Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study compares the use of interactional metadiscourse in a British newspaper, the Daily Mail, and a British news magazine, The Economist, in reporting on the Brexit referendum. We adopted Hyland’s (2005a: 48–54) framework to analyze hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagements, and self-mentions. One hundred news articles were randomly selected from online archives from February to June in 2016, during which time the debatable issue was discussed ardently. Quantitative and qualitative results of this study revealed both similarities and differences between the newspaper and the news magazine in the use of interactional metadiscourse. For example, quantitatively, the frequencies of boosters in both genres were similar; however, the newspaper used much more engagement markers and self-mentions whereas the magazine used more hedges and attitude markers. Qualitatively, while most self-mentions were the same in both genres, a unique choice of self-mentions was found in the news magazine.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ahangari, Saeideh and Mozhgan Kazemi
    2014 “A content analysis of ‘Alice in Wonderland’ regarding metadiscourse elements.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English literature31: 10–18. 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.3p.10
    https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.3p.10 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alshahrani, Ali Ayed S.
    2015 “A cross-linguistic analysis of interactive metadiscourse devices employment in native English and Arab ESL academic writings.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies5, 8 (August): 1535–1542. 10.17507/tpls.0508.01
    https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0508.01 [Google Scholar]
  3. Amiryousefi, Mohammad, and Abbas Eslami Rasekh
    2010 “Metadiscourse: Definitions, issues and its implications for English teachers.” English Language Teaching3, 4 (December): 159–167. 10.5539/elt.v3n4p159
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p159 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anthony, Laurence
    2012 AntConc (Version 3.3.2) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. AccessedNovember 30, 2017. www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/
  5. Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC)
    Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC). n.d. “Who We Are.” AccessedApril 8, 2017https://www.abc.org.uk/aboutus/who-we-are
  6. Boshrabadi, Abbas Mehrabi, Biria Reza and Zahra Zavari
    2014 “A Cross Cultural Analysis of Textual and Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers: The Case of Economic Articles in English and Persian Newspapers.” Advances in Language and Literary Studies5, 2 (April): 59–66. 10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.2p.59
    https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.2p.59 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bunton, David
    1999 “The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses.” English for Specific Purposes18, 1 (December): 41–56. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(98)00022‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00022-2 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, H. Herbert, and Richard J. Gerrig
    1990 “Quotations as demonstrations.” Language66, 4 (December): 764–805. 10.2307/414729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  9. Crismore, Avon
    1989Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Crismore, Avon, and Rodney Farnswarth
    1990 “Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse.” InThe writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse, ed. byWalter Nash, 118–136. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
    [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 (January): 39–71. 10.1177/0741088393010001002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dafouz Milne, Emma
    2003 “Metadiscourse revisited: a contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Regreso al metadiscurso: estudio contrastivo de la persuasión en el discurso professional.” Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense111 (January): 29–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 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 Pragmatics40,1 (January): 95–113. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Farnia, Maryam and Nahid Mohammadi
    2018 “Cross-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in persuasive local newspaper articles.” Discourse and Interaction11,2: 27–44. 10.5817/DI2018‑2‑27
    https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2018-2-27 [Google Scholar]
  15. Feng, Miao, Paul R. Brewer, and Barbara L. Ley
    2012 “Framing the Chinese baby formula scandal: A comparative analysis of US and Chinese news coverage.” Asian Journal of Communication22, 3 (April): 253–269. 10.1080/01292986.2012.662517
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2012.662517 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fu, Xiaoli, and Ken Hyland
    2014 “Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse.” English Text Construction7, 1 (January): 122–144. 10.1075/etc.7.1.05fu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.7.1.05fu [Google Scholar]
  17. Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A., Marisol Velasco-Sacristán, Ascensión Arribas-Baño, and Eva Samaniego-Fernández
    2001 “Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines.” Journal of Pragmatics33,8 (August): 1291–1307. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80026‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80026-6 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ho, Victor
    2016 “Discourse of persuasion: A preliminary study of the use of metadiscourse in policy documents.” Text and Talk36, 1 (April): 1–21. 10.1515/text‑2016‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2016-0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hu, Guangwei, and Feng Cao
    2011 “Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals.” Journal of Pragmatics43, 11 (September): 2795–2809. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hyland, Ken
    2000Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2004 “Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing13, 2 (June): 133–151. 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2005aMetadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2005b “Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.” Discourse Studies7, 2 (May): 173–192. 10.1177/1461445605050365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2007 “Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse.” Applied Linguistics28, 2 (June): 266–285. 10.1093/applin/amm011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm011 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jensen, Astrid
    2009 “Discourse strategies in professional e-mail negotiation: A case study.” English for Specific Purposes28, 1 (January): 4–18. 10.1016/j.esp.2008.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  26. Khedri, Mohsen, Chan Swee Heng, and Seyed Foad Ebrahimi
    2013 “An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines”. Discourse Studies15, 3 (April): 319–331. 10.1177/1461445613480588
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613480588 [Google Scholar]
  27. Malenkina, Nadezhda, and Stanislav Ivanov
    2018 “A linguistic analysis of the official tourism websites of the seventeen Spanish autonomous communities.” Journal of Destination Marketing and Management91: 204–233. 10.1016/j.jdmm.2018.01.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2018.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  28. Martin, James R., and Peter R. R. White
    2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mu, Congjun
    2010 “A Contrastive analysis of metadiscourse in Chinese and English editorials.” Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice41: 35–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mur-Dueñas, Pilar
    2010 Attitude markers in business management research articles: A crosscultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics20, 1 (February): 50–72. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2009.00228.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00228.x [Google Scholar]
  31. Sedaghat, Azam, Reza Biria, and Yaghoub Asadi Amirabadi
    2015 “Cross cultural analysis of hedges in Persian and English editorial columns.” International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World8, 1 (January): 37–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Suau-Jiménez, Francisca and Rosana Dolón-Herrero
    2007 “The importance of metadiscourse in the genre ‘promotion of touristic services and/or products’: differences in English and Spanish.” InLanguage for Specific Purposes: Searching for Common Solutions, ed. byDita Gálová, 143–186. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sukma, Bayu Permana
    2017 “Interpersonal metadiscourse markers as persuasive strategies in Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign speeches.” Aksara29, 2 (December): 283–292. 10.29255/aksara.v29i2.82.283‑292
    https://doi.org/10.29255/aksara.v29i2.82.283-292 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sukma, Bayu Permana, and Eva Tuckyta Sari Sujatna
    2014 “Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in opinion articles.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature3, 2 (March): 16–21. 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.2p.16. [06/04/17]
    https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.2p.16 [Google Scholar]
  35. Vande Kopple, William J.
    1985 “Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse.” College Composition and Communication36, 1 (February): 82–93. 10.2307/357609
    https://doi.org/10.2307/357609 [Google Scholar]
  36. Vázquez-Orta, Ignacio, and Diana Giner
    2009 “Writing with conviction: The use of boosters in modelling persuasión in academic discourses.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses221 (November): 219–237. 10.14198/raei.2009.22.14
    https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2009.22.14 [Google Scholar]
  37. Vergaro, Carla
    2004 “Discourse strategies of Italian and English sales promotion letters.” English for Specific Purposes231, 21: 181–207. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(03)00003‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00003-6 [Google Scholar]
  38. Yagiz, Oktay, and Cuneyt Cuneyt
    2015 A comparative study of boosting in academic texts: A contrastive rhetoric. International Journal of English Linguistics5, 4 (July): 12–28. 10.5539/ijel.v5n4p12
    https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v5n4p12 [Google Scholar]
  39. Yazdani, Sara, Shahla Sharifi, and Mahmoud Elyassi
    2014a “Interactional metadiscourse in English and Persian news articles about 9/11.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies4, 2 (February): 428–434. 10.4304/tpls.4.2.428‑434
    https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.2.428-434 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2014b “Exploring hedges and boosters in 9/11 English front page news articles.” Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities4, 3 (March): 301–313.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Yazdani, Akram, and Hadi Salehi
    2017 “Comparing metadiscourse markers employed in English and Persian online headlines.” International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning6,4 (September): 91–97. 10.5861/ijrsll.2016.1554
    https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2016.1554 [Google Scholar]
  42. Yeganeh, Maryam Tafaroji, Issa Mellati Heravi, and Abdolrasoul Sawari
    2015 “Hedge and booster in newspaper articles on Iran’s presidential election: A comparative study of English and Persian articles.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences1921 (June): 679–683. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.103
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.103 [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