Pashto and English Newspaper Discourse Analysis Perspectives Based on Halliday’s Functional Grammar

Abdul Rahim Rahimi

doi:10.55544/ijrah.2.4.67

Authors

Abdul Rahim Rahimi Assistant Professor, Department of Pashto Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Herat University, AFGHANISTAN.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55544/ijrah.2.4.67

Keywords:

English and Pashto newspaper editorials, Meta-interpersonal function, Metadiscoursal markers, textual meta-function

Abstract

This investigation compares and contrasts the use of meta-discourse markers in Pashto and English newspaper editorials as persuasive texts. The aforementioned markers are textual components that serve Halliday's (1985) textual and interpersonal objectives while not adding to the propositional substance of the text. Whether metadiscoursal markers were used differently in English and Pashto newspaper editorials was the main research issue. The most prevalent markers from the five subcategories of Text Connectives, Illocution Markers, Hedges, Emphatics, and Attitude Markers were initially found in both English and Pashto newspapers. The frequency of appearance of these markers was then noted in a corpus of 34 editorials (15,000 words each) that were randomly chosen from a variety of English and Pashto newspapers. The significance of the total x2 obs was then demonstrated using a two-way chi square analysis. The null hypothesis of no difference was thus categorically refuted. In order to determine the relative contributions of each subcategory to the overall x 2 value, one-way chi square analysis were employed on the subcategories. Our results showed that only two of the marker subcategories were statistically significant. The many spirits that live in the communities under study are mostly to blame for this discrepancy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Abdi, R. (2000). Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in Social Science and Natural Science Research Article Discussion Sections. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Tehran, Iran, Tehran.

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2001). Native and Non-Native Writers’ Use of Textual Metadiscourse in ELT Papers. Unpublished Master‟s Thesis, University of Tehran, Tehran.

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2003). Interpersonal Metadiscourse in ELT Papers by Iranian and Anglo- American Academic Writers. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Multiculturalism in ELT practice at Baskent University, Turkey.

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2007). Writer’s Presence in Pashtoand English Newspaper Editorials. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Systemic Functional Linguistics in Odense, Denmark.

Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Atai, M. R. And Sadr, L. (2008). A Cross-Cultural Study of Hedging Devices in Discussion Section of Applied Linguistics Research Articles. TELL, 2 (7), 1-22.

Beigmohammadi, A. (2003). An Investigation into the Patterns of Use of Discourse Features of Intensity Markers in Academic Research Articles of Hard Science, Social Science, and TEFL. Unpublished Master‟s Thesis, University of Tehran, Tehran.

Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.

Crismore, A; and Abdollahzadeh, E. (2010). A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context. Nordic Journal of English Studies (NJES), 9 (2), 195-219.

Dafouz, E. (2003). Metadiscourse Revisited: A Contrastive Study of Persuasive Wiring in Professional Discourse. Estudiosingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11, 29-52.

Dafouz, E. (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, 95-113

DaftaryFard, P. (2002). Scalability of Reading Comprehension Skill Constructs: Metadiscourse Connection. Unpublished Master‟s Thesis, Iran University of Science and Technology.

Dastgoshadeh, A. (2001). Reading Comprehension of EFL Students Using Metadiscourse. Unpublished Master‟s Thesis, University of Tehran.

Davoodifard, M. (2006). A contrastive Analysis of Hedging in English and Pashtoresearch Articles: Linguistic and Cultural Variations across Languages and Disciplines. An Unpublished Thesis, University of Esfahan, Iran.

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.

Fuertes-Olivera, P.A; Velasco-Sacristan, M; Arribas-Bano, A; and Samiengo-Fernandez, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in Slogans and Headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1307.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Henning, G. (1986). Quantitative Methods in Language Acquisition Research. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 4.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 437-455.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 13, 133-151.

Le, E. (2004). Active Participation Within Written Argumentation: Metadiscourse and Editorial‟s Authority. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 687-714.

Steffensen, M.S; and Cheng, X. (1996).Metadiscourse and text pragmatics: How students write after learning about metadiscourse. In: L.F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning. Monograph Series: 7, (153-171). (ERIC Document Reproduction in Service No. ED 400 709).

Vergaro, C. (2002). Dear Sirs, What Would You Do if You Were in Our Position? Discourse Strategies in Italian and English Money Chasing Letters. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1211-1233.

Williams, J.M. (1981). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.