A comparative study of proximity in Iranian and American newspaper editorials

封面

如何引用文章

详细

The study is aimed at gaining further insight into the concept of proximity and its contribution to text development in general and newspaper editorials in particular. It also furthers our understanding of cross-linguistic differences in the use of metadiscourse. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate and compare proximity elements in Iranian and American newspaper editorials. Following Hyland's proximity model (2010a) which comprises five major elements, organization, argumentative structure, stance, engagement, and credibility , we focused on a detailed analysis of proximity features in two corpora, Iranian newspaper editorials and American newspaper editorials. To this aim, 240 newspaper editorials, including 120 editorials from each category, were collected. The outcomes revealed that there were significant differences in the use of proximity elements in the mentioned corpora. It was demonstrated that stance markers were considerably more recurrent in the American data than their Iranian counterpart. Unlike the American editorials, the Iranian ones contained a larger number of engagement markers. The key reasons behind such discrepancies are discussed in terms of differences in cultural, social, and political backgrounds. This study can be helpful for English for Specific/Academic Purposes (ES/AP) learners who study journalistic English to become familiar with proximity.

作者简介

Mohammad Alipour

Islamic Azad university

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: alipour83@yahoo.com

holds a Ph.D. in English Language Teaching (ELT) and is currently a faculty member of Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz Branch. His research interests include discourse analysis and pragmatics. He has published articles in a number of scholarly journals.

Ahvaz, Iran

Parastoo Jahanbin

Islamic Azad university

Email: parastoo_jahanbin@yahoo.com

holds an M.A degree in English Language Teaching (ELT) and is currently working as an English teacher

Ahvaz, Iran

参考

  1. Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel. 2007. Writer’s presence in Persian and English newspaper editorials. Paper presented at the International Conference on Systemic Functional Linguistics in Odense, Denmark.
  2. Adel, Annelie. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  3. Andrusenko, Anastasiia. 2016. A contrastive analysis of Spanish-Arabic metadiscourse use in persuasive academic writing. Procedia, Social, and Behavioral Sciences 178. 9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.138.
  4. Ansarin, Ali A. & Hassan Tarlani-aliabdi. 2011. Reader engagement in English and Persian applied linguistics articles. English Language Teaching 4 (4). 154-164. doi: 10.5539/elt.v4n4p154.
  5. Ansary, Hasan & Esmat Babaii. 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. doi: 10.1177/0033688209105867.
  6. Armour-Thomas, Eleanor & Sharon-nn Gopaul-McNicol. 1998. Assessing Intelligence: A Bio-Cultural Model. London: Sage.
  7. Babaii, Esmat. & Omidreza Rajabi. 2018. Realization of proximity in online video courses: A study with reference to Coursera. International Journal of English Languages and Translation Studies 6 (3). 79-89.
  8. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. London: University of Texas Press.
  9. Bell, Allan. 1991. The Language of News Media. Polity: Oxford.
  10. Bernstein, Basil. 1999. Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education 20 (2). 157-173. doi: 10.1080/01425699995380.
  11. Calsamiglia, Helena & Teun A van Dijk. 2004. Popularisation discourse and knowledge about the genome. Discourse & Society 15 (4). 369-389. doi: 10.1177/0957926504043705.
  12. Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analyzing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
  13. Connor, Ulla. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Crismore, Avon. 1989. Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.
  15. Crismore, Avon & Rodney Farnsworth. 1990. Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (eds.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse 118-136. Newbury Park: Sage.
  16. Crismore, Avon, Raija Markkanen & Margaret S. Steffensen. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10 (1). 39-71. doi: 10.1177/0741088393010001002.
  17. Dafouz-Milne, Emma. 2003. Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 11. 29-52. DOI: 10,5209/rev_eiuc.2003.v11.8792.
  18. Dafouz-Milne, Emma. 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 (1). 95-113. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.1003.
  19. Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.
  20. Fowler, Roger. 1991. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.
  21. Guyot, Jacques. 2009. Political-economic factors shaping news culture. In P. Preston (eds.), Making the news: Journalism and news cultures in Europe 135-149. Amesterdam: Routledge.
  22. Hyland, Ken. 1999. Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1). 3-26. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2.
  23. Hyland, Ken. 2005a. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
  24. Hyland, Ken. 2005b. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies Journal 7 (2). 173. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365.
  25. Hyland, Ken. 2008. Persuasion, interaction and construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies 8 (2). 1-23. doi: 10.6018/ijes.8.2.49151.
  26. Hyland, Ken. 2010a. Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2). 116-127. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003.
  27. Hyland, Ken. 2010b. Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic journal of English Studies, Special Issue on Metadiscourse 9 (2). 125-143. doi: 10.35360/njes.220.
  28. Jacobs, Geert. 2017. “Tu n’as pas de place pour un petit Somalie?” Language, proximity and impact in the globalized political mediascape. In B. Mottura, L. Osti, & G. Riboni (eds.), Media and politics: Discourses, cultures and practices 35-51. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  29. Jiang, Wenying. 2000. The relation between language and culture. EFT Journal 54 (4). 328-334. DOI: 10.109/elt/54.4.328.
  30. Johnstone, Barbara & Justin Mando. 2014. Proximity and journalistic practice in environmental discourse: Experiencing “job blackmail” in the news. Discourse and Communication 9 (1). doi: 10.1177/1750481314555266.
  31. Kaplan, Robet B. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning 16 (1). 1-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x.
  32. Khabbazi Oskouei, Leila. 2011. Interactional variation in English and Persian: A comparative analysis of metadiscourse Features in magazine editorials (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Norwich: University of East Anglia.
  33. Kuhi, Davud & Manijheh Mojood. 2012. A Contrastive study of metadiscourse in English and Persian editorials. The Journal of Applied Linguistics 5 (1). 137-162.
  34. Kuhi, Davud & Manijheh Mojood. 2014. Metadiscourse in newspaper genre: A cross-linguistic study of English and Persian editorials. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 98. 1046-1055. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.515.
  35. Kuo, Ming-Mu & Cheng Chieh Lai. 2006. Linguistics across cultures: The impact of culture on second language learning. Journal of Foreign Language Instruction 8 (2). 1-10.
  36. Le, Elisabeth. 2004. Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and editorialist’s authority. Journal of Pragmatics 36 (4). 687-714. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00032-8.
  37. Lee, Nagiko Iwata. 2011. Academic and journalistic writing in English and Japanese: A contrastive study on stance and engagement expressions. Journal of Modern Languages 21 (1). 59-71.
  38. Lee, Joseph J. & J. Elliott Casal. 2014. Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System 46 (1). 39-54. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009.
  39. Marthin, James R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave.
  40. McGrath, Lisa & Maria Kuteeva. 2012. Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes 31 (3). 161-173.
  41. Mitchell, Rosamond & Florence Myles. 2004. Second Language Learning Theories (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
  42. Moreno, Ana I. 1997. Genre constraints across languages: Casual meta text in Spanish and English RAs. English for Specific Purposes 16 (3). 161-179.
  43. Noorian, Mina & Reza Biria. 2010. Interpersonal metadiscourse in persuasive journalism: A study of texts by American and Iranian EFL columnists. Journal of Modern Language 20 (1). 64-79.
  44. Scotto Di Carlo, Giuseppina. 2014. The role of proximity in online popularizations: The case of TED talks. Discourse Studies 16 (5). 591-606. doi: 10.1177/1461445614538565.
  45. Vande Kopple, William J. 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36 (1). 82-93. doi: 10.2307/357609.
  46. van Dijk, Teun A. 1996. Opinions and ideologies in editorials. Paper for the 14th International Symposium of Critical Discourse Analysis: Language, Social Life, and Critical Thought. Greece: Athens, 14th-16th December, 1995.
  47. Vazquez Y Del Arbol, Esther. 2005. A genre-based study of biomedical editorials and letters to the editor: A constrictive analysis. IBERICA 10. 145-160.
  48. Voloshinov, Valentin N. 1995. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, Bakhtinian Thought-An Introductory Reader. London: Routledge.
  49. Wang, Jin. 2011. Cultural differences and English teaching. English Language Teaching 4 (2). 223-230. doi: 10.5539/elt.v4n2p223.

版权所有 © Alipour M., Jahanbin P., 2020

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##