مولفان این ژانر داشته اند  و این باعث برخی شباهتها در استفاده از این عناصر شده است. تفاوتهایی نیز در چگونگی استفاده از این عناصر بین مولفان ایرانی و آمریکایی مشاهده شد که در پرتو تفاوتهای فرهنگی و زبانی مورد تحلیل قرار کرفت.  

References:

Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2007). Writers’ presence in English and Persian newspaper editorials. Paper presented at the 34^th International Systemic Functional Grammar, July, 2007, Denmark.

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2010).Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019.

Ansary, H. & Babaii, E. (2009). A cross-cultural analysis of English newspaper editorials: a systemic-functional view of text for contrastive rhetoric research.  RELC Journal, 40(2), 211-249.

Beauvais, P. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 6(1), 11-30.

Bell, A.(1991). The language of news media. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre:Language use in Professional settings. London: Longman.

Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in Ph.D theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S41-S56.

Connor, U. (1996).Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspect of second-language writing. Cambridge University Press.

Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What is it and how is it used in school and non-school social science texts. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.

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

Dafouz, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11, 29-52.

Dafouz, 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, 95-113.

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

Faghih, E. & Rahimpour, S. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics,1, 92-107.

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge.

Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., Velasco-Sacristán, M., Arribas-Bano, A., & Samiengo-Fernández, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1307.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. (2^nded.). London: Edward Arnold.

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic textbooks and EAP. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256.

Hyland, K. (1996a). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication 13(2): 251-281

Hyland, K. (1996b). Writing without conviction? Hedging in Science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433- 454.

Hyland, K. (1998a). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.

Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), 349-382.

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

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

Hyland, K. (2001a). Humble servant s of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.

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

Hyland, K. (2010).  Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic journal of English Studies, 9 (2), 125-143

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language learning, 16 (1), 1-20.

Khabbazi Oskouei, L. (2011). Interactional variation in English and Persian: A comparative analysis of metadiscourse Features in magazine editorials. Doctoral Thesis. Norwich: University of East Anglia. Retrieved 25 January 2012, from https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/35688/.

Kuhi, D. and Behnam, B. (2010). Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguists: A comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication, 28 (1), 97-141.

Le, E. (2004). Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and editorialists’ authority. Journal of pragmatics, 36(4), 687-714.

Moreno, A. I. (1997). Genre constraints across languages: Causal metatext in Spanish and English research articles. ESP Journal, 16 (3), 161-179.

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

Noorian, M. and Biria, R. (2010). Interpersonal metadiscourse in persuasive journalism: A study of texts by American and Iranian EFL columnists. Journal of Modern Language, 20, 64-79.

Pak, C.S. and Acevedo, R.(2008).Spanish-language newspaper editorials from Mexico, Spain, and the U.S. In: U. Connor, E. Nagelhout &W.Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (123–145). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Reah, D. (1998). The language of newspapers. London: Routledge.

Shokouhi, H. and Talati Baghsiahi, A.(2009). Metadiscourse functions in English and Persian sociology articles: A study in contrastive rhetoric. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 45(4), 535–554.

Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction, 50, 1999-236.

Shams, M. R. (2005).Reading English newspapers. Tehran: Rahyan.

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.

Valero Garces, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 5, 279-294.

Vande Kopple, W. (1985).Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36, 82-93.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Opinions and ideologies in editorials. Paper presented at the 4^th International Sysmposium of Critical Discourse Analysis: Language, Social Life and Critical Thought. December, 1995, Athens.

Williams, W. J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman & Company.