|  e-ISSN: 2757-5772

Original article | Innovational Research in ELT 2022, Vol. 3(1) 45-57

An ESP Approach to a Metadiscursive Analysis of Political Science’s Corpus

Shi̇va Sabbagh Shabestari̇ & Reza Abdi̇

pp. 45 - 57   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/irelt.2021.449.5   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2204-25-0004

Published online: June 30, 2022  |   Number of Views: 29  |  Number of Download: 537


Discursive study of corpus has been one of the keys to comprehend and employ accurate and authentic language. Metadiscourse is a rather tangible dimension of discourse to English learners. This study investigates the political science’s corpus in terms of interactional metadiscursive markers based on Hyland’s (2005) model of metadiscourse. For this aim, inaugural speeches and official oaths of office related to seven English speaking countries were collected and analyzed. The statistical and analytical results suggest that despite a few similarities in some cases, the general employment of metadiscursive markers differs significantly across cultures. This study can help ESP learners of Politics and related majors become more conscious of metadiscourse and improve practical awareness of its use. It also can better prepare them  to achieve a higher level of understanding in the target language situation. Although this study can provide a general view towards the discursive nature of political discourse for ESP students, the results imply that a mere generalization and ignoring the salient distinctions should be avoided for an accurate comprehension of political discourse

Keywords: Inaugural speech, metadiscourse, oath of office, political science, political speech

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Shabestari̇, S.S. & Abdi̇, R. (2022). An ESP Approach to a Metadiscursive Analysis of Political Science’s Corpus . Innovational Research in ELT, 3(1), 45-57. doi: 10.29329/irelt.2021.449.5

Shabestari̇, S. and Abdi̇, R. (2022). An ESP Approach to a Metadiscursive Analysis of Political Science’s Corpus . Innovational Research in ELT, 3(1), pp. 45-57.

Chicago 16th edition
Shabestari̇, Shi̇va Sabbagh and Reza Abdi̇ (2022). "An ESP Approach to a Metadiscursive Analysis of Political Science’s Corpus ". Innovational Research in ELT 3 (1):45-57. doi:10.29329/irelt.2021.449.5.


    Abdi, R., Tavangar, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1669–1679.

    Abdi, R.  (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.

    Amoglobeli, G. (2017). Types of political discourses and their classification. Journal of Education in Black Sea Region,3(1), 18-24.

    Bantawig, R. (2019). The role of discourse markers in the speeches of selected Asian presidents. Heliyon, 5(3), 21–38.

    Candlin, C., & Hyland, K. (1999). Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices. London: Longman, 99-121.

    Capadevila, R.  (2008). It's not racist. It's common sense: A critical analysis of political discourse around asylum and immigration in the UK. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18(1), 1-16.

    Chen, W. (2018). A critical discourse analysis of Donald Trump’s inaugural speech from the perspective of systemic functional grammar. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(8), 966-982.

    Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M.  (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71.

    Curren,V., Kirby, F., Parsons, E., & Lockyer, J. (2003). Discourse analysis of computer mediated conferences in world wide web-based continuing medical education. The Journal of Computer-assisted Education, 23, 222-238.

    Dafouz, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal MDMs in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40 (1), 95-113.

    Esmer, E. (2017). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in Turkish election rally speeches. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 367-384.

    Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 5(11), 121-138.

    Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Psychology Press.

    Gibson, G. (2012). ‘I’m not a war monger but…’: Discourse analysis and social psychological peace research. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22, 159-173.

    Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R.  (2003). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Oxfordshire: Routledge.

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

    Hoffman, H. (1995). The Triumph of Propaganda: Film and National Socialism. Oxford: Berghahn Books.

    Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL text books, Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21-44.

     Hyland, K. (1998a). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), 349-82.

    Hyland, K. (1998b). Exploring corporate rhetoric: metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224-45.

    Hyland, K. (1998c). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-55.

    Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.

    Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge.  Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 241-67.

    Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.

    Hyland, K. (2002). Academic argument: Induction or interaction? Revista Canaria De Estudios Ingleses, 44, 29-45.

     Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and Invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.

    Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. New York: CUP.

    Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-51.

    Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and Second Language Writers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

     Hyland, K. (2005a). A Convincing Argument: Corpus Analysis and Academic Persuasion.  Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 6(2). 110-123.

     Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29.

    Hyland, K. & Milton, J. (1997).  Hedging in L1 and L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-206.

    Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–77.

    Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Ilie, C. (2000). Cliché‐based metadiscursive argumentation in the Houses of Parliament. International journal of applied linguistics, 10(1), 65-84.

    Jacobs, N. (2001). Information technology in scholarly communication: A discourse analysis. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(13), 1112-1133.

    Jalilifar, A. & Savaedi, Y. (2012). They want to eradicate the nation: A cross-linguistic study of the attitudinal language of presidential campaign speeches in the USA and Iran. Journal of Applied Language Studies, 4(2), 59-96.

    Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought pattern in intercultural communication. Journal of Language Learning, 1, 1–20.

     Koutsantoni, D. (2006) Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 19-36.

    Mahzari, A. & Maftoon, P.  (2007). A contrastive study of the introduction section of English and Persian medical research articles. Iranian Journal of Language Studies, 1 (3), 201-214.

    Maier, P. (1992). Politeness strategies in business letters by native and nonnative English speakers. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 189-205.

    Marandi,S. (2002). Contrastive EAP rhetoric: Metadiscourse in Persian vs. English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tehran.

     Markos, M. (2006). Interaction and Persuasion: An analysis of the use of rhetorical devices in Gordon Brown's speech to the Labour Party Conference. Unpublished Thesis, Dalarna university.

    Martin, J. R. & Rose, D.  (2003). Working with discourse. London: Continuum.

     Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.

    Mc Laren, P. & Mills, A. (Date?) I’d like to thank the academy: An analysis of awards discourse at the Atlantic school of business. The journal of Administrative Science, 25, 307-316.

    Nickerson, C.  (1993). A Comparative Study of Business Letters Written by Native and Non-Native speakers. Unpublished M.A. dissertation. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

    Panayirci, U. C. & Isleri, E. (2014). A content analysis of the AKP's “Honorable” foreign policy discourse: The nexus of domestic–international politics, Turkish studies, 15 (1). 97-106.

    Peterlin, A. P. (2005). Text-organizing metatext in research articles: An English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 307-319.

    Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage.

    Roth,W. & Lucas, K. (1996). From truth to invented reality: A discourse analysis of high school Phsycs student’s talk about science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 145-179.

    Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.

    Schäffner. C. (1997). Discourse and politics. A Multidiciplinary Introduction, 2, 206-30.

    Schiffrin, D.  (1980). Metatalk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction, 50, 199-236.

    Sheppard, S. (2009). What oaths meant to the framers’ generation: A preliminary sketch. Cardozo L. Rev. De Novo, 209, 273–283.

    Siami, T. & Abdi, R. (2012). Metadiscourse strategies in Persian research articles: Implications for teaching writing English articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 4(9), 165-176.

     Silver, M. (2003). The stance of stance: A critical look at ways stance is expressed and modeled in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 359-374.

     Swales, J.  (1990). Genre analysis: English for Specific Purposes in Academic and Research Setting. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Tashi, T. (2018). An analysis of interactional metadiscourse in public speaking: A case study in English speeches of the prime minister of Bhutan. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(4), 38-60.

    Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.

     Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. TEXT, 15(1), 103-27.

    Van Dijk, T., Ting Toomy, S., Smitherman, G., & Troutman, D. (1997). Discourse, Ethnicity, Culture, and Racism', in Teun A. van Dijk (ed), Discourse as Social Action. London: Sage.

    Yazadani, S. & Sharifi,S. (2016). Interactional metadiscourse in English and Persian news articles about 9/11. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 424-438.

    Zand Moghadddam, A., & Bikineh, L. (2014). Discourse markers in Political interviews: A contrastive study of Persian and English. International Journal of Society, Culture and Language, 3(2), 27-60.