Metadiscourse in Persian/English Master,s Theses:A Contrastive Study مقالة

مؤلف: Marandi، Seyyedeh Susan ؛

Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics September 2003, Volume 6 - Number 2 ، العلمية - البحثية (Ministry of Science/ISC (‎20 صفحة - من 23 إلی 42 )

الکلمات المفتاحية: Metadiscourse EAP Contrastive rhetoric English Persian vs Master's theses

خلاصة:

In the present study, a new metadiscourse typology is presented with ten sub- types: connectives, topicalizers, reminders, intention markers, interpretive markers, hedges, emphatics, attributors, persona markers, and relational markers. The first five constitute textual metadiscourse, and the rest constitute interpersonal metadiscourse, This study also investigates the impact of language/culture on the use of metadiscourse in the Master's theses of 3 groups: native (Iranian) speakers of Persian, non-native (Iranian) speakers of English, and native (British) speakers of English. The introductions and discussions of these theses were compared for amounts and types of metadiscourse used, by means of a number of split-plot ANOVAs. The different groups were found to use metadiscourse types differently; more specifically, they were found to use connectives, hedges, attributors, and persona markers differently from one another. This study has implications for a number of disciplines, in particular teaching English as a foreign language.

ملخص الجهاز:

IJAL, Vol. 6, No, 2, September 2003 23 Metadiscourse in Persian/English Master's Theses: A Contrastive Study' (Seyyedeh) Susan Maraud' Azzahra University Abstract In the present study, a new metadiscourse typology is presented with ten sub-types: connectives, topicalizers, reminders, intention markers, interpretive markers, hedges, emphatics, attributors, persona markers, and relationalmarkers. This study also investigates theimpact of language/culture on the use of metadiscourse in the Master's thesesof 3 groups: native (Iranian) speakers of Persian, non-native (Iranian)speakers of English, and native (British) speakers of English, Theintroductions and discussions of these theses were compared for amounts and types of metadiscourse used, by means of a number of split-plot ANOVAs. The different groups were found to use metadiscourse types differently; more specifically, they were found to use connectives, hedges, attributors, and persona markers differently from one another. A. theses were randomly selected from among the theses of three groups: native speakers of Persian, native (British) speakers of English, and non-native (Iranian) speakers of English: The introduction and discussion sections of these fitheses weir chosen for study, as being the most "rhetorical" (Mauranen 1993), and were analyzed for the types and amounts of metadiscourse (textual and interpersonal) used. e. connectives, topicalizers, reminders, intention markers, interpretive markers, hedges, emphatics, attributors, persona markers, and Vol. 6, Na. 2, September 2003 31 relational markers— by the three groups in the introduction and discussion sections of their Master's theses. In order to refresh the reader's mind, we are reminded that of the ten metadiscourse subtypes,' only four were used significantly differently by the three groups: connectives (textual), hedges (interpersonal), attributors (interpersonal), and persona markers (interpersonal).

استلام ملف الإرجاع :
(پژوهیار, , , )

تحميل
تحميل HTML

رابط قصير:

صفحة:

دخول / الاشتراک

تحتاج الدخول لعرض محتوى المقالة. إذا لم تكن عضوًا ، فتابع من الجزء الاشتراک.

دخول