Document Type : Original Research Paper


1 M.A in Teaching Persian to Foreigners, Allameh Tabataba’i University.

2 Associate Professor in General Linguistics & Teaching Persian to Foreigners, Allameh Tabataba’i University.


The main goal of a writer, when he/she writes a text, is to draw the reader’s attention to the text, and to make them converge with it. Therefore, a reading text includes an interaction between the writer and the reader. This interaction in instructional texts leads to a better learning by the language learners.There are some markers in the reading texts that create an interaction between the writer and the reader,and lead to a better comprehensionbythe reader of the text he/she is reading and a more detailed understanding.The use of these interactional markers in texts is an undeniable necessity. This study investigates the frequency of using these markers in Persian and English written texts by native speakers of Persian and non-Persians within the Hyland’sInteractional Model (Hyland, 2005), and analyzes the method of interaction between the writer and the reader in 3 categories of scientific articles (Persian articles by native speakers of Persian,Persian articles by nonnative speakers of Persian, English articles by non-Persians).This study is both quantitative and qualitative. The analysis of the data shows that the highest use of interactional markers in the whole corpus is in “personal asides” and the lowest use is in “interrogative sentences”.Furthermore, having in mind that these markers are divided into “stance” and “engagement” markers, in the stance marker category in Persian articles by native speakers of Persian and English articles by non-Persians, the highest use of these markers includes the “hedges” and the lowest useincludes “attitude markers,” and in Persian articles by non-native speakers of Persian, the highest frequency of use is that of “boosters” andthe lowest, like the other two categories, is that of “attitude markers”. Also, in the engagement category, in Persian articles by native speakers of Persian and Persian articles by non-native speakers of Persian, the highest frequency of useis that of “personal asides” and the lowest is that of “directives,” and in English articles by non-Persians, the highest frequency of use, like the other aforementioned categories includes “personal asides” and the lowest includes “interrogative sentences.”


دایک، تئون آدریانوس ون. (1382). مطالعاتی در تحلیل گفتمان: از دستور متن تا گفتمان کاوری انتقادی (ترجمه: پیروز ایزدی و دیگران). ویراسته مهاجر، مهران و نبوی، محمد. تهران: وزارت فرهنگ و ارشاد اسلامی.
رضاقلی‌فامیان، علی (1393). موضع‌گیری و مشارکت‌جویی در مقالات نقد کتاب‌های ادبیات فارسی. مجله نقد ادبی، 7(26)، 49-66.
عبدی، رضا. و محمدی، شهرزاد (1392). تأثیر وجود شاخص‌های فراگفتمانی بر درک مطلب خواندن انگلیسی دانش‌آموزان دبیرستانی. مجله روان‌شناسی مدرسه، 2(2)، 93- 158.
علوی، سید محمد و عبدا.. زاده، اسماعیل (1382). استفاده نویسندگان بومی ایرانی و انگلیسی از فراگفتمان متنی در مقالات آموزش زبان انگلیسی. مجله پژوهش‌های زبان‌های خارجی، 15، 85-96.
مک دانل، دایان (1380). مقدمه‌ای بر نظریه گفتمان (ترجمه: حسینعلی نوذری). تهران: فرهنگ گفتمان.
یورگنسن، ماریان (1389). نظریه و روش در تحلیل گفتمان (ترجمه: هادی جلیلی). تهران: نشر نی.
Ansariyan, A. A., & Tarlani, H. (2011). Reader engagement in english and persian applied linguistics articles. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 154-164.
Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (2007). The practice of critical discourse analysis: An introduction. Great Britain, London: Hodder Education.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 15-44.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heng, C. S., & Tan, H. (2010). Extracting and comparing the intricacies of metadiscourse of two written persuasive corpora. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 6(3), 124-146.
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349-382.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing, Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. (2002b). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text, 22 (4), 529-557.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal if English for Academic Purposes, 9, 116-127.
Hyland, K., & Fu, X. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122-144.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Jalilifar, A., & Alipour, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Writing, 38(1), 35-52.
 Johnston, B. (2008). Discourse analysis. (2nd ed). Oxford: Blachwell.
Kuhi, d., & et al. (2012). Interaction markers in the written output of _ learners of English: The case of gender. Journal of Education, 1(2), 79-90.
Markovic, J. M. (2013). Engagement markers in introductory textbooks. Komunikacija i kultura Online, Godina IV, broj 4.
Meyer, B.J.F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amesterdam: North-Holland.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta talk: Organizational and evaluation brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry Language and Social Interaction, 50(3-4), 199-236.
Taki, S., & Jafarpour. F. (2012). Engagement and stance in academic writing: A study of English and Persian research articles. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 3(1), 157-168.
Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
Yazdani, S., & et al. (2014). Interactional metadiscourse in English and Persian news article about 9/11. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 428-434.
Yule, G. (2010). The study of language. United State of America, New York: Cambridge University Press.