Volume 10, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The present study sets out to investigate an important aspect of gendered performance, namely, the presence of interactional metadiscourse in conference presentations delivered in Persian. The study pursues two primary objectives: firstly, to compare the quantity and quality of interactional metadiscourse markers as expressed by male and female academics; secondly, to investigate some other factors influencing the phenomenon under investigation. The data include twenty-four conference presentations by twelve males and twelve females. The quantitative analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the use of interactional metadiscourse by male and female presenters. However, the qualitative analysis helped the authors to identify more similarities than differences. In point of fact, such factors as academic status and nativeness had caused the speakers to use different metadiscourse strategies.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ädel, Annelie
    2006Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.24
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arundale, Robert B.
    2006 “Face as relational and interactional: a communication framework for research on face, face work and politeness.” Journal of Politeness Research2: 193–216. 10.1515/PR.2006.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2006.011 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Paul
    2008Language, Gender and Sexuality. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Paul and Giuseppe Balirano
    (eds) 2018Queering Masculinities in Language and Culture. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑95327‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95327-1 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beeman, William O.
    1986Language, Status and Power in Iran. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergvall, Victoria L.
    1999 “Towards a comprehensive theory of language and gender.’ Language in Society28:273–293. 10.1017/S0047404599002080
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599002080 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chafe, Wallace L.
    1982 “Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing and Oral Literature.” InSpoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, ed. byDeborah Tannen, 35–53. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Coates, Jennifer
    (ed) 1998Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2016Women, Men, and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender differences in Language. (3rd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Crismore, Avon
    1984 “The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse” Journal of Curriculum Studies16 (3): 279–296. 10.1080/0022027840160306
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027840160306 [Google Scholar]
  11. Crismore, Avon, Raija Markkanen, and Margaret S. Steffensen
    1993 “Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students.” Written Communication10 (1): 39–71. 10.1177/0741088393010001002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dudley-Evans, Tony
    1994 “Genre Analysis: An Approach to Text Analysis for ESP.” InAdvances in Written Text Analysis, ed. byMalcolm Coulthard, 219–28. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet
    1992 “Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice.” Annual Review of Anthropology21: 461–90. 10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2003Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791147
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791147 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ehlich, Susan, Miriam Meyerhoff, and Janet Holmes
    2014The Handbook of language, Gender and Sexuality. (2nd edn.) Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118584248
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584248 [Google Scholar]
  16. Foucault, Michel
    1980Power, knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Translated byColin Gordon. Brighton: Harvester Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Francis, Becky, Jocelyn Robson and Barbara Read
    2001 “An analysis of undergraduate writing styles in the context of gender and achievement.” Studies in Higher Education26 (3): 313–26. 10.1080/03075070120076282
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120076282 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goffman, Erving
    1981The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Anchor.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Holmes, Janet
    1988 “Paying compliments: a sex-preferred positive politeness strategy.” Journal of Pragmatics12 (3): 445–65. 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90005‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90005-7 [Google Scholar]
  20. Holmes, Janet and Miriam Meyerhoff
    1999 “The community of practice: Theories and methodologies in language and gender research.” Language in Society28(2): 173–83. 10.1017/S004740459900202X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740459900202X [Google Scholar]
  21. Hyland, Ken
    1996 “Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles.” Written Communication13 (2): 251–81. 10.1177/0741088396013002004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013002004 [Google Scholar]
  22. 1998 “Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter.” Journal of Business Communication35(2): 224–45. 10.1177/002194369803500203
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500203 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hyland, Ken and Polly Tse
    2004 “Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal.” Applied Linguistics25 (2): 156–77. 10.1093/applin/25.2.156
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hyland, Ken
    2005Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger
    1991Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Google Scholar]
  26. Levon, Erez and Ronald Beline Mendes
    (eds) 2016Language, Sexuality and Power: Studies in Intersectional Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lakoff, Robin
    1975Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. McIlvenny, Paul
    (ed) 2002Talking Gender and Sexuality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.94
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.94 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mills, Sara
    2002 “Rethinking politeness, impoliteness and gender identity.” InGender Identity and Discourse Analysis, ed. byLia Litosseliti and Jane Sunderland, 69–90. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.2.04mil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.2.04mil [Google Scholar]
  30. 2003Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615238
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mumby, Dennis K. and Cynthia Stohl
    1991 “Power and discourse in organization studies: Absence and the dialectic of control.” Discourse and Society2 (3): 313–32. 10.1177/0957926591002003004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926591002003004 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ochs, Elinor
    1992 “Indexing Gender.” InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. byAlessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 335–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Rowley-Jolivet, Elizabeth and Shirley Carter-Thomas
    2005 “The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: Context, argument and interaction.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics15(1): 45–70. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2005.00080.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00080.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Simpson, Paul, and Andrea Mayr
    2010Language and Power: a Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sutton, Laurel A.
    (ed) 2017Context Counts: Papers on Language, Gender and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Swales, John M.
    2003 “Review of language of conferencing.” Applied Linguistics24 (4): 549–51. 10.1093/applin/24.4.549
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.549 [Google Scholar]
  37. Talbot, Mary M.
    2010Language and Gender. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Tannen, Deborah
    (ed) 1993Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 1994Gender and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Taromi, Tahereh, Giti Taki, and Pakzad Yusifian
    . 2018. “Gensiat dar maqalat e’lmi farsizaban: motale’h peikareh-bonyad nashangarhaye fara-goftamanu” [Gender in the Persian scientific articles: A corpus study of metadiscourse markers].” Pazhuashhaye Zabanshanasi [Researches in Linguistics] 10(1): 23–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Thompson, G.
    2001 “Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader.” Applied Linguistics22(1): 58–78. 10.1093/applin/22.1.58
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58 [Google Scholar]
  42. Thompson, Paul
    2002 “Modal Verbs in Academic Writing.” InTeaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora. ed. byBerhard Kettemann and Georg Marko, 305–324. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004334236_023
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004334236_023 [Google Scholar]
  43. Vande Kopple, William J.
    1985 Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication26: 82–93. 10.2307/357609
    https://doi.org/10.2307/357609 [Google Scholar]
  44. Ventola, Eija, Celia Shalom, and Susan C. Thompson
    (eds) 2002The Language of Conferencing. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Zareifard, Raha and Batool Alinezhad
    2014 “A study of interactional metadiscourse markers and gender in the defense seminars of Persian speakers.” Journal of Educational and Social Research4 (1): 231–238.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error