Interactive dimension --
How Students Write after Learning about Metadiscourse. Pragmatics and Language Learning. Monograph Series Volume 7, pl, ; see FL Subjects were students in two level college composition classes. The CC students worked on the propositional content of their essays while the EC students concentrated on the pragmatic functions of metadiscourse.
Posttests written by EC students were significantly better than those of the CC, although pretest results did not differ. Sources of this difference are discussed, including changes in metadiscourse markers, tone of the essays, and topical progression. It is argued that the EC students not only used metadiscourse markers more effectively, but also wrote with more attention to audience needs, thereby making global changes that improved their papers.
Vc Vc Vc Vc?? Vc Vc Vc V? Steffensen Xiaoguang Cheng Native speakers of English participated in composition classes using either a process approach the control classroom— CC or direct teaching of metadiscourse the experimental classroom-EC.
The posttests written by the EC students were significantly better than those of the CC although the pretests of the two groups did not differ. In this paper, we analyze what made this difference in the EC papers, including changes in metadiscourse markers, the tone of the essays, and topical progression.
It will be proposed that the EC students not only used metadiscourse markers more effectively but also wrote with more attention to audience needs, thereby making global changes that improved their papers. When we write, we attend to the topic we are discussing and what we have to say about it— the propositional content of our text.
But there is another part of the text that is of consid- erable importance— the metadiscourse markers. These markers are the means we use to indi- cate how the text is structured, to explain difficult words and expressions for readers, and to encode what rhetorical acts we are preforming. Such metadiscourse markers, if used skillfully, make the text easier for our projected readers to process.
These important pragmatic functions that metadiscourse performs increase the likelihood that our readers will end up with a message that is fairly close to the one we thought we were writing.
We will then analyze sections of compositions written in class to show how the styles of students in the control class CC and the experimental class EC differed at the end of the study. While there were many changes in the EC papers, we will discuss differences in a the use of metadiscourse markers generally, b the use of Hedges in particular, c the tone and considerateness of the essays, and d the transparency of topical progression.
It consists of two broad categories, textual metadiscourse and interpersonal metadis- course, which are further subdivided on the basis of particular pragmatic functions.
Textual metadiscourse is intratextual, serves to mark the text structure, and consists of two subcategories, Textual Markers and Interpretive Markers.
Interpretive Markers include Illocutionary Markers, which are derived from speech act theory and make explicit what rhetorical acts the writer is performing.
Examples of these categories include the following: Hedges and Certainty Markers allow writers to indicate how certain they are of the truth value of what they are asserting, while Attributors provide the source of information presented in the text.
Attitude Markers allow writers to express their feelings about what they are saying, and Commentaries are used to anticipate the responses of their readers and address them.
The following examples will give a sense of these types: One class, the CC, was taught using the dominant strategy in university composition courses, the process method.
This method focuses on the importance of propositional content in writing and emphasizes invention and Metadiscourse and Text Pragmatics the generation of ideas.It follows then that the study of metadiscourse in lecturing should account for those linguistic devices that are used to signal each of the metadiscoursal phases, namely, the Discourse Structuring phase 〈DS〉, the Interaction phase 〈INT〉 and the Conclusion phase 〈C〉.
Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. A study of texts written.
Dialogic voices of writers and readers in traveller forums through interpersonality. “ Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish attitudes and learning ”. In Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, Raika Markkanen and Hartmut.
The study identifies a taxonomy of metadiscourse functions and suggests that metadiscourse reflects one way in which context and linguistic meaning are integrated to allow readers to derive. Williams () has observed that argumentative writing lends itself to the use of interpersonal metadiscourse and Crismore and Farnsworth () and Hyland (b, in press) found a heavy use of interpersonal forms in per- Talking to Students: Metadiscourse in Introductory Coursebooks 17 suasive texts of different discourse types.
JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 4 (3), () The Use of Metadiscourse in Good and Poor ES L Essays PUANGPEN INTARAPRAWAT MARGARET S. STEFFENSEN Illinois State University A text is composed of two parts: propositional content and metadiscourse features.
Tang, H. y Bee, W. () Metadiscourse Use in the Persuasive Writing of Malaysian Undergraduate Students. English Language Teaching, 7 (7).
Vande Kopple, W. () Refining and Applying Views of Metadiscourse.