Volume 07 Issue 12 December 2024
1Salih M a hdi Adai, 2Abdullah Abbas Alwan
1Department of English Language/ Faculty of Education for Human Sciences/ University of Babylon;
2Department of English/ Faculty of Education for Girls/ University of Kufa;
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v7-i12-24Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
The present study seeks to provide explanations for the interactional metadiscourse markers in the Chapter of Maryam in Qur an It investigates how these interactional markers are distributed all along the verses in this Chapter and how the Quranic discourse implements these markers in order to create particular hints and remarks for the reader . It divides these markers into two categories of stance and engagement marke rs upon which some key conclusions and insights are built . A mixed method approach is used in order to authentically gather, analyze, and evaluate the interactional markers that are included within the Chapter of Maryan . The data collection method is a corpus based one, where computational procedures are utilized so as to point out the linguistic forms that count as interactional markers. The data analysis method is a discourse based one due to the discursive nature of the selected data and its contextual and multidimensional reflections that affect understanding the role of interactional markers Some key conclusions to draw are: first engagement markers which particularly include instructions, reader pronouns, and rhetorical questions, are identified in (11) samples out of the overall (21), which constitutes the majority of the presented data ; second the data demonstrates a remarkable covering of interactional metadiscourse marker s, which elevates the profoundness and participation of the divine messages it conveys third interactional markers bring attention to the function of Qur'an as a living literature that is intended to instruct, motivate, and guide .
KEYWORDS:metadiscourse , interactional markers , stance markers , engagement markers , the Chapter of Maryam
REFERENCES1) Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F., & Waller, D. (2019). Investigating the utilization of metadiscourse indicators by L2 authors at intermediate and advanced proficiency levels. System, 83, 79–95.
2) Bublitz, W. & Hübler, A. (editors) (2007). Application of Metapragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
3) Caffi, G. (2006). Metapragmatics. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (Second Edition). K. Brown (editor) Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 83-88.
4) Capar, M., & Turan, S. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse in essays of EFL students: Textual voices in scholarly writing. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(2), 328–345. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.759112
5) Çapar, M., & Turan, Ü. D. (2020). Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Articles Authored by Turkish and Native Speakers. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 10(1), 324–358.
6) Crismore, A. (1989). Engaging with Readers: Metadiscourse as a Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.
7) Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Engagement: Metadiscourse in Second Language Postgraduate Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw
8) Hyland, K. (2005). Position and involvement: A framework for interaction in scholarly discourse. Discourse Studies, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 173–192.
9) Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). Exploring Academic Voice: A Diachronic Analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, Volume 39, Issue 4, Pages 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw058
10) Jaworski, A., Coupland, N., & Galasinski, D. (Eds.). 2004. Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Viewpoints. Berlin: De Gruyter.
11) Jiang, FK & Hyland, K. (2016). Nouns and Academic Interactions: An Overlooked Aspect of Meta-discourse. Applied linguistics. 10.1093/applin/amw023
12) Shakir, M. H. (1996). The Qur'an: Arabic Text with English Translation. New York Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an
13) Thompson, G. (2001). Engagement in scholarly writing: Mastering the art of argumentation with the audience. Applied Linguistics, Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58
14) Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). An Examination of Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, volume 26, pages 82-93.
15) Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace (3rd ed.). Boston: Scott, Foresman.
