Metadiscourse in L1 And L2 English (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English Studies in Corpus Linguistics SCL focuses on the use of corpora throughout langu...

Author: Annelie Adel

122 downloads 1429 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Studies in Corpus Linguistics SCL focuses on the use of corpora throughout language study, the development of a quantitative approach to linguistics, the design and use of new tools for processing language texts, and the theoretical implications of a data-rich discipline. General Editor Elena Tognini-Bonelli Consulting Editor Wolfgang Teubert Advisory Board Michael Barlow

Graeme Kennedy

University of Auckland

Victoria University of Wellington

Robert de Beaugrande

Geoﬀrey Leech

Douglas Biber

University of Lancaster

North Arizona University

Anna Mauranen

Chris Butler

University of Helsinki

University of Wales, Swansea

John Sinclair

Sylviane Granger

The Tuscan Word Centre

University of Louvain

Piet van Sterkenburg

M. A. K. Halliday

Institute for Dutch Lexicology, Leiden

University of Sydney

Jan Svartvik

Susan Hunston

University of Lund

University of Birmingham

John Swales

Stig Johansson

University of Michigan

Oslo University

H-Z. Yang Jiao Tong University, Shanghai

Volume 24 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English by Annelie Ädel

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Annelie Ädel University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Cover illustration from original painting Random Order by Lorenzo Pezzatini, Florence, 1996.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ädel, Annelie. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English / Annelie Ädel. p. cm. (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, issn 1388–0373 ; v. 24) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. English language--Discourse analysis. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general--Reﬂexives. I. Title. II. Series. PE1422.A34 2006 420.1’41--dc22 isbn 90 272 2297 5 (Hb; alk. paper)

2006045728

© 2006 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microﬁlm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

JB[v.20020404] Prn:2/08/2006; 9:06

F: SCL24CO.tex / p.1 (48-111)

Table of contents

Acknowledgements chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Aims 4 1.3 Material 6 1.4 Method 8 1.5 Outline of the study

ix

1

11

chapter 2 A model of metadiscourse 2.1 Introduction 13 2.2 Personal and impersonal types of metadiscourse 13 2.3 The present model 16 2.4 Definition of metadiscourse 20 2.4.1 Generalisations about metadiscourse 21 2.4.2 Features for identifying metadiscourse 27 2.5 Applying the features to personal metadiscourse 30 2.5.1 First person singular I 30 2.5.2 First person plural we 31 2.5.3 Second person you 33 2.6 Delimiting the categories 36 2.6.1 ‘Metatext’ and ‘writer-reader interaction’ 36 2.6.2 Stance markers 38 2.6.3 Participation 42 2.6.4 Connecting the categories 44 2.7 Conclusion 44 chapter 3 Personal metadiscourse 3.1 Introduction 47 3.2 Quantifying personal metadiscourse 48 3.3 Distribution of personal metadiscourse 52

13

47

JB[v.20020404] Prn:2/08/2006; 9:06



F: SCL24CO.tex / p.2 (111-151)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

3.4 The density of metadiscourse 55 3.5 The discourse functions of personal metadiscourse 57 3.5.1 Metatext 62 3.5.2 Writer-reader interaction 71 3.5.3 Distribution of discourse functions 79 3.6 Other references to the writer and reader 81 3.6.1 Oblique forms of I, we and you 81 3.6.2 Pronominal one 82 3.6.3 Nouns that refer to the writer and reader 85 3.7 The writer persona 88 3.7.1 Roles of the writer persona 88 3.7.2 The hermeneutics of the text made explicit 89 3.7.3 Tentativeness in the learner essays 90 3.8 Conclusion 93 chapter 4 Impersonal metadiscourse 4.1 Introduction 97 4.2 Distribution of impersonal metadiscourse 99 4.3 The discourse functions of impersonal metadiscourse 100 4.3.1 Phorics 101 4.3.2 References to the Text/Code 108 4.3.3 Code Glosses 113 4.3.4 Discourse Labels 115 4.4 Conclusion 121 chapter 5 The textual distribution of metadiscourse 5.1 Introduction 125 5.2 Textual distribution of personal metadiscourse 127 5.3 Textual distribution of impersonal metadiscourse 131 5.4 Textual distribution of questions 133 5.5 Textual distribution of exclamations 136 5.6 Conclusion 138 chapter 6 Possible causes of variation in metadiscourse use 6.1 Introduction 141 6.2 Genre comparability 141 6.3 Register awareness 144 6.4 Cultural conventions 147

97

125

141

JB[v.20020404] Prn:2/08/2006; 9:06

F: SCL24CO.tex / p.3 (151-195)

Table of contents 

6.5 Learner strategies 151 6.6 Conclusion 153 chapter 7 Theories of metadiscourse 7.1 Introduction 157 7.2 Metalanguage 158 7.2.1 Metalanguage versus object language 159 7.2.2 Use versus mention 160 7.2.3 On the meanings of metalanguage 161 7.2.4 Metatextual versus intertextual 161 7.3 Functional perspectives on language 163 7.3.1 The metalinguistic function 163 7.3.2 Reflexivity 166 7.4 Two approaches to metadiscourse 167 7.4.1 The broad approach 168 7.4.2 Stance 171 7.4.3 The narrow approach 174 7.5 Conclusion 178 chapter 8 Conclusions 8.1 Introduction 181 8.2 The theory of metadiscourse 181 8.3 Metadiscourse in corpus studies 186 8.4 The use of metadiscourse 189 8.5 Future research 196 8.6 Final remarks 199

157

181

appendix 1 Comparability of the corpora

201

appendix 2 The control corpus and the norm

205

appendix 3 Metadiscourse as non-propositional material?

209

appendix 4 Meta-terminology

213

JB[v.20020404] Prn:2/08/2006; 9:06

F: SCL24CO.tex / p.4 (195-202)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Notes

221

References

231

Author index

239

Subject index

241

JB[v.20020404] Prn:17/05/2006; 9:55

F: SCL24AC.tex / p.1 (47-120)

Acknowledgements

There are several people without whom this book would never have been written. First and foremost, I want to express my deep gratitude to my husband Gregory Garretson for his support and criticism, especially during the long existence of this project as a Ph.D. dissertation. His sense of style and editing skills are extraordinary, and his magic wand (the red pen) transformed my scribblings into text. Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg supervised my dissertation project, out of which this book has grown, for which I am very grateful. Special gratitude is also extended to Anna Mauranen for taking on the role as official opponent at my doctoral defence at Göteborg University, Sweden, in September of 2003. I would also like to mention the members of my defence committee: Mall Stålhammar, BrittLouise Gunnarsson and Hilde Hasselgård. Many thanks are also due to Jennifer Herriman, who, despite severe time constraints, read the whole manuscript in the summer of 2003. More recent benefactors include Elena Tognini-Bonelli for suggesting that my dissertation be developed into a monograph and published in the Studies in Corpus Linguistics series. I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for recommendations on the first draft of the text. My heartfelt appreciation also goes out to John Swales for reading and commenting on parts of the manuscript – and for his mentorship. It must be said that all errors and unclarities that remain after the input of so many excellent scholars are my own. In the course of my Ph.D. work, I was privileged to be awarded a generous grant by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, as well as a scholarship from the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at Göteborg University, for which I am grateful. With the help of Cathy O’Connor, I was also fortunate enough to enjoy a two-year stay as a visiting scholar in the Applied Linguistics program at Boston University. At the time of writing, I am enjoying a privileged position as a post-doctoral research fellow in the English Language Institute at the University of Michigan, which has made it possible for me to find time to revise this manuscript. On a more personal note, finally, I would like to acknowledge Ylva Hård af Segerstad Hasselgren’s friendship, which was indispensable during the initial writ-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:17/05/2006; 9:55



F: SCL24AC.tex / p.2 (120-130)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

ing process. I am also indebted to Andreas Nordin, entertaining host and amicus. Last but not least, many thanks go to all of my fellow doctoral students at Göteborg University for providing such a pleasant and stimulating educational atmosphere. Annelie Ädel Ann Arbor, Michigan December, 2005

JB[v.20020404] Prn:17/05/2006; 10:26

F: SCL2401.tex / p.1 (47-126)

chapter 

Introduction

. Background When we communicate, we not only talk about the world and about ourselves (many people’s favourite topic), we also use language to talk about talk. Humans can explicitly refer to themselves not just as experiencers in the world, but also as communicators, and can comment not just on the topic of discussion, but also on the situation of communicating. The term ‘reflexivity’ is usually defined as the capacity of natural language to refer to or describe itself (see Lyons 1977: 5), although it is of course speakers and writers who use language to refer to or describe it. All human languages, whether in spoken or written form, can be used reflexively by speakers to comment on linguistic matters. Not only is reflexivity a universal feature of language (Hockett 1977: 173), it is also unique to human communicative systems. Silverstein (1976: 16) claims that this property is “what makes language unique among all the cultural codes for social communication.” One might think that reflexivity in language is restricted to the discourse of linguists or other professionals in society at large who spend a great deal of time thinking about language, such as translators, language teachers, lexicographers, editors, proof-readers, speech pathologists, or developers of speech recognition software. However, as pointed out by Roman Jakobson (e.g. 1980), it is actually a central feature of language in everyday use. Just to give some examples of the everyday flavour of some types of reflexive language, below is a list of expressions (from both spoken and written genres) that should be familiar to most speakers of English. (1) I am writing to tell you the latest news. . . I never said that! Say it with flowers. We will return to this issue in Chapter 6. There are no words for how I feel about this. It’s just a manner of expression. To cut a long story short, . . . Speak up, please! Good question. I don’t have an answer.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:17/05/2006; 10:26



F: SCL2401.tex / p.2 (126-183)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

You’ll probably think I’m crazy for saying this, but. . . She loves digressions and can never keep to the point. What does ‘gerrymandering’ mean? hy◦ per◦ bo◦ le n. A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year. [
Each of these examples is reflexive. Most of them are likely to be used in nonprofessional discourse. The last example represents a dictionary entry, which is something that lay people and professionals alike consult from time to time. So, having shown that reflexivity in language is not restricted to discourse for specific purposes, it seems appropriate to quote Verschueren (1999: 187–188, emphasis added), who recently argued that reflexivity may be “so central that it could be regarded as one of the original evolutionary prerequisites for the development of language. [In fact,] all verbal communication is self-referential to a certain degree.” Not only is reflexivity abundant in everyday discourse, but some scholars argue that it is fundamental to human communication. One type of reflexivity in language is ‘metadiscourse’, a term which is usually reserved for written language. The present investigation will consider only written texts, but metadiscursive phenomena are of course an essential part of spoken texts as well (see for example Schiffrin 1980 on ‘metatalk’). A shorthand definition of it is ‘text about text’. Metadiscourse is discourse about the evolving discourse, or the writer’s explicit commentary on her own ongoing text.1 In this sense, it includes reflexive linguistic items that refer to the text itself as text or as language. In a wider sense, it refers to linguistic items which reveal the writer’s and reader’s (or speaker’s and hearer’s) presence in the text, either by referring to the organisation of the text or by commenting on the text in other ways. Metadiscourse thus helps a writer to “guide, direct, and inform” (Crismore 1989: 64) her reader about how she hopes he will respond to its content and is an important category both in creating and in reading text. As a kind of comment on the running text that is usually distinguishable from the content or subject matter of the text, metadiscourse has also been labelled ‘non-topical material’. Metadiscourse can take many different forms, ranging from morphemes, single word forms, phrases, clauses, to strings of sentences.2 Morphosyntactically, it can be represented by a range of different structures. Adverbials form one of the most typical categories (e.g. in other words, as noted earlier, stated formally, secondly). If we look at metadiscursive units in terms of their internal syntax, they often contain an overt subject in the form of a pronoun plus a verb phrase, as in the more or less routinised forms you know, as we have seen, I will discuss NP. They may also be impersonal non-finite constructions, consisting for example of the infinitive form of verba dicendi, such as to discuss, to conclude, to put it bluntly.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:17/05/2006; 10:26

F: SCL2401.tex / p.3 (183-235)

Chapter 1. Introduction

Drawing on actual texts, Crismore (1989) provides a plethora of examples showing that Western writers from Antiquity to today, in areas as diverse as history, drama, handbooks, poetry, religion, biography and science, have found it natural to use metadiscourse in their texts. Despite their abundance, however, metadiscursive phenomena are far from fully explored. Researchers do not even agree on what metadiscourse is, nor have they sufficiently clarified how it works in general, how it varies across genres, or how it differs across languages. By all appearances, however, metadiscourse is becoming a highly dynamic topic in text/discourse research. In Hyland’s (1998: 437) words, metadiscourse is “a relatively new concept but one which is increasingly important to research in composition, reading and text structure.” Researchers are beginning to explore it from a wide range of perspectives in linguistics, for example in contrastive studies (Mauranen 1993; Markkanen et al. 1993), historical stylistic change (Taavitsainen 2000), pragmatics (Verschueren 1999; Hyland 1998), and genre studies, such as in Bäcklund (1998) and Bondi (1999). The recent interest in metadiscourse stands in marked contrast to the previous widespread neglect of it. As diplomatically described by Vande Kopple (1988: 234), the overriding focus of pre-1980s research on text was on various aspects of the subject matter itself: “Much of the recent work on the nature of informative texts and on the processes that readers apply to them proceeds as if there is only one kind of meaning in such texts, the referential, ideational, or propositional”. Also pointing to this neglect, Crismore (1989: vii) voiced her concern occasioned by “the lack of awareness of metadiscourse and lack of attention given it in the domains of reading, composition, educational psychology, language studies, social science, and science”. Another telling example of the earlier view of metadiscourse as not being worthy of much attention, whether in theoretical or in applied fields, is provided by Stubbs (1996: 228), reviewing a study of the Canadian Hansard corpus3 by Slembrouk (1992), who claims that “although Hansard is often regarded as a verbatim record of what is actually said in Parliament, considerable changes are made to the words spoken”. These changes all concern metadiscourse and expressions of speaker attitude, such as I hasten to stress, I think, I can only say and actually, which have been deleted. In Stubbs’ (ibid.) words, there is a “systematic removal of interpersonal and textual dimensions of utterances [. . .] from the written record”. In spite of such attitudes to metadiscourse as meaningless or superfluous verbiage of low status in linguistic research, however, the increasing number of studies of metadiscourse do bear witness to the fact that things are changing. This is not to say that we are anywhere near having a full account of what metadiscourse is and how it works in and varies across texts. One of the many areas in which studies of metadiscourse are lacking is L2 writing, which is where the present study enters the picture. This study aims to contribute to the study of L2 writing by analysing



JB[v.20020404] Prn:17/05/2006; 10:26



F: SCL2401.tex / p.4 (235-293)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

the written production of advanced learners of English and comparing it with that of native speakers of British English (BrE) and American English (AmE). At this time, there may be as many as 1.5 billion speakers of English in the world, counting liberally (see e.g. Strevens 1992: 28). Most of them are non-native speakers. In what Kachru (1992: 38) calls the ‘inner circle’, there are some 350 million speakers of English as a first language. It is much harder to estimate the sizes of the ‘outer circle’ of speakers for whom English is a second language, and the ‘expanding circle’ of speakers of English as a foreign language, but it is clear that these actually outnumber the inner circle of native speakers. In the 21st century, in the majority of communicative situations in which the English language is used, it is actually being used by non-native speakers. Whether we like it or not, at this point, English is culturally, politically and economically one of the most important languages in the world. As a result, reading and writing in English have become important to a great number of people. Composition in English is important not only in academia, but also in the corporate world, and in semi-professional or non-professional areas – for example, to people who communicate electronically (and internationally) via newsgroups, chatrooms, or e-mail. A large number of these communicators are not native speakers, but do their reading and writing in English as a foreign language. This is a task that makes great demands on their linguistic abilities and communicative competence, extending beyond basic knowledge of grammar, vocabulary and spelling. The demands involve rhetorical skills in forming texts of various types, including, for example, knowledge of how to present facts effectively, how to argue one’s case convincingly, and how to manage writer and reader visibility. We should not make the mistake of assuming that, as long as a learner is fluent in the foreign language and masters essential parts of its grammar and vocabulary, writing texts is a straightforward matter.

. Aims The overall aim of the present study is to compare the use of metadiscourse in written argumentative texts by advanced learners of English whose first language is Swedish with comparable texts written by native speakers of British and American English. The specific objectives are to contribute to (a) the theory of metadiscourse, (b) the application of computer-assisted methods to studies of metadiscourse, and (c) our knowledge of the use of metadiscourse in English argumentative writing (with special focus on learner writing). While many researchers in this area note that metadiscourse is a fuzzy and heterogeneous category in need of better definition and clearer delimitation, they do not tend to make theoretical issues their primary concern. This is the first gap that

JB[v.20020404] Prn:17/05/2006; 10:26

F: SCL2401.tex / p.5 (293-343)

Chapter 1. Introduction

I intend to start to fill. The second gap is a methodological one; since the majority of investigations into metadiscourse have been carried out manually, there is a lack of systematic computer-assisted studies of metadiscourse. By testing the possibilities of applying computer-assisted methods to the study of metadiscourse, we stand to gain in our ability to generalise, in analytical consistency and in speed. The third gap concerns the fact that no previous research exists on the use of metadiscourse by L1 Swedish speakers writing in English, or on possible metadiscursive differences between AmE and BrE writing. These three main lines of investigation are intended to work together and cross-fertilise in various ways. I make the assumption that metadiscourse is a textual parameter in which the corpora involved will differ in interesting ways: the non-native speakers’ use of metadiscourse seems quite different from that of the native speakers. The corpora to be used consist of argumentative writing, which is an important text type in L2 English composition.4 Essentially all previous research into metadiscourse investigates academic writing of various kinds, so there will be maximal opportunities to take advantage of previous findings on metadiscourse, which, after all, is a relatively unexplored area. Furthermore, it is often assumed that argumentative writing contains a great deal of metadiscourse. Crismore (1989: 70), for example, states that metadiscourse is “quite prevalent” in argumentative writing, since “authors refer quite frequently to the state of the argument, to the reader’s understanding of it, or to the author’s understanding of his own argument”. In addition, argumentative writing is a highly interesting text type to study due to its general importance in society at large, ranging from the university to the media. A further example of cross-fertilisation is that the methods can be designed to contribute to the theory of metadiscourse. The design of the present methods will allow me to take into account a wide variety of potential examples of metadiscourse, such that different subcategories as well as borderline cases can be identified more easily and in a more systematic manner. Stated briefly, the main research questions are the following: (a) What is the most appropriate definition of and theoretical model for metadiscourse? Can we find explicit features to use in defining what we mean by metadiscourse? Where do we draw the line between metadiscourse and neighbouring categories? (b) How can computer-assisted methods and large collections of text be used for the analysis of metadiscourse? How can we find patterns for various aspects of the use of metadiscourse by applying computer-assisted methods? (c) What differences are there between the use of metadiscourse by learners and the use of metadiscourse by native speakers of British and American English, as evidenced in the corpora? To what extent do the different groups of writ-



JB[v.20020404] Prn:17/05/2006; 10:26



F: SCL2401.tex / p.6 (343-397)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

ers make visible the current discourse situation, the text itself, and the writer and/or the reader? What types of discourse functions are fulfilled in the texts when the writer persona or the imagined reader are visible? Do the learners and the native speakers use metadiscourse for the same purposes and in similar proportions? Where in the text does metadiscourse occur, i.e. what are the patterns of distribution, if any, across corpora? Are there tendencies for certain types of metadiscourse to occur in specific positions in a text? For example, can we find evidence that beginnings and endings are particularly suitable locations for writer and reader visibility? Section 1.5 below gives an outline of the study, in which these research questions are presented in the order in which they will be dealt with. First, however, the next two sections will discuss the material and the methods used in the study.

. Material The texts used for the study are essays written by university students. These essays are available in an electronic format, collected within the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) project initiated and coordinated by Sylviane Granger at the University of Louvain in Belgium (see e.g. Granger 1993, 1998). The present investigation uses the Swedish learner subcorpus (‘Swicle’ for short).5 In addition to the current 14 subcorpora of various language backgrounds, this international corpus project also offers a comparable corpus of native-speaker material, referred to by the acronym LOCNESS (the Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays; see Granger 1993).6 The design of the ICLE project is such that results based on any, or all, of the learner corpora may be evaluated against a norm or standard of comparison in the form of a native-speaker corpus. The general idea is that “[w]hen matched with comparable native-speaker texts, a learner language corpus provides the basis for revealing the characteristics of learner language, e.g. identifying interference from the mother tongue” (Johansson 1998: 7). The learner subcorpora and the native-speaker corpus provide a basis for comparison not only of native language and interlanguage data, but also of parallel interlanguage data (produced by speakers with different L1s). The design of the ICLE corpus makes possible the study of a range of learner subcorpora (for comparison of different interlanguages, see Granger 1998: 12ff.). However, the present investigation is restricted to one specific group of learners, whose first language is Swedish, and only those learners’ use of metadiscourse will be examined here.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:17/05/2006; 10:26

F: SCL2401.tex / p.7 (397-459)

Chapter 1. Introduction

That said, the methods developed here could easily be used to map metadiscourse in any of the other subcorpora. That way, the results would be directly comparable. The ICLE corpora make it possible to determine which linguistic features are used considerably more or less by learners of various first language backgrounds, as compared to native speakers. As pointed out by Altenberg (1997: 121) “the difficulties advanced learners experience are mainly lexical and stylistic in character”, and the non-nativeness or lack of idiomaticity of advanced learners’ production is “not so much a matter of actual errors as of over- and underrepresentation of words and structures”. At this advanced level, the focus of research will be on ‘overuse’ and ‘underuse’ of linguistic phenomena, rather than error analysis. In fact, differences between advanced learners and native speakers can be subtle, and it may require a large amount of data to establish what they are. As Lorenz (1999: 53) puts it: “Where [advanced learners] do deviate from the norm, their deviations usually – in written production at least – concern finer points of lexicogrammar and style [, which] are difficult to pinpoint individually, yet in their accumulated effect [they] tend to generate an impression of ‘non-nativeness’ or ‘lack of idiomaticity”’. This ‘accumulated effect’ can be read in two ways: as referring either to individual essays or to a whole corpus-full of essays. In other words, the effects of non-nativeness may be evident within a single essay, but only after reading most or all of it; or they may not be evident in individual essays, but emerge as a general picture when a large number of essays are examined at the same time. Levenston (1971: 115), discussing ‘over-indulgence’ and ‘underrepresentation’ in non-native language use, points out that “[a]lthough the L2 clause structure produced by group level translation may be completely acceptable, both grammatically and lexically, it can still produce effects by no means intended by the user: verbosity, formality, informality, and so on”. This is what mastering a language (whether a first or foreign language) is about: the ability to produce intended effects in ways that are efficient and appropriate to the context, and to avoid producing unintended effects. For the present study of the use of metadiscourse, the learner texts were analysed for interference at the level of discourse. Since discourse competence (or the ability to compose text efficiently) is one aspect of a speaker’s communicative competence (see Hymes 1992), we could say that the learners’ communicative competence is being investigated.7 The corpora used in the present study will be briefly described in the following. For more detailed analysis of the corpora, see Appendix 1, which includes a discussion of the comparability of these corpora, based on Bhatia’s (1993) genre criteria, and Appendix 2, a general discussion of the control corpus and the norm. The learner material amounts to approximately 205,000 words, or 350 essays. The essays are full-length, with an average size of about 560 words. The essay writ-



JB[v.20020404] Prn:17/05/2006; 10:26



F: SCL2401.tex / p.8 (459-550)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 1. Sizes of the corpora Corpus

Variety

No. of words

No. of essays

Swicle Locness AmE Locness BrE

L2 English (L1 Swedish) American English British English

205,000 150,000 95,500

350 175 118

ers are all advanced learners of English: students in English departments at three different Swedish universities (Lund, Göteborg and Växjö). The native-speaker corpus consists of around 247,000 words altogether and comprises some 290 essays written by university students, half speakers of American English (AmE) and half speakers of British English (BrE). For present purposes, the Locness was divided into two different subcorpora on the basis of regional variety. It is assumed that cultural background may be an important factor and that essays written by British and American writers may exhibit differences in the use of metadiscourse. The 175 AmE essays have an average of 856 words per essay and 150,000 words in total. The 118 BrE essays have an average of 810 words per essay and approximately 95,500 words in total.8 The three corpora that the present investigation sets out to contrast are summarised in Table 1.

. Method The methods used in this study are primarily comparative and corpus-based. The comparative method will be used in order to locate differences in the use of metadiscourse between learners and native speakers of English, but also to identify possible differences between the different native-speaker groups. In choosing to do a computer-assisted study of somewhat sizeable corpora, I embrace the empirical principle that the more material the analysis is based on, the safer the conclusions drawn will be, and the more generalisable the results will be. Figure 1 illustrates the three-way comparison to be made between the learner English, AmE and BrE corpora. This comparison can be described as a form of Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis, or CIA. This is a term coined by Granger (1993: 43), who states that, unlike classical CA, which systematically compares various levels of the linguistic systems of two or more languages, “CIA does not establish comparisons between two different languages but between native and learner varieties of one and the same language”. CIA studies contrast “what non-native and native speakers of a language do in a comparable situation” (Pery-Woodley 1990: 43; as quoted in Granger 1998: 12), and identify the characteristics of a particular interlanguage.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:17/05/2006; 10:26

F: SCL2401.tex / p.9 (550-590)

Chapter 1. Introduction

L2 ENGLISH

L1 ENGLISH

AmE speakers L1 Swedish speakers BrE speakers

Figure 1. The three-way comparison

The CIA approach is central to the ICLE project as a whole, aiming at investigating aspects of non-nativeness, or differences in communicative competence in advanced EFL learners’ written production, in relation to a target norm (a control corpus of written production by native speakers). Two types of comparison are involved in CIA: either comparison of native language and interlanguage (NL versus IL), or comparison of different interlanguages (IL versus IL; see Granger 1998: 12). Only the first type of comparison, NL versus IL, applies to the present investigation. Although it is beyond the scope of the present study to carry out an IL-versus-IL comparison, a future study of this kind would shed light on possible metadiscursive strategies used by learners in general. Two basic explanations for differences between the native speaker and nonnative speaker groups are L1 interference (transfer) and universal learner behaviour. Granger and Tyson (1996: 25, emphasis added) make the following statement about contrastive interlanguage investigations: “It seems that transfer is one of a number of explanations for problems at [the] discourse level, and that universals also play a part. Computerized learner corpora can make a major contribution in analysing the relative effects of transfer and universals, one of the main questions in Second Language Acquisition research”. These explanations will be discussed in Chapter 6, along with other factors that may give rise to differences between learners and native speakers of English in the use of metadiscourse. Strictly speaking, the present investigation is not a cross-linguistic one, since only English is represented. Still, three different varieties of English are involved: American, British, and learner English. This means that any claims made in the study will apply only to differences between a specific type of learner language (Swedish L1) and specific types of native-speaker language (American and British English), as evidenced in the corpora.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:17/05/2006; 10:26



F: SCL2401.tex / p.10 (590-638)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

The use of corpora is central to the present investigation. Recent advances in computer technology have made possible the systematic analysis of large amounts of text. With machine-readable texts and computerized methods, linguists interested in finding empirical evidence for their hypotheses about language have open to them many new possibilities. The present study involves a variety of fairly simple computer-assisted techniques. The specific methods used for the various studies carried out will be described in more detail in the relevant chapters. Briefly, the general investigation design is large-scale retrieval followed by manual analysis. The importance of the second step, the manual analysis, should be stressed. In any computer-assisted study – particularly of discourse phenomena – a human analyst will always be needed to interpret the data and evaluate the context, but the search can be made more large-scale and systematic by means of corpora and computational tools. With very few exceptions, computer-assisted methods have not been used in research into metadiscourse. One thing that has discouraged researchers from using their computers is the fact that metadiscourse is a contextual phenomenon (see 2.4.1). Hyland (1998: 438, emphasis added) explicitly states this: “Given the highly contextual nature of metadiscourse and the fact that a particular form can serve either a propositional or metadiscursive function, items were coded manually rather than by computer”. It is certainly true that, depending on the context, the same linguistic token can be considered metadiscourse or not. A word like discuss, for example, does not have to be metadiscursive, although it might seem to be inherently so, being a verbum dicendi. On the other hand, a deictic word like here may function as metadiscourse (referring to the current text), despite the fact that this is not its prototypical meaning.9 Nevertheless, I hope to show that this context-dependency of metadiscourse need not stop us from taking advantage of computer-assisted methods. This is not to ignore the fact that it can be quite difficult to find ways of applying computer-assisted methods to discourse-functional linguistic categories (such as metadiscourse, or markers of stance, or politeness phenomena) that can take many different surface forms. One can refer to this process as associating a functional category with searchable linguistic forms. For a more thorough discussion of methodological issues and of applications of corpus-assisted techniques to metadiscourse, see Ädel (2003). Corpus-based approaches are not new to text linguistics, a field in which authentic data have always been used as the empirical basis. What is not (yet) an established procedure in text linguistics, however, is the use of data in electronic form in combination with automatic methods of retrieval (see for example Stubbs 1996). Compared to other branches of linguistics, studies of text and discourse has not drawn extensively on corpus methodology. Biber et al. (1998: 106) describe the state of the art in the following way: “although nearly all discourse studies

JB[v.20020404] Prn:17/05/2006; 10:26

F: SCL2401.tex / p.11 (638-689)

Chapter 1. Introduction

are based on analysis of actual texts, they are not typically corpus-based investigations: most studies do not use quantitative methods to describe the extent to which different discourse structures are used, and relatively few of these studies aim to produce generalisable findings that hold across texts.” This implies that there are several problematic aspects to automating the analysis of textual phenomena, but also that there is still much to explore. A slightly different picture was presented four years later by Conrad (2002). She contrasts the state of affairs in 2002 with the early days of corpus linguistics, giving a positive characterization of the application of computer-assisted methods to discourse-level phenomena. In her words (Conrad 2002: 86), “[a]s corpus linguistics first developed, it was often thought that it could not be applied to language phenomena that extended beyond clause boundaries. As the field has matured, it has instead become apparent that many studies within corpus linguistics address discourse-level concerns, many showing association patterns or the interactions of variables that would not be apparent without corpus-based techniques.” One practical problem that obstructs the study of some discourse-level phenomena is that computerized corpora rarely contain full-length texts – even in today’s relatively corpus-dense world of English linguistics. The widespread use of text extracts in corpora is a serious obstacle to discourse-oriented studies. Whole texts deserve a much stronger position in corpus design than has been the case to date (Sinclair 1995: 27). The majority of results presented in the study have been tested for statistical significance, using Pearson’s chi-squared test or a chi-squared goodness-of-fit test.10 The single case in which differences across the corpora were found not to be statistically significant will be specifically pointed out.

. Outline of the study Chapter 2 will introduce a set of parameters for defining metadiscourse and present a new model of metadiscourse, based on Jakobson’s (see e.g. Jakobson 1998) functional model of language. Chapters 3 through 5 will present the results of the investigations of the use of metadiscourse by learners and native speakers of English. Metadiscursive expressions that explicitly make reference to the current writer and/or imagined reader will be referred to as ‘personal metadiscourse’, and those in which the reference is only implicit will be referred to as ‘impersonal metadiscourse’. Chapter 3 deals with personal metadiscourse, while Chapter 4 deals with impersonal metadiscourse. The analyses presented in Chapter 3 will include not only a quantitative mapping of frequency trends, but also a qualitative analysis of the discourse functions of



JB[v.20020404] Prn:17/05/2006; 10:26



F: SCL2401.tex / p.12 (689-733)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

metadiscourse, and the extent to which the learners and the native speakers differ along this parameter. For this purpose, a taxonomy will be presented of discourse functions used when writers refer to themselves as writers, or when their imagined readers are addressed. Chapter 5 will examine the tendency of selected metadiscursive expressions to be distributed in patterned ways in the texts, with the purpose of finding evidence that metadiscourse is at least in part a positional phenomenon. Specifically, the hypothesis that certain types of metadiscourse are more likely to appear in beginnings and endings of texts will be tested. Chapter 6 will bring up for discussion possible factors that account for the differences or similarities found between learner writing and native-speaker writing. The main causes of variation in metadiscourse use are taken to be genre comparability, register awareness, cultural conventions and learner strategies. However, it is beyond the scope of the present investigation to present evidence regarding which factors dominate and to what degree. Some background on metalinguistic matters in general and metadiscourse in particular will be given in Chapter 7. The specific motivation for this is that research on metadiscourse needs to achieve greater theoretical rigour and that we need to establish the boundaries of the category more clearly. A summary of previous research into metadiscourse will conclude the chapter. Finally, Chapter 8 will give a summary of the main findings, which pertain primarily to the three main areas to which the present study aims to make a contribution, namely, the theory of metadiscourse, computer-assisted methods for analysing metadiscourse, and our knowledge of the use of metadiscourse across varieties of English. The chapter will end with a discussion of possible future research. Appendix 1 describes the material in greater detail, focussing on issues of corpus comparability. Appendix 2 discusses the choice of control corpus for a corpus of learner performance. Appendix 3 presents arguments against defining metadiscourse as non-propositional material and Appendix 4 provides an overview of terminology that relates to reflexivity in language.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.1 (47-130)

chapter 

A model of metadiscourse

. Introduction In this chapter, the definition of metadiscourse and the delimitation of the concept in this study will be discussed. One of the aims of the present study is to make a contribution to the theory of metadiscourse, to examine the category itself as well as related concepts and neighbouring categories. The main questions dealt with in the chapter are how to classify metadiscourse and how to develop clearer and more explicit criteria for labelling given textual elements as metadiscourse. As shown in Chapter 7 on theories of metadiscourse, delimitations between what is and what is not metadiscourse are not unproblematic and have been solved differently by different researchers in the field (see e.g. Markkanen et al. 1993 and Mauranen 1993). We need to clarify where to draw the lines between metadiscourse and neighbouring categories, such as stance and general involvement features in texts. A more detailed description and delimitation of the category will help us to spell out where metadiscourse begins and where it ends. I will argue that, instead of defining metadiscourse as not accountable-for in truth-conditional semantics, we can find useful definitions by focussing on the linguistic functions associated with metadiscursive material. Specifically, I hope to show in this chapter that a model based on Roman Jakobson’s (e.g. 1998) functions of language can be used effectively in studies of metadiscourse. Although Jakobson’s theory has not been employed for such purposes before, there are several advantages of using this instead of the traditional SFG-inspired model (based on a Hallidayan model, as explained in 2.3) as a basis for analysing metadiscourse. The three main advantages are (a) that the ‘proposition problem’ is avoided, (b) that including the writer and reader makes the concept less decontextualised, and (c) that reflexivity is appropriately stressed.

. Personal and impersonal types of metadiscourse It is useful to make a distinction between metadiscursive items that refer explicitly to the writer and/or the reader and those in which the reference is only implicit. The most obvious means available to writers for explicitly showing their presence

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.2 (130-182)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

is to use first person pronouns (the unmarked way of showing one’s presence in spoken discourse), but they can also refer to themselves in the third person by using a noun like the author, for example. The ‘presence’ of the imagined reader, similarly, is most explicitly shown in the use of second person pronouns, or in the use of noun phrases such as the reader or dear readers.11 In short, personal metadiscourse makes direct reference to the writer and/or reader of the current text, either by pronouns (personal I, we, you and their oblique and possessive forms) or nouns (such as the writer, dear reader). This is explicit reference to the current discourse participants qua discourse participants. Impersonal metadiscourse, on the other hand, does not make explicit reference to the discourse participants. There are many ways to avoid explicit selfpresentation in a text – for example, by using passives and various impersonal constructions. In most cases, readers easily infer (see e.g. Biber et al. 1999: 977) that non-explicit metadiscourse expressions should be attributed to the writer; thus, implicit types are still interpreted as being expressed and intended by the writer of the current text. To put this differently, we can say that all language use is inherently dialogic, whether the addressee is present or not. In written text, the writer is always present in the entire discourse, and any textual choice signals the implicit presence of a writer (Mauranen 1993). This is probably one reason why Mauranen states that there is something ‘ridiculously obvious’ about the fact that every text has a writer. For my part, I find that this makes cases in which personal pronouns actually do occur even more interesting. One wants to know why they are used, and why it is made explicit that the current text has a writer and/or a reader, if the dialogic perspective is built into the situation anyway. Why spell it out? What conditions the writer to choose to make an effort to guide the reader through the text, and how she presents herself to the reader, particularly in her role as a writer? To illustrate personal and impersonal types of metadiscourse, we may use the verb mention. Below, the search term mention* appears in four sentences taken from the Swicle,12 functioning as personal and impersonal ‘Reviews’, reminding the reader about a previous chunk of discourse.13 Sentences (1)–(2) give examples of personal metadiscourse, while sentences (3)–(4) give examples of impersonal metadiscourse. (1) As for the seemingly common misconceptions I mentioned above, coffee and nervous breakdowns are by no means necessary. (Swicle 178) (2) When I mentioned getting a good job as a result of spending time and money on an education, I did not mean a good job as in making a great deal of money, although I certainly would not mind that. (Swicle 302)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.3 (182-246)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

(3) Doubtlessly, the above-mentioned conditions have a beneficial effect on the mental well-being of an individual, for which a high number materialistic standard of living cannot compensate. (Swicle 104) (4) The solutions mentioned in this essay dealt mainly with cultural and social understanding, which led on to creating a better working climate for both Swedes and immigrants. (Swicle 135)

In avoiding explicit self-presentation, as in examples (3)–(4), the writer makes the text more detached, which is a typical characteristic of written language in particular (see Chafe 1982). Following Chafe, we can refer to impersonal metadiscourse as a detached type of metadiscourse. Personal metadiscourse, on the other hand, is an involved type, which is characteristic of spoken language par excellance. Further examples (from the BNC) of varying degrees of explicitness in metadiscourse expressions are shown in (5) below.14 The examples can all be classified as ‘Announcers’, since they are used by the writers to announce what is going to happen in the ensuing discourse.15 They point forward and usually occur with a specification of when or where something will take place or be discussed. The examples have been ordered according to explicitness, starting with the most explicit, reader-oriented, or writer-oriented expressions. (5) a.

With this drop of ink at the end of my pen, I will show you the roomy workshop of Jonathan surge, carpenter and builder in the village of Hayslope, as it appeared on the 18th of June, in the year of Our Lord, 1799. b. And we shall see, in later chapters, that we already know a fair amount about the predictions a quantum theory of gravity must make. c. Secondly, as I will show, it is quite easy to imagine a self-organizing system which specifies the relative position of cells. d. This will be shown to be particularly the case in the next chapter on the relationship between catholicism and the Irish constitution. e. And (as will be shown later in this section) when a physical or sexual abuse investigation, for example, does develop, such investigations are often time consuming and stressful and have to be conducted in the context of other duty work.

Both the writer and the reader are visible in examples (a) and (b). In (c), the writer alone is explicitly mentioned. In examples (d) and (e), on the other hand, the participants in the discourse are not visible, but only the text itself is foregrounded, not its creator or consumer. Why make a distinction between personal and impersonal types of metadiscourse? What is interesting is the scale of explicitness that is available to the writer and the writer’s choice of level of visibility. This is a parameter that seems particularly sensitive to linguistic variation. We will investigate here whether native speakers and non-native speakers make the same choices with regard to personal



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.4 (246-300)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

and impersonal forms of metadiscourse. For example, when learners use metadiscursive expressions, do they prefer the less explicit alternative – i.e. would they rather choose the phrase to conclude than an explicit phrase such as I conclude – or the other way around? Personal versus impersonal metadiscourse is not considered a theoretical distinction here, but is merely a way of labelling different surface types. The main reason for drawing this particular distinction is that personal versus impersonal in general stands out as a dimension along which the corpora studied differ (which is also confirmed in research by Altenberg 1997). Personal types of metadiscourse will be the focus of Chapter 3, while impersonal types will be the topic of Chapter 4.

. The present model The present model is an alternative to the predominant Hallidayan model adopted by most researchers in this area. Virtually all studies of metadiscourse are influenced by Halliday’s (see e.g. 1994) three-part model of the (meta-)functions of language. The three functions approach language as exchange (‘interpersonal’), as message (‘textual’) and as representation (‘ideational’). Although Halliday’s functions have been widely used for the definition of metadiscourse, Halliday himself does not discuss or define metadiscourse in those terms. Therefore, this will be referred to as the ‘SFG-inspired model’.16 While the focus of the present chapter is to introduce the rationale and describe the features of the alternative – reflexive – model, I will first discuss the main drawbacks of the established SFG-inspired model. The fact that the majority of researchers into metadiscourse have adopted the SFG-inspired model makes it all the more important to motivate its unsatisfactoriness. In the SFG-inspired framework, ‘metadiscourse’ is defined as linguistic items which explicitly serve (either or both of) the interpersonal and textual functions. ‘Metadiscourse’ is also defined as not serving the ideational function (which views language as reflecting experience and logical relations). According to this view, metadiscourse either fulfils the interpersonal function, for example by making the addresser visible through the expression of personal feelings and attitudes or interaction with addressees, or it fulfils the textual function, for example by having the addresser intervene in the text in order to organize what is being said, to remind, enumerate, or announce what is to come in the discourse. This sounds very good, but I think we can already begin to see that the SFGinspired model involves a built-in dichotomy between metadiscourse (i.e. the interpersonal and textual) and propositional (or ideational) material. Classifying metadiscourse as non-propositional material implies defining it as a truth-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.5 (300-387)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

conditional phenomenon, and not as a discourse phenomenon. For arguments against defining metadiscourse as non-propositional material, see Appendix 3. Secondly, the fact that ‘textual’ and ‘interpersonal’ have different meanings in the way they are used in research into metadiscourse from Halliday’s original terminology is potentially confusing. In the original SFG framework, the textual function primarily includes general text-creating strategies, such as theme/rheme structure, old/new information and the broad area of cohesion (anaphora, reference, etc.). It seems somewhat far-fetched to take the term ‘textual’ and apply it, for example, to linguistic items which name the discourse act being performed, or expressions whose primary purpose it is to tell the reader how the text is organized. The interpersonal function in the SFG framework also covers a broad area, such as different types of modality, choice of words that have positive or negative connotations, and even phenomena that have to do with voice quality and intonation in spoken language. Thirdly, the interpersonal and the textual functions are not quite on a par, which speaks against regarding them as the twin main functions of metadiscourse (as those researchers who take a broad approach to metadiscourse do; see 7.4.1). If the overriding function of metadiscourse is to serve as writers’ directions “for how readers should read, react to, and evaluate what they have written about the subject matter” (Crismore et al. 1993: 39), it can be argued that the interpersonal function is, in fact, fundamental to the overall category. Indeed, Mauranen (1993: 151–152) describes the interpersonal aspect as central and draws the conclusion that a separate textual metafunction for accommodating metadiscourse in a description of language is not needed. In light of these drawbacks, it seems wise to try to revise the existing model or create a new one, instead of adhering to a model that does not sufficiently match the linguistic phenomenon it sets out to describe. Instead of using the customary model and regarding metadiscourse as textual and interpersonal (and by extension non-ideational material), I will use a modified Jakobsonian model, referred to as the ‘reflexive model’. The reflexive model takes as a starting point Jakobson’s functional model of language. Three of his six functions of language are used: the metalinguistic, the expressive and the directive.17 Their corresponding foci, or so-called ‘components of the speech event’, are the text/code, the writer and the reader, as laid out in Table 1. Every instance of metadiscourse focusses on one or more of these speech event components. In metadiscourse, one or more of these three functions is dominant, with the metalinguistic function the indispensable one. This is so because it is the attention to the text itself as what is ‘communicated’ that is central to the concept of metadiscourse or, indeed, to all reflexivity in language. Although this is fully in line with Mauranen’s (1993) claim that the distinguishing feature of metadiscourse must be



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.6 (387-428)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 1. The functions of the reflexive model Speech event component

Function

Type of reference

text/code writer reader

metalinguistic expressive directive

text or language itself writer persona imagined reader

that it refers to the text or the writing process, I believe that we should not necessarily stop there and restrict the concept to the text itself. There are, in fact, two other important components of the writing process whose visibility also attracts attention to the text as text: the writer and the reader.18 Explicit signals of the presence of the writer in her role as writer and explicit signals of the reader display the ‘machinery’ of the communicative situation, just as explicit signals of the text itself do. Instead of ignoring the presence of anything other than concepts in the ‘real world’, all such signals spotlight the current text as an evolving artefact. Together, the three functions of Table 1 form the present model of metadiscourse, which can be illustrated as in Figure 1. Note, above, that it says that ‘one or more’ of the functions are dominant. This statement is intended to acknowledge the multifunctionality of language (as will be discussed in 2.4.1). Jakobson (1980: 85) himself speaks of dominant, determining functions and of functions acting as subsidiary, accessory constituents. Functions of language tend to interact; verbal messages that fulfil only one function are likely to be rare (Jakobson 1998: 73). Although each communicative event may involve all of the components and their associated functions, one of them is often emphasised in a given speech event. So, for example, when language itself is foregrounded, the metalinguistic function is dominant. The text (or code) component involves linguistic material that refers to or focusses on the current text as text, or on the writing or discourse taking place in it. There are various levels of text that the linguistic material could refer to, for

Figure 1. The reflexive triangle

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.7 (428-485)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

example, the words used in the text, the parts of the text (pages, sections, chapters) or the entire text (essay, article, leaflet). Linguistic devices could also be used to comment on the use and style of language in general. The writer component is expressed by linguistic material that focusses on the current writer qua writer. The reader component is expressed by linguistic material that explicitly refers to or addresses the reader in his role as reader. Let me give a brief summary the main advantages of the Jakobsonian model, compared to the SFG-inspired model. First of all, references to writers qua writers and to their imagined readers qua readers have not been sufficiently emphasised in the literature as types of reflexivity. The conventional definition of reflexivity in language as language referring to itself (Lyons 1977) makes the concept unnecessarily detached from actual use. I see it as a fruitful strategy to open up the concept of reflexivity to the communicative event – which is what a written text is, after all – by including the participants in the current discourse. For this reason, personal metadiscourse is one of the main foci of this investigation. Another advantage of the present model is that, instead of having only one interpersonal category, as in an SFG-inspired model, we can now make a distinction between primarily writer-oriented and primarily reader-oriented material. Of course, some elements are a combination of these two types; these may be referred to as ‘participant-oriented’ (exemplified by the use of inclusive we). Thus, this model is able both to clarify and to make more specific the description of metadiscourse. If one contrasts the term ‘interpersonal’ with the two distinct components of ‘writer’ and ‘reader’, one may object that the reader gets too central a position in the present model, considering the fact that, in written text, the reader is only present indirectly, through the mediation and attention of the writer. However, it can be argued that the implied reader exerts considerable influence on the writer and, consequently, on the text – even if it only is as an abstract intellectual construct. It is difficult to ignore the writer and the reader altogether in a model of metadiscourse. As an example, in the discussion in 7.4.3 I mention the fact that, although claiming not to include expressions involving the writer and the reader at all, one strand of research into metadiscourse (taking the ‘narrow’ approach) still counts the category ‘addressing the reader’ as metadiscourse. This goes to show how difficult it can be to apply principles consistently when analysing actual data, particularly for a relatively fuzzy concept like metadiscourse. Although there are many similarities between the proposed Jakobsonian one and the SFG-inspired model, the Jakobsonian functions are more ‘on target’ and precise. The main advantage of the reflexive model over the SFG-inspired model is its greater emphasis on reflexivity. Focussing on reflexivity as a key feature allows us to restrict the writer-oriented and the reader-oriented function to the world of



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.8 (485-564)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

discourse, i.e. to instances in which the writer expresses herself as a writer or the reader is referred to in his role as a reader rather than as a person in the ‘real world’. As we will see in Chapter 7, the participant-oriented functions become too vast if one takes a broad approach to metadiscourse, while they are excluded altogether (at least in theory) if one takes a narrow approach to metadiscourse. Next, I will present the current definition of metadiscourse and describe the features of the concept in an explicit manner.

. Definition of metadiscourse Metadiscourse is text about the evolving text, or the writer’s explicit commentary on her own ongoing discourse. It displays an awareness of the current text or its language use per se and of the current writer and reader qua writer and reader. We can distinguish between two main types of metadiscourse: ‘metatext’ and ‘writerreader interaction’. The basic discourse functions of metadiscourse are to guide the reader through the text and to comment on the use of language in the text. The focus is on the structure, discourse actions and wording of the text. Some examples are in this essay; . . . will be discussed in the following; see page 16; to conclude; strictly speaking; I will summarize . . . ; in brief. I call this type ‘metatext’. Metadiscourse is also used by the writer to interact with her imagined reader in ways that create and maintain a relationship with the reader and that allow the writer to influence him by addressing him directly in various ways. Examples are You will probably think that . . .; Does this sound . . . to you?; Correct me if I’m wrong, but . . .; as you will see; dear reader. I call this type ‘writer-reader interaction’. In addition to these basic types, we can consider metadiscourse in terms of ‘personal’ or ‘impersonal’ types. Metadiscursive expressions either include explicit linguistic references to the current writer and/or her imagined reader, or do not. Metadiscourse can be said to encompass (a) references to the current text itself and its language use (called ‘text-oriented metadiscourse’ here), (b) references to the writer persona19 of the current text (called ‘writer-oriented metadiscourse’), and (c) references to the imagined reader of the current text (called ‘readeroriented metadiscourse’). Combinations of (b) and (c) also occur, which will be called ‘participant-oriented metadiscourse’, whenever such a superordinate term is needed. I will now go through these different types of metadiscourse and give examples. In personal metadiscourse, what is in focus is how writers and readers relate to the world of discourse (or the text), or how they relate to each other within that world. This is illustrated in Figure 2, which shows the four configurations (a–d) of components that constitute metadiscourse.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.9 (564-578)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

WRITER b

TEXT a

d c READER

Figure 2. Configurations of metadiscourse

We can consider the text component (in boldface) as the hub – the indispensable centre. In (6) below, examples are given in the form of extracts from the corpus material, each example keyed to one of the configurations in Figure 2. (6) a. Text-oriented metadiscourse: In this essay; in the following b. Writer-oriented metadiscourse: Finally, I would like to discuss the topic which . . .; By this I principally mean . . . and . . .; As I stated above c. Reader-oriented metadiscourse: you may be thinking . . .; So you see, there were many reasons for . . .; you have probably never heard of . . . before either d. Participant-oriented metadiscourse: What do we mean by . . . then?; Therefore I will give you some sort of background that might have some relevance for how you picture . . .; as we have seen

Figure 3 in 2.6 below further illustrates these distinctions. .. Generalisations about metadiscourse In the following, four generalisations about metadiscourse, some of which are interdependent, will be discussed under separate headings. The list is partly inspired by previous research. Firstly, it owes a theoretical debt to Mauranen (1993) and, secondly, it takes into account the recommendation put forth by Crismore



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.10 (578-701)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

(1989: 65), that a theory of metadiscourse “must take into consideration multifunctionality as well as scope, degree of explicitness, and fuzzy categories”.

Metadiscourse is a fuzzy category To say that a concept is ‘fuzzy’ is to say that the concept lacks definite boundaries. Metadiscourse is fuzzy in the sense that it is difficult to make categorical distinctions between what is and what is not metadiscursive. Metadiscourse can only be defined by taking into account a fairly large number of different criteria ranging from necessary conditions to characteristic properties. Metadiscourse is a functional category Metadiscourse is a functional category that can be realized in a great variety of ways; it can be represented morphosyntactically by a range of different forms and structures. Since metadiscourse is formally heterogeneous, the number one defining factor is whether the function of a linguistic unit in a particular context is metadiscursive. This can be compared to studying, say, the passive construction, for which purpose one would use a formal definition to decide which examples are relevant. For English, this could be something like ‘a form of BE followed by the past participle of the main verb, sometimes followed by an agent by-phrase’. (At a later stage, of course, once the relevant examples have been identified, one could go into analysing the various functions passive constructions might fulfil, for example, pertaining to information structure.) One of the most typical formal categories of metadiscourse in English is the adverbial (e.g. in other words, as noted earlier, strictly speaking, secondly). However, adverbials can vary enormously in their internal syntactic realisation. Table 2 gives some examples (from the BNC) of adverbial realisations of metadiscursive expressions (in italics). These are all non-clause-integrated adverbials which vary considerably in their internal grammatical structure. Some of them are ‘comment clauses’ (or ‘parenthetical disjuncts’, in Quirk et al.’s terminology, 1985: 1112ff.). The left-hand column provides a grammatical label for each example. Incidentally, these non-clause-integrated adverbials conform perfectly to the definition of metadiscourse as ‘non-propositional material’ (see also examples (a)–(h) in Appendix 3). However, this is merely one of many possible forms of metadiscourse. I will argue that metadiscourse cannot be neatly restricted to nonpropositional material without making syntactic restrictions, which amounts to treating it as a formal rather than functional category (see Appendix 3). In categorizing metadiscourse, researchers often mix form and function, or discourse functions and morphosyntactic functions. For example, formalgrammatical categories such as ‘logical connectors’ are often mixed with functional categories such as ‘Announcements’ and ‘Reminders’ (see, for example,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.11 (701-723)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

Table 2. Examples of formal realisations of adverbial metadiscursive units matrix clause subordinate if -clause adverbial finite clause introduced by as nominal relative clause to-infinitive clause

ing-clause

ed-clause

adjective + to-infinitive in + noun phrase

in + adjective single adverb

I’m telling you, sir, you’ll be sorry if you don’t take a walk up there. You’re a hard man to please, Mr Pender, if I may say so. As we mentioned above, it only makes sense to count substitutions as errors when a grammar is used. What was more telling, she didn’t say a word. The events have, to conclude, all the trappings of a liturgical ceremony rather than a military exercise, and that is almost certainly what lies behind the story, and what gave it its origins. This is a superficially attractive theory, but the proposed phoneme is nothing like the other phonemes we have identified up to this point – putting it simply, it doesn’t have any sound. Stated briefly, these theories argued that employees would demonstrate high levels of effort and performance if their social and intellectual growth needs were met in addition to the desire for mere financial reward. Needless to say, mares should never be left to foal in paddocks with dams, creeks, ravines, or other hazards. In summary, the assessment of pain in babies and animals is so much more difficult than in adult humans that we must face the likelihood that we often get it wrong. As useful, in short, as Marlboros in Minsk. Thirdly, you should hook the opponent’s foot in the direction that it is pointing because this is the line of least resistance.

Vande Kopple’s classification in 7.4.1).20 This is problematic, since these are not equivalent categories, and they may also be partly overlapping. Formal categories (such as connectors) are not used as subcategories in the present model, since metadiscourse is considered a discourse-functional category. Individual examples that happen to belong to the category of connectors will be counted as metadiscourse – but only on condition that they are judged to belong to one of the (functional) categories of metadiscourse. Consequently, in the present model, a connector such as for example would count as a ‘discourse label’ on the basis that it explicitly signals the discourse act of ‘exemplifying’. Conversely, a connector such as therefore would not be considered metadiscursive simply by virtue of its connector status. In fact, the present model dictates that it does not sufficiently explicitly signal the presence of the writer, nor the text itself, and, therefore, it does not qualify as metadiscourse.

Metadiscursive expressions may be multifunctional A metadiscursive expression may fill two or more linguistic functions simultaneously. It is hardly controversial to state that functions co-occur in language. Some linguists even claim that multifunctionality is omnipresent. Stubbs (1983: 47), for example, states that all utterances are multifunctional. He gives the example Go



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.12 (723-780)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

and look it up in the dictionary!, which both focusses on language and orders someone to act – that is, it is also a directive. Several researchers into metadiscourse have brought up the issue of multifunctionality in their work. For instance, Crismore et al. (1993: 41) comment on the “multifunctionality of many metadiscourse items, items that may perform more than one function simultaneously in the same context”. The example they give us is I think, which may simultaneously (a) show doubt and (b) identify the source of the idea.21 In the following, I will give two examples of multifunctional metadiscourse and comment on how multifunctionality is dealt with in the present investigation. First, we may ask ourselves whether an expression like in my essay is text-oriented or writer-oriented – or maybe both. The head noun is essay, which refers to the text itself, but this is modified by possessive pronoun my, which clearly points to the current writer. According to the present taxonomy, this example would be classified as an instance of Reference to the Text (see 4.3.2) on the account that the text-oriented unit (essay) is more important than writer-oriented my, which is optional. A second example involves cases in which metadiscourse and expressions of stance co-occur, as in I am sad to say, It is important to discuss X, I will be happy to tell you about X. If we do not take any cues from syntactic constructions, but simply consider the level of the lexicon, the discourse verbs say, discuss and tell suggest that the examples may be metadiscourse, while the adjectives sad, important and happy suggest that they display speaker attitude, which is distinct from metadiscourse. Such examples may be tricky, at least if the guiding principle of the linguistic analysis is to count only one primary function per expression. This procedure was adopted in the present study. In borderline cases, the analyst has to consider the linguistic context in order to decide whether, for example, the foregrounded function is metadiscursive or expressive. When it comes to counting and comparing frequencies across corpora, cases which simultaneously function as two or more metadiscursive subcategories, or cases where two or more metadiscourse functions are covered simultaneously by one linguistic unit, can be problematic. It is debatable whether the analyst should decide which function is primary and count only that, or whether both or several subcategories should be counted. One way of facilitating comparison across texts is to count smaller rather than larger units. Although this constitutes a simplification, it makes textual comparison and quantification considerably more reliable, particularly if there are several different types of metadiscursive expressions in a clause or a sentence. For example, a sentence like I will bring this up in Chapter 5 would be counted as two metadiscursive units: unit (a) I will bring this up, which is writer-oriented, and

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.13 (780-849)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

unit (b) in Chapter 5, which is text-oriented. The details of the method of counting adopted in the present investigation are found in 3.2.

Metadiscourse is context-dependent In order to decide what is metadiscursive and what is not, we need to take the context into account (see e.g. Mauranen 1993: 173). Although some forms are basically inherently metalinguistic, we still cannot classify a linguistic form as metadiscourse without taking the context of each particular instance into consideration. As mentioned above, a consequence of multifunctionality is that one linguistic form can fulfil different functions, for example both as metadiscourse and nonmetadiscourse, depending on the linguistic context. We will see this when personal pronouns I, we and you are discussed below (in 2.5). We will also consider examples of discourse verbs, such as discuss, functioning as metadiscourse only in certain contexts. Let me first give an example of how metadiscursive reference may work in the impersonal type. When deciding which examples are metadiscursive, the criterion of making reference to the current text helps us to navigate these occasionally muddy waters. We could apply the distinction made by Halliday and Hasan (1976) between text-internal and text-external types.22 They refer to the textinternal and the text-external as “different planes of reality” (Halliday & Hasan 1976[1997]: 240).23 For illustration, below are two occurrences each of here and now from the present material, the first two being clearly text-internal, the last two text-external. (7) a.

All of the things presented here could make for an effective argument against continuing genetic research. (AmE 040) b. By now the question that may arise is “how is euthanasia allowed to be practiced today in the United States by the law, how is that law too vague, and how does it allow for shaky judgments?” The third idea of this paper covers that question. (AmE 033) c. The story begins with Candide comfortably installed at the mansion of Baron Thunder-Ten Tronkh. Here, he is taught the philosophy of optimism by Pangloss, whose maxim is: ‘Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possible’. (BrE 072) d. In the past we looked up to the church to educate us on sexual ethics and morals. Now we see the church turning their backs on our youth also. (AmE 028)

In example (a), here refers to the current text, but in (c), here is a general adverbial of place. Similarly, by now in (b) refers to a point in the current essay, whereas (d) makes a temporal contrast between in the past and now, using them as typical time adverbials.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.14 (849-902)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Although deictic, here and now could hardly be said to be lexical items that are particularly metalinguistic in character. Conversely, seemingly obvious cases of metadiscourse – metalinguistic words such as say, question, discuss and so on – cannot be taken at face value either. For example, most occurrences in the corpora of metalinguistic words like writer and text are references to other writers or texts, and not to the text being created or its creator. In the present corpus material, the most common left collocates of writer are best-selling, mystery-book, creative, talented and good. Other common constructions are [nationality adjective] writer [proper name], and writer of [title].24 These intertextual references do refer to a world of discourse, in one sense, but, not the ongoing discourse as construed by the current writer, which is essential to the present definition of metadiscourse. It may seem counter-intuitive, but many of the occurrences of reader actually refer to the writer, particularly in the BrE material. Examples (a) and (b) below illustrate this usage. (8) a.

Camus argues, there is human dignity to be gained, from knowing life is futile, and yet still living, as if there was a purpose. He tries to convince the reader, that instead of committing suicide, we should revolt against the human condition. (BrE 016) b. Pangloss however claims that he doesn’t mind having syphillis because otherwise people wouldn’t have known what chocolate was. The reader obviously laughs at this theory of optimism and Voltaire has succeeded in proving what a stupid unethical theory it is. (BrE 079)

In these examples, reader most importantly includes the writer of the current essay, whose task it has been to read the texts under discussion as an intelligent and informed reader, and who is now obliged to report the findings of that process in the form of an essay. However, this type of reader also includes a third party: anyone who has ever read the literary works in question. Of course, the current writer cannot know much about the reactions of previous readers, so it is more likely that the writer is actually describing her own reactions. Note, for example, how example (8b) describes the reaction of the reader of Candide to Pangloss’ theory with great conviction. The reader of the current essay is only included on condition that he has actually read the literary work, and the writer persona does not take this for granted. Paradoxically, the current reader is least of all involved as an intended referent in these occurrences of reader. Examples (8a) and (8b) involving reader are not about the writer as the creator of the current text, but rather as a reader of another text. In this sense, the examples are still metalinguistic (or intertextual), but not metadiscursive. Many of the BrE essays deal with literary texts, which leads to a high frequency of this usage of reader.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.15 (902-975)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

.. Features for identifying metadiscourse Researchers into metadiscourse generally do not specify criteria for identifying metadiscourse, but rather most often refer to it in a general way as ‘text about text’ and go on to present their findings without much comment on the selection procedure. In the present work, I have tried to be more explicit, by specifying features to use in classifying expressions as metadiscursive. Features may prove useful in (i) distinguishing between various subtypes of metadiscourse and (ii) shedding more light on related categories (such as ‘intertextuality’, ‘stance markers’ and ‘participation’; see 2.6). The features of metadiscourse that will be used for working out criteria that should be met for linguistic expressions to be defined as metadiscourse are referred to here as ‘explicitness’, ‘world of discourse’, ‘current discourse’, ‘writer qua writer’ and ‘reader qua reader’. For each of these features, both metadiscursive and nonmetadiscursive categories are given a value in Table 3 below, as a way of illustrating how they differ. The table displays the five features and contrasts their values across personal and impersonal metadiscourse. The related – but non-metadiscursive – category ‘intertextuality’ (see 7.2.4) is also included in the table. The first feature, ‘explicitness’, is seen as a requirement that the reference to the world of discourse be overtly stated. In order not to be overloaded with linguistic phenomena to deal with in our investigations of metadiscourse, it is advisable to include chiefly explicit or overt types. The explicitness criterion is particularly emphasised by Mauranen (1993: 158), whose point of departure is “the explicit commentary of the text on itself ”.25 To paraphrase and quote Mauranen (1993: 152), it is the explicit presence of the text, writer, and/or reader which is “textually interesting, as a means of attempting to achieve an intended rhetorical effect”. In this sense, explicitness implies a high degree of self-awareness, which is central to metadiscourse. In Mauranen’s words (1993: 172), “[b]y making reference to the text as a text (as opposed to, say, a study, a theory, or an argument), the writer indicates his or her awareness of the text, and also induces similar awareness in the reader”. Table 3. Features of the various types of metadiscourse and of intertextuality Personal metadiscourse ParticipantWriterReaderoriented oriented oriented Explicitness World of discourse Current discourse Writer qua writer Reader qua reader

+ + + + +

+ + + + –

+ + + – +

Impersonal metadiscourse

Intertextuality

+ + + – –

+ + – – –



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.16 (975-1035)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

However, it is not entirely clear what ‘explicitness’ means. Although several researchers into metadiscourse bring up explicitness, it seems that they mean slightly different things by it. Something is supposed to be overtly marked – but what, exactly? In some discussions, it refers to explicit authorial presence, while, in others, it refers to general apparent awareness of the text as text. On the point of which linguistic forms to consider explicit, researchers also disagree. As pointed out above, metadiscourse is a fuzzy area, so we should not be surprised if we come across fuzzy boundaries in dealing with it. In fact, it is easier to find consensus on what is implicit than on what is explicit. This is evident in Mauranen’s (1993: 152) statement: “[t]hat explicitness is a degree concept rather than a dichotomy does not alter the principle of excluding completely implicit authorial presence from text reflexivity”. In the present reflexive model, the explicitness criterion refers to explicitness in wording. Some researchers count typographical marking, such as italics and boldface, as metadiscourse. Just like gesturing in spoken language, or other extralinguistic phenomena, typographical cues are used to supply additional meanings. However, since this is not done in words per se, such phenomena will not be considered metadiscursive here. Furthermore, I make a basic distinction in whether the action takes place within the ‘world of discourse’, or within object language, dealing with the ‘real world’.26 This can be compared to the distinction between metalanguage and object language in linguistics, an idea developed by Roman Jakobson (as noted in Chapter 7). Jakobson described metalanguage as a language in which we speak about the verbal code itself. It is contrasted with object language, in which we deal with objects or items that are external to language. Similarly, from a text perspective, we can speak of ‘discourse-internal’ versus ‘discourse-external’ phenomena. Thus, a basic question to keep in mind when analysing data is whether the focus is on the ongoing discourse or on other, ‘worldly’, activities or phenomena that are external to the text. A necessary condition of metadiscourse is that it makes reference to the current text, and/or the current writer, and/or the current reader. The notion of ‘current text’ (Mauranen 1993), as we have seen, is important to metadiscourse, in the sense that we are interested in how texts refer to themselves, and not to other texts. Text about other texts, alluding to or commenting on other texts, falls within the domain of ‘intertextuality’, which is not our concern here.27 Since the present model includes the writer and reader, the criterion of ‘currency’ will also be applied to the discourse participants. In other words, references to writers and/or readers need to be pointing to the current writer and/or the currently imagined reader of the evolving text. The features ‘writer qua writer’ and ‘reader qua reader’ are interrelated with the world of discourse, but apply to personal metadiscourse only. If there is a ref-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.17 (1035-1098)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

Table 4. Examples of different levels of discourse and non-discourse worlds, illustrated by the search term inten* Level of focus

Specific focus

‘World of discourse’ in focus

The current text: Metadiscourse Other texts: Intertextuality

‘Real world’ Writer/speaker in focus referent Non-writer/ speaker referent

Example In this essay I intend to give a few examples of why. . . (Swicle 014) Here they intend to show the reader that the pain experienced by the family tends to become more of a psychological barrier to getting on with their lives. (AmE 046) I am also spending many years studying at the University of Lund, but I do not want to say that those years are the best of my life. I intend all my years to be good. (Swicle 302) Another problem is the intention of the Community organs to strengthen the economic and social cohesion of its Member States with a view to promoting the development of Europe as a whole. (BrE 107)28

erence to the current writer herself, that reference should primarily point to the writer in the role of the writer of the current text, and not as an experiencer in the real world. The same goes for references to the reader. In order to classify a textual element as metadiscourse, we need to ask, for example where first person singular is concerned, whether I refers to the writer appearing in her role as a writer. The referents of first person plural we should be the writer persona and the imagined reader, and no other persons that do not directly participate in the ongoing discourse. Table 4 contrasts two different worlds that can be in focus in non-fiction texts: the world of discourse versus the ‘real world’. The examples all involve the lexical items intend or intention. Metadiscourse constitutes comments on the ongoing discourse, while intertextuality, also a metalinguistic phenomenon (though not a metadiscursive one), comments on other texts. At the ‘real world’ level, we can make a distinction between expressions that have the current writer as the referent (as in ‘stance markers’ and ‘participation’; see 2.6), and expressions with other referents. The next section will present further examples of how the analyst may reason when faced with examples that may or may not be considered metadiscursive. The criteria will be applied to potential instances of personal metadiscourse, taking pronoun reference – first person I and we and second person you – as a starting point.29



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.18 (1098-1162)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

. Applying the features to personal metadiscourse The first and second person pronouns are most typically used to refer to specific individuals identified in the situation of communication (Biber et al. 1999: 328). They frequently point to the one who is speaking and the one(s) who is/are being addressed (see e.g. Wales 1996: 51), which is why these pronouns can help us to locate references to the current writer and the current reader of the current text. In searching for personal types of metadiscourse, I look for what Quirk et al. (1985: 347) call ‘specific reference’, i.e. cases in which the first and second person pronouns are used to refer to the writer(s) and the reader(s), those directly participating in the current discourse. However, the classification of these pronouns is not always indisputable or unproblematic. As Biber et al. (1999: 328) point out, the specific reference of some personal pronouns is sometimes far from straightforward. In the following, both clear cases and ambiguous uses of pronouns will be given, starting with the first person pronouns. The features listed in 2.4.2 above will be used in the discussion. .. First person singular I The first person singular pronoun I is “unambiguous in referring to the speaker/ writer” (Biber et al. 1999: 329), in contrast to we, which often involves a “fluidity and ambivalence of meaning” (Wales 1996: 58). In the material used in the present study, first person singular I points to the writer of the current text in the majority of cases, except in some rare cases in which it occurs in quoted material or reported speech. In order for an example to qualify as metadiscourse, not only does the I have to point to the writer of the current text, but the action that the I performs has to be carried out within the world of discourse. This may be illustrated by the verb discuss, which indicates a speech act that is quite frequently performed in argumentative essays. If the action does not take place within the realm of the current discourse, as in the first example, it will not be considered metadiscursive. (9) One does not need to read the papers to notice how the antagonism towards immigrants has increased. Lately I have discussed the increasing hostility towards immigrants with my friends, relatives and fellow workers. Almost everyone I spoke to wants tougher immigration rules. (Swicle 331)

The discussion in (9) above is held between the writer as a person in ‘real life’ and text-external individuals. By contrast, in example (10) below, I will discuss and I will analyse make metadiscursive reference to the current writer.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.19 (1162-1229)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

(10) I will briefly discuss the Prime Ministers role and then elaborate on the Presidents functions. Then I will analyse each presidency showing how the presidents role has evolved. (BrE 056)

These examples demonstrate the importance of context in deciding which examples fall into which category. There are no hard-and-fast rules for deciding which strings will count as metadiscourse, but we can note tense differences between (9) and (10), which clearly indicate different roles. Nevertheless, there is a group of ‘inherently’ metalinguistic lexemes (such as say, answer, word and essay), which are more likely to be metadiscursive; these are explored in Chapter 4. .. First person plural we First person plural we is more complex than singular I. Most occurrences of we in the material are not metadiscursive, but relate to discourse-external phenomena. There are a number of examples that refer to the writer (but not as a writer) and other persons (who are not the readers of the current text), as in (11). (11) [. . .] 2 a.m. struck and he had to go. We talked some more in the lobby but we had to keep our voices down, out of respect. (AmE 164)

Examples of this kind were left out. What I am primarily interested in is the type that has been called ‘inclusive authorial we’ (Quirk et al. 1985: 350). A small part of the overall material is of this kind, as illustrated in (12). (12) students ask themselves the question; is it worth the cost and the great effort it takes to study at the university? Therefore we are now going to look at some advantages of higher education, both in a short-term perspective and also over a longer period. (Swicle 214)

This use of we includes both the writer and the reader, and emphasises cooperation. The writer is showing her helpfulness and willingness to guide the reader through the discourse, thereby ‘bonding’ with him, as it were. We may contrast this with the so-called ‘exclusive we’. One subgroup of ‘exclusive we’, according to Wales’ terminology (1996), is the ‘collective we’, which indicates several writers.30 This type does not occur in the present corpora, since all of the essays have single writers. A second subgroup is the ‘editorial we’, which is restricted to very few occurrences in the present material, such as “In the course of this essay, we shall attempt to analyse whether this is a belief founded in reality [. . .]” (BrE 089). Here, the single author uses the plural form for her own discourse actions. Quirk et al. (1985: 350) explain the motivation for using this type as a “desire to avoid I, which may be felt to be somewhat egotistical”.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.20 (1229-1290)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

A special usage of we was found in several of the literary essays of the BrE corpus, where we is equivalent to ‘we the audience’, as in the following extract: (13) Through Caligula’s own dialogue, and through the opinions of Cherea, we are shown that there is a logic to Caligula’s approach. Caligula insists on following this logic through to the completion. (BrE 005)

In another of the texts, this reference is made explicit through apposition: “We the audience can identify with her view” (BrE 031). This type of we was not considered metadiscursive, since here we are situated in another text. Even though the subject matter of the current text is the impact of another text, (13) still does not refer to the current text itself. Furthermore, it can be argued that the reader of the evolving text is not one of the intended referents. Another example of this type is (14), which is explicitly intertextual (throughout the play) rather than metadiscursive. The topic is how readers of another text might interpret that other text. (14) In the play ‘Caligula’ Camus is dealing with the themes of death and the absurd, and throughout the play we can see different characters reacting in different ways. (BrE 031)

Again, the criterion that metadiscourse should refer to the current text is not fulfilled in (14). On the contrary, the writer is referring to another text, which even belongs to a different genre. In addition, unless the writer assumes that the imagined reader of her essay has read (or seen) the play, we is not inclusive, that is, it does not include the reader of the current text. Several examples of the ‘we the audience’ type can be found in the BrE material, but none at all in the other corpora.31 This illustrates how the choice of topic may influence linguistic features, because, in this case, the use of first person plural we is probably different in the BrE material due to the presence of a large number of literary essays (see Appendix 1). As in the we the audience type, it is fairly often the case in the material that the pronoun is followed by a specification, such as an appositive phrase, which of course makes it easier to identify the intended referents. Generic we is sometimes modified by prepositional phrases and appositions, such as . . . in Sweden/. . . in the US/. . . all/. . . people/. . . women. In some cases, a subsection of the whole is referred to by the addition of as-phrases, e.g. as individuals/as borrowers. This type is often called the ‘rhetorical we’ (used in a collective sense, for example about a nation, or a political party; see Quirk et al. (1985: 350), and is particularly frequent in the learner essays, presupposing or attempting to create solidarity with the reader. In example (15) below, the people the writer is talking about are ‘people in general’, which is also made explicit by most of us. This includes the writer herself,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.21 (1290-1351)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

albeit not in the role of a writer but rather as an experiencing person in the world. Moreover, people other than the reader are obviously included. (15) Most of us are rather selfish and if we are frank we have to confess that we can not compare ourselves with Mother Theresa when unselfishness is considered. (Swicle 277)

This type of we is not considered metadiscursive. It is meant to be quite persuasive, and it seems as if the writer very much would like to include the reader in the group of selfish mortals, but the most of still leaves some freedom to the reader to decide for himself whether the description fits or not. This type of ‘freedom’, however, is rarely given to the reader. As Clark and Ivanic (1997: 165) have pointed out, “[i]n building the dialogue with readers, writers in all genres often take for granted that readers are going to share their beliefs and values [. . .], for example, [. . .] by using the pronoun ‘we’. In this way they position their readers as consenting, part of an ‘usness’ that is hard to resist”. This is particularly true in the case of rhetorical we. The ‘usness’ is particularly hard to resist in a phrase such as as we all know, which encompasses everyone, including the reader. Examples of this kind were classified as ‘stance markers’ or ‘participation’ (see 2.6) rather than metadiscourse in the present study. Interestingly, one example in the learner material expresses some awareness of the fact that we can be quite powerful in its inclusiveness: (16) So, in the immediate future eastern Europe is an enormous market for consumers. At the same time “we” receive alarm reports from all over the world we have millions of people longing for things we have taken for granted. (Swicle 031)

The pronoun is put within quotation marks, which seems to have the effect of hedging the statement made by the writer. It makes the reader aware that the allinclusiveness of we can be questioned. Since the receiving of alarm reports does not take place in the world of discourse and since the instance of we does not make ‘specific reference’, (16) was also not classified as metadiscourse. .. Second person you What ambiguities are involved in the use of the second person? You has been compared to we in that it can be used “with different intended referents” (Biber et al. 1999: 331). There are a number of potential referents for you, and “it is often difficult to distinguish between ‘indefinite’ (or generic) and ‘definite’ reference” (Wales 1996: 79). Very few of the instances of you in the present material exclusively refer to the imagined reader, but many of them are examples of generic or indefinite you/your, which could be replaced with we, us, our, or one.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.22 (1351-1474)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

In the present investigation, a restrictive policy was adopted for identifying metadiscursive you. Generic uses of you were not included as metadiscourse (as in (20) below). The only cases included were those in which there was a strong interpretation of you as referring to the imagined reader ((17) below). It has been claimed that even generic uses of second person you retain some its personal addressee reference (Biber et al. 1999). In the present investigation, however, this trace is not considered sufficiently strong, or explicit, for such (generic) examples to be regarded as metadiscourse. The fact that you is there in the first place does make the text more involved and personal, but not sufficiently reflexive (or reader-oriented) to be labelled metadiscourse. Below are some learner corpus extracts that all contain you, but with different referents. They have been divided into four different categories. The category in which you refers to the imagined reader exclusively is the only one that is regarded as explicitly metadiscursive (see (17)). Some instances of you actually refer to the writer herself (see (18)), albeit not explicitly enough for these to be counted as metadiscourse. Besides, as is the case for ‘I’ units, the reference has to be made to the current writer persona in her role as the creator of the current text, and not simply as an experiencer in the ‘real world’. The examples presented in table form below show something of the range of referents of the second person pronoun. It starts with you referring to the intended reader (17), then moves to you referring to the current writer (18). It then shows examples of you as members of a specific group (19), and, finally, it ends with generic you (20). (17) You a. writer referring to the anticipating intended reader reader’s reaction (directive)

I knew everything about how to produce a term paper, just select some material and the paper will probably write itself. As you might have guessed it did not turn out like this. Throughout the process I ran into several problems of various kinds. (255) b. question directed “If they want to live in my country, they will have to act to the reader like Swedes do!” How often do you hear this narrow-minded opinion aired today? (142) (18) You a. ‘you feel’ = ‘I . . .also mentally demanding. The tension before every referring to the feel’ performance is exhausting, but when it is all over and current writer the curtain falls you feel like embracing the whole world, (expressive) i.e. if the audience is satisfied. (240) b. writer describes . . .and I try not to form negative opinions about people her and other the first time I meet them. But sometimes you just people’s attitudes cannot help it! You feel instinctively that the person you in the ‘real world’ have in front of you is someone you would not want to spend a lot of time with. (260) c. ‘you’ =‘I’, “Racism – a Difficult Word” How many racists are there answering the in Sweden? Before you can answer a question like that topical question you must have a definition of what racism is. (355)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.23 (1474-1494)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

(19) You referring to members of a category defined in the context

(20) Generic you

a. ‘you’ = everyone . . .talking to a foreigner. I believe it is a matter of who belongs to a balance between on the one hand the urge to belong to specified category a society where you all share something and on the other hand the greater context from which. . . (309) b. ‘you’ = ‘a This means that being a woman implies following woman’ convention and tradition, to stay Woman. Then, if you don’t take care of the children, you choose your career instead, you are not a woman, in that sense. (278) c. ‘you’ = ‘a woman Imagine that about one hundred and fifty years ago you 150 years ago’ were not allowed to divorce a man who was unfaithful to you or beat you. Beating your wife was a normal thing to do and the wife was not supposed to complain. (358) d. ‘you’ = people [. . .] it is impossible not to alter your behaviour or who live in a thinking when you live in a different culture. But it different culture should not mean that you alter your individuality. (117) e. lexical cue Swedes Let me first establish how we Swedes want to celebrate Christmas Eve. Traditionally, you have got to have ham for Christmas lunch, then you must [. . .] (182) f. ‘you’ = an actual This is not the case when you for example work as a or imaginary doctor or run your own business. You are responsible doctor for your actions and you are the one that make the decisions. (180) a. ‘you’ = ‘one’ verb [. . .] a very hottly debated topic right now. What is tense cue rasism? When do you become a rasist? Are all welcome to stay in Sweden (refugees with a past as criminals?) (051) b. lexical cue one’s [. . .] then you will most certainly fail. When assenting to one’s longings, enthusiasm, and feelings you have to keep your head cool, so that it will not lead you straight into calamity. (490) c. lexical cues we [. . .] astrology, these things create a constant that we and us can tie into, something that tells us: you are not alone. We need that reassurance, because without it we would be nothing but specks of dust [. . .] (412)

Only the examples in (17) are considered metadiscursive. While the examples in (18) do include instances in which you makes reference to the current writer, they actually refer to the writer as an experiencer in the ‘real world’, and not as a guide or mediator in the world of discourse. However, example (c) in (18) is a borderline case. The actions that you is talking about carrying out are clearly metalinguistic (answering questions and defining words). Furthermore, one would have to infer that this is the writer persona referring to her own upcoming discourse actions, which indeed turns out to be the case when one reads the rest of the essay. The writer dedicates most of the



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.24 (1494-1547)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

text to defining ‘racism’ and answers the question about the number of racists in Sweden (only “a small group of people”) in the final paragraph. The examples in (18) illustrate a strong quality of “implicit egocentricity” in you – a notion that Bolinger (1975: 205) has drawn our attention to, claiming that “the deeper we go into impersonal you, the more personal it seems”. In (19), the occurrences of you all refer to members of a group that is defined in the context by various lexical cues. This could be considered a subset of generic you. In (20), examples of generic you are given. Again, in some cases, explicit lexical cues supported one specific reading, such as generic appositions like all (as in example (19a)). This is in contrast to example (20c), in which alone modifies the pronoun, making it explicit that you is used exclusively. However, in some of the instances of you in the corpora, it was unclear whether the referents were (i) the reader only, or (ii) the reader and the writer (a form of ‘inclusive you’), (iii) the writer, or (iv) the reader, writer and [most] other people, or any combination of these.32

. Delimiting the categories The following sections will deal with issues of delimitation. In the first section, I will discuss further the two basic categories into which metadiscursive expressions can be divided: ‘metatext’ and ‘writer-reader interaction’. Also, as part of the aim of delimiting the category ‘metadiscourse’, I will present two neighbouring nonmetadiscursive categories – ‘stance markers’ and ‘participation’ – which lack the element of reflexivity. To conclude the section, I will show how we can distinguish between these categories, by illustrating how they relate to the ‘real world’ and to the world of discourse. .. ‘Metatext’ and ‘writer-reader interaction’ A basic functional distinction can be made between two main types of metadiscourse; we will refer to one as ‘metatext’ and the other as ‘writer-reader interaction’. Metatext spells out the writer’s (and/or the reader’s) discourse acts, or refers to aspects of the text itself, such as its organisation and wording, or the writing of it. Writers comment on their own discourse actions, for example, when they introduce a topic or state an aim (We must now consider the pros and cons of Britain joining “The Single Market”), or close the topic (I have presented some of the most important benefits of drug legalization). To give more examples of this category, (21) below shows a concordance list, involving first person singular I taken from the learner corpus.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.25 (1547-1628)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

(21) (a) very lonely lady. Finally (b) conserning this subject. As (c) ives available. To sum up, (d) IMAGINATION In this essay (e) cut and record it again. As (f) re and more advanced. By this (g) and political point of view. (h) a and Christmas eve). So far (i) me more environmental minded?

I I I I I I I I I

would like to discuss the topic stated above, I believe that th would like to emphasise the man will give an account of how I l said, a play is not really comp principally mean the science, t will also give suggestions on h have only described the more ph have no answer to this question

This type of metadiscursive expression may serve to remind the reader of previous statements (b, e, h), or announce what is going to be discussed in the following discourse (a, d, g). It may also constitute discourse acts performed by the writer that are explicitly labelled, such as exemplifying, concluding, emphasising (as in c), or arguing for or against a case. In addition, it may signal rephrasing of portions of text, or give cues to the reader as to the proper interpretation of elements (f).33 The other type of metadiscourse, ‘Writer-reader interaction’, primarily focusses on writer-reader relations. It refers to linguistic expressions that are used to address readers directly, to engage them in a mock dialogue (see Vande Kopple 1988). Examples (22) and (23), from the learner material, show instances of Writer-reader interaction in the form of linguistic expressions (in italics) that anticipate the reader’s response. (22) I can give you a positive answer to you if I am a secret author! Yes indeed I am! But how did it start, your second question may be. Let me tell you the truth, I was born ten [. . .] (Swicle 209) (23) I, myself, believe there still exists dreaming and imagination among people in spite of this, among old people as well as children. Well, why do I draw this conclusion? Let’s first make a definition of the words imagination and technology. (Swicle 556)

Expressions that anticipate the reader’s response are one way for writers to show awareness of and interact with their imagined readers. In (22), the pronoun your explicitly refers to the reader, and the writer has formulated a question which is then commented on as a potential question posed by an interlocutor as if in a spoken dialogue. In (23), there is no explicit writer’s comment on the question posed, nor is it overtly directed to the reader. One may see this as an instance of the writer expressing her own train of thought, which simultaneously anticipates the reader’s response to the preceding statements. Figure 3 illustrates different perspectives from which to analyse metadiscourse; it gives examples of subtypes of ‘metatext’ and ‘writer-reader interaction’ from the perspective of the text/code, the writer and/or the reader. It also illustrates the distinction drawn between personal and impersonal metadiscourse.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.26 (1628-1655)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Figure 3. Personal and impersonal configurations of ‘metatext’ and ‘writer-reader interaction’

Writer-reader interaction includes overt references at least to the reader but often to both discourse participants, which is why there are no examples of purely writer-oriented, let alone purely text-oriented, metadiscourse in that section of the figure. .. Stance markers During its relatively brief history, ‘metadiscourse’, along with the terms ‘metatext’ and ‘reflexivity in language’, has been used in studies of certain phenomena that were insufficiently studied in traditional linguistics.34 Linguists who study written texts characterize metadiscourse as a specialized form of discourse and take the perspective that it can be distinguished from other types of discourse. At this point, however, the consensus ends. As we will see in Chapter 7, researchers into metadiscourse do not agree on how to delimit the category. The two main traditions in the analysis of metadiscourse are the narrow approach and the broad approach. As discussed in more detail in Chapter 7, broad approaches to metadiscourse consider to be metadiscursive all linguistic material that expresses the speaker’s

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.27 (1655-1750)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

attitude towards what is said. The approach taken in the present study does not. Linguistic expressions in which the writer primarily acts as an opinionated persona in the ‘real world’ will be referred to as ‘stance markers’. I will use the term as more or less equivalent to ‘stance’, defined as expressing “personal feelings, attitudes, value judgements, or assessments” (Biber et al. 1999: 966) added to any communication of propositional content. Writers usually find this category useful when they wish to emphasise their own viewpoint, or contrast it with some other viewpoint. Markers of stance do not leave it to the reader to make the appropriate inferences, but explicitly signal to the reader what the writer’s opinion is. To exemplify this category, (24) below shows a concordance of examples of stance markers involving first person singular I from the learner corpus. (24) society. Sadly, I must admit that igion, traditions etc. Personally were not used practically - but he outcome in the long run. Since g in a society dominated by them? ur for about one hundred years if ctivities. Last, but not least, ocate totally free speech because or be the aim on every occation ( different nationalities, but that dream and imagine things at all.

I I I I I I I I I I I

agree with them. From my point hold the view that every cultur am convinced that they arose th am favour of a multcultural soc think not. What I do think is remember it right. Another thin think it is of great importance think it is a human right to be guess this is a tradition just suppose is common around the wo am quite convinced that most of

The examples display the writer’s (un)certainty, (dis)agreement, or (dis)belief. The speaker is visible as an opinionated being-in-the-world. It is attitudes to phenomena in the ‘real world’ that are displayed, not strategies undertaken in the world of discourse. The acts associated with stance indicate intellectual activities of various kinds, which are particularly important to argumentative writing. In such writing, writers are supposed to adopt a stance, that is, to report their positions on issues. Arguments in favour and against should be presented, and supported or refuted. This is a significant part of the argumentative writer’s task. To inform studies of stance, we can extend the functional model of metadiscourse presented in 2.3 above. In fact, making reference to four functions of language proves to be useful for drawing a distinction between metadiscourse and stance. Let us use the three Jakobsonian functions of language that make up metadiscourse, and add one more function: the referential one. The four functions (a)–(d) are shown in Table 5. As noted in 2.3, in metadiscourse, one or more of the three functions (a)– (c) are dominant, with the metalinguistic function being indispensable. Together, they form a model of metadiscourse that positions the functions with respect to each other.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.28 (1750-1806)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 5. The four functions used to contrast metadiscourse and stance

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Function

Speech event component

Primarily refers to. . .

metalinguistic expressive directive referential

text/code writer reader world/‘context’

the text or language itself the writer persona the imagined reader entities in the ‘real world’

Figure 4 shows the partial – but not complete – overlap between the two categories metadiscourse and stance. Unlike metadiscourse, stance is not self-reflexive language; it does not involve the metalinguistic function. In stance markers, functions (b)–(d) are involved, with the expressive function now being the indispensable one. The referential function, representing the ‘real world’, is also emphasised. In stance markers, the writer and the reader are not primarily present qua ‘writer persona’ and ‘imagined reader’ of the current text, but rather as experiencers in the ‘real world’, about which they possess feelings and opinions. Expressions of stance are used to show whether the writer agrees or disagrees with ideas or viewpoints that are discussed as the topic of the discourse. They display the writer’s standpoint with regard to some statement or assessment that the text (or a portion of the text) revolves around. Similarly to Figure 2 above, we can make distinctions within this category based on the configuration of the components. Figure 5 shows the three configurations (a)–(c) that constitute stance. In this constellation, the writer component (in boldface) is the hub, or the indispensable function. In (25) below, examples are given in the form of extracts from the corpora, each example keyed to one of the configurations shown in Figure 5. (25) a.

Writer-oriented stance markers: I think it is of great importance. . .; Personally I love Christmas! b. Reader-oriented stance markers: perhaps you want to meet people with the same interests. . . c. Participant-oriented stance markers: We all know the consequences of not paying one’s bills on time. . .

I have found that, while there are some cases of overlap of metadiscourse and stance markers, the majority of examples fall into one category or the other. Before ending this section, however, let us consider some borderline cases, which show that the two ‘worlds’ (the world of discourse and the ‘real world’) sometimes overlap. It seems to be possible for writers to argue and express attitudes within the world of discourse. If such borderline examples foregrounded the discourse act itself more than the opinion or viewpoint expressed, they were counted as metadiscourse. For example, in the metadiscursive category called ‘Arguing’ (see Chapter 3), the most

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.29 (1806-1806)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

Stance

Metadiscourse

WRITER

WORLD

TEXT

READER

Figure 4. The components and ranges of metadiscourse and stance illustrated

WRITER a

c

WORLD

b READER

Figure 5. Configurations of stance



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.30 (1806-1877)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

common lexical verbs are argue for, claim and support, which are all performative verbs, i.e. they perform the action named by the verb. Example (26), involving argue, illustrates this. (26) Obviously, the Christmas celebration which I argue for is a strictly traditional one, with great grandmother’s decorations and recepies, where the kitchen smells of ginger cookies and herring. . . (Swicle 162)

This could be seen both as persuasive speaker attitude and as an explicit reflexive analysis of the function of some chunk of previous discourse, or of the entire discourse. In this case, the reflexive element was deemed sufficiently strong for the example to qualify as metadiscourse. Example (27) contains the discourse label claim, but, to a great extent, its function is also to express an opinion. (27) Though I think it would be a good idea if everybody would spend a couple of weeks per year in an igloo or perhaps a hut in a warmer climate. I claim it would help a lot of people to realise the greatness of nature and also achieve insight of the whole. But to permanently move back to the woods? No. . . (Swicle 018)

Since the discourse label is explicitly expressed, this was counted as metadiscourse. .. Participation Most pronouns found in the corpora do not fill a metadiscursive function. For example, the previous section showed that there is a large set of examples that express stance. First person singular I is also used by writers when they appear in the text to talk about personal experiences that have been accumulated outside of the world of discourse. This category will be called ‘participation’. Here we are interested merely in occurrences of pronouns with reference to the writer and/or the reader – though not in their roles as discourse participants – and often including other referents. These occurrences do not meet the criteria either of metadiscourse, or of stance markers, but form a category of their own. The basic aim of mapping out the whole territory of occurrences of I, we, and you is to find better criteria for delimiting the category of metadiscourse itself, and its neighbouring categories. In the sense in which the term is used here, ‘participation’ units occur in narrative and descriptive passages. Since participation is used by writers to add some personal experience to the discourse, one might not expect to find a great deal of it in argumentative essays, but this type is in fact very frequent in the learner material, as we will see in Chapter 3. Examples, taken from the three corpora, are given in (28).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.31 (1877-1957)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

(28) a.

Writer-oriented participation: A couple of hours ago I visited I.M.’s little shop here at Lund; I also remember the days when there were. . .; In Malmoe, where I grew up, some areas have a much higher. . .; Yesterday when I was out shopping, two policewomen. . .; I am growing as an individual as each day. . . b. Reader-oriented participation: Imagine that about one hundred and fifty years ago you were not allowed to divorce a man who was unfaithful to you or beat you. . .; This is not the case when you for example work as a doctor or run your own business. . . c. Participant-oriented participation: . . .but we all make mistakes and she made a terrible one; At that time the ordinary everyday person had no need to process information as we do today; It is with innovations like this that we move ahead in the world of energy.

In these examples, the writer and/or reader (and possibly other referents) are present primarily as representatives in the discourse-external world. Participation markers including we, as in (c), stress personal experiences shared with people who are not present in the current communicative situation, but in various discourseexternal situations. To contrast participation with stance markers, instances of the writer performing as an intellectual persona showing her likes and dislikes of ‘real world’ phenomena count as stance markers, whereas other references to the writer as an actor and experiencer in the ‘real world’ count as participation. In both cases, the focus is on the writer as a person outside the realm of the evolving discourse. The two categories ‘participation’ and ‘stance markers’ are most often writeroriented, but they can also be reader-oriented or participant-oriented, as the examples in (25) and (28) show. What distinguishes them from metadiscourse is that there is no focus on the world of discourse – the text/code component is lacking. Because this component is seen as central to metadiscourse, the present model excludes these categories from the concept of metadiscourse. .. Connecting the categories The main categories and their primary functions discussed in the previous sections are summed up in Figure 6. The basic distinction revolves around how the categories relate to the world of discourse (to the left) and the ‘real world’ (to the right). According to the present model, the two main rhetorical functions of metadiscourse in written texts are guidance and interaction. When these functions are foregrounded, the writer is acting in the world of discourse as the organizer and mediator of the current text, or she is primarily interacting with the reader qua reader.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40



F: SCL2402.tex / p.32 (1957-1989)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Figure 6. The main functions of metadiscourse, stance and participation, and their links to the real world or the world of discourse

Other rhetorical functions that involve writer and/or reader presence are the categories ‘stance markers’ and ‘participation’. The former allows the writer to express attitudes toward phenomena in the ‘real world’, for instance by presenting her likes and dislikes, while the latter allows the writer to relate various personal experiences of the ‘real world’. In this sense, participation fills a primarily narrative function, while stance fills a primarily expository function.

. Conclusion The aim to move towards more explicit definitions of metadiscourse has been central to this chapter. In the present work, metadiscourse is defined by taking into account a large number of different features ranging from necessary conditions to characteristic properties. At centre stage in the present model is ‘the reflexive triangle’, involving the text/code, the writer and reader. They represent the Jakobsonian metalinguistic, expressive and directive functions. The boundedness to the reflexive triangle is crucial to the present definition. In focussing on delimitation issues, I have argued that the most fruitful approach is to restrict the concept of metadiscourse to serve reflexivity in particular. The world of discourse is a key concept. Although it is a fuzzy term and difficult to define, it still works for identifying metadiscourse in the majority of cases. The type of reference made is highly important; whether an expression is seen as metadiscursive or not is a matter of reference more than anything. Firstly, and most importantly, concerning the code and medium in a text-oriented expression, the referent has to be the current text, not other texts. Secondly, concerning the addresser in a writer-oriented expression, the referent has to be the writer qua writer of the current text in the world of discourse, not the writer as a general experiencer

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 8:40

F: SCL2402.tex / p.33 (1989-2011)

Chapter 2. A model of metadiscourse

in the world. Thirdly, concerning the addressee in a reader-oriented expression: the referent has to be the reader qua reader of the current text, not anyone outside this restricted world of discourse. In this restricted definition, occurrences of first and second person pronouns are not automatically taken to be metadiscursive. This is in contrast to the approach taken by most researchers into metadiscourse, who tend to count any reference to I, we or you as metadiscourse. Hyland (1998), for example, refers to them as ‘person markers’. In the present chapter, we have seen some of the rich variation in what these pronouns may refer to. Second person you, for example, ranges from generic you to the much rarer truly interactive you that is unambiguously reader-oriented. Monopolising an entire chapter for definitional purposes may seem overly zealous, but I am convinced that this is necessary in order to achieve greater clarity, systematicity and consistency in the linguistic analysis of metadiscursive phenomena. Readers who take a special interest in the theory and taxonomy of metadiscourse are encouraged to read Chapter 7 in conjunction with the present chapter.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.1 (47-125)

chapter 

Personal metadiscourse

. Introduction In this chapter, we will examine personal metadiscourse. Personal metadiscourse makes direct reference to the writer and/or reader of the current text, either by means of pronouns (primarily I, we, you and their oblique and possessive forms) or nouns (such as writer and reader). It is important to stress that in personal metadiscourse, the current discourse participants are explicitly referred to qua discourse participants. The aim of the examination in this chapter is to paint a comprehensive picture of the patterns of use of this type of metadiscourse in written texts by learners and native speakers of English. The main part of the study examines pronominal forms that function as visibility markers of the writer of the current text and/or her imagined reader. The first and second person pronouns I, we and you, seen as potential explicit references to the writer and the reader, were ‘trawled for’ in the three corpora. Out of the large set of examples that were retrieved from the corpora, I identified the instances of personal metadiscourse, which were then further classified according to their discourse functions. In using pronouns as search items, plenty of non-metadiscursive material was also captured. In the majority of cases, linguistic expressions that involve the pronouns I, we or you are generally interactive rather than metadiscursive, i.e. they are less likely to make text-internal reference. Occurrences of I, for example, refer more often to the writer as an experiencer in the real world than as a writer persona in charge of the evolving discourse. I chose this method as a way of operationalising metadiscourse and introducing a computer-based retrieval process based on a fairly large amount of corpus material. Taking the pronouns as a starting point made it possible to collect a large number of examples, which allowed me to draw more general conclusions. I call this method ‘Sifting’, i.e. choosing search terms that will yield a large number of hits, and then manually discarding the irrelevant ones. The method is evaluated and compared to another method called ‘Sampling’ in 8.3. A further purpose of examining metadiscursive patterns in this way was to make clearer distinctions regarding what to include in the category and what to exclude from it, and to decide on what grounds to do so. Clarifications are needed,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.2 (125-189)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

since there exist quite different suggestions for how to delimit metadiscourse in the literature (see discussion in Chapter 7). The method was designed to capture personal types of metadiscourse exclusively. Expressions such as as I showed above and I will conclude were included, but expressions such as as shown above and to conclude were not. The latter examples are called impersonal metadiscourse, which is the topic of Chapter 4. The present chapter will also consider the uses of nominal references to the writer and reader by means of the nouns writer, author and reader.

. Quantifying personal metadiscourse Whenever we want to compare proportions of a linguistic function across a large number of texts or corpora, we need to decide what our unit of measurement will be, such that our comparisons will be consistent from one text to another. In the following, I will make explicit the method of counting chosen here and bring up ways in which counting is treated in the literature. It is not unproblematic to quantify metadiscourse. The functional nature of the category – the fact that there is no obvious formal unit corresponding to a single functional unit to use as a basis for comparison, but rather that metadiscursive units may range in size from single words to full sentences – makes it difficult to know what to count. Another complicating aspect of identifying and classifying metadiscourse is the fact that it can be multifunctional. When facing a multifunctional expression, the analyst needs to decide whether to count one primary function only, or whether to consider as many functions per unit as possible. A review of the literature on metadiscourse makes it clear that, for the most part, scholars do not mention methods of counting, let alone the difficulties involved. It seems to me, however, that the field would benefit from researchers being more principled and more explicit about what they are counting, and why. Even if quantification is not explicitly discussed, examples given in the literature do give us some indication of how the researchers have gone about it. Crismore and Farnsworth (1990), for instance, chose to count fairly large textual chunks as one occurrence, as illustrated in (1), where each line represents one unit: (1) a. b. c. d.

I will now develop the idea that as we shall see in chapter 6 you might want to read the last section first we will discuss distribution in the next section

These instances are each seen as one single occurrence of metadiscourse, each filling one (general) function. However, one could also argue that there are in fact at least two different types of metadiscourse in each example. In (2), the same

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.3 (189-239)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

examples are given again, this time with square brackets delineating potential metadiscursive units. (2) a. b. c. d.

[I will [now] develop] [the idea] that as [we shall see] [in Chapter 6] [you might want to read] [the last section] [first] [we will discuss] distribution [in the next section]

It could be argued that the units in square brackets serve distinct functions. In (a), for example, ‘I will develop [the idea]’ is an announcement from the writer, signalling what topic is going to follow in the discourse, and ‘now’ is a reference to a specific point in the text itself, marking it as the starting point of a specific authorial action. ‘The idea’ could either be seen as part of the announcement or not. We might be particularly tempted to think it is, since the transitive main verb develop requires an object. In the examples above, there are several NPs or PPs that function as objects and adverbials of place, pointing to previous or following chunks of texts (chapters and sections). Such units (called Reference to the Text in Chapter 4) are very common. The subject + VP parts, on the other hand, are often discourse labels, as in (d), announcing a topic for discussion; or they can address the reader, as in (c), in which the writer gives advice on how to read the text. Such NPs or PPs and subjects + VPs will be considered separate metadiscursive units here. There are two main reasons for choosing to do so. One is that this enables finer distinctions to be drawn, and the other is that it allows for more accurate comparisons across texts. The latter reason is particularly important in the present investigation, in which native speaker and non-native speaker writing are compared. As we shall see, one thing that sets learners apart from native speakers is the density of their metadiscourse; the learners cluster metadiscourse together in ways that the native speakers do not (see 3.4). If we were to adopt a macro-level type of analysis of metadiscursive units, we would not be able to register many of the long and cumbersome metadiscursive constructions that the learners tend to produce. In contrast to that of Crismore and Farnsworth (1990), then, the strategy adopted here focusses on distinguishing between smaller linguistic-functional categories rather than on finding an overall function for a larger chunk, such as a full sentence or clause. If an NP can function independently as metadiscourse and if it plays an independent role, say, in referring to a particular place in the text (e.g. above), it will be counted separately. Let us take another example; (3) is from Crismore et al. (1993: 55), who consider the whole sentence to be one single metadiscursive unit.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.4 (239-302)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

(3) My purpose in this article is to compare the use of metadiscourse in persuasive essays written by U.S. and Finnish university students.

There are two possible objections to counting this as a single metadiscursive unit. The first is that it is in fact possible to divide the sentence further into different categories of metadiscourse (each with a separate function). For example, ‘my purpose’ is a statement by the writer persona, motivating the existence of the text or chunk of text, and the phrase ‘in this article’ is a reference to the text itself. If we adopt more of a micro-level perspective, the distinctions made will be finer. The second objection is a technical-definitional one; it is not necessarily the case that the entire sentence should be considered metadiscursive. The last part of the sentence simply states the topic; it does not comment reflexively on it.35 Even though the topic is a linguistic study, the “real world” is in focus. Mentioning of the essays does not constitute a reference to the evolving text. The unit to compare, on the other hand, could possibly be regarded as metadiscursive, on the grounds that it could be seen as an explicit label of a discourse act. One of the very few researchers into metadiscourse who explicitly bring up counting procedures is Bunton (1999). His perspective is more inclusive than that of most researchers in the field. Although most researchers would generally regard a chunk like we show below that . . . as one metadiscursive unit (a Preview), Bunton (1999: 50) also considers the rest of the sentence (i.e. the entire that-clause) to be metadiscourse. Bunton (1999: 50) also reports counting as metatext (what he calls a ‘thesisscope preview’) a whole paragraph ending with the sentence This is precisely the focus of the present research, on the grounds that “it was only the rest of the paragraph that in fact gave the focus of the research, and thus of the thesis”. In the present approach, the rest of the paragraph (whatever it consists of; the full example is not given) would most likely not be analysed as metadiscourse. In the text, the focus of the research itself if not restricted to the world of discourse; it is given (and designed) by the writer primarily as a researcher, not as a writer. It is part of the subject matter of the text and not a comment on the text itself, or its language. Our main concern here is reflexive comments on the topic (e.g. announcing the topic, or apologising to the reader for the choice of topic), not the topic per se. The present perspective is a micro-level one in that several occurrences of various types of metadiscourse within a clause may be counted. This is in contrast to researchers like Bunton (1999), Crismore et al. (1993) and Mauranen (1993), who take the approach of considering larger chunks of discourse. There are certainly good arguments for doing it their way, but for the present comparison of learner and native-speaker writing, micro-level analysis seems to give a more accurate picture of the density and types of metadiscourse.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.5 (302-366)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

The purpose of the study of personal metadiscourse is to find all occurrences of first or second person pronouns in the following context:36 (4) (subject NP in the form of personal pronoun) + (finite VP)

Depending on the subject pronoun, these occurrences are called (a) I-units, (b) we-units, and (c) you-units. Each unit will be counted as one occurrence. In this way of counting metadiscourse units, we do not cross clause or sentence boundaries. Even if two succeeding clauses have the same function, they will be counted as two instances of personal metadiscourse (marked by letters in square brackets in (5) below). (5) Recessions seem to occur approximately every ten or fifteen years. But perhaps [a] I should explain what [b] I mean when [c] I am talking about a recession. Simply put; it is triggered by a recession in a country’s main markets. Then this leads to a fall in the economic activities in our country. (Swicle 167)

There are several first person Is within one sentence here, and all subjects + their VPs are counted separately, in dependent as well as in matrix clauses. Unit [a] is an explicit discourse act (explanation), [b] is definitional metadiscourse and [c] explicitly refers to an act of discoursing. Should we adopt a more macro-level (or ‘holistic’) approach, for example by counting one type of metadiscourse per sentence, we would have to come up with one main function for all three I-units in (5) taken together. A micro-level method of quantifying personal metadiscourse (i.e. one subject + VP at a time) seems preferable, because (a) it allows for greater precision in describing frequencies and uses of personal metadiscourse, and (b) it makes comparisons across corpora more reliable.37 The database set up for the present study easily allows this type of analysis, since the pronouns themselves were used as search words at the retrieval stage, and a sentence such as (5) would be stored three times in the database, once for each pronoun occurrence. Which counting method is appropriate depends partly on the purpose of the analysis. A micro-level analysis is more detailed and fine-tuned than a macro-level one, and the former will give more opportunities for mapping the differences and similarities in the use of metadiscourse across texts. It seems that, if our main interest is the various functions of metadiscourse, we should find as many of them as possible and count them separately, but if the main aim is to distinguish between metadiscourse and non-metadiscourse across texts, a macro-level view might be preferred. In previous studies of metadiscourse, two main units have been used for measuring frequencies: the word (e.g. Hyland 1998) and the sentence (e.g. Mauranen 1993). In measuring the amount of metadiscourse in a variety of texts in En-



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.6 (366-450)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

glish, Hyland (1998) checks the density of metadiscourse per 1,000 words. He bases his examination on a word count, although the exact procedure is not described. Crismore and Farnsworth (1990) also count word occurrences, based on the number of words per instance of metadiscourse per 100 words. Similarly, Vande Kopple’s pioneering study (1988) uses the word level, contrasting the number of non-metadiscursive (‘propositional’) words versus words in metadiscursive expressions, to compare the percentages of both kinds across texts.38 Mauranen (1993: 190), on the other hand, sums up her sentence-based method as follows: “if several reflexive expressions appear in one sentence, they count as one occurrence. The sentences are classified according to their highest value, that is, if expressions of high explicitness occur, the sentence is counted as belonging to the highly explicit class”. Two potential problems with this method were found, which led to the decision not to use it for the present investigation. Firstly, if the mean sentence length varies across corpora (or essays), the results will be skewed. From the perspective of the present study, it seems likely that learners in particular will use fewer embeddings and have a generally simpler syntax in comparison with native speakers, making for fewer opportunities per sentence. Secondly, using Mauranen’s method of counting in the present investigation would obscure certain ‘overuse’ such as cases in which several instances of metadiscourse occur within a sentence. Learners in particular tend to string together several metadiscourse units at a time (as tested and confirmed in a study on the density of metadiscourse reported in 3.4). Just for the sake of argument, another conflicting aspect of counting sentences has to do with the notion of metadiscourse as non-propositional material (see discussion in Appendix 3). Why would one have this macro-level perspective on counting metadiscourse, while at the same time supporting the notion that metadiscourse is non-propositional material? Counting a whole sentence (at least if it is a statement) would by definition involve propositional material. To sum up, in the present study I will count neither words nor sentences, but specifically delimited instances (referred to as ‘units’). The conditions of counting in a computer-assisted study are different from manual counts of the proportion of metadiscourse in texts. In the study of personal metadiscourse, the unit of counting is what I call the ‘metadiscursive unit’ (I-, we- and you-units), tied to a particular pronoun. In the study of impersonal metadiscourse, on the other hand, I count impersonal units, based on the individual search term (see Chapter 4).

. Distribution of personal metadiscourse The distribution of personal metadiscourse (based on subject forms of first and second person pronouns) across the corpora is shown in Table 1.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.7 (450-509)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

Table 1. Total frequency of personal metadiscourse

Swicle AmE BrE

Corpus size in words

Raw frequency

Frequency per 100,000 words

204,630 149,767 95,508

540 167 52

265 111 54

The results reveal considerable differences across the corpora. The main pattern is that the Swedish learners use more than twice as much personal metadiscourse as the American university students. The American university students, in turn, use twice as much personal metadiscourse as the British university students. Compared to the British university students, the Swedish learners use five times as many expressions of personal metadiscourse. To bring out this pattern more clearly, the results are shown graphically in Figure 1. The three bars in Figure 1 form a slope that illustrates the considerable differences in the use of personal metadiscourse – particularly in writing by non-native speakers versus native speakers, but also in writing in AmE versus BrE. Let us turn to some of the details concealed behind these broad differences and examine the occurrences of personal metadiscourse from the perspective of the pronouns (subject forms only) involved. Table 2 sums up the frequencies across the three corpora. Of the three pronominal forms, first person singular I displays the greatest difference across the corpora. The Swedish learners heavily overuse personal

Figure 1. Frequency per 100,000 words of all personal metadiscourse



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.8 (509-557)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 2. Frequency of I, we and you in metadiscursive units ‘I’ Swicle AmE BrE

‘we’

‘you’

n

f/100,000

n

f/100,000

n

f/100,000

347 72 20

170 48 21

84 38 29

41 25 30

110 57 3

54 38 3

metadiscourse involving I. Either writer visibility is a greater concern to this group than to the native speakers, or avoiding writer visibility is a greater concern to the native speakers – or both. In the British material, explicit writer visibility is very rare; this material contains only one-eighth as many I-units as the learner material. Personal metadiscourse involving we presents quite a different picture. Proportionally, the differences are much slighter than for the I-units. The Swedish learners are still at the top, but not by as dramatic a figure; the British university students do not lag far behind. The American university students, whose overall behaviour is most like the Swedish learners, actually use fewer metadiscursive we-units than the British university students by a slim margin. Appealing to the imagined reader through the use of we-units seems to be slightly more important to the Swedish learners than to the British university students, and only slightly less so to the American university students. On the whole, though, this type of mock solidarity or writer-reader co-operation does not manifest great differences across the corpora. When we look at personal metadiscourse involving you, the picture that emerged for the I-units reappears. The Swedish learners use considerably more metadiscourse involving you than the two native-speaker groups, although the differences are not as pronounced as for the I-units. Metadiscourse involving you is quite popular in the AmE material, but very scarce in the BrE data. In the learner and AmE essays, you-units are used more frequently than we-units, while the British writers show a strong preference for we-units. To sum up, the main quantitative findings are that the Swedish learner essays contain considerably more personal metadiscourse than the native-speaker groups, particularly in personal metadiscourse involving I, and, to a lesser degree, you. Metadiscourse involving you is marginal in the BrE essays, but quite popular in the learner and AmE essays. Metadiscourse involving we, on the other hand, does not differ as much across corpora in terms of frequencies. In Section 3.5 below, I will examine what functions the units of personal metadiscourse fulfil in the essays and compare them across the corpora. Before that, I will discuss the density of metadiscourse, which is another factor that differentiates the learners from the native speakers.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.9 (557-640)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

. The density of metadiscourse The word “racism” is not so easy to define, but before I start writing an essay about this word and its meaning, I had better try to define my view of what lies in the word “racism”. [. . .] (Swicle 322)

The excerpt above is a wordy example of the tendency of the Swedish learners to string together metadiscursive units. This is one aspect of the ‘heavy structure’ of metadiscourse in learner writing that emerges from reading the Swedish learner texts. In order to measure this tendency, I investigated the ‘density’ of metadiscourse across the three corpora. One way of estimating density is to look at how metadiscursive units cluster together. I went through examples of personal metadiscourse in the database and counted how many instances occurred per sentence. The investigation was restricted to I-units (the subject pronoun I + its VP, functioning as metadiscourse). The units of personal metadiscourse were used as anchor points, and each of them was counted as one instance. If there were any further types of metadiscourse expressions in the sentences in which these units occurred, they were also included in the density count. This means that not only personal types of metadiscourse were included, but all impersonal kinds co-occurring with these, too, provided that they co-occurred within the same sentence. This is one way of checking the density of metadiscourse. Note that it does not account for all occurrences of metadiscourse in the texts but only maps how metadiscourse units cluster together around these particular metadiscursive pronoun units. The results confirm that not only do the learners use more metadiscourse in their texts than the native speakers, but they also use more metadiscourse at a time. Table 3 presents the frequencies numerically, while Figure 2 presents them visually. The numbers have been normalised and give the frequency per 100,000 words.39 The columns have been divided into number of occurrences of one, two, three and four or more units per sentence. These results further underline the differences in the use of metadiscourse between the learners and the native speakers. The difference is not only that the nonnative speakers generally overuse metadiscourse in relation to the native speakers, Table 3. Strings of metadiscourse clustering around instances of metadiscourse (I-units) across the corpora

Swicle AmE BrE

1

2

3

4+

48 15 1

56 15 16

26 6 2

20 2 2



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.10 (640-658)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Figure 2. Strings of metadiscourse clustering around instances of personal metadiscourse (I-units) across corpora

but also that the learners use many metadiscursive expressions at the same time. They cluster metadiscourse together in ways that the native speakers do not; when the native speakers do use metadiscourse in their argumentative texts, they rarely include more than two metadiscursive expressions per sentence. The term ‘native-like selection’ (Pawley & Syder 1983: 191) refers to the notion that “[s]peakers and writers have their own ways of speaking and writing about things, people and events which may involve words or constructions which are not only grammatical but also ‘native-like”’. As Aijmer (2001: 247) puts it, “[e]ven advanced learners of English with a good command of the basic rules of syntax and semantics may use [. . .] linguistic resources in a way that is not recognized as appropriate and normal by native speakers of English. Such deviations from the norm are present in a text as an impression of non-nativeness or lack of idiomaticity”. Putting one’s finger on exactly how and where advanced learners lack idiomaticity in the foreign language, or why their texts give an impression of nonnativeness, can be very hard. In the present case, however, one thing is beyond doubt: the Swedish learners do not achieve native-like selection either in terms of overall frequency or density of personal metadiscourse.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.11 (658-720)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

. The discourse functions of personal metadiscourse So far, I have reported considerable quantitative differences in the extent to which the three groups of writers anchor their essays in the current discourse situation. We know the frequencies with which the writer persona and the imagined reader are made visible in the different corpora, but we do not know what types of acts are performed when this happens.40 It may be the case, for example, that the differences across corpora run deeper than simple frequency of use, and certain discourse functions may not be used across the board. Alternatively, if all three groups of writers use the same set of discourse functions, they may still do so in different proportions. With the purpose of qualitatively mapping out the differences in personal metadiscourse across corpora, I analysed the discourse functions performed when writers use personal metadiscourse.41 While the other chapters of this book mainly focus on linguistic functions in general terms, we are now going to turn to more micro-level discourse functions, which will be illustrated by examples from the corpora. In the following, we will look at the immediate discourse context of instances of personal metadiscourse and describe what rhetorical function or discourse act the metadiscursive expression performs. I will present a taxonomy of discourse acts that metadiscursive I, we and you are employed to carry out. The taxonomy is based on my own judgement (supported by colleagues) of the function of the units of personal metadiscourse in the texts (there is no input from the writers themselves, for example). Although some of the examples certainly allow alternative interpretations, the model is still capable of giving us important insights into what writers use personal metadiscourse for. Previous research has not discussed in much detail the discourse functions of metadiscourse. Chapter 7 summarises previous research on metadiscourse and presents taxonomies of metadiscourse developed by a variety of researchers. Those taxonomies tend to describe the functions of metadiscursive expressions in fairly broad terms and tend not to analyse functions in their immediate discourse context in detail. Below, I include two of the most detailed taxonomies of the discourse functions of metadiscourse from the literature. First, Table 4 summarises the ten functions for which Vassileva (1998) found the first person singular I to be employed. Next, Table 5 summarises the 12 discourse functions that Kuo (1998) found for first person plural we. Vassileva’s study is based on research articles in linguistics in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian, while Kuo’s study is based on English-language scientific journal articles in computer science, electronic engineering and physics.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.12 (720-860)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 4. Vassileva’s (1998) taxonomy of functions of ‘I’ in academic writing Function

Definition and example

Aims/procedures/data Describing aims, procedures or data analyses. analysis ([will (would)/shall or going to] + [verbs like attempt, outline, argue, suggest, propose, consider, discuss, etc.]) Self-reference (a) Author referring back in the text to something she has already mentioned/stated/established (usually co-occurring with above), or (b) author quoting herself or giving a reference to previous publication Personal Referring to previous personal experience or research methodology experience and procedures. (. . .First I tried. . . Then I tried. . .) Terminology Introducing terms, especially when created by the author herself. Also refers to adapting familiar terminology for current purposes. (By ‘x’ I refer to. . .) Focusing Narrowing down goals, purposes, expectations concerning the outcome, etc. (I want to focus on. . .) Personal view Expressing personal view. Commonly linguistically realised by means of verbs of thinking and emotion, such as think, believe, feel, hope, fear. Exemplification Citing examples. (I will briefly illustrate. . .) Conclusions Using the ‘I’ perspective in the conclusive part of the research article. (To conclude this discussion of . . ., I shall consider. . .) Reference Referring to other people’s work. Direct and indirect citation. Permission Special case that finds its linguistic expression in the phrase let me.

For ease of comparison, the two taxonomies are followed by Table 6, which is a summary of my own taxonomy. The table includes brief definitions and examples from the corpora. This is followed by a more detailed account of the discourse functions, as well as more examples from the material. The frequencies of the various discourse functions will be compared across corpora at the end of the chapter. Table 4 lists Vassileva’s (1998) analysis of the functions of the ‘I’ perspective. The brief definitions given are mine, extracted from the running text of Vassileva’s article. The examples are Vassileva’s. Table 5 lists Kuo’s (1998) analysis of the discourse functions of we. The functions were formulated so as to be more or less self-explanatory and Kuo does not give specific definitions. The examples are Kuo’s. It is interesting to note that Vassileva (1998) and Kuo (1998) take quite different perspectives. While Kuo’s main concern is epistemology and the transmission of knowledge in discourse, Vassileva is more concerned with textual structure. It is also clear that genre exerts an influence on what types of discourse acts are performed. For example, Vassileva’s material, which is from the social sciences, involves ‘personal view’ and ‘self-reference’, which are absent from Kuo’s texts from the hard sciences.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.13 (860-1020)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

Table 5. Kuo’s (1998) taxonomy of functions of we in scientific journal articles Function

Example

Explaining what was done First, we use synthesized textures to demonstrate our approach. Proposing a theory, approach, . . .we propose to use a statistical quality control procedure. etc. Stating a goal or purpose In this paper, we are concerned with the carrier collection necessary to support stimulated emission in ultrathin quantum wells. Showing results or findings We found no correlation of failures between bonded and unbonded lasers, thus excluding the possibility of bonding stress. Justifying a proposition Since we also consider negative cues, we use Mode to indicate whether a cue is positive or negative. Hedging a proposition or claim We assume that the mistake in copying never gets too big . . . Assuming shared knowledge, Let us consider a set of four cues . . . , namely,. . . We easily see that goals, beliefs, etc. C1, C2 and C3 are in the same thread t1. Seeking agreement or As an example, we consider a symmetric situation in which both cooperation gain sections are exactly 300 mm in length . . . Showing commitment or Finally, we believe that LEW satisfies better the important contribution to research criterion of comprehensibility. . . Comparing approaches, This topic has been addressed for image processing applications viewpoints, etc. by Wilson and Granlund. We next address this issue from an analytical viewpoint,.. Giving a reason or indicating We have to modify them instead, according to the peculiarity that necessity ... Expressing wish or expectation We wish to select a window that is of a specified size . . .

The university student essays that constitute the material of the present investigation are in many ways different from the published research articles studied by Vassileva and Kuo. In addition, the fact that non-native speaker material is included makes it likely that we will find in the corpus material categories atypical of argumentative writing. Tables 6 and 7 below present the discourse functions identified in the present study. The order reflects the order in which they will presented in the next section. The main categories ‘Metatext’ and ‘Writer-reader interaction’ are indicated in the table. As discussed in Section 2.6.1, I draw a distinction between these two basic types of metadiscourse. ‘Metatext’ spells out aspects of the text itself, such as textual organisation and language use. Writers employ metatext to comment on their own discourse actions qua organizers of the text and qua language users. ‘Writer-reader interaction’, on the other hand, primarily focusses on writer-reader relations. It refers to linguistic expressions that are used to address readers directly – to engage them in a mock dialogue. One way for writers to show awareness of and interact with their imagined readers is through expressions that anticipate the reader’s response.42



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

CODE

Table 6. Taxonomy of personal metadiscourse functions: Metatext

TEXT: focus on structure of essay



F: SCL2403.tex / p.14 (1020-1089)

Discourse function

Example

Defining explicitly comments on how to interpret terminology. Saying involves general verba dicendi such as say, speak, talk or write, in which the fact that something is being communicated is foregrounded.

What do we mean by _ then? We have to consider our definition of _ What I am saying is _ A question I ask myself is _

Introducing the Topic gives explicit proclamations of what the text is going to be about, which facilitates the processing of the subsequent text for the reader. Focussing refers to a topic that has already been introduced in the text: announces that the topic is in focus again, or it narrows down. Concluding is used to conclude a topic. Exemplifying explicitly introduces an example.

In the course of this essay, we shall attempt to analyse whether _ I will discuss _

Reminding points backwards in the discourse to something that has been said before. Adding overtly states that a piece of information or an argument is being added to existing one(s). Arguing stresses the discourse act being performed in addition to expressing an opinion or viewpoint. Verbs used are performatives. Contextualising contains traces of the production of the text or comments on (the conditions of) the situation of writing.

As I mentioned earlier, _ As we have seen, _ I would like to add that _

Now I come to the next idea which I presented in the beginning _ I will only discuss the opponents of _ In conclusion, I would say that _ As an example of _, we can look at _ If we take _ as an example

The _ which I argue for is _

I have chosen this subject because _ I could go on much longer, but _

The discourse functions can be mapped onto the three Jakobsonian functions of metadiscourse, with the code/text, the writer and the reader as the central components of metadiscourse, as in Figure 3. The numbers in the top row, used for subcategories of metatext, are meant to distinguish between categories which primarily comment on code (1), discourse context (2), discourse act specific to topic (3), discourse act in general (4). The discourse functions that are classified as Metatext (text/code-oriented) are Saying and Defining (which primarily foreground the code); Exemplifying, Reminding, Adding, Arguing (which primarily comment on various discourse acts), Introducing Topic, Focussing, Concluding (which perform discourse acts that specifically relate to the topic), and Contextualising (which specifically makes comments that pertain to the discourse context). The discourse functions that are classified as Writer-reader interaction (participant-oriented) are Anticipating the Reader’s Reaction, Clarifying, Aligning Per-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.15 (1089-1089)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

PARTICIPANT: focus on writer and/or reader of current text

Table 7. Taxonomy of personal metadiscourse functions: Writer-reader interaction Discourse function

Example

Anticipating the Reader’s Reaction pays special attention to predicting the reader’s reaction to what is said, e.g. by explicitly attributing statements to the reader as possible objections or counterarguments conceived by him. Clarifying marks a desire to clarify matters for the reader; motivated by a wish to avoid misinterpretation. Negative statements are common. Aligning perspectives takes it for granted that the reader takes the writer’s perspective. The reader’s agreement is presupposed. Imagining Scenarios is a ‘picture this’ type of encouragement that (often politely) asks the reader to see something from a specific perspective. It allows writers to make examples vivid and pertinent to the reader. Hypothesising about the Reader makes guesses about the reader and his knowledge or attitudes. Appealing to the Reader attempts to influence the reader by emotional appeal. The writer persona conveys her attitude with the aim of correcting or entreating the reader.

I do realise that all this may sound _ You probably never heard of _ before either You would be very surprised at _ I am not saying _, I am merely pointing out that _ By this I do not mean that _ If we [consider/ compare] _, we [can/will] [understand/see] _ If you consider _, you can perhaps imagine _ Think back to when you were _ When you were that age _ You have probably heard people say that _ I hope that now the reader has understood _ In order for _ You and I must keep our minds open

Metatext Saying Defining

Contextualising

Intruducing Topic Focussing Concluding TEXT (metalinguistic)

WRITER (expressive)

Exemplifying Reminding Adding Arguing

READER (directive)

Imagining Hypothesising Appealing to Anticipating R’s Clarifying Aligning Reaction Perspectives Scenarios about Reader Reader Writer-reader interaction

Figure 3. The discourse functions of personal metadiscourse in relation to the text (metalinguistic function), the writer (expressive function) and the reader (directive function)



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.16 (1089-1154)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

spectives, Imagining Scenarios, Hypothesising About the Reader, and Appealing to the Reader. The discourse functions will be exemplified further in the following sections in the order in which they were brought up above: first those in the category Metatext and then those in the category Writer-reader interaction. .. Metatext

1. Defining Defining units are often used to introduce terms; they explicitly comment on how to interpret concepts that are central to the text. The label is similar to Vassileva’s (1998) ‘Terminology’, although she uses it to refer to a specific discourse function in academic writing. Her definition is narrower than mine, since she includes only the introduction of a term in a text, disregarding phenomena such as comments on how to interpret a concept and definitional uncertainty. According to Vassileva’s (1998: 168) results, Terminology is relatively frequent, accounting for some 10 per cent of the uses of the ‘I’ perspective in academic writing in English. In this investigation, the native writers do not seem to find this category as useful as the learner writers. The learners’ favourite use of Defining (in particular involving I) is to present a definition or to comment on terminology issues. Such instances come in a range of different forms, many of them co-occurring with the verbs mean, interpret, call, and say, as in example (6): (6) When it comes to making a choice between integration and assimilation, assimilation would probably be considered the easiest way by some people. I do not quite understand what is meant by assimilation. Does it suggest that immigrants coming to Sweden for instance should absorb Swedish culture, traditions and language [. . .] (Swicle 010)

The writer comments on the meaning of a word (assimilation, which is also the topic of the essay). Like (6), many instances of this category are negative statements that deal with definitions that are not clear-cut. Defining quite commonly co-occurs with we in all three corpora. Verbs like call and mean frequently have this function in the learner corpus, as illustrated in (7) and (8): (7) Computers, television and newspapers are all part of what we call media today, and which has an extremely strong effect on us in our daily lives. (Swicle 132) (8) What do we mean by imagination then? Roget’s Thesaurus’ subtitles are: “vision, thought, idea, imagination, and falsehood”. (Swicle 098)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.17 (1154-1217)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

Example (7) lists three phenomena that are part of the concept of ‘media’ and work as a definition of the term. In (8), the writer resorts to a thesaurus to describe the everyday concept ‘imagination’. Few you-units in the material comment on definitions or clarify terminology issues. In such instances, the if you like construction, or verbs like call or define, are used, as in “If we go back to Roth’s novella and to Neil Klugman, we see that Neil actually finds a third position that you might call reconciliation, both with his own culture and with the white American culture” (Swicle 145).

2. Saying Saying involves general verba dicendi such as say, speak, talk or write. Extracts from the corpora are given in (9): (9) What I am saying is _ I am talking about _ A question I ask myself is _ I can mention that _ I can’t say that _ I can only talk for myself I have talked a lot about _, because _ If I may express myself this way when I say that _

Examples of Saying that involve we co-occur with verba dicendi like say and talk. Some of them simultaneously function as hedges, usually involving modal can or could (e.g. we could say that . . .). Some instances of this type are used to remind the reader of the main topic while bringing up some fact that is important to the argumentation, as in (10): (10) First of all, when we talk about longer prison terms we must bear in mind that in Sweden the hardest punishment is twelwe years, and mostly ever. . . (Swicle 130)

The ‘talking’ activity is ambiguous in this case. It could be taking place both in the world of discourse (with we referring to the writer and the imagined reader), and in the ‘real world’ (with we having generic reference). The verb say is the only verb that co-occurs with second person pronoun you in this function, as in example (11): (11) [. . .] the Middle East. Down there mankind has been working on its own extermination for millennia. I guess you might say it all started when Kain slew Abel, and that was certainly a long time ago. (Swicle 077)



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.18 (1217-1274)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

In this example, you does not directly refer to the imagined reader, but rather to the writer persona, who is the one who actually expresses the idea. Like the previous example, though, it also has a generic reading. Generic you is not included as metadiscursive you-units, but this is a borderline case, with a metalinguistic verb. No examples at all of this type were found in the BrE material, while there is a single instance in the AmE material. It comes across as rather odd: (12) I don’t know how to express how important it is that everyone listen and follow the rules while riding the go-carts at an amusement park, but hopefully if you are reading this, the point will come across to you. (AmE 160)

The writer begins her text by showing doubt that the reader will actually get the message or that she will be able to express it. The reader is addressed (you), there is a metalinguistic verb in the continuous present (reading), and a reference to the text (this). An odd implicature is created by the conditional clause, which is that the writer is not sure that the reader is reading the text.43 Example (13) below, from the very end of a learner essay, is highly unconventional: (13) Ps. I want female leaders too but I didn’t want to write “he or she” all the time. (Swicle 333)

The writer comments on her use of pronouns in the previous discourse. It is interesting that a postscript rather than, say, a footnote, or a parenthesis in the text itself, is used.44 This shows that the writer wishes to keep it at a different level from the running text. Strangely, the postscript suggests that the writer is transforming the argumentative essay into a letter (rather than an academic paper), perhaps directed to the grading teacher. Instances like these, in combination with an extraordinarily high degree of involvement and dialogic features in the learner essays (cf. Altenberg 1997), may lead one to wonder how clear it is to the learner writers what their writing task is, and how familiar the learners actually are with academic writing.

3. Contextualising The category called Contextualising exhibits traces of the production of the text, with the text explicitly referred to as an artefact. Writers sometimes use personal metadiscourse to comment on the situation of writing in various ways. This category is similar to what Luukka (1994: 80–81) calls contextual metadiscourse, defined as “utterances that somehow relate either to the communicative situation, to the text as product or to the process of production.” She gives the following examples:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.19 (1274-1338)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

(14) I’ll move this slide a little bit so that you can see better. . . Now let me see, what was I going to say. . . These differences can be seen in picture 1.

Luukka studies academic conference papers in Finnish, in both their spoken and written forms. As expected, the amount of contextual metadiscourse was found to be higher in spoken texts, which are ‘live’ performances in a context that does not allow revision. It is noteworthy that the non-native speakers display higher awareness of the situation of writing than the native speakers. There are some dozen instances of Contextualising involving I in the learner data, but only one occurrence in each of the native-speaker corpora. It is often the case that the examples present the writers’ motivations for having chosen a particular topic, or that the writers state that their essays would be too long if they were to expand on an issue. By doing so, they either avoid a lengthy discussion or acknowledge the complexity of an issue. Different conditions of writing, in particular the learners’ primarily doing sit-in exams and the native speakers’ primarily doing take-home exams are likely to explain why the conditions of writing are so visible in some of the learner essays. In example (15), all I-units in the first couple of sentences in this introductory paragraph have been marked. The title of the essay is ‘Reflections on being a mature student’. (15) This paper deal with the disadvantages and advantages that might occur when starting to study later in life. [a] I have chosen this subject because [b] I found it interesting to reflect upon a situation that [c] I might find myself in, one day. (Swicle 298)

Quite conventionally, the essay starts by introducing the topic. The writer then explicitly brings up the fact that she chose this topic (in [a]), which we know was on a test occasion, just before she started to write the essay. Unit [b] is a comment on the writer persona’s motivation for choosing this particular topic, whereas [c] – which does not qualify as metadiscourse – moves out of the realm of the discourse world, referring to a hypothetical ‘I’ as an experiencer in the ‘real’ world. Another type of Contextualising metatext involves complaints on restrictions in space or time that apply to the situation of writing, as in (16). (16) Admittedly you can do all these things elsewhere, but never to the same extent as is possible in a university city. I could go on much longer, but neither time nor space is unlimited and therefore I will return to the question why. (Swicle 307)

Much longer is a structural or temporal metadiscursive unit, and the neither time nor space is unlimited clause explicitly refers to the temporal and spatial conditions of essay writing.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.20 (1338-1436)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Below are two examples involving verbal think. Generally, think as a modal verb is not classified as metadiscourse, but is rather an expression of the writer’s attitude or opinion. However, as a verb of cognition, think can be metadiscursive, referring to the world of discourse, as in (17). (17) Do we then have a place for dreaming and imagination in our modern world? Yes, we have, definitely! I am especially thinking of one line of business where you must use both your fantasy and the latest in technology. What I am talking about is the business of imagination, the film industry. (Swicle 083)

Here, the writer is telling her readers about what is on her mind at the time of composing the text. At this particular stage in the writing process, the writer claims to be reflecting on a particular aspect of the main topic (dreaming and imagination). In a somewhat roundabout way, this example also answers the topical question posed. This is an example of first person singular I performing in the context of composing. Also note the second occurrence of I in this example, which also uses the continuous present to anchor it to the time of writing. The intended effect could be to make the argumentation more vivid to the reader. The second example of Contextualising that involves cognitive think is in (18): (18) The only argument against celebrating Christmas abroad that I can think about now is the obvious loss of not being able to see Donald Duck and the other cartoons on Christmas Eve. (Swicle 182)

The restrictive relative clause refers to the writer’s ability to come up with ideas for the essay at the time of writing (now). It also functions as a hedge, excusing the writer somewhat from the requirement to bring up counterarguments that anticipate objections the reader might have. There is only one example of contextualising metadiscourse co-occurring with first person we, which is also the case for second person you.

4. Introducing Topic One of the most common functions of personal metadiscourse in all three writer groups is to introduce the topic. Explicit proclamations of what the text is going to be about facilitates the processing of the subsequent text for the reader. Introducing Topic is always a ‘Preview’ (see 4.3.1) in the sense that it introduces what is going to come in the text. This discourse act is usually found in the first paragraph, often in combination with references to the text, such as in this essay. The units most often involve modal verbs like will and would (I will V, I will try to V, I am going to V, I would like to V). The most common lexical verbs are discuss, give (account), mention, present, show, start, and write about. We thus get the following scheme:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.21 (1436-1476)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

Most frequently, first person singular I is used to introduce the topic, but plural we is also commonly used for this purpose in all three corpora. Example (19) illustrates the latter: (19) . . . with Europe is the belief that it will imply a loss of sovereignty for the elected government. In the course of this essay, we shall attempt to analyse whether this is a belief founded in reality and, if it is, why it should cause such fear. (BrE 089)

Here, we can be interpreted as an authorial, exclusive we, i.e. not including the imagined reader. Firstly, the act of carrying out an analysis of this kind is most likely attributed to the writer. Secondly, the fact that the example is hedged by attempt to suggests that the writer intends to exclude the reader. It would not be very polite to include the reader in this type of modesty, since this would downtone the reader’s ability as well. No you-units are represented in this category. In this taxonomy of discourse functions, a distinction is drawn between Introducing Topic and Focussing. This distinction is dependent on the information status of whatever is being introduced in the discourse. When an aim is stated, it means that the writer introduces a brand new topic, which usually takes place in the first paragraph. When the writer ‘focusses’ on a topic, on the other hand, the function is to resume or make active a topic that has already been mentioned in the text.

5. Focussing Units that serve the function Focussing refer to a topic that has already been introduced in the text. Such units are used by the writer to signal that the topic is being focussed on again. Vassileva (1998: 170) introduced the term ‘focussing’, in which she includes “cases of employing the ‘I’ perspective in order to narrow down goals, purposes, expectations concerning the outcome, etc.” It is said to aim at “concentrating the readers’ attention on the specifics of what is to follow” (Vassileva ibid.). In example (20), it is explicitly stated that the topic has been mentioned previously in the essay.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.22 (1476-1541)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

(20) Now I come to the next idea which I presented in the beginning, that technology and imagination are very closely connected. As I said, I think that [. . .] (Swicle 048)

Note the References to the Text (now; in the beginning) and the reminders of previous text chunks or statements (the next idea which I presented. . .; As I said). The reader has already been made familiar with the existence of these subtopics, and the Focussing unit simply signals that this is the place in the text where they will be elaborated on. No instances of Focussing were found to co-occur with you, but first persons I and we have similar frequencies. Several of the examples involving we co-occur with the adverb first, or the verb begin, as in (21). (21) If we begin by looking at the technological side we find here the forces that have transformed the earth to what we live on today. Industrialisation, innovations, technical progress etc. have laid the ground for improved health care and hygiene, communications and transportation and so on and so forth. (Swicle 067)

The topic of technology (versus imagination) has already been brought up in this essay. The we-unit simply states that the writer intends to begin the current paragraph by presenting advantages of technology. It narrows down – or focusses – the main topic.

6. Concluding Writers often use personal metadiscourse to conclude a topic. As expected, the great majority of such instances occur in the final paragraph. The formula As a conclusion, I would like to say/state. . . is quite common in the learner material. The present perfect form of discuss also occurs. Many of the learner examples display a modest writer persona, using verbs like hope and try, as in (22): (22) To make a short summary of what I have been trying to say in this essay, technology will never make imagination and dreams unnecessary for two main reasons. First, they are the condition of technology. [. . .] Second, imagination and dreams is something we are born with. (Swicle 048)

The nouns summary and conclusion are used quite frequently for this function, as are their verbal variants. In Vassileva (1998: 171), the term ‘conclusions’ is used for this discourse function. No more than 3 per cent of the discourse functions in her sample of professional academic writing in English was found to fulfil this function, in constructions with both I and we. In the present material, only I-units serve this function. The learners use the function more often than the native speakers.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.23 (1541-1602)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

In many ways, introductions and conclusions are the most important parts of a text. Even in fairly impersonal and non-dialogic texts, these are the places in which the writer persona and the imagined reader are most likely to be found. I will discuss and empirically test patterns of textual distribution in Chapter 5.

7. Exemplifying In the learner data, the writer sometimes chooses to become visible when giving an example. This does not happen in the native-speaker texts. The author’s absence in giving examples in English texts is supported by Vassileva (1998: 171), who finds that the function ‘exemplification’ is “rather incidental” in combination with first person pronouns in academic writing. Impersonal formulaic expressions for signalling examples, like for example, for instance and such as, are used more or less to the same extent by the three groups (see 4.3). The point of divergence is that, when giving examples, the learners use personal metadiscourse in addition to the impersonal ones. The instance of Exemplifying in example (23) takes the form of a sentence: (23) Some technicians and possibly thinkers – to whom problems are the possibilities to find the solutions to – have really contributed to our environmental welfare. I want to pick out one example. A japanese company produces high quality bricks from garbage - with a thin layer of “real” brick material around them. (Swicle 362)

In this metadiscursive unit, the writer overtly states her intentions in a cumbersome and unconventional way. The general purpose is to support the argument. Some of the constructions involving we found in the learner material are listed in (24): (24) we can look at _ [matter, problem] if we look at _ if we take/use _ [as an example] we have a(n) (ADJ) example in _

Exemplifying involving we is more common than I, while you-units are never used for this purpose.

8. Reminding In the category Reminding, we find discourse acts that make use of deictics (see 4.3.1 on Phorics) that point backwards in the discourse to something has been said before. Reminding units often co-occur with adverbials like before and earlier to refer to parts of the text. Common verbs are describe, mention, say and state, always used in the past tense, as in example (25):



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.24 (1602-1673)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

(25) The reason for this could be traced back to the impact of modern technology. As I mentioned earlier, today’s technology aims at saving time. But, in doing so it also makes everything go faster. And, in going faster it makes us believe that. . . (Swicle 107)

Reminding units work as a kind of reader alert, the idea being that things that are reiterated are especially important. The term ‘self-reference’ is used in Vassileva (1998: 169) for cases in which “the author refers back in the text to something he/she has already mentioned/stated/established and, second, [. . .] quotes him/herself ”. Self-reference is essentially the same thing as Reminding, with the exception of quoting.45 I prefer the term Reminding to Self-reference, because (a) this discourse function also co-occurs with we and you (while the ‘self ’ prefix strongly suggests the writer exclusively), and (b) the gerund form stresses the notion that this is a textual action carried out by the writer in the evolving text. Not to mention the fact that there are many different kinds of self-reference. Practically none of the you-units in the material fill a Reminding function, but there are some examples among the we-units, most of which involve the verb see, as in (26): (26) Drawing the people into reading is not the problem, as we have seen, but rather keeping their interest. (AmE 041)

This is a typical comment clause (Quirk et al. 1985: 15.53) in the form of an asclause. Other verbs of perception, such as look at, are also common in the material. They may be alternated for lexical variation, as in (27): (27) We have seen how it has involved through history and is now is very high. We have also looked at why divorce exists. (AmE 079)

Especially when we is used, Reminding can be quite persuasive in suggesting that the writer and reader agree, or take the same perspective.

9. Adding Adding metatext overtly states that a chunk of text or an argument is being added to the existing one(s). The lexical verb add is most common, as exemplified in (28): (28) Even though I agree with the later statement I would like to add that imagination and dreams have to be nourished, not to survive but to develop. (Swicle 076)

In this example, the writer does not find sufficient what has been said about the issue up to this point, but wants to modify it. In the present material, Adding is not performed using we or you.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.25 (1673-1733)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

10. Arguing Arguing stresses the argumentative discourse act being performed in addition to the simple expression of an opinion or viewpoint. The fact that the essays in the corpora are argumentative is overtly commented on in the texts themselves to various degrees.46 The most common verbs in this category are argue, claim and support, which are all performatives, i.e. they perform the action named. Example (29), which includes the verb argue, could be seen as both persuasive speaker attitude and a summing up of the function of the previous discourse. In this particular case, the latter part (the metadiscursive element) was deemed sufficiently strong for the example to be classified as metadiscourse. (29) Obviously, the Christmas celebration which I argue for is a strictly traditional one, with great grandmother’s decorations and recepies, where the kitchen smells of ginger cookies and herring [. . .]. (Swicle 162)

Another example of Arguing is (30), which contains the explicit discourse label claim. Its function is also very much to express an opinion. (30) Though I think it would be a good idea if everybody would spend a couple of weeks per year in an igloo or perhaps a hut in a warmer climate. I claim it would help a lot of people to realise the greatness of nature and also achieve insight of the whole. But to permanently move back to the woods? No, I think we should [. . .] (Swicle 018)

Since the discourse label is explicitly expressed here and I claim can be seen as a performative, the instance was counted as metadiscourse. Neither we nor you co-occurs with Arguing metatext. .. Writer-reader interaction

11. Anticipating the Reader’s Reaction Crismore (1989) emphasises anticipating the reader’s reaction as a central function of metadiscourse. The considerate writer, or the persuasive writer – depending on the motives – may pay special attention to predicting the imagined reader’s reaction to what is expressed, and will sometimes explicitly attribute statements to the reader as possible objections or counterarguments made by him. The borderline between this category and Clarifying is fairly thin. However, one difference is that negative statements were always classified as instances of Clarifying. A dozen occurrences of Anticipating were found in the learner material, such as example (31), in which the writer admits to having painted too rosy a picture of the topic in the course of the essay, as if the reader might take her to task for this.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.26 (1733-1792)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

(31) The presentation I have made with science and the dreams of ours walking hand in hand on a very exciting road towards a “happy ever after” kind of story, does seem a bit glorifying, I admit. But my general opinion, in conclusion, is the same one as I introduced in this little essay: [. . .] (Swicle 075)

In (31), the writer evaluates and criticises on the imagined reader’s behalf the approach taken to the topic. The semantics of the verb admit are important here. Admit normally presupposes an interlocutor who puts pressure on the speaker to perform the speech act. This suggests that the writer presupposes disagreement on the part of the imagined reader. Similarly, in example (32) the writer is apologetic and seemingly open to alternative interpretations of the phenomenon under discussion. (32) I do realise that all this may sound somewhat over-enthusiastic to anyone who does not share my point of view. (Swicle 178)

The emphatic do operator further strengthens the notion of an objection by the reader. The writer constructs her imagined reader as an independent participant who is entitled to disagree, and by weaving some of the reader’s potential disagreements into the text, the writer makes the essay more dialogic in character. This is not to say, however, that the writer necessarily cancels her own arguments and automatically maintains that the reader is right. Acknowledging conflicting views can also be a conscious strategy for paving the way for a more sympathetic reading and a way to protect oneself from overly severe disagreement. Verbs like seem and sound are common in cases in which writers overtly reflect on the impression the argumentation is making on the reader. Another example of predicting the reader’s reaction is given in (33): (33) But I have not yet meet a man who would not like to change his car to a newer and faster one! Women they still dream about children and homes. Again I am taking the risk of being accused of being prejudiced and I would therefor like to point out that women have approached a few male dreams. Like the dream of a great career and being independent. (Swicle 001)

Here, the writer declares that she runs the risk of negative reactions on the part of the reader(ship), and so in order to prevent this she brings up additional arguments. In example (34) below, the writer anticipates criticism from the reader on the basis of her not being sufficiently familiar with the facts. As a consequence, she somewhat scales back the force of the opinions she has expressed. (34) One situation where this method has got a little bit out of hand is in Somalia. [. . .] I do not have all the details, so maybe I am being a little rough on Uncle

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.27 (1792-1854)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

Sam, but the USA should really be a bit more careful with where they put in their military forces. (Swicle 077)

The example functions as a hedge downplaying the strong opinions on the topic which have been expressed up to this point, but it is also a reflection on the fact that the statements made so far have been of a certain kind. In this sense, the example also gives an analysis of the quality of the speech act performed. A further example is (35): (35) Perhaps you expect me to come up with a cracking solution to this problem. In that case I am afraid I am going to disappoint you when I say that I am just as lost as anyone else. (Swicle 118)

This extract makes a prediction of the effects of the preceding discourse on the reader. Reader expectations are overtly referred to (you expect), and the writer announces that these high expectations will not be met and offers excuses to the reader for this. The example has a strongly interpersonal quality, suggesting that the writer is on friendly terms with the reader. The same goes for example (36), albeit less explicitly so. (36) Yes, it is true! Terrible, I know!

(Swicle 172)

This highly informal and expressive unit anticipates the reader’s attitudinal response to a previous statement. Note the yes, implying that a direct exchange is taking place between the writer and the imagined reader, in which the reader has questioned the truth of the previous statement. The writer then pretends that the writer and reader are equally aghast at the topic under discussion. The mock agreement (‘I know that you think . . ., and I agree’) suggests intimacy with the imagined reader. A small number of these instances are similar to asides, in that the unit is marked as separate from the main body of text, for example within parentheses, as in (37). (37) Why would the divorce-rate be so high if people’s first impression of their partner as a wonderful person were correct? (Yes, reader; I too have made this mistake). (Swicle 228)

Note the occurrence of yes, again, setting up a mock exchange, pretending that the reader might object to the suggested innocence on the part of the writer. Note also that first person I does not refer to the writer persona in this case, but rather to the writer as an experiencer in the ‘real’ world. However, the example is strongly reader-oriented and has also been marked off by parentheses to signal its special status in the text. Although the writer’s past experiences are mentioned, the



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.28 (1854-1921)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

sentence is imbued with the presence of the writer, who explicitly engages in a dialogue with the reader. Therefore, it was categorized as metadiscourse. No instances of this function were found to co-occur with we, but it is quite popular in combination with you with the learner writers and to some extent also with the American student writers. Such instances are quite often used to predict the reader’s questions and disagreements to the claims that have been made. As an involved way of bringing up counterarguments, this category seems particularly suitable for argumentative texts. Co-occurring with you, as in example (38), Anticipating the Reader’s Reaction may be intended to introduce knowledge or beliefs as common ground. (38) I hate to rain on many a person’s parade but, I have a roommate who has an air rifle scholarship. I know, you probably never heard of it before either. This year they did really well. (AmE 031)

In (38), the reader’s background knowledge is evaluated, and the writer takes the opportunity to add a comment on the scholarship in question and to express her attitude to it in a way that makes it seem like something the writer and reader have in common, bringing them closer to each other. Another example of predicting – or even prescribing – reader reactions, is the following: (39) I have seen it a hundred times, when people coming in the pit, slam into the back of other people, because they didn’t use their brakes. You would be very surprised at the amount of people, who don’t use their brakes because they say they don’t know where they are [. . .] (AmE 160)

Here, the writer acts as if she has access to some information about brake usage that the reader is completely unaware of. The writer persona makes an appearance as the unquestioned authority, providing the reader with new knowledge (about riding go-carts at amusement parks). To further underline her expertise on the topic, the writer goes on to say things like: “Believe me, not one worker wants to get hit by a car. I should know, because I have been hit by a go-cart going twenty-five miles per hour and it doesn’t feel good”. As we have seen, writers can adopt different approaches to their readers’ reactions and attitudes to topics that are brought up in the text. For instance, the writer can choose to pretend to have some insight into the reader’s mind, as in (40): (40) For the amount of money spent to live on campus, students should be able to live as they wanted to. I know you think that the time in the example seems like a long time, but why should the student be restricted? (AmE 130)

Examples of Anticipating the Reader’s Response are usually quite persuasive, although their persuasiveness lies, of course, in the eye of the beholder to a certain

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.29 (1921-1981)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

degree. Nowhere in a written text, however, is there an opportunity for the reader to object to or modify the writer’s statements. Only in the situation of reading can the reader claim that the writer’s assumptions about him are wrong, and by then it is, of course, too late to make a difference in the text itself. In adopting this strategy, the presumptuous writer runs the risk that the reader will not identify with the imagined reader, and therefore may reject the entire argumentation. Making a text maximally convincing certainly requires a great deal of skill on the part of the writer in terms of audience analysis.

12. Clarifying Clarifying is another favourite discourse act of the considerate – or strategicallyminded – writer. It is motivated by a concern for the reader, and by a will to avoid being misinterpreted. Clarifying has been described as a metalinguistic operation (see Chapter 7) that is important for assuring felicitous communication between speakers, particularly in face-to-face communication. Clarifying shows many similarities to Anticipating the Reader’s Response, but it adds a strong element of clarifying matters for the reader. Negative statements, such as I am not saying x, are common in this category, as illustrated in (41): (41) We are no longer expected to draw our own conclusions, make our own decisions, or form our lifes individually. I am not saying that everything was better before, nor am I eulogizing past times. But I do believe that we have lost much of our knowledge of ourselves. (Swicle 025)

In argumentative writing, it is particularly important to be clear about what one’s arguments imply and what they do not imply. In this sense, we might expect a fair number of Clarifying examples in the present corpora, but the totals are actually very low; it is one of the least frequent discourse functions of personal metadiscourse. On the other hand, considering that we are dealing here with written language, this is perhaps not as surprising as we might think. As noted in 7.3, clarifications are primarily characteristic of remedial exchanges in online communication. Another example of Clarifying shows the writer monitoring the (feminist) reader’s possible responses to her statements: (42) One of the major changes in family life is that most women have paid jobs today. I do not want any feminist to get me wrong, so I stress that there are both positive and negative effects due to this change. (Swicle 168)

The writer explicitly states her intentions for the benefit of the audience and to avoid being misrepresented. The first italicised I-unit (I do not want) is the motivation for the following discourse action (I stress). Apart from I, this function also co-occurs with second person you in the material, albeit not very frequently.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.30 (1981-2039)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

13. Aligning Perspectives The goal of Aligning Perspectives is to have the reader take the writer’s perspective. It is taken for granted that this goal is achieved and that the reader agrees with the writer. This discourse function is commonly performed by personal metadiscourse involving we. Some of the constructions that occur are listed in (43): (43) as we can see We can assume that _ What we can learn from _ is that _ If we [consider/compare] _, we [can/will] [understand/see] _

We signals consensus between the writer and the imagined reader (sometimes also including people in general). The persuasiveness of this move is perhaps most forceful in examples like as we can see, which can be useful in presenting arguments for or against some issue. If the reader is not invited to have a different opinion, this may dissuade him from forming one. This is similar to the two functions Clarifying and Anticipating the Reader’s Reaction in that the writer counts on disagreement and attempts to forestall objections from the reader.

14. Imagining Scenarios The category called Imagining Scenarios here is a classical rhetorical device that allows writers to make examples or descriptions more vivid and pertinent to the reader. It often politely asks the reader to see something from a specific perspective. It has a narrative flavour, suggestive of a 19th century fictional text, in which narrators popularly used formulas like Imagine, dear reader, . . . In the present material, the writer commonly takes the reader by the hand, using a hypothetical, ‘picture this’ technique, as in (44) and (45): (44) If you consider the society in the 20s when The Sun also Rises was published, you can perhaps imagine what kind of woman Lady Brett was regarded. (Swicle 246) (45) There you are standing in front of the mirror again searching for flaws on your body. Is your nose too big? You would rather have a smaller, prettier nose or a nose that gives you character, wouldn’t you? (Swicle 283)

In (44), the writer expresses uncertainty (perhaps) about the reader’s imaginative powers. In this instance, the writer is speaking as a lecturer, epistemologically superior to her imagined reader. If these units are not about imaginative powers, they usually revolve around some actual spatial or visual phenomenon that the writer asks the reader to visualise. Extract (45), taken from the opening paragraph of one of the essays, begins in a very direct manner, aiming to engage the reader from the very first sentence. The initial phrase There you are [V]-ing sounds like a formula from a stand-up

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.31 (2039-2102)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

comedian. This writer pretends that she can see right through her imagined reader and tries intimate tricks to get him to agree with the claims made. To add to this effect, highly interactive direct questions and even a tag question are used.

15. Hypothesising About the Reader Metadiscourse can be used by writers to judge or evaluate the imagined reader. Such examples explicitly show that the writer is thinking about the audience, and the audience’s background knowledge, values or attitude towards topics brought up in the text. The category called Hypothesising About the Reader concerns examples in which the writer wonders about the reader (in the ‘real world’) and makes guesses or claims about the reader’s knowledge or attitude. Example (46) illustrates this: (46) Such forecasts have seldom been fulfiled and should not be allowed to rob us of our creative facilities. You have probably heard people say that there is no more to investigate on our earth, no unknown wilderness to explore or tribes to be discovered, so we have to get into the space or plunge into the bottom of the vast oceans to make new discoveries. (Swicle 004)

Here, the writer assumes – but does not take for granted, as in (45) above – that the reader is familiar with an issue that is important to the topic. Hypothesising About the Reader is similar to Anticipating the Reader’s Reaction in its reader-orientation; the main difference is that the former category has to do with the reader’s identity (in the ‘real world’) rather than his reactions to the current text (specifically as a reader). The degree of certainty conveyed by the writer does not have anything to do with the basic distinction, although Hypothesising cases are more often hedged than Anticipating ones. The hedges involved are often probably, maybe and modal would. As the label suggests, the student writers using this category are inclined to hypothesise about their imagined readers rather than make definite statements about them. Another example of this restrained approach is (47): (47) Thick and long eyelashes and a pair of beautifully curved eyebrowes would really be nice too. You probably go on like this every time you stand in front of a mirror, or do you belong to the lucky few who are completely. . . (Swicle 283)

Readers’ reactions to the assumptions made by the writer regarding their minds and opinions probably vary from one individual to the other, but there are also culturally determined conventions for the degree of writer dominance the general reader can accept (see Section 6.4).



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.32 (2102-2162)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

16. Appealing to the Reader Instances of Appealing to the Reader attempt to influence the reader by emotional appeal. The writer persona appears in the text to correct or entreat the reader (as always, we are talking about the reader rather than generic people). We could say that such expressions convey the writer persona’s attitude with the reader in mind. Examples (48) and (49) illustrate this category: (48) I hope that now the reader has understood how extremely difficult it is to. . . (Swicle 015) (49) But in order for the information to have full effect must You and I keep our minds open (Swicle 026)

In example (48), the writer expresses her wish that the reader, while reading the essay, will have adopted a specific perspective. In (49), the writer and the reader are presented as a team, as ‘being in this text together’, as it were. They are both explicitly referred to in the coordinated phrase You and I. Example (50) offers a recommendation to the reader (from the closing paragraph of a learner essay): (50) This is a magnificent movie containing everything a great movie has to have: a superb story, beautiful scenery, marvellous actors and yet reality. I warmly recommend this film. (Swicle 262)

Whether this is a metadiscursive example is doubtful. It is not very explicit. We could, to make the performative function evident, insert hereby. The writer seems to be talking directly to the reader (‘I recommend to you’), encouraging him to do something. Recommend belongs to a class of verbs (like urge, advise, encourage, etc.) that perform speech acts in which the presence of the addresser and addressee are particularly strong. In its ditransitivity and in the notion that it encourages the addressee to act, or do something, it is strongly persuasive. Recall that what is counted as metadiscourse or not is a matter of degree. We can compare (50) to another example involving recommend: (51) I have been to Historiska Museet and Nordiska Museet in Stockholm, and to Malmö Museum, and I would recommend everybody to spend some hours there. (Swicle 327)

Here, the verb has an explicit object, everybody, implying that the range of addressees extends beyond the current reader. This instance was not classified as metadiscourse.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.33 (2162-2268)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

.. Distribution of discourse functions We have now looked at examples of the 16 discourse functions identified. In the present section, we will examine the frequencies of the various discourse functions and compare them across the three groups of writers. Table 8 gives the results of all three corpora, presenting the overall results in frequency per 100,000 words, with all pronoun units (I, you, and we) collapsed into one large group. To start with the BrE corpus, which displays the lowest frequencies, it is striking that all discourse functions of personal metadiscourse are rare or non-existent, with three principal exceptions: Introducing Topic, Defining and Aligning Perspectives. These writers are rarely visible in their texts, which suggests that their writing norm approximates a strictly impersonal style with few or no instances of mock interaction between the writer and reader. As we have seen, twice as much personal metadiscourse is used in the American essays as in the British essays. When the American writers use personal metadiscourse, the focus is primarily on the writer and reader and their relationship. They score highest on types of Writer-reader interaction, in particular the function Appealing to the Reader. Their most common text/code-oriented discourse functions are Saying, Defining and Reminding. Table 8. Distribution of the discourse functions of personal metadiscourse

WRITER-READER INTERACTION

METATEXT

Discourse function

TOTAL

CODE: Focus on language

Defining Saying Code TOTAL

TEXT: Focus on structure of essay

Introducing Topic Focussing Concluding Reminding Exemplifying Adding Arguing Contextualising Text TOTAL

PARTICIPANT: Focus on writer and/or reader of current text

Anticipating R’s Reaction Clarifying Aligning Perspectives Imagining Scenarios Hypothesising About R Appealing to the Reader Participant TOTAL

Swicle

AmE

BrE

37 39 76

10 13 23

8 1 9

32 10 11 23 10 2 14 8 110

7 9 3 11 2 1 1 2 36

15 2 2 5 2 – – 1 27

13 6 11 13 11 24 78

18 4 7 5 6 22 52

1 3 8 2 – 3 17

264

111

53



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.34 (2268-2310)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Every single one of the functions is more common in the Swedish learner material than in the native-speaker essays. This is also where the greatest diversity of discourse functions is found. The top three functions are Saying, Defining, and Introducing Topic. If we compare the learner frequencies with the native-speaker frequencies, we will see that several of the discourse functions employed by the learner group stand apart as unconventional, such as Arguing, Contextualising, Imagining Scenarios and Hypothesising about the Reader. Furthermore, Concluding and Exemplifying are rarely personalised in the native-speaker material. The discourse functions that are the most common across all three corpora are Defining, Introducing Topic, Reminding and Aligning Perspectives. We can conclude that these are conventional discourse functions for personal metadiscourse in English-language argumentative essays. The Clarifying function shows similar frequencies, albeit low, in all three corpora. In Figure 4 below, the results of the individual discourse functions have been lumped together and divided into Code-oriented, Text-oriented and Participantoriented (i.e. writer- and reader-oriented) types. Note that the first two categories constitute Metatext, while the last category is referred to as Writer-reader interaction. Interestingly, in terms of proportions, the British writers and the learner writers show similar patterns. They differ, of course, in terms of frequencies; the learners heavily overuse all three categories. The Code-oriented category is the least frequent one in all three corpora. The most frequent one is the Text-oriented category, except in the AmE corpus, in which the Participant-oriented category is most commonly used. The frequencies of the Text-oriented category are quite similar in the native-speaker groups, but about three times greater in the learner group. Although the overall frequencies of personal metadiscourse show that the greatest differences obtain between the learner group and the BrE group, we can

Figure 4. Normalised frequencies of Code-, Text-, and Participant-oriented functions of personal metadiscourse

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.35 (2310-2363)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

see that the differences across the corpora actually do run deeper than total frequency of use. In terms of proportions, the learner group and the BrE group are quite similar, while the AmE group differs proportionally, in using the most Participant-oriented types. Finally, to sum up the pronominal tendencies for these discourse functions, the results show that for I-units in particular, Terminology and Introducing Topics were unfailingly among the top-ranking functions across corpora. ‘Metalinguistic’ discourse acts (Saying and Defining) were also common in I-units, especially in the learner texts. A favourite function for we-units among the learners turned out to be Exemplifying. Saying was also a popular use of we-units with the learners, which was not the case with the native speakers. Defining ranked high for we-units in all three corpora, showing that a great deal of negotiation of definitions took place in the essays. The most common discourse functions for you-units among the learners and the AmE students were Appealing to the Reader, Aligning Perspectives, Hypothesising, Imagining Scenarios, and Anticipating the Reader’s Reaction; all interactive moves, directed to the reader. Meanwhile, such moves were virtually non-existent in the BrE material. Introducing Topic frequently took the form of a collective action in the BrE essays, being one of the most common functions for we-units. By contrast, the BrE students avoided using I-units altogether, except for a small number of instances of Introducing Topic.

. Other references to the writer and reader The following sections will deal with references to the current writer and reader other than by means of the pronouns I, we and you, which are the main focus of this chapter. Firstly, I will give an overview of the frequencies of objective and possessive forms of I, we and you in personal metadiscourse. Secondly, I will present some observations on pronominal one, which is in fact used with current writer reference in the material. Thirdly, I will examine nouns that refer to the writer and reader by studying (the quite obvious choices) writer, author and reader in the three corpora.47 .. Oblique forms of I, we and you We will first look at the frequencies of personal metadiscourse involving objective and possessive forms of the pronouns of writer and/or reader visibility: me, us, my, our, etc. In contrast to the preceding treatment of the subject forms of the



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.36 (2363-2443)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 9. Frequency of subject, object and possessive forms of the three persons studied in metadiscursive expressions48 Swicle n I me my we us our you you (obj.) your

347 21 37 84 27 0 110 15 10

(1851) (226) (424) (1893) (423) (987) (730) (100) (262)

f/100,000 170 10 18 41 13 0 54 7 5

n 72 7 10 38 10 1 57 11 4

AmE f/100,000

(649) (77) (209) (426) (90) (325) (317) (57) (82)

48 5 7 25 7 1 38 7 3

BrE n 20 1 0 29 3 1 3 0 0

(83) (6) (11) (262) (55) (114) (73) (5) (21)

f/100,000 21 1 0 30 3 1 3 0 0

pronouns, I will not conduct an in-depth analysis of the metadiscursive functions associated with these oblique forms. The purpose here is restricted to checking whether the frequency patterns are similar to those of the subject forms. The results are given in Table 9. The total number of occurrences of pronouns (both metadiscursive and not) is given within parentheses after the subset of occurrences of metadiscursive expressions. For purposes of comparison, the results for the subject forms are also given. Table 9 shows that the disproportionate overuse of I-units by the learners reappears in the results for non-subject first person singular forms. The learners score highest for both me and my, followed by the American student writers, while the British student writers practically avoid them altogether. In the first person plural cases, virtually no metadiscursive uses of possessive our were found in the material. The object form us, however, follows the general pattern of frequency. Second person you involved in metadiscourse – in fact, any type of second person you – is virtually unused by the British writers. The American writers and the learners show very similar numbers of non-subject forms. Thus, the frequency ranking confirms the patterns found for the subject forms: learners at the top, American students midway and British students at the bottom. .. Pronominal one Previous sections of this chapter have dealt with cases in which there is an overt reference to the writer or the imagined reader in the form of personal pronoun I, we or you. This section will address examples of pronominal one, which, although typically indefinite and ‘faceless’, can arguably make reference to the current writer – and in fact, even to the imagined reader, as we will see below. Albeit marginally, one

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.37 (2443-2522)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

Table 10. The frequency of one in metadiscourse units

Swicle AmE BrE

n

f/100,000

30 (154) 20 (97) 1 (51)

15 (75) 13 (65) 1 (53)

does occur in metadiscursive expressions as a signal of the presence of the current discourse participants. One may convey a ‘veiled reference’ to the writer,49 which helps create an impersonal style typical of academic prose. Biber et al. (1999: 355) state that one reason why one is common in academic prose is that “it is perceived as an impersonal option [. . .], lacking the personal overtones attaching to the personal pronouns when used for referring to people in general”. Judging from this, we should expect to find a large number of occurrences of one in the argumentative essays, but there are in fact quite few of them.50 It may seem contradictory to refer to metadiscursive expressions involving one as ‘personal’ metadiscourse, considering that one is often characterized as contributing to an ‘impersonal’ style. However, what qualifies metadiscourse as ‘personal’ (in contrast to ‘impersonal’) in the present study is the presence of a pronominal or nominal reference to the current writer and/or reader. While pronominal one does not make explicit reference to discourse participants, it is still a linguistic signal that points to some referent, in contrast to, for example, non-finite clauses that function as metadiscourse. The terms ‘personal’ and ‘impersonal’ are simply used in different ways in the distinction between aspects of style and in the distinction between types of metadiscourse. Table 10 shows the frequency of one used in metadiscourse units. The total occurrences of one in each corpus are given in parentheses. All figures apply to subject forms only.51 The frequency of metadiscursive one is low across the corpora. In none of the groups is it common to use one-units as veiled references to the writer or as referring to the reader. The BrE material, which has by far the lowest numbers of personal metadiscourse in terms of I-units and you-units, also has the fewest one-units. In fact, one is virtually not used in metadiscursive expressions by the BrE writers. The learners, who score the highest in the use of personal metadiscourse in general, also score the highest here, closely followed by the American writers. Even though pronominal one always conveys a generic element, it has a number of what might be called ‘secondary’ referents in some of the examples in the corpus material. For example, in (52) it is used for generic reference, but also for self-reference, as a kind of ‘veiled I’.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.38 (2522-2613)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

(52) Some people say that one can miss 50 programmes of Falcon Crest and still keep up with the story. To some extent I can agree with that, but that is part of the charm with these series. One is not obliged to watch it every week and one does not feel the pressure one would watching an Ingmar Bergman movie, where one probably would not understand a thing if the television set broke the first fifteen minutes. (Swicle 321)

The actions of the one referents in (52) all take place in the ‘real’ world, so the examples do not qualify as metadiscourse. However, there are cases in which one can refer to the writer persona, acting within the world of discourse, as in (53): (53) And again, as a free-thinking man, one can discuss if it is right to put any special restrictions on enjoyable things like smoking and drinking. Is it not the right of every man to decide for himself what he wants to do with his life and his body. (Swicle 360)

This is an ambiguous instance of one. Again, the default reading is generic, but if we consider the as-clause, it would seem like the non-native writer wants to push the reading towards a writer-oriented one. As the writer states that ‘one can discuss . . .’, he does in fact bring it up for discussion in the world of discourse. Although this is a borderline case, it was included among the metadiscursive one-units. There are some occurrences of one in the material in which the imagined reader can be seen as a secondary referent, as in (54): (54) If I take my own home town, Karlskrona, as an example, I can immediately say that there are a lot more coloured people or people from Asia in Karlskrona now than there were when I left Karlskrona and moved to Malmö three years ago. One may think that I see this much easier than the inhabitants of Karlskrona because they live there all the time and we all know that we have a tendency of not seeing something that gradually changes before our eyes. But the fact is that . . . (Swicle 291)

It may be helpful to think about this in terms of semantic encoding and pragmatic inferencing; we may call these two ‘layers’ primary and secondary referents. One always has generic reference as its default interpretation, but in some contexts there may be an additional referent, in which case the addressee will have to do some inferencing. In (54), for example, the writer leaves open the possibility for ‘anyone’ to think that [the writer sees it as much easier. . .], but in this specific context, it is likely that the secondary referent is the reader, in that his thoughts and objections are likely to be the focus of the writer’s argumentation. In fact, the construction that one is involved in above (one may think that X – but Y) is an instance of Anticipating the Reader’s Reaction.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.39 (2613-2662)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

Table 11. Raw frequencies of the discourse functions of metadiscourse involving one across corpora. The normalised totals are 15 (Swicle) and 13 (AmE). Functions of one-units

Swicle n

AmE n

Arguing Defining Concluding Saying Adding Introducing Topic Anticipating R’s reactions Reminding

10 6 2 6 2 2 2 –

8 2 4 3 1 1 – 1

TOTAL

30

20

I carried out a small study of the discourse actions performed by the metadiscursive one-units, the results of which are shown in Table 11. The single example of a one-unit in the BrE material introduces a new topic. The occurrences are so few that it would be too bold to draw any far-reaching conclusions on the basis of these data – apart from the obvious one that pronominal one is rarely used in personal metadiscourse. However, it could be pointed out that Arguing is the most commonly used function co-occurring with one in both corpora, while it co-occurs with I, we and you only very rarely. Two typical examples of Arguing in the one data are the following: (55) One can argue for and against the fact that tax money are used for these arrangements. On one hand it is often well invested. . . (Swicle 133) (56) the “politics of difference” is formed. One side, in highlighting their differences, is causing the other side to resist. One might argue that it is important for the black student to experience their college years in this way, associating with. . . (AmE 008)

As stated in 3.5.1, the discourse function Arguing stresses the discourse act being performed rather than the speaker’s opinion. In the examples above, the one-units serve to introduce arguments, whether accepted or rejected by the writer. The writers may use one to soften the taking of positions in argumentation, which may be seen as somewhat combative. .. Nouns that refer to the writer and reader The preceding sections have given plenty of examples of the current writer or reader referred to by means of pronouns. Other possible explicit linguistic realisations of their presence are nouns like writer, author and reader. Example (57) exhibits nominal author used to refer to the current writer:52



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.40 (2662-2735)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

(57) The author has it on good authority that academics have been known to talk through solutions to their problems when alone (e.g. in the bath). (Crystal 1995: 43, emphasis added)

This type of reference to oneself seems to be particularly common in academic writing. One reason for writers to refer to themselves in the third person is that it gives a formal impression. This usage may be a consequence of the fact that in some genres it is more or less forbidden, or at least quite unconventional, for writers to use I to refer to themselves. Nevertheless, on occasion, writers still find a need to make their presence or personal position explicitly known, for example in showing the origin of an idea or argument. In example (57) above, the author reference is used to achieve a humorous effect. The writer seems to be playing with the notion that, most often, this strategy is probably used to increase the objectivity and ‘detachment’ of the writer of the text. The very prosaic and personal content of the statement (something like I, like many of my colleagues, talk through solutions to my problems when alone in the bath) clashes with our association of seriousness with the author formula. In the present corpora, it is extremely rare to refer to the current discourse participants by means of nouns, as shown in Table 12, which gives both raw numbers and frequency per 100,000 words. Nominal references to the current writer and reader are highly infrequent. There is a small number of examples in the learner material, but the total numbers are too insignificant for comparison. Instances of writer functioning as metadiscourse are found in the AmE material only, and are illustrated in (58) and (59): (58) Before reading Pattullo’s article it was decided by the writer of this essay that there was not reason why homosexuals should not be prohibited from serving in the military. However, Pattullo’s strong and convincing claims has had an affect on the opinions of many people. (AmE 013)

Table 12. Occurrences of reader, author and writer referring to the current discourse participants n reader author writer Total

7 – – 7

Swicle f/100,000 3 0 0 3

n – – 2 2

AmE f/100,000 0 0 1 1

n – – – 0

BrE f/100,000 0 0 0 0

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.41 (2735-2818)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

(59) To accept Spencer’s belief that social reform inhibits social progress makes society’s future seem bleak and hopeless. This writer refuses to believe that over fourteen million people in the United States of America can, in no way, contribute to improving our society. However, to say that long-term welfare recipients cannot overcome their obstacles is not a valid excuse for the abuses that occur throughout the welfare system. (AmE 078)

The first example has an awkward passive construction; it seems a somewhat desperate attempt to avoid using first person pronoun I. The noun phrase the writer of this essay tones down the personal element, while still referring to the writer. The same type of nominal reference in spoken discourse (the speaker of this monologue/utterance/line) would be even more awkward. The writer can include explicit textual signals to alert the reader, most obviously by using the noun reader. The relevant instances found in the learner material are shown in Figure 5.53 In these examples, the writers simulate direct interaction with the imagined reader. Lines (b) and (e) involve direct address or vocatives, laying the foundation for greater intimacy in the relationship between the writer and reader. There is even a term of endearment in dear reader, which is a classic formula or cliché in literary texts, but quite uncommon in academic writing. Line (e) is interesting in that the writer chose to put the address within parentheses, which makes it graphically clear that this direct cue to the reader is not intended to be at the same level as the rest of the text. It rather resembles a whispered aside. In cases like these, when writers themselves give metadiscourse special status and treat it as being different from the main body of text, we get support for the notion that metadiscourse works on a different plane from non-metadiscourse (see 2.4.1). An instance that stands out as being particularly persuasive, if not coercive, is in line (c), which prescribes how the reader is supposed to react to the text so far. The co-text in the concordance line suggests that it functions to clarify or add emphasis to a point already made by the writer. The occurrences of reader in the Swicle may be accounted for in several ways. One explanation is that not being fully communicatively or linguistically competent may cause the writer to focus on her readers more. Explicit mentions of the (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

f I did. I hope that now the where? Not I anyway. Now, dear ow it should be obvious to the pe it will become clear to the ful person were correct? (Yes,

reader has understood how extr reader, you probably ask yours reader that I consider them to reader why it is impossible to reader; I too have made this m

Figure 5. Concordance lines for metadiscursive reader from the Swicle



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.42 (2818-2868)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

reader may be seen as appeals from the writer to understand her better. In this sense, it could be a learner strategy. Another explanation is that there may be differences in cultural conventions about the preferred or recommended degree of visibility of the writer and reader in written texts.

. The writer persona One very interesting aspect of written text is how the writer persona presents herself and how she constructs her relations with the imagined reader.54 The following sections will first discuss some roles of the writer persona and then focus on the quality of tentativeness which was found to be characteristic of the learner essays, particularly abundant in their use of metadiscourse. .. Roles of the writer persona Displaying one’s persona, persuading, negotiating and interacting with the imagined reader are important aspects of many written genres. When writers create their personas and decide what impression they want to make on their readership, there are various parameters available to them, which they may exploit (whether consciously or not). Let us sketch out eight of these persona parameters. ‘Friendliness’ is the degree of chatting and “bonding” that take place in the text, and the degree to which the writer and imagined reader are presented as equals, being on a par. The degree of expertise in terms of the topic the writer ascribes to herself could be referred to as ‘authority’. ‘Helpfulness’ is the degree to which the writer is committed to guiding the reader in the text. This could be distinguished from ‘didacticism’: the degree of explaining and defining that the writer takes on as her task. Furthermore, ‘professionalism’ is the degree of compositional ease (the display of professionalism as a writer) conveyed in the text. ‘Certainty’ is the degree of certainty or tentativeness displayed by the writer towards propositions expressed in the text. Finally, we could also make a distinction between ‘writer involvement’ and ‘reader involvement’, the former referring to the level of personal information or review of personal experience included by the writer, and the latter to the degree to which attempts are made to engage the reader’s interest in the text. There are numerous other parameters one could add to this tentative list. There are striking differences in the display of writer personas between the student essays. On the whole, the learners seem to construe their imagined readers as equals, or even friends, in contrast with the native speakers. Several of the essays give the impression that the writer is having a fairly informal chat with a friend, very much based on presupposed mutual understanding and shared values, rather

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.43 (2868-2931)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

than on efforts to convince the reader by means of solid argumentation and logical stringency. The American material also partly tends in this direction, while the British writers give the impression of seeing their readers as less friendly and as not on equal status, requiring a more formal style of writing. They very much express themselves with certainty and authority. A highly relevant question for any kind of persuasive writing is how to make the reader maximally disposed to accept the writer’s ideas, and how to make the reader accept or ‘internalise’ the message of the text. Using metadiscourse and writer-reader dialogue may be a means for paving the way for readers to accept the text more readily, but it may also have the opposite effect: that of insulting the reader or causing him to adopt a negative attitude towards the text and its content, and even towards the writer. At this stage, there is no research available that predicts what the reader’s reactions will depend on. Hyland (1998: 453) argues that the use of metadiscourse (specifically in academic writing) “is not a subjective question of style, but a central pragmatic feature: the means by which writers portray a disciplinary awareness of how best to represent themselves and their research.” However, to some extent, the use of metadiscourse is a question of style. In fact, there are many factors involved, several of which have been captured by Booth (1981: 207), in the following passage on fiction texts and intrusions by the narrator/author in the flow of discourse: Such intrusions, half apology, half self-praise, are plentiful throughout the history of fiction. They can be delightful or annoying, depending on the genius of the writer, the taste of the reader, the fashions of the time, and the kind of work in which they occur; “qualitative” pleasures are often highly dependent on fad, and what in one decade may seem a grace will in the next be hopelessly outmoded.

We can rephrase this as saying that factors like (a) writer skills, (b) dominant conventions of writing, and (c) the genre of the text all play a part in the impression that the use of metadiscourse makes on the reader.55 .. The hermeneutics of the text made explicit A particularly interesting perspective that metadiscourse offers emerges from the fact that some types of metadiscourse draw attention to the complexity of the relation between what is said and what is meant. This could be described as ‘the hermeneutics of the text made explicit’. Essentially, ‘hermeneutic metadiscourse’ overtly comments on some complex aspect of how one conveys one’s intentions in linguistic form, so that the reader will understand and interpret what is said in an appropriate way.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.44 (2931-2979)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Expressions that focus on the complexity of what is said and meant are common in spoken conversation, such as I couldn’t get through to him; I managed to get the idea across; Do you follow me?; We don’t seem to be on the same wavelength; I’m sure he didn’t mean what he said; He never says what he means; He always knows what to leave unsaid.56 Although there is only one single communicator in a written text, we will still find expressions that show the writer’s awareness of the interpretational work being carried out by the imagined readers of the text. Some corpus examples are: (60) I am not saying _ I do not want _ to get me wrong what do we mean by _ then? I hope that the reader is ready to _/has understood _ by now, it should be perfectly clear that _ I admit/realise that _ I know you think _ you may be thinking _ you might say that _ you see if you like if you know what I mean if we take _ into account one can discuss if it is [Evaluative ADJ] to _ one may think that _, but _

Such examples bear witness to a writer who modifies statements and negotiates ideas for the benefit of the reader. It is a well-known fact that the conditions of typical spoken and written language differ, and that this has specific linguistic effects on a text, for example in terms of the (symbolic) presence of the addresser and addressee.57 Unlike writing, speaking typically entails two-way communication, since the discourse participants are normally present in the speech situation. However, this does not predetermine written texts to be completely monologic; rather, there is a cline of monologic and dialogic features in any text, as has been demonstrated by researchers like Biber (1988) and Chafe (1982). Biber’s continuum of involved production and informational text and Chafe’s model of involved versus detached qualities of texts – typical of speech and writing, respectively – show that it is untenable to posit a strict dichotomy between speech and writing. .. Tentativeness in the learner essays One of the most striking differences between the three groups of writers with respect to their writer personas is that the learner writers are more tentative and

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.45 (2979-3039)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

hedged than the native speakers in their use of metadiscourse. Their approach could be characterized as a ‘rhetoric of modesty’. For example, try and would like to are very common in the learners’ metatext units. Try is the most frequent verb after say in units of personal metadiscourse, but it does not occur at all in the native-speaker material. Examples including I are the following: (61) In this essay I will try to give some examples of what imagination and dreaming have come to today with some references to the past, and I will also try to answer the question as to wether there is a place for imagination and dreaming in our modern world dominated by technology and science, or not. (Swicle 043) (62) Should we accept all foreign cultures or discriminate some of them? In what way would our defence of other forms of Swedish culture and our attitude to foreigners and foreign things? I will try to answer these questions, as well as I can, but first I will try to describe the situation of the Swedish language today. (Swicle 289) (63) To make a short summary of what I have been trying to say in this essay, technology will never make imagination and dreams unnecessary for two main reasons. (Swicle 048)

The first two examples announce what is going to follow in the discourse (see discussion of Previews and Reviews in 4.3.1): in (61) the writer will perform the discourse act of giving examples and answer an important topical question, and in (62) the writer will answer topical questions and describe a situation to the reader. These examples are placed at the beginnings of the essays in which they occur. Rather than previewing, example (63) points backwards in the discourse as the writer announces that a summary of the main points that have been made in the previous discourse is to come. The what I have been trying to say gives a modest and even insecure impression, as if the writer doubts her ability to get her ideas across in writing. Of course, we cannot know for sure whether the intention actually is to apologise to the reader for the lack of time to plan the essay, or whether it is a strategy adopted to get the reader on her side through what might be termed ‘self-deprecation’ or, by extension, ‘adversary-glorification’. The concepts ‘selfglorification’, ‘adversary-glorification’, and ‘self-degradation’ are used by Bhatia (1993: 70ff.), in discussing persuasive strategies in job-application letters. Also note the occurrence of the phrase in this essay in both (61) and (63), which reflects the fact that essays in the learner material generally exhibit a high degree of awareness on the part of the writer of the discourse as discourse. This is expressed particularly often in the first paragraphs of essays, as in: “This paper is supposed to deal with immigrants coming to Sweden. To be more précis I am going to write about refugees, the biggest group of people who come here today” (Swicle 097). This also helps explain why the verb choose is fairly frequent in the



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.46 (3039-3111)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

metadiscursive units in the learner material; the writers explicitly comment on the choice of topic for the essay. The polite formula I would like to also has a high frequency in the learner texts. In example (64) the writer introduces the topic and tells the reader what she is going to focus on in the essay. Note the extreme awareness of the situation of writing shown by the adverbials in my essay today.58 (64) One of Anita Brookner’s books is called ‘A friend from England’. I read it last autumn, so I might have forgotten some names. If so, I’ve got to re-name them. In my essay today I would like to concentrate on the relationship between Heather and Rachel. I will also discuss in what way this was an important personal relationship. (Swicle 266)

The insecure and hedged quality of many learner texts is also noticeable here, in that the writer explicitly comments on the fact that she may have forgotten some names in the novel she is about to discuss. (65) is another example involving I would like to. (65) To become a dog owner is one of the greatest gifts in life. I will support this statement by discussing three positive effects. I would like to call the first one friendship. It is said that dogs are our best friends and I think that there lies a great deal of truth behind this statement. (Swicle 254)

In this example, the writer labels the first of three effects that function as important supporting arguments for her thesis. Naturally, the writer could have skipped the metatext element marked in italics above, and contented herself with saying ‘The first one is friendship’. The writer could also have chosen to express greater certainty by using modal will instead of would like to. Example (66) illustrates another occurrence of I would like to, announcing to the reader that some examples supporting the writer’s argument are to come: (66) In this essay, which is of course wholly unscholarly, I would like to point out some examples, mostly by female writers where woman’s place in society – or rather woman’s possibility of controlling her won social position – is illustrated by the actions of the “archetypal English literary heroine”. (Swicle 272)

The writer explicitly makes a point of the notion that her essay only provides a layperson’s view on the topic (in this essay, which is of course wholly unscholarly), thus telling the reader something about how to evaluate the text. The writer is careful not to present herself as an expert in the field. This could be interpreted as meaning that the learner writer does not feel confident in the role of an argumentative essay writer or with the objectivity and self-confidence that are traditionally associated with this task. Example (67) is a similar illustration of this:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.47 (3111-3160)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

(67) Of course, you may wonder what the true reason for heavy taxation on these pleasures is. Is it really a concern about the average Swede’s health and well being or is it, as many suspect, a concern about the government finances that is the reason? I have not the competence required to answer this question, but if you ask me if I think that taxes and restrictions are the right methods to keep people off the bottle and away from the cigarette, the answer is no. (Swicle 360)

A question is posed, but the writer chooses not to answer it on the grounds that she is not an authority on the subject. In the following coordinated clause, however, the question is rephrased such that the writer feels that she can answer it. Note the interactive expression if you ask me, which would also be classified as metadiscourse. We should keep in mind that most of these writers are performing a task under time pressure, with very little time to revise the text, which may increase their tendency to apologise to the reader for possible obscurities or unclear points in their writing. This tentativeness in the learner essays may be telling us that these writers wish they could be more authoritative and persuasive exactly because they know that the prototypical argumentative writer is supposed to be. Another possibility is that the differences found depend on cultural differences in writing. Vassileva (1998: 168), studying English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian academic writing, notes that “[i]n German, the author’s intentions are, more often than not, mitigated (down-toned, hedged) by means of modal verbs, predominantly ich möchte ‘I would like”’. Writing in Swedish may also follow this tendency of mitigation, which may be transferred by the learners to their writing in English. This is indeed an interesting topic for further research. In her contrastive study on authorial presence by means of first person pronouns, Vassileva found that different cultural norms were indeed at work.

. Conclusion We have seen in this chapter how the three groups of writers differ both quantitatively and qualitatively in their use of personal metadiscourse. The Swedish learner essays contain considerably more personal metadiscourse than the native-speaker essays. The main pattern is that the Swedish learners use more than twice as many metadiscourse expressions as the American university students, who, in turn, use at least twice as many metadiscourse units as the British university students. The learner writers often make intrusions into the essays and take the imagined reader into account to a great degree. The BrE texts show the opposite ten-



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07



F: SCL2403.tex / p.48 (3160-3235)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 13. Occurrences of personal metadiscourse (I, we, you and one as subject) Pronoun

Swicle

AmE

BrE

I we you one

***************** **** ***** *(*)

***** **(*) **** *

** ***

dency, being largely impersonal and monologic. There are hardly any instances of direct reader address, and the writer persona is seldom made visible. The AmE texts fall in between these two extremes, and often are more similar to the learner writing. The American writers tend to make their texts dialogic and show concern for the reader, though not to the same extent as the learners. Although the writer personas are more visible than in the BrE material, they still do not come close to the extreme degree to which the learner writers make explicit appearances in their texts.59 Furthermore, the investigation of the density of metadiscourse showed that not only do the learners make use of more metadiscourse in their texts, they also use more metadiscourse units per sentence. Table 13 gives a graphic representation of the (normalised) frequencies of personal metadiscourse for each of the pronouns studied. Each asterisk represents 10 occurrences per 100,000 words. An asterisk in parentheses represents a value close to 10 occurrences. The table illustrates the degree to which the Swedish learners overuse all forms of personal metadiscourse discussed in the present chapter. The results presented in this chapter (in Tables 1, 2, 7 and 9) were all found to be statistically significant (see 1.4). The three groups differ in their use of personal metadiscourse not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively. The learners display a high degree of metalinguistic awareness, and often explicitly comment on their texts as texts, or refer to themselves as writers. This is expressed particularly often in opening paragraphs, as illustrated in (68): (68) This paper is supposed to deal with immigrants coming to Sweden. To be more précis I am going to write about refugees, the biggest group of people who come here today. (Swicle 097)

Overall, the most typical discourse actions carried out in the texts (particularly by the writer persona referred to by first person I) are to introduce the topic and to repeat (or review) some preceding discourse unit. Furthermore, when writers and readers are made visible in the texts, they are often concerned with terminological matters, such as defining words. Finally, writers tend to make the discourse participants visible in order to foster the relationship between them – to work on their ‘footing’, as it were. In summary, the most common discourse functions that

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:07

F: SCL2403.tex / p.49 (3235-3283)

Chapter 3. Personal metadiscourse

personal metadiscourse serves across the three corpora are Defining, Introducing Topic, Reminding and Aligning Perspectives. In the BrE corpus, all the discourse functions of personal metadiscourse except for Introducing Topic, Defining and Aligning Perspectives are rare or nonexistent. The writer persona appears only to introduce the topic, to comment on the use of terminology, and occasionally to persuade the reader. The British argumentative writers are highly invisible in their discourse, which suggests that their writing norm favours a strictly impersonal style with few or no instances of mock interaction between the writer and reader. The American writers score the highest for Writer-reader interaction types. When they use personal metadiscourse, their main concern is the relationship between the writer and reader rather than the structure of the text or the use of language. They use personal metadiscourse particularly often for Appealing to the Reader. In the Swedish learner material, on the other hand, the top three functions are all Metatext: Saying, Defining, and Introducing Topic. The learner group also shows the greatest diversity of discourse functions for personal metadiscourse. There are clear differences between the learner corpus and the two nativespeaker corpora in terms of interaction management, particularly in the use of signals of writer-reader dialogue. The British students’ texts are more fact-oriented while the learners (in particular) and the American students are more concerned with their audience. A practical circumstance that may partly explain the lack of factual exposition, ‘objective’ statements, and impersonal style in the learner writing is the differences between the corpora in access to secondary sources (cf. Appendix 1). It is likely that any writer who does not have any input from factual sources, arguments of experts, or a literary text (which has been discussed and analysed in the classroom during the term), will turn to her own experiences and produce more personal texts. This may well have had some effect on the writers’ personal/impersonal style of writing as well as their construal of the writer persona and imagined reader across the three corpora. There are several other possible influencing factors that may account for the differences in the three groups’ use of metadiscourse presented in this chapter. Factors such as genre differences, lack of register awareness, learner strategies and differing cultural conventions for writing will be brought up for discussion in Chapter 6.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.1 (47-129)

chapter 

Impersonal metadiscourse

. Introduction Having looked at personal metadiscourse in the previous chapter, we will now investigate impersonal metadiscourse. Instead of discussing metadiscourse involving pronominal (and nominal) references to the writer and/or the reader, we will focus here on impersonal expressions that display reflexivity. The starting point will be searches for metadiscursive words such as essay, word, conclu*, second(ly), begin*, question and answer in the corpora. The primary purpose of the study is to paint a more comprehensive picture of the patterns of use of metadiscourse. More specifically, this includes finding out whether learners and native speakers differ as much in their use of impersonal metadiscourse as in personal types. The results presented in the previous chapter showed that personal metadiscourse was considerably overused by the learners. They also showed that personal types were more popular with the AmE writers than with the BrE writers, which suggests interesting cultural differences that call for further investigation. The study discussed in the present chapter will help us find out whether the Swedish learners use more metadiscourse across the board, or whether their overuse is restricted to the personal kind, possibly because their style of writing is generally less impersonal. In other words, to what extent do the considerably higher frequencies of personal metadiscourse in the learner corpus represent a general trend in use of metadiscourse, and to what degree are they a result of a more informal style of writing? Previous research on the Swedish learner material (Altenberg 1997; PetchTyson 1998), focussing on personal pronouns and general involvement features, has shown that Swedish learners are considerably more visible in their texts than native speakers of English. In fact, one previous study of the ICLE corpora (PetchTyson 1998) showed that learners with L1s other than Swedish are less prone than Swedish university students to use I in their argumentative writing in English, suggesting that this is not a general learner strategy, but rather a cultural phenomenon that depends on differing conventions for writing. Another goal of this study is to explore computer-assisted methods of analysing metadiscourse. A set of 61 search terms was selected for this purpose;

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17



F: SCL2404.tex / p.2 (129-199)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 1. List of truncated word forms searched for References to the Text/Code

essay, paragraph*, phras*, sentence*, text, word*

Phoric Markers

above, again, already, back to, before, begin*, below, earlier, end*, final*, first*, following, here, introduc*, last*, later, next, now, over to, plan*, previous*, remind*, second*, so far, start*, subsequent*, third*, turn* to

Discourse Labels

add*, aim*, answer*, as it were, call*, conclu*, empha*, exemp*/exampl*, express*, instance, intend*/intention*, mention*, outlin*, present*, put*, question*, say*/said, speak*/spoke*, state*, stress*, such as, sum*, underlin*

Code Glosses

brief*, i.e./i e/ie, mean*, namely

therefore, the findings will give a description only of a well-defined subset of impersonal metadiscourse, rather than covering the full range of potential impersonal metadiscourse. The search terms were selected partly by consulting the literature on metadiscourse, and partly by reading a large part of the essay material, which helped me to assess what forms seemed to occur most frequently in the essays in question. On this basis, I have reason to believe that these search terms include the majority of impersonal metadiscursive forms in the corpora. All tokens of the 61 search terms were automatically retrieved, then analysed and classified as metadiscourse or not, and, finally, counted. In order to capture several types of formal realisations, many of the search terms are truncated word forms, excluding various inflectional and derivational endings (e.g. introduc*, yielding introduce with all its various verbal inflections, as well as adjectival introductory and nominal introduction(s)).60 A large number of the retrieved instances were found not to be metadiscursive. All examples that were considered irrelevant were omitted at the classification stage. The frequencies given in this chapter represent only metadiscursive uses of the terms found. Impersonal metadiscourse was sorted into four functional subcategories: References to the Text/Code, Phoric Markers, Code Glosses and Discourse Labels. The sections of this chapter have been organized in terms of these subcategories. The list of search terms is given in Table 1. Note that in the subcategory of Discourse Labels, a great deal of the finite forms of discourse verbs or verba dicendi like say, mention, introduce, etc, will have been captured in the ‘pronoun search’ of the study of personal metadiscourse (see Chapter 3). Any instances of personal metadiscourse having I, we, or you as subject have been disregarded in this study of impersonal metadiscourse. Instead, this part of the study is concerned with non-finite verb forms (as in to sum up, stated formally, strictly speaking) and related nouns (conclusion, discussion, question, answer).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.3 (199-271)

Chapter 4. Impersonal metadiscourse

Again, the inventory of potential metadiscourse words excerpted here is not intended to be taken as an exhaustive list of metadiscursive expressions in argumentative essays. However, I am making the assumption that the results based on the list are sufficient for establishing what the tendencies are across the corpora in question.

. Distribution of impersonal metadiscourse On the basis of the search terms listed above, this section will present the frequencies of impersonal metadiscourse, starting with the overall figures. The following sections will then go on to more detailed frequency information on subcategories and individual word forms. Table 2 presents the frequencies of impersonal metadiscourse across corpora (total numbers and frequency per 100,000 words), while Figure 1 gives a visual representation of the distribution (normalised figures). The table shows that the learners use considerably more impersonal metadiscourse than the native speakers. Taken together with the results from the previous chapter, these results reflect a general pattern of considerable overuse of metadiscourse by the Swedish learners. If the native-speaker norm is approximately 500 occurrences per 100,000 words, and the learners produce as many as 750 occurrences, they use approximately 50 per cent more impersonal metadiscourse than the norm. We can conclude that the learners overuse both personal and impersonal types of metadiscourse in their writing, as compared to the native speakers. In comparison with the results for personal metadiscourse, however, the differences between groups here are considerably smaller. It is interesting to note that the native-speaker groups use almost the same amount of impersonal metadiscourse. Although the American writers use it somewhat more frequently (less than 10 per cent more), the difference is not as great as for personal metadiscourse, which is twice as frequent in the AmE texts as in the BrE texts. According to these results, the differences between the British and American essays primarily concern the level of writer and reader visibility, and not so much the use of impersonal metadiscourse.

Table 2. Distribution of impersonal metadiscourse in the corpora n Impersonal metadiscourse

1,531

Swicle f/100,000 748

n 810

AmE f/100,000 541

n

BrE f/100,000

486

506



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.4 (271-337)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Figure 1. Distribution of impersonal metadiscourse in the corpora

Figure 1 above can be compared to Figure 1 in 3.3, which illustrates the total frequency of personal metadiscourse across the three corpora. In that case, the proportions show a regular pattern; the Swedish learners use twice as many personal metadiscourse expressions as the American university students, and the American university students use twice as many as the British university students. Contrast this with the present results, where the learners use about 50 per cent more of the metadiscursive expressions studied than both groups of native speakers. To sum up, the main difference between the studies of personal and impersonal metadiscourse is in the native-speaker material. The British students are not inclined toward writer/reader visibility, in contradistinction to the American students. With respect to impersonal metadiscourse, however, their behaviour is similar to that of the American students at least in overall terms.

. The discourse functions of impersonal metadiscourse The tokens of impersonal metadiscourse were divided into four main categories, labelled Phoric Markers, References to the Text/Code, Code Glosses, and Discourse Labels. The search terms were intended to give a measure of how explicit the learners and the native speakers are in displaying the structure of the text, or in making lexical references to the text itself. Table 3 shows the total instances (raw and normalised frequencies) for each of the four categories. As we have seen, in contrast to the results for personal metadiscourse, overall differences between the American and the British corpora in the use of impersonal metadiscourse are small. However, the two native-speaker groups produce quite

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.5 (337-381)

Chapter 4. Impersonal metadiscourse 

Table 3. Distribution of impersonal metadiscourse n Phorics Ref. to the Text/Code Code Glosses Discourse Labels TOTAL

Swicle f/100,000

n

AmE f/100,000

n

BrE f/100,000

295 187 229 820

145 91 112 400

185 40 74 511

125 27 50 339

115 22 131 218

120 23 137 226

1,531

748

810

541

486

506

different results in two of the categories: Code Glosses and Discourse Labels. The BrE essays have more than twice the number of Code Glosses found in the AmE essays, while the American essays score higher than the BrE essays with respect to Discourse Labels. In comparison to the native speakers, the Swedish learners overuse all of the categories except for Code Glosses. References to the Text/Code and Discourse Labels are extraordinarily common in the learner essays. Phoric Markers also occur more frequently in the learner essays, albeit not by much. In the following, the Phorics, References to the Text/Code, Code Glosses and Discourse Labels will be examined in more detail, in that order. .. Phorics Phorics point to various portions in the current text. They can be described as the road signs of a text, pointing to and emphasising different parts at different times. Just like road signs, they help readers to navigate through the text. The type of metadiscourse that announces what is going to follow in the discourse (e.g. as we shall see in Chapter 6) has been called Announcement (Crismore et al. 1993), Advance Labelling (Tadros 1993), and Preview (Crismore & Farnsworth 1990). Such references are cataphoric, i.e. “the text to which they are referring follows the occurrence of the referring term” (Schiffrin 1980: 208). The type in which the writer tells the reader what she has already done in the discourse (e.g. as I noted earlier) has been called Reminder (Crismore et al. 1993), Recapitulation (Tadros 1993), and Review (Crismore & Farnsworth 1990). These references are anaphoric, i.e. “the text to which the referring item points precedes its occurrence” (Schiffrin 1980: 208). Hyland (1998: 443) uses the term ‘endophoric markers’ to describe “expressions that refer to other parts of the text (e.g. see Table 2, as noted above)[, which] play an important role in making additional ideational material salient and therefore available to the reader in aiding the recovery of the writer’s argumentative intentions”. ‘Endophoric’ is therefore a superordinate term for ‘anaphoric’ (refer-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.6 (381-546)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

ring up, i.e. to some previous unit) and ‘cataphoric’ (referring down, i.e. to some ensuing unit). Here we look at occurrences of impersonal types of Previews and Reviews, such as below and above. We investigate sets of metadiscursive words – like begin, start, beginning, end, ending, and finally – and Enumerators such as first(ly), second(ly), third(ly) across the corpora. The aim is to investigate how explicit the learners and the native speakers are in displaying the structure of their texts. The search terms listed in Table 4 have been organized according to six subcategories that can be discerned within Phorics. First, I list expressions that announce what is going to happen in the text (Previews) and expressions that remind the reader about previous chunks in the text (Reviews). Second, I list first*, second* and third*, which represent expressions that order specific parts of the discourse in relation to each other (Enumerators).61 These help the writer, for example, to rank her arguments by importance or keep track of the argumentation. Third, I list two deictic expressions, here and now, that draw attention to the ‘current point in the text’, or to specific chunks of the current text. Finally, I list expressions that proclaim the introduction and the closing of topics, arguments or text chunks (such as to begin with; the last point is . . .). These expressions specifically concern beginnings and endings of texts. Table 4 shows the raw and normalised frequencies of Phorics in the three corpora. The search terms are grouped by horizontal lines into the six subcategories. The sequence of terms is in sets in the order in which they are mentioned above. No major differences between the corpora were found in Phorics. The Swedish learners do end up with a higher total, but not by much. The native-speaker groups end up with practically the same total. Unlike almost all other results presented in this volume, these differences were found not to be statistically significant. The overall frequencies being low, we can assume that the writers in question rarely use Phorics when they announce their discourse actions or list their arguments. One reason why they may not see a need to signal the structure of their texts very carefully is that the essays concerned are quite short. The longer a text, the more opportunities there are for the reader to get lost in the text, so the greater the need for explicit signposting. Next, I will discuss and compare across corpora the search terms first*, second* and third*, as well as here and now, which seem particularly interesting.62 Enumerators such as first*, second*, and third* should be useful to writers of argumentative text in particular, in that they allow the writer to structure their arguments for or against an issue in an explicit way. For example, a writer can make a claim, present the number of arguments she wants to bring up supporting or refuting the claim, and then give the arguments themselves with numerical tags for ease of identification (and sometimes also to signal their order of impor-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.7 (546-559)

Chapter 4. Impersonal metadiscourse 

Table 4. Distribution of Phorics n below following later next over to plan* subsequent* turn* to

Swicle f/100,000

n

AmE f/100,000

n

BrE f/100,000

1 2 2 6 1 – – –

1 1 1 3 1 0 0 0

– 7 – 3 – – – –

0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0

2 1 2 1 – – – –

2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0

above again already back to before earlier previous* remind* so far

28 26 3 1 13 11 2 – 1

14 13 1 1 6 5 1 0 1

16 19 3 – 4 2 9 – –

11 13 2 0 3 1 6 0 0

5 11 2 1 4 – – 1 1

5 12 2 1 4 0 0 1 1

first* second* third*

56 29 18

27 14 9

34 19 17

23 13 11

32 18 11

34 19 12

here now

22 21

11 10

18 14

12 9

4 5

4 5

begin* introduc* start*

10 3 4

5 1 2

2 – –

2 0 0

2 – –

2 0 0

end* final* last*

1 21 13

1 10 6

– 13 5

0 9 3

– 6 6

0 6 6

295

145

185

125

115

120

TOTAL

tance). This can be done in a concise format that is easy to follow, making the argumentation easier to process. This is illustrated in (1): (1) Parents allow their kids to watch these cartoons for two reasons; first, because they watched them when they were kids and second, because parents are not interested in justice, they just want quiet. (AmE 127)

In (1), the writer first announces that there are two reasons, and then she goes on to present them. The numbers used to structure the argumentation add to the clarity of the text.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.8 (559-624)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

First*, second* and third* are used slightly more frequently by the British students than by the other two student writer groups. However, no great differences in the ways in which the different groups use the terms are evident, except that the learner writers show a stronger tendency to use Enumerators when they ask a question and then proceed to list answers or solutions, as in (2) and (3). (2) But how should the modern people of today celebrate Christmas? First of all, the shopping hysteria should be banned from Christmas. (Swicle 153) (3) The question is how can we create a future with a healthy environment for coming generations? First of all I believe that it is important that our environmental problems get international media attention. (Swicle 022)

Enumerators are most frequently used as adverbs, but first, second and third also occur as premodifiers (most frequently in the learner corpus). Enumerating premodifiers tend to co-occur with words that refer to discourse-specific activities (such as argument, claim, example, demand, point), ‘cognitive nouns’ (such as idea, problem, reason), ‘categorising nouns’ (such as category, area, factor, type, aspect), or ‘language-internal nouns’ (such as part of statement, quote), which refer strictly to linguistic form.63 Let us move on to the adverbs here and now – specifically those cases in which these terms function as metadiscourse, referring to the current text, a point in the current text, or the situation of writing. Instances in which they function as general time and place adverbials were disregarded. Example (4) illustrates metadiscursive here: (4) All of the things presented here could make for an effective argument against continuing genetic research. (AmE 040)

Here and now often recapitulate selected preceding parts of the discourse. The ‘scope’ – that is, “how much of the previous sentence [or paragraph or text] is included in the range of applicability of x” (Cruse 2000: 36) – of metadiscursive here varies: from the text as a whole to a single sentence, although the referent is sometimes ambiguous. For example, in (4) above it is not clear whether the whole text or only the text up to that point is the intended referent of here. More context may or may not resolve the issue. Now can be either anaphoric or cataphoric in that it either summarises the preceding discourse (or part of it), as in (5), or announces what is to follow in the discourse, as in (6). The former type only occurs in the combinations now that and by now in the present material. (5) By now it should be obvious to the reader that I consider them to be on the wrong track, who claim that there is no place for dreaming and imagination (Swicle 059)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.9 (624-693)

Chapter 4. Impersonal metadiscourse 

(6) Therefore we are now going to look at some advantages of higher education, both in a short-term perspective and also over a longer period. (Swicle 214)

The former can be rephrased as ‘up to now’, the latter as ‘from now on’. Here and now are equally common in the learner material and the AmE material, but less common in the BrE material. This further reinforces the picture of the BrE essays as texts that are essentially disconnected from the reader and the situation of writing. Now, although equally frequent, is used differently in the AmE essays and the learner essays. In the AmE essays, now is used to refer to a specific textual instance in one construction only, which is formalised in (7) and exemplified in (8) and (9). (7) now that X [present perfect: writer summarises something that has happened before this point in the text], Y [imperative or future tense: writer announces the next move] (8) Now that we have established the legality of affirmative action, let us assess the necessity. (AmE 004) (9) Now that you have read this and may be trying to figure me out, I will tell you about myself. (AmE 064)

Note the persuasiveness of the use of inclusive we (compare 2.5.2) in (8); it almost makes the reader seem like a co-author. Furthermore, the present perfect form and the lexical choices (such as the verb establish) do not leave room for disagreement. Example (9) is not as strongly persuasive, but rather signals helpfulness on the part of the writer. She is showing that she is making an effort to put herself in the reader’s position. The motivation given for the ensuing discourse move in the text (a narrative section on the writer) is to satisfy the reader’s needs. It is interesting to note that the single sentences in (8) and (9) convey a good deal of information about the style of the essays in which they occur. Sentence (8) is from a prototypically argumentative text, in which arguments are presented in a fairly formal manner. The vocabulary of (8) belongs to a higher register than that of (9), in which more colloquial words and informal expressions (like ‘figure someone out’) are used. The style of (9) is involved while that of (8) is more detached. The argumentation is not central to the text in which (9) occurs, but is interspersed with narrative sections, as suggested by the writer’s announcement that she will tell the reader about herself. This belongs to a familiar rather than an official domain. The Swedish students predominantly use an informal style similar to that of example (9), whereas the British students prefer quite a formal style, and the American students fall in between these two extremes. In the BrE essays, now co-occurs with the verbs discuss, consider and explain, most often in combination with first person plural pronoun we/us. Metadis-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.10 (693-761)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

cursive now only occurs when the writer announces her discourse actions, as illustrated in (10). (10) We have already seen how the CES works so now we can discuss what happens next. (BrE 045)

The learner writers, on the other hand, use now with a wider range of verbs: end, think about, consider, come to, reveal, have (problem), look at, understand, and ask (oneself ). Modal verbs might and must, signalling varying degrees of certainty, are also common. First person singular and plural pronouns are equally common, and second person pronouns also occur. Metadiscursive now is an interesting linguistic signal in that, in mentioning the present moment in the text, the writer brings the flow of the text (or the process of reading) to a halt, and invites the reader to pause and reflect on the text. This type of anchoring gives the writer a chance to be more direct with the imagined reader, a chance which the learner writers exploit to a great extent. In the learner material, now often co-occurs with the discourse function Anticipating the Reader’s Reaction, exemplified in (11). The term also co-occurs with expressions that announce discourse actions and summarise main points, as in (12) and (13). (11) Now, dear reader, you probably ask yourself “what is the perfect way of celebrating the birth of the little boy in Bethlehem”? (Swicle 177) (12) Now I come to the next idea which I presented in the beginning, that technology and imagination are very closely connected. As I said, I think that. . . (Swicle 048) (13) Now we have three problems to solve; the poverty, “knowhow” (to save the land from sterilisation) and the role of the exploiters. (Swicle 028)

The learners use now in a way that adds to the illusion of immediacy. It makes the situation of writing/reading present, and imposes a boundedness on the situation of writing.64 The learners seem to wish to make the medium more lively and tied to the situation, hence the greater attention paid to the writer, reader and text. It is, however, hard to know what is the chicken and what is the egg here: Are the learners’ texts more reflexive because they want to make them more lively and situated, or do they give the impression of being lively and situated because they contain a fair amount of reflexive language? This ‘situatedness’ is extraordinarily evident in example (14), where the readers are told to fasten their seatbelts. (14) I just wanted to say that, because that is the way in which most men tend to regard women when we bring up subjects like the one I’m going to discuss now. So fasten your seat-belts. (Swicle 336)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.11 (761-819)

Chapter 4. Impersonal metadiscourse 

The writer first gives a metacomment on why the previous text chunk was included. Then, instead of spelling out the next topic, she announces it rather clumsily as the one I’m going to discuss now. This might be intended to keep the reader in suspense, particularly since the ensuing imperative clause raises the expectations about the text. Also, the topic itself is deemed to be a sensitive one, so it is likely that the writer adds this preface in order to prepare the reader for a difficult discussion. The fasten-your-seatbelt strategy stresses the ‘here-and-now’ quality of the text. It is as if the writer were trying to get away from the fact that this is a written text, where no real co-existence of the addresser and the addressee is possible. Two more examples of now reinforcing the simultaneity of the learner writing are (15) and (16). (15) . . . through the Montgolfier brothers’ airballoons in the eighteenth century gave us a technique that not even da Vinci could imagine. I am now thinking about nuclear-powered submarines and space-craft. (Swicle 023) (16) No, now I must end this glorification. Everything about our State Media is not good; . . . (Swicle 292)

In these examples, the moment of writing appears in the text and the machinery is made visible. In (15), the writer tells her imagined reader what is on her mind at the time of writing. In (16), it seems that the writer decides to settle for a different argumentative strategy (modifying the speech act) in mid-text, which gives the impression that the text is being composed on the fly, and that it is not very carefully planned. An alternative interpretation of (16) is that it represents an unconventional transition from a discussion of pros to a discussion of cons, not necessarily composed on the fly. The more deictic expressions are used in a text (such as I, we, you, here, now, above, below, this [text, statement, etc.]), the more likely it seems that the text will be generally more metadiscursive. Deictic expressions are likely to be metadiscursive in that they tend to be used by writers to make reference to the current text, the current writer and the current reader. Prompting an awareness of the specific time and place of the writing and/or the reading of a written text has several effects; it situates the text, engages the reader, breaks the illusion of non-design/nonmanipulation, and makes the text less impersonal. If the Jakobsonian functions (see 2.3) that focus on the writer, reader and text are our point of reference, it makes perfect sense that there should be connections between deictic expressions and reflexivity in language, since deixis has to do with determining the reference of elements “in relation to a specific speaker and addressee and a specific time and place of utterance” (Matthews 1997: 82). In summary, the frequencies of Phorics suggest no great differences across the corpora (the learners take somewhat greater care in signalling these things, while

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.12 (819-894)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

the native-speaker groups both yield the same results). On the whole, however, neither the learners nor the native speakers are very explicit in displaying the structure of their texts. The most probable explanation for this is that the argumentative essays are too short to have much need of this category (the average length being 742 words). However, the fact that the learner essays are slightly shorter than the native-speaker essays would then predict fewer occurrences for the learners, which is not the case. .. References to the Text/Code Mauranen (1993: 173ff.) uses the term References to the Text for instances in which the text itself – either the whole text (17) or parts of it (18) – is explicitly referred to. The following examples are from Mauranen (1993): (17) The paper concludes by explaining why the results of empirical work done by Chang. . . (18) In the following section, a method of treating management is proposed that is more general. . .

The category References to the Text is extended here to include metalinguistic units below the level of the paragraph (sentence, phrase, word), which I will call References to the Code. In the following, the two types will be treated together as References to the Text/Code. The present section thus covers references to the text itself at various levels (text, essay, paragraph), as well as references to the words and expressions used in the text. Table 5 shows the raw and normalised frequencies of the six search terms that were chosen to represent References to the Text/Code. The learners use at least three times as many terms of this category as the native speakers. Two words that are used strikingly differently in the learner and the native-speaker corpora are essay and word*, which are both heavily overused by the learners. The occurrences Table 5. Distribution of References to the Text/Code n essay paragraph* text

Swicle f/100,000

n

AmE f/100,000

n

BrE f/100,000

50 – –

24 0 0

4 – –

3 0 0

3 – –

3 0 0

phras* sentence* word*

5 1 131

2 1 64

13 – 23

9 0 15

1 – 18

1 0 19

TOTAL

187

91

40

27

22

23

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.13 (894-951)

Chapter 4. Impersonal metadiscourse 

of essay often appear in the phrase in this essay, while the majority of the occurrences of word are found in comments on the definitions or meanings of words. Reformulations like in other words are also common. The learners refer to the current text to a great extent and devote a fair amount of their essay space to discussing definitions. This finds a parallel in personal metadiscourse, as we saw in Chapter 3, in which the discourse functions Defining and Saying are considerably overused by the learner writers. Also note that the verb call (see below), which is often used in managing definitional matters in ways similar to word, is overused in the learner essays. It is presumably natural that, being less familiar with the target language, learners will pay more attention than native speakers to the meanings of individual words and expressions. For example, they will more often wonder whether the term they have chosen is appropriate. Approaching the language as someone who is less initiated should result in increased metalinguistic awareness. It is reasonable to assume that metalinguistic operations, which “make it possible to assure full and accurate communication between speakers” (Jakobson 1998: 124), e.g. through paraphrase or synonymy, are more common in L2 communication – whether spoken or written. Learners’ mastery of the L2 is, by definition, incomplete, which should give rise to more situations in which the metalinguistic machinery of language is visible. From this perspective, it is not very surprising that non-native speakers discuss definitions more often than native speakers, since the latter have stronger and more reliable intuitions about the vocabulary of their mother tongue. However, before accepting the explanation that the results of References to the Text/Code are based on a learner strategy involving deficits in L2 vocabulary, we should study more closely the learner essays and the categories of words they actually comment on. If the ‘learner strategy’ hypothesis is correct, we can expect the words commented on to be difficult, or belong to a register that the advanced learners are not likely to be familiar with. Should it turn out, however, that the learners are not uncertain of the meanings of ‘difficult’ words, we must assume that there are other reasons for this ‘definitional drive’ of theirs. Another possibility is that the definitional drive is a rhetorical strategy. In this sense, bringing up the meaning of a central topic, and discussing how it is defined in the current text (or how the writer thinks it ought to be defined), are considered perfectly licit discourse acts in argumentative essays. Writers may believe that they give the essay a philosophical touch, and that they make the writer come across as more serious and careful in her argumentation. A third possibility is that the learners simply use these terminology discussions to increase the number of words in their essays. This could be a consequence of the fact that the learners were asked to produce a minimum number of words on a topic that, for the most part, they had not prepared in advance. Parts of their

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17



F: SCL2404.tex / p.14 (951-1018)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

essays can even be claimed to function as phatic communication not meant to be informative, which suggests that it may be used as ‘filler’. The words whose meanings the learners most commonly comment on in the context of the word word are best-seller, Communism, family, happiness, ideal, imagination, popular, progress, racism, regionalism, technology, thinking, and even water. These make up a vocabulary that is not particularly specialized, and that should be quite familiar to advanced learners of English. The learners’ motivation for mentioning them is most likely not that they are uncertain of their meaning in English, so it does not seem that it is their status as learners of English that causes the definitional drive. Most of the words are topical and even mentioned in the headings of the essays. Only occasionally do the learners show their metalinguistic awareness (as expressed by the word word) in the context of difficult words that may need some extra attention, such as foreign words or recent loanwords (perestroika, glasnost), and in comments on a word’s etymology (lunacy). On the basis of these collocations, then, the most likely explanation is not that the definitional drive is a learner strategy, but that it is a general writing strategy – a ‘filler’ strategy – to meet the size requirements of the writing task. In addition, it may be the case that learners believe that definitions are required in argumentative essays, or that they give the essay a philosophical touch. Writers choose to make metalinguistic comments for many different reasons, which are hard to evaluate in detail without investigations involving informant elicitation. It should be noted that discussions of definitions are often performed for the benefit of the reader, not least to explain to him that the writer does not take a particular interpretation for granted. In examples (19) and (20), the focus is on the meaning of individual words. (19) Then again, the word racism is probably also, often misused as well as misinterpreted. (Swicle 294) (20) Originally printed in the now extinct British comic book (though “comic” isn’t the proper word) Warrior. (Swicle 270)

For a final word on word, we should bear in mind that the term is considered metadiscursive if it actually comments on words themselves or the use of language in the current text. Note that word can mean ‘verdict’ or ‘advice’, as in “Instead we must be ready to accept the words of ecologists and conservationists and not turn a deaf ear to their reports even if they sound terrifying and unbelievable” (Swicle 103). Used in this sense, word is at a lower metadiscursive level than in examples (19) and (20). Just as seemingly non-metalinguistic words and expressions can be used metalinguistically (see 7.2 and consider the example now above), words and expressions that seem inherently metalinguistic can be used at different levels, and need not be metadiscursive in all contexts.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.15 (1018-1098)

Chapter 4. Impersonal metadiscourse

2 5 8 10 13 16 19 22 29 32 33 34 40 41 49 53

o define, but before I start writing an r to the pupil who could write the best If so, I’ve got to re-name them. In my it at all. I hope, as I conclude this ace does not allow that. Hopefully this try to defend these programmes in this ending it are rarely discussed. In this n a future. As I have discussed in this roblem all over western Europe. In this en care of our own environment. In this what I have been trying to say in this t a bestseller should be about. In this issue. The solutions mentioned in this ility to use their imagination. In this ute to our convenience. The aim of this since I would end up with a 20 000 word

essay about this word an essay about ”milk as the essay today I would like essay, that these words essay has shed some ligh essay. The first thing essay I would like to at essay, we have a long wa essay I will present and essay I intend to give a essay, technology will n essay I will try to prov essay dealt mainly with essay I will only look u essay is to try and answ essay if I did. I ho

Figure 2. A selection of occurrences of essay in the Swicle

I will now turn from ‘References to the Code’ to ‘References to the Text’. The search term text, first of all, yields no metadiscursive instances in the corpora, since none of the examples refer to the current text (see 2.4.2). Text is probably too general a term to be of much use to the essay writers in question. However, the more genre-specific term essay yields quite different results: there are, as we have seen, a great number of occurrences of essay in the learner material; Figure 2 shows a concordance of a selection of these. Almost all of the occurrences found are metadiscursive, except for examples like (5). The majority of the examples involve expressions specifying discourse acts that the writer intends to perform (or frequently, in a more modest fashion, ‘tries to’ perform; see 3.7.3). The most prominent of these introduce topics or state aims (cf. Introducing Topic; examples 8, 16, 19, 29, 32, 34, 41 and 49). Others refer to the (current) activity of writing as such (cf. Contextualising; examples 2 and 53), or deal with summing up (examples 33 and 40), concluding or closing the topic (cf. Concluding Topic; examples 10, 13 and 22). The most common pattern in the learner corpus is the prepositional phrase in this essay (28 out of 54 examples), pointing directly to the current text. In this essay shows two persistent patterns of textual distribution. Firstly, in 21 out of 28 examples, it occurs at the beginning of the text. All of these examples co-occur with metadiscursive expressions that function to introduce topics or state aims. Secondly, 5 out of 28 instances occur at the end of the texts. These instances cooccur with metadiscursive expressions that conclude the essay. This presents some evidence that the textual distribution of metadiscourse can be highly patterned. An analysis of metadiscourse from the point of view of its textual distribution will be pursued in Chapter 5.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17



F: SCL2404.tex / p.16 (1098-1184)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Also, students are required to write an can completely change the meaning of an clear. Tables and charts do not make an writer interprets the facts. Taking an h in the 1960’s is similar to Ferrell’s people cited in Friedan’s and Ferrell’s eel this way. As Steele mentions is her rtant in being a boy or a girl. In her t way out. William F. May wrote in his types of people who will be reading the also point out in a later part of their tement about grief. In no part of their ut the problem is, as the title of this le it was decided by the writer of this st the death penalty. The focus of this that one can see why the statement this better. All the experts cited in this

essay about the honor co essay, but it can also h essay that is exciting t essay from the Journal o essay. Friedon writes h essay were static. Grey essay. His reasoning w essay "The Smurfette Pri essay, The Right to Die essay. JAMA is very tech essay that Parks and Wei essay do Ingram and Elli essay states. Crime essay that there was not essay is to analyze the essay is commenting on e essay understand the imp

Figure 3. All occurrences of essay in the AmE material

1 ected government. In the course of this essay, we shall attempt 2 is seems very likely. And so, as this essay has outlined ther 3 t contrary to the way the title of this essay could be construe

Figure 4. All occurrences of essay in the BrE material

The frequency of the word essay as well as the way it is used differ widely between the native and non-native speaker corpora. In the AmE material, about a third of the (considerably fewer) occurrences of essay co-occur with demonstrative this modifying the node word. The remaining examples are not metadiscursive, but mainly intertextual, referring to other writers’ texts to support or refute arguments given. Figure 3 shows a concordance of the instances of essay in the AmE material. The first few examples that take the indefinite article are related to the topic of essay writing in general, and do not specifically refer to the current text. Only the last five examples in the concordance list function as metadiscourse. In example (14), the noun phrase the writer of this essay is used to refer to the current writer, instead of the more economical and straightforward first person singular I. This is most probably an avoidance strategy, resulting from the writer having been taught that using I in an essay is bad form. In contrast to the 28 instances in the learner material, there is only one occurrence of in this essay in the AmE material. In the BrE material, in this essay does not occur at all. The phrase this essay, however, occurs three times in the entire corpus, listed in Figure 4.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.17 (1184-1262)

Chapter 4. Impersonal metadiscourse

Example (1) prefaces an instance of Introducing the Topic, while example (2) prefaces an instance of Concluding the Topic. Example (3) comments on the actual and imaginary titles of the current text. In this section, we have explored the gap between the non-native and the native-speaker essays with respect to the use of References to the Text in general, and the word essay in particular. Why do we find this extraordinary overuse by the learners? It can be assumed that the main reasons are one or more of the following: (a) It is a ‘filler strategy’, (b) it is due to the conditions of writing (i.e. the learners are more aware of the situation of writing itself, because their task is more strictly a composition task), (c) it is due to what we may call ‘overgeneralisation of instruction’ (i.e. the learners have been taught to open or close an essay with formulaic metadiscursive expressions, and they overdo it). .. Code Glosses According to Vande Kopple’s (1985) terminology, Code Glosses give cues to the proper interpretation of elements, comment on ways of responding to elements in texts, or call attention to or identify a style. Most of the examples in this subcategory are adverbials and many of them fall into Quirk et al.’s (1985: 8.124) category ‘style disjuncts’ (such as briefly and bluntly). The search terms selected for the present study and their raw and normalised frequencies are given in Table 6. The results show that the BrE corpus contains the greatest number of Code Glosses, followed by the learner corpus. The British material has more than twice the number of Code Glosses as the AmE corpus, which means that the native speakers differ in their use of the selected terms. The distribution of Code Glosses is exceptional in that the British students actually produce more instances than the other two groups. We should note that there is only one search term for which there BrE corpus scores considerably higher: mean*. Let us take a closer look at the situation behind the numbers. We know that ‘mean’ is polysemous. Here, only the sense of SIGNIFY has been taken into consideration, while meanings like INTEND were Table 6. Distribution of selected Code Glosses n

Swicle f/100,000

n

AmE f/100,000

n

BrE f/100,000

brief* i.e./i e/ie mean* namely

5 39 173 12

2 19 85 6

1 4 66 3

1 3 44 2

4 18 105 4

4 19 110 4

Total

229

112

74

50

131

137



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17



F: SCL2404.tex / p.18 (1262-1338)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

excluded. With respect to SIGNIFY, a simple distinction was drawn between ‘definitional’ and ‘consequential’ mean. The distinction can be paraphrased as ‘the definition/linguistic meaning of X is Y’ (called ‘definitional’) versus ‘the consequences of X are Y’ (called ‘consequential’). Some examples are the following: Definitional mean In this essay I will give an account of my options for the immediate future, on the basis of assuming that “immediate” means within the next 6 months. (Swicle 241); Therefore it is not surprising how many different meanings we put into the word “family”. (Swicle 169) Consequential mean The democratic process in Sweden suffered one major drawback though, the right-wingers had all the money. This meant that they could spread their propaganda much more efficiently than their opponents and thus win the battle. (Swicle 109); But does this necessarily mean that an increase in technological development will entail a decrease in the imaginative powers of human beings? (Swicle 043)

One interesting difference between the corpora is that, by comparison with the native speakers, the learners very much prefer definitional mean*. Although both types count as metadiscourse, definitional mean* is more explicitly metalinguistic than consequential mean*. If we consider the percentage of total occurrences of mean* that are definitional, we will find as many as 50% in the Swicle, but only 32% in the AmE material and 29% in the BrE material. What this simple analysis of mean* gives us is further evidence for the ‘definitional drive’ in the learner material. The frequencies of Table 6 show a radically different pattern from other types of metadiscourse. The fact that it clearly differs from the persistent pattern of learners using considerably more metadiscourse than the native speakers and of American writers using more metadiscourse than British writers prompted me to test the effect of disregarding the Code Glosses altogether. Table 7 below presents the revised picture of the overall frequencies (raw and normalised) of impersonal metadiscourse across corpora, excluding Code Glosses (compare the original table in 4.3 above). The result of the omission is that the findings fall into line with the pattern for personal metadiscourse in that, as for personal metadiscourse, we now find differences between AmE and BrE writing. The proportions of personal metadiscourse, however, continue to show more extreme variation across the corpora (see Table 7. Distribution of impersonal metadiscourse, excluding Code Glosses n Impersonal metadiscourse

1,302

Swicle f/100,000 636

n 736

AmE f/100,000 491

n

BrE f/100,000

355

369

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.19 (1338-1509)

Chapter 4. Impersonal metadiscourse

Table 1 in 3.3). The fact that the results for the Code Glosses are quite idiosyncratic suggests that we should view with some caution the very similar distribution of impersonal metadiscourse in the two groups of native speakers. Further studies are needed to evaluate more carefully in what ways AmE and BrE writing differ with respect to impersonal metadiscourse. When it comes to the differences between the learners and the native speakers, however, the recount shown in Table 7 above does not modify the original conclusion drawn: the overuse of impersonal metadiscourse by the learners is still substantial when compared to the native-speaker norm. .. Discourse Labels Discourse labelling is a term for “the naming of discourse acts in text as they occur, as in Heat is defined as . . .” (Mauranen 1993: 156). Bäcklund (1998: 14) defines Discourse Labels as “expressions containing verbs or nouns of illocution or other expressions that indicate the textual function of the part of the text in question”. The term itself is from Sinclair (1983). Discourse Labels are like the legend of an atlas, naming and describing the type of phenomena that appear in the map. When writers insert a ‘legend item’ in their texts, they help their readers interpret their various moves in the ‘textual landscape’. Such expressions are important for clarifying the intentions of the writer, either with respect to parts of the text, or with respect to its overall purpose. A variety of Discourse Labels were included in the study. The majority of the retrieved examples turned out to be intertextual rather than metadiscursive (see 7.2.4). The native-speaker texts present many quotes from and comments on other texts (mainly literary texts in the BrE material, and mainly argumentative texts in the AmE material). Table 8 shows the selected search terms and their raw and normalised frequencies. To increase the interpretability of the table, I have divided the search terms into sets and assigned to each set an approximate discourse function, using the classification presented in Chapter 3. The search terms aim*, intend*/intention*, outlin* and present* are classified as Introducing the Topic. Concluding the Topic, meanwhile, are represented by the search terms conclu* and sum*. The search terms exemp*/exampl*, instance, and such as are classified as Exemplifying. The single form add* often functions as Adding, while empha*, stress* and underlin* can function as Arguing. The remaining dozen or so search terms often function as Saying, or possibly Defining. The sets have been ordered by frequency, while the items in each set have been ordered alphabetically. The distribution of this selection of search terms shows that the Swedish learners use almost twice as many Discourse Labels as the British students, and



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 8. Distribution of impersonal Discourse Labels BrE f/100,000

Saying & Defining

n

as it were call* express* mention* put* say*/said speak*/ spoke* state* answer* ask* question*

3 54 1 40 3 74 10

1 26 1 20 1 36 5

– 14 1 7 1 32 6

0 9 1 5 1 21 4

1 7 – 2 – 28 2

1 7 0 2 0 29 2

16 62 10 129

8 30 5 63

38 31 6 51

25 21 4 34

2 3 1 27

2 3 1 28

Exempl.

AmE f/100,000

exemp*/ exampl* instance such as

224

109

152

101

90

94

42 64

21 31

23 104

15 69

3 41

3 43

Con.

n

conclu* sum*

41 18

20 9

18 2

12 1

6 1

6 1

Introduc. T

Swicle f/100,000

aim* intend*/ intention* outlin* present*

4 –

2 0

2 –

1 0

– –

0 0

2 3

1 1

– 5

0 3

2 –

2 0

Argu.

n

empha* stress* underlin*

3 – 1

1 0 1

– 1 –

0 1 0

1 – –

1 0 0

Add.



F: SCL2404.tex / p.20 (1509-1524)

add*

16

8

17

11

1

1

820

400

511

339

218

226

TOTAL

some 15 per cent more than the American students. Yet again, the general pattern is repeated. The Swedish learner material has the highest frequencies in the majority of cases, except for such as and state*, which are used more frequently by the American writers. The search terms present*, add* and outlin* merely display negligible differences, while the greatest differences across the corpora are found for instance, such as, conclu*, sum*, call*, mention*, say*, answer* and question*.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.21 (1524-1585)

Chapter 4. Impersonal metadiscourse

In the following, I will discuss some of the most frequent terms and specifically bring up characteristic ways in which they are employed by the three groups of writers. I will pay particular attention to the search terms question* and answer*. A basic use of metadiscourse is for writers to explicitly display their intentions, whether with regard to their texts or with regard to their use of language. Since metadiscourse very much revolves around making the writer’s intentions clear, some verbs and nouns that explicitly refer to these, such as intend* and aim*, were investigated. The following is an example in which the topic is stated using aim: (21) Thus, the aim of this essay is to show that studies in humanoria are as important as scientific studies, and that progress, then, can be seen also as an increased knowledge and understanding of the world and its population from a human point of view. (Swicle 209)

Instead of leaving all of the interpretation of the text to the reader’s inductive powers, the writer inserts metadiscourse to give the reader additional tools for interpreting the text. If it is used in a balanced way, this should add to the clarity of the text, but – as is the case with most phenomena – if it is overused, it risks becoming a distraction. Of course, the boundary between clarity and befuddlement varies, depending both on the individual reader and on writing conventions. Terms that denote the writer’s intentions (e.g. aim*, attempt*, intention*, purpose*) are very rare in the corpora. They do not occur at all in the native-speaker material, while there are merely nine instances in the learner material. The learner examples typically co-occur with References to the Text (this essay), as in example (21) above.65 Next, let us consider some of the search terms that represent Saying and Defining. Many uses of the search term call*, such as passive forms (‘be called’) with a proper noun as a complement, are not considered metadiscursive. If the verb is used only with the purpose of mentioning the name of a person, place or phenomenon in the ‘real’ world, the example was omitted. By contrast, if the writer comments on a name or term per se, for example by discussing whether it is suitable, the example was included, as in These two belong to a group which might be called “luxuary-articles” (Swicle 330). In other words, when the search term is used in a definition rather than a designation, it was considered metadiscursive. Giving definitions is commenting on language, whereas simply mentioning someone’s name is not explicitly metadiscursive. The search term state* yields the highest scores in the AmE material. This can be explained by the fact that the American writers often use state* to refer to other sources. They had access to – and sometimes quote – articles that discuss the topics that the students are asked to write on. Most of the uses of state* are intertextual rather than metadiscursive, i.e. they refer to other texts and writers, and not to the current text and the current writer’s discourse actions. If this is taken into account,



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17



F: SCL2404.tex / p.22 (1585-1647)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

there are no notable discrepancies in the ways in which metadiscursive ‘stating’ is used in the three groups. The search term question* is considered metadiscursive if it refers to a question actually posed in the discourse, or if it describes or defines the type of question posed. Questions that other people (apart from the current discourse participants) ask, or should ask, according to the writer, are not included. Collocations like out of the question were excluded, as were expressions like the Palestinian question, where the term is used in the sense of ‘issue’. NP + in question constructions were sometimes included (e.g. the statements in question), provided that they made text-internal reference. In the AmE material, many of the occurrences of question* refer to questions posed by other people, not by the writer persona. Again, this is one of the effects of the fact that the native speakers frequently had other texts to draw on and react to when they built their argumentation and constructed their texts. The argumentative world of the learner writers, on the other hand, is for the most part limited to themselves and their experiences, which means that they naturally mention their own or their imagined reader’s questions and answers to a greater extent. The search terms answer* and question* (ask*) represent a classic adjacency pair. Although they represent discourse acts that are more likely to occur in spoken texts, they are, nevertheless, quite common in the learner essays. The pattern that emerged in the study of personal metadiscourse reappears here: the learners produce the highest frequencies, followed by the American students, while the British students produce the lowest frequencies by far. Question* is twice as frequent in the learner material as in the native-speaker material. Answer* is one third more common in the learner material than in the AmE material, and as much as ten times more frequent than in the BrE material. The search term ask*, on the other hand, is too infrequent to provide any safe conclusions. The learner writers, then, are more explicit than the native-speaker writers in bringing up questions and answers, and often name the discourse acts of asking a question or giving an answer. What could be called question-answer sequences, i.e. occurrences of answer adjacent to an actual question or in combination with the noun question, as in example (22), are quite common in the learner essays. A range of different rhetorical strategies can be found behind these questionanswer sequences. Some of the examples give a highly didactic impression, as in (22). (22) But what has this got to do with the question whether people should be assimilated or integrated into Swedish society? The answer is easy, through history people have emigrated from one place to another. . .. (Swicle 114)

The writer anticipates the reader’s reaction (cf. 3.5.2) and poses a question (using the overt nominal question) concerning the connection between a previous state-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.23 (1647-1712)

Chapter 4. Impersonal metadiscourse

ment and the topic of the essay. An answer is then presented, the quality of which is commented on. It is uncertain how such devices will be received by the reader, which makes it somewhat risky to use them. The extract in (22) might be seen as insulting to the reader, as if he were judged by the writer as unable to make the necessary inferences himself – especially as the answer is said to be ‘easy’. Alternatively, at the other extreme, the reader might appreciate the didacticism of being treated as less knowledgeable by the writer and be happy about receiving special guidance. Biber et al. (1999: 213) describe strategies like “explaining by posing a question and then providing an answer” as typical of academic textbooks. Another type of question in connection with which question* and answer* frequently appear in the learner texts is topical questions, i.e. questions that introduce or shift topics to be dealt with in the subsequent text (see 5.4). One may assume that this is influenced by the writing task having been given in the form of questions, but only a fraction of the list of topics given are in fact formed as questions (e.g. Assimilation or integration?, Europe 1994: Loss of sovereignty or birth of a nation?, Christmas 1997 – traditional or innovative?).66 Example (23) from the learner material introduces (sub-)topics in the form of questions, and then reflexively comments on them as questions that will be answered in the course of the essay. (23) If we accept change through the influence of other cultures, should we adopt a laissez-faire policy and call all conservative language users purists, or even fascists? Should we accept all foreign cultures or discriminate some of them? In what way would our defence of other forms of Swedish culture and our attitude to foreigners and foreign things? I will try to answer these questions, as well as I can, but first . . . (Swicle 289)

A similar example is (24) below, taken from the very beginning of a learner essay. It should be noted, however, that no question mark is given after the introductory topical question, even though it is formed as a direct wh-question, and explicitly defined as one by the writer. The learner writers occasionally make such slips. (24) How can we develop a “borrower’s” rather than a “consumer’s” mindset. That is probably one of the most complex questions ever asked. If anyone could answer that question the world would be a much happier place to live on. (Swicle 031)

The writer virtually stacks question-answer words here, and by doing so, stresses the complexity of the topic. In fact, it is often the case that the learner writers argue that there is no answer to a specific question (specifically when it comes to the issue of how to save the planet), or that they will not be able to provide the reader with a clear-cut answer, as in (25) and (26):



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.24 (1712-1774)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

(25) For instance, are the industrial leaders of the world ready to reduce production and become more environmental minded? I have no answer to this question but I know that without Nature we are doomed. (Swicle 103) (26) How can we then develop a “borrowers” mindset? Is there a way to preserve the Earth to our descendants or will they inherit a world in ruins? These questions are not easy to answer. (Swicle 103)

This strategy seems to be applied to cases in which the addresser does not have an immediate, obvious answer to the question. This is similar to the ‘that’s a good question’ phenomenon in spoken discourse. An expression like (that’s a) good question is not simply a reference to and an evaluation of the previous utterance of the addressee, but it is used in specific contexts, commonly with the implicature ‘I don’t have a good answer’. Alternatively, if the question posed is rhetorical, it signals agreement. Native speakers in general seem more likely to use metalinguistic expressions for more complex purposes, and with less transparent implicatures – as in (that’s) a good question – than non-native speakers, who write things like I have no answer to this question. With a less sophisticated command of the language, non-native speakers are likely to make more straightforward references to actual questions or answers, without additional meanings attached. An interesting issue is how the various groups differ in their presentation of questions and answers and in how their writer personas appear to deal with them. Are there differences regarding the extent to which the various writers generally claim to be able to answer the questions posed? For example, what are the Swedish learners’ attitudes to questions compared to those of the native speakers? This issue interrelates with the degree of certainty and authority conveyed by the writer, discussed in Section 3.7. Some of the learner essays display a rather ‘chatty’ type of reflexivity in their question-answer sequences, as if they are using reflexive expressions to expand their essays, to get closer to making the minimum word limit. This may be one (task-related) reason for the learners’ greater explicitness with regard to Discourse Labels and reflexivity in general. Examples (27)–(30) illustrate this tendency of learners to be wordy. They are short extracts, in which sequences involving question/answer/ask that could be omitted have been put within square brackets. (27) [But then the question arises,] what are we saving time for? [The simple, but somewhat dejecting, answer to that question is, I think,] we do not know what we are saving our time for, or rather we have forgotten why we started to save time in the first place. [The next question then to demand an answer is], how does this time-saving mentality affect us? [My opinion is that] it has affected our way of thinking, dreaming. . . (Swicle 107)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.25 (1774-1831)

Chapter 4. Impersonal metadiscourse

(28) How can we make Christmas of 1997 the most memorable Christmas we ever have celebrated? [I believe the answer of the question is to] make it very simple. (Swicle 174) (29) What is the purpose of having a grading system at all if the grades are arbitrary and share no equal value[, one might ask.] [My response to this question is naturally] ‘none’. (Swicle 186) (30) But how about us, the majority, in the in-between-category? Are our first impressions reliable? Have mine been? [I would answer] “no” [to both questions.] (Swicle 228)

The first three examples all have an alternating question-answer structure, whereas (30) delays the answer by stacking questions. Example (28) is from the very beginning of an essay, and the question form might reflect the form of the topic given (Christmas 1997 – traditional or innovative?).67 Example (29) poses a rhetorical question, which is answered, although naturally is added to underline the attitude that the answer should be obvious anyway. Example (30) supplies the reader with yes/no-questions, the last one being elliptical (Have mine been?), which looks more like a spoken utterance than a sentence from an argumentative essay. Also note the no within quotation marks in (30), increasing the spoken quality. Example (29) also uses quotation marks for the equally short, negative answer none. The important point here is that many of the learners’ metadiscursive expressions are basically optional, such that, in many cases, they may just as well have been omitted. The learners do opt for using them – in abundance – which calls for an explanation. Is it due to their learner status? Is it due to lack of training in writing? Could it be a case of L1 transfer? Again, the influencing factors will be discussed in Chapter 6.

. Conclusion The study of personal metadiscourse described in Chapter 3 did not provide any information about impersonal metadiscourse, i.e. metadiscursive expressions in which the writer or reader is not explicitly mentioned. The present, complementary, investigation allowed us to assess the use of impersonal metadiscourse in the three corpora. The most important conclusion to be drawn from this chapter is that the learners overuse metadiscourse across the board. The considerably higher frequencies of personal metadiscourse found in the learner corpus do represent a general trend in use of metadiscourse, and are not just the result of a more informal style of writing. The main finding of this investigation is that, again, the learner writers use considerably more metadiscursive expressions than the native speakers. While the



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.26 (1831-1887)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

learners use about 50 per cent more impersonal metadiscourse than the native speakers, the native speakers use roughly equal amounts. Therefore, compared to the native-speaker norm represented here, the learners overuse not only personal types of metadiscourse, but also impersonal types – the latter particularly in units that comment on terminology or definitions, or refer to the current text. The main difference between the results of the personal and the impersonal studies is in the native-speaker material. Whereas the BrE texts have on average half the amount of personal metadiscourse used in the AmE texts, the two nativespeaker groups exhibit similar levels of impersonal metadiscourse. The American writers are ahead of the British writers, but by less than 10 per cent. Judging from these results and those of the previous chapter, the difference between American and British student writers is primarily in the use of personal metadiscourse, but it is also present in impersonal types. The discourse participants are much less visible in the British essays, with the result that the BrE group produces the most impersonal texts. This conforms to cultural stereotypes of writing, suggesting that there could be some truth to the notion that BrE prose is more impersonal and formal, while AmE prose exhibits a more personal, individualistic touch. All of the results presented in this chapter were found to be statistically significant (see 1.4), with the exception of Phorics (see Table 4). Neither the differences between the learners and the native-speaker groups, nor the differences between the American and British writers were statistically significant for this category. One of the greatest differences found across the corpora is in References to the Text/Code, for which the learners have at least two-thirds more occurrences than the native speakers. The search terms essay* and word* are the main causes of this discrepancy. The findings demonstrate that the learners are more prone to explicitly display an awareness of the situation of writing than the native speakers. The British students in particular use here and now as metadiscourse to a much lesser extent, which supports the generalisation that the text itself and the situation of writing are relatively invisible in their texts. The category Code Glosses brings out a different pattern. Somewhat surprisingly, Code Glosses are more popular with the British students, but this only applies to the one search term mean*. The American students score unusually low in this category; they use only half the number of the selected Code Glosses that the learners do. Only in this particular group does the frequency pattern across corpora depart from the persistent pattern of all other findings. Discourse Labels display major differences across corpora, specifically between the learners and the British students. Search terms such as conclu*, sum*, call*, mention*, answer* and question* are considerably overused by the learners. Furthermore, the essay-compositional Discourse Labels concl* and sum* are par-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:17

F: SCL2404.tex / p.27 (1887-1922)

Chapter 4. Impersonal metadiscourse 

ticularly common in the learner texts. However, when it comes to giving examples, the AmE material shows the highest result. One aim of the present study is to explore computer-assisted ways of identifying metadiscursive patterns in texts. One great difficulty in using computerassisted methods to find reflexive language is that such language is contextdependent to a great degree. As we have seen, to analyse metadiscourse is to make the relevant distinctions between word occurrences that are “talking about the text or talking about the content, that is, [what is] text-internal vs. text-external” (Mauranen 1993: 157). A great number of the retrieved search terms were not metadiscursive, i.e. they did not comment on the ongoing text, nor did they explicitly refer to the current writer or reader within the world of discourse, so in this sense the method does not score high on precision (the proportion of retrieved material that is relevant). For example, a large number of intertextual examples were found, in particular in the native-speaker essays; these make reference not to the current discourse, but to other texts. This is due to the fact that many of the native-speaker writers had access to other texts while writing their essays. Some of the selected search terms gave very poor results. One interesting observation is that many metalinguistic words (see Chapter 7), such as writer, reader and text, are quite infrequent in the material, so they are not very successful as search terms. In fact, in the whole of the BrE corpus, there is not a single example of these words functioning as metadiscourse. Nevertheless, the method did make it possible to carry out a large-scale and systematic study of the selected search terms, for which the figures are reliable.68 The previous and present chapters have both explored the use of computerassisted methods of finding reflexive language. The next chapter will continue to use computer-assisted methods, this time to examine distributional patterns for metadiscourse.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50

F: SCL2405.tex / p.1 (48-129)

chapter 

The textual distribution of metadiscourse

. Introduction Considering the fact that metadiscourse constitutes a reflexive commentary on the ongoing text, we can expect that some types of metadiscourse will tend to occur at specific points in texts. First and final paragraphs, in particular, can be assumed to be good candidates for specialized forms of discourse that focus on the text, the writer or the reader. There is, to my knowledge, no previous research on the textual distribution of metadiscourse. Due to this lack of previous findings, I will occasionally refer to the scarce information that style manuals present on this issue as a substitute, although this information is typically prescriptive rather than descriptive. The very beginning of a text is where the reader’s first impressions are formed. This is the first opportunity for writers to establish a relationship with the imagined reader. In instructional literature, introductions are often pointed out as particularly important textual locations, as the following two excerpts from style guides illustrate: Of all the paragraphs in a piece of writing, none is more important than the first. (Lunsford & Connors 1992: 104) Opening paragraphs warrant special attention because they introduce you and your paper to the reader, and that first impression is important. [. . .] The opening paragraph for whatever you write is your lead, the part of your paper that gets you off to a good or bad start with your reader. (Hairston & Ruszkiewicz 1991: 131)

Another pertinent assessment of the importance of introductions comes from Plato, who is said to have remarked that “The beginning is half of the whole” (quoted in Swales & Feak 2004: 242). Furthermore, I did find one comment on positioning in the literature on metadiscourse, stating that “[t]he orienting aspect of metatext is particularly important in initial positions, such as introductions” and section beginnings (Mauranen 1993a: 11). The ending, on the other hand, is the last chance a writer has to convince her reader. Style guides for academic writing often bring up the importance of the concluding paragraph, as in the following excerpt:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50

F: SCL2405.tex / p.2 (129-190)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

A good conclusion wraps up a piece of writing in a meaningful and memorable way. [. . .] The concluding paragraph provides the last opportunity for you to impress your message on your readers’ minds and to create effects you desire. (Lunsford & Connors 1992: 130)

There is plenty of support in the instructional literature on academic writing that beginnings and endings serve particularly important functions in texts. The purpose of this chapter is to explore whether beginnings and endings also serve particularly important metadiscursive functions in texts. One possible way in which to measure the functions of different parts of a text is to compare the frequency of various linguistic features throughout the text. Linguists such as Stubbs (1996: 32) argue that “few linguistic features of a text are distributed evenly throughout”. Different parts of a text are specialized for different purposes, which is reflected in the use of language in general. As an example, Stubbs (ibid.) brings up the fact that “marked lexical and syntactic differences are often found between different parts of a scientific research article, say between abstract, introduction, main argument and conclusion”. In research into spoken language, it is well known that texts exhibit specific structures. A classic example is ‘encounters’, e.g. ‘service encounters in a shop’, which are framed by opening sequences at their beginnings and concluded by closing sequences (Schiffrin 1980: 206). If it is true that specific parts of written essays are employed by writers particularly often for commentary on the ongoing text or for building a relationship with the imagined reader, then it is particularly likely that opening and closing paragraphs are among such ‘metadiscursive locations’. We will focus on the following questions: a. What are the tendencies of certain types of metadiscourse to occur in specific positions in a text? Specifically, can we find evidence that beginnings and endings are particularly suitable textual locations for metadiscourse? b. If this is indeed the case, do the patterns of textual distribution differ across the groups of writers under investigation? We will hypothesise that there is a pattern according to which metadiscourse – at least some types of metadiscourse – is distributed in texts. In doing so, we are taking advantage of the fact that the present material consists of full texts in an electronic format, making it possible to test this hypothesis by means of computerassisted methods. The study described in the following thus represents yet another element of the general attempt to explore simple computer-assisted methods for finding patterns in the use of metadiscourse. The concordance program WordSmith Tools (Scott 1999) was used in retrieving the data. One of the many features of this program is that it can divide a text

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50

F: SCL2405.tex / p.3 (190-260)

Chapter 5. The textual distribution of metadiscourse 

into 100 parts and report in terms of these percentiles where every instance of a search term occurs. The first percentile represents the very beginning of the text and the hundredth percentile represents the very end of the text.69 Many concerns could be raised about measuring textual distribution in terms of percentages instead of paragraphs. However, the paragraph breaks of many of the essays in the three corpora have not been clearly marked in the text files, which makes it impossible to accurately reconstruct the beginnings and endings of all paragraphs of the texts. Furthermore, the texts themselves are quite short, and therefore are not composed of very many paragraphs. This means that, for practical purposes, using histogram buckets is the only viable way of measuring textual distribution in the present material. We can assume that it will give a sufficiently accurate picture of the distribution of various linguistic units in these relatively short texts. A selection was made of some of the most common metadiscursive items examined in the preceding chapters. The textual distribution of questions and exclamations was also included in the study. All the tokens found of the small selection of search terms were exported from WordSmith Tools into a separate database (FileMaker), including the percentile information for every one of them. The records of the percentile information were then fed to a Perl script that calculated, for each type, the number of occurrences in the first tenth of a text, the second tenth of a text, and so on.70 On the basis of the frequency in tenths of texts, it was quite easy to make histograms to get an immediate, visual representation of the distribution of a particular linguistic item. These patterns of distribution are based on the accumulated analyses of all the texts of a corpus. The rest of this chapter comprises three main parts: first, the results of the analysis of textual distribution of personal metadiscourse across corpora will be presented, followed by the textual distribution of two examples of impersonal metadiscourse (essay and question). Finally, we will look into the textual distribution of two dialogic features that are not metadiscursive per se, namely, questions and exclamations.

. Textual distribution of personal metadiscourse Figure 1 shows the distribution of personal metadiscourse across the three corpora.71 All frequencies reported in this chapter have been normalised to occurrences per 100,000 words. Each line represents the results from one of the corpora: the darkest, unbroken, line represents the learner corpus, while the dark dashed line represents the AmE corpus, and the light dashed line represents the BrE corpus. For each corpus, there is one data point per tenth of a text; that is, there are ten data points per corpus.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50

F: SCL2405.tex / p.4 (260-291)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Figure 1. Textual distribution of personal metadiscourse across corpora

The results show that beginnings and endings do tend to contain more personal metadiscourse than any other textual section. This trend is particularly strong in the learner essays. The learners employ more personal metadiscourse in the opening sections than anywhere else, but there is also a clear increase in the closing sections. This ‘double-peak’ trend is not as pronounced, or is absent, in the native-speaker material. While the American writers use the greatest amount of personal metadiscourse when closing their texts, the British writers use the greatest amount of personal metadiscourse (by a small margin) when opening their texts. In order to draw further distinctions within the large class of personal metadiscourse, we could choose to break down the data in two ways: by discourse function (according to the taxonomy given in Chapter 3), or by pronoun. I opted for the latter and broke down the data into smaller groups of I-units, we-units and you-units. The textual distribution of I-units is shown in Figure 2. It is in the I-units that we find the greatest differences in textual distribution. In the learner corpus in particular, there is a clear peak in the first parts of the essays. As much as 30 per cent of the overall number of I-units occur in the first three tenths of the essays. A steep rise is also noticeable at the end. In the AmE material, the highest peak is found in the last percentile section, although peaks show up in the first and third sections as well. In the BrE material, as we saw in Chapter 3, there are very few occurrences of I-units, most of which occur in the very first

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50

F: SCL2405.tex / p.5 (291-333)

Chapter 5. The textual distribution of metadiscourse 

Figure 2. Textual distribution of I-units in the corpora

section. Although data is scarce in both the British and American material, the overall patterns of distribution are similar to that of the learner essays. The results clearly show that beginnings and endings are segments in which metadiscursive I-units are particularly likely to occur. Let us now move on to the textual distribution of we-units, illustrated in Figure 3. Compared to the results for I-units, we-units show a much less unified picture, with criss-crossing lines and plenty of variation. One intriguing difference between the corpora is that, while both nativespeaker corpora show an increase in we-units in the final parts of the texts, the density of we-units is at its lowest point at the endings in the learner texts. The explanation is that, to review or signal the conclusion of a topic, the British writers commonly use expressions like as we can see and the American writers use expressions like as we have seen. The learners, on the other hand, do not tend to employ a we-perspective in their final paragraphs, but rather employ I-units that exclusively include the writer. The position in which the learners most frequently use inclusive we is the second and third tenths. The main functions of these we-units are Introducing Topics (we are now going to look at . . .), Exemplifying (if we look at/compare . . .) and Defining (what do we mean by . . . ?). With the exception of Defining acts, the British writers also start out Introducing the Topic (we shall attempt to analyse whether . . .) and Exemplifying (if we . . . , we see that . . .), although these moves appear already in the first percentile. This distributional discrepancy could be taken to mean that the learner writers are exceptionally late in introducing their topic,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50

F: SCL2405.tex / p.6 (333-355)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Figure 3. Textual distribution of we-units in the corpora

Figure 4. Textual distribution of you-units in the corpora

but they actually prefer to use I-units for that purpose, many of which appear in the first percentile. Moving on to the last set of results for personal metadiscourse, we will see what the textual distribution of you-units is in Figure 4.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50

F: SCL2405.tex / p.7 (355-426)

Chapter 5. The textual distribution of metadiscourse

By comparison to the we-unit results, there is less criss-crossing of lines across corpora in the you-units. The three groups show some differences in the distribution of you-units. However, as discussed in Chapter 3, you-units are too scarce in the BrE material to allow any comments on their distribution. In the learner essays and in the AmE essays, the frequencies are low and the proportions are not at all as strongly differentiated as for I-units. Nevertheless, the figure does suggest that beginnings and endings are favourite positions for appeals to or mentions of the imagined reader, who is not referred to to the same extent throughout the essays.

. Textual distribution of impersonal metadiscourse Let us now consider some examples of impersonal metadiscourse. The purpose here is not to give a full account of the textual distribution of impersonal metadiscourse, but merely to show that this does display specific patterns. Many of the search terms discussed in Chapter 4 were ruled out for this investigation because they are not sufficiently common to give useful results. Search terms that are fairly frequent and could have been selected include conclu*, answer*, mean*, in fact, etc. For this small study, however, only two search terms were tested: nominal essay and question. Once again, the results show that both search terms demonstrate clear preferences for where in the texts they occur. The distribution of metadiscursive essay in the learner texts is shown in Figure 5. Only in the learner essays was a large enough number of tokens found, which is why the other corpora are not included below. Because the native speakers use essay to a considerably lesser extent, as discussed in Chapter 4, there are too few occurrences to find any reliable pattern. The first two tenths (1–20 in the figure) are the learner writers’ favourite positions for essay. This is where they introduce the topic and inform the reader about what to expect. Recall that the overwhelmingly most common collocation is in this essay. There is also a small increase in the final two sections, which is where these References to the Text are used to conclude the essay and sum up the important points made. Figure 6 illustrates the patterning of the second search term, metadiscursive question. This term is most common at the beginning of the essays, particularly in the learner material, where it is four times more common in the first than in the last section. In the AmE essays, question displays a pattern similar to that in the learner essays. The first section is the location in which the writers are most likely to use the term. Then a steep fall follows, from 12 to 1 occurrences in the second section, and the remaining sections show low frequencies and an even distribution. In the BrE essays, despite being less common, the search term still shows a pattern similar to both the learner and the AmE essays.72



JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50



F: SCL2405.tex / p.8 (426-434)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Figure 5. Textual distribution of essay in the learner material

Figure 6. Textual distribution of metadiscursive question across corpora

To summarise, the results presented here clearly show that, even though proportions differ, question displays a particular distributional pattern that is similar in all three corpora. There are two ways in which writers can employ ‘question strategies’ in their writing: in addition to making lexical reference (question), they can use syntactic

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50

F: SCL2405.tex / p.9 (434-510)

Chapter 5. The textual distribution of metadiscourse

means and form direct (or indirect) questions. Syntactically formed direct questions, indicated by question marks, are the topic of the next section. The two question strategies are illustrated in examples (1) and (2), taken from different essays on the same topic (‘assimilation versus integration of immigrants’): (1) The question of whether immigrants should be integrated or assimilated into the Swedish society is very much of current interest. Over the years Sweden has accepted large numbers of immigrants but how to best make them part of our society, culture and traditions has not been paid much attention to. (Swicle 108) (2) Do we want to integrate or assimilate newcomers into Swedish society or is there another way to inaugurate them to our mysterious customs? What Sweden is doing today is neither integration nor assimilation. But instead we initially take the role as, what I would like to call, some kind of supervisor. The immigrants, when they first come here. . . (Swicle 009)

Combinations of syntactic and lexical questions are also common in the learner texts, exemplified in (3): (3) How can we develop a “borrower’s” rather than a “consumer’s” mindset? This is a very much debated question, especially in these days when the thickness of the ozonlayer is rapidly decreasing. (Swicle 028)

If we compare Figure 6 with Figure 7 below, we will see that the learner writers are more likely to begin their essays with questions by syntactic rather than lexical means.73 Taken together, the results for lexical question and question marks indicate that the most likely position for posing or referring to questions is at the beginning of texts, as might well be expected.

. Textual distribution of questions We know that linguistic features such as interrogatives, imperatives and first and second person pronouns tend to contribute to the dialogic dimension of texts (see e.g. Bondi 1999: 45). Previous research on questions (Ädel 2003) in the present data set has shown that the Swedish learners use questions 50 per cent more often than the AmE writers and 2.5 times as often as the BrE writers. Although less common, exclamations are used by the learners nearly four times as often as the AmE writers and approximately twelve times as often as the BrE writers. Table 1 shows the proportions across the three corpora. Each asterisk represents 10 instances (rounded numbers) per 100,000 words. The fact that both questions and exclamations were found to be considerably more common in the learner texts than in the native-speaker texts confirmed the



JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50

F: SCL2405.tex / p.10 (510-544)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 1. Proportions of questions and exclamations

‘?’ ‘!’

Swicle

AmE

BrE

**************************** (281) ******** (84)

****************** (182) ** (23)

******** (76) * (7)

observation that the learner texts represent a more dialogic and involved style. One effect of questions in written text is that they encourage reader involvement. Some linguists even suggest that questions illustrate “how all language use is potentially dialogic, whether the addressee is present or not” (Biber et al. 1999: 213). It should be noted that, in the present investigation, neither questions nor exclamations are considered metadiscourse per se, since, in and of themselves, they do not necessarily involve any explicit reference to the text as text, or to the writer and the reader. Although technically, these features fall outside the category, they are still common rhetorical devices that seem likely to form distributional patterns in texts. Turning now to the textual distribution of question marks, Figure 7 reveals quite different patterns across the corpora. There are no great differences between percentile segments in the learner material. The high is 33, and the low is 26. The second section does show a slight rise, but the overall figures suggest that the learner writers do not primarily employ question marks for opening (or closing) their essays.

Figure 7. Textual distribution of question marks across corpora

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50

F: SCL2405.tex / p.11 (544-599)

Chapter 5. The textual distribution of metadiscourse

The AmE material demonstrates the most pronounced variation in the use of question marks across text segments. The high is 32 and the low is 11, i.e. they differ by a factor of three. The first section shows particularly high frequencies. The American writers commonly use questions to open their essays, as in the following example: (4) How could people live without the invention of the computer? Computers have become a part of everyday life for many people. Computers can be found everywhere from schools to huge businesses. People often rely greatly on computers. Computers have significantly changed people’s lives. (AmE 086)

The AmE data are to some degree in accordance with advice given in instructional literature on writing. In one (American) writing guide, for example, one of six suggested strategies for effective opening paragraphs is to ‘ask a question’ (Hairston & Ruszkiewicz 1991: 132ff.). Another writing guide (Lunsford & Connors 1992: 128ff.) gives similar advice, and lists asking a question as one of five strategies for beginning a text. There seems to be some agreement in the instructional literature that asking questions in an introductory paragraph is one (efficient) way of attracting the reader’s interest. The distribution of questions in the BrE texts displays yet another pattern. The total frequencies are quite low. The last few sections display a somewhat greater density of question marks, but the range of variation of sections is merely from 4 to 10. In terms of textual distribution, it is interesting that there is no pattern. Again, we get evidence that the British writers show quite different trends in their writing from the learner writers and the American writers. The differences found across the corpora suggest that the three groups use questions for different purposes. This can be compared to a study of essays written in Swedish by three different groups in which it was found that “the placement of direct questions in the essay and within paragraphs varies between the [nativespeaker] data and the essays written by Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking Finns” (Virtanen 1998: 104). According to Virtanen, this supports earlier studies of cultural differences in rhetoric as far as topical questions are concerned. The American writers primarily employ questions in their essay openings; these are most likely to be ‘topical questions’ that introduce topics, as in example (4) above.74 They also use questions to close their essays, albeit not as frequently. Questions that close essays are typically rhetorical, as in the following example:75 (5) Abortion is an example of what has happened when the ending of another’s life was allowed. Because euthanasia could possibly cause the same problems as abortion did, it is not worth keeping euthanasia in existence. By eliminating free practice of euthanasia [. . .], the risk of violent and destructive euthanasia protests would be lowered. In closing, only one question need be asked. Is it



JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50

F: SCL2405.tex / p.12 (599-634)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

worth losing lives to violent protests just to follow a few others to lose their lives to euthanasia? (AmE 033)

By contrast with the American students, the learners and the British students employ questions for a wider range of functions. They clearly distribute questions much more freely in their texts.

. Textual distribution of exclamations Like questions, exclamations are not considered metadiscourse per se according to the present model. Table 1 above gives the overall number of occurrences of exclamation marks across corpora, showing that the learners heavily overuse exclamations by comparison to the native speakers: four times as many as the AmE writers and twelve times as many as the BrE writers. Figure 8 presents the textual distribution of exclamation marks across the corpora. On the whole, the learner texts show a steady increase in the density of exclamations throughout the essays. Exclamations are nearly four times as likely to occur in the final as in the first paragraph. Examples (6) and (7) illustrate the use of exclamations in final paragraphs.76

Figure 8. Textual distribution of exclamation marks across the corpora

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50

F: SCL2405.tex / p.13 (634-698)

Chapter 5. The textual distribution of metadiscourse 

(6) For the years to come, there are many problems for the European Community to solve in adjusting all the memebers to each other in many different fields. However, these problems are minor of you think of what the people in Europe can gain. The day when we have a Europe where everybody can live and work where they want to, travel anywhere and live in a free and democrative society might not be so far away. Let us hope that our children may use this! (Swicle 356) (7) I believe it is important to have high moral standards. Therefore I am very positive about the fact that he [Bill Clinton] has been sent to trial. Political leaders are society’s role models; they should set a good example, definitely behave, and when necessary go to court! (Swicle 220)

A similar picture emerges in the AmE essays, although the frequencies are considerably lower. Again, the frequency of exclamations in the final section is almost four times higher than in the first. Example (8) illustrates the use of exclamations in the AmE essays. (8) Obviously, the invention of the television has impacted people in many ways. It has created news forms of entertainment & communication. On a deeper level it has also impacted values within the family. There is a tremendous amount of controversy over the beneficial and detrimental aspects of the television and it is anyone’s guess if it will ever be resolved. One thing is certain and that is the television is the invention of the 20 century! (AmE 095)

By contrast to the learners and the American writers, the British writers use exclamations quite sparingly. In fact, there are too few occurrences (seven in total) to map their textual distribution in any meaningful way. In both the learner and the AmE corpora, we have seen that the favoured position for exclamations is the final paragraph. It seems likely that these writers end their essays with exclamations to achieve a strong effect. As one style manual puts it, a “good conclusion wraps up a piece of writing in a [. . .] memorable way” (Lunsford & Connors 1992: 130). A search through some writing manuals for explicit advice on the use of exclamations in concluding paragraphs revealed none, so it seems not to be the case that the instructional literature actually encourages this usage. However, other types of recommendation may possibly be seen as an incentive to use exclamatory clauses: for example, two (of six) effective strategies for concluding a paragraph presented by Lunsford and Connors (1992: 131–132) are to conclude with a call for action, or with a warning. Another example is Hairston and Ruszkiewicz (1991: 140–141), who suggest making “a recommendation when one is appropriate”, which could take an exclamatory form.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50

F: SCL2405.tex / p.14 (698-753)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

. Conclusion In the opening section, I raised the question of whether we could find evidence that beginnings and endings are particularly likely textual locations for metadiscourse. Because the investigation was of necessity restricted to high-frequency search terms, we have looked at only a few. Needless to say, larger corpora would enable a greater variety of terms to be studied. I hope to have demonstrated the potential of this type of computer-assisted analysis of metadiscursive phenomena, despite the facts that the analyses were somewhat cursory and no in-depth examination of discourse functions was carried out. The hypothesis that some types of metadiscourse tend to occur at specific points in texts was verified: there are indeed patterns in the way writers position metadiscourse. These patterns, furthermore, may look quite different from one group to another. For example, personal metadiscourse was found to occur most frequently at the beginning of texts in the learner corpus and the BrE corpus, while the opposite result obtained in the AmE corpus, with personal metadiscourse occurring most frequently at the end of texts. Another example of diverging patterns was found in questions and exclamations. The clearest tendency to differentiate the distribution of questions and exclamations in the texts was found in the AmE material. Here, the search terms displayed quite opposite patterns, with question marks dominating at the beginning of texts and exclamations at the end. While the learner material showed a similar pattern for exclamations, it showed no particular pattern in the distribution of questions. In the BrE material, questions were also spread out quite evenly across the texts, while exclamations were too few to form any reliable pattern. The clearest example of a converging pattern was found for question, which displayed a similar pattern across all three corpora, with a clear preference for beginnings. The search term essay, the other example of impersonal metadiscourse studied, was found in sufficient numbers only in the learner material. There, it showed a pronounced peak at the beginning of the essays, as well as a small peak at the end. The search method for examining the distribution of individual search words in each text proved to be quite versatile. It could be used in future studies in various ways, for example to investigate the distribution of discourse functions of metadiscourse (as detailed in Chapter 3). Since the material has been coded for discourse functions, it would be possible to investigate the textual distribution of each discourse function. We would then be able to establish whether there are patterns according to where in the text, for example, Anticipating the Reader’s Reactions, Clarifying or Saying occur. This would be a useful complement to the present chapter’s exclusive use of formal linguistic units.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:50

F: SCL2405.tex / p.15 (753-756)

Chapter 5. The textual distribution of metadiscourse 

In sum, despite severe frequency restrictions, it did turn out that the search forms investigated (both metadiscursive and dialogic phenomena) were distributed according to specific patterns: the first and/or the last sections proved to be the most important locations. Thus, the enterprise of finding patterns in the textual distribution of metadiscourse is worth pursuing further and is likely to give interesting results.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51

F: SCL2406.tex / p.1 (48-123)

chapter 

Possible causes of variation in metadiscourse use

. Introduction In this chapter, I will discuss the factors that potentially account for the considerable differences in the use of metadiscourse between learner writing and native-speaker writing that we have witnessed in the preceding chapters. Although the design of the current study does not permit any definite statements about the relative impact of these factors to be made, it is still relatively clear what the relevant factors are most likely to be. The identified potential causes of variation are genre comparability, register awareness, cultural conventions and general learner strategies. The first factor to be discussed is the extent to which the use of metadiscourse is dependent on genre, since the learner essays and the native-speaker essays do display some differences in this respect. The second factor is ‘register awareness’, which refers to the degree of writers’ familiarity with argumentative writing and mastery of the appropriate writing skills. The first factor involves differences between genres when they are executed appropriately, while the second factor involves failure to execute the target genre appropriately. Investigation of the third and fourth factors falls outside the scope of this study. However, given their potential importance, I will discuss them even in the absence of hard data. They are the degree to which cultural conventions for writing in Swedish and in English differ, and the possible universal effects of using a foreign language.

. Genre comparability We might interpret the different results found across corpora as reflecting genrerelated differences instead of revealing actual differences between the groups of writers compared. The main purpose of this section, therefore, is to consider the comparability of the three corpora.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51

F: SCL2406.tex / p.2 (123-174)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Before analysing comparability, however, we should ask a more basic question: What evidence is there that genre affects the use of metadiscourse in the first place? Can we assume that genre exerts an influence on both the amount and the types of metadiscourse found in a text? Vande Kopple (1985: 88) raised the question about the relation of metadiscourse and genre variation some twenty years ago: “Are some kind of metadiscourse more appropriate than others – or even necessary – in some kinds of texts?” Little substantial evidence for genre variation in metadiscourse use exists, however. Only a few studies exist that map the use of metadiscourse across genres (see e.g. Bäcklund 1998 and Crismore & Farnsworth 1990). To date, most studies that involve comparison across texts have focussed on differences between disciplines rather than genres. For example, Mauranen (1993) examines the research article in two different disciplines; Hyland (1998) in four different disciplines; Dahl (2004) in three different disciplines. More research is needed to map the genre variation of metadiscourse in English, not to mention Swedish. The term ‘metadiscourse continuum’ was coined by Crismore (1989: 61), with the aim of describing the variation of metadiscourse in texts. It assumes that the amount of metadiscourse varies across genres, for example, with respect to linguistic signals of interaction between the writer and the imagined reader. While in some genres – specifically in pedagogical texts – it is customary for the writer or the imagined reader to be visible, in other genres – such as legal documents – it is not appropriate for the writer to be visible at all. Crismore (1989: 70, based on Williams 1989) also speculates on the variation of metadiscourse across genres, claiming that metadiscourse is “used very little in operating instructions, technical manuals, science writing, [. . .] and laws but is used more frequently in the humanities, literary criticism, personal narratives, arguments, memoirs, and personal letters. In other words, it is used in any discourse where ideas are filtered through a concern with how the reader will take them”. Although not empirically tested, this gives a rough indication of how we can expect metadiscourse to vary across texts. Interestingly, the claim that science writing uses very little metadiscourse was tested on actual data in Crismore and Farnsworth (1990), where it was refuted. This study looked at popular and professional scientific articles in biology, and found a great deal of metadiscourse in both types. In fact, the professional material even exhibited more personal commentary than the popular material.77 Perhaps the one thing that is safe to say at this point is that the nature of the contract between the writer persona and the imagined reader varies across genres. To quote John Swales (1990: 63), “a producer’s contract with a receiver is not general, but subject to quite sharp genre fluctuations”. In addition to genre, discipline has been shown to play an important part in textual variation, such that, whether “writers decide to establish an equal or hierarchical affiliation, adopt an

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51

F: SCL2406.tex / p.3 (174-245)

Chapter 6. Possible causes of variation in metadiscourse use 

involved or remote stance, or choose a convivial or indifferent interpersonal tenor, they are at least partly influenced by the dominant ideologies of their disciplines which are exercised through the patterns of the genre they are participating in” (Hyland 2002: 219). In the present case, we are concerned specifically with genre, asking whether the essays in the different corpora are comparable, and whether the level of comparability is satisfactory for comparing the use of metadiscourse in the corpora. It is generally accepted that the ICLE and the native-speaker Locness corpora “permit discourse studies [,] as they consist of [. . .] texts which are similar enough for most purposes of comparison” (Virtanen 1998: 99). In the course of the present study, however, I did find some genre-related differences between the learner corpus and the target corpora. The problem is that it is very hard to establish the degree to which this may have influenced the results. The conditions of writing differ in some respects across the three corpora. Like the native speakers, the Swedish learner writers were simply given a topic to write on (as a rule, there are a number of options), but unlike the native speakers, they did not get any input from other texts. Having had access to secondary sources, the native-speaker writers frequently polemicise against other texts or authors that they use as a point of departure for their argumentation. The fact that the Swedish learners had no input from other sources at the time of writing is likely to have had an effect on their style of writing, at least in terms of personal types of metadiscourse. Since there is no pre-existing text for them to base their arguments on, or take a stand for or against, when they build their argumentation and form their texts, they tend to base their arguments on personal experiences. The argumentative world of the learner writers is limited to what they can come up with off the top of their heads. The fact that the native-speaker material allows for direct quotes from, and references to, other texts (argumentative texts among some of the American writers, and literary texts among some of the British writers) could be significant for some of the findings on metadiscourse, for example the use of question and answer. Many of the occurrences of question in the AmE material refer to questions posed by other people, while the learner material more or less exclusively mentions questions and answers posed by the writer persona or the imagined reader. A final, partly genre-related, partly learner-related, issue is that the purpose of writing an essay is somewhat different across the groups, although all the argumentative essays studied are responses to an exam question. Whereas the native speakers aim to show their skills at writing, presumably eager to show off their knowledge of the topic or their analytical skill, the non-native speakers primarily aim to show their skills in the English language. It is likely that, to them, the fact of the language is foremost, even before the task of composition.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51

F: SCL2406.tex / p.4 (245-278)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

It is also possible that the learners use metadiscourse, personal involvement and a dialogic style to disguise the fact that they do not know much about the topic. In fact, some parts of the Swedish learner essays could actually be described as primarily filling the phatic function of language, in that the writers seem to be using language mainly to keep the discourse going. Some types of metadiscourse, such as References to the text, may be used as ‘fillers’, i.e. linguistic material that helps the writer to accumulate text and reach the minimum number of words required. In discourse produced in response to an exam question, writers need to produce a text, but might not have much to say on any of the topics given. The (over)use of ‘fillers’ could be seen as a general writing strategy, dependent on the conditions of writing, and not as a specific learner strategy. Therefore, on the one hand, one can assume that the native-speaker writers should be equally motivated to use this strategy to make their texts longer. On the other hand, however, the native-speaker writers actually prepare their essays in advance to some extent, which would make fillers less likely to occur. In summary, the comparability of the three corpora is, on the whole, reasonably satisfying (see Appendix 1 for a more detailed genre analysis). However, there are some differentiating circumstances that are likely to have had an impact on the results: (a) the absence of secondary texts or prior discussion on the essay topic in the learner group, (b) the fact that some of the BrE essays are more expository than argumentative in character, and (c) the fact that the majority of the learner essays were timed sit-in exams, while some of the native-speaker essays were take-home assignments. Circumstance (a) stands out as particularly important. It is likely to explain at least in part the lack of factual exposition, ‘objective’ statements, and impersonal style in the learner writing. A writer who does not have any input from statistics, the arguments of experts, or a literary text, will turn to her own experiences and produce more personal texts. This should have had some effect on the personal/impersonal style of writing as well as on the construal of the writer persona across the three corpora.

. Register awareness It could be argued that the overuse of metadiscourse on the part of the Swedish learners constitutes a breach of style that is not appropriate to argumentative writing. To put it differently, if Swedish learners are lacking in communicative competence in their L2 English, this will have negative effects on the way they write, including their use of metadiscourse. Quirk et al. (1985: 23) describe communicative competence as follows: a speaker of English “has a repertoire of varieties according to field and switches to the appropriate one as occasion requires. The

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51

F: SCL2406.tex / p.5 (278-339)

Chapter 6. Possible causes of variation in metadiscourse use 

number of varieties that speakers command depends on their profession, training, and interests”. Lack of register awareness is the explanation supported by Altenberg (1997), who carried out a study of a subset of the Swicle material. Altenberg (1997) maintains that the Swedish students have not mastered the formal and impersonal style required for argumentative texts in English, and that they lack sufficient register awareness due to inadequate teaching. In this sense, degree of training and level of writing skill are factors that strongly influence the use of metadiscourse.78 Altenberg’s (1997: 130) claim is that “the common basic deficiency among the Swedish learners [is, precisely,] a general lack of register awareness and a style of writing that is greatly influenced by spoken language”. He found that the Swedish learner essays are closer to informal speech than to academic prose. For example, the Swedish learners express their personal opinions about the topic of discussion; they emphasise their individual experiences and feelings and display an immediacy and audience awareness close to that of spoken interaction. The native-speaker writers, on the other hand, are more distanced from the subject matter and the audience and conduct a much more impersonal discussion. Altenberg goes so far as to say that “[t]he differences between the Swedish learners and the native students is so striking that it is justified to talk about two entirely different approaches to argumentative writing” (ibid.: 130). Pertaining to this issue of register awareness is an intense discussion currently being carried out on what we might call ‘colloquial writing’ in Swedish. For example, a series of articles in a newsletter for the staff at Lund University (LUM 1996) brings up the increased influence of spoken language on public discourse (on television and radio) and written text in general in Swedish.79 Several university teachers are interviewed, and those interviewed all agree that, to an increasing degree, students at Swedish universities show a lack of register awareness and have difficulties expressing themselves in writing, even in their mother tongue. These articles support Altenberg’s (1997) argument that the way the Swedish learners write reflects a lack of register awareness, caused by insufficient teaching and training. Although the Swedish learners are at a general disadvantage in this writing task in not being native speakers of English, we do not necessarily have to expect them to perform considerably worse in composition in general.80 Since all three groups of writers involved are university students, (a) they should be more or less on a par in terms of writing experience, and (b), although not professional writers, they should probably be relatively skilled as writers, with a fair amount of experience, at least compared to the population in general. It could, however, be the case that the native-speaker groups are more skilled as writers, due to having undergone more training. This is essentially Altenberg’s (1997) explanation, although the perspective he takes is that the Swedish non-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51

F: SCL2406.tex / p.6 (339-402)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

native speakers are less skilled as writers due to inadequate teaching.81 This presupposes fairly large differences between the educational systems and composition curricula of Sweden, the US and the UK. In order to evaluate evidence for and against this hypothesis, it would be necessary to compare approaches to writing across the educational systems, which is beyond the scope of the present research project. Nevertheless, I will tentatively outline a trend in education in Sweden that is likely to have had negative effects on students’ written proficiency. In the past decade or two, the main focus of attention in language teaching in Sweden has been on spoken communication, very much at the expense of formal writing (see e.g. Köhlmyr 2001). This trend has led to an overemphasis on informal communication and personal, opinion-based expression. Related to this is the fact that the ‘opinion-based’ approach is “favoured in Swedish schools and universities. It may be easier to get the students to write essays (to produce anything at all) that way” (Altenberg, personal communication). This educational trend is likely to play a role in the Swedish learner essays being a far cry from prototypical academic writing. Some researchers argue that this ‘communicative focus’ and ‘informalisation trend’ is not restricted to Sweden. If this is true, we should perhaps consider the possibility that we are witnessing a ‘deconstruction’ of the traditional dichotomy between personal and impersonal styles, such that “[a]s the century nears its close, we may be looking at trends towards increasing informality in scholarly writing, certainly abetted by post-modern and feminist movements, in which the scholarly voice is deliberately disassociated from detachment and distance” (van Maanen 1995, as cited in Swales et al. 1998: 118). Seen from this perspective, the learner writers may be in the forefront of changing trends in argumentative writing. Can we be certain that the Swedish learners are not simply more radical and progressive writers than the native speakers? I think that we can be reasonably certain. There is no evidence to suggest that the Swicle writers are sufficiently advanced to be able to ‘deconstruct’ genres. The great number of analyses and examples included in this book bear witness to the simple fact that the Swedish learners do not achieve native-like selection (Pawley & Syder 1983; see Section 3.4). We must not shy away from the fact that it is a problem for advanced non-native speakers if they deviate too much from the metadiscursive norms of native speakers, let alone the general conventions for writing in other languages. A general guiding principle for any writer – whose aim is to produce efficient and felicitous texts – is that the greater the number of registers or styles one masters, the better. At the very least, learners should be made aware of how they might come across to native speakers if they write in a certain way. For example, conducting argumentative writing on the basis of personal opinion rather than ‘objective’ facts may be a very different approach from that which is considered valid by native speakers.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51

F: SCL2406.tex / p.7 (402-440)

Chapter 6. Possible causes of variation in metadiscourse use 

This brings us to another issue concerning the relation between learner performance and native-speaker norms. One could argue that it is questionable to assume that learners, at least in their pragmatic development, are completely targeted on native-speaker norms. Instead, learners may “prefer to maintain their own ethnic identity” or they may “wish to establish a separate identity as an L2 learner/user” (Ellis 1994: 183, summarizing arguments put forth in Blum-Kulka 1991). In other words, L2 speakers may actively and quite consciously choose not to behave in accordance with native-speaker norms. Ellis (1994: 183) expresses this idea as follows: “The distinctive pragmatic features evident in the language of even very advanced L2 learners may reflect not so much a failure to achieve targetlanguage norms as the attainment of a mode of behaviour compatible with the learners’ chosen sense of identity [. . .]”. Does this argument give us reason to be wary of recommending that the Swedish learners be ‘reprogrammed’ to match native-speaker writing better? Again, I think it does not. Intended deviance from the norm is one thing, but unintended learner behaviour is another. It is the latter that needs to be rectified. Having studied the essays in question and being familiar with the general performance of students at this level, I very much doubt that the Swicle learners are sufficiently advanced to have reached the level of linguistic awareness that it would take to consciously make such decisions about their writing style. Among genre experts, the prevailing view seems to be that “[i]t is possible for a specialist to exploit the rules and conventions of a genre in order to achieve special effects or private intentions, as it were, but s/he cannot break away from such constraints completely without being noticeably odd” (Bhatia 1993: 14). This is intrinsically connected to the concept of intertextuality; that is, how a text is read and written depends on knowledge of other texts of a similar type.82 Intertextuality is one of de Beaugrande and Dressler’s (1981: 10–11) seven criteria of textuality or ‘what makes a text successful’. These arguments from text-linguistic theory suggest that there are strong constraints and expectations on both individual writers and individual readers of texts.

. Cultural conventions Another factor that could account for the differences found in the use of metadiscourse between the different groups of writers concerns cultural conventions for writing. A growing body of research has shown that metadiscourse is likely to vary across cultures (e.g. Markkanen et al. 1993; Mauranen 1993; Mauranen 1993a; Valero-Garcés 1996; Vassileva 1998; Bäcklund 1998; Dahl 2004).83 On the basis of such studies, we may hypothesise that Anglo-Saxon and Swedish conventions are different, either for the use of metadiscourse in particular, or for argumenta-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51

F: SCL2406.tex / p.8 (440-501)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

tive writing in general, which could cause negative transfer when Swedish speakers write in English. Mauranen (1993: 4) sums up the interaction between writing and culture as follows: [C]ulture influences writing habits in an important way. This is because writing is a cultural object. The use of rhetoric is dependent on the writer’s perception of persuasiveness in terms of form and content of presentation. The rhetorical choices and strategies available to a writer are limited by the value and belief systems prevailing in the linguistic and cultural community the text is written in. A writer’s notions about what convincing prose or persuasive writing looks like is a product of socialisation into his or her native culture’s way of perceiving written text.

In discussing cultural conventions for writing we are dealing with a specific type of L1 interference in a foreign language. Weinreich (1974: 1) refers to interference in general as ‘deviation from norms’. Chesterman (1998: 42) defines it as “the belief that native-language structures [. . .] tend to be transferred in foreign-language performance, and thus produce errors or deviant usage of various kinds”. L1 interference can also take place at the level of discourse. Cultural differences in writing have been studied in the field of contrastive rhetoric (see e.g. Connor 1996; Kubota 1998), based on the hypothesis that there are culture-specific patterns of writing, and that these cause interference in L2 writing. In order to determine the actual interference from the L1 in the case of the Swicle material, we would need data on the use of metadiscourse in Swedish original texts, written by native speakers. Regrettably, no research of this kind exists, with the exception of a small study by Bäcklund (1998), comparing professional writing in Swedish and English. Bäcklund (1998: 32) comes to the conclusion that “English and Swedish use [metadiscourse] to the same extent”. It needs to be pointed out, though, that in her study, ‘English’ is represented by BrE texts exclusively. The only difference Bäcklund found concerns two subcategories of metadiscourse; a considerably larger portion of metadiscourse in Swedish refers to the text itself than is the case in English, while ‘addressing the reader’ occurs more frequently in the English texts (12%) than in the Swedish texts (3%). Bäcklund also refers to a study by Levin (1997), within the project “Texts in European Writing Communities”, which concluded that “the sender is considerably more often mentioned in the [British] English texts than in the Swedish”, which tallies with Bäcklund’s results on addressing the reader. Thus, the two existing studies on metadiscourse phenomena in Swedish and British English both show that writers in English address their readers to a considerably greater extent. Curiously, this finding is the exact opposite of the findings

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51

F: SCL2406.tex / p.9 (501-561)

Chapter 6. Possible causes of variation in metadiscourse use 

of the present study, which actually suggests that the cultural convention factor is unlikely to have caused the differences. However, at the same time it is still possible that one fact that may explain this discrepancy is that the present texts were produced by university students rather than by professional writers. Another explanation could have to do with genre differences, considering that the professional writing did not involve argumentative essays. An interesting point of contrast that has been discussed in the literature on cultural conventions for writing is how much responsibility the writer requires the reader to take in reading/understanding the text. A typology proposed by Hinds (1987) divides languages into ‘reader-responsible’ and ‘writer-responsible’ types. The question of how much responsibility the writer takes affects the propositional structure of the text, such that, while readers in a reader-responsible culture expect to supply significant inferencing, readers in a writer-responsible culture expect that most of the propositional structure needed will be provided by the writer. An example of a writer-responsible type of textual organisation is the BBC World News, a scripted oral text, in which “the news is introduced with a clearly identified outline of the main points to be covered; that introduction is followed by a detailed exposition of each of the outlined main points in the order presented, and the news ends with a summary of the main points, again in the same order” (Kaplan 1988: 291–292). In English-language cultures, according to Hinds (1987: 143–144), there is a strong tendency to charge the writer with “the responsibility to make clear and well-organized statements”, while in Japanese culture, for example, it is “the responsibility of the listener (or reader) to understand what it is that the speaker or author has intended to say”. In a writer-responsible culture like English, metadiscourse elements are used to guide readers through a text; in a reader-responsible culture like Japanese, connections between various parts of a text are more commonly left implicit. Studying academic writing in English and German, Clyne (1987) agrees that in English-speaking countries, most of the onus falls on writers to make their texts readable, while in German-speaking countries, it is the readers who have to make the extra effort.84 It seems, however, that Hinds’ classification is overly simplified, if not incorrect, in some cases. One interesting qualification of Hinds’ classification of Japanese is found in McCagg (1996), who argues that writers in Japanese – a language typically used by members of a culture that is more experientially homogeneous than English-language cultures – can assume a greater degree of shared background with their readers.85 Metadiscourse, a major tool for being a more explicit writer, may function as orienting cues for less proficient or less initiated readers, and could be used, for instance by textbook writers, as a pedagogical means. However, precisely for the reason that using highly explicit reflexive language may create a pedagogical

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51

F: SCL2406.tex / p.10 (561-618)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

impression, writers from different language backgrounds may also avoid metadiscourse, sensing that too much of it would “insult their readers’ intelligence”. Being considerate towards the reader involves drawing the difficult and fine line between being helpful and being patronising, as Clark and Ivanic (1997: 168) point out: “Readers from other cultures sometimes feel that the British academic practice of writers frequently signposting their intentions and connections between their ideas positions the reader as a ‘poor reader’, treating the reader ‘as an idiot’. (This is the response we got from, for example, a French student and also from a Greek student in workshops we ran in 1996 on Dissertation Writing.)”.86 The moral of this discussion on cultural conventions is that learners should be made aware of how the conventions of native-speaker writing work, and that conventions for writing may differ across cultures. As Markkanen et al. (1993: 138) state, “[i]t can be assumed that the ways of using metadiscourse in writing may vary from one language to another, that the conventions followed in its use may be different in different cultures. From this it follows that when writing in a foreign language new conventions may have to be adopted”. Considering the great differences found between the corpora, the present research strongly suggests that Swedish learners of English need to adopt new metadiscursive conventions when writing in English. Drawing a similar conclusion, Aijmer (2001: 256) argues that a pedagogical implication of the results of her study of I think as a marker of discourse style in argumentative student writing is that “students who are used to [writing] argumentative texts in the Swedish educational system have to be taught to use other conventions when they write argumentative texts in English”. A confounding factor, however, is that we do not know in any detail what the Swedish conventions are, or how they differ from Anglo-Saxon conventions. Nor do we know how conventions within the Anglo-Saxon world differ. If we look at the native-speaker corpora, the present results suggest that there is no uniform ‘English’ norm to begin with. This, in turn, makes it even more precarious to teach L2 composition to non-native speakers of English. Which variety of English should one choose to promote? How stable are the differences suggested by the present study between the two largest varieties, BrE and AmE, anyway? More research is definitely needed on these issues. To make at least one generalisation about norms for writing in Swedish (despite the absence of hard data), I would like to bring up the fact that tendencies towards informality are likely to be particularly strong in Swedish. Post-war egalitarian ideas had a strong impact on Swedish society as well as on the Swedish language, such that speakers gave up the Swedish version of a tu/vous distinction, addressing everyone with equal, non-polite “du” instead of the “Ni”, which marks social distance and/or politeness. One example of this general informalisation trend is the “Write the Way You Speak” (skriv som du talar) campaign of the 1980s. This slogan was advertised all over the country. Another example to support

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51

F: SCL2406.tex / p.11 (618-661)

Chapter 6. Possible causes of variation in metadiscourse use

this comes from in a collection of academic essays published in Sweden in 1988, which describes the ‘informalisation of Sweden’ from an interdisciplinary perspective. Linguistic and sociological changes in interactional patterns in Sweden in the past decades are mapped out in this work. The first part of the title of this publication is Hej, det är från försäkringskassan!, which refers to the way authorities in Sweden now tend to address people in writing. This translates literally into English as “Hello, it’s from the insurance office!” (i.e. the National Social Insurance Office of Sweden). The fact that informality in writing has been observed in many different arenas in contemporary Swedish makes it likely that our Swedish learners are influenced by this trend. It could help explain their overuse of an informal and personalised style. Another circumstance that supports the cultural convention hypothesis is that the present study found differences even between English-language cultures. The differences in the two native-speaker groups’ use of personal metadiscourse suggests that conventions differ across varieties of English, which also supports the decision to split the Locness corpus into an American English part and a British English part.

. Learner strategies Yet another factor that could account for the differences found across corpora concerns learner versus native-speaker status. Since the results do indeed show discrepancies between the learners’ and native-speakers’ writing, one way of explaining these differences is to attribute them to the learner factor. The ‘learner factor’ refers to ways in which learners of language A distinguish themselves from native speakers of language A. In particular, it refers to general communicative strategies that tend to be used by learners.87 Learner strategies can be understood as a compensatory phenomenon – as making up for a lack of sufficient or robust L2 knowledge. In this context, we are primarily concerned with strategies used in production and ways in which L2 speakers’ written texts are different from L1 speakers’ written texts. Speaking of ‘learner strategies’ in this sense is more specific than using the general terms ‘overuse’ and ‘underuse’, in that a cause of under- or overuse is posited which is common to non-native speakers in general, regardless of the L2 in question, or indeed, the L1. The term ‘learner strategies’ does not take the effects of linguistic structures or conventions of the L1 of the learner into account (insofar as this is possible), but focusses on linguistic behaviour that is common to all learners, regardless of their L1 or L2. It should be pointed out, though, that drawing a strict distinction between universal learner strategies and interference from



JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51



F: SCL2406.tex / p.12 (661-722)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

the mother tongue is an oversimplification: It could, in fact, be argued that falling back on one’s L1 linguistic structures is the most universal learner strategy. Therefore, in characterizing ‘learner language’ in general, linguists are likely to include both universal learner tendencies and language-specific L1 interference. Recall that, when matching non-native-speaker texts with comparable nativespeaker texts, we are assuming that this provides us with a “basis for revealing the characteristics of learner language” (Johansson 1998: 7). Here, however, I am proposing that we make a distinction between L1 interference and linguistic strategies universal to learners. The L1 interference hypothesis is covered in Section 6.4 on cultural conventions for writing. What grounds are there for supposing that greater use of metadiscourse might be a learner strategy? For one thing, one could argue that language learners in general are bound to be more focussed on their use of language. There is research that shows that bilingualism brings with it increased metalinguistic awareness (see e.g. Gombert 1992 and Francis 1999).88 A standard argument in this line of thinking is that bi- or multilingual speakers become more ‘distanced’ from the languages they speak, and more prone to reflection on language: “Once the same object-referent is both ‘apple’ and ‘pomme’, the speaker realizes that the words are not attributes of the object apple but of the English and French languages, respectively” (Mertz & Yovel 2000). By this logic, we can assume that non-monolingual speakers will be more linguistically reflexive in their language use. Of course, we may want to assume that they do so in all of their language use, without singling out a first versus a foreign language. As far as the present investigation is concerned, there is no information available about the bi- or multilingual status of the individual AmE and BrE writers, so we cannot rule out the possibility that these writers, like the Swicle writers, are also language learners. We thus need a more specific hypothesis, such as ‘speakers using a foreign language put more effort into linguistic and meta-linguistic matters than speakers using their L1, which results in more metadiscourse’. Speakers of a foreign language may need to process their speech and writing more consciously simply because linguistic activities in a foreign language are less automatised and familiar. In order to test such a hypothesis thoroughly, we would need access to argumentative essays in Swedish written by the Swicle students, to serve as a point of comparison. Unfortunately, this has not yet been possible to arrange. What we can do here is hypothesise that the mere fact of writing in an L2 is likely to produce certain effects. Compared to an L1 writer, an L2 writer is likely to be more concerned with linguistic form (such as phraseology and grammar). Writing in a foreign language presents more of a conscious linguistic challenge to a learner, which could be reflected, in particular, in the overuse of code-oriented metadiscourse demonstrated by the Swedish learners.89 If this hypothesis is right,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51

F: SCL2406.tex / p.13 (722-810)

Chapter 6. Possible causes of variation in metadiscourse use

we should expect to find higher metalinguistic awareness in the learner group. In fact, this hypothesis could help explain the great differences found in the use of metadiscourse between learners and native speakers, specifically the popularity of text/code-oriented types of metadiscourse. Recall how much more common ‘metalinguistic’ discourse acts like Defining and Saying were in the learner texts.90 There is additional support for the learner strategy hypothesis in research that suggests that learners prefer to exercise a more transparent communicative style on the grounds that it is safer. A study by Kasper (1989) found evidence for greater verbosity in advanced learners, which can be taken to mean that “learners may be conscious of their foreigner role, and, as a result, feel a stronger need to establish, rather than presuppose, common ground than do native speakers. This leads learners to try to make their reasons for imposing on interlocutors as explicit as possible when performing illocutionary acts such as requests” (Ellis 1994: 183). If this is a robust pattern, it would support the interpretation of the overuse of ‘text-oriented metatext’ and discourse labels as due to the learner factor. With respect to metalinguistic awareness, an additional factor that has a bearing on all three groups in the present investigation, not just the learners, is that they are all performing the task of writing an essay. The fact that they are all nonprofessional writers, or novices to the writing culture, could also contribute to an increase in their metalinguistic awareness. However, even if all three groups are likely to maintain a high level of metalinguistic awareness, the learner group is conceivably much more metalinguistically aware, since they, unlike the native-speaker groups, are not using their L1.

. Conclusion While keeping within the confines of the material of the study, I have assessed the most important possible causes of variation and made some attempts at explanation. The four potential causes of variation are summarised in Table 1. The difficulty of distinguishing among and evaluating the different factors that may contribute to the differences between learner writing and native-speaker writing cannot be sufficiently emphasised. No conclusive answers can be given here. To begin with, further studies are needed on (1) metadiscourse in professional L1 English writing, distinguishing between genres and varieties, (2) metadiscourse in argumentative writing in Swedish, (3) metadiscourse in comparable learner data (preferably produced by speakers with L1s that are not closely related), and (4) the treatment of metadiscourse in instruction and learning. Genre comparability and register awareness are taken to be important factors, albeit ones that are hard to evaluate. We do not have access to the exact conditions of the essay writing of the three groups and we do not know exactly how the



JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51

F: SCL2406.tex / p.14 (810-859)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 1. Overview of potential causes of variation: Four different explanations for differences across the corpora Factor

Argument

Hypothesis

Source

Genre comparability Register awareness

The ‘tertium comparationis’ argument91 The ‘instructional’ argument

Corpus

Cultural conventions

The ‘contrastive rhetoric’ argument

The corpora under comparison are not truly comparable Differences between groups are due to background knowledge (training/instruction) Conventions for metadiscourse differ across the languages in question There are universal strategies employed by those writing in a foreign language

General learner The ‘universal claim’ strategies argument

Educational community Native language Learner status

writers’ tasks were presented to them. There may be slight differences in the task and even in the instructions given to the three groups of writers that may have had strong effects on the use of metadiscourse. Indeed, as summed up in 6.2, the comparability of the corpora is not perfect. Following Altenberg (1997), I have stressed the importance of register awareness. Register awareness involves knowing, for example, when it is effective and appropriate to be personal or impersonal. In order to help teachers at universities and upper secondary schools to teach register variation, researchers into text and writing need to take responsibility in creating a sufficient body of knowledge about this – in Swedish as well as in English, and other frequently taught foreign languages – that professional educators could use as a basis for L2 composition courses. The differences can also be taken as a sign of differing writing conventions (between Swedish, BrE and AmE), with respect to phenomena like writer visibility and the interaction with the imagined reader. The differences found between British and American argumentative writing in the use of personal metadiscourse suggest that this is the case, although other factors such as genre and instructions given may be muddying the water. Another possibility is to see the overuse of metadiscourse by the learners as reflecting their strong metalinguistic awareness as users of a foreign language. If writing in an L2 requires a greater cognitive-linguistic effort, such activity is likely to result in an increased use of metadiscourse by comparison to writing in an L1. A ‘contrastive rhetoric’ explanation based on differences in cultural norms and conventions for writing was ruled out by Altenberg (1997: 130), who states that the basic reason for the striking differences “has little to do with contrastive differences between English and Swedish”.92 Nor is the learner factor considered important. One reason why Altenberg (1997: 130) draws the conclusion that the differences

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:51

F: SCL2406.tex / p.15 (859-862)

Chapter 6. Possible causes of variation in metadiscourse use

between the corpora have to do with deficiencies in writing skills (or quality of education) rather than learner strategies is that, in terms of involvement features, the Swedish learners differ from other EFL learners within the ICLE project. He claims that “the deviations are so strong that they set the Swedish learners apart, not only from native writers, but in many respects also from advanced EFL learners with other mother tongues”.93 In his view, then, the results suggest deficiencies in communicative competence, i.e. the ability to use language appropriately in different situations, and do not reflect differences in cultural conventions, or universal learner tendencies. In the context of the present study, however, the fact that the AmE and BrE corpora differ does suggest that cultural conventions are likely to play a role, and that this merits further investigation.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.1 (48-125)

chapter 

Theories of metadiscourse

. Introduction The aim of this chapter is to clarify what is meant by ‘metadiscourse’. In order to do so, I will give an overview of related concepts and of the main perspectives taken so far in the literature on linguistic reflexivity in general.94 Over the course of the chapter, I will refer specifically to previous research on metadiscourse from a text perspective. The chapter closes with a reference guide to previous studies of metadiscourse and Appendix 4 includes a glossary of ‘meta-terminology’. Several researchers in the field have called our attention to the necessity of more systematic and integrated analyses of reflexivity in general. Verschueren (1999: 189), for example, states that further explorations of the notion would be “highly desirable”. My hope is that this study will inspire others to further reflection on the phenomenon of self-reflexive language. Reflexivity in language is a complex and difficult research area. Issues of delimitation are at the heart of the complexity of metadiscourse. It is often the case that researchers do not agree on what to study. As Schiffrin (1980: 201) puts it, “[t]he wide range of phenomena that can be identified as meta-linguistic and the vagueness surrounding the boundaries between meta-lingual and other functions of language complicate the task of finding a set of empirical linguistic indicators for [such phenomena].” In a similar vein, Nash (1992: 100) states that “the word ‘metadiscourse’ may have a reassuringly objective, ‘scientific’ ring, but its usage suggests boundaries of definition no more firmly drawn than those of, say, ‘rhetoric’ or ‘style’.” Although, unavoidably, metadiscourse is a fuzzy area to some extent, this does not mean that we simply have to accept that the boundaries between metadiscourse and related phenomena are hopelessly unclear. This area of research both can and should achieve greater theoretical rigour and establish its boundaries more clearly. One fundamental example of a boundary in dispute concerns how broad or narrow an approach to take to metadiscourse. Mauranen (1993) has identified two different strands of research into metadiscourse, one preferring a broad definition (the ‘integrative approach’), and the other preferring a narrow definition

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54



F: SCL2407.tex / p.2 (125-178)

Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

(the ‘non-integrative approach’). As we will see, the distinction between the two boils down to whether or not stance is included in the concept of metadiscourse. These two strands of research into metadiscourse will be described and contrasted in Section 7.4. I argue against the broad approach to metadiscourse, while pointing out that the narrow approach also has some drawbacks. My preference for a more restricted view will be expounded briefly in the present chapter but has already been spelled out in detail in Chapter 2, where I presented an alternative model of metadiscourse. The purpose of the present chapter is to situate that model in the broader context of the literature on metadiscourse. Broadly speaking, the structure of the chapter will follow the general historical development in linguistics, moving from the philosophical perspective and the notion of metalanguage versus object language to today’s primarily written discourse perspective.

. Metalanguage ‘Metalanguage’ can be defined as a specialized language for communication about another language: the ‘object language’ (Weinreich 1980: 7). In linguistics, the term ‘metalanguage’ originated in the work of Roman Jakobson, who took the term from modern logic.95 Jakobson described it as a language in which we speak about the verbal code itself and contrasted it with object language, in which we speak of things that are external to language itself. The concept of object language is therefore indispensable to the idea of metalanguage. Another common understanding of the terms is that object language is the language about which statements are made, while metalanguage is the language used to make statements about object language. These are relational terms, such that the metalanguage “may be identical to the object language, as when the grammatical properties in English are stated in English, but it is often distinct from the object language”, e.g. when English grammar is discussed in Russian.96 If one looks up these terms in dictionaries, this is the perspective one will typically get. However, there are two ways in which this perspective is problematic. Firstly, this type of definition neglects the complexity of the notions. Secondly, it gives the impression that language per se is a topic for discussion only in linguistics or language classes. This is wrong: in human communication, whether written or spoken, language is very often used to talk about talk, not least of all for purposes of discourse management. The notion that metalanguage is not restricted to the professional sphere of grammar or arcane philology, but that, on the contrary, it plays an important role in our everyday language was foregrounded by Jakobson in the 1950s. Since then, this notion has been repeated in various forms. However, it is only in recent

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.3 (178-239)

Chapter 7. Theories of metadiscourse 

decades that metalinguistic phenomena have been treated in discourse studies, as an important part of text production and reception. Metadiscourse in discourse studies is the main focus of this chapter, but before we get there, we will review the most central terms used in describing reflexive phenomena, which all predated the study of metadiscourse in written text. .. Metalanguage versus object language Following Jakobson, philosophers of language make a distinction between metalanguage and object language, using the former to refer to the ability of speakers of any natural language to describe language by means of language. An example of metalanguage is found in the exclamation Your vocabulary is awful!, in which attention is directed to the code itself by explicit reference to it. This example can be contrasted with a structurally analogous exclamation such as Your hairdo is awful!, which counts as object language, having its focus on language-external entities. ‘Object’ is thus loosely defined as a language-external item or phenomenon in the ‘real world’. Although the two sentences This metaphor is frozen and This rhubarb is frozen have both been taken out of context, we can nevertheless claim that the former belongs to metalanguage, and the latter to object language. A further example of metalanguage is cases in which one linguistic sign is used to interpret another, as in reformulations such as Prosperous is another word for successful. The notion that there is no external metalanguage, but that metalanguage and object language are both ‘of the language’, has been pointed out, among others, by Zellig Harris (1991). When we speak about the verbal code itself, for example in a sentence like Mary is a noun, which is not structurally different from an object language sentence like Mary is a nun, we still use language. We could also use another language code, such as Spanish, to talk about the English language. Even so, we would still be using natural language. This is another important point to be made in connection to metalanguage: with the exception of formalised metalanguage as described in (A) in 7.2.3, there is no separate system to describe the object of study, as is the case in mathematics, for example. The examples given so far may suggest that metalinguistic phenomena are fairly straightforward, and that there is even a metalinguistic vocabulary. There is indeed an extensive set of terms not only within grammar and the professional study of language in general, but also in non-technical registers, which can be said to be inherently metalinguistic, such as clause, word, language, speak, define and clarify. However, a sentence such as Cat is monosyllabic reveals that the matter is more complex. In this type of sentence, as pointed out by Lucy (1993: 11) among others, the sequence c-a-t does not refer to an animal in the object world, but to its own

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.4 (239-297)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

linguistic form. In a sentence like My cat is a large tabby tom, on the other hand, ca-t refers to an entity in the object world. The former is an example of a ‘mention’ of c-a-t, whereas the latter is an example of a ‘use’ of the same sequence. These twin terms are the topic of the next section. .. Use versus mention Logicians and philosophers of language have come up with the term ‘use’ for object language reference and the term ‘mention’ for metalinguistic reference.97 This distinction is the one most widely used for explaining metalanguage. It is illustrated in the following (invented) examples of uses of the book (1) and mentions of the book (2). (1) The book is thick and has a blue cover. The book is losing ground to the computer. (2) The Book refers to the Christian bible. The book is not a full sentence. The book is hard to pronounce for Japanese learners of English, since Japanese lacks some of the phonemes of English.

One strategy used to distinguish between use and mention in writing is to italicise anything that is a case of mention. This would work for all of the examples in (2); in fact, if we were to italicise the book in each example, it would be easier to interpret them. It would not work for the examples in (1), however, since what is being talked about here is actual books as objects in the real world, whether concrete or abstract. The subject noun phrases in (1) refer to specific books or books in general, whereas the subject noun phrases in (2) refer to their own linguistic form, from a semantic, syntactic, and phonetic perspective, respectively. Zellig Harris (1991: 136) presented some grammatical evidence for the usemention distinction, such as the fact that a mentioned form in the plural still counts as grammatically singular, as in Bookworms is on p. 137 in this dictionary. This is in contrast to the use form, as in Bookworms are all over this dictionary. Mentions can take a variety of forms; for example, the expression mentioned may be a complete sentence, as in If you say “Are we there yet?” one more time, I’ll scream. It is not always possible to make clear-cut distinctions between examples of use and mention in natural languages. In fact, it is not unusual to find intermediate cases which fall somewhere between use and mention, such as free indirect style used for reporting speech.98

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.5 (297-360)

Chapter 7. Theories of metadiscourse

.. On the meanings of metalanguage The term ‘metalanguage’ has both technical and non-technical usages. Stated briefly, in its most important uses, going from more to less technical, the term ‘metalanguage’ may refer to: A Highly formalised linguistic codes. For example, in the scientific analysis of language as logic, specific symbols, such as p, q, r and ∨ are found. In information technology, metalanguage may refer to abstract codes which describe other codes, such as SGML, which defines rules for how a document can be described in terms of its structure, with paragraphs, for example, being marked with

, sentences with <s> and words with <w>. B Dictionary definitions or the ‘defining metalanguage’ (see Weinreich 1980: 306). In a dictionary, headwords are presented paradigmatically in order to be defined, described and commented on. They are not there to refer to objects in the world. C Linguistic terminology, including both highly specialized and abstract metalanguage terminology (e.g. relative clause, definiendum and basilect) and less technical uses found in everyday language (e.g. sentence, phrase and word). D The mention of any term, i.e. when the code itself is in focus (as in Mary is a noun), and not the referent in the object world. This is context-dependent, so words in this group (potentially any existing word) can be seen as belonging to both metalanguage and object language. Seeing it from another perspective, we can say that every word in object language (or really any linguistic unit – including sentences, morphemes, or even phonemes) can be used metalinguistically. There is a reflexive level, at which we can talk about various aspects of language itself, which is always available to us. Before going on to the notion of reflexivity, let us consider whether this type of thinking about metalinguistic notions has any insights to offer to the study of metadiscourse. This is the focus of the following section. .. Metatextual versus intertextual Could the concepts of ‘use’ and ‘mention’ be applied to metadiscourse as criteria for determining where to draw the line between metadiscourse and nonmetadiscourse? We could, for example, consider classifying mentions of the word essay as metadiscourse, but not uses of it. This would mean that an expression like This essay will focus on X would not be metadiscursive, since it involves a use of the word essay, whereas an example like ‘Essay’ has five letters would be classified as metadiscursive, being a mention of the word.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.6 (360-415)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

This leads me to conclude that the philosophical distinction between use and mention cannot successfully be applied to the study of metadiscourse. If we were to use it as a criterion for what to study, we would fail to notice important – and more frequent – types of metadiscourse expressions. Another way of illustrating this is by means of pronouns, such as you, referring to the reader(s), or we, referring to both the writer herself and the reader(s). Moreover, the use-mention distinction would exclude any such references (as in as you will see in Chapter 6) as simple uses of the word, whereas mentions of them (as in “we” is a monosyllabic pronoun) would be singled out as the interesting forms. We are forced to conclude, then, that the use-mention distinction is not relevant to the study of metadiscourse. However, there is another way in which the concept of metalanguage could be useful for the analysis of metadiscourse: it can be used to direct our attention to what could be called a ‘metalinguistic vocabulary’ (see (C) above), including words such as say, speak, word, phrase, chapter, text, and essay. Note that we cannot take such words at face value, but must take the context into account to make sure that a potential metadiscursive word is actually being used as such. However, the more inherently language-internal a term is, the more likely it is to be used as metadiscourse. Contrast this with (D) above. The notion that we cannot classify a linguistic form as metadiscourse without paying attention to the co-text of each particular instance is often brought up in research into metadiscourse (see e.g. Mauranen 1993 and Crismore et al. 1993). Intrinsically connected with this ‘context-dependency’ is the criterion of ‘current text’ (see Mauranen 1993), stating that metadiscourse should refer to the current text and not some other text. An example like This essay will focus on X would be considered an instance of metadiscourse only on condition that it referred to the text itself, written by the current writer. The analyst has to decide whether the expression is text-internal, that is, whether it talks about the ongoing discourse, or whether it is text-external and refers to the content of some other text.99 The two examples below (from the BNC) both point to this article, but while (3) actually refers to the current text, (4) refers to a different text. (3) Practical Fishkeeping demands the highest possible standards of fish photography – but if you follow the advice in this article, and take a high quality picture of your fish, please send it to us. (4) I read with interest Robin Monro’s article (“Medicine beyond the fringe,” 20 January, p. 151). He seems to imply in this article that therapies such as acupuncture cannot be tested within the context of controlled trials. I would like to make two points to dispel this illusion.

The term ‘intertextuality’ may be used to describe references within a text to other texts; this is not our main concern here. This is the reason why quote markers, i.e. introductions to reported speech, which are often included in the category of

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.7 (415-470)

Chapter 7. Theories of metadiscourse 

metadiscourse (see 7.4), have been disregarded in the present study. Reporting the speech of others or quoting from other sources than the current text are intertextual rather than metatextual activities. They simply make explicit reference to the existence of other texts (or other writers and readers apart from the current ones), rather than referring to the evolving text or the current discourse participants.

. Functional perspectives on language Functional perspectives on language form a backdrop to this chapter, particularly ones associated with linguists such as Jakobson (1998) and Halliday (1994). To give some historical background, Bühler (see e.g. Innis 1982) should also be mentioned for having pioneered the study of functions that human language may serve. He helped to introduce a shift of focus from language as an abstract formal system to language as an instrument of human action. Bühler presented his functional model of language in the 1930s, which includes only the ‘expressive’ (or ‘emotive’), ‘directive’ (or ‘conative’) and ‘referential’ functions. Although Bühler did not include the metalinguistic function in his model of language, his functionalist perspective still paved the way for research into phenomena such as metadiscourse. With Jakobson in the 1950s, Bühler’s three original functions were extended to six, and, for the first time in the history of linguistics, the metalinguistic function was posited as a basic function of language. .. The metalinguistic function The metalinguistic function is one of the six functions of language in Roman Jakobson’s model (see e.g. 1998: 69–79). Jakobson was the first linguist to include metalanguage as a basic function of language. His model consists of six functions altogether, shown in (5) with the corresponding speech event components in parentheses: (5) metalinguistic expressive directive referential poetic phatic

(code) (addresser) (addressee) (context)100 (message) (contact)

In the alternative model of metadiscourse presented in Chapter 2, I argued that the three functions of language that are in focus in metadiscourse expressions are the metalinguistic, the expressive, and the directive. The corresponding components of the speech event are the ‘code’, the ‘addresser’, and the ‘addressee’.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.8 (470-528)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

References to the writer and the reader primarily involve the expressive and the directive functions. The terms ‘speaker-oriented’ and ‘hearer-oriented’ are sometimes used in the literature as more or less equivalent to these terms. In a broad sense, metadiscursive expressions can be said to include linguistic material that explicitly shows that texts have addressers and addressees. Let us consider ways in which metadiscourse might be described in terms of these three functions. According to Jakobson (1980: 82), the linguistic phenomenon which is the purest, or the most prototypical expression of the expressive function of language is interjections, i.e. the grammatical category which most clearly is described as being focussed on the addresser, aiming at expressing the addresser’s attitude toward what she is talking about. It is also claimed that the expressive function tends to reflect some emotion in the addresser, which may be real or feigned. There is a sense in which all metadiscourse, and perhaps most text, can be said to have expressive characteristics. As Jakobson (1980: 82) puts it, the expressive function, “laid bare in the interjections, flavours to some extent all our utterances, on their phonic, grammatical, and lexical level. If we analyze language from the standpoint of the information it carries, we cannot restrict the notion of information to the cognitive, ideational aspect of language”. For example, metadiscourse items such as strictly speaking, putting it briefly, so to speak, to summarise can be rephrased as ‘if I speak strictly,’ ‘if I put it briefly,’ ‘if I speak thus,’ and ‘I hereby summarise’. The addresser is there, if only implicitly.101 The directive function is oriented towards the addressee and aims at creating a certain response in him. It is connected with the concept of ‘persuasion’ in rhetoric, which is about influencing the addressee’s interpretation of what is conveyed in discourse. Prototypical grammatical forms brought up by Jakobson are the vocative and the imperative.102 Other linguistic phenomena which could be included are rhetorical questions, personal pronouns you, your and yours, and what has been called ‘commentary’.103 Imperatives or vocatives are often given as examples of commentary, such as Note that. . . or dear reader. The directive function is made explicit in metalinguistic phrases such as if you will, I’m telling you and (you) mark my words. Directive characteristics can be said to flavour metalinguistic expressions in the sense that texts are most likely addressed to someone, i.e. they are written to be read by someone, if only by writers themselves (as is the case with memo notes or personal diaries). Referring back to the examples brought up in the discussion of the expressive function above, these could also be rephrased as ‘if I speak strictly to you,’ ‘if I put it briefly to you,’ ‘if I speak thus to you,’ and ‘I hereby summarise to you’, including both addresser and addressee. This is in the spirit of Zellig Harris’ (1991: 134) work on metalanguage, in which he sets out to demonstrate that there are many grammatical reasons for as-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.9 (528-591)

Chapter 7. Theories of metadiscourse 

suming an introduction like (6) below “to be implicit in each discourse or sentence that is said (not merely composed)”: (6) The speaker is saying to the hearer at the place and time of speaking that. . . → here and now

Harris argued for the radical view that “all sentences can be thought of as originally carrying metalinguistic adjunctions which state all the structural relations and word meanings necessary for understanding the sentence, these being zeroed if presumed known to the hearer” (Zellig Harris 1991: 127).104 Jakobson (1980: 86) describes the metalinguistic function as being at hand “[w]henever the addresser and/or the addressee need to check up whether they use the same code”.105 According to Jakobson, the purpose of this function is to make the code more accessible to the addressee. Examples given are I don’t follow you – what do you mean?, asked by the addressee, requesting clarification, and Do you know what I mean?, asked by the addresser, anticipating questions. A further example of the metalinguistic function is the act of explaining the meaning of a word (An X is a Y), i.e. cases in which one linguistic sign is interpreted through another.106 If we recall the definition of metalanguage as a language in which we make comments on the verbal code itself, we can expand Jakobson’s idea of the metalinguistic function. We could include, for example, ‘illocution markers’, which explicitly comment on which speech act is being performed (e.g. to conclude), and units that show the reader how the text is organized (e.g. What we will discuss in the following is . . .). In addition, any linguistic material that comments on the style or form of the message (such as stated briefly, generally speaking) may be included in Jakobson’s model. The term ‘metalinguistic operations’ is also relevant here. Jakobson (1980: 124) mentions three ways of performing metalinguistic operations: by paraphrasing, giving synonyms, or filling in elliptical forms (making them explicit). Metalinguistic operations are particularly important for assuring felicitous communication between speakers. In ‘on-line’ spoken language, the metalinguistic operation of clarification is also particularly important.107 Clarifications are important in written language, too, despite the fact that there is no direct interaction going on between a speaker and a listener, as in simultaneous, face-to-face communication. Writers may predict possible unclarities or interpretative pitfalls and make an effort to direct their readers in the right direction (marked, for example, by expressions like i.e. or that is to say. . . and often by negated statements (as seen in 3.5.2)). In contrast to such everyday uses, there are also more technical metalinguistic operations. Weinreich (1980: 84n), for example, mentions operations such as “arranging terms in semantic paradigms [. . .], ranking synonyms for semantic

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.10 (591-643)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

distance, and [. . .] supplying (or evaluating) definitions of terms”. Other metalinguistic operations, aiming at solving comprehension problems, or solving discourse ambiguities, include corrections and explanations. These border on cases in which the addresser explicitly shows the addressee how the discourse is organized, thereby giving guidance in the process of interpreting, which is highly relevant to the concept of metadiscourse. In written language, for example, the metalinguistic function is used a great deal by ‘considerate authors’, who see it as their duty to give their readers guidance throughout the process of reading. Chapter 3 provided ample examples of this. Interestingly, such ‘consideration’ is in accordance with what has been termed ‘Anglo-American rhetorical style’, which anticipates the reader’s reactions, guides the reader step by step, and also presents arguments in highly explicit ways (Mauranen 1993). It would seem that this function is a more important category in some languages or writing cultures than in others; hence, for example, Hinds’ (1987) division of languages into ‘reader-responsible’ and ‘writer-responsible’ types (see 6.4). .. Reflexivity Another concept that is central to our discussion is ‘reflexivity’. This is a functional term, referring to ways in which speakers and writers use language to attract attention to aspects of language itself, rather than to ideas, arguments or facts that are not directly to do with language or linguistic matters. The notion of reflexivity is treated here as more or less synonymous with the metalinguistic function; similarly, the derived terms (self-)reflexive and metalinguistic are used interchangeably in this book. The most well-known definition of reflexivity was introduced in semantics by Lyons (1977: 5) as the capacity of natural languages “for referring to, or describing, themselves”.108 According to Sinclair (2005), the term was coined by “Hockett [(1960) who] included it in his list of the defining characteristics of human language, to distinguish our unique communication potential as a species from competing claims from supporters of the likes of honey bees, ticks and chimpanzees.” The reflexive capacity of language, according to Lucy (1993: 1), equals “its ability to represent its own structure and use”. However, we should remember that these concepts do not exist in a vacuum – there are writers and speakers and readers and listeners behind them (see the presentation of the alternative model of metadiscourse in Chapter 2). One may also take the perspective that language cannot actually refer to or describe itself, but rather that writers/speakers use language to refer to language.109

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.11 (643-688)

Chapter 7. Theories of metadiscourse 

What linguistic forms have been described as reflexive? Lucy (1993: 11) sees speech as being permeated by reflexive activity “as speakers remark on language, report utterances, index and describe aspects of the speech event, invoke conventional names, and guide listeners in the proper interpretation of their utterances”. Different types of typographical marking in texts, such as italics, bold type and quotation marks, are also considered to serve a reflexive function, since, as Lucy (1993: 12) claims, in some contexts these forms “facilitate the reflexive use of language generally”. Several linguists have recently stressed the importance of investigating reflexivity as a central property of language (e.g. Lucy 1993 and Verschueren 1999). For example, it has been claimed that reflexivity in language is “so pervasive and essential that we can say that language is, by nature, fundamentally reflexive” (Lucy 1993: 11). Even if we do not share the opinion that reflexivity is all-pervasive in language, it still remains a fact that such phenomena have not been sufficiently investigated or understood in linguistics.

. Two approaches to metadiscourse The term ‘metadiscourse’ was adopted in discourse studies in the mid-1980s. During its relatively brief history, ‘metadiscourse’, along with the terms ‘metatext’ and ‘reflexivity in language’, has been used in studies of certain phenomena that were insufficiently studied in traditional linguistics. Linguists who study written texts characterize metadiscourse as a specialized form of discourse and take the perspective that it can be distinguished from other types of discourse. At this point, however, the consensus ends. As we will see, researchers into metadiscourse do not agree on how to delimit the category. We can use Halliday’s functional model of language to explain the disagreement. After Jakobson, who launched his functionalist model in the 1950s (see e.g. 1998), the most recent (and most notable) functionalist perspective on language has been pursued by Halliday (see e.g. 1994), who introduced his systemicfunctional model in the 1970s. It subsumes three metafunctions of language: the ‘ideational’, the ‘interpersonal’ and the ‘textual’. As we saw in Section 2.3, these functions have been used extensively by researchers into text to define metadiscourse. Markkanen et al. (1993), for instance, claim that metadiscourse consists of either textual or interpersonal material, which stands in contrast to the ideational material of the text. In including both the textual function and the interpersonal function, Markkanen et al. (1993) take a broad approach to metadiscourse. Researchers like Mauranen (1993), on the other hand, include the textual function only and take a narrow approach. To put it in SFG-inspired terms, there is a divide between researchers who see metadiscourse as covering both the interpersonal

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.12 (688-759)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

and textual functions (the broad approach) and those who see metadiscourse as covering the textual function of language only (the narrow approach). The two main traditions in the analysis of metadiscourse will be outlined in the remainder of the present chapter: the broad approach and the narrow approach, also known as the ‘integrative approach’ and the ‘non-integrative approach’ in Mauranen’s (1993) terminology. .. The broad approach In the broad approach, metadiscourse is seen as the means whereby the writer’s presence in the discourse is made explicit, whether by displaying attitude towards or commenting on the text, or by showing how the text is organized. We can also take a reader’s perspective, in which case metadiscourse would be described as helping readers to organize, interpret and evaluate the information in a text. Table 1 sums up the broad approach. Some of the works that take a broad approach are Vande Kopple (1985, 1988), Markkanen et al. (1993), Crismore et al. (1993), Luukka (1994) and Hyland (1998, 2004). A brief summary of these works will be given in the following. A more comprehensive overview of previous work in this tradition will be given in Table 4 at the end of this section. One of the earliest uses of the term ‘metadiscourse’ is in Williams’ Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace (1989 [1981]). As the title suggests, the purpose of this publication is instructional. Metadiscourse is defined as “the language that we use when we describe what we are doing as we think and write about the content of our primary ideas, or what we want our readers to be doing as they read. It is writing about reading and writing” (Williams 1989: 27–28). Williams is probably the first author to use the term ‘metadiscourse’ in a broad sense, although he exclusively focusses on written language.110 Vande Kopple (1985, 1988) distinguishes seven different kinds of metadiscourse in his classification, which has been widely used. The textual types are ‘Text connectives’, ‘Code glosses’ and ‘Illocution markers’, and the interpersonal types are ‘Validity markers’ (including hedges and emphatics), ‘Attributors’, ‘Narrators’, ‘Attitude markers’ and ‘Commentary’. The model is intended for the use of compoTable 1. The broad approach to metadiscourse Object of study

Linguistic elements that show how the text is organized or that refer to the text itself Examples as we shall see in the next chapter; first; to sum up; in other words Dominant function TEXTUAL

Linguistic elements that display the writer’s attitude to what is said in the text certainly; perhaps; surprisingly; you may not agree that; dear reader INTERPERSONAL

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.13 (759-883)

Chapter 7. Theories of metadiscourse 

sition teachers, who are instructed in how the various categories of metadiscourse might help students to make more felicitous rhetorical decisions. Most of his categories are defined and illustrated in Table 2, illustrated here with examples that I have excerpted from Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. On the basis of Vande Kopple’s model of classification, Markkanen et al. (1993) carried out a cross-linguistic study of metadiscourse in argumentative texts written by university students in American English and Finnish. The study was

Table 2. Vande Kopple’s seven different kinds of metadiscourse Label and definition

Example

TEXT CONNECTIVES show how texts are organized and how different parts are related to each other. They are used to connect particular blocks of information to each other. There are four subgroups: (i) Logical connectors Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, deals with phenomena on extremely small scales, such as a millionth of a millionth of an inch. (ii) Announcements And we shall see, in later chapters, that we already know a fair amount about the predictions a quantum theory of gravity must make. (iii) Reminders The ancients had already considered the argument about progress described above, and answered it by saying that there had been periodic floods or other disasters that repeatedly set the human race right back to the beginning of civilization. (iv) Sequencers First, he realized that eclipses of the moon were caused by the earth coming between the sun and the moon. [. . .] Second, the Greeks knew from their travels that the North Star appeared lower in the sky when viewed in the south than it did in more northerly regions. CODE GLOSSES signal rephrasings of portions of text, give cues to proper interpretation, comment on ways of responding to textual elements, or identify a style.

He called these questions antinomies (that is, contradictions) of pure reason because he felt that there were equally compelling arguments for believing the thesis, that the universe had a beginning, and the antithesis, that it had existed forever.

ILLOCUTION MARKERS make a specific discourse act explicit (e.g., introduce something, hypothesise, claim, give examples, or conclude).

Most of the other stars that are visible to the naked eye lie within a few hundred light-years of us. Our sun, for comparison, is a mere eight light-minutes away!

NARRATORS inform readers who said or wrote something, i.e. they introduce reported speech or quoted material.

The story that Newton was inspired by an apple hitting his head is almost certainly apocryphal. All Newton himself ever said was that the idea of gravity came to him as he sat “in a contemplative mood” and “was occasioned by the fall of an apple.”

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.14 (883-909)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 2. (continued) Label and definition

Example

VALIDITY MARKERS show what assessment of the probability or truth of propositional content the writer wishes to express. There are three subgroups: (i) Hedges Some day these answers may seem as obvious to us as the earth orbiting the sun – or perhaps as ridiculous as a tower of tortoises. (ii) Emphatics It has certainly been true in the past that what we call intelligence and scientific discovery has conveyed a survival advantage. (iii) Attributors The most important task of an actor is of course to focus on and respond to his fellow player. With no you, no I, as a wise person once put it. (from Ingmar Bergman’s Laterna Magica) ATTITUDE MARKERS signal the writer’s attitudes toward the propositional content (about the importance, interest, appropriateness of the material, or emotional concomitants).

Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, deals with phenomena on extremely small scales, such as a millionth of a millionth of an inch. Unfortunately, however, these two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other – they cannot both be correct.

COMMENTARY is used to address The theory of relativity gets rid of absolute time. readers directly and draw them into Consider a pair of twins. Suppose that one twin goes to an implicit dialogue. live on the top of a mountain while the other stays at sea level. The first twin would age faster than the second. Thus, if they met again, one would be older than the other.

followed up by the same trio in another article, Crismore et al. (1993), which also brings up gender aspects of metadiscourse. In Crismore et al. (1993: 39), the overall function of metadiscourse is said to be writers’ directions “for how readers should read, react to, and evaluate what they have written about the subject matter”. Metadiscourse is primarily seen as reader-oriented guidelines included by the writer to help the reader understand the discourse and the writer’s position better. They argue that “writers convey their personality, credibility, considerateness of the reader, and relationship to the subject matter and to readers by using certain devices in their texts” (Crismore et al. 1993: 40). Crismore (1989), above all, advocates seeing metadiscourse as reader-friendly linguistic material. In addition to the textual and interpersonal categories, Luukka (1994) introduces what she calls ‘contextual metadiscourse’, which she studies in both spoken and written versions of five papers in Finnish delivered at an academic conference. Contextual metadiscourse refers to the situation itself and materials used during oral presentations. It is a means for the writer and reader to make comments on

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.15 (909-1052)

Chapter 7. Theories of metadiscourse

the communicative situation or the text as product, for instance “to comment on their preceding or coming actions, or to draw attention to the tables or figures they are presenting” (Luukka 1994: 80). Examples are I’ll move this slide a little bit so you can. . . and These differences can be seen in picture 1. This is applicable mainly to lectures and classroom situations, but also to academic texts with tables and figures.111 Hyland (1998, 1998a, 2004) has carried out several studies of metadiscourse, primarily in academic writing. Some thirty research articles in English from four academic disciplines are analysed in Hyland (1998), while Hyland (2004) analyses textbook chapters. He has also looked at metadiscourse in business communication, specifically in CEOs’ letters (Hyland 1998a). Among Hyland’s categories of metadiscourse, the textual ones are ‘logical connectives’ (in addition, but, and), ‘frame markers’ (to repeat), ‘endophoric markers’ (noted above, in Section 2), ‘evidentials’ (according to NP, (1990)) and ‘code glosses’ (namely, such as), while the interpersonal ones are ‘hedges’ (might), ‘emphatics’/‘boosters’ (in fact, definitely), ‘attitude markers’ (I agree, NP claims), ‘relational markers’ (frankly, note that), and ‘person markers’ (I, we). The Hyland taxonomy is said to be a modified version of Crismore et al.’s (1993), although the majority of the categories correspond to the original Vande Kopple model reviewed above in Table 2. Previous research that has taken a broad approach to metadiscourse is summarised in Table 3. The publications are listed in chronological order and the default language studied is English; if other languages are involved, they are specified. The broad approach is clearly quite popular, although it must be said that it has caused problems for several researchers, because the concept tends to become too all-inclusive. For example, the integrativists Markkanen et al. (1993: 143) themselves point out that metadiscourse “covers such a wide area of language use that it requires subclassification; saying that some item in a text is metadiscourse does not say much”, while Hyland (1998a: 648) states that metadiscourse “often seems like a ragbag of unrelated pragmatic signals”. By contrast, the present work advocates a more constrained model and argues in favour of distinguishing metadiscourse from other linguistic categories, such as stance. The present model is described in detail in Chapter 2. Having looked at the broad approach, we will turn next to the narrow approach. The key difference between the two approaches is the inclusion of interpersonal categories such as expressions of stance. Therefore, as a preamble to examining the narrow approach, in the next section I will examine the concept of stance.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.16 (1052-1052)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 3. Research taking a broad approach to metadiscourse Source and term

Genre

Main focus

Williams [1981]: Metadiscourse

Academic writing (introspective data)

Stylistics with a pedagogical approach

Vande Kopple (1985), (1988): Informative texts Metadiscourse

Cognitive approach to composition

Crismore (1989): Metadiscourse

Academic writing (social science Student writing and textbooks) composition teaching

Crismore & Farnsworth (1990): Metadiscourse

Science popularisations (biology)

Crismore, Markkanen & Steffensen (1993): Metadiscourse

Argumentative essays in English Contrastive rhetoric and and Finnish written by university gender variation students

Mao (1993): Metadiscourse

Historical texts: Political letter in Rhetoric and theory AmE and Chinese political letter and essay

Markkanen, Steffensen & Crismore (1993): Metadiscourse

Argumentative essays in English Contrastive rhetoric and and Finnish written by university writing pedagogy students

Luukka (1994): Metadiscourse

Spoken + written conference presentations in Finnish

Text linguistics

Intaraprawat & Steffensen (1995): Metadiscourse

Argumentative essays by ESL university students

L2 composition

Cheng & Steffensen (1996): Metadiscourse

Student papers

Composition research

Hyland (1998): Metadiscourse

Research articles in microbiology, marketing, astro-physics and applied linguistics

Pragmatics and rhetoric

Hyland (1998a): Metadiscourse

CEOs’ letters and directors’ reports

Business communication

Taavitsainen (2000): Metadiscourse / Metadiscursive comments

Early English medical writing (1375–1550)

Historical development of scientific genres

Bondi (2001): Reflexivity; Meta-argumentative expressions

Introductory chapters of textbooks and abstracts in economics

Genre analysis; corpus-linguistic approach

Fuertes-Olivera et al. (2001): Metadiscourse

Advertising (headlines, subheads Pragmatic analysis and genre and slogans from a typical analysis women’s magazine)

Hyland (2004 [2000]): Metadiscourse

Textbook chapters

Genre comparison

Genre analysis and writing as social and communicative engagement

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.17 (1052-1104)

Chapter 7. Theories of metadiscourse 

.. Stance The concept of ‘stance’ is known under several different labels that overlap to various degrees. Stance can be defined as expressing “personal feelings, attitudes, value judgements, or assessments” (Biber et al. 1999: 966) added to the propositional content. It refers to the fact that the speaker adopts a stance to what she is saying. Other terms for language used by speakers to express opinion are ‘modality’ (Halliday 1994), ‘evaluation’ (Hunston & Thompson 2000), and ‘appraisal’ (White 2001). It has been stressed that, like metadiscourse in general, stance is a phenomenon which “has not yet been fully explored” (Lorenz 1999: 5). In increasing numbers since the 1980s, linguists have argued that such phenomena are more important and pervasive in language than traditionally has been acknowledged. One proponent of this view is Stubbs (1983: 1), who argues that whenever speakers (or writers) say anything, they encode their point of view towards it: whether they think it is a reasonable thing to say, or might be found to be obvious, questionable, tentative, provisional, controversial, contradictory, irrelevant, impolite, or whatever. The expression of such speakers’ attitudes is pervasive in all uses of language. All sentences encode such a point of view, [. . .] and the description of the markers for such points of view and their meanings should therefore be a central topic for linguistics.

Stance can be expressed in very many ways. One important objective of research into stance is to analyse the various linguistic options which speakers and writers have at their disposal to express their attitudes and opinions. Speakers, in Halliday’s (1994: 355) words, “have indefinitely many ways of expressing their opinions – or rather, perhaps, of dissimulating the fact that they are expressing their opinions.” A list of examples of expressions is presented by Halliday, some of which are given in (7), that essentially mean ‘I believe’, with the caveat that there are “a thousand and one others, all of which mean ‘I believe”’. (7) it is obvious that. . . everyone admits that. . . it stands to reason that. . . it would be foolish to deny that. . . the conclusion can hardly be avoided that. . . no sane person would pretend that. . . not. . . commonsense determines that. . . all authorities on the subject are agreed that. . . you can’t seriously doubt that. . .

These examples display a great variety in form, and are highly persuasive.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.18 (1104-1165)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Stance is relevant to metadiscourse in that the broad approach places the addresser’s attitude to what is said at centre stage. Integrativists usually include stance under the two labels ‘Validity markers’ and ‘Attitude markers’ (see e.g. Vande Kopple 1985, 1988). Validity markers are used to show what assessment writers wish to express of the probability or truth of some propositional content and to indicate how committed they are to that assessment. Some validity markers hedge material, while others emphasise that the writer regards a statement as indisputable. The two subgroups that are most commonly named are ‘hedges’ and ‘emphatics’ (also known as ‘certainty markers’). Hedges are used by writers to show their lack of commitment to the truth value of the proposition. Modal verbs like may are commonly employed as hedges. However, when confronted with an instance of a modal verb, one must consider the context, since non-epistemic uses of these auxiliaries (e.g. you may go now) do not fulfil a hedging function.112 Some further examples of hedges are verbs like seem and adverbs like probably and maybe. Hedges can also take the form of comment clauses with a first person singular pronoun and a cognitive verb, as in I suppose and I guess. In contrast to hedges, certainty markers express full commitment on the part of the writer. Forms such as I am [certain] that . . ., It is [certain] that . . . and [Certain]ly are typical. Attitude markers allow writers to reveal their (actual or feigned) attitudes toward the subject matter or propositional content. For example, they enable writers to indicate their attitudes about the importance of something, about the interest of something, about its appropriateness, and about the personal emotional concomitants of linguistic material (Vande Kopple 1985). Modal verbs must or should, when expressing obligation, usually count as attitude markers. Sentence adverbs such as hopefully are common. Another frequent form is first person singular pronoun plus attitudinal verb, such as I hope. To sum up the difference between validity markers and attitude markers, we can say that validity markers express epistemic modality, i.e. they express the speaker’s commitment to the truth value of what is being said. Attitude markers, on the other hand, express deontic modality, i.e. they denote the speaker’s attitude towards the desirability of an action or event, or mark her attitude to social factors of obligation, responsibility and permission. The next section will describe the narrow approach to metadiscourse, whose distinctive feature is precisely that it excludes stance as a form of metadiscourse. The most central studies within this framework will be reviewed.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.19 (1165-1244)

Chapter 7. Theories of metadiscourse

Table 4. The narrow approach to metadiscourse Object of study Examples Dominant function

Linguistic elements that show how the text is organized or that make references to the text itself briefly; As noted earlier; . . . will be discussed later; let us return to . . .; second(ly); in conclusion; on the other hand; in the present work TEXTUAL

.. The narrow approach The narrow (non-integrative) approach to metadiscourse primarily investigates aspects of text organisation, while largely excluding interpersonal elements. There also tends to be a terminological difference between the broad and the narrow approach; instead of ‘metadiscourse’, researchers in the narrow strand commonly adopt the term ‘metatext’, coined by the Finnish linguist Enkvist in 1975. Metatext is defined as “elements [. . .] whose function in the first place is to describe the text in which they are located” (Markkanen et al. 1993: 142). Metatext, by this definition, refers to the structure of the text rather than giving information about the subject proper. Its focus is on text-internal states of affairs. Table 4 illustrates the narrow approach. Some of the works that take a narrow approach are Schiffrin (1980), Mauranen (1993), Bäcklund (1998), Bunton (1999) and Dahl (2004). A brief summary of some of the works in this tradition will be given in the following, while a more comprehensive overview of previous work in this tradition will be given in Table 5 at the end of this section. Mauranen (1993) is the chief researcher and theorist in this tradition. Although she uses the term ‘reflexivity in language’ in her (1993) book – and not ‘metatext’ – she still clearly belongs to the non-integrative strand. She stresses the notion of the writer’s explicit commentary on her ongoing text, as in Let us now explore the implications of the above theorem; We shall divide such factors in three categories as follows; This book is . . .; In the following section; and In addition. Mauranen introduces a scale of explicitness, whereby reflexive expressions are divided into two classes. The first class is ‘highly explicit reflexivity’ which is subclassified into “references to the text” (in this article), “discourse labels” (stated formally) and “addressing the reader” (includes direct reader address such as Recall that . . .). Mauranen’s second class is called ‘reflexivity of low explicitness’ and includes “internal connectors” (Also, Second), “discourse labels” (a number of verbs and nouns that are considered partly reflexive) and “references to the text”. The last category is similar to her high-explicitness category ‘references to the text’, but in the former, “references to the text are not as clearly separable from references



JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.20 (1244-1291)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

to the content of the argument” (Mauranen 1993: 185). The scale of explicitness, from high to low reflexivity, looks as follows:113 Highly explicit reflexivity a. References to the text (in this article, in the following) b. Discourse labels (to illustrate, as noted earlier, stated formally) c. Addressing the reader (recall [that], the reader) Reflexivity of low explicitness a. Internal connectors (second, however, in addition) b. Discourse labels (it is reasonable to think, [our present data] show) c. References to the text (as a first step) d. Addressing the reader (there is reason to remember)

Categories such as rhetorical questions (which do count as metadiscursive in a broad approach) are excluded from Mauranen’s model on the grounds of being “concerned with the reader-writer relationship rather than directly with the text” (Mauranen 1993: 180). One may object, however, that this is also true of the category ‘addressing the reader’, which is surely more to do with the writer-reader relationship than the text as such – and which is, unlike rhetorical questions, counted as reflexive here. This demonstrates how difficult issues of delimitation may be, or perhaps it demonstrates how researchers resist excluding all signs of the addresser and the addressee (even though they may claim to be doing so). Telenius (1994), Valero-Garcés (1996), Bäcklund (1998), and Dahl (2004) base their taxonomy on Mauranen (1993), either directly or indirectly. These researchers all have in common a cross-cultural perspective, involving at least two different languages and writing cultures. The genre that is most frequently studied is academic writing. Telenius (1994) studies the use of metatext in academic writing (master’s theses) in English by Finnish university students. She picks out for observation statements which present the structure, purpose and limitations of the thesis, ‘discourse labels’ (as stated above, in short), ‘connectors’ (first, however), and even various typographical markers, such as boldface and parentheses. Mauranen (1993a) is a fairly small-scale research project, in which she investigates four academic research reports in economics; half of them written in L2 English by a Finnish speaker, and half of them in L1 English. For this particular study, Mauranen gives the phenomenon the label ‘metatext’, and not ‘reflexivity in language’. The taxonomy is also different from that of Mauranen (1993) in that it includes Connectors, Reviews, Previews and Action markers. Action markers indicate “discourse acts performed in the text” (Mauranen 1993a: 10), like for example the explanation is . . ..114

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.21 (1291-1347)

Chapter 7. Theories of metadiscourse 

Two studies that are directly modelled on Mauranen (1993a) are Valero-Garcés (1996) and Bäcklund (1998). In Valero-Garcés’ (1996) study all of the variables are the same, except that her L2 writer is a native speaker of Spanish. Bäcklund (1998) also adopts Mauranen’s taxonomy in her cross-linguistic analysis of metatext in British English, German and Swedish in texts from various genres of academic writing, as well as genres within trade and industry. Mauranen (1993), Bäcklund (1998) and Valero-Garcés (1996) all include ‘addressing the reader’ as a metadiscursive category, despite the fact that nonintegrative researchers only count as metatext references to the text itself and claim not to include linguistic expressions that primarily serve the interpersonal function. This illustrates the great difficulty of drawing the line between what counts as metadiscourse and what does not, as well as that of maintaining consistency. One inconsistency in these researchers’ work is that reference to the reader is used as a criterion, while reference to the writer is not. It is not made clear why the former should be regarded as metatext, but not the latter. Dahl (2004) does not adopt Mauranen’s taxonomy, but nevertheless takes a narrow approach in her investigation of research articles across three languages (English, French and Norwegian) and three disciplines (economics, linguistics and medicine). What Dahl studies is “locational” and “rhetorical” metatext. Locational metatext comprises “linguistic elements that refer to the text itself or to parts of it” (2004: 1811) and includes examples like The present paper and in Section 3, as well as more unexpected ones like already (as in As already mentioned). Rhetorical metatext includes “meta-elements which assist the reader in the processing of the text by making explicit the rhetorical acts performed by the writer in the argumentation process” (2004: 1812), such as We conclude that . . . Schiffrin (1980), who has studied metadiscourse in spoken texts (referred to as ‘metatalk’), would also have to be classified as belonging to the narrow strand. She chooses a model of classification that includes (1) ‘metalinguistic referents’, (2) ‘operators’ and (3) verbs. The first category includes cases in which “the entity referred to is something in the language per se – word, phrases, clauses or sentences” (Schiffrin 1980: 201). Another thing that is included is discourse deixis, for example former, latter, the next point, the first thing, when referring to “an item in a text rather than to an event” (ibid.). The potential metalinguistic function of demonstrative pronouns is also mentioned, as in Let me say this, pointing to “items in the text rather than items in the world outside the text” (Schiffrin 1980: 202). Schiffrin’s second category, ‘metalinguistic operators’, includes true, false, right, wrong, verbs like mean, and discourse connectives like like and for example. The third category consists of metalinguistic verbs, including verbs of saying like say, tell, ask and assert; verbs that indicate that something will be done through a piece of talk, e.g. clarify and define; and verbs that name speech events, such as

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.22 (1347-1439)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 5. Research taking a narrow approach to metadiscourse Source and term

Genre

Main focus

Schiffrin (1980): Metatalk

Spoken conversations and interviews

Discourse analysis, linguistic reflexivity

Mauranen (1993): Text reflexivity

Academic writing in economics and medical science

Text linguistics and contrastive rhetoric (English and Finnish)

Mauranen (1993a): Academic research reports Metatext in economics

Contrastive rhetoric (writing in English by NS and NNS L1 Finnish)

Telenius (1994): Metatext

Academic writing: MA theses

L2 composition (English by Finnish university students)

Valero-Garcés (1996): Metatext

Academic research reports in economics

Contrastive rhetoric (writing in English by NS and NNS L1 Spanish)

Bäcklund (1998): Metatext

Academic writing and texts Contrastive rhetoric (BrE, Swedish and from trade and industry German)

Bunton (1999): Metatext

Academic writing: Ph.D. theses

Text linguistics (Hong Kong English)

Thompson (2003): Text-structuring metadiscourse

Spoken academic lectures compared to talks from published EAP listening skills materials

Discourse organisation, lecture comprehension, teaching materials

Dahl (2004): Metatext

Academic writing: research articles

Contrastive rhetoric and writing across the disciplines (Norwegian, French, English & economics, linguistics, medicine)

argue and joke. However, as noted in Chapter 1, Schiffrin stresses the difficulty of “finding a set of empirical linguistic indicators for metatalk”. Previous research that takes a narrow approach to metadiscourse is summarised in Table 5. The publications are listed in chronological order. The default language variety studied is English; if other languages are involved, they are specified. The distinguishing feature of metadiscourse (or metatext, or text reflexivity), according to Mauranen, who is the most theory-oriented of the researchers into metadiscourse, must be that it refers to the text or the writing process, while the rest (‘non-metadiscourse’) refers to anything but the text or the writing of it. In my view, as argued in Chapter 2, the researchers who adopt the narrow approach are right in keeping the concept restricted. However, they leave out from their definition two very important components of the situation of writing: the writer and the reader. After all, a text is not just an artefact but an instance of communication between a writer and a reader. In the present study, metadiscursive phenomena are seen as referring to the text and/or the writing process, which includes not only the current text, but also the current writer and reader in their roles as writer and

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.23 (1439-1498)

Chapter 7. Theories of metadiscourse 

reader. This avoids abstracting the notion of reflexivity away from its use by actual writers and readers.

. Conclusion The purpose of this chapter has been to clarify what different researchers mean by ‘metadiscourse’. I have attempted to provide a broad theoretical overview of reflexive phenomena in order to place the study of metadiscourse on more solid theoretical ground. I have also summarised previous research on metadiscourse, presented in terms of the broad and the narrow approaches, which will hopefully function as a reference guide for researchers who are new to the area. As historical background, I have outlined the distinction between ‘metalanguage’ and ‘object language’. These relational terms have mainly been used in a philosophical tradition; this is specifically the case for the related notions of ‘mention’ and ‘use’. I have shown that the use-mention distinction cannot successfully be applied to the study of metadiscourse in text. If we were to use ‘mentions’ as a criterion for what to study, we would fail to notice important – and pervasive – types of metadiscursive expressions. By contrast, the concept of metalanguage in general has been shown to be potentially useful to the analysis of metadiscourse in texts, since it directs our attention to what we may call a ‘metadiscursive vocabulary’ (words such as say, speak, word, phrase, chapter, text and essay). However, while general reference to language may be a sufficient criterion for defining ‘metalanguage’ or ‘mention’, I have argued (primarily in Chapter 2), that further crucial components are needed to define metadiscourse: reference to the current discourse, and reference to the addresser and addressee of the current discourse. Although ‘metadiscourse’ tends to be defined broadly as any ‘text about text’, I (following Mauranen 1993) have made a theoretical distinction between ‘intertextual’ and ‘metatextual’ reference, counting only the latter as metadiscourse. The latter makes reference to the current text in question, while the former involves reference to texts other than the current one. One of the chief implications of this is that introductions to reported speech and other types of comments on other texts are considered to be outside the scope of metadiscourse. Another phenomenon that I have argued should be left outside the scope of metadiscourse is stance. I discussed the concept of stance by way of introducing the broad approach to metadiscourse. The distinctive feature of the broad approach is, precisely, that is includes stance in its definition of metadiscourse. My own position is that this makes the concept of metadiscourse overly broad and inclusive, and leads us too far out of the realm of explicit reflexive language.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:54

F: SCL2407.tex / p.24 (1498-1501)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

The narrow approach, on the other hand, in considering only the text itself and not the writer persona and the imagined reader of the current text, restricts the concept of metadiscourse too severely. If the broad approach is overly broad and the narrow approach overly narrow, is there a middle ground? Most certainly. The solution offered here, which still builds on Mauranen (1993) to a great extent, is to adopt the reflexive model, presented in Chapter 2.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.1 (47-119)

chapter 

Conclusions

. Introduction In this final chapter, the main conclusions and results of the present study will be summed up. These concern three areas to which this research has aimed to make a contribution, namely, (a) the theory of metadiscourse, (b) the application of computer-assisted methods to the study of metadiscourse, and (c) our knowledge of the use of metadiscourse in different varieties of English, specifically L2 English writing by Swedish university students. The next three sections will look at each of these areas in turn. The chapter will conclude with suggestions for future research.

. The theory of metadiscourse The theoretical focus of this work has been motivated by the perception that research on metadiscourse needs to achieve greater theoretical rigour and that delimitation issues need to be spelled out and dealt with. My aim has been to create and test an alternative theoretical model for metadiscourse and to define more clearly the boundaries between metadiscourse and related phenomena (for example neighbouring categories such as stance markers and general involvement features). Having said that, I think it is clear that this will be the last word on the theory of metadiscourse; quite the contrary, my hope is that this study will inspire others to further reflection on the description and definition of selfreflexive language. The fact that there exist several definitions of the concept of metadiscourse makes it all the more important to try to demystify this area of research. Furthermore, there exist several models for delimiting the concept, but, in most cases, the hows and whys of delimitation are not made explicit. Following Mauranen (1993), a distinction was drawn in Chapter 7 between broad (integrative) and the narrow (non-integrative) approaches to metadiscourse, the latter being more restricted in that it includes textual metadiscourse only, and not interpersonal metadiscourse. In essence, the difference boils down to whether stance is included or excluded from the concept. I argue that the integrative ap-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.2 (119-179)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

proach is problematic because it allows the concept to become overly broad and inclusive. It was shown that there is a strong residue of the early influence of semantics in the description of metalinguistic phenomena, in particular with regard to the use of the notion of ‘proposition’ to define metadiscourse (used, for example, by Vande Kopple 1985 and Hyland 2004). I proposed that, if we really want to do away with defining metadiscourse in terms of truth-conditional semantics, we should not equate it with non-propositional or non-ideational material, but instead conceptualise it as a (fuzzy) discourse phenomenon, which, to some extent, can stand in juxtaposition to the text’s content or subject matter. We then need to focus on its micro-level functions in actual texts. I have developed a functional model based on Roman Jakobson’s (see e.g. 1998) functions of language, arguing that, although there are several similarities between this and the most commonly employed SFG-inspired model, the Jakobsonian model is characterized by fewer inconsistencies and exhibits greater precision. The three main advantages of using a Jakobsonian model rather than an SFGinspired model for metadiscourse are (a) that it emphasises reflexivity as a basic feature, (b) that including the writer and reader in their roles as writer and reader makes the concept less decontextualised (detached from its actual use) and (c) that what we may call the ‘proposition problem’ is avoided. The model traditionally used in studies of metadiscourse is referred to here as the ‘SFG-inspired model’.115 Based on Halliday’s textual and interpersonal functions of language, this has been adopted by the majority of researchers into metadiscourse (such as Crismore et al. 1993 and Hyland 2004). However, as several of these researchers themselves have pointed out, it is not fully satisfactory. I hope to have shown, instead, that an alternative model based on Jakobson’s functions can be used effectively for a theory of metadiscourse. The proposed reflexive model is based on three of the Jakobsonian functions of language: the metalinguistic, the expressive and the directive functions. These functions put the text/code, the writer and the reader in focus, forming a configuration that I have referred to as ‘the reflexive triangle’. I have pointed out that by including both the writer and the reader, we can draw a distinction between primarily writer-oriented and primarily readeroriented material. A further motivation for this finer distinction has been that not just any interactional material in the text should count as metadiscourse, but only self-reflexive exchanges that take place between the writer and the imagined reader in the world of discourse. By contrast, in previous studies of metadiscourse that take a broad approach, all occurrences of, say, first person pronouns I and we, are considered instances of metadiscourse. The fact that researchers into metadiscourse generally are unclear or unspecific about their criteria for metadiscourse, but most commonly refer to the phe-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.3 (179-258)

Chapter 8. Conclusions 

Table 1. Features of the various types of metadiscourse Personal metadiscourse Impersonal Participant-oriented Writer-oriented Reader-oriented metadiscourse Explicitness World of discourse Current discourse Writer qua writer Reader qua reader

+ + + + +

+ + + + –

+ + + – +

+ + + – –

nomenon in a general way as ‘text about text’, is seen here as insufficient. In this book I have tried to rectify this by defining metadiscourse more explicitly, taking into account criteria that range from characteristic properties to defining features. In a nutshell, metadiscourse has been defined here as text about the evolving text, or the writer’s explicit commentary on her own ongoing discourse, displaying an awareness of the current text or its language use per se, and of the current writer and reader qua writer and reader. Four characteristic properties of metadiscourse have been discussed under the following headings: Metadiscourse is a fuzzy category; Metadiscourse is a functional category; Metadiscursive expressions may be multifunctional; and Metadiscourse is context-dependent. The features used for the necessary conditions that should be met for linguistic expressions to be defined as metadiscourse are ‘explicitness’, ‘world of discourse’, ‘current discourse’, and, for personal metadiscourse, ‘writer qua writer’ and ‘reader qua reader’. Table 1 defines the types of personal and impersonal metadiscourse by making reference to these features. To classify an element as metadiscourse, we should ask whether it makes reference to the current discourse (and not other texts, in which case its function is intertextual), and whether it deals with the world of discourse (and not the ‘real world’ or some imaginary world). These are obligatory features, and fairly unambiguous. A requirement for personal metadiscourse is that it make reference to the writer persona or the imagined reader, such that, for example, where first person singular is concerned, the word I should refer to the writer presenting herself as a writer rather than a human being engaged in other activities. Similarly, occurrences of first person plural we should include the writer persona and/or the imagined reader, and no persons that are not part of the world of discourse. In impersonal types of metadiscourse, by contrast, such explicit reference to the writer or reader is not made. Although metadiscourse will always remain a fuzzy phenomenon to some degree, and will always involve an element of (subjective) interpretation on the part of the analyst the features chosen worked well for the present analyses. I have divided metadiscourse into two main categories, referred to as ‘metatext’ and ‘writer-reader interaction’. ‘Metatext’ is described as metadiscourse that

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.4 (258-332)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Figure 1. The main functions of metadiscourse, stance and participation, and their links to the real world or the world of discourse

guides the reader through the text or comments on the use of language in the text. The focus is on the structure, discourse actions or wording of the text. Some examples are in this essay; . . . will be discussed in the following; see page 16; to conclude; strictly speaking; I will summarize . . . ; in brief. ‘Writer-reader interaction’, on the other hand, is described as metadiscourse that is used by the current writer to interact with her imagined reader in ways that create and maintain a relationship with the reader. This allows the writer to influence her reader by addressing him directly in various ways. Examples are You will probably think that . . .; Does this sound . . . to you?; Correct me if I’m wrong, but . . . and dear reader. With respect to the delimitation issue, I have differentiated metadiscourse from two neighbouring – but non-metadiscursive – categories, referred to as ‘stance’ and ‘participation’. These are commonly mislabelled as subcategories of metadiscourse, but they lack the element of reflexivity, which is crucial to metadiscourse according to the present definition. Figure 1 differentiates the three categories with brief functional descriptions and by illustrating how they differ in their relation to the ‘real world’ and to the world of discourse. In the present model, the two main rhetorical functions of metadiscourse are guidance (metatext) and interaction (writer-reader interaction). When these functions are foregrounded, the writer is acting in the world of discourse as the organizer and mediator of the current text, or is interacting with the reader in his role as reader. On the basis of the ‘reflexive triangle’ and careful investigation of the data, a taxonomy was devised that describes in more detail how the discourse participants employ their metadiscursive units in the present study. Figure 2 shows the reflexive triangle with the micro-level discourse functions mapped onto the text/code, the writer and the reader, and the three Jakobsonian functions of metadiscourse they represent. The two basic types of metadiscourse, ‘Metatext’ and ‘Writer-reader in-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.5 (332-412)

Chapter 8. Conclusions 

Figure 2. The discourse functions of personal metadiscourse in relation to the text (metalinguistic function), the writer (expressive function) and the reader (directive function)

teraction’, are indicated at the top and at the bottom. The numbers introducing the metatextual discourse functions are intended to distinguish between categories that primarily comment on code (1), discourse context (2), discourse acts specific to the topic (3), and general discourse acts (4). This taxonomy has the potential to be quite useful in future research. As more data are mapped onto it, it can be both expanded and revised. Its main strength lies in being based on quite a large number of authentic texts, while its main weakness lies in being based on one single genre. It remains to be seen whether it can be generalised to other genres without major revisions. In other words, it is an empirical question how this taxonomy would fare outside of academic essay writing. Another potential weakness of the taxonomy is likely to be due to the fact that a large part of the texts were produced by non-native speakers, which may have resulted in the taxonomy being somewhat idiosyncratic. If applied to a purely native-speaking sample of academic essay writing, the taxonomy might exhibit somewhat different categories. For the benefit of the reader who takes a special interest in the theory of reflexivity, I have provided a historical survey of reflexive phenomena, a quick guide to previous studies of metadiscourse, and an overview of definitions of

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.6 (412-478)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

‘meta-terminology’. This material is found in Chapter 7, except for the ‘metaterminology’, which constitutes Appendix 4. The next section will take us from theory to method, discussing the usefulness of computer-assisted methods for identifying and analysing metadiscourse.

. Metadiscourse in corpus studies The second principal aim of the present research has been to explore computerassisted methods for analysing metadiscourse. The present study is one of the first to systematically use computer-assisted methods to gain new insights into this phenomenon. Considering this fact, I will devote some space in the following to evaluating the methods used. The present work has emphasised the important role played by methodology. The rationale for using computer-assisted methods was that it would enable me to draw sharper and more systematic distinctions between metadiscourse and nonmetadiscourse and between different types of metadiscourse. By going through a large number of examples, the patterns emerged more clearly and consistently, which benefitted the theoretical description and boundary-drawing. As far as computer-assisted methods are concerned, let me again point out that there is nothing groundbreaking about the ways in which they have been applied here. Combining text linguistics and corpus methods is fairly well-established by now (at least according to Conrad 2002: 86; Biber et al. 1998: 106, however, paint a bleaker picture), even if to date computer-assisted methods have not been used in research into metadiscourse.116 There has been considerably more recent corpusbased research into learner language than into metadiscourse (such as the excellent collection of papers in Granger 1998, to mention but one example). Among other things, the notion that metadiscourse is a highly contextdependent phenomenon has discouraged researchers from using such methods. I hope to have shown, however, that it is far from impossible to do so and that much can be gained from research into metadiscourse using corpora and corpus-assisted methods. The methodology applied also has many non-metadiscursive uses. Similar methods, I believe, can be successfully applied to other fuzzy phenomena in language, such as expressions of politeness, hedging and stance. The aim of automatising the analysis of metadiscourse was premised on the principle that the more material the analysis is based on, the more generalisable the results will be – and the safer one’s conclusions. For instance, as reported in Chapter 3, taking the pronouns as a starting point for retrieving personal metadiscourse made it possible to retrieve many thousands of examples. The large sample of personal metadiscourse upon which the investigation was based allowed for more general conclusions to be drawn.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.7 (478-526)

Chapter 8. Conclusions 

This is not to say that a human analyst will not be needed to interpret the data and evaluate the context, but merely that the investigation can be made more controlled, systematic and large-scale. The use of computer-assisted methods in the study of metadiscourse does not in any way rule out extensive manual analysis. In fact, it is necessary; the present method can be summed up as ‘large-scale automatic retrieval followed by manual analysis’. The alternative, i.e. going through all of the material manually for all the stages of retrieval and analysis, seems unadvisedly Sisyphean by comparison. An additional advantage of this method is that, compared to contenting oneself with ‘armchair examples’, the range and fuzziness of metadiscourse is revealed more thoroughly and systematically. Albeit time-consuming, starting the process of capturing personal metadiscourse by retrieving personal pronouns worked well. The main advantage was that it necessitated the taking into account of a wide variety of potential examples, with the result that many different types as well as borderline cases were identified. Since metadiscourse is a fuzzy area, it has been helpful to explore the characteristics of both typical examples and less typical ones, thereby finding better arguments for what to include and what not to include. In designing one’s study this way, however, one also runs the risk of finding oneself drowning in data. Over the course of the analysis stage, I have dealt with a vast number of examples, amounting to more than 6,000 potential instances of personal metadiscourse alone. As discussed in Chapter 2, the main difficulty in using computer-assisted methods to find metadiscourse is its context-dependency. Analysing texts in order to find the relevant examples of metadiscourse entails drawing distinctions between word occurrences that are “talking about the text or talking about the content, that is, [what is] text-internal vs. text-external” (Mauranen 1993: 157). A large part of the retrieved search material turned out not to be metadiscursive, i.e. the examples did not comment on the ongoing text, nor did they refer to the current writer or reader within the world of discourse in an explicit way. In this sense the method did not score high on precision; that is, the proportion of retrieved material that was relevant was low. Some of the selected search terms gave quite poor results, which is interesting in and of itself. Many potentially metalinguistic words (see Section 7.2), such as writer, reader and text, were infrequent in the material, and often did not function as metadiscourse when they did occur. Thus, despite their seemingly inherent metalinguistic qualities, they were not all that felicitous as search terms. In fact, in the whole of the BrE corpus, there was not a single example of writer, reader or text that functioned as metadiscourse. By contrast to the study of personal metadiscourse, which used a few frequent types (pronouns) in order to retrieve a large number of tokens, the impersonal

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.8 (526-598)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 2. Evaluation of the methodological success of the studies of personal and impersonal metadiscourse PERSONAL METADISCOURSE

IMPERSONAL METADISCOURSE

Search terms used Appr. # of retrieved tokens Average % of relevant tokens Precision rate

Personal pronouns I, we and you117 67 search forms 6,000 7,200

Recall rate

high (few types missed)

Approximately 15%

Approximately 30%

low (many irrelevant tokens)

comparatively high (fewer irrelevant tokens) low-medium (several types missed)

metadiscourse study used a limited selection of metadiscursive types. A set of some 60 search terms was used, as described in Chapter 4. If we evaluate the two studies of personal and impersonal metadiscourse, we can conclude that they yielded different degrees of methodological success. The results differed in terms of rates of precision (whether all the tokens included in the count were relevant to the phenomenon in focus) and recall (whether the search method found all the occurrences of the phenomenon in focus), as summarised in Table 2. The personal study yielded low precision rates and high recall rates, whereas the impersonal study scored higher on precision, but low on recall. For the latter, note that I used a fairly large subset of all the possible impersonal words, which were all comparably infrequent. One type of computer-assisted investigation that is fairly easy to make once a database of metadiscourse has been set up is of the distribution of metadiscursive items in the texts. However, this necessitates that one have access to information about the textual position of every metadiscursive item in the database, which WordSmith Tools (Scott 1999), the concordance tool used for the present study, does provide. Although the analyses presented in Chapter 5 were quite cursory and no in-depth examination of discourse functions has been carried out, I believe to have demonstrated the potential of this type of computer-assisted analysis of discourse phenomena. The hypothesis that some types of metadiscourse tend to occur at specific points in texts was verified: There were indeed patterns in the way writers position metadiscourse. The corpus-assisted tools used in this study, then, have been relatively basic. Would it be possible to study metadiscourse using more complex computational methods? Most definitely. Although metadiscourse is highly contextual and any analysis probably requires a human analyst to decide which examples are relevant, there are still ways in which to get around the context-dependence for certain types of metadiscourse in the retrieval stage, by creating more complex search

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.9 (598-663)

Chapter 8. Conclusions 

algorithms. To take but one example, one idea for automatising the retrieval of metadiscursive expressions is to combine verb tense information with a number of discourse verbs (such as argue, discuss, present, outline, report) that might be used for Introducing Topic (e.g. WILL/BE GOING TO + DISCOURSE VERB) and Reminding (e.g. past tense of DISCOURSE VERB). To evaluate the whole project of applying computer-assisted methods to the study of metadiscourse – or, indeed, to other fuzzy phenomena – in large corpora, I would recommend the approach. I am likely to use these methods again for at least two reasons. First, with a working taxonomy of discourse functions (summarised in Figure 2 above), the process will be considerably easier and faster. I will be able to simply match new instances to the existing inventory of discourse functions and will not have to let the data speak to the same degree as for the present study. Secondly, having a definition of metadiscourse that is relatively clear and explicit will make the analysis faster and more efficient, making it possible to undertake similar studies even on very large corpora. In conclusion, the present study has clearly demonstrated the potential of various types of computer-assisted analysis of metadiscursive phenomena. The next section will present the most important results of this analysis and summarise the main patterns found in the use of metadiscourse across the corpora.

. The use of metadiscourse The third main contribution of this research has been to map the use of metadiscourse by various groups of writers. In the following, I will sum up the findings on the use of metadiscourse across the three groups of writers, with special focus on the conclusions reached about the Swedish learners’ use of metadiscourse. Patterns found in the native speakers’ use of metadiscourse will also be discussed, but the native-speaker corpora – which were smaller than the learner corpus – primarily played the role of control corpora. The preceding chapters have demonstrated that the three groups differ considerably in their use of metadiscourse, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Taken together, the results reflect a general pattern of considerable overuse of metadiscourse by the Swedish learners that holds both for personal and impersonal metadiscourse. The general pattern is that the Swedish learner material exhibited by far the highest frequencies, double those of the AmE material, which, in turn, were greater than those of the BrE material. The differences were not as pronounced for impersonal metadiscourse, but the learners did use 50 per cent more impersonal metadiscourse than the native-speaker norm.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.10 (663-712)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Figure 3. Frequency per 100,000 words of personal metadiscourse

Figure 4. Frequency per 100,000 words of impersonal metadiscourse

The quantitative differences are illustrated in Figure 3, which shows the frequencies of personal metadiscourse, while Figure 4 shows the frequencies of impersonal metadiscourse. The two tables show similar trends, with the learners showing the top frequencies (at 265 and 748), followed by the American student writers (at 111 and 541), and the British student writers with the lowest frequencies (at 54 and 506). Although the differences are more pronounced for personal metadiscourse, both tables display the same ordering. Seen in terms of writer/reader/text visibility, the learner texts are found at one extreme, the British texts at the other, and the American texts in the middle. The writers in the learner group more frequently commented on their texts as texts, referred to themselves as writers, and interacted with the imagined reader. The BrE writers, by contrast, produced texts characterized by a scarcity of metadiscourse, especially of the personal kind. If we look at the proportion of personal and impersonal metadiscourse in Swicle, we can see that more than a third of the total use of metadiscourse constitutes personal forms. This proportion is remarkably higher than that of the BrE material, where the personal forms constitute a mere tenth of the total. The proportion in the AmE material, on the other hand, is closer to that of a fifth of the total metadiscourse use. This clearly shows that the native speakers and the nonnative speakers do not make the same choices regarding personal and impersonal forms of metadiscourse. If we take personal metadiscourse as an example, the study turned up great differences across corpora in the use of both I-units and you-units. Metadiscourse involving I was particularly overused by the learners. You-units were most frequent in the learner texts, fairly numerous in the AmE texts, but practically absent from the BrE texts. I and you present the greatest discrepancies (both along the learnernative speaker axis and along the BrE-AmE axis) and can be assumed to be the most problematic personal types for non-native speakers.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.11 (712-774)

Chapter 8. Conclusions

To check whether the non-native-speaker and native-speaker writers used metadiscourse for the same purposes, the study compared the micro-level functions of metadiscourse across corpora. Mapping these trends, Chapter 3 presented an investigation of the various functions in the immediate discourse context of personal metadiscourse. One of the reasons for doing this was to see whether the differences across corpora actually ran deeper than simple frequency of use. For example, even if all three groups of writers were to employ the same set of discourse functions, they might still do so in different proportions. This study resulted in a taxonomy of micro-level discourse functions for personal metadiscourse. For Metatext, i.e. where the text was in focus (meaning either the wording, structure or production of the essay), the functions identified were: Defining, Introducing Topic, Saying, Focussing, Concluding, Reminding, Exemplifying, Adding, Arguing, and Contextualising (for definitions and examples, see Table 6 in Chapter 3). The first three of these specifically deal with the topic. The others deal with the writer’s textual actions, thereby also displaying the organisation of the essay. The last category bears traces from the production of the text in that the text is explicitly referred to as an artefact. For Writer-reader interaction, i.e. the functions for which the reader was in focus, the functions identified were: Appealing to the Reader, Aligning Perspectives, Clarifying, Anticipating the Reader’s Reaction, Imagining Scenarios, and Hypothesising about the Reader (for definitions and examples, see Table 7 in Chapter 3). Figure 5 compares the distribution, shown in descending order of overall frequency, of these discourse functions across the three corpora. The investigation of discourse functions did reveal a great many differences in what the three groups used personal metadiscourse for. For example, the learner group showed the greatest diversity of discourse functions for personal metadiscourse. In particular, the learner material displayed a strong metalinguistic awareness and frequently dealt with terminology and definitions. The top three functions were Saying, Defining, and Introducing Topic. (See example (1) in Table 3 for a typical example, which fills the functions of defining and introducing the topic from a personal I perspective.) The learner writers also exhibited greater writer visibility (cf. Petch-Tyson 1998) and more taking into account of the imagined reader than the native speakers. In sum, the learner essays were very much characterized by linguistic self-awareness and linguistic exchanges between the writer and the imagined reader. The BrE material showed quite the opposite tendency, presenting very little metalinguistic awareness and remaining largely impersonal and monologic. There were hardly any expressions of direct reader address, nor was the writer persona particularly visible. When the writer did appear, it was to introduce the topic, to comment on the use of terminology, and to align the writer and reader’s perspectives. (See example (3) for a typical example, which gives an elaborate definition



JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.12 (774-842)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Figure 5. Comparison across corpora of the distribution of personal metadiscourse. Y-axis represents frequency per 100,000 words.

without making the writer or reader visible.) This group had clearly adopted a writing norm that favoured an impersonal style with few instances of mock interaction between the writer and reader. The AmE material was in-between these two extremes. The American writers made more explicit references to the structure or the wording of their essays than the British writers, but they came nowhere near the learner writers in this. They explicitly referred to their imagined readers to some degree, although not as effusively as the learners. (See example (2) for a typical example, in which the writer invites the reader to consider a definition.) Although the writer personas were more visible than in the British English material, they did not approximate the extremes of the learner writers in making explicit appearances in their texts. As an illustration of how the corpora differ, examples of Defining typical of each corpus are given in Table 3. To sum up the differences found between the three corpora along a scale of writer- and reader-orientation, the learner writers were found at the visibility extreme, the American writers in the middle, and the British writers at the extreme of impersonality. The learner writers invited their readers to participate in a fairly intense and informal relationship. The imagined readers were much more involved as participants in the ongoing discourse than in the native-speaker texts. The British writers, by contrast, did not make themselves or their readers visible, but rather remaining quite detached from the ongoing discourse. The American

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.13 (842-892)

Chapter 8. Conclusions 

Table 3. Examples of Defining from the three corpora Corpus

Example

Swicle (1) The word “racism” is not so easy to define, but before I start writing an essay about this word and its meaning, I had better try to define my view of what lies in the word “racism”. (322) AmE (2) Where do you draw the line between life and death? To determine this question, we have to consider our definition of life and our definition of death. (029) BrE (3) In Article 5 the word “arbitrage” can be interpreted differently; on one hand it can mean that the president is an impartial observer and referee and does not deal with problems but on the other hand it can mean that he is in charge of the daily run of the country, obviously having a more dynamic and interventionist role. De Gaulle chose the second interpretation. . . (053)

essays were not as impersonal; the writer personas did show up, and the imagined readers were referred to and invited to participate in the ongoing discourse to some degree. Example (4) is typical of a style common in the learner material but essentially absent from the native-speaker material, and serves as a telling example of how the learner writers differed from the native speakers in their use of metadiscourse. (4) I have decided to discuss the unpleasant experiences first of all – so let us get them out of the way! (Swicle 357)

In several ways, this brief extract is typical of the learners’ use of metadiscourse, which is strongly differentiated from the native speakers’ use, in particular that of the British writers. This can be summed up in three basic points: a. It is personal. Here, this is signalled by personal pronoun I, marking the presence of the writer persona. b. It is interactive, thereby also signalling the presence of the imagined reader in addition to the writer (expressed by let us). c. It shows part of the ‘compositional machinery’, or conveys a sense of simultaneity and marks the presence of the situation of writing and/or the mechanics of writing. Here, the writer’s decisions about the structure of the text are announced (I have decided. . .). Another feature characteristic of the learner essays has been described as a ‘rhetoric of modesty’, meaning that the learner writers were more tentative and hedged in their use of metadiscourse than the native speakers. For example, hedging verb groups like try and would like to were very common in the learners’ metadiscourse units, in particular when the writer personas announced their discourse actions. This contributed to the learner essays displaying a less assertive writer persona.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.14 (892-950)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

By contrast with personal metadiscourse, which was more than twice as frequent in the texts by the American writers as in the texts by the British writers, the native-speaker groups used similar amounts of impersonal metadiscourse. That is, the differences between the BrE and AmE essays were primarily in the area of writer and reader visibility and ‘personalisation’, and did not so much apply to impersonal metadiscourse. When the learners overused impersonal metadiscourse, they particularly overused units that commented on terminology or definitions, or referred to the current text. One of the instances of greatest variation found was in References to the Text/Code, for which the learners had at least two-thirds more occurrences than the native speakers. The search terms essay and word were the main locus of this discrepancy. The learner writers were very explicit in bringing up questions and answers, and often labelled the discourse act when asking a question or giving an answer. Some of the learner essays exhibited a ‘chatty’ type of reflexivity in their questionanswer sequences, as if they were using metadiscursive expressions merely to expand their essays and get closer to making the minimum word limit. This may well be one (task-related) reason for the learners’ greater explicitness and more frequent use of reflexivity in general. To illustrate this wordy tendency of learners, example (5) gives a short extract in which sequences involving question and answer that could be omitted have been put in square brackets. (5) [But then the question arises,] what are we saving time for? [The simple, but somewhat dejecting, answer to that question is, I think,] we do not know what we are saving our time for, or rather we have forgotten why we started to save time in the first place. [The next question then to demand an answer is], how does this time-saving mentality affect us? [My opinion is that] it has affected our way of thinking, dreaming. . . (Swicle 107)

Not only did the learners make use of more metadiscourse in their texts, they also used more metadiscourse units per sentence. They clustered metadiscourse together in a way that the native speakers did not. When considering both general frequencies and the density of metadiscourse in the control corpora, we have to conclude that the Swedish learners did not achieve native-like selection (to use Pawley & Syder’s expression; see 3.4). Displaying one’s persona, persuading, negotiating and interacting with the imagined reader are important aspects of written texts. Writers take different approaches to creating a persona and making an impression on their readership. One interesting aspect of the writer persona is how she conceives of and constructs herself and her relations to the imagined reader. In the present material, the learners were more prone to construing their imagined readers as equals, even friends,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.15 (950-1011)

Chapter 8. Conclusions 

than the native speakers. Many non-native speaker essays give an impression of the writer construing a fairly informal chat with a friend, very much based on presupposed mutual understanding and shared values, rather than an effort to convince the ‘general’ reader of an argument by means of solid argumentation and logical stringency. The AmE material also tended somewhat in this direction, while the British writers seemed to regard their readers as less friendly, as requiring a more formal style of writing. They generally expressed themselves in terms of certainty and authority rather than appealing to the reader’s empathy. Another thing that contributed to the dialogic quality of the learner essays was the fact that the learners produced more questions and exclamations (see 5.4–5.5). This was in stark contrast to the monologic and impersonal style of the BrE essays. Furthermore, reader-oriented items such as reader, imagine and let’s/let us all had higher frequencies in the learner essays. The same pattern that showed up for most other metadiscourse types was evident here as well, with the learners in the lead, followed by the Americans, and with the British students producing by far the fewest occurrences. Turning now from dialogic features to the distribution of metadiscursive units in a text, I have investigated in Chapter 5 the hypothesis that some types of metadiscourse will tend to occur at specific points in texts, especially at beginnings and endings of texts. The search terms selected were very few, but it did indeed turn out that they were all distributed according to quite specific patterns. The main patterns found were that personal metadiscourse occurred most frequently at the beginning of texts in the learner corpus and the BrE corpus, while the opposite pattern obtained in the AmE corpus, where personal metadiscourse occurred most frequently at the end of texts. This surprising discrepancy indicates that, even within the Anglo-Saxon sphere, there may exist different cultural conventions for how writers approach their relationship with the reader and the text. Only two terms that exemplify impersonal metadiscourse were analysed from the point of view of their textual distribution. Essay, which had sufficient numbers in the learner corpus only, showed a pronounced peak at the beginning, and a smaller peak at the end of the essays, while question displayed similar patterns across all three corpora, in which it showed a clear preference for beginnings. These distributional patterns can be explained by the simple fact that both terms played an important role in expressions used to introduce the essay topic. The textual distribution of question and exclamation marks was also investigated. For this set, the easiest trend to discern was found in the AmE material, where these items displayed quite opposite patterns, with question marks dominating at the beginning of texts and exclamations at the end. The learner material showed a similar pattern for exclamations, but no particular pattern was found for questions. In the BrE material, questions were also distributed quite evenly across the texts, while exclamations were too few to form any reliable pattern at all.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.16 (1011-1058)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

The hypothesis that some types of metadiscourse tend to occur at specific points in texts was thus verified, the first and last sections proving to be the most important locations. I was able to conclude that the enterprise of finding patterns in the textual distribution of metadiscourse is likely to give interesting results and that it is worth pursuing further. However, the distributional analysis was too cursory to provide any truly compelling results. Future studies will, first of all, have to be based on larger corpora to have sufficient frequencies for this type of analysis. Secondly, they will have to go into more depth and make better attempts at finding explanations for the patterns found. Although the current project was not designed to explore the possible causes of variation in metadiscourse use, I have nevertheless offered a discussion of the factors that may have influenced the results. This was the topic of Chapter 6, which also emphasised the difficulty of disentangling the different factors. The four potential causes of the variation found were identified as genre comparability, register awareness, cultural conventions and general learner strategies. The first factor, genre comparability, refers to the extent to which the use of metadiscourse is dependent on genre. The learner essays and the native-speaker essays did display some differences in this respect. The second factor, register awareness, refers to the degree of writers’ familiarity with argumentative writing and mastery of the appropriate writing skills. The third and fourth factors were the degree to which cultural conventions for writing in Swedish versus English differ, and the possible universal effects of using a foreign language, respectively. While keeping within the narrow constraints of the material of the study, some attempts at explanation were made. However, more research is required to find conclusive support for any hypothesis. The next section will sum up plans and ideas for future research.

. Future research The research project presented here has resulted in many ideas for a range of future studies. Perhaps the most obvious lines of study to pursue concern the question of whether any of the differences observed between the learner corpus and the control corpora in the use of metadiscourse are specific to Swedish learners, or whether they are universal learner phenomena. This would require (a) comparison with essays in L1 Swedish, and (b) comparison with material produced by English learners with different L1s. There are, as we know, several subcorpora of the International Corpus of Learner English (Granger 1993, 1998). In order to get more data on the possible causes of the results, it would be highly valuable to make a comparison of the use of metadiscourse across several learner subcorpora, preferably with L1s from

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.17 (1058-1111)

Chapter 8. Conclusions 

different language families (cf. Petch-Tyson 1998). It would also be valuable to investigate the use of metadiscourse in original Swedish texts and compare how it differs from the use of metadiscourse in L2 texts by L1 Swedish speakers, such as those studied here (cf. Mauranen 1993). Another interesting future study would be a comparison of the learner data with a different native-speaker control corpus of professional writing.118 I stress in the discussion of the control corpus and the norm (see Appendix 2) that it would be desirable to have at our disposal two different types of norms – one ‘peer status’ norm of university student writing (such as the Locness) and one ‘professional status’ norm of professional writing (such as argumentative newspaper texts) – for comparison with the learner material. This would give us a broader picture of what the status of the learner essays is in relation to native-speaker texts. If we could study professional argumentative texts written by native speakers of both British and American English and compare them to the non-professional student writing corpora, we would have data on which patterns are consistent. In addition, such a study would help to explore whether the patterns of use are the same in professional writing in these two varieties of English. There is a remarkable lack of verifications or falsifications of hypotheses about possible differences between American and British English in the use of metadiscourse – not to mention other, less obvious discourse features. Cultural conventions in writing are likely to be passed on and maintained primarily through education, which brings us to one of the factors that might account for some of the differences found: the amount and type of writing instruction that the students have been exposed to. It would be very interesting to investigate the role of teaching and instruction and its effect on the use of metadiscourse. The overuse of typical spoken language features in the Swicle material could be a result of features emphasised in the Swedish educational system and in EFL teaching. For example, Altenberg (1997) suggests that the Swedish learners have learnt conversational English above all else. Another indicator of the power of instruction came from an American informant, who claimed that “as a student in the US, I was told never to use I in academic writing”.119 An additional way of investigating prevailing conventions for various types of written texts would be to do a systematic study of style manuals and instructional literature. One specific aspect that would be useful to study is what the ideal writer persona, according to style manuals, should be like. One could, for example, deduce from instructional literature whether writers in different societies are encouraged to guide, or discouraged from guiding, the reader; whether it is considered licit to create space for interacting with the reader in an argumentative text; whether it is likely to be perceived by actual readers as a persuasive strategy to be a visible writer; whether readers might feel insulted or flattered by reader visibility in argumentative texts, and so on. It would be interesting to see what differences there

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.18 (1111-1169)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

are between BrE and AmE instructional literature, as well as between instructional literature in English and in other languages, such as Swedish. However, we should probably not expect too much from the instructional literature. On the basis of previous research, it can be assumed that metadiscursive phenomena are not at centre stage in composition teaching, if they are brought up at all. When discussing the results of a contrastive study of metadiscourse in Finnish and AmE argumentative essay writing, Crismore et al. (1993: 64) claim that “the focus in teaching writing seems to be on proposition content [in both countries]: The use of metadiscourse has been discouraged rather than encouraged. The students seem to have been taught not to project themselves into their writing unless it is expressive writing”. That said, there have been some excellent recent publications, at least in North America, that bring up and give advice on the use of metadiscourse (e.g. Swales & Feak 2000, 1994). As a complement to the study of the teaching of norms, it should prove quite revealing to interview composition teachers at university level, to investigate what types of instructions (if any) teachers give concerning metadiscourse; what the attitudes of teachers are to personal/impersonal metadiscourse; how they react to the personal, dialogic style of the Swicle learner essays; and what the teachers’ explanations are for students’ use of metadiscourse. In order to cover attitudes in L1 Swedish teaching, as well, it would be valuable to conduct teacher interviews at Swedish universities and upper secondary schools on the use of metadiscourse in argumentative texts in Swedish. This could also be used to further investigate Altenberg’s (1997: 130–131) claim that argumentative writing is a neglected area in EFL teaching in Sweden. Another interesting interview project would be to talk to writers about their use of and attitudes to metadiscourse (as done by Hyland 2002), including both non-professionals (such as university students) and experienced authors (both in academia and in the media).120 Another factor that may account for the differences found to some degree is gender. That is, the gender of the writer could influence how much or what types of metadiscourse are used. There is one previous study of metadiscourse which takes gender aspects into account (Crismore et al. 1993), which suggests that there are some differences that depend on the gender of the writer. In Crismore et al.’s investigation both genders used about the same overall amount of metadiscourse, but the subcategories were used differently (1993: 59ff.). One highly interesting fact available to us for such purposes is that approximately 75 per cent of the Swicle students are female. The fairly extensive learner profiles of the Swicle, including educational and socio-cultural information provided by the learner writers, make it possible to investigate the gender factor in the learner material. Unfortunately, the native-speaker corpora, by contrast, do not provide any such information about the writers, which rules out any com-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.19 (1169-1237)

Chapter 8. Conclusions 

parison of gender influences in the present investigation. Other control corpora might include this type of information, however, and make it possible to carry out such a study. Moving finally from a sociolinguistic to a phraseological topic, I hope to have been able to give the reader a glimpse of the wealth of research projects on metadiscourse that are waiting to be carried out. One such potential linguistic study could investigate metadiscourse in terms of constructions, referred to for example as ‘prefabricated phrases’, ‘idiomatic expressions’, ‘conventionalised language’ and ‘formulas’. Linguistic units that can be defined as “chunks of language of varying length, conventionalised structures that occur more frequently and have more idiomatically determined meaning than language that is put together each time” (Nattinger & DeCarrico 1992: 559) appear to be quite common in metadiscourse – for example in phrases like strictly speaking, if you will, needless to say, I’m telling you, in addition, to summarise, (you) mark my words, so to speak/say, to quote + NP, Adv + speaking, putting it + Adv, etc.121 By studying the form of metadiscourse at phrase and sentence level and by comparing the occurrence of lexicogrammatical units in native-speaker and learner texts, we would achieve better analyses of the oftentimes unidiomatic or cumbersome style of learner writing.

. Final remarks Since I am well aware that there is room for much improvement in the teaching of writing in the EFL classroom, including work on metadiscourse, it seems appropriate to close this book with some advice for teachers of L2 writing. The general point that I would like to make is that, if our aim is to teach students to write more prototypically argumentative essays (listing pros and cons, being polemical, etc.) in upper secondary schools and universities, we should include at least one, preferably several, argumentative texts as a model and point of departure for the student writers. In doing so, we are likely to avoid some of the overly personal essays of which we have seen many examples over the course of this book. These are the typical learner essays of the Swicle, which draw primarily on the writer’s experience, have a very high involvement factor, and are narrative rather than argumentative in character. Furthermore, if student writers were allowed to quote secondary sources and draw on other texts, their general argumentation and their style of writing would stand to gain a great deal. This recommendation would seem to work best for take-home exams, rather than strictly time-constrained in-class exams. There is some research that suggests that take-home essays are preferable to in-class essays; a study by Kroll (1990) showed that ESL writers’ rhetorical competency was 50% higher when writing at home compared to writing in class.122

JB[v.20020404] Prn:1/08/2006; 9:21

F: SCL2408.tex / p.20 (1237-1240)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

The more specific, and final, point I would like to make is that issues regarding how much metadiscourse or writer/reader visibility to employ in writing are far from self-evident, but need more explicit attention in the ESL classroom. After all, these issues are an essential part of developing communicative competence in a language and knowledge of them is necessary for writers to make informed decisions about their own writing style. One promising way of raising students’ awareness is by providing them with corpus data consisting of authentic and relevant texts and introducing them to the Data-Driven Learning approach (a recent publication that offers many stimulating ideas is Gavioli 2005). Another way of reducing the number of unintended stylistic effects in L2 writing, such as the ones we have witnessed here in the Swedish learner material, would be to work more determinedly on raising students’ awareness, for example through helping writers to reflect on their relationship with their imagined readers (their audience) and about their own role as writer. More disciplined classroom discussion about such issues, and how they are affected by genre, and possibly culture, would be likely to make for more natural, more efficient and more effective writing.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 9:42

F: SCL24AP1.tex / p.1 (50-142)

appendix 

Comparability of the corpora In order to estimate the degree of comparability of the learner corpus and the native-speaker corpora, we need to consider the concept of genre. The following is a brief genre classification, for which Bhatia (1993) will be used as a basis. Some of Bhatia’s (1993: 23ff.) ‘external’ criteria of genre are temporal factors (time of composition and age of writers), sociological factors (educational background of writers), factors that depend on the writer and reader (intended audience, writerreader relationship and goals of the writer), and comparability of topics. First, it should be pointed out that the American and British English essays have not been described in detail by the compilers; however, I was able to draw many conclusions simply by reading the essays themselves. As we shall see, some of the factors are not possible to check, or turn out not to be fully compatible, which could affect the degree of comparability of the texts analysed. To begin with the least problematic case, we can note that the time of composition falls within the 1990s for all texts of the three corpora. On the whole, it seems safe to assume that the writers are comparable in terms of age across the three corpora. The majority of the Swicle writers are university students of approximately the same age (in their early 20s).123 The British students are adults at university level, but no specifics are available. Very scarce information is available about the American student writers, but the age range can be assumed to be equivalent to that of the Swedish learners. Another social factor which has an effect on language use is educational background. In the present case, all of the writers are at university level. The Swedish learners are second-year university students of English. In Sweden, students have generally had nine years of English at school before entering university. A summary of the educational details reads as follows: [T]he scope given to English composition varies a great deal from school to school (and from teacher to teacher) and most students get little or no training in academic or argumentative writing in English. [. . .] The attention given to English composition at Swedish universities also varies greatly. [. . .] Since most students studying English at Swedish universities take comparatively short programmes (1–2 years), they get very little systematic training in argumentative or academic writing. (http://www.englund.lu.se/research/corpus/corpus/swicle. html)

As for the native speakers, we do not have any information about their educational background, apart from their status as university students.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 9:42

F: SCL24AP1.tex / p.2 (142-201)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

All texts were produced individually, excluding co-authored or collective writing. The majority of the writers composed their texts in response to an exam question. This format has been described by Perleman (1986; quoted in Kaplan 1988: 283) as ‘institutional-based discourse’. The fact that the majority of the learner essays are timed sit-in exams is highly likely to have had an effect on their style of writing. Some of the native-speaker essays, by contrast, are home assignments, although there is no information available about what the proportions might be. The term ‘audience’ can be defined as the people to whom the text is addressed, or as an imagined audience (in the writer’s mind), or the so-called implied reader. The essay writers’ actual audience situations are quite similar. Disregarding any linguistic researchers, the essays will most likely be read only by a grading university teacher. The writers must bear in mind while writing that their teachers – who in most cases know more about the topic the students are writing about than the students themselves – will be their primary readers. This is not to say that we can simply conclude that the intended audience is teachers, whose task it is to mark the texts. First of all, the task can be said to include presenting one’s argumentation to a general audience. If only the grading teacher is explicitly selected as the intended reader, it would amount to a misunderstanding of the task. Secondly, it can be quite difficult to conceptualise one’s audience, and, in all likelihood, few students actually do any explicit thinking about their audience. Another parameter to consider in genre classification is the type of relationship that obtains between the writer and reader (Bhatia 1993: 23). Again, the three groups are quite comparable in this respect. They are all student writers, enrolled in a university course. They are likely to want to make their reader (a teacher) content, in order to be given the best grade possible, or at least pass the course. Most likely, they also regard their readers as more knowledgeable, most certainly in terms of writing in general, but probably also in terms of argumentation, unless the subject on which they write is very much anchored to their own personal sphere of experience. To describe the intended goals of the writer, we could say that the rhetorical purpose is to present arguments for or against an issue, and to try to convince the reader to adopt the viewpoint argued for. As already suggested, an additional aim is to show the grading teacher-reader that they have sufficiently mastered the art of composition (argumentation in particular) and/or that they possess some knowledge of the subject they are requested to write about. In the case of the learners, an additional aim is to show that they master the English language. Another criterion that Bhatia (1993) has specified as affecting genre comparability is topic. Although it is clear that the topics of the texts will affect lexical choices, it is unclear how they would affect the use of metadiscourse. As long as

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 9:42

F: SCL24AP1.tex / p.3 (201-240)

Appendix 1. Comparability of the corpora 

differences in topics do not influence genre affiliation, we probably do not need to worry about possible skewed results in studies of metadiscourse. The learner material includes fairly traditional argumentative topics, with headings such as Integration or assimilation?, The use and abuse of state media, In defence of popular culture, Unemployment and the future. A few titles encourage or leave room for a more personal perspective, like Reflections on being a mature student and Christmas 1997 – traditional or innovative?. The AmE material often concerns moral issues that the writer is required to take a stand on, for example euthanasia, capital punishment, gender equality, family values, and abortion. The American students often refer to, usually by quoting, other texts in their argumentation. There is clearly some input on the topic prior to the composition, and they have access to other sources while writing. This is an important circumstance, as discussed in Chapter 6. The BrE material is somewhat idiosyncratic, in that it consists of a great number of exam essays on French literature and society. The essays are mainly based on facts and include a great deal of intertextual comments on and references to various texts that have been encountered during the course. A fairly large number of the BrE essays comment on other texts, mostly various types of fiction. Here, the writers intend to show their teachers that they are familiar with the literary texts, and presumably with some of the classroom discussions that may have preceded the writing event. There are also a number of essays discussing whether a single Europe would bring about a loss of sovereignty for Britain, which is a more typical argumentative topic. In general, however, the British essays are more expository in character (i.e. they primarily aim to explain something or convey information about an issue, rather than to argue for or against an issue in a persuasive way). The task with which these writers were faced is somewhat different from that of the other student groups, in that the writing task primarily seems to be designed to test their knowledge of the topic rather than their writing skills. We can conclude, then, that the conditions of the three writing groups are different in some respects. The Swedish learners are primarily asked to show their composition skills and their knowledge of the English language. They are given various topics to write on, about which they generally have had no previous classroom discussion; nor have the great majority of them been given other texts to read on the relevant topic. Thus, they are unprepared as far as their knowledge of the topic goes, but they have had some practice writing essays in English in their composition classes. The American writers may have had discussion input on their topics in advance, and they do have access to secondary sources to quote from, but it still seems as if the primary purpose is to test their composition and argumentation skills rather than to review their factual knowledge per se. The British writers, on the other hand, are primarily required to report on the given topic. Presenting a readable, coherent and structured argumentative essay may be a secondary goal.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 9:47

F: SCL24AP2.tex / p.1 (49-127)

appendix 

The control corpus and the norm What is a control corpus and what is its purpose in relation to non-native-speaker data? Leech (1998: xv) describes the control corpus produced by native speakers of the target language “as a standard of comparison, or norm, against which to measure the characteristics of the learner corpora”. It is subject to debate, however, what type of material is best suited to serve as a control for a learner corpus. Specifically, should the control preferably consist of material produced by professional writers or not? Should the writers in the control group be as similar as possible to the non-native speakers, or should they rather represent an ‘educated standard’ in the (target) discourse community at large? In the specific context of English, how strictly should the native-speaker criterion be enforced, especially in the light of the current widespread use of English as a lingua franca? One disadvantage of the Locness brought up by the compiler is that it contains non-professional writing (Granger 1998: 13). On the other hand, the compiler also points out that “[c]riticisms can be levelled against most control corpora” (ibid.), indicating that there is no corpus around that ‘has it all’. It has been suggested that, apart from the non-professional writing of the Locness, a good candidate for a control corpus for the ICLE might be “a corpus of newspaper editorials, a text type which combines the advantages of being argumentative in nature and written by professionals” (Granger 1998: 18, fn.). In a study based on some of the learner subcorpora, Altenberg (1997) used both articles from weekly magazines (Time Magazine) and newspaper editorials as control corpora. Several researchers, among others Lorenz (1999) and Swales (1990), have criticised the use of professional texts as control corpora for non-professional texts. Lorenz (1999: 14) maintains that it is “both unfair and descriptively inadequate” to juxtapose advanced learner writing with professional native-speaker writing. The argument he gives is that foreign language essays “constitute a highly idiosyncratic type of text, hardly to be compared to professional writing under real life conditions.” A similar argument in favour of a non-professional control corpus is found in Grabe and Kaplan (1996: 197), who emphasise that one of the major problems in early contrastive rhetoric (see 6.4 for a definition of ‘contrastive rhetoric’) lay “in the failure to compare similar text genres, and [. . .] led to repeated attempts to compare student writing with the writing of professional writers or, at least, the writing of skilled writers [, but] researchers working in this area have learned

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 9:47

F: SCL24AP2.tex / p.2 (127-192)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

to control experiments so that genres actually are comparable”. They predict a methodological shift, from having professional texts as control corpora to comparing student texts with student texts, and they strongly discourage the use of professional writing for comparisons with student writing. There is one argument in particular that speaks in favour of having nativespeaker student material as the norm, which I believe is what Lorenz (1999) has in mind when claiming that learner student writing can hardly be compared to professional writing ‘under real life conditions’. By comparing learner essays and native-speaker essays produced in a university setting, we can evaluate the learners’ skills in producing texts (such as ‘university essays’) that are appropriate for a particular situation. After all, both groups are engaged in the process of learning and practising a skill in an educational setting. From this perspective, both groups should compare unfavourably to writing by seasoned professionals. On the other hand, we also need to keep another issue related to writing norms in mind. Leech (1998: xix), in referring to “the temptation to confuse description and prescription in learner corpus research”, argues that [t]he conventional prescriptive view has been that the goal of foreign language learning is to approximate closer to the performance of native speakers. Yet which native speakers? American, Australian, British or Caribbean? Highly educated or less so? Old or young? [. . .] The problem becomes more noticeable when we compare learner corpora with a native speaker ‘reference corpus’, like the LOCNESS corpus [. . .]. Native-speaking students do not necessarily provide models that everyone would want to imitate.

In this passage, Leech brings up a risk involved in using the Locness corpus of student writing as a control corpus in research on learner writing, which is that, when researchers draw their conclusions on over- and underuse of linguistic phenomena in learner writing, they do so on the basis of native-speaker student writing. It is likely that they will go on to make recommendations for how learner writers might improve their writing in English on the basis of this material. However, if we take it for granted that learners aim to achieve as professional a style of writing as possible, we should not make recommendations to learners based on nativespeaker student usage, but rather should use professional native-speaker writing as the target. In other words, if instruction and pedagogical applications are the goals of linguistic comparison of learner and native-speaker texts, the latter category should arguably consist of ‘expert performances’. Note that it is possible to extrapolate a case of reductio ad absurdum from Leech’s last statement; it could be said that an L2 writer who wrote better than the non-professional native speakers had failed. In a nutshell, there are two main arguments at hand: On the one hand, it can be argued that in order to evaluate foreign learner writing by students justly, we need

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 9:47

F: SCL24AP2.tex / p.3 (192-228)

Appendix 2. The control corpus and the norm 

Learner Non-Professional

Figure 1. Comparisons across the features [+/–native speaker] and [+/–professional writer]

to use native-speaker writing that is also produced by students for comparison. On the other hand, it can also be argued that professional writing represents the norm that advanced foreign learner writers try to reach and their teachers try to promote. In this respect, a useful corpus for comparison is one which offers a collection of what Bazerman (1994: 131) calls ‘expert performances’. As long as any two corpora are comparable in some respect (such as in text type), it should be interesting to compare them. The principle of sameness (i.e. keeping as many factors constant as possible, as promoted by Lorenz 1999 and Swales 1990) and the idea of a professional standard of comparison are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The ideal case in a study such as this would be to use both native-speaker student essays and professional texts as standards of comparison. In other words, both principles could be satisfied and, as a result, we would get a broader picture of what the status of the learner essays is in relation to native-speaker texts. Let us consider some of the different possibilities for comparison in a more abstract way. Several possible comparisons across the features [+/–native speaker] and [+/–professional] are conceivable, which is illustrated in Figure 1. The arrows in bold mark the ones that are most relevant to the present study. The present investigation is situated at the bottom of the figure, contrasting ‘native-speaker non-professional’ material (the Locness) with ‘learner nonprofessional’ material (the Swicle). However, if we were to introduce the professional material seen at the top of the figure, we would be able to compare a ‘native-speaker professional’ corpus (including argumentative newspaper text, for example) with the non-professional learner corpus, and contrast the professional native-speaker material with the non-professional native-speaker material. To sum up, if we were to investigate two different types of norms – one ‘peer status’ norm of university student writing (such as the Locness) and one ‘professional status’ norm of professional writing (such as argumentative newspaper

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 9:47

F: SCL24AP2.tex / p.4 (228-231)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

texts) – for comparison with the learner material, we would get an additional perspective on their similarities and differences, and their varying conditions of use. For the present study, it was necessary to make do with the non-professional norm in the form of the Locness material (while making plans for comparison with a professional norm in a future study).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 9:49

F: SCL24AP3.tex / p.1 (49-137)

appendix 

Metadiscourse as non-propositional material? The term ‘metadiscourse’ was originally associated with the American scholars Crismore (1989) and Vande Kopple (1985, 1988), who set out to show that texts are more than just chains of propositional units. Vande Kopple (1988), for example, explicitly stated that he wanted to bring attention to the fact that even informative texts do not convey propositional meanings only. By setting propositional material apart from categories like metadiscourse and stance, researchers ended up with a large, heterogeneous agglomeration of linguistic phenomena that, in one way or other, could be contrasted with propositional information or the subject matter of the text. As argued in Ädel (2005), this could be taken as a historical explanation for the origin of the broad approach to metadiscourse (cf. 7.4) and the tendency to lump many different categories together under the general rubric of ‘metadiscourse’. Another reason why most researchers still define metadiscourse as non-propositional material could be that there is a residue of the early influence of semantics in the description of metalinguistic phenomena. At this point in time, however, metadiscourse is exclusively studied as a discourse phenomenon, which makes using semantic criteria to identify it less appropriate. Metadiscourse has repeatedly been defined as ‘non-propositional material’ since the 1980s – sometimes explicitly (e.g. Hyland 2004: 109) and sometimes following from the claim that it does not involve the ideational function of language (but rather the textual and interpersonal functions according to an SFG-inspired model, as described in 2.3).124 The term ‘propositional’ has been used in a fairly loose sense in linguistics in general, as equivalent to ‘ideational’ or ‘referential’. Halliday (1994: 70) describes it as follows: “When language is used to exchange information, the clause takes on the form of a PROPOSITION. It becomes something that can be affirmed or denied, and also doubted, contradicted, insisted on, accepted with reservation, qualified, tempered, regretted and so on”. Some examples are in order to explore further the division between what is propositional and what is not. Consider sentence (1) below, which contains propositional material in the sense that we can ask what the actual state of the coffee supply is. (1) We’re running out of coffee.

If we then add various expressions, such as the italicized parts of (2a–h), to this proposition, we will add a speaker’s or writer’s perspective to what is said, and

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 9:49

F: SCL24AP3.tex / p.2 (137-183)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

in doing so, guide the interlocutor or reader in how to interpret or process the propositional material.125 (2) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Strangely enough, we’re running out of coffee. Without a doubt, we’re running out of coffee. I swear to God, we’re running out of coffee. Let me make one thing clear; we’re running out of coffee. Read my lips, we’re running out of coffee. To tell you the truth, we’re running out of coffee. To make a long story short, we’re running out of coffee. As I mentioned earlier, we’re running out of coffee.126

If we consider the metadiscursive phrases in (2), while keeping in mind the loose definition of ‘proposition’ mentioned above, we will most likely not find any problems with using metadiscursive as antonymic of propositional. However, we also need to keep in mind that ‘propositional’ is a syntactico-semantic term. There are certain syntactic restrictions to the concept – for example, only statements (not questions or exclamations) can be propositional (true or false). It could be argued that such a definition assumes that metadiscourse is syntactically optional, removable verbiage – just like in the examples in (2). The first problem with the propositional approach is that this is not quite tenable. To see how restricted the concept of metadiscourse becomes if defined as nonpropositional material, let us consider the status of personal pronouns in terms of propositions. A statement like I have discussed X and Y in Chapter 4 must be propositional according to the common use of the term (for example, we could easily check the veracity of the statement by looking at the discussions in Chapter 4) and, therefore, not metadiscursive. We could also consider the status of some ‘metalinguistic words’ from the point of view of the proposition. Just like the statement above, a statement like The topic of this essay is X must also count as propositional. Again, it can be shown to be either true or false. This means that the propositional approach actually disqualifies some extraordinarily common types of metadiscursive units. By these simple examples, then, I hope to have shown that we do not have to think of many such examples before realizing that, if the nonpropositional criterion were to be used, most metadiscursive units referred to in the present investigation would actually fail to be included. Further criticism of Vande Kopple (1988) and researchers following him in basing their definition of metadiscourse on the notion of truth and falsehood, has been put forth by Mao (1993: 266; emphasis added), who claims that “both metadiscourse and primary discourse can be liable to the same kind of ills or infelicities, including various instances of ‘misfires’ and ‘abuses’ [. . .]. These ills or infelicities have as much to do with truth and falsehood as with ‘nonpropositional’ factors”. So, according to Mao, both utterances/sentences with metadiscursive ma-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 9:49

F: SCL24AP3.tex / p.3 (183-230)

Appendix 3. Metadiscourse as non-propositional material?

terial and sentences that are part of a speaker’s/writer’s primary discourse are susceptible to ‘misfire’ if they turn out not to be true, or open to ‘abuse’ if the addresser has no intention of backing them up with necessary evidence. Since metadiscourse in fact can be judged to be either true or false, Mao (1993: 267) comes to the conclusion that “the apparent basis for characterizing metadiscourse as being ‘nonpropositional’ collapses”. A related objection that has been made to the characterization of one type of discourse as primary and another as secondary is that “all discourse activities are both referential and expressive” (Mao 1993: 284). Both Mao (1993) and Mauranen (1993: 146–148) provide arguments against viewing metadiscourse as distinct from propositional content. Schiffrin (1980: 231) also supports this position indirectly, in claiming that metadiscourse (‘meta-talk’) is used not only for expressive or evaluative ends, but also for informational or referential ends. Furthermore, in setting up a strict dichotomy of primary discourse versus metadiscourse, one also runs the risk of ‘degrading’ metadiscourse and labelling it as secondary or less important than non-metadiscourse. Several researchers have argued against this view, for example by claiming that “[m]eta-discourse elements have content, convey information, and they can occasionally be more important for the communication than the subject matter” (Mauranen 1993: 147). With all this criticism of the propositional approach to metadiscourse as a backdrop, we need to consider an alternative way of describing metadiscourse. Some kind of distinction between metadiscourse and discourse that is not ‘meta-’ needs to be maintained, but how to go about it? One avenue that has been explored is to define metadiscourse as separate from the ‘subject matter’ of a text, or as involving some commentary on the text itself.127 Several researchers into metadiscourse speak of ‘subject matter’ or ‘content’ instead of propositions in their definitions. Although this is similar to the propositional approach, it crucially avoids the truth-conditional criterion. However, two problematic issues still remain. Firstly, there is the fact that research on the concept of ‘topic’ has shown that there is no non-arbitrary way of identifying the subject matter of a text (see e.g. Luukka 1994). Secondly, it must also be acknowledged that metadiscourse can actually constitute the subject matter itself. What about cases where an entire paragraph discusses the text itself or negotiates the relationship between the writer and the reader? Take, for example, the following passage from Charlotte Brontë’s preface to Shirley. (3) If you think [. . . ] that anything like a romance is preparing for you, dear reader, you were never more mistaken. Do you anticipate sentiment, and poetry, and reverie? Do you expect passion, and stimulus, and melodrama? Calm your expectations, reduce them to a lowly standard. Something real, cool and solid lies



JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 9:49

F: SCL24AP3.tex / p.4 (230-253)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

before you; something unromantic as Monday morning, when all who have work wake with the consciousness that they must rise and betake themselves thereto.

This passage should make it clear that it is not justifiable to claim either that metadiscourse, in the form of linguistic and rhetorical manifestations of an author’s presence in the text, is not propositional, or that such manifestations can never be the subject matter of a text, or a piece of text. To sum up, I have argued that defining metadiscourse as ‘non-propositional material’ is untenable in discourse studies. It is more feasible to relax the criterion and say that metadiscourse is most often distinct from the subject matter. However, one also needs to define metadiscourse positively, for example by saying that it constitutes a commentary on the running text. One way of doing this is to refer to the linguistic functions associated with metadiscursive material. Instead of defining metadiscourse in terms of truth-conditional semantics, we can find a more useful definition by focussing on its linguistic functions. The reflexive model, introduced in Chapter 2, approaches metadiscourse from a functional perspective, acknowledging that textual material that functions as metadiscourse can take a wide range of linguistic forms, including ‘propositional’ ones.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 10:23

F: SCL24AP4.tex / p.1 (48-136)

appendix 

Meta-terminology With all the meta- terms being used in this book, it seems prudent to offer an appendix of terminology relating to reflexivity in language. I first discuss some pros and cons of the term ‘metadiscourse’, then present an overview in table form of the key terms used in this book, and finally try to relate the most central concepts to each other and illustrate how they differ. The prefix ‘meta-’ has a range of meanings and is used in various scientific fields.128 The ‘meta-’ prefix was adopted relatively late in linguistics; no occurrences from before the 1920s are given in the Oxford English Dictionary. In linguistics, the main concern is what has been called a “level of language in which the signifiers of language become the signified” (Gombert 1992: 1). My goal here is not to etymologise or sketch the origins of ‘meta-’ terms (although I do provide some such information in Chapter 7), but rather to justify the use of the term metadiscourse, given its somewhat debatable status. Linguists have raised objections to the term ‘meta’, whether in ‘metadiscourse’, ‘metatext’, or ‘metalanguage’.129 The main objection, raised by Sinclair (2003, personal communication) is that linguistics, compared to most sciences, has no true ‘meta-’ level. Unlike mathematics and logic, for example, linguistics has no separate formal system to describe the object of study; we use natural language to describe natural language (with few exceptions; see (A) in 7.2.3). Another problem is that, if we want to use a concept like ‘metadiscourse’ by analogy with ‘metalanguage’, we will end up drawing a distinction between “texts about other texts (say, analytical or critical) and the ‘object texts’ which are being discussed” (Mauranen 1993: 145). As Mauranen puts it, “such a distinction is not appropriate [. . .], since we are concerned with how texts refer to themselves, not to other texts”. Both Sinclair and Mauranen make very good points. There is no denying that there is a difference in kind between ‘metalanguage’ as applied by the linguist and as applied by the mathematician, or that, if we were to draw a strict analogy between ‘metalanguage’ and ‘metadiscourse’, the latter’s main concern would be texts about other texts (which is covered by the term ‘intertextuality’ here). However, despite these drawbacks, there are also arguments in favour of using the ‘meta-’ term in linguistics, which is why, despite much hesitation, it is employed in the present study.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 10:23

F: SCL24AP4.tex / p.2 (136-437)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

First of all, meta-terms are, by now, well-established in linguistics. Searches for ‘metalanguage’, ‘metalinguistic’, ‘metadiscourse’ and ‘metatext’ in the LLBA (Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts) database in 2004 yielded some 2,000 hits (the search was restricted to the years 1993–2004). The alternative term ‘text reflexivity’ did not yield a single hit during that same period. ‘Reflexivity’, on the other hand, was frequent. However, out of 450 hits, only some 20 per cent dealt with a metalinguistic topic, while the rest mainly discussed pronouns and passives. Secondly, before we can abandon the ‘meta-’ usage in linguistics, we need an alternative label to replace it, and no truly satisfactory alternative term has been suggested to date. Mauranen made a valiant attempt with ‘text reflexivity’ in her 1993 book, but if we look at research published since then, it seems that, even when her definitions and model are adopted, the term is not (examples are Telenius 1994 and Bäcklund 1998). Although satisfying from a definitional point of view, ‘text reflexivity’ is a somewhat lengthy expression that simply has not caught on in the research community. Another, more recent, suggestion that originates with Sinclair (2005) is ‘self-reference’. This is a nice term that is relatively widespread outside of linguistics. In one of the more closely related fields, literary studies, it refers to cases in which an author refers to her own work in the context of the work itself. The main drawback of this term for our purposes is that it strongly suggests a focus on the writer (the ‘self ’) while disregarding the text/code and the imagined reader. A third and final point to be made is that it could be argued that the prefix ‘meta-’ has undergone a semantic shift, such that it has been extended to include phenomena that are not strictly formalised or distinct from that which they describe or talk about. In the psycholinguistics literature, for example, meta-terms are most often used with different (generally, broader) meanings. To pick only one out of a multitude of examples of the spread and diversity of the ‘meta-’ prefix – which is quite a success story in terms of linguistic evolution – the term ‘metalinguistic activity’ in psycholinguistics “refers not to language about language, but to cognition about language” (Gombert 1992: 8; emphasis added). When considered from this perspective, ‘metadiscourse’ becomes a more acceptable term. In using the term, we do not have to subscribe to the idea that, as Sinclair (2005) puts it, it suggests “a more abstract level of organisation”. Indeed, even in philosophy, where the term ‘metalanguage’ has been used since the 1930s, there are scholars who argue that ‘metalanguage’ and ‘object language’ do not belong to two different levels. Table 1 provides brief definitions of terms related to reflexivity in language. More extensive definitions, along with examples, are given in the running text of this book (see the Index). Scholars typically associated with each term are noted in the left-hand column. For ease of reference, I also include some of the terms suggested in this book, although they are not established or widely used.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 10:23

F: SCL24AP4.tex / p.3 (437-437)

Appendix 4. Meta-terminology

Table 1. Glossary of terms relating to reflexivity in language TERM Metalanguage (Jakobson)

DESCRIPTION

Language used to talk about language. In semantics and philosophy, language used for the analysis of object language. Thus, a metalanguage may be thought of as a language about another language. The term is contrasted with ‘object language’, the ordinary language used to talk about things or objects in the world.130 The metalinguistic One of Jakobson’s six basic functions of language, which focusses on the function (Jakobson) linguistic code itself, i.e. “utterances [. . .] have direct reference to the linguistic code and its constituents” (Jakobson 1980: 123). “Whenever the addresser and/or the addressee need to check up whether they use the same code, speech is focused upon the CODE and thus performs a METALINGUAL (or glossing) function” (Jakobson 1980: 86). In Jakobson’s description, the purpose of this function is to make the code more accessible to the addressee. Examples are I don’t follow you – what do you mean?, asked by the addressee, and Do you know what I mean?, asked by the addresser anticipating questions. Metalinguistic Generally, metalinguistic awareness can be described as “an awareness, awareness esp. when learning a language, that the rules of that language (grammatical, phonological, pragmatic, etc.) are an arbitrary linguistic code independent of meaning” (Oxford English Dictionary). More specifically, “Benveniste (1974) addresses the issue of [metalinguistic] awareness when discussing a speaker’s ability to distance herself from the language – to recognize language as a communicative device distinct from herself as a subject” (Mertz & Yovel 2000). Metalinguistic Defined as “any objectification of language” by Birdsong (1989: 1). It performance involves treating language as an object of analysis and observation in its (Birdsong) own right. The attention is directed to linguistic form rather than content. Birdsong (1989: 1) stresses the recurrence of metalinguistic performance in everyday interaction, such as when “proof-reading a text, commenting on the regional accent of another speaker, making puns, and solving the New York Times crossword puzzle”. Metalinguistic Some examples of metalinguistic operations are paraphrasing, giving operations synonyms, or filling in (making explicit) elliptical forms (Jakobson (Jakobson, 1980: 124). Other metalinguistic operations, with the aims of solving Weinreich) comprehension problems, or solving discourse ambiguities, could be: Reformulation, Correction, Planning, Capacity to explain. Weinreich (1980) gives examples of metalinguistic operators in English, such as true, real, so-called, strictly speaking, and like. MetaStubbs uses the term ‘metacommunication’ for which not only the communication metalinguistic function, but also the contact function (which involves (Stubbs) the channel, e.g. spoken or written language) and poetic function (which involves the form of the message) of language are included. These three functions, Stubbs argues (1983: 48), “all involve communication about features of the communication itself ”.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 10:23

F: SCL24AP4.tex / p.4 (437-437)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 1. (continued) TERM Metadiscourse (Zellig Harris, Williams, Markkanen et al., Vande Kopple, etc.)

DESCRIPTION

Two main approaches exist: the broad (integrative) and the narrow (non-integrative). Definitions of metadiscourse abound. Here follows a selection: “[W]riting about the evolving text rather than referring to the subject matter” (Williams 1985, quoted in Swales 1990: 188). “On the metadiscoursal level, we writers do not add propositional material but help our readers to organize, classify, interpret, evaluate, and react to such material” (Vande Kopple 1985: 83). The author intrudes in order to direct the readers in some way rather than to inform them (Crismore & Farnsworth 1990). “[L]inguistic items that explicitly serve the interpersonal and textual functions, i.e. to the linguistic material which ‘does not add propositional information but which signals the presence of the author”’ (Vande Kopple 1988). “Metadiscourse is text about the evolving text, or the writer’s explicit commentary on her own ongoing discourse. It displays an awareness of the current text or its language use per se and of the current writer and reader qua writer and reader” (Ädel 2003). Similar concepts listed in Mauranen (1993) are ‘gambits’ (Keller), ‘metatalk’ (Schiffrin), ‘the modalities of text’ (Enkvist), ‘non-topical material’ (Lautamatti), and ‘signalling’ (Meyer). Metatext (Bäcklund, Term used in the narrow approach. “[T]hose elements are metatext Markkanen et al.) whose function in the first place is to describe the text in which they are located” (Markkanen et al. 1993: 142). The term was first used by Enkvist (1997: 200) to cover “portions of text whose job is, not to give information about the subject proper but rather to clarify the structure of the text”. Metaphenomena Quotes and reports are termed ‘metaphenomena’ by Halliday (Halliday) (1985: 271–272), who stresses the fact that they are “categories of the language, not of the real world”. Stated in Halliday’s terms (1985: 272), reporting or quoting are distinguished from other elements in the language by having as their referents linguistic phenomena, since a locution represents a lexicogrammatical phenomenon. The world of non-linguistic experience, the ‘real world’, is quite distant. Metalinguistic An adverbial category described by Quirk et al. (1985: 8.126) as making comment “overt reference to the linguistic medium, such as in the selection or (Quirk et al.) coining of an appropriate expression”. These include ‘reformulatory’ conjuncts, style disjuncts, ‘hedges’, etc. The notion of reflexivity, according to Bondi (2001), was introduced in Reflexivity semantics by Lyons (1977: 5) as the capacity of natural languages ‘for (Hockett; Lyons) referring to, or describing, themselves’. Sinclair (2005), on the other (adj. reflexive or hand, tracks the origin to Hockett (1960). self-reflective)131 Text reflexivity Term used in the narrow approach, equivalent to ‘metatext’. “In brief, (Mauranen) text reflexivity is regarded here as the writer’s explicit commentary on his

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 10:23

F: SCL24AP4.tex / p.5 (437-437)

Appendix 4. Meta-terminology 

Table 1. (continued) TERM

Intertextuality (Mauranen)

The reflexive triangle (Ädel)

Text-internal and text-external (Halliday & Hasan) Personal and impersonal metadiscourse (Ädel) Textual versus interpersonal metadiscourse (Vande Kopple)

DESCRIPTION or her ongoing text. It reflects the writer’s awareness of the text as text, and therefore includes references to the text itself as text or as language. Text about text operates in relation to the propositional content of the text, and is thus separate from it. It therefore helps guide the reader’s interpretation of the text in accordance with the writer’s intentions. Text reflexivity in this approach is similar to what Leech (1983) has called ‘self-reporting utterances’, which he characterizes as those utterances ‘where the speaker uses the metalanguage of speech-act verbs for describing his own discourse’ (1983: 225–226).” (Mauranen 1993: 154) Linguistic expressions that talk about (e.g. allude to or comment on) other texts, not the ongoing text. They make explicit reference to the existence of other texts (or other writers and readers apart from the current ones). While intertextual expressions are reflexive, they are not metadiscoursal. ‘Intertext’ is contrasted with the ‘current text’ (Mauranen 1993). The term originated in literary theory, where it has a slightly different meaning. Component in the model proposed by Ädel (2003). The mnemonic reflexive triangle represents the three out of Jakobson’s six functions of language that are involved in metadiscourse: the metalinguistic, the expressive and the directive functions. Their corresponding foci are the text/code, the writer and the reader. In metadiscourse, one or more of these three functions is dominant, with the metalinguistic function the indispensable one. Distinction made by Halliday and Hasan (1976).132 The text-internal and the text-external are referred to as “different planes of reality”. ‘World of discourse’ is used in Ädel (2003) as more or less equivalent to ‘text-internal’. A formal distinction; personal metadiscourse explicitly refers to the writer and/or reader of the current text, either through pronouns (I, we, you and their oblique and possessive forms) or nouns (such as the writer, dear reader). Impersonal metadiscourse, on the other hand, does not make explicit reference to the discourse participants. In Bondi’s words (1999: 46), “Vande Kopple (1985) provides one of the best known classifications on the basis of a major distinction between textual and interpersonal metadiscourse. Textual metadiscourse includes text connectives, code glosses used to help readers grasp the meanings of expressions, action markers (or illocution markers) specifying the discourse act performed by the author and ‘narrators’ used to let the reader know who said something. Interpersonal metadiscourse includes modality markers, attitude markers and commentary used to draw readers into dialogue with the author. Revisions of the schema can be found in Crismore (1989), Crismore et al. (1993) and Hyland (1998, 1999)”. Ultimately inspired by Halliday (1994).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 10:23

F: SCL24AP4.tex / p.6 (437-476)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Table 1. (continued) TERM Metatext versus Writer-reader interaction (Ädel)

DESCRIPTION A conceptual distinction between the two basic types of metadiscourse: ‘Metatext’ guides the reader through the text and comments on the use of language in the text. The focus is on the structure, discourse actions and wording of the text. ‘Writer-reader interaction’ is used by the writer to interact with her imagined reader in ways that create and maintain a relationship with the reader and that allow the writer to influence her reader by addressing him directly in various ways.

This mini-glossary does not cover all ‘meta’-terms employed by linguists. Certainly, theories of metalanguage “have a long and venerable history in a number of traditions, from logic through cognitive science” (Mertz & Yovel 2000), which could not possibly be covered here. In conclusion, I will briefly outline the ways in which the central terms are employed in this book. Figure 1 maps out the most central terminology. The term reflexivity is used as a superordinate term, referring to ways in which speakers and writers use language to attract attention to aspects of language and discourse itself, rather than to ideas, arguments or facts that are not directly to do with language or linguistic matters. Metadiscourse is considered a specific type of linguistic reflexivity. Intertextuality is another subcategory of reflexivity, which is distinct from metadiscourse. This distinction is based on whether reference is made to other texts or to the current text. The way metatext is used here is different from the way it is used in Bäcklund (1998). Here, it is used to designate one out of two main types of metadiscourse (the other being writer-reader interaction; see Chapter 2 for examples and definitions). This distinction partially overlaps with the traditional distinction made between textual and interpersonal metadiscourse, according to an SFG-inspired

Figure 1. The semantic space of reflexivity in language

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 10:23

F: SCL24AP4.tex / p.7 (476-482)

Appendix 4. Meta-terminology 

model. Reasons for choosing the reflexive, Jakobson-based model over the SFGmodel are given in Section 2.3. The term metadiscourse can refer to both spoken and written language. Although the present study is limited to written language, metadiscursive phenomena commonly occur in spoken language, too.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:56

F: SCL24NO.tex / p.1 (48-147)

Notes

. For the sake of clarity and brevity – mainly to avoid using alternative pronoun forms like he and she and his and her – I will refer to the writer as she and the reader as he throughout the text. . An example of a morpheme with a potential metadiscursive function is clitics in Finnish, as reported in Markkanen et al. (1993). . The Hansard consists of records of the proceedings of the Canadian Parliament. . In the following, the term L2 will be used without drawing a strict distinction between second language and foreign language. It should be noted, however, that sometimes a distinction between ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) is made, which is valid, since these terms represent two different types of teaching and learning situations. Essentially, in the former situation but not in the latter, learners are exposed to English more or less constantly outside the classroom. See e.g. Philipson (1992) for an extensive discussion of ESL versus EFL. . The 14 languages involved in the ICLE project are Bulgarian, Chinese, Czech, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Russian, Spanish and Swedish. The Swicle is described at http://www.englund.lu.se/research/corpus/corpus/swicle.html . For text-cosmetic reasons, throughout this text the names ‘Swicle’ and ‘Locness’ will not be written in all-caps. . Hymes’ argument is that in order to be able to communicate effectively in a language, speakers need not just grammatical competence, but also knowledge of how language is used by members of the speech community to accomplish their purposes. . The Locness contains some BrE (pre-university) A-level essays, written by 16–17-year-olds. In order to level out the age factor, which may have an effect on the style of the essays, they were excluded from the present study and from the totals reported here. . Examples of discuss and now are found in Chapter 4. . Statistical calculations were performed using online resources at http://www.georgetown. edu/faculty/ballc/webtools/web_chi.html and http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/VassarStats.html . Nominal references of this type represent a somewhat worn-out type of expression, which has become a topos in some types of fiction (see, for instance, the Brontë passage quoted in (3) in Appendix 3). . All quotes from the corpora will be presented exactly as they occur, without correction of grammatical errors, misspellings, or typos. . Types in which the writer tells the reader what she has already done in the discourse have been called ‘Reminders’ (Crismore et al. 1993), ‘Reviews’ (Crismore & Farnsworth 1990) and ‘Recapitulation’ (Tadros 1993). . Information about the BNC (British National Corpus) can be found at http://info.ox.ac. uk/bnc.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:56

F: SCL24NO.tex / p.2 (147-211)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English . Types in which the writer announces what is going to follow in the discourse have been called ‘Announcement’ (Crismore et al. 1993), ‘Preview’ (Crismore & Farnsworth 1990) and ‘Advance Labelling’ (Tadros 1993). . ‘SFG’ stands for Systemic-Functional Grammar, which is also referred to as SystemicFunctional Linguistics (SFL). It can be described as “a theory of language centred around the notion of language function. While SFL accounts for the syntactic structure of language, it places the function of language as central (what language does, and how it does it), in preference to more structural approaches, which place the elements of language and their combinations as central. SFL starts at social context, and looks at how language both acts upon, and is constrained by, this social context” (http://www.wagsoft.com/Systemics/Definition/definition.html). . Jakobson refers to the ‘directive’ function as the ‘conative’ function. . Researchers who take the narrow approach tend to omit these two important components, while researchers who take the broad approach tend to include too much of what lies outside the writer’s and the reader’s roles qua writer and reader. See Chapter 7 for more details. . ‘Persona’ can be defined as the “created personality put forth in the act of communicating” (Campbell 1975: 394). I use this term to avoid equating the actual writer herself with the character projected as the writer of the text. . ‘Logical connectors’ include conjunctive adjuncts, other adverbs and some prepositional phrases (however, but, on the other hand, nevertheless, in addition, therefore, etc.). . According to the present model, however, I think would not be considered metadiscursive, but an expression of stance. . They originally devised the distinction for conjunctive elements or connectors. . Compare the relation of metadiscourse and non-metadiscourse, described as ‘two levels’ that we can shift between when necessary (2.3 above). . The reason why the form writer is most frequent in the American material is that several writers of articles (discussing some of the topics) are quoted, and that there is some general discussion of writing. In the learner material, one of the essay topics concerns the characteristics of a good writer or novelist, so there are a few occurrences there, too, none of which function as metadiscourse. . Mauranen also acknowledges the work of Enkvist and Markkanen et al. in promoting this feature as important to the definition of metadiscourse. . I do not intend to take a stand on ontological issues by doing so, but rather see it as a pragmatic distinction which is convenient to make when analysing data. . This is the reason why introductions to quotes, which are traditionally included as a category of metadiscourse, will be disregarded in the present study. Reporting the speech of others and quoting from sources other than the current text count as intertextual rather than metadiscursive activities. . The final example in Table 4, taken from the BrE material, employs a nominal style, whereas the other examples (particularly the third one) employ a verbal style. This is an important distinction between the British essays and the learner essays. . Most of the examples given in 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 have been taken from Ädel (2001). . Some languages make a formal distinction between inclusive and exclusive reference, like Tagalog (spoken in the Philippines), in which ‘tayo’ is the form for inclusive we and ‘kamí’ is

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:56

F: SCL24NO.tex / p.3 (211-277)

Notes 

the form for exclusive we. Inclusive we necessarily includes reference to both the speaker and the addressee(s). . In the BrE material, there are as many as 75 out of a total of 262 occurrences, amounting to nearly 30 per cent. . One could possibly use a ‘rephrasing test’ to decide on a reading. For instance, we could check whether a phrase like (vocative) ‘dear reader’ can be inserted after you. If so, this would suggest that the example in question refers exclusively to the reader (as reader). We could also try a category like ‘you, dear reader and some other people/group’, or insert ‘I, the writer’ for references to the writer. For generic reference, ‘people in general’, ‘anyone’ or ‘one’ could be inserted. . It is interesting to see that, although these concordances only display one sentence fragment taken out of context, it is often enough to be able to classify the units. For a description of macrolevel functions in the overall text, however, concordance windows are usually not sufficient. . See Ädel (2005) for some historical background to explain the motivation for treating the two phenomena ‘metadiscourse’ and ‘stance’ as one. . It is a matter of ‘use’, not ‘mention’; see Section 7.2.2. . Of course, when classifying the discourse function of individual units, some co-text frequently needs to be taken into account. In some cases, it may be difficult to determine the discourse function of a unit solely on the basis of the subject pronoun and its VP. . One could argue that sentences have one overall function, and that dividing them into chunks is overly atomistic. This issue is really beyond the scope of this study, but solid cognitive evidence would be needed to settle the dispute between a macro-level and a micro-level (or holistic versus atomistic) approach. When humans write and read text, how large a text chunk do they process at a time? There may be, for example, cognitive reasons for interpreting text (or sentence) chunks separately. . However, the word may not be a suitable unit for counting in comparing typologically different languages. For example, Markkanen et al. (1993) carried out a contrastive study involving analytic English and agglutinating Finnish, in which they, wisely, did not count individual words when comparing the quantity of metadiscourse across languages. . The total number of metadiscursive units was unclear for some sentences in the learner and the American data, which is why the totals per corpus are not in exact accordance with the normalised totals given in Table 2 above. A total of 20 sentences from the Swicle were disregarded and 10 sentences from the AmE material. . To be exact, we have reviewed the results for subject pronouns. For oblique pronominal forms and (marginal) nominal references to the writer and reader, see Section 3.6.3. . I define ‘discourse function’ as the rhetorical function that the metadiscursive expression performs in its immediate discourse context. For the analysis of personal metadiscourse, I view the written text as interaction between a writer persona and an imagined reader. . Note that, for the most part, I will be using terminology that applies to written, not spoken, text. However, the taxonomy could be used for spoken texts as well, in which case terms like ‘reader’ and ‘writer’ could be replaced by ‘speaker’ and ‘hearer’. The generic terms ‘addresser’ and ‘addressee’ were considered too cumbersome to be used here. . To be fair, this usage is familiar to speakers of AmE as roughly equivalent to ‘given that’.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:56

F: SCL24NO.tex / p.4 (277-341)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English . Also note the phrase all the time – a time adverbial rather unconventionally used as a Reference to the current text (cf. now in 4.3.2). . The writers represented in the three corpora do not quote themselves – the main reason being that they are not authorities on their topics. . However, see the discussion in Appendix 1 of the fact that most of the BrE essays are expository rather than argumentative. . Needless to say, there are other ways of referring to oneself by using nouns (such as ‘A guy I know wouldn’t mind a cup of coffee’), but in written argumentative text this practice seems to be restricted to a few conventional nouns. . The results for object and possessive forms have not been tested for statistical significance. . This can be compared to prescriptive instructions regarding one, underlining that it should always include the writer. . Furthermore, we might predict on linguistic grounds that some overuse and/or misuse of one is likely to occur in the Swedish learner material. Swedish has the frequently used indefinite pronoun man, which, although often compared to English one, is not an exact equivalent. They are used in different ways and have different stylistic values. Swedish man typically corresponds to English you, one or they (Andersson 1972: 3). . There were very few non-subject forms in the material (no more than 10 examples in total), and these were simply excluded from the survey. . Nouns used by the writer for self-reference are often specific to the genre of the text, such as the reviewer in a review. . But see Appendix 3 for an example from Charlotte Brontë. . The term ‘footing’ (Goffman 1981) could be used to describe the relations of the writer and the imagined reader. . Interestingly, Booth emphasises the changeability of writing conventions throughout history. Although diachronic studies of metadiscourse in non-fiction texts are rare, Taavitsainen (2000) offers an excellent exception, presenting research on the use of metadiscourse and the development of early English medical writing. . The examples are from Stubbs (1983: 49). . See e.g. Halliday (1985) or Chafe (1982). . Petch-Tyson (1998: 112) examines the subcategory ‘reference to situation of writing/reading’ within the broader concept of writer/reader visibility in texts, including here, now and this essay. In a comparison of samples from the Dutch, Finnish, French and Swedish learner subcorpora within the ICLE project, both here and this essay were used about twice as often by the Swedish learners as by the other learners. . On a purely anecdotal note, the data confirm the cultural stereotypes of several American and British academics that I have discussed this with. The British academics describe a stereotypical American prose writer as self-obsessed and forceful in trying to sell his text to the reader. The American academics, on the other hand, describe the stereotypical British writer as formal, correct and impersonal. . The asterisk is used as a so-called ‘wildcard’, representing any letters and any number of letters within the search word in which it occurs. For example, a search term like *nounce would

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:56

F: SCL24NO.tex / p.5 (341-405)

Notes 

retrieve a range of prefixed forms, such as announce, denounce, pronounce, and so on. In Table 1, the slash (‘/’) is used to mean ‘and’, in cases of suppletive forms or for ablaut phenomena. . Other terms for this function are ‘enumerative conjunct’ (Quirk et al. 1985: 8.137) and ‘sequencer’ (Markkanen et al. 1993). . Only ordinal numbers to third* were included. The cardinal numerals one, two, and three were not considered on the grounds that they would yield too much irrelevant data. . My classification of these nouns is ad hoc and sketchy, and is only one way of analyzing them. For an alternative, see e.g. Francis (1994: 90ff.) who studies nominal-group lexical cohesion from the perspective of labelling discourse, suggesting the following metalinguistic labels: ‘illocutionary’ nouns, ‘language activity’ nouns, ‘mental process’ nouns and ‘text’ nouns. . Recall the discourse function Contextualising discussed in 3.5.1, which was more or less exclusively found in learner texts. . Occasionally, other types of metadiscourse also co-occur with References to the Text/Code, many of which seem redundant; see Section 3.4 on the density of metadiscourse. . This is according to the assumption that, if the assigned essay topic is formed as a question, it will be repeated in the text in that form to some degree. . Placing questions in the introductory paragraph is a common strategy among the essay writers, as reported in Chapter 5 on distributional patterns. . A difference between the study of impersonal metadiscourse and the study of personal metadiscourse is that the former is based on a limited set of search forms for a category that is potentially infinite, whereas in the personal study, which dealt only with pronouns, all occurrences of the pronouns in question were checked. As a consequence, recall and precision values are not perfectly comparable. See 8.3 for an evaluation of the methods. . So-called ‘plotting’ is a similar feature of some software programs for linguistic analysis. It presents a visual representation of where in a text a certain item is situated, often in the form of vertical lines distributed along a horizontal bar which represents the text in its entirety. . Due thanks go to Gregory Garretson at Boston University for writing the Perl script. . The frequencies of personal metadiscourse involve I-units, we-units and you-units, as discussed in Chapter 3. . The only peculiarity is that there is a rise in the eighth section, for which I did not manage to find an explanation. . Interestingly, the second tenth is the most popular place for question marks in the learner texts. . Topical questions have a text-organizing function; “they introduce or shift topics to be dealt with in the subsequent text” (Virtanen 1998: 99). . Rhetorical questions are interrogative in structure but have the force of a strong assertion (Quirk et al. 1985: 825). They are intended to persuade the reader and appear without an explicit answer in the subsequent text (Virtanen 1998: 99). . Example (5) is from an essay on the open topic ‘Person of the year’. The writer chose former Russian president Michail Gorbatchev, from the perspective of political changes in Europe in the 1990s. Example (6) is from an essay on ‘Morality and leadership: What kind of moral standards should we expect from our political leaders?’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:56

F: SCL24NO.tex / p.6 (405-464)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English . However, we should bear in mind that Crismore and Farnsworth (1990) use a broad definition of metadiscourse (cf. 7.4.1). . At least along the dimension of personal versus impersonal metadiscourse. See Chapter 2 for arguments in favour of the decision to study personal and impersonal types of metadiscourse separately. If the two types had been collapsed without making the distinction, the end result would have given quite a different impression. . The articles were retrieved from http://www.lu.se/info/lum/prelum.html in January 2003. . Unless, as discussed in Section 6.4, they are at a disadvantage due to Swedish and English following different genre conventions for argumentative texts. . A second explanation, given by Altenberg (1997: 130), is “the impact of spoken English on the learners, inside and outside the classroom”. . See de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981: 10–11), who claim that “[i]ntertextuality is, in a general fashion, responsible for the evolution of text types as classes of texts with typical patterns of characteristics [. In the extreme case, in] types like parodies, critical reviews, rebuttals, or reports, the text producer must consult the prior text continually, and text receivers will need some familiarity with the latter”. . Further information about these studies is found in Section 7.4. . One way in which this difference is said to play itself out is in that German academic writing focusses on the subject or the content exclusively, as opposed to the interaction between writer and reader. Based on Galtung (1985), Clyne (1987) also talks about the dialogic ‘Saxonic’ style versus the monologic ‘Teutonic’ style. . The description of Japanese as a reader-responsible culture has been severly criticised by Kubota (1999). . It seems precarious to generalise from two single responses, but this is indeed an interesting issue which would benefit from large-scale investigations. . The term ‘strategy’ is most often used in the specific context of learning. For example, L2 learning strategies can be defined as “specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques students use – often consciously – to improve their progress in apprehending, internalizing, and using the L2” (Oxford 1990). Examples of such strategies would be monitoring one’s own and other people’s speech; taking advantage of practice opportunities; repeating other people’s speech overtly or silently; guessing at meaning (inferencing), etc. . By ‘metalinguistic awareness’ is meant the general analytical ability to treat language as an object of thought rather than viewing it solely as a means of communication. . Provided, of course, that greater metalinguistic awareness of this kind actually surfaces in overt linguistic structures. . A small pilot study that I conducted in early 2005 investigated the existence of universal learner strategies in the use of metadiscourse. Several ICLE corpora were analyzed, consisting of L2 writing in English produced by L1 speakers of four different languages: Finnish, German, Spanish, and Swedish. Contrary to the universal learner status hypothesis, the results showed no clear similarities in metadiscursive strategies across the learner material. That is, the learners differed as much from each other as from the native speakers. . The term ‘tertium comparationis’ is Latin for the third [part] of the comparison. It is used in traditional contrastive analysis to refer to the quality that two things that are being compared have in common, or the point of comparison.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:56

F: SCL24NO.tex / p.7 (464-534)

Notes  . Note that Altenberg studied a range of features of involvement and detachment (Chafe 1982), not metadiscourse. . However, I have investigated this further in a study of involvement/detachment in Swedish learners’ writing in English and was able to show, through inter-corpus comparison, that, instead of register awareness, it is the factors ‘task setting’ (time available) and ‘intertextuality’ (access to secondary sources) that set the Swicle writers apart (research presented at AAACL/ICAME conference in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in May of 2005). . See Crismore (1989) for an overview of pre-1990s research into metalinguistic phenomena in rhetoric and semiotics. . Jakobson informs us that ‘metalanguage’ is a calque from Polish, coined in the 1930s by the mathematician and logician Alfred Tarski. . Quote from The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press 1995. . Zellig Harris (1991) attributes the terms ‘use’ and ‘mention’ to the philosopher Quine. . Interestingly, Sperber and Wilson (1981: 310) argue that the use-mention distinction can be used to explain irony in language, in that “all standard cases of irony [. . .] involve (generally implicit) mention of a proposition. These cases of mention are interpreted as echoing a remark or opinion that the speaker wants to characterize as ludicrously inappropriate or irrelevant”. . The terms ‘text-internal’ and ‘text-external’ were used by Halliday and Hasan in their (1976) book. . Jakobson (1998: 73) describes the ‘context’ as an element necessary for a message to be operative, which needs to be “graspable by the addressee, and either verbal or capable of being verbalized”. The term is said to be equivalent to the ‘referent’, “in another, somewhat ambiguous, nomenclature” (ibid.). . It could be argued, as Mauranen (1993: 152, emphasis added) does, that it is “the explicit presence which is textually interesting, as a means of attempting to achieve an intended rhetorical effect”. . It is interesting to note that Jakobson’s admittedly few examples are restricted to grammatical categories. . ‘Commentary’ is defined as linguistic items which are used to address readers directly and draw them into an implicit dialogue (see e.g. Markkanen et al. 1993). . He goes on to say that “I, you can be considered reductions of speaker, hearer when these words occur in a discourse as repetitions from a zeroable The speaker is saying to the hearer, which one might assume to introduce every discourse [. . .]: I will phone you as though derived from a reconstructed The speaker is (hereby) saying to the hearer that the speaker will phone the hearer” (Zellig Harris 1991: 134). . The term ‘metalinguistic’ will be used here, but Jakobson’s own alternative term is ‘glossing’, for which dictionary synonyms are ‘commenting’ and ‘defining’. . This aspect of the function is said to be crucial in child language development. Indeed, according to Jakobson (1980: 91–92), “[m]etalanguage is the vital factor of any verbal development”, and, conversely, “the breakdown of metalanguage plays a substantial part in verbal disturbances”. . The present study is ‘scripto-centric’ in that it deals with written text only. This does not mean that metadiscourse is exclusively a written text phenomenon, or that spoken texts are uninteresting from this perspective. It is quite the contrary: metadiscourse is probably as common

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:56

F: SCL24NO.tex / p.8 (534-594)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

in spoken as in written text, but the types and forms of units will be different to some extent. For spoken language, Schiffrin (1980) is one of the best-known studies of self-referential expressions, or discourse about one’s own discourse. ‘Metatalk’ is defined there as talking about or commenting on one’s own talk, for example in expressions like I’m arguing that. . . or That’s what I meant. . The term ‘self-referentiality’ is sometimes used as a synonym of reflexivity. . In fact, I just did. . Williams did not coin the term, however. Bäcklund (1998) suggests that the earliest reference to metadiscourse is in Zellig Harris’ “Papers in structural and transformational linguistics” (1970: 464–465), referring to metadiscoursal kernels which ‘talk about the main material’. . This is reminiscent of the term ‘metacommunication’, used by Stubbs (1983) to cover not only the ‘metalinguistic’, but also the ‘contact’ (which involves the channel, i.e. spoken or written language) and ‘poetic’ (which involves the form of the message) functions of language. These three functions, Stubbs (1983: 48) claims, all “involve communication about features of the communication itself ”. This broad concept of metacommunication – the various ways in which speakers may refer to communication, while communicating – is what he focusses on in teaching situations. . As expressed by Markkanen et al. (1993: 147), “[w]hat makes the interpretation of modals difficult is that the same modals can be used with an epistemic or deontic meaning and thus they have to be interpreted in every context separately”. . The examples in italics are given out of context here. For the complete sentences, see Mauranen (1993: 173–186). . This terminology is partly borrowed from Farnsworth and Crismore (1990). . See Section 2.3 for a description of Systemic-Functional Grammar. . There are a couple of studies that do use corpus-linguistic methods in investigating either linguistic phenomena that are partly metadiscursive (Petch-Tyson 1998) or that focus on specific aspects of metadiscourse (such as directives; see Hyland 2002). . This set was complemented by oblique forms of the pronouns and nouns like writer and reader (see 3.6.3). . ‘Professional’ here meaning published in established journals or newspapers or by publishing companies. . It is interesting to note that I is still fairly widely used in the American essays (see Section 3.3). . It would be ideal, of course, (but not possible) to interview those students whose essays are part of the corpora used, and their teachers. . See Quirk et al. (1985: 15.53), who make remarks on fixedness in comment clauses in general, pointing out that there are idiomatic expressions in each category of comment clauses, like for instance you see, as I say, what’s more to the point, to be fair, put bluntly. . The individual differences in performance were not statistically significant, however, which suggests that further research is needed on this issue. . About 60 per cent of the Swicle informants are in their early 20s, “but some students, especially those who want to improve their English after many years of working life, are in their 30s or 40s, or even older” (according to http://www.englund.lu.se/research/corpus/corpus/swicle.html).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 11:56

F: SCL24NO.tex / p.9 (594-629)

Notes  . Vande Kopple (1985: 239) first brought up ‘non-propositionality’ as a defining feature of metadiscourse, stating that “[w]hat justifies considering these [metadiscursive] elements as functioning differently from primary discourse is that they do not add to the propositional information of texts.” . Note that not all of the examples would be considered metadiscursive according to the present model (but rather some would be considered instances of ‘stance’; see 2.6.2). However, according to the broad approach to metadiscourse (see Section 7.4.1), all of them are metadiscursive. . It can be noted that many of the examples given belong to different registers, which illustrates that there are various stylistic levels of metadiscourse. . See for example Taavitsainen (2000: 192), who states that metadiscourse “can be defined as comments about the evolving text rather than about the subject matter”. What is slightly problematic about this statement is that, as shown in Example (3), metadiscourse and the relationship between the current writer and her imagined reader can occasionally be the subject matter. . The original Old Greek prefix ‘meta-’ had various meanings, including ‘beyond’, ‘among’, ‘with’ and ‘after’. . Anecdotal evidence from a conference in Siena attended by the author in the summer of 2003 may illustrate the concern with which some linguists approach this terminology: Conference participants ended up referring to ‘metadiscourse’ as ‘the M-word’. . Note that the term metalinguistic “has come to mean different things to different traditions, even within the customary divisions of disciplines of language studies” (Mertz & Yovel 2000). . Note that the terms ‘reflexive’ and ‘reflexively’ are used here for a linguistic phenomenon that has very little to do with reflexive pronouns. These terms could also be thought of as ‘selfreflective’ and ‘self-reflectively’. . These terms were originally devised for conjunctive elements or connectors.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 10:35

F: SCL24RE.tex / p.1 (47-154)

References

Ädel, Annelie (2001). On the Search for Metadiscourse Units. In P. Rayson, A. Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie, & S. Khoja (Eds.), University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language, Technical Papers Volume 13 Special issue. Proceedings of the conference Corpus Linguistics 2001. Lancaster University (UK), 30 March–2 April 2001. Ädel, Annelie (2003). The Use of Metadiscourse in Argumentative Texts by Advanced Learners and Native Speakers of English. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Göteborg University, Sweden. Ädel, Annelie (2005). On the boundaries between evaluation and metadiscourse. In E. TogniniBonelli & G. Dell Lungo Camiciotti (Eds.), Strategies in Academic Discourse (pp. 153–162). Studies in Corpus Linguistics 19. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Aijmer, Karin (2001). I think as a marker of discourse style in argumentative student writing. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), A Wealth of English: Studies in Honour of Göran Kjellmer (pp. 247–257). Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Altenberg, Bengt (1997). Exploring the Swedish component of the International Corpus of Learner English. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk & P. J. Melia (Eds.), PALC’97: Practical applications in language corpora (pp. 119–132). Lódz: Lódz University Press. Andersson, Lars-Gunnar (1972). Man – ett pronomen. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics. Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborgs universitet. Bäcklund, Ingegerd (1998). Metatext in Professional Writing: A Contrastive Study of English, German and Swedish. Texts in European Writing Communities 3. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Bazerman, Charles (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79–101). London: Taylor and Francis. Bhatia, Vijay J. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman. Biber, Douglas (1988). Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, & Randi Reppen (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, & Edward Finegan (1999). The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Birdsong, David (1989). Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. Berlin & New York: Springer.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 10:35

F: SCL24RE.tex / p.2 (154-261)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Bolinger, Dwight (1975). Aspects of Language (2nd edition). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Bondi, Marina (1999). English Across Genres: Language Variation in the Discourse of Economics. Modena: Edizioni Il Fiorino. Bondi, Marina (2001). Small corpora and language variation: Reflexivity across genres. In M. Ghadessy, A. Henry, & R. L. Roseberry (Eds.), Small Corpus Studies and ELT. Studies in corpus linguistics 5. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Booth, Wayne C. (1981 [1961]). The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Bunton, David (1999). The Use of Higher Level Metatext in PhD Theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41–56. Campbell, Paul N. (1975). The Personae of Scientific Discourse. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61(4), 391–405. Chafe, Wallace L. (1982). Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing and Oral Literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Cheng, Xiaoguang & Margaret Steffensen (1996). Metadiscourse: A Technique for Improving Student Writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2). Chesterman, Andrew (1998). Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Clark, Romy & Roz Ivanic (1997). The Politics of Writing. London and New York: Routledge. Clyne, Michael (1987). Cultural Differences in the Organization of Academic Texts: English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 211–247. Connor, Ulla (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conrad, Susan (2002). Corpus Linguistic Approaches for Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 75–95. Crismore, Avon (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang. Crismore, Avon & Rodney Farnsworth (1990). Metadiscourse in Popular and Professional Science Discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse. Newbury Park/London/New Dehli: Sage Publications. Crismore, Avon, Raija Markkanen, & Margaret Steffensen (1993). Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students. Written Communication, 10, 39–71. Cruse, Alan (2000). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crystal, David (1995). Refining Stylistic Discourse Categories. In G. Melchers & B. Warren (Eds.), Studies in Anglistics. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Dahl, Trine (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807–1825. de Beaugrande, Robert & W. U. Dressler (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. Ellis, Rod (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Enkvist, Nils Erik (1997). Why we need contrastive rhetoric. Alternation, 4(1), 188–206. Francis, Gill (1994). Labelling Discourse: An Aspect of Nominal-Group Lexical Cohesion. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 10:35

F: SCL24RE.tex / p.3 (261-367)

References 

Francis, Norbert (1999). Bilingualism, writing, and metalinguistic awareness: oral-literate interactions between first and second languages. Applied psycholinguistics, 20, 533–561. Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A., Marisol Velasco-Sacristán, Ascensión Arribas-Baño, & Eva Samaniego-Fernández (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291–1307. Galtung, Johan (1985). Struktur, Kultur und intellektueller Stil: Ein vergleichender Essay über sachsonische, teutonische, gallische und nipponische Wissenschaft. In Das Fremde und das Eigene: Prolegomena zu einer interkulturellen Germanistik herausgegeben von Alois Wierlacher. München: iudicium verlag. Gavioli, Laura (2005). Exploring Corpora for ESP Learning. Studies in Corpus Linguistics 21. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Goffman, Erving (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Gombert, Jean Emile (1992). Metalinguistic development. Hertfordshire, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Grabe, William & Robert Kaplan (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing: An Applied Linguistics Perspective. London and New York: Longman. Granger, Sylviane (1993). The International Corpus of Learner English. In J. Aarts, P. de Haan, & N. Oostdijk (Eds.), English language corpora: Design, analysis and exploitation (pp. 51–71). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Granger, Sylviane & Stephanie Tyson (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17–27. Granger, Sylviane (Ed.). (1998). Learner English on Computer. London and New York: Longman. Hairston, Maxine & John J. Ruszkiewicz (1991). The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers (2nd edition). New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Halliday, Michael A. K. (1985). Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halliday, Michael A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edition). London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Harris, Zellig (1991). A Theory of Language and Information: A Mathematical Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hinds, John (1987). Reader Versus Writer Responsibility: A New Typology. In U. Connor & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Hockett, Charles (1960). Logical Considerations in the Study of Animal Communication. In W. Lanyon & W. Tavolga (Eds.), Animal Sounds and Communication (pp. 392–430). Washington, DC: American Institute of Biological Sciences. Hockett, Charles (1977). The View from Language: Selected Essays 1948–1974. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hyland, Ken (1998). Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437–455. Hyland, Ken (1998a). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224–245. Hyland, Ken (1998b). Disciplinary identity in research writing: metadiscourse and academic communities. In L. Lundqvist, H. Picht, & J. Qvistgaard (Eds.), LSP Identity and Interface Research, Knowledge and Society. Vol. II (pp. 648–655). Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on LSP. Copenhagen, August 1997. Copenhagen: CBS.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 10:35

F: SCL24RE.tex / p.4 (367-462)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Hyland, Ken (2002). Directives: Argument and Engagement in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(5), 215–237. Hyland, Ken (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press. Hymes, Dell (1992). The Concept of Communicative Competence Revisited. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution (pp. 31–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Innis, Robert E. (1982). Karl Bühler: Semiotic Foundations of Language Theory. New York: Plenum. Intaraprawat, Puangpen & Margaret Steffensen (1995). The Use of Metadiscourse in Good and Poor ESL Essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253–272. Jakobson, Roman (1980). The Framework of Language. Michigan: Michigan Studies in the Humanities. Jakobson, Roman (1998). On Language: Roman Jakobson. L. R. Waugh & M. Monville-Burston (Eds.). Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. Johansson, Stig (1998). On the Role of Corpora in Cross-Linguistic Research. In S. Johansson & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Corpora and Cross-Linguistic Research: Theory, Method, and Case Studies (pp. 3–25). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kachru, Braj B. (Ed.). (1992). The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (2nd edition). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, Yamuna (1992). Culture, Style, and Discourse: Expanding Noetics of English. In Braj B. Kachru (Ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (2nd edition). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Kaplan, Robert (1988). Contrastive Rhetoric and Second Language Learning: Notes Toward a Theory of Contrastive Rhetoric. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing Across Languages and Cultures: Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric. Written Communication Annual: An International Survey of Research and Theory. Volume 2. Newbury Park/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications. Kasper, Gabriele (1989). Variation in speech-act realisation. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds., 1991), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Köhlmyr, Pia (2001). Too Err Is Human. . . An Investigation of Grammatical Errors in Swedish 16-year-old Learners’ Written Production in English. PhD thesis. Department of English, Göteborg University. Kroll, Barbara (1990). What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kubota, Ryuko (1998). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 69–100. Kubota, Ryuko (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 9–35. Kuo, Chih-Hua (1998). The Use of Personal Pronouns: Role Relationships in Scientific Journal Articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121–138. Leech, Geoffrey (1998). Preface. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer. London and New York: Longman.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 10:35

F: SCL24RE.tex / p.5 (462-565)

References 

Levenston, Edward A. (1971). Over-Indulgence and Under-Representation – Aspects of Mother Tongue Interference. In G. Nickel (Ed.), Papers in Contrastive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levin, Anna (1997). Kognitiva och pragmatiska mönster i professionella texter från svenska, engelska och tyska skrivmiljöer (=Cognitive and pragmatic patterns in professional texts from Swedish, English and German writing environments). TeFa 20. Uppsala: Uppsala University. Lorenz, Günter (1999). Adjective Intensification: Learners versus Native Speakers. A Corpus Study of Argumentative Writing. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi. Lucy, John (1993). Reflexive Language and the Human Disciplines. In J. Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metalinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lunsford, Andrea & Robert Connors (1992). The St. Martin’s Handbook (2nd edition). New York: St. Martin’s Press. Luukka, Miina-Riita (1994). Metadiscourse in Academic Texts. In B.-L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Text and Talk in Professional Contexts. Selected Papers from the International Conference “Discourse and the Professions,” Uppsala, 26–29 August, 1992. Uppsala: ASLA, The Swedish Association of Applied Linguistics. Lyons, John (1977). Semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mao, Luming M. (1993). I Conclude Not: Toward a Pragmatic Account of Metadiscourse. Rhetoric Review, 11(2). Markkanen, Raija, Margaret Steffensen, & Avon Crismore (1993). Quantitative Contrastive Study of Metadiscourse: Problems in Design and Analysis of Data. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 28, 137–152. Matthews, Peter (1997). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Mauranen, Anna (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Mauranen, Anna (1993a). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3–22. McCagg, Peter (1996). If you can lead a horse to water, you don’t have to make it drink: Some comments on reader and writer responsibilities. Multilingua, 15(3), 239–256. Mertz, Elizabeth & Jonathan Yovel (2000). Metalinguistic Awareness. Document to appear in J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nash, Walter (1992). An uncommon tongue: the uses and resources of English. London & New York: Routledge. Nattinger, James R. & Jeanette DeCarrico (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford, Rebecca (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Pawley, Andrew & Frances Syder (1983). Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman. Petch-Tyson, Stephanie (1998). Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer. London and New York: Longman. Philipson, Robert (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, & Jan Svartvik (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 10:35

F: SCL24RE.tex / p.6 (565-673)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

Schiffrin, Deborah (1980). Metatalk: Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse. Sociological Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction, 50, 199–236. Scott, Mike (1999). Wordsmith Tools version 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Silverstein, Michael (1976). Shifters, Linguistic Categories and Cultural Description. In K. Basso & H. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Sinclair, John (1983). Planes of Discourse. In S. N. A. Rivzi (Ed.), The Twofold Voice: Essays in Honour of Ramesh Mohan. Salzburg: Universität Salzburg. Sinclair, John (1995). Corpus Typology – A Framework for Classification. In G. Melchers & B. Warren (Eds.), Studies in Anglistics. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International. Sinclair, John (2005). Language as a string of beads: Discourse and the M-word. In E. TogniniBonelli & G. Dell Lungo Camiciotti (Eds.), Strategies in Academic Discourse [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 19] (pp. 163–168). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson (1981). Irony and the Use-Mention Distinction. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. Strevens, Peter (1992). English as an International Language: Directions in the 1990s. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The Other Tongue (2nd edition). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Stubbs, Michael (1983). Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Stubbs, Michael (1996). Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Swales, John M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, John M. & Christine B. Feak (2000). English in today’s research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Swales, John M. & Christine B. Feak (2004 [1994]). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Swales, John M., Ummul Ahmad, Yu-Ying Chang, Daniel Chavez, Dacia Dressen, & Ruth Seymour (1998). Consider This: The Role of Imperatives in Scholarly Writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 97–121. Taavitsainen, Irma (2000). Metadiscursive practices and the evolution of early English Medical writing 1375–1550. In J. M. Kirk (Ed.), Corpora galore: Analyses and techniques in describing English (pp. 191–207). Papers from the nineteenth international conference on English language research on computerized corpora (ICAME 1998). Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi. Tadros, Angele (1993). The pragmatics of text averral and attribution in academic texts. In M. Hoey (Ed.), Data, description, discourse: Papers on the English language in honour of John McH Sinclair (pp. 98–114). London: HarperCollins. Telenius, Johanna (1994). Guiding the Reader: The Use of Metatext in Master’s Theses Written in English. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration. Thompson, Susan E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 5–20. Valero-Garcés, Carmen (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15, 279–294. Vande Kopple, William J. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 26, 82–93. Vande Kopple, William J. (1988). Metadiscourse and the Recall of Modality Markers. Visible Language, XXII, 233–272.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:18/05/2006; 10:35

F: SCL24RE.tex / p.7 (673-706)

References 

Vassileva, Irena (1998). Who am I/who are we in academic writing?: A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2). Verschueren, Jef (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold. Virtanen, Tuija (1998). Direct Questions in Argumentative Student Writing. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer. London and New York: Longman. Wales, Katie (1996). Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weinreich, Uriel (1974 [1953]). Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton and Co. N. V. Weinreich, Uriel (1980). On Semantics. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. White, Peter R. R. (2001). Appraisal Outline. http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/index.html Williams, Joseph M. (1989 [1981]). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:2/08/2006; 10:24

F: SCL24AI.tex / p.1 (47-187)

Author index

A Ädel , , , –, – Aijmer ,  Altenberg , , , , –, , –, , – Andersson  B Bäcklund , , , –, –, , ,  Bazerman  Bhatia , , – Biber , , , –, , , , , , ,  Birdsong  Bolinger  Bondi , , ,  Booth  Bunton , ,  C Campbell  Chafe ,  Cheng  Chesterman  Clark ,  Clyne ,  Connor  Connors –, ,  Conrad ,  Crismore –, , , , , –, , , , , , –, , , –, – D Dahl , , – de Beaugrande ,  DeCarrico  Dressler , 

E Ellis  Enkvist , ,  F Farnsworth –, , , , , , –, ,  Feak ,  Francis ,  Fuertes-Olivera  G Galtung  Gavioli  Gombert , – Grabe  Granger , –, , ,  H Hairston , ,  Halliday –, , , , , , , –,  Harris –, , , – Hasan , ,  Hinds ,  Hockett , ,  Hunston  Hyland , , , –, , , –, , –, , , , ,  Hymes ,  I Innis  Intaraprawat  J Jakobson , , , –, , , , , , –, –, , , , , ,  Johansson , 

K Kachru  Kaplan ,  Kasper  Köhlmyr  Kroll  Kubota ,  Kuo –

L Leech –,  Levenston  Levin  Lorenz , , – Lucy , – Lunsford –, ,  Luukka –, , –,  Lyons , , , 

M Mao , – Markkanen , , , –, –, , , –, , – Matthews  Mauranen , , , , –, –, , , , , –, , , –, –, , , , –, –, , – McCagg  Mertz , , , 

N Nash  Nattinger 

O Oxford 

JB[v.20020404] Prn:2/08/2006; 10:24

F: SCL24AI.tex / p.2 (187-239)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English

P Pawley , ,  Petch-Tyson , , , ,  Philipson  Q Quirk , –, , , , , ,  R Ruszkiewicz , ,  S Schiffrin , , , , , –, , ,  Scott ,  Silverstein 

Sinclair , , , –,  Sperber  Steffensen  Strevens  Stubbs , , , , , , ,  Swales , , , ,  Syder , ,  T Taavitsainen , , ,  Tadros , – Telenius , ,  Thompson ,  V Valero-Garcés –

Vande Kopple , , , , –, , , –, –,  Vassileva –, , –,  Verschueren –, ,  Virtanen , ,  W Wales –,  Weinreich , , , ,  White  Williams , , , ,  Y Yovel , , , 

JB[v.20020404] Prn:11/08/2006; 13:35

F: SCL24SI.tex / p.1 (47-159)

Subject index

A academic writing , , , , , , , , –, –, , – Adding , ,  addressing the reader , , , , , , , –,  advanced learner , , , ,  advance labelling ,  Aligning perspectives , , ,  announcement , , ,  Anticipating the reader’s reaction –, –, , , ,  apologise ,  Appealing to the reader –, –, , ,  appraisal  Arguing , –, , –, , ,  argumentative , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , –, ,  audience , , ,  B BNC (British National Corpus) , , ,  booster  broad definition/approach , , –, –, , –, ,  C Chinese ,  CIA (Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis) – clarification  Clarifying –, , , –, 

cluster , –,  collective we  commentary , ,  communicative competence , , ,  comparative method – computer-assisted , , –, , , , , , – conative ,  Concluding the topic –, –, –, , ,  condition of writing , , –, , ,  connective –, ,  connector –, , –,  considerate author  context-dependency , , –, , – Contextualising –, –, –, , ,  contrastive rhetoric , , , ,  control corpus , , – convention, writing , –, , , , –, –, –, ,  corpus linguistics ,  culture –, ,  D database , ,  Defining –, –, , , , , , – definitional –,  definitional drive –,  deictic , , , ,  demonstrative ,  density of metadiscourse , , , ,  deontic  detachment , , 

dialogic , , , , –, , ,  directive function –, , , , , –, , , ,  discipline, academic , –, , – discourse act , –, , , –, , , , , , , ,  disjunct , , 

E editorial we  educational system , , –,  EFL (English as a Foreign Language) –,  emphatic , , –,  empirical method – endophoric marker  English, variety of ,  enumerator ,  epistemic ,  error ,  ESL ,  evaluation  evidential  exclamation , –, –, ,  Exemplifying –, , –, ,  experience, personal –, ,  experiencer in the ‘real world’ , , , , ,  explicitness , –, , , , –, , , –, , –,  expository , , 

JB[v.20020404] Prn:11/08/2006; 13:35

F: SCL24SI.tex / p.2 (159-266)

 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English expressive function –, , , , , –, , , ,  F filler , ,  Finnish , , –, , , , , –,  Focussing –, –, ,  functional, approach to language –, –,  category , –, ,  functions of language , –, , , , , , ,  fuzziness/fuzzy , , – G gambit  gender ,  generic you –, ,  genre , , , , –, –, –, , , –,  genre comparability , –, –, , – German , , , –, ,  glossing  guidance , , ,  H Hansard ,  hedging , , ,  here – holistic approach ,  Hypothesising about the reader , –,  I ICLE (International Corpus of Learner English) –, , , , , , , , ,  ideational –, , , , ,  idiomaticity , , ,  illocution marker , –,  Imagining scenarios , –, –,  imperative , ,  implied reader ,  inclusive we , , 

informalisation , – instruction , –, , , –,  intended audience – interference –, , ,  interjection  interlanguage , – interpersonal –, , –, –, ,  intertextual , , , –,  intertextuality –, , , , – Introducing topic –, –, –, , , , , ,  involvement , , , , , , ,  J Japanese , ,  L lingua franca  LOCNESS (Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays) , , , , , –,  M manual analysis , , , ,  mention –, ,  metacommunication ,  metadiscourse, impersonal –, , –, , –, , , –, , , – personal –, , –, –, , –, –, , –, –, , – metadiscursive unit , –, –, , , , –,  metafunction ,  metalanguage , –, –, , –, ,  metalinguistic, awareness , –, –, , ,  comment  function –, –, , , –, , , , , , – word/vocabulary , , , , , , 

metatalk , –, ,  metatext , –, –, –, , –, , –, –, , ,  micro-level analysis –, , , ,  modal , ,  modality –,  model, the present/Jakobsonian/ reflexive –, , , –, , , , –, , ,  the SFG-inspired –, ,  modesty, rhetoric of , ,  monologic , , , ,  multifunctionality –, ,  N narrative , , , , ,  narrow definition/approach , –, –, –, –,  non-propositional material , , , , –,  non-topical material ,  norm –, , , –, , , – Norwegian – now – O object language , –, , – oblique pronoun , – overuse ,  P paraphrasing , ,  passive construction , ,  performative , , ,  persona  phatic function , ,  phorics , –,  poetic function , ,  Polish ,  politeness , ,  possessive pronoun – precision , , –,  prefabricated phrase  preview , , –, 

JB[v.20020404] Prn:11/08/2006; 13:35

F: SCL24SI.tex / p.3 (266-338)

Subject index  professional writer/writing , , , –, , –, –, , –,  prototypical , , ,  question, topical , ,  rhetorical , ,  Q quote , ,  R reader, current ,  recall rate ,  recapitulation ,  referential function –, , ,  reflexivity, high/low – reformulation , ,  register awareness , –, , ,  reminder , , ,  Reminding –, –, –, , ,  reported speech , , , ,  responsible, writer- and reader, ,  review , , –,  Russian , ,  S sampling , 

Saying –, –, –, , , , , ,  self-reflective ,  sequencer ,  SFG (Systemic-Functional Grammar) , –, , , ,  sifting ,  signalling  Spanish –, ,  spoken discourse , –, , , , , , , –, , –, , , , , , , – stance , , , , , –, , , , –, , , , ,  statistical significance , , , , , ,  style , , , , –, , –, ,  Swedish , , , , , –, , –, –, –, –, , , ,  SWICLE –, –, , , , – T Tagalog  task setting  tentativeness , ,  tertium comparationis  test , 

text-external , , , , ,  text-internal , , , , ,  topic , , , , –,  transfer ,  triangle, reflexive , , –,  typographical , ,  U underuse ,  universal learner behaviour , –, , ,  V verba dicendi ,  visibility, writer-, reader- and text- , , , , , , , –, , ,  vocative ,  W Wordsmith Tools –,  world of discourse –, –, ,  writer, current –, , ,  writer-reader interaction , –, –, –, ,  writing task , , , –, , , , –

In the series Studies in Corpus Linguistics (SCL) the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 24 Ädel, Annelie: Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. 2006. x, 243 pp. 23 Biber, Douglas: University Language. A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. 2006. viii, 261 pp. 22 Scott, Mike and Christopher Tribble: Textual Patterns. Key words and corpus analysis in language education. 2006. x, 203 pp. 21 Gavioli, Laura: Exploring Corpora for ESP Learning. 2005. xi, 176 pp. 20 Mahlberg, Michaela: English General Nouns. A corpus theoretical approach. 2005. x, 206 pp. 19 Tognini-Bonelli, Elena and Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds.): Strategies in Academic Discourse. 2005. xii, 212 pp. 18 Römer, Ute: Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy. A corpus-driven approach to English progressive forms, functions, contexts and didactics. 2005. xiv + 328 pp. 17 Aston, Guy, Silvia Bernardini and Dominic Stewart (eds.): Corpora and Language Learners. 2004. vi, 312 pp. 16 Connor, Ulla and Thomas A. Upton (eds.): Discourse in the Professions. Perspectives from corpus linguistics. 2004. vi, 334 pp. 15 Cresti, Emanuela and Massimo Moneglia (eds.): C-ORAL-ROM. Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages. 2005. xviii, 304 pp. (incl. DVD). 14 Nesselhauf, Nadja: Collocations in a Learner Corpus. 2005. xii, 332 pp. 13 Lindquist, Hans and Christian Mair (eds.): Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. 2004. xiv, 265 pp. 12 Sinclair, John McH. (ed.): How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching. 2004. viii, 308 pp. 11 Barnbrook, Geoff: Defining Language. A local grammar of definition sentences. 2002. xvi, 281 pp. 10 Aijmer, Karin: English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a corpus. 2002. xvi, 299 pp. 9 Reppen, Randi, Susan M. Fitzmaurice and Douglas Biber (eds.): Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation. 2002. xii, 275 pp. 8 Stenström, Anna-Brita, Gisle Andersen and Ingrid Kristine Hasund: Trends in Teenage Talk. Corpus compilation, analysis and findings. 2002. xii, 229 pp. 7 Altenberg, Bengt and Sylviane Granger (eds.): Lexis in Contrast. Corpus-based approaches. 2002. x, 339 pp. 6 Tognini-Bonelli, Elena: Corpus Linguistics at Work. 2001. xii, 224 pp. 5 Ghadessy, Mohsen, Alex Henry and Robert L. Roseberry (eds.): Small Corpus Studies and ELT. Theory and practice. 2001. xxiv, 420 pp. 4 Hunston, Susan and Gill Francis: Pattern Grammar. A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. 2000. xiv, 288 pp. 3 Botley, Simon Philip and Tony McEnery (eds.): Corpus-based and Computational Approaches to Discourse Anaphora. 2000. vi, 258 pp. 2 Partington, Alan: Patterns and Meanings. Using corpora for English language research and teaching. 1998. x, 158 pp. 1 Pearson, Jennifer: Terms in Context. 1998. xii, 246 pp.

Metadiscourse in L1 And L2 English (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction (Studies in English Language)

Structural Nativization in Indian English Lexicogrammar (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Perspectives on Corpus Linguistics (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Keyness in Texts (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Lexis in Contrast: Corpus-based Approaches (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Lexis in Contrast: Corpus-based Approaches (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Collocations in a Learner Corpus (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics (Studies in Language and Linguistics)

Researching Specialized Languages (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction

Swearing in English (Routledge Advances in Corpus Linguistics)

Swearing in English (Routledge Advances in Corpus Linguistics)

Discourse In The Professions: Perspectives From Corpus Linguistics (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, SCL 16)

Small Corpus Studies and Elt: Theory and Practice (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Corpus Linguistics in Literary Analysis: Jane Austen and her Contemporaries (Studies in Corpus and Discourse)

English General Nouns: A Corpus Theoretical Approach (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, Volume 20)

Keyness in Texts (Studies in Corpus Linguistics (SCL))

English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

English General Nouns: A Corpus Theoretical Approach (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, Volume 20)

Corpora and Language Teaching (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Corpora and Language Learners (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Corpus Linguistics

Corpus and Context: Investigating Pragmatic Functions in Spoken Discourse (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, Volume 30)

Empirical Studies in English Applied Linguistics

Trends in Teenage Talk: Corpus Compilation, Analysis and Findings (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Textual Patterns: Key Words And Corpus Analysis in Language Education (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics)

Linguistics for L2 Teachers

Metadiscourse in L1 And L2 English (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction (Studies in English Language)

Structural Nativization in Indian English Lexicogrammar (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Perspectives on Corpus Linguistics (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Keyness in Texts (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Lexis in Contrast: Corpus-based Approaches (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Lexis in Contrast: Corpus-based Approaches (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Collocations in a Learner Corpus (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics (Studies in Language and Linguistics)

Researching Specialized Languages (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction

Swearing in English (Routledge Advances in Corpus Linguistics)

Swearing in English (Routledge Advances in Corpus Linguistics)

Discourse In The Professions: Perspectives From Corpus Linguistics (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, SCL 16)

Small Corpus Studies and Elt: Theory and Practice (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Corpus Linguistics in Literary Analysis: Jane Austen and her Contemporaries (Studies in Corpus and Discourse)

English General Nouns: A Corpus Theoretical Approach (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, Volume 20)

Keyness in Texts (Studies in Corpus Linguistics (SCL))

English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

English General Nouns: A Corpus Theoretical Approach (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, Volume 20)

Corpora and Language Teaching (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Corpora and Language Learners (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Corpus Linguistics

Corpus and Context: Investigating Pragmatic Functions in Spoken Discourse (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, Volume 30)

Empirical Studies in English Applied Linguistics

Trends in Teenage Talk: Corpus Compilation, Analysis and Findings (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Textual Patterns: Key Words And Corpus Analysis in Language Education (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics)

Linguistics for L2 Teachers

Recommend Documents