Tahereh Taremi; Giti Taki; pakzad yousefian
Abstract
Metadiscourse as a key term in discourse analysis involves coherensive and interpersonal features which helps the connection between the text and the context with the aim of communicating ...
Read More
Metadiscourse as a key term in discourse analysis involves coherensive and interpersonal features which helps the connection between the text and the context with the aim of communicating with the audience, organizing the text and interpreting it by the audience. To achieve a coherent text in academic discourse, authors should use metadiscourse, its types including interactive and interactional metadiscourse and their strategies appropriately. So, the nature and the distribution of metadiscourse is of significance regarding their related scientific fields. The present study seeks to explore “interactive metadiscourse” based on Hylandʼs model (2005) and corpus-based approach in the specified instance of Persian academic discourse which is referent researches. Interactive metadiscourse is used to organize the propositional informations of the text with five strategies including transitions, frame markers, endophoric markers, evidentials and code glosses. The aim of this study is determining and comparing the frequency of occurrences of different kinds of interactive metadiscourse markers in referent researches. Hence, we identified and extracted the interactive metadiscourse markers in 120 Persian referent researches of various scientific fields on humanities, basic science and engineering using Mahak Samim corpus and AntConc software program then we investigated them by manual method too and classified them in five groups of metadiscoursal strategies. Data analysis shows that there is a significant difference in the use of interactive metadiscourse markers in Persian referent researches of three scientific disciplines. This result indicates that although scientific articles belong to a unitary genre (academic discourse), they are also affected by the nature of the affiliated fields. Likewise, surveying interactive metadiscourse strategies shows that only “frame markers” are distributed equally among three scientific fields and the significant differences in the frequency of occurrences of transitions, endophoric markers, evidentials and code glosses among studied scientific fields are confirmed.
