Theoretical Underpinning: Understanding The Language By Holliday's Systemic Functions
2. Literature Review
2.1 Theoretical Underpinning
The term metadiscourse was first introduced by zelling Harris in 1959 to offer an approach to “understanding the language in use, representing a writer’s or speaker’s attempts to guide a receiver’s perception of a text” (Hyland, 2005, p. 3). Later on, the notion of metadiscourse developed by other scholars, considering Holliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). SFL attributes three metafunctions to the language: Ideational, Interpersonal and Textual. The ideational function refers to the use of language to express ideas and experiences. This function is similar to propositional content. The interpersonal function refers to language use for encoding interactions and lets us interact with …show more content…
From cross-discipline perspective (e.g., Charles, 2006; Harwood, 2005a; Hewings & Hewings, 2001; Swales et al., 1998) have revealed that the way a text written, used and respondent by members of academic discourse communities may affect the use of metadiscourse. Cross-cultural and cross-linguistics studies (e.g., Adel, 2006; Breivega, Dahl, & Flottum, 2002; Dahl, 2004; Mauranen, 1993; McEnry & Kifle, 2002; ThueVold, 2006) have shown that metadiscourse is culture specific and is not uniform in different cultures. In the same line with literature, this is the cross-linguistic aspect on which the present study focused because the earlier studies have shown the metadiscourse use is prone to language specific rhetorical …show more content…
First, according to Adel (2006), the narrow approach severely limited the concept of metadiscourse as it ignored the writer-reader interaction. Second, considering a border between textual and interpersonal functions in the narrow approach neglect to perceive that “all metadiscourse is interpersonal in that it takes account of the reader’s knowledge, textual experiences, and processing needs” (Hyland and Tse, 2004, p. 161). Lastly, as Hyland metadiscourse model has been broadly applied in preceding studies of metadiscourse, its adoption to present study lets the finding being comparable with previous
2.1 Theoretical Underpinning
The term metadiscourse was first introduced by zelling Harris in 1959 to offer an approach to “understanding the language in use, representing a writer’s or speaker’s attempts to guide a receiver’s perception of a text” (Hyland, 2005, p. 3). Later on, the notion of metadiscourse developed by other scholars, considering Holliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). SFL attributes three metafunctions to the language: Ideational, Interpersonal and Textual. The ideational function refers to the use of language to express ideas and experiences. This function is similar to propositional content. The interpersonal function refers to language use for encoding interactions and lets us interact with …show more content…
From cross-discipline perspective (e.g., Charles, 2006; Harwood, 2005a; Hewings & Hewings, 2001; Swales et al., 1998) have revealed that the way a text written, used and respondent by members of academic discourse communities may affect the use of metadiscourse. Cross-cultural and cross-linguistics studies (e.g., Adel, 2006; Breivega, Dahl, & Flottum, 2002; Dahl, 2004; Mauranen, 1993; McEnry & Kifle, 2002; ThueVold, 2006) have shown that metadiscourse is culture specific and is not uniform in different cultures. In the same line with literature, this is the cross-linguistic aspect on which the present study focused because the earlier studies have shown the metadiscourse use is prone to language specific rhetorical …show more content…
First, according to Adel (2006), the narrow approach severely limited the concept of metadiscourse as it ignored the writer-reader interaction. Second, considering a border between textual and interpersonal functions in the narrow approach neglect to perceive that “all metadiscourse is interpersonal in that it takes account of the reader’s knowledge, textual experiences, and processing needs” (Hyland and Tse, 2004, p. 161). Lastly, as Hyland metadiscourse model has been broadly applied in preceding studies of metadiscourse, its adoption to present study lets the finding being comparable with previous