Volume 8, Issue 3 (3-2018)                   MJLTM 2018, 8(3): 474-483 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Sattar A, Asim Mahmood D M, Azher D, Yasmin T. Personal Metadiscourse: A Comparative Study of Pakistani English with the British and American Varieties. MJLTM. 2018; 8 (3) :474-483
URL: http://mjltm.org/article-1-193-en.html
PhD Scholar,Department of Applied Linguistics,Govt college university Faisalabad
Abstract:   (791 Views)
Personal metadiscourse makes direct reference to the writer or reader of current text by means of pronouns and nouns. The pronominal forms act as visibility markers in the text and/or an attempt to evoke reader’s involvement in textual interaction. This research aims to paint a comprehensive picture of the patterns of personal metadiscourse used in written texts by Pakistani learners and native speakers of English. The data used for this research consists of argumentative essays written by Pakistani advanced learners of English and compared with the essays written by British and American university students. The data has been taken from the International Corpus of Learner English. The data was analyzed to get the frequency of personal metadiscoruse across the corpora. The concordance lines of personal pronouns were also studied to analyze the functions of personal metadiscoruse in Pakistani corpus. The results of the study reveal considerable difference across these corpora. Pakistani learners use more than twice as much personal metadiscourse as the American university students, in turn the American university students’ use twice as much personal metadiscourse as British university students. The analysis of this research shows that British students’ texts are fact-oriented, Pakistani learner’s texts are more expressive and explicit. On the other hand, the AmE learners are more concerned with their imagined reader.
Keywords: Metadiscourse, Writer, Visibility, personal metadiscourse, explicitness
Ansa Sattar,Dr. Muhammad Asim Mahmood,Dr.Musarrat Azher,Tayyaba Yasmin
Full-Text [PDF 450 kb]   (466 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Foreign language teaching and learning
Received: 2018/08/18 | Accepted: 2018/08/18 | Published: 2018/08/18

References
1. √Ądel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins B.V. [DOI:10.1075/scl.24]
2. Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers:Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. Peter Lang, 17, 294.
3. Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics , 1091-1112. [DOI:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8]
4. Ilie, C. (2003). Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates. Journal of Language and Politics , John Benjamins Publishing Company, 71_92.
5. Hui, J. & Na, B. (2008). Use of metadiscourse markers in allocating SLA learners' attention.Sino-Us English Teaching (T. a. Stella, Ed.) 5, 5.
6. Kuo, C.-H. (1998). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationship in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purpose , 121-138.
7. Rasekh, D. E. (2010). Metadiscourse: Definitions, issues and its implications for English teacher. English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, 3, 167.
8. Toumi, N. (2009). A Model for the investigation of reflexive metadiscourse in research articles. Language Studies Working Papers, 64-73.
9. Vassileva, I. (1998). Who am I/who are we in academic writing?: A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, Russian and Bulgarian. International Journal of Applied Linguistics . [DOI:10.1111/j.1473-4192.1998.tb00128.x]
10. Craig, R. T. (2005). How we talk about how we talk: Communication theory in the public interest. Journal of Communication, 55, 659-667. [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03015.x]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

© 2019 All Rights Reserved | Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

Developed by : ISCDBU