Document Type : Research Article
Author
The assistant professor of Payame Nour University
Abstract
Metadiscourse is a recent theory in discourse analysis in which a writer reveals his presence through different ways in the text to interact with the readers. In this article, we investigated the interactional metadiscourse in Surahs of Quran; Al-waqi’ah, Al-hashr and Ar-rahman based on Hyland and Tse’s (2004) model who divided interactional metadiscourse into: boosters, self mentions, engagement markers, attitude markers and hedges. The selection of these surahs is based on the high emphasis on their continuous reading which shows the significant and prodigious meanings. The method of this research is qualitative and quantitative. The results showed that first, the classification of these verses is superior than the mentioned division. Second, among all metadiscourse markers only boosters, self mentions, engagement markers and attitude markers were observed with different frequencies, so that in Al-waqi’ah and Ar-rahman, the engagement markers and in Al-hashr, the attitude markers had the highest frequency. Hedges were not observed in the verses that indicates the assurance, certainty and accuracy of Quran’s verses in comparison with any other text.
Keywords
قرآن کریم
جلیلیان، آذردخت (1390)، تأثیر جنسیت بر کاربرد نقش‌نماهای فراگفتمانی در زبان فارسی و انگلیسی، پایان نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد رشتۀ زبانشناسی. تهران، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
شاکر، محمد کاظم (1384)، «نگاهی نو به معناشناسی شک و یقین در قرآن». پژوهش دینی. شماره 12. صص267-284.
طارمی، طاهره. تاکی، گیتی. یوسفیان، پاکزاد. (1397). جنسیت در مقالات علمی فارسی زبان: مطالعه پیکره بنیاد نشانگرهای فراگفتمان تعاملی بر اساس انگارۀ هایلند. نشریۀ پژوهشهای زبانشناسی. سال دهم، شمارۀ اول، شمارۀ ترتیبی 18. صص 42-23.
قلی فامیان، علیرضا. کارگر، مریم. (1392). تحلیل مقالات نقد کتاب‌های زبانشناسی ایران بر اساس الگوی فراگفتمان هایلند. مجلۀ پژوهشهای زبانشناسی. سال پنجم، شماره دوم، صص52-37.
مکارم شیرازی، ناصر، (1380)، تفسیر نمونه، جلد 23، تهران، دارالکتب الاسلامیه
موسوی همدانی، سید محمد باقر (1382)، ترجمۀ تفسیر المیزان تألیف سید محمد حسین طباطبایی. قم: دفتر انتشارات اسلامی.
Abdi. R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of differences across subjections. The journal of teaching language skills (JTLS). 3(1). Ser 62/4.
Bal-Gezegin, Betül.(2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in Academic book reviews. Procedia, social and behavioral sciences, 232. P:713-718.
Crismore, A.Makkanen, 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.
Ghahremani Mina, K. Biria. R. (2017). Exploring interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in discussion sections of social and medical science articles. International Journal of research in English Education. Vol.2, No.4.Pp:11-29.
Ghazanfari, M. Barani, G. Rokhsari. S. (2018). An investigation into metadiscourse elements used by native vs. non-native university students across genders. Iranian Journal of applied language studies. Vol(10). No 1,pp:61-94.
Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar 2nd edition. London: Edward Arnold.
Harris, Z. (1959). The transformational Model of language structure.Anthropological Linguistics. 1:1.27-29.
Hyland. Ken. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of business communication 35/2: 224-45.
Hyland. Ken. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social Interactions in Academia Writing. London: Longman.
Hyland. Ken. (2008). Persuation, Interaction and the Construction of Knowledge: representing Self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies(JIJES). Vol 8 (2): Pp: 1-23.
- Hyland. Ken. (2015). Metadiscourse. In Tracy, K. (ed). International Encyclopedia of Language and Social interaction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Hyland. K & Tse, Polly. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A reappraisal. Oxford University Press. Applied Linguistics 25/2: 156-177.
- Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and Identity. The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amesterdam: Ondon Benjamins.
- Shiffrin. D. (1980). Metatalk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociology Inquiry: Language and social Interaction,50199-236.
- Thompson, G. 2001. Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics. 22/1: 58-78.
- Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse: College Composition and Communication 36: 82-93.
- Wei. J, Li.Y, Zhou. T, Gong. Z. (2016). Studies on metadiscourse since the 3rd millennium. Journal of education and practice. Vol.7, No.9.
)