تحلیل نشانه‌های فراگفتمانی در آثار کودک و نوجوان «هوشنگ مرادی کرمانی» در بازۀ زمانی 1350-1400 بر اساس انگاره هایلند (2005)
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهشهای ادبیات معاصر ایران
ساناز دقت
1
(دانشجوی دکتری زبان‌شناسی همگانی، واحد مرودشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مرودشت، ایران )
محمدحسین شرف زاده
2
(استادیار گروه زبان‌شناسی، واحد مرودشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مرودشت، ایران )
لیلا صابری
3
(استادیار گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد مرودشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مرودشت، ایران )
زهرا رستگار حقیقی شیرازی
4
(استادیار گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد مرودشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مرودشت، ایران )
کلید واژه: فراگفتمان, فراگفتمان تعاملی, فراگفتمان تقابلی, هوشنگ مرادی کرمانی, ژانر ادبی,
چکیده مقاله :
فراگفتمان، نگرشی جدید در تحلیل کلام است که در بردارنده مشخصه‌های انسجامی و بینافردی است و به ایجاد ارتباط میان متن و بافت حاوی این اطلاعات با هدف برقراری ارتباط با مخاطب، ساماندهی متن و تفسیر آن از سوی مخاطب کمک می‌کند. به‌رغم اهمیت بررسی عناصر فراگفتمان به صورت تاریخی، متأسفانه تحقیقات اندکی وجود دارد که این عناصر را به صورت تاریخی به‌ویژه در ژانر ادبی تحلیل کرده باشد. از اینرو هدف پژوهش حاضر، بررسی ترازمانی کاربرد نشانگرهای فراگفتمان تعاملی و تقابلی در آثار کودک و نوجوان هوشنگ مرادی کرمانی، نویسنده صاحب‌نام این حوزه، در بازه زمانی 1350 تا 1400 بر اساس انگاره هایلند (2005) است. بدین منظور، بازه زمانی موردنظر را به پنج دهه تقسیم‌بندی کردیم و توزیع نشانگرهای فراگفتمان را به روش دستی و با استفاده از نرم‌افزار واژه‌نگار انت کانک شناسایی و استخراج کردیم. تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها به کمک آزمون آماری کندال نشان داده است که با گذشت زمان، عناصر فراگفتمان تعاملی افزایش یافته، در حالی که عناصر فراگفتمان تقابلی کاهش یافته‌اند. این امر گویای این حقیقت است که برای بیان نگرش، نظرها و تعهد خود نسبت به متون و همچنین درگیرسازی بیشتر مخاطبان در متن، داستان‌نویسان در گذر زمان بیشتر از نشانگرهای تعاملی استفاده می‌کنند و در نتیجه آن، متون ادبی به سمت‌وسوی شخصی‌تر شدن و خوانندهپسند‌‌تر شدن در حرکت است.
The present research analyzes the metadiscourse markers in the works of Houshang Moradi Kermani, one of the prominent authors of children and young adult literature.It examines the trend of changes in these markers over the period from 1971 to 2021.This study, based on Hyland's (2005) model of metadiscourse, investigates the interactional and interactive metadiscourse markers in Moradi Kermani's works over five decades.The research method is descriptive-analytical, and the data were extracted using the AntConc software.Statistical analysis of the data using Kendall's test shows that over time, the use of interactional metadiscourse elements in Kermani's works has increased, while interactive elements have decreased.This trend indicates the author's effort to strengthen the connection with the reader and personalize literary texts over time.The results of this study can contribute to a better understanding of the rhetorical changes in children's and young adults' literature and show how authors in this field adapt their writing style to cultural and social changes.
Introduction
The oldest and most valuable text in which metadiscourse markers can be studied is the works of Houshang Moradi Kermani.Metadiscourse arises from the need to establish more effective communication between the author and the reader, and as such, it has become one of the important elements in text analysis.In these works, metadiscourse markers are a clear indication of how the author uses linguistic and rhetorical tools to strengthen their connection with readers and effectively convey their ideas.This research aims to answer the question of how historical and cultural changes in Moradi Kermani's works have affected the distribution and function of metadiscourse elements and how these changes have contributed to the reader-friendliness of his texts.Examining this issue can provide a new model of the author's interaction with the reader and the role of metadiscourse in improving the quality of communication in children and adolescents' literature.This research hypothesizes that Moradi Kermani's works, through the intelligent use of metadiscourse, have succeeded in creating a deeper and more effective connection with the audience.
Literature Review
Hyland and Jiang (2018) conducted a historical study on the markers of interactive and oppositional metadiscourse over fifty years in the top journals of four disciplines and found that there has been a significant increase in the frequency of oppositional metadiscourse markers and a noticeable decrease in the distribution of interactive metadiscourse markers over these fifty years in the journals.The markers of oppositional metadiscourse aim to organize and define the boundaries of the text to ensure that readers can more easily retrieve and understand the author's interpretations and objectives in the scientific discourse, and authors of scientific texts use these markers to guide their audience.
Rezaei Keramati et al. (2019) conducted a study on the markers of interactive metadiscourse in three leading journals of applied linguistics.To analyze the historical evolution of stance and engagement markers, the subcategories of interactive metadiscourse in different sections of research articles (introduction, methodology, discussion, and conclusion) were examined using Hyland's (2005b) model.The findings indicate a significant decrease in the frequency of interactive metadiscourse markers in all sections of the articles.This decrease is generally related to the reduction of stance markers in the conclusion and methodology sections.As previously mentioned, the scope of this research pertains to the analysis of scientific texts (research articles) and does not include literary genres or stories.
Bagheri (2020) conducted a study on the historical evolution of interactive and oppositional metadiscourse markers in doctoral dissertations in the fields of hard sciences and soft sciences over three time periods: 1966, 1986, and 2016, based on Hyland's (2005) theory.The findings show that interactive metadiscourse (stance and engagement) has decreased in soft sciences and increased in hard sciences.This indicates that in soft sciences, academic writing is moving towards neutrality, impartiality, and greater responsibility towards the reader, i.e., more reader-oriented and less persuasive, and in hard sciences, scientific discourse is moving towards greater persuasiveness and reader-friendliness.This research also focuses on scientific discourse (doctoral dissertations) and does not include literary genres or stories.
Liu and Yang (2021) conducted a study based on Hyland's model to examine interactive and oppositional metadiscourse in 240 research articles in hard sciences (mechanical engineering and physics) and soft sciences (education and history) over sixty years.They found that metadiscourse markers have generally shown a declining trend over time.This has been accompanied by a noticeable increase in oppositional markers and a significant decrease in interactive markers, indicating that authors in scientific texts tend to use more oppositional metadiscourse and less interactive metadiscourse over time to write clearer and more convincing texts and adopt a more objective and scientific approach.This study, like previous research, pertains to the analysis of research articles and scientific texts.
Theoretical Framework
The term metadiscourse was first introduced by Harris (1959), referring to the author's or speaker's efforts to ensure the audience's understanding of the spoken text.Metadiscourse serves as an important tool for facilitating communication, supporting the author's position, and engaging the reader (see Hyland, 2015).To analyze the metadiscourse elements in the scope of this research, Hyland's (2005) theory was used because his classification is new, clear, and comprehensive (see Abdi et al., 2010).As shown in Table 1, this theory has two dimensions: interactional and interactive.
Table 1 - Subcategories of Interactional and
interactive Metadiscourse
|
Metadiscourse |
|
|
Interactional |
Interactive |
|
Attributes |
Stance markers |
|
Hedges |
Endophoric markers |
|
Boosters |
Frame markers |
|
Engagement markers |
Evidentials |
|
Self-mentions |
Transitions |
Markers of interactive metadiscourse are used to organize the information present in the text and guide the reader through it.On the other hand, markers of interactional metadiscourse are used to engage with the reader and involve them in the text (see Hyland, 2005).Each of the subcategories of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers, briefly displayed in Table 2, has its specific function.
Table 2 - Hyland's (2005) Theory
|
Types of Metadiscourse |
Classification |
Function |
Example |
|
Interactional metadiscourse Establishing an effective connection with the reader |
Attitude markers |
Author's attitude towards the text |
Agree, very important, with surprise |
|
Self-mentions |
Explicit reference to the author's presence |
Author, I, we, researcher |
|
|
Engagement markers |
Addressing the reader explicitly |
You, pay attention, assume |
|
|
Boosters |
Indicating the speaker's degree of certainty about the statement |
Without a doubt, certainly, clearly |
|
|
Hedges |
Indicating the author's doubt about the statement |
Perhaps, almost, probably |
|
|
Interactive metadiscourseOrganizing information in a sentence and guiding the reader through the text
|
Transitions |
Connecting the sentences of the text |
But, moreover, therefore |
|
Frame markers |
Defining the boundaries of the text and providing a framework for elements |
First, second, as a result |
|
|
Endophoric markers |
Referring the reader to other parts of the text |
In the next section, below |
|
|
Evidentials |
Referring to information provided in other texts and attribution |
According to, as stated, as said |
|
|
Code glosses |
Providing further explanation about the meaning |
First, second, as a result |
Data Analysis
The data analysis revealed that in Houshang Moradi Kermani's children's and young adult literature from 1971 to 2021, the use of interactive metadiscourse markers increased while the use of interactional metadiscourse markers decreased.Interactive metadiscourse, which indicates the author's explicit presence and engagement with the audience, was increasingly employed over time, particularly through self-mentions and engagement markers.On the other hand, interactional markers like transitions, which help manage the flow of information in the text, were used less frequently.These changes suggest that Moradi Kermani gradually developed a stronger inclination toward creating a more personal and effective connection with his readers.
Conclusion
In this research, the role of metadiscourse in the works of Houshang Moradi Kermani in the field of children and young adult literature was examined.The results showed that Moradi Kermani extensively used metadiscourse markers, especially interactional markers, to establish an effective connection with his audience.The use of these markers has increased over time, while interactive markers have decreased.This tendency to use more interactional markers indicates the author's effort to engage the readers and create a more personal connection with them.
These findings contrast with the results of previous research in scientific discourse, which has moved towards less use of interactional metadiscourse and more use of interactive metadiscourse.
Keywords: Metadiscourse, Interactional Metadiscourse, Interactive Metadiscourse, Houshang Moradi Kermani, Literary Genre.
References
Abdi, R., Tavangar, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2010) “The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse”.Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1669-1679.
Aghayari, K. (1994) Introduction to children's and young adult literature.Tehran: Mahya.
---------------- (1996) Introduction to children's and young adult literature and criteria for book critique and review.Tehran: Saramad Kavosh.
Ahangari, S.& Kazemi, M. (2014) “A Content Analysis of ‘Alice in Wonderland’ Regarding Metadiscourse Elements”.International Journal of Applied Linguistics and 76 IJALEL 8 (3): 66-77 English Literature.3 (3) 10-18.https: //doi.org/10.7575/ aiac.ijalel.v.3n.3p.10
Aljazrawi, D.A., &Aljazrawi Z, A.(2019) “The use of metadiscourse: an analysis of interactive and interactional markers in English short stories as a type of literary genre”.International journal of applied linguistics and English literature, 8 (3), 66.
Amouzadeh Khalili, F. (2002) A descriptive dictionary of young adult fictional characters (Vol.2) Tehran: Aftabgardan.
Anthony, L. (2011) AntConc 4.2.0.http: //www.Laurenceanthony.net/software.html
Bagheri, F.(2020) A Diachronic Study of Metadiscourse in Doctoral Dissertations (Doctoral dissertation, Wuhan University (People's Republic of China)).
Deng, L., Fatemeh, B., & Gao, X.(2021) “Exploring the interactive and interactional metadiscourse in doctoral dissertation writing: A diachronic study”.Scientometrics, 126 (8), 7223-7250.
Gillaerts, P.(2014) Shifting metadiscourse: Looking for diachrony in the abstract genre.In M.Bondi & R.Lores Sanz (Eds.), Abstract in academic discourse: Variation and change (pp.271-286) Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F.(2010) “Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts”.Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9 (2), 128-139.
Harris, Z.(1959) The transformational Model of language structure.Anthropological Linguistics.1: 1.27-29.
Hyland, K. (2004) Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing.Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
-------------- (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring writing in interaction, London, Continuum.
-------------- (2005b) stance and engagement: A MODEL OF interaction in academic discourse, discourse studies, 7 (2), PP. 173-192.
------------ (2015) Metadiscourse.In Tracy, K.(ed) International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction.Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016) Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance.Written Communication, 33 (3), 251-274.
---------------------------- (2018) “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse.English for Specific Purposes, 51, PP. 18-30.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P.(2004) Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal.Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 156-177.
Khani, R., & Changizi, M. (2016) Comparison of metadiscourse markers in international and domestic English journals (Case study: Articles in applied linguistics), Language Research (Humanities), 8(18), PP. 77-102.
Kouhi, D., & Mojoud, M. (2012) A contrastive study of metadiscourse in Persian and English newspaper editorials.Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 5(10), 137-162.
Liu, G., & Yang, Y.(2021, May) A Diachronic Study of Multi-Disciplinary Metadiscourse in Research Articles.In 2021 the 6th International Conference on Distance Education and Learning (pp.121-132).
Merati, A.(2009) Examining the position of national and religious identity in children's and young adult poetry [Unpublished master's thesis].Payame Noor University of Qazvin.
Moradi Kermani, H. (1979) Majid's stories.Tehran: Moein.
------------------------ (1980) The carpet weaving house children.Tehran, Moein.
------------------------ (1982) The palm tree.Tehran: Sahab.
------------------------ (1989) The jar.Tehran: Moein.
------------------------ (1992) Fist on skin.Tehran: Moein.
------------------------ 1994) The oven.Tehran: Moein.
------------------------ (1996) Mom's guest.Tehran: Ney.
------------------------ (1998) Sweet jam.Tehran: Moein.
------------------------ (1999) Pomegranate's smile.Tehran: Moein.
------------------------ (2003a) Like a full moon.Tehran: Moein.
------------------------ (2003b) Neither wet nor dry.Tehran: Moein.
------------------------ (2007) Rice and stew.Tehran: Moein.
------------------------ (2009) Soft pillow.Tehran: Moein.
------------------------ (2012) Water reservoir.Tehran: Moein.
------------------------ (2019) Teaspoon.Tehran: Moein.
Mostafavi, M.& Tajalli, G.(2012) Metadiscoursal Markers in Medical and Literary Texts.International Journal of English Linguistics.2 (3) 64.
Rezaei Keramati, S., Kuhi, D., & Saeidi, M.(2019) Cross-sectional diachronic corpus analysis of stance and engagement markers in three leading journals of applied linguistics.Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 6 (2), 1-25.
Soltani, R., & Shokrpour, N.(2021) The status of metadiscourse markers use in Iranian medical articles: A comparative study.Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, 31(196), 92-100.
آقایاری، خسرو (1373) آشنایی با ادبیات کودکان و نوجوانان، تهران، محیا.
----------- (1375) آشنایی با ادبیات کودکان و نوجوانان و معیارهای نقد و بررسی کتاب، تهران، سرآمد کاوش.
خانی، رضا و مهسا چنگیزی (1395) «مقایسة نشانه‌های فراگفتمان در مجلات انگلیسی بین¬المللی و داخلی (مطالعة موردی: مقالات حوزة زبان‌شناسی کاربردی)»، زبان¬پژوهی (علوم انسانی)، سال هشتم، شماره 18، صص 77-102.
سلطانی، رحمت¬الها و نسرین شکرپور (1400) «وضعیت استفاده از نشانگرهای فراگفتمان در مقالات پزشکی ایران: مطالعه‌ای تطبیقی»، مجله دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مازندران (نامه دانشگاه)، سال سی¬ویکم، شماره 196، صص 92-100.
عموزاده خلیلی، فریدون (1381) فرهنگ توصیفی شخصیت‌های داستانی نوجوان، جلد دوم، تهران، آفتابگردان.
کوهی، داوود و منیژه موجود (1391) «بررسی مقابله‌ای فراگفتمان در بخش سرمقاله روزنامه‌های فارسی و انگلیسی»، مجله آموزش و کاربرد زبان انگلیسی، سال پنجم، شماره 10، صص 137-162.
مرآتی، ابوالفضل (1388) بررسی جایگاه هویت ملی و دینی در شعر کودك و نوجوان، پایان‌نامه کارشناسی¬ارشد رشته زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، استاد راهنما: منصور پیرانی، دانشگاه پیام‌نور قزوین.
مرادی کرمانی، هوشنگ (1358) قصه‌های مجید، تهران، معین.
------------------- (1359) بچه‌های قالی‌باف‌خانه، تهران، معین.
------------------- (1361) نخل، تهران، سحاب.
------------------- (1368) خمره، تهران، معین.
------------------- (1371) مشت بر پوست، تهران، معین.
------------------- (1373) تنور، تهران، معین.
------------------- (1375) مهمان مامان، تهران، نی.
------------------- (1377) مربای شیرین، تهران، معین.
------------------- (1378) لبخند انار، تهران، معین.
------------------- (1382) مثل ماه شب چهارده، تهران، معین.
------------------- (1382) نه تر نه خشک، تهران، معین.
------------------- (1386) پلوخورش، تهران، معین.
------------------- (1388) نازبالش، تهران، معین.
------------------- (1391) آب‌انبار، تهران، معین.
------------------- (1398) قاشق چایخوری، تهران، معین.
Abdi, R., Tavangar, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2010) “The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse”. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1669-1679. Ahangari, S. & Kazemi, M. (2014) “A Content Analysis of ‘Alice in Wonderland’ Regarding Metadiscourse Elements”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and 76 IJALEL 8 (3):66-77 English Literature. 3 (3) 10-18. https://doi.org/10.7575/ aiac.ijalel.v.3n.3p.10 Aljazrawi, D.A., &Aljazrawi Z, A (2019) “The use of metadiscourse: an analysis of interactive and interactional markers in English short stories as a type of literary genre”. International journal of applied linguistics and English literature, 8 (3), 66. Anthony, L. (2011) AntConc 4.2.0. http://www.Laurenceanthony.net/software.html Bagheri, F. (2020) A Diachronic Study of Metadiscourse in Doctoral Dissertations (Doctoral dissertation, Wuhan University (People's Republic of China)). Deng, L., Fatemeh, B., & Gao, X. (2021) “Exploring the interactive and interactional metadiscourse in doctoral dissertation writing: A diachronic study”. Scientometrics, 126 (8), 7223-7250. Gillaerts, P. (2014) Shifting metadiscourse: Looking for diachrony in the abstract genre. In M. Bondi & R. Lores Sanz (Eds.), Abstract in academic discourse: Variation and change (pp. 271-286) Switzerland: Peter Lang. Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010) “Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9 (2), 128-139. Harris, Z. (1959) The transformational Model of language structure.Anthropological Linguistics. 1:1.27-29. Hyland, K. (2004) Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
-------------- (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring writing in interaction. London: Continuum.
------------ (2005b).stance and engagement : A MODEL OF interaction in academic discourse .discourse studies ,7 (2) ,173-192.
------------ (2015) Metadiscourse. In Tracy, K. (ed) International Encyclopedia of Language and Social interaction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016) Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33 (3), 251-274.
---------------------------- (2018) “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004) Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 156-177.
Liu, G., & Yang, Y. (2021, May) A Diachronic Study of Multi-Disciplinary Metadiscourse in Research Articles. In 2021 the 6th International Conference on Distance Education and Learning (pp. 121-132).
Mostafavi, M. & Tajalli, G. (2012) Metadiscoursal Markers in Medical and Literary Texts. International Journal of English Linguistics. 2 (3) 64.
Rezaei Keramati, S., Kuhi, D., & Saeidi, M. (2019) Cross-sectional diachronic corpus analysis of stance and engagement markers in three leading journals of applied linguistics. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 6 (2), 1-25.