Metadiscourse Devices in E-mail Writing: A Case Study Between a Polish Teacher and a Chinese Student
International Journal of Language and Linguistics
Volume 3, Issue 3, May 2015, Pages: 187-192
Received: May 8, 2015;
Accepted: May 15, 2015;
Published: May 27, 2015
Views 3433 Downloads 87
Tian Huiling, Department of Linguistics, Three Gorges University, Yichang, China
This article aims at reporting on some of the preliminary results of an on-going study on the difference of the use of metadiscourse strategies in e-mail writing between a Polish teacher and a Chinese student. Drawing on Hyland’s (2005) Metadiscourse Theory, the purpose of the analysis is to show how the use of metadiscourse devices varies between an English-speaking person and a non English-speaking person in e-mail writing which covers a time period from 9 December 2013 to 1 January 2014. According to the analysis, we found out that metadisourse devices are frequently used in E-mail writing. Thanks to the different thinking mode and different ideology, people from different countries may use metadisourse devices differently. For example, the Polish Peter used more engagement markers than the Chinese student Tina did. While Tina used more hedges than Peter did. In this whole process, culture plays an important role.
Metadiscourse Devices in E-mail Writing: A Case Study Between a Polish Teacher and a Chinese Student, International Journal of Language and Linguistics.
Vol. 3, No. 3,
2015, pp. 187-192.
Adel, A. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English [J]. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 2006, p. 69-97.
Adel, A. Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives [J]. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 2010, p.1-11.
Del Saz Rubio, M. A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2011, (4): 258 - 271.
Fu, X. & K. Hyland. Interactions in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse[J]. English Text Construction, 2014, (1): 122 – 144.
Gillaerts, P. & F. van de Velde. Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2011, (2): 128 -139.
Harris, Z. Linguistic transformations for information retrieval [J]. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information, Vol. 2. Washington D. C: National Academy of Science -National Research Council (NAS-NRC). 1959.
Hyland, K. Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse [J].Journal of Pragmatics, 1998, p.437- 455.
Hofstede. Convergence and divergence in consume behavior: implication for international retailing [J].Journal of Retailing, 2002 (5).
Hyland, K. & P. Tse. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal [J].Applied Linguistics, 2004, p.156- 177.
Hyland, K. Metadiscourse, exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum, 2005.
Hyland, K. Metadiscourse. Beijing: Continuum, 2008.
Kim, L. & Lim, J. Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions [J]. Discourse Studies, 2013, (2): 129 -146.
Li, T. & Wharton, S. Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual，cross-disciplinary study［J］． Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2013, (4): 345 – 356.
Mauranen, A. Discourse reflexivity-a discourse universal? The case of ELF [J]. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 2010, p.12-40.
Sala, M. Reflexive metadiscourse in research articles in Spanish: Variation across three disciplines (linguistics，economics，and medicine) ［J］. Journal of Pragmatics, 2015, (77): 20 - 40.
Thompson, G. & Thetala, P. The Sound of One Hand Clapping: the Management of Interaction in Written Discourse [J]. Text, Vol. 15 (1), 1995, p.103-127.
Williams, M. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace [J]. Boston: Scott Foresman, 1981.