تحلیل نشانگرهای فراگفتمانی در رمان‌ آتش بدون دود اثر نادر ابراهیمی بر اساس انگاره‌ی هایلند (2005)

فاطمه  ارشدی; محمدحسین شرف‌زاده; لیلا  صابری; زهرا  رستگار حقیقی شیرازی

Authors

Fatemeh Arshadi PhD student, Department of Linguistics, Marv.C., Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5624-830X
Mohammad Hossein Sharafzadeh Department of Linguistics, Marv.C., Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8038-4136
Leila Saberi Department of English, Marv.C., Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6549-5791
Zahra Rastegar Haghighi Shirazi Department of English, Marv.C., Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9430-8986

Keywords:

Interactive Meta, discourse, Interactional Meta, Transactional Meta, Atash, e bedoon dood, Hyland's Framework

Abstract

Metadiscourse markers, as key linguistic devices, play an effective role in facilitating communication between the author and the audience and in structuring the text in the analysis of literary texts. This study examined and compared metadiscourse markers in the novel Fire Without Smoke by Nader Ebrahimi based on Hyland’s (2005) model. Using a descriptive-analytical method and analyzing the data through SPSS 21 and LancsBox 6 software, the application of metadiscourse markers in the narrative structure and in interaction with the reader was investigated. The analysis of the data from this novel showed that there was a significant difference in the types and frequency of metadiscourse markers in the novel. This pattern of metadiscourse-marker use clearly demonstrates the author’s narrative strategy in adapting the writing style to fictional objectives and audience needs. The findings of this study emphasize the vital role of metadiscourse markers in organizing textual structure and facilitating effective author-reader interaction in Fire Without Smoke.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Hyland K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Writing in Interaction. London: Continuum; 2005.

2. Crismore A, Markkanen R, Steffensen MS. Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students. Written Communication. 1993;10(1):7-39.

3. Hyland K. A Convincing Argument: Corpus Analysis and Academic Persuasion. In: Connor U, Upton T, editors. Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2004.

4. Lotfi SAT, Sarkeshikian SAH, Saleh E. A Cross-Cultural Study of the Use of Metadiscourse Markers in Argumentative Essays by Iranian and Chinese EFL Students. Cogent Arts and Humanities. 2019;6(1):1601540.

5. Radan S, PourEbrahim F, Sattarpour S. A Comparison of Metadiscourse Markers in Research Articles Written by Iranian Authors Published in National and ISI Journals: University of Maragheh, Faculty of Humanities; 2021.

6. Halliday F. Rethinking International Relations: Bloomsbury Publishing; 1994.

7. Khosronejad A. The Role of Gender on Content Analysis of English and Persian Short Stories: Tarbiat Moallem University; 2007.

8. Zarei GR, Mansoori S. A Contrastive Study on Metadiscourse Elements Used in Humanities Versus Non-Humanities Across Persian and English. English Language Teaching. 2011;4:42-50.

9. Ranjbar M, Yazdani H, Ahmadian M, Ameryan M. A Study on the Use of Metadiscourse Markers by Persian- and English-Speaking Male and Female Writers in Various Sections of National and International Research Articles: Arak University, Faculty of Literature and Humanities; 2021.

10. Kanhavar MH, Sabati E, Afshar T. A Comparative Study of Interactive Metadiscourse Markers in English Texts: Iraqi and Native English Editors: Ilam University, Faculty of Literature and Humanities; 2023.

11. Tse P, Hyland K. Discipline and Gender: Constructing Rhetorical Identity in Book Reviews. In: Hyland K, Diani G, editors. Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings2009. p. 105-21.

12. Alqahtani SN, Abdelhalim SM. Gender-Based Study of Interactive Metadiscourse Markers in EFL Academic Writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 2020;10(10):1315-25.

13. Cuevas-Alonso M, Miguez-Alvarez C. Metadiscursive Markers and Text Genre: A Metareview. Publications. 2021;9(56).

14. Sarani M, Habibi AA, Arab Yusefabadi A, Behroozi M. An Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers in Al-Hosseini Al-Saghir Journal Based on Hyland's Interactive and Interactional Model: University of Zabol, Faculty of Literature and Humanities; 2023.

15. Tajer P, Jokar A, Fakhraahmad SM, Khormaei A, Sotoodeh H. Analyzing the Application of Hyland's Metadiscourse Model in Citation-Based Automatic Summarization: Proposing a Context-Aware Annotation Scheme. Librarianship and Information Science of Astan Quds Razavi. 2019;99(3).

16. Atabaki F, Mohammadi AM, Ahmadian M. A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse Markers Used in the Listening Texts of Open Forum 2 and Contemporary Topics 1: With Educational Applications: Arak University, Faculty of Literature and Humanities; 2020.

17. Rezaei S, Koohi D, Saeedi M. Metadiscourse Elements and Their Developmental Patterns Over Time. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice. 2019;12(25).

18. Harahap A, Pd HM, Sofyan D. A Comparative Research on Metadiscourse Markers Used in the Introduction Section of Local, National, and International Journal Articles on English Education. Edu-Ling: Journal of English Education and Linguistics. 2020;4(1):61-78.

19. Soltani R, Shekarpour N. The Status of Metadiscourse Marker Usage in Iranian Medical Research Articles: A Comparative Study. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. 2021;31(196):92-100.