Meta-discourse markers play a vital role in organizing the text, showing the presence of the speaker, and engaging the audience, thus they become an important aspect of persuasive power in public speeches. Based on a corpus of 60 political speeches collected from the internet, this study exams (a) how meta-discourse markers help to realize persuasive function, (b) what is the general preference in the use of meta-discourse markers in American and Chinese political speeches respectively, and (c) how cultural factors influence the choice of persuasive strategy. Quantitative analysis indicates that American speeches feature markedly more meta-discourse than Chinese speeches. Textual analysis further reveals that the difference of the two sub-corpora in the achievement of logical appeal, credible appeal, and affective appeal. These results are then discussed in terms of linguistic difference and culturally preferred rhetorical strategy.
| Published in | International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 4, Issue 6) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijll.20160406.13 |
| Page(s) | 207-219 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Meta-discourse Markers, Persuasive Power, Political Speeches
| [1] | Hyland, K., 2005. Metadiscourse. Continuum, London. 14-15. |
| [2] | Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R., 1989. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8 (1), 91-112. |
| [3] | Vande K., William J., 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36, 63–94. |
| [4] | Hyland, K., 1998. Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of pragmatics, 30 (4), 437-455. |
| [5] | Halliday, M. A., 1994. Functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. |
| [6] | Hyland, K., Tse, Polly, 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25 (2), 156–177. |
| [7] | Hyland, K., 2000. Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9 (4), 179-197. |
| [8] | Bunton, D., 1999. The use of higher level metatext in Ph. D theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S41-S56. |
| [9] | Hyland, K., 1996. Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied linguistics, 17 (4), 433-454. |
| [10] | Crismore A, Markkanen R, Steffensen M S. 1993, Metadiscourse in persuasive writing a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written communication, 10 (1): 39-71. |
| [11] | Hyland, K., 2002. Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of pragmatics, 34 (8), 1091-1112. |
| [12] | Mauranen, A., 1993. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for specific Purposes, 12 (1), 3-22. |
| [13] | Neff-van Aertselaer, J., & Dafouz-Milne, E., 2008. Argumentation patterns in different languages: An analysis of metadiscourse markers in English and Spanish texts. Developing contrastive pragmatics interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives, 87-102. |
| [14] | Dafouz-Milne, E., 2008. The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 40 (1), 95-113. |
| [15] | Mur-Dueñas, P., 2011. An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of pragmatics, 43 (12), 3068-3079. |
| [16] | 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. |
| [17] | Mu, C., 2010. A Contrastive Analysis of Metadiscourse in Chinese and English Editorials. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, 4, 006. |
| [18] | Valero-Garcés, C., 1996. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15 (4), 279-294. |
| [19] | Hinds, John, 1987. Reader versus writer responsibility: a new typology. In: Connor, U., Kaplan, Robert, B. (Eds.), Writing across Languages: Analyses of L2 Texts. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp. 141–152. |
| [20] | Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A., 2001. Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological review, 108 (2), 291. |
| [21] | Holmes, J., 1982. Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC journal, 13 (2), 9-28. |
| [22] | Holmes, J., 1988. Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied linguistics, 9 (1), 21-44. |
APA Style
Hongyu Mai. (2016). An Intercultural Analysis of Meta-discourse Markers as Persuasive Power in Chinese and American Political Speeches. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 4(6), 207-219. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20160406.13
ACS Style
Hongyu Mai. An Intercultural Analysis of Meta-discourse Markers as Persuasive Power in Chinese and American Political Speeches. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2016, 4(6), 207-219. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20160406.13
AMA Style
Hongyu Mai. An Intercultural Analysis of Meta-discourse Markers as Persuasive Power in Chinese and American Political Speeches. Int J Lang Linguist. 2016;4(6):207-219. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20160406.13
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20160406.13,
author = {Hongyu Mai},
title = {An Intercultural Analysis of Meta-discourse Markers as Persuasive Power in Chinese and American Political Speeches},
journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
volume = {4},
number = {6},
pages = {207-219},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20160406.13},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20160406.13},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20160406.13},
abstract = {Meta-discourse markers play a vital role in organizing the text, showing the presence of the speaker, and engaging the audience, thus they become an important aspect of persuasive power in public speeches. Based on a corpus of 60 political speeches collected from the internet, this study exams (a) how meta-discourse markers help to realize persuasive function, (b) what is the general preference in the use of meta-discourse markers in American and Chinese political speeches respectively, and (c) how cultural factors influence the choice of persuasive strategy. Quantitative analysis indicates that American speeches feature markedly more meta-discourse than Chinese speeches. Textual analysis further reveals that the difference of the two sub-corpora in the achievement of logical appeal, credible appeal, and affective appeal. These results are then discussed in terms of linguistic difference and culturally preferred rhetorical strategy.},
year = {2016}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - An Intercultural Analysis of Meta-discourse Markers as Persuasive Power in Chinese and American Political Speeches AU - Hongyu Mai Y1 - 2016/11/18 PY - 2016 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20160406.13 DO - 10.11648/j.ijll.20160406.13 T2 - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JF - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JO - International Journal of Language and Linguistics SP - 207 EP - 219 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-0221 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20160406.13 AB - Meta-discourse markers play a vital role in organizing the text, showing the presence of the speaker, and engaging the audience, thus they become an important aspect of persuasive power in public speeches. Based on a corpus of 60 political speeches collected from the internet, this study exams (a) how meta-discourse markers help to realize persuasive function, (b) what is the general preference in the use of meta-discourse markers in American and Chinese political speeches respectively, and (c) how cultural factors influence the choice of persuasive strategy. Quantitative analysis indicates that American speeches feature markedly more meta-discourse than Chinese speeches. Textual analysis further reveals that the difference of the two sub-corpora in the achievement of logical appeal, credible appeal, and affective appeal. These results are then discussed in terms of linguistic difference and culturally preferred rhetorical strategy. VL - 4 IS - 6 ER -
Information
Email: