Metadiscourse has traditionally been defined in general as ‘text about text’. This too broad, and rather imprecise, definition entails a degree of reflexivity with which a text is enabled to refer to or to talk about itself or its parts. The concept of metadiscourse may have borrowed its reflexivity property to language in general, which can also function reflexively comment on the language or verbal system itself. In this reflexive form of language, called ‘metalanguage’, the metalinguistic function of language, which is also central to the metadiscourse model used in this study, is most evident.
The metalinguistic function is one of the six functions of language proposed by Jakobson (1998), and the other five are expressive, directive, referential, poetic, and phatic. The first three mentioned functions of language – the metalinguistic, expressive, and directive functions – embody the concept of metadiscourse in this study, and will be discussed later in this chapter. Another, more commonly known, functions of language is that by Halliday (1994), which comprises three functions: ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions. Most researchers have used models of metadiscourse inspired by the Hallidayan functions of language, termed ‘Systemic-Functional-Grammar-inspired models’ by Ädel (2006: 16). Differences in the bases on which the concept of metadiscourse is developed do influence upon the delimitations of metadiscourse.
Models of metadiscourse within the framework of the broad approach, or ‘integrative’ approach, in Mauranen’s (1993) words, views metadiscourse as part of discourse stressing on the ‘textual’ and ‘interpersonal’ Hallidayan functions of language. The textual function can be seen in attitudes towards or rema...
... middle of paper ...
...itude Markers’ mark the writer’s attitude towards the propositional content (Unfortunately). The last kind is ‘Commentary’, which addresses the reader into an imagined dialogue (Consider …; Suppose …).
Vande Kopple’s classification serves as the basis for Markannen et al’s study (1993) about metadiscourse in American English and Finnish argumentative texts by university students. Crismore et al (1993) proceeded by raising the gender aspects of metadiscourse, while Luukka (1994), investigating the spoken and written versions of five papers in Finnish, introduces ‘contextual metadiscourse’. ‘Contextual metadiscourse’ mainly concerns the situation of an oral presentation and materials used in it. It enables discourse participants “to comment on their preceding or coming actions, or to draw attention to the tables and figures they are presenting.” (Luukka 1994: 80).
Palmer, William. "Rhetorical Analysis." Discovering Arguments: An Introduction to Critical Thinking, Writing, and Style. Boston: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2012. 268-69. Print.
First, a brief background in the three dimensions of language discussed throughout this paper. The functional, semantic, or thematic dimensions of language as previously mentioned are often used in parallel with each other. Due, to this fact it is important to be able to identify them as they take place and differentiate between these dimensions i...
According to Tannen, she refers to the hostility within communication as “The Argument Culture.” It has become a war on words that continues to thrive off of conflict, animosity and tension. Tannen addresses the idea of debate, disputes, attack and criticism as a comprehensive list of words to describe her thesis. Tannen uses rhetorical devices by formulating the main points of her argument. She did this by convincing her readers and incorporating facts and reasons. Tannen states, “In close relationships is it possible to find ways of arguing that result in better understanding and solving problems. But with most
Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2012. Print.
ABSTRACT: In what follows, I give (following Burton Dreben) a dialectical reading of his dismissal of metaphysics and of Wittgenstein's objections to Russell in 1913. I argue that Wittgenstein must be read as advocating no particular theory or doctrine — that is, philosophy is an activity and not a body of truths. Furthermore, this insistence is thoroughgoing. Put differently, a dialectical reading must be applied to one's own thought and talk. Characteristically, this sort of dialectical philosophy begins with the question, Is there any definiteness to what I am doing in my own thinking and speaking? Such a question undercuts the easy assumption that what we are doing may be expressed in a body of meaningful statements. In particular, I argue that Wittgenstein does not advocate any particular theory of language. A common reading of Wittgenstein is that he aims to prevent us from misusing language. This view assumes that, for Wittgenstein, the notion of a correct, acceptable or meaningful use of language may be taken for granted. In my view, Wittgenstein does not take the notions of use of language and grammar and its misuse for granted. For Wittgenstein grammar underdetermines what it is to use or misuse language. I argue that an ethical critique is implicit in Wittgenstein's objections to any attempt to speak a priori about language and thought.
Fromm, Erich. “The Nature of Symbolic Language.” Class Handout: English 101. Cerro Coso Community College, 2010. 121-26. Print.
The Life of Language: Papers in Linguistics in Honor of William Bright. Berlin [etc.]. Mouton De Gruyter, 1998. Print. The.
Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel K. Durst. "They Say/I Say": The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing: With Readings. Vol. 2e. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2012. Print.
Downs, Doug. "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics." Writing About Writing: A College Reader. By Elizabeth A. Wardle. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 520-33, 581-594. Print.
The author begins his argument by retelling the story of his youth to build his ethos but the results are poor as it presents more questions on how he is a credible source on this argument as his only evidence is his own story. However, through the same means his pathos is built as his anecdote conveys feelings in the audience, making them more willing to listen. Graff finally, gives a call to action to schools to use students’ interests to develop their skills in rhetoric and analysis, which reveals the logic behind his argument. The topic about how students are taught rhetoric and analysis brings interest but with an average argument only built on pathos, a low amount of logos, and questionable ethos it can fall on deaf
Metalinguistic awareness refers to ‘the ability to manipulate linguistic units and reflect upon structural properties of language’ (Kuo et al, 2011). Since it is not a unitary component (Bialystok, 2001), research always classifies it into subcomponents. The majority of research deals with specific aspects of linguistic structure. Thus, dividing metalinguistic awareness into four components: lexical, phonological, syntactic and semantic awareness (Chin & Wigglesworth, 2007).
He argues that one may be able to note the intentionality but he/she may not be able to know the intention, and this makes it important to differentiate between text and discourse. Discourse is responsible for finding the intention of the text by relating its content to the extralinguistic reality. The process of relating the text to the extralinguistic reality, which is the discourse, results in the text. Widdowson thus defines discourse as “the pragmatic process of meaning negotiation” and the text as “its product” (p.8). Other scholars who distinguish between text and discourse in terms of product and process are Brown and Yule (1983). They state that “the discourse analyst treats his data as the record (text) of a dynamic process in which language was used as an instrument of communication in a context by a speaker/ writer to express meanings and achieve intentions (discourse)’ (Brown and Yule, 1983:26). It can be noted that Brown and Yule’s description of text and discourse is similar to that of
Kiesling, Scott Fabius. "Power and the Language of Men." Making Sense of Language: Readings in Culture and Communication. Comp. Susan D. Blum. New York, NY [etc.: Oxford UP, 2013. 408-17.
Structuralism employs terms to help in the understanding of one of the most complex literary theories (McManus, 1998; Brizee and Tompkins, 2011). All words in any given language are either classified as parole or langue (McManus, 1998). Barbara McManus is an expert on literary criticism, has authored two books on the subject, is a retired professor of Classics Emerita, including the topics of Feminism and general literary criticism courses, from College of New Rochelle who defines the two terms as “any particular meaningful use of spoken or written language (also called ‘performance’)” and “the underlying system of sounds, forms, and rules of combination of a language which make meaningful communication possible (a speaker's implicit knowledge of this system is called ‘competence’),” respectively (McManus, 2003; McManus, 1998). McManus later states that “[Structuralists are] interested in langu...
Shea, Renee, Lawrence Scanlon, and Robin Scanlon. The Language of Composition: Reading, Writing, Rhetoric. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford St. Martins, 2013. 525-529,546-551. Print.