论文总字数：44295字

摘 要

近年来，越来越多的特殊用途英语作者和研究者开始关注如何能写出更容易让读者接受的文本。元语言则是一种重要的研究文本特点的视角，侧重的是观点内容外的文本内容。本文旨在通过元语言视角，运用一系列定量分析和定性分析来探究作者如何组织通信类教材的文本语言。本文语料来自西蒙·赫金编写的《通信原理》一书中的两个章节。此书由权威出版社发行并广泛用于通信教学中。我们希望可以发现通信学教材中的独特的元语言特征以及作者组织语言的原因。经统计分析后发现，七种有着不同交流目的的次文本中并没有明显的包括文本元语言和人际元语言在内的元语言特征区别。但是，在不同的元语言分类下依然有着细微的差别。本文仅限于通过客观的数据进行统计，更多实例研究可以注重读者对元语言的主观感受从而更加主观地探究文本的交际作用。

关键词：元语言；通信学；教材

Contents

Acknowledgements I

English Abstract II

Chinese Abstract III

Contents IV

List of Tables VI

Chapter One Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Significance of Study 3

1.3 Overview of Study 6

Chapter Two Theoretical Framework 7

2.1 Taxonomy of Metadiscourse 7

2.1.1 Textual Metadiscourse (readability) 8

2.1.2 Interpersonal Metadiscourse (acceptability) 9

2.2 Taxonomy of Sub-texts 10

Chapter Three Methodology 13

3.1 Data Collection 13

3.2 Data Analysis 13

Chapter Four Results 15

Chapter Five Discussion 18

4.1 Functions of Metadiscourse by Subtext 18

4.2 Metadiscourse Features in the Textbook 19

4.2.1 Textual Metadiscourse 20

4.2.2 Interpersonal Metadiscourse 21

Chapter Six Conclusion 22

6.1 Summary 22

6.2 Suggestions and Limitation 22

References 24

Appendix I 25

List of Tables

Table 1: The classification of metadiscourse into textual and interpersonal level……8

Table 2: Distribution of Metadiscourse in Communication Systems per 1000 words (% of total)………………...……………………………………………….……...……..16

Chapter One Introduction

Background

Content area writing has received a huge amount of attention recently from English for Specific Purposes (ESP) writers and researchers because of difficulties in which writers seek to achieve reader-friendly texts. Theorists agree that there are two dimensions of texts that help establish author-reader connection, the propositional /referential dimension and non-propositional/non-referential dimension. Normally, theorists tend to place premium on the more traditional propositional level, deeming categories like structure, coherence, unity and audience appropriateness the golden rules of judging whether a text is “considerate.” It is in more recent time that research attention has been drawn to the more non-propositional level—metadiscourse—and its role in constructing a more reader-friendly text.

This study follows the more recent trend and analyzes the patterns and functions of metadiscourse in a particular genre, undergraduate-level textbooks on telecommunication. Namely, the author divides the sample chapters into seven categories of subtexts, and examines how metadiscourse is used and for what purposes across different subtexts, with an intension to provide insight into technological textbook writing for English second language learners.

Metadiscourse, though more likely to be understood in lay terms as “discourse about discourse”, means the non-referential and non-informational aspects of a discourse or written text. That is, in contrast to the referential aspects that make meaning through referring to the external reality, metadiscourse is merely “internal.” It refers to the non-informative markers in a text that help with organizing, clarifying the author’s attitude and building author-reader relationship (Hyland 2000:109).

Although originally Hyland (1999) views that metadiscourse could be identified by a variety of linguistic devices ranging from punctuations to words, phrases, clauses and sentences, he later limits metadiscourse to shorter “delegators” for analytical purposes. Hyland’s definition has certain shortcoming, as Crismore (1983) would insist that longer metadiscourse indicators mean more explicit author's intrusion into the primary message and the shorter, the subtler. However, Hyland’s focus on markers also provides unlimited analytical advantages, as markers do not overlap (but phrases, clauses and sentences might) and their rhetorical functions are more manifest. Following Hyland’s definition, this article focuses it analytical lenses on markers.

Metadiscourse serves functions such as unifying, emphasizing and giving a sense of movement. Metadiscourse can be functionally divided into textual (adequacy) and interpersonal (acceptability) types, which I will further explicate in the Theoretical Framework Section. Josephe M. Williams (1965) terms that metadiscourse exists to direct rather than inform readers and Meyer (1975) describes metadiscourse as “a non-content aspect of prose which highlights the semantic content or the structure” (437-439).

Theorists do not agree upon either the terminologies for or the functions of metadiscourse. Meyer (1975) prefers “signaling” to “metadiscourse” while Bradly opts for labels like “transitions,” “signals” or “signposting”. Further, evidence indicates that metadiscourse serves as double-edged sword, both adding to and taking away from the quality of writing, pending the manner in which it is used. Although most theorists agree that metadiscourse “bracket[s] the discourse organization and the expressive implications of what is being said” (Schiffrin 1980:231) and is therefore critical in ensuring “an interesting and information-filled reading practice” (1980: 235-237), if improperly used, it could also be “the source of wordiness” or indications of poor writing quality, as Williams (1965) and Winkler and McCuen (1981) concur.

Given the complexity and controversy surrounding metadiscourse, this study intends to further explore the patterns and functions of metadiscourse in an under-researched genre of text, telecommunication textbook. Often wrongly regarded as factive and objective and thus devoid of authors’ personal elements, hard science writing, as the sample chapters from the target textbook Communication Systems demonstrate, might be fraught with indicators of the authors’ attitudes and communicative attempts. This study compares the patterns and functions of metadiscourse across seven subtexts of the textbook; each is supposed to achieve different communicative purpose—and document the frequency and functions of metadiscourse in subtexts.

The concrete research purposes are

1. To identify the unique patterns of metadiscourse across seven subtexts of telecommunication textbook. Namely, what are the distributions of different metadiscourse markers in each sub-text?
2. In light of the results of statistical analysis, what are the functions of metadiscourse in subtexts of different communicative purposes? What are the functions of the two levels of metacourse (textual and interpersonal) in the sample textbook?

Significance of Study

The significance of the study is twofold.

First, this study acknowledges the role metadiscourse plays in achieving the social role of academic writing. Writing is long known as a social act performed in a specific context for a particular audience, ranging from sophisticated experts to novices (Bruffee 1986). Successful textual strategies including anticipating a potential audience and catering to their needs, preferences and expectations (Widdowson 1984:220). Academic writing, of which textbooks are a subcategory, is a unique genre of writing which facilitates the production of knowledge and caters to an exclusive social group. Since the judgment of the quality of academic writing is “persuasiveness,” the social nature—the assertion of the author’s personal stance and establishment of author-reader communication—is accorded with premium values. That is, in academic writing in particular, an author is burdened with proper and effective usage of metadiscourse. He or she should not only be fully aware of the functions of the metadiscourse, but also exercise an accurate and effective execution of textual strategies to ensure that metadiscoursal markers are in right places. Prelli (1989:26-28) argues that the author's ultimate purpose is to accommodate the needs of readers to make discourse reader-friendly.

There may be a number of interested audiences for any particular discourse-audiences having different levels of competence to judge understandingly. To succeed rhetorically, any rhetor must ground a position in what the addressed audience considers reasonable; only then can understanding and appreciation be achieved.

For the readers of academic writing, it is equally critical for them to be versed in the basics of metadiscourse. Successful reading act to a large extent depends on readers’ understanding of the accepted rules, norms and conventions of writing. A knowledgeable reader will be able to anticipate the author’s textual strategies and lines of reasoning. Some staunch advocates of reader agency might go so far as to state that readers are not passive recipients of texts, but also co-participants in the writing activity—all texts are essentially readers’ texts. Bazerman (1985), for instance, stresses that “readers manage to predict lines of thought, interrogate authors on their positions, and evaluate work for its usefulness and importance to their own research (1985:85).”

In stark contrast to the pivotal role metadiscourse plays in establishing text-reader- writer relationship, there is a dire lack of research on metadiscourse, especially in the area of academic writing. The more conventional understanding is that the referential/ideational elements of written discourses trump non-propositional and non-referential elements in meaning construction and communication. The current study, echoing the more recent shift in research attention, acknowledges the primary role of metadiscourse in building author-reader relationship.

Second, the current study focuses on textbooks, a genre with idiosyncratic character that is often neglected. The uniqueness of textbooks are marked by the differentiated power relations between authors and readers (the latter are often students and apprentice). Textbooks are often written to deliver “canon”, established set of “norms, values and ideological assumptions rigidly acknowledged by a specialized field” (Hyland, 1999), but not to foster critical reading. Students, especially in hard sciences, often see coursebooks as "concrete embodiments of the knowledge of their disciplines" (Ken Hyland, 1999). Writers of textbooks are an "insider" dealing with topic, thesis, purpose, author stance, sequencing, discourse type and method of development. Students and apprentices lack experience of both the informational knowledge and linguistic forms which offer coherence and life to that knowledge. Students could be regarded as the 'evaluator reader' and 'consumer reader' (Swales, 1994).Unlike in other genre of academic writing, authors and readers are assumed to be of comparable social footing—they are either colleagues or fellow researchers who share membership in the same discourse community, as possessors of “canon” or esoteric knowledge, authors of textbooks are more empowered and vested with authority, whereas student are more passive and vulnerable, sometimes even intimidated or coerced into textual consumption.

The power differentiation between authors and readers particularly warrants the attention to metadiscoure. In textbook writing, it seems particularly important for an “considerate” author to insert him- or herself into the discourse and reach out to the audience. On the part of readers, they are partially responsible for not only learning the “knowledge”, but also for delving into the conversion of discourse construction so as to bridge the author-reader distance. Awareness of metadiscourse, though important for all types of writings, is particularly indispensible for textbook writers and readers.

Instead of focusing on textbook roughly as a “genre”, I also divide the textbooks into seven categories of subtexts. By performing comparisons of metadiscourse patterns and functions across disparate subtexts, I facilitate a subtler and more nuanced understanding of how metadiscourse functions in subtexts of varied communicative purposes--this novel effort is so far unparallel by existing research on metadiscourse.

Overview of Study

In this chapter, I briefly introduce a fresh conception of metadiscourse and its significance in a specific genre, hardscience textbook. In the second chapter, I introduce the taxonomy necessary for the further discussion of the article. I follow Hyland (1998) and divide metadiscourse into two levels, textual and interpersonal and the sample chapters from telecommunication textbook into seven categories along the line of their communicative purposes: Introduction, Definition, Property, Performance, Example, Experiment and Summary/discussion.

The third chapter is the methods chapter detailing how frequency analysis is conducted on two chapters extracted from Communication System (a written textbook for undergraduate students in the field of telecommunication). The results and discussions will appear in chapters Four and Five.

Chapter Two Theoretical Framework

Taxonomy of Metadiscourse

Although non-propositional level could be independently examined from propositional, the line between these two is vague. Further, the use of metadiscourse is subject to multiple influences such as cultures, languages, disciplines and even the author’s view. These factors often make the identification and classification of metadiscourse difficult.

The existing ways of identifying and classifying include Williams (1981a) who classifies metadiscourse into three types, hedges and emphatics. His classification is performed along the lines of a degree of certainty and uncertainty, sequencers and topicalizers, assistant to gain a structural cohesiveness or a partial focus, as well as narrators and attributors, indicating a direct or indirect persona. In a similar fashion, Meyer (1975) comes up with four major categories, a) the specification of the structure of relations in the content structure, such as two problems exit, b) prospectively revealed information abstracted from content occurring later in the text, c) summary statements and d) pointer words. More recently, William has modified his into three broader types: advance organizers, connectives and interpersonal discourse, and shared some similarities with Meyer's.

A more practical approach for this paper is one of Ken Hyland, adapted from Crismore's to accommodate the way academic texts express, as it effectively characterizes the need of authors to address the conditions of adequacy and acceptability (K. Hyland, 1998). Similarly, the metadiscourse is categorized into textual and interpersonal.

The taxonomy of metadiscourse I adopt here is borrowed from the categorization employed by Ken Hyland (2005) by who distinguishes metadiscourse between textual and interpersonal and further illustrates their detailed functions and examples. Hyland’s focuses mainly on markers, as I have stated before in the Introduction section, to minimize function overlaps and allow each type to be more independently analyzed. A brief illustration of category, functions and examples can be noted in Table 1 (For a more detailed reference of the whole collection, see Appendix I).

Table 1 The classification of metadiscourse into textual and interpersonal levels

Quoted from Hyalnd (2005: 11)

Textual Metadiscourse (readability)

Textual metadiscourse refer to devices used to organize propositional content in ways that will be coherent and convincing for readers, that is, to improve readability. Five general devices are involved in this category according to Hyland (add year).

1. Logical connectives, chiefly conjunctions and adverbials and prepositional phrases, express semantic and logic relation between main thesis (in addition, but, therefore).
2. Frame markers straightforwardly refer to discourse changes or text stages. It may comprise sequence material (firstly, next,), point text stages (to conclude, in sum), voice discourse goals (aim, clarify) and indicate topic shifts (now, then).
3. Endophoric markers that are referential to information originating outside the current text, introduced by localizers (below, above) and names of non-linguistic aid.
4. Evidentials which in contrast to endophoric makers, refer to the source of information coming from other texts, such as, according to X, Y states, making an un-affective interaction with peers who is responsible for the viewpoints.
5. Code glosses, which explain or expand ideational material to facilitate readers to grasp its meanings (namely, in other words, e.g.).

Interpersonal Metadiscourse (acceptability)

Interpersonal metadiscourse refers to the markers that indicate emotional and ethical stance and make clear to the readers authors’ attitude towards both the text and the readers. That is, the authors convey their evaluation of the text as well as present an idiosyncratic and professional persona. This level of metadiscourse includes mitigators (alternatively known as hedges), emphatics, attitude markers, relational markers, person markers, indicating a degree of commitment, certainty and disciplinary deference. Hedges and emphatics assume the role of allowing readers to “co-participate” in the writing act. Examples of hedges are might, may and fuzzy adjectives and adverbials perhaps, possibly and of emphatics are definitely, of course, absolute.

Attitude markers are used to insert authors’ stance toward the text itself (agree, surprisingly). Relation markers indicate authors’ explicit efforts to involve the readers, the not least examples of which are you (the second person pronoun), frankly, etc. Relation markers sometimes interrupt the flow of discourse and invite the readers “in.” Person markers express the presence of authors and could be easily identified with worlds associated with the first person (I, we, my, mine, our, ours).

Here I illustrate how to identify textual and personal metadiscourse in extracts from Communication Systems, the sample textbook.

Suppose¹ next² that the local oscillator phase drifts from its³ proper value by a small angle X radians. The I-channel output will⁴ remain essentially⁵ unchanged, but⁶ there will⁷ now⁸ be some⁹ signal appearing at the Q-channel output, which is proportional to sin(x) for small X.

In this paragraph, all metadiscourse devices are underlined to distinguish from the propositional discourse. Textual metadiscourse includes words with superscripts 2, 3, 6, 8 while interpersonal with 1, 4, 5, 7, 9. To be more specific, suppose, with imperative pointing to second person, should be labeled as relation markers; will, some, with a sense of tentativeness, as hedges; essentially, otherwise, as an emphatic; next and now indicating a stage shift, its referring to local texts and but as a adversative conjunction are all text-oriented.

Taxonomy of Sub-texts

Dividing a text into sub-texts for analytical purposes has been practiced by many an author. In 1958, Toulmin defined five interrelated constituents of a scientific presentation as follows: the grounds, the warrant, the modality, the claim, and the rebuttal. Toulmin foreshadows latter practices of dividing an academic paper into Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion, each of which has its own distinctive communicative purposes. However, given the difference of textbooks form academic papers—textbooks are constructed not to dispute a hypothesis but to “tell knowledge”—Toulmin’s schema of division is not directly transferable. Maybe the introduction, results and discussion sections in textbooks bear similarities with those in academic papers; however, there are other parts of the textbooks that are not accounted for.

Here I classify textbook into seven subtexts on the basis of how ideational resources are developed within one chapter of a textbook: Introduction, Definition, Properties, Performance, Examples, Experiments, Summary and Discussion. Some can be straightly recognized by the titles or sub-title, whereas other chaotic parts are assigned names after I read them repeated for their style and communicative purposes. These types do not strictly follow conventional sections of an argument, but still perform their unique communicative functions.

Introduction parts are usually situated at the beginning of a chapter right below the chapter titles and the first section overtly titled with Introduction. Apparently, the objective of this sub-text is to show a general landscape of what will be uncovered next and to set a disciplinary background. Equations, illustration of theories, those items with specific details will not appear here.

Definition gives a restrictive standard to a new matter, which may be a phenomenon, a theory, a function, or a solution, whether it is devised by human or authentically exists in reality. Usually with great help of mathematical linguistics and visual aids, various approaches that could attain such objective involves illustration such as scientists’ generalizing of a phenomenon into a mathematic form, explicating terminology, identification requirement and so on. Content titled with Frequency Modulation, Time Multiplexing, are expected into Definition.

Property sections are clearly titled in textbooks and often describe the inherent features of a subject matter. The aim is to reinforce the knowledge and prepare students to put it into future practice.

The purpose of Performance is to testify quantitative or qualitative performance of a subject matter when employed in varied contexts. It is essentially the reciprocal relation between the matter and the medium. Content titled Nonlinear Effects in FM Systems, are expected into Performance.

Example is also apparently titled, aiming to provide concrete demonstration of a problem or illustrate a subject matter in a concrete context. Its ultimate effect is by setting a model to cultivate students’ capacity to solve problems independently. This part intends to be specific in order to offer students more guidance.

Experiment, as the name exhibits, it can be discernibly recognized as an integral part, often following all the position that has been argued. It meant to help students to accomplish a series of computer experiments beginning with theoretical basis to the practical operation.

Summary usually is located at the end of a chapter to sum the previous information and sometimes provokes students to think further about untouched upon or unsolved problems. This part only grabs the most important viewpoints without details of visual aids and mathematical language.

Chapter Three Methodology

Data Collection

This paper is based on frequency analysis of a corpus consisting of two parallel chapters extracted from Communication Systems written by Simon Haykins, which is published in the year of 2000 by leading publishers and widely used in the teaching of telecommunication.

It is a textbook used in a senior undergraduate English-medium course that emphasizes statistical underpinning of communication theories as well as its practical values. The textbook is widely diffused, intended for native speakers as well as ESL learners. As the format of the chapters (each contained seven subtexts identified above) are consistent throughout the book, two random chapters are extracted from this textbook, totaling 36362 words. However, we should note that, since the metadiscourse is viewed from a textual standpoint, all sections featured with fragments and irrelevant entries are omitted, such as problems, notes and reference and footnotes. For the convenience for calculation, insignificant textual assistance such as titles, subtitles, boldface and complex mathematical expression are neglected.

Data Analysis

The purpose of the quantitative analysis is to identify the frequency of each level of metadiscourse (textual and personal) in each of the subtext, that is, how many times does each metadiscourse marker appear within each 1000 words. I first compiled a reference table that includes all the rhetorical indicators identified from reading both the textbook and the literature (see Appendix 1), and started to calculate manually how many times each marker appear with the assistance of a computer program. I checked the calculation manually, in the process of which I might come across new rhetorical indicators that qualify as metadiscourse. I would add the new indicator to the table and start new round of calculation. In short, the analysis of frequency and the compiling of the table were mutually reinforcing and enriching. The results of the frequency analysis are reported in Table 2. It should be noted that the referential markers are not actually fixed and can be slightly varied due to tenses, classes and semantics.

All instances of metadiscourse markers are regarded equivalently regardless of their lengths. It means that as long as a marker appears, metadiscourse functions once.

Chapter Four Results

Since the individual writing styles of the authors, the background and age of the readers are already clear, I expect difference in distribution to be caused by the communicative purposes of the texts.

Overall, the quantitative analysis shows the significance of metadiscourse in these sub-texts, with an average of 119 occurance per 1000 word per text. Note that, the expression of devices due to a word count is not meant to represent the proportion of text formed by metadiscourse. Statistics here by and large display a tolerable outlook corresponding to previous empirical metadiscourse studies. Generally, the distribution of textual and interpersonal remains a stable proportion of 69% to 31%. It shows that the writer attaches no emphasis to a specific communicative purpose. The difference of total use is relatively insignificant, as Property has highest 141.6 instances per 1000 words and Introduction has lowest 97.7. All of sub-texts show a high proportion of logic connectives constituting around one third of total non-propositional discourse. Hedges, on the other hand, are favored most in all cases of interpersonal use except Example and Experiment. Interestingly, evidentials as reference to information from texts elsewhere are present in none of the subtexts, indicating a relatively self-closed style of the textbook plays.

Despite the general look of distribution, some obvious variations between rhetorical indicators still exist. Among these types, textual devices appear most frequently in Property and least in Introduction, whereas interpersonal forms are employed most in Property and least in Experiment. Apart from logic connectives, endophoric markers also play a pivot role in constructing discourse oriented at texts, but sometimes are not as significant as logic connectives. In contrast, frame markers and code glosses show minimal prominence in turn. While hedges are a dominant element in academic writing to express writer’s tentativeness, emphatics are most valued in Property. Also note that, in Example and Experiment, the frequency of person markers is significantly higher than hedges.

Chapter Five Discussion

Functions of Metadiscourse by Subtext

In light of the argument that the higher the frequency, the more writer’s intrusion into discourse, we can deduce author’s intrusion in each subtext. Nevertheless, quantitative results show that there is no considerable difference of individual intrusion in these texts performing distinct communicative purposes. Still, communicative proposes can be attained from either emphasis or neglect on varied categories.

Introduction is characterized by least use of endophoric markers, least of person markers, and least of total metadiscourse. Since Introduction is not designed for details, usually lacks elaborate explanation, non-verbal aids, there is less need to quote local sources. It can be inferred that this part maintains minimum intimacy to audience.

Moreover, it is clearly shown that Property with greatest writer’s intrusion exceling at both textual and interpersonal use. Certainly, Property enjoys most intrusive intentions with highest employment of frame markers, endophoric markers, code glosses, emphatics and attitude markers.

A major trait of Performance is its largest use of person markers. It is believed that this section is proposed to testify a familiar matter under a specialized condition and may allow more persuasiveness and guidance to audience. Although author attaches great importance to the interpersonal process, there is no advantage in developing text-reader relationship.

Example, unlike the rest, uses far more person markers than hedges. As mentioned before, it is in demand of more careful guidance, thus displays more mutual involvement and commitment. Experiment, peculiar to with least code glosses and most interpersonal forms, corresponds to the fact that it doesn’t need to broaden meanings but to help novices with practical assignments like an instruction.

Summary and Discussion, has no frame markers and relational markers and few attitude markers. The unusual frequency could be accounted for the fact that knowledge is already well-established.

Metadiscourse Features in the Textbook

After analysis based on data, more detailed metadiscoursal pattern could be traced from the real texts. Here are some examples extracted from each sub-texts containing both textual and interpersonal instances, since two types always occur without thorough separation.

In light of these introductory remarks, it is apparent that random processes have two properties. First, they are functions of time. Second, they are random in the sense that before conducting an experiment. (Definition)

Suppose now the random process X(t) is known to be strictly stationary. An implication of strict stationarity is that the probability of the set of sample functions of this process passing through the windows of Figure 1.3a is equal to the probability of the set of sample functions passing through the corresponding time-shifted windows of Figure 1.3b. Note, however, that it is not necessary that these two sets consist of the same sample functions. (Example)

剩余内容已隐藏，请支付后下载全文，论文总字数：44295字