AN ANALYSIS OF METADISCOURSE ON ANALYTICAL EXPOSITION TEXT

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Lecturer: Wiwik Mardiana, S.pd , M.Hum

By :

Miftakul Janah

NIM: 5.16.06.14.0.013

LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

MAJAPAHIT ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY

2019
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Theoretical Background

Language is widely used in many aspects. The main function of language is to

communicate. When the communication occurs, it is very important to make the language
used meaningful. The use of language is not only for communication in the form speaking,
but also in writing and reading in writing a text, the writer needs to make the readers “ get
into the text”. Here the role of metadiscourse is used.

Metadiscourse itself is the word, part of sentences, or expression that connects the
writer to the readers. It simply means how the writer can communicate with the readers
through his/ her writing. Metadiscourse markers help the readers organize, interpret, and
evaluate the information in a text. In addition, metadiscourse helps writers organize the
discourse in a way that improves the relation of a text by making the relationships between
different parts of the text.

Several definitions of metadiscourse have arisen among the scholars. Koople (1985),
who proposed the first model of metadiscourse, states that metadiscourse is the linguistics
element which does not add propositional content, but rather signals the presence of the
author in the text. Hyland (2005) says,” Metadiscourse is the linguistic expressions which
refer to the evolving text and to the writer and imagined readers of that text.” The use of
metadiscourse in the text is very important to construct the good text. Metadiscourse concept
is actually based on the social engagement. It represents the writer’s awareness of the text as
discourse (Hyland, 2005). Swales in Hyland (1997) links metadiscourse as those aspects of
the text which explicitly refer to the organization of the discourse or the writer’s stance
towards either its content or the reader. In short, metadiscourse is any element of a text which
explicitly organizes the contents, engages the readers and signals the writers’ attitude.

The theory of metadiscourse markers used in this paper is based on Hyland’s (2005)
model. The aim of this paper is investigating the use of both interactive and interactional
markers in writing a text of analytical exposition for one of the student from sixth semester
English Department UNIM (Majapahit Islamic University).
 Hyland (2005) applied the term metadiscourse markers to highlight the use of markers
in written form. He elaborated that writers use metadiscourse markers as a set of tool “to
negotiate interactional meanings in a text” (p. 37). They help the readers see the writer’s
perspectives. In his perspective, the use of metadiscourse markers encourages the relationship
between the writer and readers. For example, the function of attitude markers, such as
unfortunately and surprisingly, express the writer’s attitude toward the issues presented in the
text. He classifies metadiscourse markers into two categories, namely: interactive and
interactional dimension.
Hyland (2005) elaborated that the interactive dimension “concerns the writer’s
awareness of a participating audience and the ways he or she seeks to accommodate its
probable knowledge, interest, rhetorical expectations and processing abilities” (p. 49). The
resources in this dimension serve as tools to organize information which meets the readers’
need. Table 1 projects the five broad sub-categories of this interactive dimension which was
taken without modification from Hyland, 2005, p. 49.

Table 1: Interactive Categories of Metadiscourse Markers (Hyland, 2005, p. 49)

Category Function Examples

Transitions Express relation between main in addition; but; thus; and

clauses

Frame markers refer to discourse acts, sequences or finally; to conclude; my

stages purpose is
Endophoric markers refer to information in other parts of noted above; see Fig; in
the text section 2

Evidential refer to information from other texts according to X; Z states

Code glosses elaborate prepositional meanings namely; e.g.; such as; in

other words
 Another dimension proposed by Hyland (2005) is the interactional categories which
concern on how the writers present “interaction by intruding and commenting on their
message” (p. 49). There are five sub-categories of interactional dimension which was taken
without modification from Hyland, 2005, p. 49.

Table 2: Interactional Categories of Metadiscourse Markers (Hyland, 2005, p. 49)

Category Function Examples

Hedges Withhold commitment and Might, perhaps, possible,

open dialogue about

Boosters Emphasize certainty or close dialogue in fact, definitely, it is

clear that

Attitude Markers Express writer’s attitude to proposition Unfortunately, I agree,

surprisingly

Self-mention Explicit reference to authors I, we, my, me, our

Engagement markers Explicitly build relationship with Consider, note, you can
readers see that
CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION
CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION
REFERENCESS