Writer–Reader Interaction: Investigating Interactional Metadiscourse in Advertisements from Arab Universities

(Aisha Saadi Al-Subhi)

---

Abstract

Nowadays, universities heavily rely on digital marketing and social media to recruit more students and to generate interest in their schools. Digital marketing and online advertising constitute a kind of interaction between writers and their potential readers. This paper explores how such an interaction is achieved by investigating a wide range of linguistic resources that writers use to express their stance toward the content in the text and toward the reader. A corpus of 80 academic advertisements from 38 universities, totaling approximately 2,118 words, was compiled and analyzed using Hyland’s (2005b) interactional metadiscourse. The corpus was searched manually for all categories of interactional metadiscourse, and all the reported cases were examined in context to ensure their validity. The results revealed a statistically higher frequency of engagement markers than stance markers. This extensive use of engagement markers, particularly directives and reader pronouns, is a strong indicator of a high degree of interactionality, personalization, and reader consideration. Universities use these engagement features to position themselves and their students in the world of academia and in the context of interaction, where they can successfully focus students’ attention, acknowledge their presence, and guide them toward achieving mutual goals.

KEYWORDS
Discourse analysis, advertising discourse, stance, engagement, persuasion, effective writing

PDF

References

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Aguilar, M. (2008). Metadiscourse in Academic Speech: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Bano, Z. and Shakir, A. (2015). Personal pronouns in “about us” section of online university prospectus. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(1), 133–9.
Biber, D. (2006). University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Constantinides, E. and Stagno, M.C. (2012). Higher education marketing: A study on the impact of social media on study selection and university choice. International Journal of Technology and Education Marketing, 2(1), 41–58.
Cook, R.G. (1992). The Discourse of Advertising. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Cook, R.G. (2011). Educational marketing: Coming down from the cloud using landing gear. In: U. Demiray and S. Sever (eds.) Marketing Online Education Programs: Frameworks for Promotion and Communication. Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States of America: IGI Global.
Dafouz-Milne, 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(1), 95–113.
Ewald, H.R. and Vann, R. (2003). ‘You’re a guaranteed winner’: Composing ‘You’ in a consumer culture. Journal of Business Communication, 40(2), 98–117.
Fu, X. (2009). The analysis of interpersonal pronouns in English and Chinese travel texts from a metadiscoursal perspective. Foreign Art Education, 4(n/a), 24–27.
Fu, X. (2012). The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies, 14(4), 399–417.
Fuertes-Olivera, P.A., Velasco-Sacristán, M., Arribas-Baño, A. and Samaniego-Fernández, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(8), 1291–307.
Gillaerts, P. and Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128–39.
Gray, B. and Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In: K. Hyland and C.S. Guinda (eds.) Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hui, K.L. (2009). Higher Education in a Globalised Market: A Comparative Discourse Study of University Prospectuses in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. Master’s Dissertation, Applied Linguistics, the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Hunston, S. (2004). Counting the uncountable: Problems of identifying evaluation in a text and in a corpus. In: M. Partington and L. Haarman (eds.) Corpora and Discourse. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in Text Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Hunston, S. (2013). Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. New York, United States: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (I999). Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In: C. Candlin and K. Hyland (eds.) Writing: Texts, Processes, and Practices. London, United Kingdom: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 215–39.
Hyland, K. (2002b). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–112.
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–77.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, United Kingdom: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–92.
Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interaction in research writing. English Text Construction, 1(1), 5–22.
Hyland, K. (2014). Introductory chapter: Dialogue, community, and persuasion in research writing. In: L. Gil-Salom and C. SolerMonreal (eds.) Dialogicity in Written Specialized Genres. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
Janoschka, A. (2004). Web Advertising: New Forms of Communication on the Internet. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Marković, J. (2013). Engagement markers in introductory textbooks. Communication and Culture Online, 5(4), 36–51.
Martin, J.R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In: S. Hunston, and G. Thompson (eds.) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J.R. and White, P.R. (2005). Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
McGrath, L. and Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161–73.
Moini, R. and Salami, M. (2015). Stance and Engagement discourse markers in journal’s “author guideline.” Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 34(3), 109–40.
Mühlhäusler, P. and Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Cambridge and Oxford, United Kingdom: Basil Blackwell.
Newman, C.M. (2002). The current state of marketing activity among higher education institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 12(1), 15–29.
Teo, P. (2007). The marketization of higher education: A comparative case-study of two universities in Singapore. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines, 1(1), 95–111.
Waite, B.C. and Wheeler, D.A. (2020). Social Media for Student Affairs in #HigherEducation: Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities. London, United Kingdom: Rowman and Littlefield.
Webber, P. (1994). The function of questions in different medical English genres. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 257–68.
White, P.R.R. (2003). ‘An Introductory Course in Appraisal Analysis,’ ‘An outline of Appraisal,’ and ‘Appraisal and the Resources of Intersubjective Stance’. Available at: https://www.grammatics.com/appraisal (accessed on 01/03/2008).
Yang, W. (2014). Stance and engagement: A corpus-based analysis of academic spoken discourse across science domains. Language for Special Purposes, 5(1), 62–78.