第一语言和第二语言英语社论作者使用互动元话语的情况

Q2 Arts and Humanities Discourse and Interaction Pub Date : 2023-12-20 DOI:10.5817/di2023-2-5
Sharif Alghazo, Khulood Al-Anbar, Abdel Rahman Altakhaineh, Marwan Jarrah
{"title":"第一语言和第二语言英语社论作者使用互动元话语的情况","authors":"Sharif Alghazo, Khulood Al-Anbar, Abdel Rahman Altakhaineh, Marwan Jarrah","doi":"10.5817/di2023-2-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study explores the use of interactional1 metadiscourse by first language (L1) and second language (L2) English editorialists. The study uses Hyland’s (2019) model of metadiscourse to analyse 80 editorials published between 2020 and 2021 in The Guardian and The Jordan Times newspapers (40 from each newspaper). A mixed-method approach  – adopting quantitative and qualitative measures – was used to analyse the data. The frequency of interactional metadiscourse resources was statistically examined to find similarities and differences (if any) between the two corpora. The analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the use of interactional metadiscourse resources in the editorials of the two newspapers. For instance, L2 editorialists used fewer hedges in their editorials and more boosters than L1 editorialists. In addition, engagement markers were used the most by L1 editorialists. The study provides some implications for editorialists who write in English and recommendations for future research.","PeriodicalId":38177,"journal":{"name":"Discourse and Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"First language and second language English editorialists’ use of interactional metadiscourse\",\"authors\":\"Sharif Alghazo, Khulood Al-Anbar, Abdel Rahman Altakhaineh, Marwan Jarrah\",\"doi\":\"10.5817/di2023-2-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study explores the use of interactional1 metadiscourse by first language (L1) and second language (L2) English editorialists. The study uses Hyland’s (2019) model of metadiscourse to analyse 80 editorials published between 2020 and 2021 in The Guardian and The Jordan Times newspapers (40 from each newspaper). A mixed-method approach  – adopting quantitative and qualitative measures – was used to analyse the data. The frequency of interactional metadiscourse resources was statistically examined to find similarities and differences (if any) between the two corpora. The analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the use of interactional metadiscourse resources in the editorials of the two newspapers. For instance, L2 editorialists used fewer hedges in their editorials and more boosters than L1 editorialists. In addition, engagement markers were used the most by L1 editorialists. The study provides some implications for editorialists who write in English and recommendations for future research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Discourse and Interaction\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Discourse and Interaction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5817/di2023-2-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse and Interaction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/di2023-2-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究探讨了第一语言(L1)和第二语言(L2)英语社论作者对交互元话语1 的使用。本研究采用 Hyland(2019 年)的元话语模型,分析了 2020 年至 2021 年期间在《卫报》和《约旦时报》上发表的 80 篇社论(每份报纸 40 篇)。研究采用定量和定性相结合的混合方法分析数据。对互动元话语资源的频率进行了统计分析,以发现两个语料库之间的异同(如有)。分析结果显示,两份报纸的社论在使用交互元话语资源方面存在显著差异。例如,与 L1 社论作者相比,L2 社论作者在社论中使用的对冲词较少,而助推词较多。此外,L1 社论作者使用最多的是参与标记。本研究为使用英语写作的社论作者提供了一些启示,并为今后的研究提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
First language and second language English editorialists’ use of interactional metadiscourse
This study explores the use of interactional1 metadiscourse by first language (L1) and second language (L2) English editorialists. The study uses Hyland’s (2019) model of metadiscourse to analyse 80 editorials published between 2020 and 2021 in The Guardian and The Jordan Times newspapers (40 from each newspaper). A mixed-method approach  – adopting quantitative and qualitative measures – was used to analyse the data. The frequency of interactional metadiscourse resources was statistically examined to find similarities and differences (if any) between the two corpora. The analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the use of interactional metadiscourse resources in the editorials of the two newspapers. For instance, L2 editorialists used fewer hedges in their editorials and more boosters than L1 editorialists. In addition, engagement markers were used the most by L1 editorialists. The study provides some implications for editorialists who write in English and recommendations for future research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Discourse and Interaction
Discourse and Interaction Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊最新文献
First language and second language English editorialists’ use of interactional metadiscourse On the use of rhetorical questions in tweets related to the Russia-Ukrainian war: Podolyak vs Polyanskiy It’s complicated: The relationship between lexis, syntax and proficiency Refusal and politeness strategies favoured among Iraqi and Malaysian learners in marriage proposals The winner takes it all: Stance and engagement markers in successful project proposal abstracts funded by ERC
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1