Textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in political discourse: A case study

Figures & data

Table 1. Textual metadiscourse categories

Macro-category	Subcategory	Examples
Logical markers Express semantic relationships between discourse stretches	-Additive -Adversative -Consecutive -Conclusive	and/furthermore/in addition/moreover …or/however/but … so (as a result)/therefore/as a consequence Finally/in any case …
Sequencers Mark particular positions in a series		first/second/on the one hand, … on the other …
RemindersRefer back to previous sections in the text		Let me return to/as was mentioned before …
TopicalisersIndicate topic shift		in political terms/in the case of the NHS …
Code glossesExplain, rephrase or exemplify textual material	-parentheses -punctuation devices -reformulators -exemplifiers	When (as with the Tories now) …Tax evasion: it is deplored in others butnot in oneself. in other words/that is/to put it simply …for example/for instance, …
Illocutionary markers Explicitly name the act the writer performs		I propose/I hope to persuade …
AnnouncementsRefer forwards to future sections in the text		there are many good reasons/as we’ll see later …

Table 2. Interpersonal metadiscourse markers

Macro-category	Subcategory	Examples
Hedges Express partial commitment to the truth-value of the text	Epistemic verbs Probability adverbs Epistemic expressions	May/might /it must be two o’clock Probably /perhaps/maybe It is likely
Certainty markers Express total commitment to the truth-value of the text		Undoubtedly/clearly/certainly
Attributors Refer to the source of information		“x” claims that … /As the Prime Minister remarked
Attitude markers Express writers’ affective values towards text and readers	Deontic verbs Attitudinal adverbs Attitudinal adjectives Cognitive verbs	Have to/we must understand/needs to Unfortunately/remarkably/ pathetically It is absurd/it is surprising I feel/I think/I believe
Commentaries Help to establish reader-writer rapport through the text	Rhetorical questions Direct address to reader Inclusive expressions Personalisations Asides	What is the future of Europe, integration or disintegration? You must understand, dear reader We all believe/let us summarise What the polls are telling me/ I do not want Diana (ironically for a Spencer) was not of the Establishment

Table 3. Mai’s (2016) classification of the persuasive functions of metadiscourse markers

Metadiscourse markers contributing to logical appeal (Loges)
Transition markers: items that make explicit pragmatic connections between steps in an argument. This category comprises of additive, contrastive, and consecutive markers. Frame markers: items that signal text boundaries or elements of schematic text structure. Code glosses: items that are used for explanation and examples. They are used to ensure that the reader or listener is able to recover writer’s intended meaning.
Metadiscourse markers contributing to credible appeal (Ethos)
Boosters: items that emphasize certainty or close dialogue. Boosters suggest that the writer or speaker recognizes potentially diverse positions but has chosen to narrow this diversity and express their certainty in what they say. Hedges: items that withhold commitment and open dialogue. They emphasize that the statement is based on the writer or speaker’s reasoning rather than certain knowledge. Evidentials: items that indicate the sources of information, which guide the readers’ interpretation and establish an authoritative command of the subject. Self-mentions: items that refer to the degree of explicit author presence in the text. They feature self-references and self-citations.
Metadiscourse markers contributing to affective appeal (pathos)
Attitude markers: items that express writer or speaker’s affective evaluation to proposition. Engagement markers: items that explicitly address readers, either to focus their attention or include them as discourse participant.

Table 4. Frequency and percentage of textual metadiscourse markers

Macro-category	Subcategory	Frequency (Percentage)	Frequency/1000 words
Logical markers	-Additive -Adversative -Consecutive -Conclusive	419 (47.6%) 94 (10.6%) 54 (6.1%) 4 (0.45%)	41.29 9.26 5.32 0.39
Total		571 (64.9%)	56.27
Sequencers		22 (2.5%)	2.16
Reminders		11 (1.3%)	1.08
Topicalisers		41 (4.6%)	4.04
Code glosses	-parentheses -punctuation devices -reformulators -exemplifiers	0 (0%) 0 (0%) 24 (2.7%) 18 (2%)	0 0 2.36 1.77
Total		42 (4.8%)	4.13
Illocutionary markers		92 (10.5%)	9.06
Announcements		100 (11.4%)	9.85
Total		879 (100%)	86.62

Table 5. Frequency and percentage of interpersonal metadiscourse markers

Macro-category	Subcategory	Frequency (Percentage)	Frequency/1000 words
Hedges	Epistemic verbs Probability adverbs Epistemic expressions	95 (8.7%) 14 (1.2%) 7 (0.64%)	9.36 1.37 0.68
Total		116 (10.6%)	11.43
Certainty markers		51 (4.6%)	5.02
Attributors		0 (0%)	0
Attitude markers	Deontic verbs Attitudinal adverbs Attitudinal adjectives Cognitive verbs	49 (4.4%) 9 (0.82%) 33 (3%) 71 (6.5%)	4.82 0.88 3.25 6.99
Total		162 (14.9%)	15.96
Commentaries	Rhetorical questions Direct address to reader Inclusive expressions Personalisations Asides	23 (2.1%)) 132 (12%) 349 (31.9%) 258 (23.6%) 0 (0%)	2.26 13.00 34.39 25.42 0
Total		762 (69.8%)	75.09
Total		1091 (100%)	107.51

Table 6. Classification and statistical description of metadiscourse markers and their persuasive effect

	Metadiscourse marker	Frequency (Percentage)	Frequency/1000 words
Markers contributing to logical appeal (logos)	Logical Markers	571 (28.9%)	56.27
	Sequencers	22 (1.1%)	2.16
	Reminders	11 (0.5%)	1.08
	Topicalisers	41 (2%)	4.04
	Code Glosses	42 (2.1%)	4.13
	Announcements	100 (5%)	9.85
Total		787 (39.9%)	77.55
Markers contributing to credible appeal (Ethos)	Hedges	116 (5.8%)	11.43
	Certainty markers	51 (2.5%)	5.02
	Personalisations/ self-mention	258 (13.0%)	25.42
	Attributers	0 (0%)	0
Total		425 (21.6%)	41.88
Markers contributing to effective appeal (Pathos)	Commentaries/Engagement	504 (25.5%)	49.66
	markers	162 (8.2%)	15.96
	Attitude Markers Illocutionary markers	92 (4.6)	9.06
Total		758 (38.5%)	74.70
Total		1970 (100%)	194.14

Mai, H. (2016). An intercultural analysis of meta-discourse markers as persuasive power in Chinese and American political speeches. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 4(6), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20160406.13

 Google Scholar