Comparative Study of Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Nahj al-Balaghah Sermons and Letters
The aim of this paper is to investigate the comparative analysis of interactive and interaction meta-discourse in sermons and letters of Islam based on Highland classification. For this purpose, all sermons and letters of Islam-e-Balagat were studied and selected in the sampling phase, letters and sermons, which had a great deal of topic and audience among other sermons and letters. Then dialog and interactive markers are extracted from the text of these sermons and letters. In order to investigate the significant differences between the types of citations in sermons and selected letters, the K-square test was used. The results showed that in the examined sermons, the 613 frequency, the most-valuable dialog markers, are, while the intra-text references, with only one frequency, have a low-quality dialog marker. Among the interactive markers, in the first class, there are in-line with 296 repetitions and the precautionary expressions are in the last category 26 times. Also, in the studied letters, again, with the frequency of 559, the most valuable dialog indicators are, while the citation is only with a frequency, a low-duplicate dialog marker. Among the interactive markers, the frequency of the 257 is more than the most duplicate markers and at the end of the precautionary terms with a frequency of 35. Test hypotheses showed that there was a significant relationship between type of text and type of indicators, but there was no significant statistical difference in the number of dialog indicators and interactive markers between sermons and examined letters.
رضی، شریف. (1378). نهجالبلاغه. ترجمه: سیدجعفر شهیدی. تهران، شرکت انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
Akbas, E. (2012). Exploring metadiscourse in master’s dissertation abstracts: Cultural and linguistic variations across postgraduate writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(1), 12–26.
Ashrafi, S. (2009). Textual metadiscourse resources in research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 1(212), 39–75.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written communication, 10(1), 39–71.
Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (2009). Test of written language: TOWL4. Pro-ed.
Hashemi, M. R., & Golparvar, S. E. (2012). Exploring metadiscourse markers in Persian news reports. International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow, 1(2), 1–6.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic genres. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.
Martinez G. S. (2009). Argumentation, metadiscourse and social cognition: Organizing knowledge in political communication. Discourse & Society, 20(6), 727–746.
Rashidi, N., & Alihosseini, F. (2012). A contrastive study of metadiscourse markers in research article abstracts across disciplines. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, 5(4), 17–23.
Sanford, S. G. (2012). A comparison of metadiscourse markers and writing quality in adolescent written narratives. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Montana.
Vahid Dastjerdi, H., & Shirzad, M. (2010). The impact of explicit instruction of metadiscourse markers on EFL learners’ writing performance. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2(2), 154–174.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 82–93.
Yavari, M., & Kashani, A. F. (2013). Gender-based study of metadiscourse in research articles’ rhetorical sections. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(2), 77–88.