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.
Published in | International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 3, Issue 3) |
DOI | 10.11648/j.ijll.20150303.22 |
Page(s) | 187-192 |
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), 2015. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Metadiscourse Device, E-Mail Writhing, Case Study
[1] | Adel, A. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English [J]. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 2006, p. 69-97. |
[2] | Adel, A. Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives [J]. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 2010, p.1-11. |
[3] | 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. |
[4] | Fu, X. & K. Hyland. Interactions in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse[J]. English Text Construction, 2014, (1): 122 – 144. |
[5] | Gillaerts, P. & F. van de Velde. Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2011, (2): 128 -139. |
[6] | 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. |
[7] | Hyland, K. Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse [J].Journal of Pragmatics, 1998, p.437- 455. |
[8] | Hofstede. Convergence and divergence in consume behavior: implication for international retailing [J].Journal of Retailing, 2002 (5). |
[9] | Hyland, K. & P. Tse. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal [J].Applied Linguistics, 2004, p.156- 177. |
[10] | Hyland, K. Metadiscourse, exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum, 2005. |
[11] | Hyland, K. Metadiscourse. Beijing: Continuum, 2008. |
[12] | Kim, L. & Lim, J. Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions [J]. Discourse Studies, 2013, (2): 129 -146. |
[13] | 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. |
[14] | Mauranen, A. Discourse reflexivity-a discourse universal? The case of ELF [J]. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 2010, p.12-40. |
[15] | 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. |
[16] | 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. |
[17] | Williams, M. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace [J]. Boston: Scott Foresman, 1981. |
APA Style
Tian Huiling. (2015). Metadiscourse Devices in E-mail Writing: A Case Study Between a Polish Teacher and a Chinese Student. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(3), 187-192. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20150303.22
ACS Style
Tian Huiling. Metadiscourse Devices in E-mail Writing: A Case Study Between a Polish Teacher and a Chinese Student. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2015, 3(3), 187-192. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20150303.22
AMA Style
Tian Huiling. Metadiscourse Devices in E-mail Writing: A Case Study Between a Polish Teacher and a Chinese Student. Int J Lang Linguist. 2015;3(3):187-192. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20150303.22
@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20150303.22, author = {Tian Huiling}, title = {Metadiscourse Devices in E-mail Writing: A Case Study Between a Polish Teacher and a Chinese Student}, journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics}, volume = {3}, number = {3}, pages = {187-192}, doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20150303.22}, url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20150303.22}, eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20150303.22}, abstract = {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.}, year = {2015} }
TY - JOUR T1 - Metadiscourse Devices in E-mail Writing: A Case Study Between a Polish Teacher and a Chinese Student AU - Tian Huiling Y1 - 2015/05/27 PY - 2015 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20150303.22 DO - 10.11648/j.ijll.20150303.22 T2 - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JF - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JO - International Journal of Language and Linguistics SP - 187 EP - 192 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-0221 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20150303.22 AB - 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. VL - 3 IS - 3 ER -