Amiryousefi, Mohammad; Barati, Hossein (2011). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Amiryousefi, Mohammad; Barati, Hossein (2011): Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing, ken Hyland, continuum, London
Introduction
Linguists’ interest in discourse in recent years is gradually shifting from the traditional focus on ideational dimension of texts and speech to the ways they function interpersonally (Hyland, 2004).Such a view argues that writers or speakers do not simply produce a text to convey information and to represent an external reality. They, however, seek to ensure that the information they present is understandable and acceptable (...) To communicate effectively, they anticipate their receivers' expectations, requirements and resources, and try to engage them in their texts and affect their understandings of them.
(...) It is a concept which is based on a view of writing or speaking as a social engagement (Hyland, 2005; Dafouz-Milne, 2008).
(...) It is, therefore, believed to play an important role in organizing the discourse, engaging the audience and signaling the writer's or speaker’s attitude (Fuertes-Olivera et al., 2001).
(...)
Chapter one
Chapter 1 (First Impression) provides a brief picture of metadiscourse by explaining its general definitions and its context of emergence.
(...) At first a distinction was drawn between transactional (the communication of information) and interactional (the communication of affects) functions of language. The scholars, however, tended to value the transactional function more.
(...) They, consequently, paid their attention to the ways ideas were expressed. Sinclair, however, offered an alternative approach in 1981 by making a distinction between the interactive and autonomous planes of discourse. By the autonomous planes he meant how experiences and ideas are
unfolded through the organization of the text, and by interactive plane how language is used to create a relation between the reader and the writer.
(...) The underlying conception of metadiscourse is that the only aim of communication is not the conveyance of information. But rather the writer and the reader interact with each other to affect
the ways the information is understood.
5246
To do so “ addresses have to be drawn in, engaged, motivated to follow along, participate, and perhaps be influenced or persuaded by a discourse”(p.11). To do this, the expectations that certain readers have for certain form of interactions and engagements should be anticipated and fulfilled. Metadiscourse is, therefore, believed to play a vital role in organizing and producing persuasive writing, based on the norms and expectations of people involved. The receivers; expectations “
are social, affective and cognitive based on participants’ beliefs and values, their individual goals and their experiences with similar texts in the past” (p.13).The process of communication, accordingly, is not just to clarify certain information, but to embed the information in a shared and recognized social world.
(...) Metadiscourse is, therefore, defined as “writer’s awareness of the reader and his or her need for elaboration, clarification, guidance and interaction” (p.17). In other words, metadiscourse can refer to those linguistic options which are employed by the writer to direct the reader through the text and to show his stance. One threat to this definition, according to Hyland, is that it entails a distinction between propositional meaning and metadiscourse meaning. What remains difficult is how to make a distinction between metadiscourse and propositional content. Halliday (1994), for example, proposes the test of falsifiability to identify propositions. He states that "propositional material is something that can be argued about, affirmed, denied, doubted, insisted upon, qualified, tempered, regretted and so on"
Chapter two
Chapter 2 (Definitions, issues and classifications) looks a little more closely at how analysts define metadiscourse
(...) Hyland believes that textual metadiscourse is used to organize propositional information in ways that will be coherent for a particular audience and appropriate for a given context. He believes that the writer of a text predicts the receiver’s processing difficulties and requirements, and accommodates them by using certain devices.
(...) The first model (Table1) was introduced by Vande kopple (1985).He introduced two main categories of metadiscourse, namely “textual” and “interpersonal”. Four strategies-text
connectives, code glosses, illocution markers and narrators constituted textual metadiscourse, and three strategies-validity markers, attitude markers and commentaries-made up the interpersonal metadiscourse.
(...) The revised model (Table.2) was introduced by Crismore et al. (1993). They kept the two major categories of textual and interpersonal, but collapsed, separated, and reorganized the subcategories. The textual metadiscourse was further divided into two categories of “textual” and “interpretive” markers in an attempt to separate organizational and evaluative functions. Textual markers consist of those features that help organize the discourse, and interpretive markers are those features used to
help readers to better interpret and understand the writer’s meaning and writing strategies (Crismore et al., 1993).
Chapter three
In chapter 3 (A metadiscourse model) Hyland starts with a more refined, holistic and functional definition of metadiscourse and then goes on to give a more theoretically robust and analytically reliable model of metadiscourse. Hyland in this chapter defines metadiscourse as “the cover term for the self reflective expressions used to negotiate interactional meanings in a text, assisting a writer to express a view point and engage with readers as members of a particular community”(p.37). This
definition emphasizes the interpersonal function of language and sees metadiscourse as a system of meanings that can be realized in a variety of language items which can perform both metadiscoursal and non-metadiscoursal functions. He moves on to introduce three key principles of metadiscourse which build the basis of the model he proposes. These are: 1) that metadiscourse is distinct from propositional aspects of language; 2) that the term metadiscourse refers to those aspects of the text
that embody reader-writer interactions; 3) that metadiscourse distinguishes relations which are external to the text from those that are internal.
Introduction
Linguists’ interest in discourse in recent years is gradually shifting from the traditional focus on ideational dimension of texts and speech to the ways they function interpersonally (Hyland, 2004).Such a view argues that writers or speakers do not simply produce a text to convey information and to represent an external reality. They, however, seek to ensure that the information they present is understandable and acceptable (...) To communicate effectively, they anticipate their receivers' expectations, requirements and resources, and try to engage them in their texts and affect their understandings of them.
(...) It is a concept which is based on a view of writing or speaking as a social engagement (Hyland, 2005; Dafouz-Milne, 2008).
(...) It is, therefore, believed to play an important role in organizing the discourse, engaging the audience and signaling the writer's or speaker’s attitude (Fuertes-Olivera et al., 2001).
(...)
Chapter one
Chapter 1 (First Impression) provides a brief picture of metadiscourse by explaining its general definitions and its context of emergence.
(...) At first a distinction was drawn between transactional (the communication of information) and interactional (the communication of affects) functions of language. The scholars, however, tended to value the transactional function more.
(...) They, consequently, paid their attention to the ways ideas were expressed. Sinclair, however, offered an alternative approach in 1981 by making a distinction between the interactive and autonomous planes of discourse. By the autonomous planes he meant how experiences and ideas are
unfolded through the organization of the text, and by interactive plane how language is used to create a relation between the reader and the writer.
(...) The underlying conception of metadiscourse is that the only aim of communication is not the conveyance of information. But rather the writer and the reader interact with each other to affect
the ways the information is understood.
5246
To do so “ addresses have to be drawn in, engaged, motivated to follow along, participate, and perhaps be influenced or persuaded by a discourse”(p.11). To do this, the expectations that certain readers have for certain form of interactions and engagements should be anticipated and fulfilled. Metadiscourse is, therefore, believed to play a vital role in organizing and producing persuasive writing, based on the norms and expectations of people involved. The receivers; expectations “
are social, affective and cognitive based on participants’ beliefs and values, their individual goals and their experiences with similar texts in the past” (p.13).The process of communication, accordingly, is not just to clarify certain information, but to embed the information in a shared and recognized social world.
(...) Metadiscourse is, therefore, defined as “writer’s awareness of the reader and his or her need for elaboration, clarification, guidance and interaction” (p.17). In other words, metadiscourse can refer to those linguistic options which are employed by the writer to direct the reader through the text and to show his stance. One threat to this definition, according to Hyland, is that it entails a distinction between propositional meaning and metadiscourse meaning. What remains difficult is how to make a distinction between metadiscourse and propositional content. Halliday (1994), for example, proposes the test of falsifiability to identify propositions. He states that "propositional material is something that can be argued about, affirmed, denied, doubted, insisted upon, qualified, tempered, regretted and so on"
Chapter two
Chapter 2 (Definitions, issues and classifications) looks a little more closely at how analysts define metadiscourse
(...) Hyland believes that textual metadiscourse is used to organize propositional information in ways that will be coherent for a particular audience and appropriate for a given context. He believes that the writer of a text predicts the receiver’s processing difficulties and requirements, and accommodates them by using certain devices.
(...) The first model (Table1) was introduced by Vande kopple (1985).He introduced two main categories of metadiscourse, namely “textual” and “interpersonal”. Four strategies-text
connectives, code glosses, illocution markers and narrators constituted textual metadiscourse, and three strategies-validity markers, attitude markers and commentaries-made up the interpersonal metadiscourse.
(...) The revised model (Table.2) was introduced by Crismore et al. (1993). They kept the two major categories of textual and interpersonal, but collapsed, separated, and reorganized the subcategories. The textual metadiscourse was further divided into two categories of “textual” and “interpretive” markers in an attempt to separate organizational and evaluative functions. Textual markers consist of those features that help organize the discourse, and interpretive markers are those features used to
help readers to better interpret and understand the writer’s meaning and writing strategies (Crismore et al., 1993).
Chapter three
In chapter 3 (A metadiscourse model) Hyland starts with a more refined, holistic and functional definition of metadiscourse and then goes on to give a more theoretically robust and analytically reliable model of metadiscourse. Hyland in this chapter defines metadiscourse as “the cover term for the self reflective expressions used to negotiate interactional meanings in a text, assisting a writer to express a view point and engage with readers as members of a particular community”(p.37). This
definition emphasizes the interpersonal function of language and sees metadiscourse as a system of meanings that can be realized in a variety of language items which can perform both metadiscoursal and non-metadiscoursal functions. He moves on to introduce three key principles of metadiscourse which build the basis of the model he proposes. These are: 1) that metadiscourse is distinct from propositional aspects of language; 2) that the term metadiscourse refers to those aspects of the text
that embody reader-writer interactions; 3) that metadiscourse distinguishes relations which are external to the text from those that are internal.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario