[1] Department of Languages, Mountain Top University, Prayer City, Ogun State, E-mail: meanana@mtu.edu.ng, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7484-7103
Abstract
Metadiscourse strategies in letters of appeals have the potentials of either allowing or denying students the opportunity to be given leniencies depending on how they are structured and used. This study investigates metadiscourse strategies in letters of appeal written to Students’ Disciplinary Committee by students, their parents or their guardians. Five (5) letters of appeal were purposively selected from the corpus of letters of appeal sent to the Students’ Disciplinary Committee (SDC) of Mountain Top University, Ogun State, Nigeria. This study adopts Sherif and Hovland (1961)’s Social Judgmental Theory and Hyland’s (2005) Interpersonal Model of Metadiscourse for data analysis. One of the major findings is that misuse of metadiscourse (especially attitude markers) rubs students the opportunity of being granted leniency where they would have been given such. The study, therefore, recommends that letters of appeal should not be written in a hurry; rather, writers should understand the components of the said letters before they present them for SDC’s consideration. Again, organizational policies of individual institutions should be understood by the writers of these letters. Writers are equally expected to understand how these letters should be written before they meticulously write and send them to SDC.
Keywords: metadiscourse strategies, letters of appeal, leniency, writers, Interpersonal model
References
Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: an indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies 4 (2), 139–145.
Abdi, R. Tavangar, R & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for use of metadiscourse, Journal of Pragmatics. 43(1669 –1679
Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 30(1), 1-16.
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia. John Benjamins.
Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97.
Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1-11.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019
Amiryousefi, M., & Rasekh, A. E. (2010). Metadiscourse: Definitions, Issues and Its Implications for English Teachers. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 159-167.
Burneikaitė, N. (2008). Metadiscourse in linguistics master’s theses in English L1 and L2. Kalbotyra, 59, 38-47.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang
Crismore, A., Markkanen, 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.
Gbolami, M, Ghaffar, T & Shokrpour, N. (2014). An investigation of metadiscourse in English medical texts and their Persian Translation Based on Hyland’s model. European Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 2(2) 1 – 41
He, A. W. (2017). Discourse analysis. The handbook of linguistics, 445-462.
Hui, J., & Na, B. (2008). Use of metadiscourse in allocating SLA learners’ attention. Sino-US English Teaching, 5, Whole No. 11.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. London: University of Hong Kong.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum: London.
————– (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of pragmatics, 113, 16-29.
Hyland, K, Wang, W, & Jiang, K. (2021). Metadiscourse across languages and genres: An overview. Lingua, 265(2),
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30.
—————- (2022). Metadiscourse: the evolution of an approach to text. An interdisciplinary Journal of Language, 1 -23 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363095209_Metadiscourse_the_evolution_of_an_approach_to_texts
Jensen, A. (2009). Discourse strategies in professional e-mail negotiation: a case study, English for Specific Purposes 28 (2009) 4–18
Karimi, M. N., & Asadnia, F. (2014). Metadiscourse Strategies and Citation Patterns as Resources of Authorial Identity in Research Articles across International/Local Journals and Applied Linguistics Sub-disciplines. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 33(1), 72-49.
Khedri, M., Heng, C. S., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse studies, 15(3), 319-331.
Kopple, W. J. V. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College composition and communication, 82-93.
Kuswoyo, H. & Siregar, R. A. (2019). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers as persuasive strategies in oral business presentation. Lingua Cultura, 13(4), 297 –304
Lawal, O. F. (2018). Interpersonal model of metadiscourse in sociolinguistic related undergraduate research project in Nigeria. In International Journal of Innovative Language, Literature & Art Studies 6(3): pp.1-13,
Luukka, M. (1994). “Metadiscourse in Academic Texts.” Text and Talk in Professional Contexts. Selected Papers from the International Conference “Discourse and the Professions,” Uppsala, 26-29 August, 1992. Eds. Gunnarsson, B-L., P. Linell & B. Nordberg. Uppsala: ASLA, The Swedish Association of Applied Linguistics. 77-88.
Massaabi, A. (2014). Metadiscourse and reading research articles (RA) in English by Tunisian Geography faculty. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1110–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2014.03.523.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric.: A Textlinguistic Study. Peter Lang.
Mauranen, A. (2001). “Reflexive Academic Talk: Observations from MICASE.” Corpus Linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium. Eds. Simpson, R. & J. Swales. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 165-178.
McCarthy, M., Christian, M., & Slade, D. (2019). Discourse analysis. In An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 55-71). Routledge.
Mirshamsi, A., & Allami, H. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master’s theses, 23 – 40
Musa, A., Hussin, S., & Ho, I. A. (2019). Interaction in Academic L2 writing: An analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Strategies in Applied Linguistics Research Articles. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 25(3).
Nordquist, R. (2018). What is metadiscourse? Thoughco. https://www.thoughtco.com/metadiscourse-writing-and-speech-1691381
Pandey, G. P. ( 2020). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstract: A case of M.Ed. English Majors. Nepal Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(2), 1 –17
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2006). “Signalling Speaker‟s Intentions: Toward a Phraseology of Textual Metadiscourse in Academic Lecturing.” English as a Glocalisation Phenomenon: Observations from a Linguistic Microcosm. Eds. Pérez-Llantada, C. & G. R. Ferguson. Valencia: University of Valencia. 59-88.
Prihodko, G. et al (2020). Strategies and tactics of evaluative discourse. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research: III International Scientific Congress Society of Ambient Intelligence 2020 (ISC-SAI 2020),129, 1 –7
Sharma & Sharma (2010). Linguistic discourse analysis: Introduction and structure. https://call-for-papers.sas.upenn.edu/node/39688
Shartiely, N. E. (2013). Discourse strategies of lecturers in higher education classroom interaction: a case at the University Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University).
Sherif, C. W., Kelly, M., Rodgers Jr, H. L., Sarup, G., & Tittler, B. I. (1973). Personal involvement, social judgment, and action. Journal of personality and social psychology, 27(3), 311.
Sukma, B. P. (2017). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers as persuasive strategies in Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign speeches. Aksara, 29(2), 283-292.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (2012). The importance of studying metadiscourse. Applied Research on English Language, 1(2), 37-44.