Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
METADISCOURSE - Coggle Diagram
METADISCOURSE
METADISCOURSE RESOURCES
= resources not to discuss the content, but to "refer to the text, the writer or the reader"
2 main groups
Interactive strategies
those which are relevant to the text > to "visualize" the structural design and overall organization of the text (ex: a map that shows how a text is organized > through this you can get to the information you require)
to guide the reader through the text
Interactional strategies
to represent readers/listeners into the text
to engage/involve them in the text
INTERACTIVE RESOURCES
(guiding the reader through the text)
Transition makers
: express relations between main clauses (in addition, but, thus...); there are series of sequences that are helpful to go ahead with the text; these parts have to be connected > signaling additive, causative, constrative relationship between parts of the texts
Addition
(and, also, too...) > adding information
Alternative
(or, either...) > to introduce this kind of out relation between the two things
Comparison
(like, as if...) > we make sense to A through B
Condition
(if, unless, whether...) > presenting the first element as a condition of the second one
Logical cause-affect
(so, because, therefore...)
Logical contrast
(although, even if, but, nevertheless...)
Emphasis
(even, indeed...)
Time
(now, afterwards, then, when, whenever...)
Place
(here, above, below, next...)
Frame makers
: refer to a discourse act, sequence, stages (finally, to conclude, my purpose); signals elements of schematic text structure used to sequence, label, predict and shift arguments; they are meant to tell you what is the function of a portion of a text
to sequence parts (making additive relations): first, then, next, text numbering expressions (1, 2, 3...) or text labelling expressions (a, b, c)
to label text stages (we still start by saying, by way of introduction, to summarize the point, in sum...)
to predict/announce discourse goals (I argue here, my purpose is, the purpose of this paper, I hope to persuade, there are several reasons why...)
to indicate topic shifts (now, at this point, let us return to... well, right, ok...)
Endophoric markers
: refer to information in other parts of the text (noted above, see fig., in section X); references to earlier material or something to follow (see figure 2, refer to the next section, as noted above)
Code glosses
: elaborate propositional meanings (namely, such as, in other words...); reformulation of already expressed meanings
examples
paraphrase (in other words...)
Generalization (in syntesis, in sum...)
Explanation/specification (more specifically, namely, notably...)
denomination/definition (this can be defined as, this is called...)
comparison, simile, metaphore (like, such as...)
contrast (unlike)
Evidentials
: refer to the source of the information, used to emphasize the credibility of a claim (according to X, Y states that...)
INTERACTIONAL RESOURCES
(involve the reader in the text)
Ethos
: the author's textual persona or self-image (inclusive vs exclusive; assertive vs defensive; serious/institutional vs funny/ironic...)
Personalization
> we refer to first and second person (not the third because it is always referred to someone who is excluded from the dialogical setting > someone who is external)
FIRST PERSON
> though a personal/subjective perspective (I, me, my, mine + according to what I notice, in my experience...); but something using the first person, kind of disqualifies what we are saying > AVOID AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THE FIRST PERSON (mainly in Italian)
In English the first person is more frequently used than in Italian
one exception that is referred to verbs of judgement
it is legitimate to use the forst person when using quote verbs and verbs that refer to reporting and writing ("you are researching something and you just say what you have done")
you lexicalize yourself as someone that is researching not judging
through a plural noun (we) > also called the "
modesty we
" because it's like sharing the merit of your researches/of your work, with an ideal community
Exclusive
= we (authoritative group, "what we have found proves that") > the use of "we" which clearly proves out the interlocutor (writer and his work team) > you are not part of that we
Inclusive
= we (sharedness, "as we all know") > using this pronoun you kind of feel included > "as we will see" = "as I will see" (they mean the same)
SECOND PERSON/READER IN THE TEXT
Strategies: establishing common grounds with the reader and including him into the discussion (when I use them in speaking setting we clearly see our interlocutor; but in written texts is just me and my computer > there is no one else but I still use the second person because I want them to feel included)
SECOND PERSON
pronouns (as you will see, if you will, you never know...)
IMPERATIVES
(see, consider, note, imagine...) > I give you directions but I'm not there to verify you are really following my instructions
QUESTIONS
(textual function "in the light of above, why is that?"; evaluative function/rhetorical questions "are we really sure that...?") > they are used for 2 different purposes
TEXTUAL FUNCTION = when we ask questions is because a piece of information is missing > they are used to signal that some information is missing; they are constructed in a way, so that they lead you to think in a certain way, even if you have no idea what they are talking about
EVALUATIVE FUNCTION/RETHORICAL FUNCTION = they are not meant to specify that there is an informative gap, but they are meant to; instead of being neutral, you add a marked element of affirmation, that points to an answer of the opposite type
Modalization
: also called markers of "epistemic modality"; to balance "objective" information and subjective evaluation/interpretation, expressing
Confidence/certainty (on the reliability of your claim)
Caution/possibility (anticipating - hence neutralizing - possible criticism)
Underline some elements of skepticism
BOOSTERS
or
MARKERS OF CERTAINTY
can be represented by verbs like will, cannot, must, of course, obviously; it presupposes adressee's positive face
imply shared knowledge and exclude objections
adressee's role is passive; you are reenforcing the credibility of your claim
HEDGES - MARKERS OF UNCERTAINTY
(can , may, might, possible, probable, be likely, seem, suggest, appear...)
the content is presented as negotiable
the adressee has an active role in interpreting the meaning
Evaluation
> we have seen that through evaluation you express your own point of view about something