A Contrastive Study of Stance-Markers in Opinion Columns of English vs. Farsi Newspapers
محورهای موضوعی : English Language Teaching (ELT)
1 - Department of English Language, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran
کلید واژه: Metadiscourse, newspaper, interactional metadiscourse, stance markers, opinion columns,
چکیده مقاله :
This contrastive study was conducted to contrastively analyze English and Farsi newspaper opinion columns in terms of the frequency of different types of stance markers.60 newspaper opinion columns (30 written in English and 30 written in Farsi) from 10 wide spread newspapers published in the United States and Iran in 2015 were analyzed. Hyland’s (2005) model of stance markers (hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mention) was used as the framework of analysis.The findings revealed that hedges and self-mentions used by English columnists were considerably more frequent than those employed by the Farsi columnists. In contrast, Farsi columnists used large number of boosters and attitude markers. Although, attitude markers were in the last position of sub-categories of stance markers in both corpora.Generally, it could be concluded that the similarities and differences among columnists could be related to the cultural and linguistic preferences of the writers in languages. This study could be beneficial for EFL students and teachers in understanding intercultural linguistic problems in language use, and could be used to lead to creative reading and writing in journalism and ESP courses.
این مطالعه مقابله ای برای تجزیه و تحلیل مقابله ای ستون عقیده روزنامه های انگلیسی و فارسیاز نظر تکرار نوع های مختلف نشانگر های موضع انجام شده است.60 ستون عقیده روزنامه (30 تا نوشته شده در روزنامه های انگلیسی و 30 تا نوشته شده در روزنامه های فارسی) از 10 روزنامه رایج منتشر شده در ایالات متحده آمریکا و ایران در سال 2015 بررسی شده است.ازمدل فراگفتمان[1] هایلند[2] (2005)نشانگرهای موضع (طفره[3]، تشدید[4]، نشانگرهای نگرش[5] و حضور[6]) به عنوان چارچوب تجزیه و تحلیل استفاده شده است. نتایج نشان داد که نشانگرهای طفره و حضور استفاده شده توسط ستون نویس های انگلیسی در مقایسه با ستون نویس های فارسی بسیار بیشتر بود. در مقابل، ستون نویس های فارسی تعداد زیادی نشانگرهای تشدید و نشانگرهای نگرش استفاده کردند. اگر چه، نشانگرهای نگرش در آخر لیست زیر مجموعه های نشانگر های موضع در هر دو گروه داده قرار داشتند . به طور کلی می توان این نتیجه را برداشت کرد که شباهت ها و تفاوت های ستون نویس ها به ترجیح های فرهنگی و زبانی نویسنده ها در زبان ها می تواند ارتباط داشته باشد. این تحقیق می تواند برای دانش آموزان و معلمان زبان خارجه انگلیسی برای فهمیدن مشکلات زبانی بین فرهنگی مفید باشد و می تواند منجر به نوشتن و خواندن خلاقانه در روزنامه نگاری و درس های انگلیسی با اهداف ویژه شود.
References
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2003). Interpersonal Metadiscourse in ELT Papers by Iranian and Anglo-American Academic Writers. Paper presented at the International Conference on Multiculturalism in ELT Practice at Baskent University, Turkey.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2007). Writers’ presence in English and Persian newspaper editorials. Paper presented at the 34th International Systemic Functional Grammar, July, 2007, Denmark.
Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ansary, H. &Babaii, E. (2009). A cross-cultural analysis of English newspaper editorials: a systemic-functional view of text for contrastive rhetoric research. RELC Journal, 40(2),211-249.
AryanpurKashani, M. (2000). The Aryanpur Progressive Dictionary Companion: English-Persian. Tehran: JahanRayaneh.
Bell, A. (1991). The language of news media. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysinggenre:Language use in Professional settings. London: Longman.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspect of second-language writing. Cambridge University Press.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., &Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication10, 39–71.
Crystal, D. (1988). On keeping one’s hedges in order. English Today, 4(3), 46–47.
Dafouz, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95-113.
Ekoc, A. (2011). Analyzing Turkish MA students' use of lexical hedging strategies in theses abstracts. Hasan Ali YücelEğitimFakültesiDergisi, 13, 49-62.
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge.
Ghadyani, F.,&Tahririan, M. (2014). Interactional markers in English medical research articles written by Iranian and native authors: A contrastive metadiscourse analysis of method section. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(4), 137-150.
Greenberg, J. (2000). Opinion discourse and Canadian newspapers: The case of the Chinese “Boat people”. Canadian Journal of Communication, 25, 517-537.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second Language Writers’ Text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and Certainty in ESL Textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21-44.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary Discourses: Writer Stance in Research Articles.In C. Candlin& K. Hyland (eds) Writing: Texts: Processes and Practices(pp. 99–121). London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, Boosters and Lexical Invisibility: Noticing Modifiers in Academic Texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
Hyland, K., &Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 8-18.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic journal of English Studies, 9 (2),125-143.
Isabel, M. (2001). Teaching academic reading: Some initial findings from a session on hedging. Proceedings of the Postgraduate Conference 2001 - Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, The University of Edinburgh.
Ivanic, R. (1988). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing.Amesterdam: Benjamins.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language learning, 16 (1), 1-20.
Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 (1), 19-36.
Kuhi, D., &Mojood, M. (2012). A Contrastive Study of Metadiscourse in Englishand Persian Editorials. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 137-162.
Kuo, C. H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121 138.
Le, E. (2004). Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and editorialists’ authority. Journal of pragmatics, 36(4), 687-714.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Moreno, A. I. (1997). Genre constraints across languages: Causal metatext in Spanish and English research articles. ESPJournal, 16 (3), 161-179.
Noorian, M., &Biria, R. (2010). Interpersonal metadiscourse in persuasive journalism: A study of texts by American and Iranian EFL columnists. Journal of Modern Language, 20, 64-79.
Prince, E., Frader, J.,&Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician and physician discourse. In R. J. DiPietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the Professions: Proceedings of the second annual Delaware symposium on language studies, (pp.83-97). Noewood, NJ: Ablex
Reah, D. (1998). The language of newspapers. London: Routledge.
Sayah, L. &Hashemi, M.R. (2014). Exploring Stance and Engagement Features in Discourse Analysis Papers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(3), 593–601.
Shams, M. R. (2005). Reading English newspapers. Tehran: Rahyan.
Shokouhi, H. &TalatiBaghsiahi, A. (2009). Metadiscourse functions in English and Persian sociology articles: A study in contrastive rhetoric. PoznańStudies in ContemporaryLinguistics 45(4), 535–554.
Van Dijk, T. (1988). News as Discourse. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Opinions and ideologies in editorials. Paper presented at the 4thInternational Sysmposium of Critical Discourse Analysis: Language, Social Life and CriticalThought. December, 1995, Athens.
Wishnoff, L. A. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners' acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: CUP.
Yazdani, S., Sharifi, S., &Elyassi, M. (2014). Interactional Metadiscourse in English and Persian News Articles about 9/11. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 428-434.
