A Comparative Study of Persuasion Attainment in Iranian and American Newspaper Discourse: Tehran Times vs. The New York Times

Jalili, Asma; Abdi, Reza; Saeedakhtar, Afsaneh; Asltaleb Maghferat, Alireza

doi:10.22077/ali.2026.9978.1196

دانشگاه بیرجند

تعداد نشریات	21
تعداد شماره‌ها	355
تعداد مقالات	3,969
تعداد مشاهده مقاله	5,578,519
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله	3,731,200

	A Comparative Study of Persuasion Attainment in Iranian and American Newspaper Discourse: Tehran Times vs. The New York Times
Applied Linguistics Inquiry
مقاله 15، دوره 4، شماره 1، خرداد 2026، صفحه 209-222 اصل مقاله (360.18 K)
نوع مقاله: Original Article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22077/ali.2026.9978.1196
نویسندگان
Asma Jalili¹؛ Reza Abdi²؛ Afsaneh Saeedakhtar³؛ Alireza Asltaleb Maghferat^* ⁴
¹M.A. in Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language Teaching, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
²Professor in Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language Teaching, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
³Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language Teaching, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
⁴Ph.D. Candidate in Applied Linguistics, Department of English, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
چکیده
Metadiscourse has been identified as a valuable rhetorical resource in the process of persuasion. It refers to self-reflective linguistic expressions that guide readers through a text, representing the writer’s interaction with both the evolving discourse and the anticipated audience. Grounded in a view of writing as social engagement, this study investigated the use of metadiscourse markers in opinion articles from two prominent newspapers: Tehran Times (a non-native English publication) and The New York Times (a native English publication). The aim was to identify cross-cultural differences in persuasive writing strategies employed by columnists and freelance writers within the newspaper genre. To this end, a corpus of 200 opinion articles published in 2023 was analyzed using Hyland’s (2005) model of metadiscourse, focusing on the frequency and distribution of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers. The results indicated that Iranian non-natives used more interactive metadiscourse markers, while natives used more interactional metadiscourse markers. Furthermore, quantitative analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the overall use of metadiscourse and in the specific use of its two subcategories. The findings highlight distinct rhetorical preferences between native and non-native English writers, suggesting that cultural norms influence persuasive writing styles. These insights have pedagogical implications for language instruction, offering guidance on challenges faced by English language learners in mastering effective discourse strategies.
کلیدواژه‌ها
discourse analysis؛ genre analysis؛ interactional metadiscourse markers؛ interactive metadiscourse markers؛ native and non-native English newspapers؛ opinion articles

مراجع
Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101 Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2012.391 Abdi, R., & Ahmadi, P. (2015). Research article introductions and disciplinary influences based on interactive metadiscourse markers. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 2(1), 99-85. https://jmrels.journals.ikiu.ac.ir/article_791.html Abdollahzadeh, E. (2007, July). Writer’s presence in Persian and English newspaper editorials [Conference session]. International Conference on Systemic Functional Linguistics, Odense, Denmark. Ahmadi, S., Kuhi, D., & Behroozizad, S. (2024). A comparative analysis of interactive metadiscourse across popular science commentaries: Magazine articles and newspaper articles. Available at SSRN 4875972. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4875972 Ahmadi, S., Kuhi, D., & Behroozizad, S. (2025). Interactive metadiscourse use in popular science subgenres. Journal of Language Horizons, 9(1), 41-66. https://doi.org/10.22051/lghor.2024.46326.1901 Ajideh, P., Ansarin, A., Zohrabi, M., & Nouri, Z. (2024). An analysis of interactive and interactional metadiscourse: Native vs. non-native author dichotomy. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 43(2), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.22099/tesl.2024.49202.3253 Aristotle, G. A. (2007). Aristotle on rhetoric a theory of civic discourse (G. Kennedy, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1991). Asltaleb Maghferat, A., Sadeghi, K., & Ajideh, P. (2025). Cultural stereotypes devaluing Eastern EFL learners against their Western counterparts: Counterclaims and suggestions. Asian Englishes, 27(3), 821-834. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2025.2514391 Belli, S. A. (2019). Frame markers in master thesis abstracts written in English and Turkish. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 48(2), 994-1011. https://doi.org/10.14812/cufej.478172 Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Routledge. Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness. University of Pittsburgh Press. Caffarel-Cayron, A., & Rechniewski, E. (2014). Exploring the generic structure of French editorials from the perspective of systemic functional linguistics. Journal of World Languages, 1(1), 18-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/21698252.2014.893672 Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge University Press. Connors, R. J. (1981). The rise and fall of the modes of discourse. College Composition & Communication, 32(4), 444-455. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc.198115892 Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198909388880 Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002 Dafouz-Milne, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11, 29-52. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=818673&orden=1&info=link Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003 Deliery Moghadam, F. (2017). Persuasion in Journalism: A study of metadiscourse in texts by native speakers of English and Iranian EFL writers. Theory & Practice in Language Studies (TPLS), 7(6), 483-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0706.11 Dudley-Evans, T. (2002). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 233-242). Routledge. Farnia, M., & Mohammadi, N. (2018). Cross-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in persuasive local newspaper articles. Discourse and Interaction, 11(2), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2018-2-27 Geng, H., & Wei, H. (2023). Metadiscourse markers in abstracts of linguistics and literature research articles from Scopus-indexed journals. Journal of Modern Languages, 33(1), 29-49. https://doi.org/10.22452/jml.vol33no1.2 Harris, Z. (1952). Discourse Analysis. Language, 28(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/409987 Hashemi, M., & Golparvar, E. (2012). Exploring metadiscourse markers in Persian news reports. International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow, 1(2), 1-6. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Exploring-Metadiscourse-Markers-in-Persian-News-Hashemi-Golparvar/b3f21e0a8e04f06988ec7fd0b715092b335511fc Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2017). A comparative study of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in sales contract written by English natives vs. Iranian non-natives. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8(Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language, Discourse and Pragmatics), 75-83. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2017.12871 Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (1998). An evaluation of a genre-based approach to the teaching of EAP/ESP writing. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 147-156. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587913 Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2 Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001 Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum. Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156 Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2024). Metadiscourse: The evolution of an approach to texts. Text & Talk, 44(3), 411-433. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2021-0156 Hyon, S. (2002). Genre and ESL reading: A classroom study. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 121-141). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jalilzadeh, K., Farrokhi, F., Asltaleb Maghferat, A., Akhlaghi Ilkhchi, A., & Coombe, C. (in press). An analysis of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in applied linguistics webinars: The case of top-tier native vs. non-native speaking scholars. Language Related Research. https://doi.org/10.48311/lrr.2026.117137.82935 Kaplan, R.B. (1966) Cultural thought pattern in intercultural communication. Journal of Language Learning, 1(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x Khabbazi-Oskouei, L. (2018). Exploring the role of interactional metadiscourse in the attainment of persuasion. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 11(1), 50-71. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.24052 Kinneavy, J. L. (1971). A theory of discourse. Prentice-Hall. Kuswoyo, H., & Siregar, R. A. (2019). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers as persuasive strategies in oral business presentation. Lingua Cultura, 13(4), 297-304. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v13i4.5882 Le, E. (2004). Active participation within written argumentation: metadiscourse and editorialist's authority. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(4), 687-714. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00032-8 Ledy, N. M., Syafryadin, S., & Sujarwati, I. (2024). Metadiscourse markers in introduction section of master theses in English education study program students at university of Bengkulu. Wiralodra English Journal (WEJ), 8(2), 175-186. https://doi.org/10.31943/wej.v8i2.322 Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Lang. Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A., Biria, R., & Zavari, Z. (2014). A cross cultural analysis of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers: The case of economic articles in English and Persian newspapers. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(2), 59-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.2p.59 Mirshamsi, A. S., & Allami, H. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master's theses. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 32(3), 23-40. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2013.1706 Mustafa, Z. (1995). The effect of genre awareness on linguistic transfer. English for Specific Purposes, 14(3), 247-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(95)00009-3 Noorian, M., & Biria, R. (2010). Interpersonal metadiscourse in persuasive journalism: A study of texts by American and Iranian EFL columnists. Journal of Modern Languages, 20(1), 64-79. https://ejournal.um.edu.my/index.php/JML/article/view/3374 Nugrahani, V. E., & Bram, B. (2020). Metadiscourse markers in scientific journal articles. Langkawi: Journal of The Association for Arabic and English, 6(1), 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.31332/lkw.v6i1.1528 Nugroho, A. (2020). Investigating the use of metadiscourse markers by American and Indonesian writers in opinion and business articles. Journal of English Language and Culture, 10(2), 75-87. https://doi.org/10.30813/JELC.V10I2.2138 Seiter, J. S., & Gass, R. H. (2022). Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining. Routledge. Simin, S., & Tavangar, M. (2009). Metadiscourse knowledge and use in Iranian EFL writing. Asian EFL Journal, 11(1), 230-255. https://www.academia.edu/download/37176702/Language_transfer_as_communication_and_language_learning_strategies_pg_192-229.pdf#page=230 Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge University Press. Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text & Talk, 15(1), 103-128. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.103 Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58 Vahid Dastjerdi, H., & Shirzad, M. (2010). The impact of explicit instruction of metadiscourse markers on EFL learners’ writing performance. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2(2), 155-174. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2012.412 Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition & Communication, 36(1), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198511781 Van Dijk, T. A. (2010). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Discourse analysis. Oxford University Press. Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Scott, Foresman. Wongsa, J., Chuenchaichon, Y., & Suwannasom, T. (2024). A comparison of metadiscourse markers used in English research article introduction and literature review sections across two disciplines. Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences), 17(1), 74-88. https://doi.org/10.14456/jcdr-hs.2024.5 Yazdani, S., Sharifi, S., & Elyassi, M. (2014). Interactional metadiscourse in English and Persian news articles about 9/11. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 428-434. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.2.428-434 Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2007). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive analysis of English and Persian research articles. The Asian ESP Journal, 3(2), 24-40. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ali-Jahangard/publication/332970784_Which_Word_Types_Technical_or_General_are_more_Difficult_to_Retain_by_the_Iranian_High_School_Learners/links/5cd43a0692851c4eab8ee5a5/Which-Word-Types-Technical-or-General-are-more-Difficult-to-Retain-by-the-Iranian-High-School-Learners.pdf#page=24 Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 42-50. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1080321
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 279 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 9

نماد الکترونیک

سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب

پیوندهای مفید

آمار

A Comparative Study of Persuasion Attainment in Iranian and American Newspaper Discourse: Tehran Times vs. The New York Times