An Intercultural Analysis of Personal Metadiscourse in English and Chinese Commencement Speeches

Yuting Zhu

Abstract


The existing metadiscourse studies on the comparison of English and Chinese language are relatively few, especially on spoken discourse. The present study examines the use of personal metadiscourse in English and Chinese commencement speeches based on Ädel’s reflexive model of metadiscourse and its adaption. The corpus for this study comprises 60 commencement speeches – 30 Chinese and 30 English – delivered in prestigious American and Chinese universities respectively. This study investigates (1) The similarities and differences in the use of personal metadiscourse in English and Chinese commencement speeches; (2) the possible reasons behind these similarities and differences. Qualitative and quantitative analysis indicates that American speeches feature markedly more personal metadiscourse than Chinese speeches. Textual analysis further reveals some similarities and differences in the discourse functions of personal metadiscourse between two sets of texts due to genre characteristics and social-cultural differences. The findings of this study provide some insight into the classification of Chinese metadiscourse and the awareness of cross-cultural communication.

Keywords


Metadiscourse, Commencement Speeches, Personal Metadiscourse, English Language, Chinese Language, Comparative Study, Discourse Function

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: an indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.

Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic english. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97.

Ädel, A. (2012). “What I want you to remember is…”: Audience orientation in monologic academic discourse. English Text Construction, 5(1), 101-127.

Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1-11.

Amelia, M., Michela, C., & Giuseppe, M. (2006). Rhetorical Argumentation in Italian Academic Discourse. Argumentation, 20(1), 101-124.

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

Bu, J. (2014). Towards a pragmatic analysis of metadiscourse in academic lectures: From relevance to adaptation. Discourse Studies An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Text & Talk, 16(4), 449-472.

Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in Ph.D theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41–56.

Buttny, R., & Hashim, A. (2015). Dialogue on “1 Malaysia”: The uses of metadiscourse in ethnopolitical accounting. Discourse & Society, 26(2), 76–78.

Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A Technique for Improving Student Writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149-181.

Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 279-296.

Crismore, A., Markkannen, 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.

Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? . Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.

Gordon, C., & Luke, M. (2016). Metadiscourse in group supervision: How school counselors-in-training construct their transitional professional identities. Discourse Studies, 18(1).

Guillem, S. M. (2009). Argumentation, metadiscourse and social cognition: Organizing knowledge in political communication. Discourse & Society, 20(6), 727-746.

Hinds, J. (1987). Ch. 8, Reader versus writer responsibility: a new typology Writing across languages : analysis of L2 written text (pp. 141-152). Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students' timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53-68.

House, J. (2009). Subjectivity in english as lingua franca discourse: The case of you know. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 171-193.

Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455.

Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to Students: Metadiscourse in IntroductoryCoursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.

Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007

Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M., S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272.

Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 1-14.

Kelly, G. J., Cunningham, C. M., & Ricketts, A. (2017). Engaging in identity work through engineering practices in elementary classrooms. Linguistics & Education, 39, 48-59.

Kim, L. C., & Lim, M. H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146.

Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21-34.

Lee, J. J., & Subtirelu, N. C. (2015). Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 37(1), 52-62.

li, C. (2009). A study of pragmatic functions of the discourse marker "you see". Foreign Language Education, 30(5).

Mai, H. (2016). An Intercultural Analysis of Meta-discourse Markers as Persuasive Power in Chinese and American Political Speeches. 4(6), 207-219.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22.

Mauranen, A. (2003). "But here's a flawed argument": Socialisation into and through Metadiscourse. Language & Computers, 19-34.

Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse Reflexivity -A Discourse Universal? The Case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2).

Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Qiao, S. (2008). On the pragmatic function of discourse marker you know and it's chinese translation. Journal of Shangluo University, 22(3).

Ran, Y. (2002). On the pragmatic functions of the discourse marker "you know". Journal of Pla University of Foreign Languages, 25(4), 10-15.

Rintaniemi, H.-M. (2017). "Maybe we can just you know see how it's relevant" : The use of you know as a discourse marker in academic elf interaction. (MA ), University of Tampere.

Salas, M. D. (2015). Reflexive metadiscourse in research articles in Spanish: Variation across three disciplines (Linguistics, Economics and Medicine). Journal of Pragmatics, 77, 20-40.

Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta‐talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3‐4), 199-236.

Tang, K. S. (2017). Analyzing Teachers’ Use of Metadiscourse: The Missing Element in Classroom Discourse Analysis. Science Education, 101(4), 548-583.

Thompson, S. E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(1), 5-20.

Valero-Garcés, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15(4), 279-294. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00013-0

Xu, F. (2008). The relevance theory and the pragmatic function of the discourse marker you know. Journal of Huzhou Teachers, 30(6), 66-70.

Yoon, H. J. (2017). Textual voice elements and voice strength in EFL argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 32, 72-84.

Zare, J., & Tavakoli, M. (2017). The use of personal metadiscourse over monologic and dialogic modes of academic speech. Discourse Processes, DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.0162015.1116342.

Zhang, M. (2016). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies, 18(2), 204-222. doi:10.1177/1461445615623907

Zhang, M., Sun, W., Peng, H., Gan, Q., & Yu, B. (2017). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across spoken registers. Journal of Pragmatics, 117(2), 106-118.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.5p.100

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.