Metapragmatics of academic written discourse

Open access

Abstract

The article focuses on the notion of metapragmatics in general, including three steps of metapragmatic analysis, and studies academic written metadiscourse in particular. Special attention is drawn to the delimitation of the main types of metacommunicative means, or meta-means, with an emphasis on their functional specifics in academic written discourse. The article concludes with a list of meta-means, which are most typical of this discourse type.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aryukhina E.G. (2006). Metacommunicative utterances that control the content side of the dialogue and the intent of utterances. Thesis for the candidate degree in philology. Speciality 10.02.04 – Germanic languages. Belgorod: University of the Russian academy of education. / Aryukhina E.G. Metakommunikativnyie vyskazyvaniya upravlyayuschiye soderzhatelnoj storonoj dialoga i intentsiej vyskazyvanij. Dissertatsiya na soiskaniye uchenoj stepeni kandidata filolologicheskikh nauk. Spetsial'nost' 10.02.04 – germanskiye yazyki. Belgorod: Universitet rossiyskoj akademii obrazovaniya. / Арюхина Е.Г. Метакоммуникативные высказывания управляющие содержательной стороной диалога и интенцией высказываний. Диссертация на соискание ученой степени кандидата филологических наук. Специальность 10.02.04 – германские языки. Белгород: Университет российской академии образования. Аvailable at: http://cheloveknauka.com/metakommunikativnye-vyskazyvaniya-upravlyayuschie-soderzhatelnoy-storonoy-dialoga-i-intentsiey-vyskazyvaniy#ixzz2nfFVViT4

  • Barron A. (2002). Acquision in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Bateson G. (1972 1987). Steps to an ecology of mind. Collected essays in anthropology psychiatry evolution and epistemology. San Franciso-London: Chandler.

  • Becker J.A. (1991). Preschoolers' active search for pragmatic knowledge. In Pragmatics at issue. Selected papers of International pragmatics conference. Antwerp August 17-22 1987. Verschueren J. (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company p. 1-12.

  • Blum-Kulka Sh. & Sheffer H. (1993). The metapragmatic discourse of American-Israeli families at dinner. In Interlanguage pragmatics. Kasper G. & Blum-Kulka Sh. (eds.). New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press p. 196-223.

  • Byelova A.D. (2002). The notions of “style” “genre” “discourse” and “text” in modern linguistics. In Bulletin of T. Shevchenko KNU. Series: Foreign linguistics. Kyiv: T. Shevchenko KNU 32-33 p. 11-14. / Byelova A.D. Ponyattya “styl”' “zhanr” “dyskurs” “tekst” u suchasnij linhvistytsi. In Visnyk KNU im. T. Shevchenka. Seriya: Inozemna filolohiya. Kyyiv: KNU im. T. Shevchenka 32-33 s. 11-14. / Бєлова А.Д. Поняття “стиль” “жанр” “дискурс” “текст” у сучасній лінгвістиці. In Вісник КНУ ім. Т. Шевченка. Серія: Іноземна філологія. Київ: КНУ ім. Т. Шевченка 32-33 с. 11-14.

  • Caffi C. (2009). Metapragmatics. In Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics. Mey J.L. (ed.). Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier p. 625-630.

  • Devkin V.D. (1981). Dialogue. German spoken speech in comparison with Russian. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola / Devkin V.D. Dialog. Nemetskaya razgovornaya rech v sopostavlenii s russkoj. Moskva: Vysshaya shkola / Девкин В.Д. Диалог. Немецкая разговорная речь в сопоставлении с русской. Москва: Высшая школа.

  • Dossena M. (2012). “I write you these lines”: Metacommunication and pragmatics in 19th-century Scottish emmigrants' letters. In Investigations into the meta-communicative lexicon of English. A contribution to historical pragmatics. Busse U. & Hübler A. (eds.). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins p. 45-63.

  • Fetzer A. (2014). Conceptualising discourse. In Pragmatics of discourse. Schneider K.P. & Barron A. (eds.). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton p. 35-61.

  • Geert J. (1999). Preformulating the news: The analysis of the metapragmatics of press releases. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Gnezdilova Ya. (2017). Autonomous metacommunicative lexicon and its specifics in manipulative discourse. In Lege artis. Language yesterday today tomorrow. The journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava. Warsaw: De Gruyter Open II (1) June 2017 p. 42-89. DOI: 10.1515/lart-2017-0002

  • Hübler A. & Bublitz W. (2007). Introducing metapragmatics in use. In Metapragmatics in use. Bublitz W. & Hübler A. (eds.). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins p. 1-28.

  • Hyland K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing. Michigan: The University of Michigan.

  • Hyland K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. In Applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press 28 (2) p. 266-285.

  • Ide R. (2009). Aisatsu. In Culture and language use. Senft G. Östman J.-O. & Verschueren J. (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins p. 18-28.

  • Ilchenko O. (2002). The etiquette of English scientific discourse. Kyiv: IVTsPolitekhnika / Il'chenko O. Etyket anhlomovnoho naukovoho dyskursu. Kyyiv: IVTsPolitekhnika / Ільченко О. Етикет англомовного наукового дискурсу. Київ: ІВЦПолітехніка.

  • Jacobson R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. Style in language. Cambridge-Massachusetts: MIT Press and Wiley.

  • Jensen K.B. (2011). Meta-media and meta-communication – revising the concept of genre in the digital media environment. In MedieKultur. Journal of media and communication research 51 p. 8-21.

  • Lempert M. (2012). Indirectness. In A handbook of intercultural discourse and communication. Paulston C.B. Kiesling S.F. & Rangel E.S. (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishin p. 180-204.

  • Lucy J.A. (1993). Reflexive language and the human disciplines. In Reflexive language. Reported speech and metapragmatics. Lucy J.A. (ed.). Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press p. 9-3.

  • Menzel K. & Degaetano-Ortlieb S. (2017). The diachronic development of combining forms in scientific writing. In Lege artis. Language yesterday today tomorrow. The journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava. Warsaw: De Gruyter Open II (2) December 2017 p. 185-246. DOI: 10.1515/lart-2017-0016

  • Mertz E. & Yovel J. (2009). Metalinguistic awereness. In Cognition and Pragmatics. Sandra D. Östman J.-O. & Verschueren J. (eds.). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins p. 250-271.

  • Mey J. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Parvaresh V. & Tavangar M. (2010). The metapragmatics of and everything in Persian. In Linguagem em (Dis)curso. Palhoca SC Brasil: Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina 10 (1) p. 133-150.

  • Povolna R. (2012). Causal and contrastive discourse markers in novice academic writing. In Brno Studies in English. Brno: Masaryk University 38 (2) р. 131-148.

  • Ruiz-Gurillo L. (2016). Exploring metapragmatics of humor. In Metapragmatics of humor. Ruiz-Gurillo L. (ed.). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins p. 1-8.

  • Selected writings of Joseph H. Greenberg (1990). Denning K. & Kemmer S. (eds.). Stanford California: Stanford University Press.

  • Shepitko S.V. (2014). Scientific via academic discourse: The problem of typology. In Bulletin of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series: Roman and Germanic philology. The methodology of foreign language teaching. Kharkiv: V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University 1102 p. 76-80 / Shepit'ko S.V. Naukovyj via akademichnyj dyskurs: Pytannya typolohii. In Visnyk Kharkivs'koho natsional'noho universytetu imeni V.N. Karazina. Seriya: Romano-hermans'ka filolohiya. Metodyka vykladannya inozemnykh mov. Kharkiv: Kharkivs'kyj natsional'nyj universytet imeni V.N. Karazina 1102 s. 76-80. / Шепітько С.В. Науковий via академічний дискурс: питання типології. In Вісник Харківського національного університету імені В.Н. Каразіна. Серія: Романо-германська філологія. Методика викладання іноземних мов. Харків: Харківський національний університет імені В.Н. Каразіна 1102 c. 76-80.

  • Silverstein M. (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In Reflexive language. Reported speech and metapragmatics. Lucy J.A. (ed.). Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press p. 33-58.

  • Sivenkova M. (2013). On the metapragmatics of British German and Russian political questions and answers. In The pragmatics of political discourse. Fetzer A. (ed.). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins p. 21-46.

  • Tannen D. (2002). Agonism in academic discourse. In Journal of pragmatics 34 (12) p. 1651-1669.

  • Trunova O.V. (2016). Linguistics. Academic discourse: Terminological dissonances. In TSPU Bulletin. Tomsk: Tomsk State Pedagogical University 6 (171) р. 61-65. / Trunova O.V. Lingvistika. Akademicheskij diskurs: Terminologicheskie dissonansyi. In Vestnik TGPU. Tomsk: Tomskij gosudarsvennyj pedagogicheskij universitet 6 (171) s. 61-65. / Трунова О.В. Лингвистика. Академический дискурс: терминологические диссонансы. In Вестник ТГПУ. Томск: Томский государсвенный педагогический университет 6 (171) c. 61-65.

  • Verschueren J. (2000). Notes on the role of “metapragmatic awareness” in language use. In Pragmatics 10 (4) p. 439-456.

  • Volkova L. (2017). Pragmatic markers in dialogue discourse. In Lege artis. Language yesterday today tomorrow. The journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava. Warsaw: De Gruyter Open II (1) June 2017 p. 379-427. DOI: 10.1515/lart-2017-0010

  • Watzlawichk P. Beavin J.H. et al. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 640 182 12
PDF Downloads 290 146 12