INTERACTIONAL METADISCOURSE MARKERS IN PROJECT PROPOSAL OF GLOBAL PEACE FOUNDATION INDONESIA
A THESIS
Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Sarjana Degree of English Department Faculty of Arts and Humanities UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya
By:
Wardatuz Zuhroh
Reg. Number A93212192
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SUNAN AMPEL SURABAYA
INTERACTIONAL METADISCOURSE MARKERS IN PROJECT PROPOSAL OF GLOBAL PEACE FOUNDATION INDONESIA
A THESIS
Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Sarjana Degree of English Department Faculty of Arts and Humanities UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya
By:
Wardatuz Zuhroh
Reg. Number A93212192
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SUNAN AMPEL SURABAYA
ABSTRACT
Zuhroh, Wardatuz. 2017. Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Project Proposal of Global Peace Foundation Indonesia. English Department, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, State Islamic University Sunan Ampel Surabaya.
The Advisor: Dr. Muhammad Kurjum, M. Ag.
Key Words: Metadiscourse, Interactional Metadiscourse Markers, Project Proposal, Global Peace Foundation Indonesia.
This present study is to foster the metadiscourse research and to give contribution to untouched field by using project proposal as the data, specifically overview and program details written by a nonprofit organization named Global Peace Foundation Indonesia. The researcher used metadiscourse theory from Hyland (2005). This theory refined the other theories of metadiscourse from VandeKopple (1985) and Crismore (1993).
The study attempted (1) to identify the types of interactional metadiscourse markers used by Global Peace Foundation Indonesia in their project proposals. (2) to investigate how the frequency of interactional metadiscourse markers in the project proposals. (3) to analyze what interactional metadiscourse markers can reflect to the project proposals written by Global Peace Foundation Indonesia.
ABSTRAK
Zuhroh, Wardatuz. 2017. Interactional Metadiscourse Markers di Rancangan Proposal Global Peace Foundation Indonesia. Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Adab dan Humaniora, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Pembimbing: Dr. Muhammad Kurjum, M. Ag.
Kata Kunci: Metadiscourse, Interactional Metadiscourse Markers, Rancangan Proposal, Global Peace Foundation Indonesia.
Penelitian ini bermaksud untuk mengembangkan penelitian di bidang metadiscourse dan untuk memberikan kontribusi pada bidang yang belum pernah dibuat dengan menggunakan rancangan proposal sebagai data, terutama pada latar belakang dan rincian acara yang ditulis oleh nonprofit organisasi bernama Global Peace Foundation Indonesia. Peneliti menggunakan teori metadiscourse milik Hyland (2005). Teori ini diperhalus oleh teori metadiscourse milik Vande Kopple (1985) and Crismore (1993).
Penelitian ini berusaha (1) untuk mengidentifikasi macam-macam interactional metadiscourse markers yang digunakan oleh Global Peace Foundation di rancangan proposal-proposal mereka. (2) untuk menginvestigasi seberapa sering interactional metadiscourse markers di dalam rancangan proposal-proposal mereka. (3) untuk menganalisis apa yang dapat interactional metadiscourse markers gambarkan ke dalam rancangan-rancangan proposal yang ditulis oleh Global Peace Foundation Indonesia.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... x
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Metadiscourse ... 7
2.2 Category of Metadiscourse ... 9
2.3 Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers ... 15
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Findings ... 25
4.1.1 Data descriptions ... 25
4.1.2 Data analysis ... 31
4.1.2.1 Hedges ... 31
4.1.2.2 Boosters ... 36
4.1.2.3 Attitude Markers ... 39
4.1.2.4 Self Mention ... 41
4.1.2.5 Engagement Markers ... 42
4.2 Discussion ... 45
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1 Conclusion ... 49
5.2 Suggestion ... 50
REFERENCES ... 51
APPENDICES ... 53
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.3.1 ... 12
Table 3.2 ... 18
Table 3.1 ... 19
Table 4.1.1 ... 21
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This part introduces the present study. It describes background of the study,
research problems, research objectives, significance of the study, scope and limitation
of the study, and definition of key terms.
1.1 Background of the study
Zellig Harris firstly put forward in 1959 the term of metadiscourse that
becomes an interesting field to be analyzed (as cited in Hyland, 2005: 3). Support by
the searching from an online machine named google scholar at 1st May 2016 found 16.300 results for the words metadiscourse. It indicates that metadiscourse has been a
special interest for researchers around the world.
Basically, metadiscourse comes from idea that communication is not only
conveying information (Hyland, 2005:3). As the goal of communication, understand
each other means there are certain expression like addresser emotion, attitude, value
and the aim of the interaction. Thus, metadiscourse exist to seek out how writers or
speakers communicate effectively.
Hyland’s classification of metadiscourse (2004: 169) falls into two categories:
interactive, help to guide reader through the text and interactional, involve the reader
in the argument. Hyland (2005) and Hyland and Tse (2004) change the terminology
2
of the research about metadiscourse has been done result that interpersonal
metadiscourse strongly takes the role of communication in the text. One of a research
done by Yipei and Lingling shows interpersonal meaning embodies all the use of
language to express one’s opinion, influence one’s behavior, interact with and
maintain relationship with others (Yipei and Lingling, 2013: 90). In line with the
recent research done by Sukma and Sujatna (2014: 16), interpersonal metadiscourse
is one of linguistic features that is closely related to persuasive writing. Thus, this
recent studies choose to focus on interpersonal metadiscourse markers only to
identify which interpersonal metadiscourse markers characterize the discourse of
project proposals and which one of these markers found to function more
persuasively, according to the highest frequency of interpersonal metadiscourse
markers found in the data.
Following Dafouz’s, the notion of metadiscourse will be adopted as an
analytical framework since it has proved to be useful for textual analysis,
agglutinating some of the explicit items that the writers use to guide or direct readers
through a text so both the text and the writer’s stance is understood (2008: 96).
Trough that notion, so many researchers has been used metadiscourse in various
fields of text or discourse (see Hyland, 2005: 5) and it proved by the recent finding on
international journal that shows the use of metadiscourse in various genres:
persuasive corpora (Heng and Tan, 2010), research articles (Abdi, 2011; Attarn,
3
essays and research proposal (Tabe, 2015). Therefore, this present study aims at
filling in these gaps as an attempt to follow Hyland’s (2005: 202) suggestion to
discuss other field that left untouched by using project proposal as the data,
specifically overview and program details written by a nonprofit organization named
Global Peace Foundation.
As the title suggests, this study analyzes the project proposal of Global Peace
Foundation, an international nonprofit organization. The project proposal of Global
Peace Foundation is of special interest as it comes to a persuasive document.
According to Congressional Research Service in form of report that downloaded at
http://www.unco.edu/osp/proposal/docs/congress.pdf, the first step to arrange project
proposal is to develop a clear, concise description of the proposed project that must in
line with the values, vision, and mission of the grant-seeking organization. So, one of
the key success of the project is how the arrangement of the project proposal conduct
persuasively.
There are ten selected project proposals from the centre, the region, and
chapter from Global Peace Foundation around the world that is analyzed. Both,
background or overview and program details that write down on the project proposal
are combination between the up to date news or issues about some conflicts that
makes people suffer and the new paradigm of peace that offered. Therefore, it is not
4
1.2 Research Problems
Based on the background of the study written above, the problems of the
study are formulated as follow:
1. What are the types of interactional metadiscourse markers used by Global
Peace Foundation in their project proposals?
2. How is the frequency of interactional metadiscourse markers in the project
proposals of Global Peace Foundation?
3. What can the result of the research problem number two reflect to the Global
Peace Foundation Indonesia project proposals?
1.3 Research Objectives
Based on the research problems above, the objectives of the study are:
1. To identify the types of interactional metadiscourse markers used by Global
Peace Foundation Indonesia in their project proposals.
2. To investigate how the frequency of interactional metadiscourse markers in
the project proposals.
3. To analyze what interactional metadiscourse markers can reflect to the project
proposals written by Global Peace Foundation Indonesia. From this, the
finding from my study could be reflecting the way of separating the values of
5
1.4 Significance of the Study
Most of the previous research about metadiscourse has done in the academic
purposes. It is important to see the use of metadiscourse in the neglected area such as
project proposal that also be Hyland’s suggestion (Hyland: 2005). Hence, the result of
this study is expected to give an insight into the persuasive ways in project proposal
writings as a reflection from interpersonal metadiscourse markers.
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study
There are some different classifications about interpersonal metadiscourse
from some researcher. This study will follow Hyland’s classification (Hyland, 2005;
49), that covers five classifications: (1) hedges, (2) boosters, (3) attitude markers, (4)
self mentions, (5) engagement markers.
In addition, the limitations of the study come from two elements from this
research, the theory and the data. As Hyland mention this is largely because the
origins of metadiscourse in pedagogic style guides (Williams, 1981) and intuitive
reflection (Vande Kopple, 1985) provide an insufficiently solid theoretical foundation
on which to analyse real texts or to understand how writers communicate effectively
(as cited in Hyland, 2005: 6). It will also be contradiction to compare project
proposals from some nonprofit organizations in order to get more insight from the
result of this research because they have different ways to write in line with their core
6
1.6 Definition of Key Terms
In order to avoid any misunderstanding term, the researcher give some
definition of the key term that used in this study.
Metadiscourse is the cover term for the self-reflective expressions used to
negotiate interactional meanings in a text, assisting the writer (or speaker) to express
a viewpoint and engage with readers as members of a particular community (Hyland,
2005: 37).
Interactional metadiscourse is concerned with the direct interaction by
intruding and commenting on the writer massage. The goal is to make the writer
views explicit and to involve readers by allowing them to respond to the text given
(Hyland, 2005).
Project proposal or grant proposal is one of persuasive document that is
carefully prepared, thoughtfully planned, and concisely packaged by a grant seekers
or foundations to get support or funding from company or institutions
(http://www.unco.edu/osp/proposal/docs/congress.pdf).
The Global Peace Foundation (GPF) is an international sectarian,
non-partisan, nonprofit organization, which promotes an innovative, values-based
approach to peace building, guided by the vision of One Family under God. GPF
engages and organizes a global network of public and private-sector partners who
develop community, national, and regional peace building models as the foundation
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter presents several theories dealing with the issues being analyzed in this study. The theories are aimed to help the researcher solve the research problems. These theories include metadiscourse, category of metadiscourse, interactional metadiscourse markers.
2.1 Metadiscourse
The term of metadiscourse comes by the linguists Zellig Harrisin 1959 (as cited in Hyland, 2005: 3), he states metadiscourseas a representing from the way of understanding language in use, and becomes an attempts of writer’s or speaker’s to guide the receiver’s understand the text. The other definition also comes from William (1981), he takes the concepts that the subject and the addressed point make metadiscourse is important.
8
In another cases, some other researcher build a different comprehension about metadiscourse. The first, in 1975 is Meyer who builds a concept that signaling metadiscourse as a term which is similar with the prespective of functional linguistic. He proposed a semantic content that instructs the discourse. The second is Schifrin in 1980, he gives definition of metadiscourse as a meta-talk which related to continuing discourse, such words or phrases: “well”, “I am telling you” that function to organize or evaluate the continuing discourse.
As the basis of these linguists’ studies, Hyland (2000) putsmetadiscourse as comprehension that signaling social engagement is a part of communication. In 2005, Hyland saying a distinct definition:
Metadiscourseis the cover term for the self-reflective expressions used to negotiate interactional meanings in a text, assisting the writer (or speaker) to express a viewpoint and engage with readers as members of a particular community.
By using metadiscourse as application theory, communication can be facilitated, viewpoints supported, readability improved, and relationship maintained (Yipei and Lingling, 2013: 91).
9
2.2 Category of Metadiscourse
As states before in scope and limitation of chapter one that metadiscourse has some different categories of version based on the linguist. First, it is delivered by VandeKoppe in 1985. VandeKopple (1985, 82) divided a classification system for metadiscourse. There are two categories of metadiscourse features based on VandeKopple namely textual metadiscourse and interpersonal metadiscourse. From the specific function point of view, textual metadiscourse is divided into four subcategories, and three subcategories in interpersonal metadiscourse. Metadiscourse model by VandeKopple’s (1985) has gotbig attention in metadiscourse literature. It is proved that there are many metadiscouse research which are emerged.
10
Besides, citations might be applied for building an “intertextual framework to suggest a cumulative and linear progression of knowledge”. The functions of citations has diverse and can be multi-functional at the same time. This is the second problem from VandeKopple’smetadiscoures model. Writers may aim to achieve a certain rhetorical function via citation; however, there is a great chance for readers to misdecode such a rhetorical act writers wish to perform.
Textual metadiscourse dimension include: - Text connectives
- Code glosses - Validity markers - Evidential - Narrators
Interpersonal metadiscourse dimension include: - Illocution markers
- Attitude markers - Commentaries
11
categorization which consists of only two major categories textual and interpersonal metadiscourse.
However, several metadiscoursal functions have been reorganized in two new subcategories of textual metadiscourse as textual markers and interpretivemarkers. The two new subcategories are used for explaining and concretizing the textual role metadiscourse performs. Textual markers are metadiscoursal features for organizing the discourse, while interpretive markers refer to features in relation to writer-reader relationship constructing and maintaining in academic writing. Namely, the interpretive markers function to “help readers interpret and better understand the writer’s meaning and writing strategies” (Crismore et al., 1993, 47).
Textual metadiscourse 1. Textual markers
- Logical connectives - Sequencers
- Reminders - Topicalizers 2. Interpretive markers
12
Interpersonal Metadiscourse - Hedges
- Certainly markers - Attributes
- Attitude markers - Commentary
In metadiscourse model by Crismore, several problems are still found. One problem is the functional arbitrary between the subcategories reminders and
announcement placed in the textual metadiscourse as textual markers and interpretive
markers. Referring to textual materials earlier in the text, reminders are classified in textual markers, while announcement in interpretive markers for reporting upcoming materials. With slight functional difference between reminders and announcement, the classification seems to eclipse the grouping basics of textual markers and interpretive markers.
13
Hyland and Tse (2004) introduced another metadiscourse model modifying Thompson and Thetela’s (1995) conception of metadiscourse.Hyland make a classification of metadiscouse into two categories: interactivemetadiscoursedimension and interactionalmetadiscourse dimension based on other linguist (as cited in Hyland, 2005: 49).
Hyland stated that this categorization is based on functional approach that becomes an attempt of the writer to interact with the reader through the text. The two categorization of Hyland is described below:
a. Interactive metadiscourse dimension include: - Transitions
- Frame markers - Endhoporic markers - Evidential
- Code glosses
By this dimension the writer’s purposes to shape and contrain a text as what the reader’s want, in order to make relation between the writers and the readers through the text. It is directly state by Hyland (2005: 49) below:
14
b. Interactional metadiscourse dimension include: - Self mentions reader’s through a message or values from the text. Hyland (2005: 49) directly state below:
The writer's goal here is to make his or her views explicit and to involve readers by allowing them to respond to the unfolding text. This is the writer's expression of a textual 'voice', or community-recognized personality, and includes the ways he or she conveys judgements and overtly aligns him- or herself with readers. Metadiscourse here is essentially evaluative and engaging, expressing solidarity,anticipating objections and responding to an imagined dialogue with others. It reveals the extent to which the writer works to jointly construct the text with readers.
15
Instead, I suggest that all metadiscourse is interpersonal in that it takes account of the reader's knowledge, textual experiences and processing needs and that it provides writers with an armoury of rhetorical appeals to achieve this (Hyland and Tse, 2004).
From those statements, this present study focuses on interactional metadiscourse dimension as represent interpersonal metadiscourseto following Hyland’s suggestion. Using interactional metadiscoursedimention, the researcher analyze project proposals of Global Peace Foundation.
2.3 Interactional Metadiscourse Markers
This marker is offered a notion in defining characteristics of spoken or written communication through rhetorical features. Those rhetorical features are represented by five sub-categories of interactional metadiscoursemarkers below. This following description below is according to Hyland’s (2005):
Table 2.3.1
Interactional Metadiscourse Markers
Interactional
Markers
Definition Examples
Hedges Withhold commitment and
open dialogue
Might; perhaps;
possible; about
Boosters Emphasize certainty and
close dialogue
Infact; definitely; it is
clear that
16
to proposition surprisingly
Self Mentions Explicit reference to
aouthor(s)
I; we; my; me; our;
Engagement
markers
Explicitly build relationship
with reader
Consider; note; you can
see that
2.3.1 Hedges
This marker indicates an attempt of the writer to interact with the reader through alternative voices and viewpoints to make a proposition.
Examples:
- possible - might - perhaps
2.3.2 Boosters
A booster is used by the writer to show his or her certainty in writing. Examples:
17
2.3.3 Attitude markers
Attitudes markers convey surprise, agreement, importance, obligation, frustration and others. The expression of attitude can be seen by the used of subordination, comparatives, progressive particles, punctuation, text location, and others. In the text it can be signaled by the examples below:
a. attitude verbs : - agree - prefer
b. sentence adverbs : - unfortunately - hopefully c. adjectives : - appropriate
- logical - reamarkable 2.3.4 Self mentions
Self mantions represent the writer’s self-affirmation and control his or herself to improve the reability from audience. It is showing by the used of first person pronouns and possessive adjective such as:
- I - Me - Mine
18
2.3.5 Engagement markers
This marker proposed to show impression of authority, integrity, and credibility through choises of hedges, boosters, self mention, and attitude that highlight in the text.
Examples: - Consider - note
- you can see that
2.4 Previous study
The writer found two related studies that inspired this present study. The first is in International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature (IJALEL) written by two Indonesian university student named BayuPermanaSukma and Eva Tuckyta Sari Sujatna from Padjajaran University. Their tittle is “Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers Opinion Articles: A Study of Text Written by Indonesian Writers”. This journal analyzed ten selected topic in newspaper by Kompas used Dafouz (2008) theory. The result shows that cultural preferences influence how the writer writes down their opinion.
19
was a clear statement from the title that the object of the analysis is come from speech by Steve Job. The result of this analysis show that interpersonal meaning embodies all the use of language to express one’s opinion, influence one’s behavior, interact with and maintain relationship with others.
Both of the previous study above is chosen by the researcher to see the gaps to arrange this previous study. this present study intend to following Sukma and Sujatna to used interpersonal metadiscourse theory. While, Yipei and Linlingis inspired the researcher to used the interpersonal metadiscourse theory that belongs to Hyland in 2005.
2.5 Global Peace Foundation
The Global Peace Foundation (GPF) is an international sectarian, non-partisan, nonprofit organization which promotes an innovative, values-based approach to peacebuilding, guided by the vision that all human beings are members of One Family under God.
Through partnerships with organisations around the world, GPF programmes facilitate intercultural and interfaith cooperation, strengthen families and communities, and foster a culture of service and peace. The Global Peace Foundation works in 15countries to date.
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
This part discusses the methodology of the research. It consists of research
design, population and sample, instruments, data and data sources, data collection,
and data analysis.
3.1 Research Design
The researcher used descriptive research approach to identified, classified, and
interpreted the data that form of words and phrases in project proposals of Global
Peace Foundation. The characterized of qualitative research is to understand some
aspect of social life and as a method which generate words rather than numbers, as
data for analysis (Green, 2007: 2). Afterwards, Litosseliti (2010) stated qualitative
method is concern with structure, pattern and grammatical not in numbers. While,
descriptive method choose to be used to interpreted the result of the finding. In line
with Isaac and Micahel (1987), descriptive method describes a situation or area of
interest factually, accurately, and sitematically. Thus, the researcher assumed that
descriptive research method was suitable to apply in the present study.
Descriptive qualitative research chose by the researcher for some reasons.
First, the data and result of this research is descriptive in a form of words and phrases
of interpersonal metadiscourse from the project proposals of Global Peace
Foundation. Second, this research is tried to reveal the phenomenon of persuasion.
21
the data. Thus, this research was tried to investigate the phenomenon of persuasion
used Hyland (2005) theory through the introduction/overview/background and
program/program details/activities from ten project proposal of Global Peace
Foundation Indonesia.
3.2 Subject of the research
The subject of the research is written discourse in the project proposal of
Global Peace Foundation.
3.3 Instruments
The instrument of the research was the writer herself. The researcher became
the instrument who actively and directly participates in the data collection and data
analysis.
3.4 Data and Data Sources
The data of the research were introduction/overview/background and
program/program details/activities from ten project proposal of Global Peace
Foundation Indonesia.
3.5 Data Collection
The researcher used several steps to collect the data, as follows:
a. The researcher got the soft copy of the data from the general manager of
22
c. The researcher identified by underlining the data that contain of interpersonal
metadiscourse markers: hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self mentions,
engagement markers.
3.6 Data Analysis
After collected the data, the researcher did several steps to analyze the data, as
follows:
a. The researcher developed and gave the codes to the each markers as follows:
1) the codes for hedges is coded H
2) the codes for boosters is coded B
3) the codes for attitude markers is coded AM
4) the codes for self mentions is coded SM
5) the codes for engagement markers is coded EM
b. The researcher summarizing the finding of the data into the table to make the
process of the analyzing clearer and easier.
Table 3.2
Classification Types of Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers
No Interpersonal
Metadiscourse
Hedges Boosters Attitude
23
4.
5.
6.
c. The researcher classified each marker of the interpersonal metadiscourse
markers: into frequency and percentage. The researcher used this following
formula:
Percentage of each markers =
X 100 %
x: the frequency of each markers
y: the total number of frequency
The researcher used the table of classification markers of interpersonal
metadiscourse based on Hyland (2005) to classify the data into the markers. From this
step, the first and the second number of the research questions were answered.
Table 3.1
Classification Markers of Interpersonal Metadiscourse
No Markers Code Frequency Percentage
1 Hedges H
2 Boosters B
24
5 Engagement Markers EM
TOTAL 100 %
d. The researcher interpreted the data based on the related theories. The
interpretation represents to answer the last research question.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter consists of findings and the discussions about the statement of
problems formulated in chapter one. The findings of this research are divided into
data description and data analysis. In this section, the researcher discusses the finding
in detail.
4.1 Findings
In this part, the research findings are presented below concerning the types of
interpersonal metadiscourse markers in ten project proposal of Global Peace
Foundation. The first steps are identifying the types of interpersonal metadiscourse
markers found in the data source in the form of word, phrase, sentences, and
utterances or expression. The next step is investigate the frequency of it and
interpreted the result to see what interpersonal metadiscourse markers can reflect to
the project proposals. The last step is drawing conclusion which is explained in the
discussion.
4.1.1 Data Description
The data from introduction/overview/background and program/program
details/activities from ten project proposal of Global Peace Foundation Indonesia
26
Table 4.1.1
Classification Types of Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers No Interpersonal
Metadiscourse
Hedges Boosters Attitude
Markers
Self
Mentions
Engagement
Markers
I. PROPOSAL ASIA YOUNG LEADER EXCHANGE 2014
1. Besides(H), v 2. …, it is also an
opportunity(B)
v
3. … about(H) v
II. PROPOSAL CHARACTER AND CREATIVITY INITIATIVE:
4. … we(SM) v
5. …, in fact(B) v
6. … can(EM) v
27
12. Besides(H), v 13. …, it is also an
opportunity(B)
v
14. … about(H) v
15. … we(SM) v
16. … our(SM) v
17. … we(SM) v
18. … about(H) v
19. … we(SM) v
20. … canbe overcome(H)
v
21. … about(H) v
22. … we(SM) v
23. It is a great(B) v
24. … you learned(EM)
V
25. … you think(EM)
V
26. We(SM) v
28
done(H)
29. … about(H) v
IV. GLOBAL PEACE YOUTH INTERFAITH ASSEMBLY 2016 30. It has also
29
reality(B),
41. …, we(SM) v
42. Indeed(B), v
43. … should be(H) v
44. Unfortunately(A M)
v
45. …,
particularly(B)
v
46. Lately(B), v
47. … it is important to note that(EM)
V
48. … about(H) v
49. … about(H) v
50. … in fact(B) v
51. … should not(H) v
52. … about(H) v
VII. POWER OF RUPIAH
53. Our(SM) v
30
especially(AM)
56. …
increasingly(AM)
v
57. … shall be(H) v 58. … shall be(H) v 59. It is a
long-term(B)
v
VIII. Proposal Samsung Life Insurance
60. …, We(SM) v
61. … our(SM) v
62. … our(SM) v
63. …, We(SM) v
IX. U-GEN SUMMIT 2014
64. Thus(EM), V
65. Thus(EM), V
66. … about(H) v
67. We(SM) v
X. YOUNG LEADER EXCHANGE 2013 68. Besides(H), v
31
Table 4.1.2
Frequency of Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers
No Markers Code Frequency Percentage
1 Hedges H 23 33,3%
2 Boosters B 15 21,8%
3 Attitudes Markers AM 6 8,7%
4 Self Mentions SM 17 24,6%
5 Engagement Markers EM 8 11,6%
TOTAL 69 100 %
4.1.2 Data Analysis
From the table 4.1.1, the researcher classify and count the frequency of each
types of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in ten proposals of Global Peace
Foundation Indonesia and it results all markers of the interpersonal metadiscourse
used in ten proposals of Global Peace Foundation Indonesia. In this part, the
researcher presents the analyses of the types of interpersonal metadiscourse markers,
as follows:
4.1.2.1 Hedges
Hedges appear when the writer want to open a dialogue with the reader. These
32
wonderful Indonesia” is one of the examples of a hedges. This marker becomes the
highest markers found in ten of project proposals of Global Peace Foundation
Indonesia. It appears 23 times out of 69 data or 33,3% of the total markers. There are
23 data containing the hedges, they are data in number 1, 3, 7, 12, 14, 18, 20, 21, 27,
28, 29, 37, 38, 43, 48, 49, 51, 52, 57, 58, 66, 68, 69. They are in form of words
besides, it is also an apportunity, about, can be overcome, can be done, should be, in
fact, should not, shall be. Here the researcher takes three data to be discussed.
Excerpt 1 (No 20/III)
6.00am Challenge activity - Unity Ball
A team challenge activity to learn that challenge canbe overcome(H) when the team focuses energy in uplifting each other and positive affirmation.
The sample above is come from the project proposal entitle Proposal Global
Peace Volunteer Camp 1.15. Global Peace Volunteer Camp is a two until four days
program that provide an opportunities for undergraduate students to learn about the
culture of service or volunteerism. The definition above is part of the program details
that became one with the program schedule. The words canbe overcome(H)used in describing the definition of the Unity Ball activity. The Unity Ball is like a challenge
to test the teamwork of each group. In unity ball the participant is train to use their
communication skill, to be creative, to be patience, to control the body movement, to
respect people, to encourage people, to make strategies, and others. In Unity Ball a
33
three stage of the rule. First, the participants have to throw and catch the ball freely
until fifty times for each stage. They may not fall the ball to the ground. If the ball
falls they have to start from one again. They may use their two hands. They also may
move their body. Second, they only may use one hand. Third, they may not move and
only used a close finger hand; the hand has to be like want to strike.
From our point of view, the writer tried to persuade and convince the reader
smoothly through the words canbe overcome(H). The words canbe overcome used in the sentence to showed that Unity Ball is not only one of the ways to train people
overcome the challenge. The words canbe overcome could be convincing but the words after it be decreasing.
Another example of an expression of regret strategy can be found in no 43.
Excerpt 2 (No 43/VI)
Indeed, serious attention should be(H) given to solve this
problem in light of plans to consolidate into a single market, the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), in 2015.
The example above is taken from the project proposal of “International
Multifaith Youth Assembly 2014”. The overview or the background of this proposal
told that many problems happened because the religions conflict. But, in the end of
the last paragraph says that all the conflicts are religious in nature, and told that many
conflicts have been between religious communities.
34
paragraphs continue to talk about what have and have not been done by the ASEAN
since it builds.
International Multifaith Youth Assembly is a program that a offered a chance
for young people to take a part in solving the problems of the world. Global Peace
Foundation believe that young people is the agent of change who can be one of the
problem solver of the world problems. The word serious attention above in the
excerpt 2 try to show that world problems become more complex and it really need to
solve immediately. Then the word should be(H) that known as hedges, function as a
softening world without continuing to be more provocative.
Excerpt 3 (No 57/VII)
A community shall be(H) identified to work together with the POR committee to plan for projects for children development (education /
health) over a period of time.
The third example above is taken from project proposal entitled The Power of
Rupiah. As the beginning of the proposal state that this program appeared because the
culture of selfish-individualism become more serious. The people of society and
world becomes more individual and seldom to do service and volunteerism for the
sake of the humanity. Thus, this project tries to make a solution for that reason
through building a culture of giving in the form of actions - coin box fundraising and
other activities.
This project is a long-term one. The program gave two goals, educational and
35
campaign. Then, the committee and the community that engaged will share a box
with massages.
The hedges shall be(H) taken above try to convey that it was the wish of the big goal. The committees hope this project can touch other community instead of the
member of Global Peace itself. Thus, the hedges above show that is softening the
chosen word instead of used the word must be.
Excerpt 4 (No 66/IX)
U-Gen Award is one of the appreciations to the best young people who have been doing something to their community and implement about(H) living for the greater good.
The fourth example is taken from a project proposal entitled U-gen Summit
2014. The program is gathering the entire youth member of Global Peace, Global
Peace Youth Indonesia to share what social activities they have done.
The hedges about(H) above used to the diversity of thought. Global Peace, as global organization needs to respect the diversity of the member. Global Peace have
almost ten Global Peace Youth local chapter in Indonesia, according to the general
manager. Every local chapter can freely build social activities that appropriate to the
condition of their region. Therefore, each local chapter have their own creativity to do
social activities align to the phrase living for the greater good.
Excerpt 5 (No 68/X)
36
The fifth example takes from Young Leader Exchange 2013 project proposal.
The participants or called as Young Leaders comes from two countries. They join a
series of students service exchange which aims to create a caring community. This
program builds the young people to be moral and innovative young leader through
education and practicing service project.
The hedges Besides(H) above function to mention the benefit gaining by the participants. The hedges Besides(H) seems like also function to tell that all off the benefit offered do not always gain easily. The writer seems like to say that any kinds
of training given into young people always have different result depends on the cause
and effect of each person.
4.1.2.2 Boosters
Boosters are words such as in fact, definitely, obviously, and clearly, which
initiate that the writer have a strong views of what they say. The writer knows the
topic discussed has diverse speculation. The writer does not want to open a dialogue
and discuss conflicting views with the reader.
Boosters are function to strengthen the argument written. They are more than
just opinion given. Boosters used to make argument about important things in
paragraphs where it makes the articles written become more reliable.
Boosters are the second marker of the interpersonal metadiscouse theory by
Ken Hyland in 2005. It finds out 15 times from 69 data or 21.8% from 100%. It
37
destroyed, in response to these alarming trends, it would ever succeed, it is now a
vibrant reality, indeed, particularly, lately, it is a long-term. Here are the discussions
from boosters.
Excerpt 6 (No 5/II)
“Is it school is the pleasant place?” This question sound simple and we can simply easy to answer, in fact(B) it is complicated.
The sixth example takes from proposal Character and Creativity Initiative.
This program propose as a solution for the students who bored to go to school. Global
Peace tries to give a solution through nurturing character, creativity and leadership
through transforming school culture. Global Peace believe that young people is the
power of Indonesia because the number of young people increasing significantly in
Indonesia, but the number of young people complaining about going to school also
increasing in social media as mention in the proposal according to a study conducted
by Prapanca Research.
The boosters in fact(B) above use to convince the reader that many of the students having problem in school. The paragraph becomes stronger in idea by the
followed sentence. It is about a research, by Prapanca Research that supports the
argument.
Excerpt 7 (No 9/III)
The culture of selfish-individualism is seriously(B) affecting
38
The sentence above takes from proposal of The Global Peace Volunteer Camp
Malaysia1.15 regional Indonesia- Malaysia. The boosters highlighted seriously(B) do not followed by a fact or a resource of the argument. The writer seems to think that it
is an international program which means both of the countries has felt the same
problems. It is also because the problem mention is a global problem and almost of
the people realizes it. It is almost happen around the world when it is talk about the
culture of selfish-individualism. In this context the argument looks strong without a
fact comes from reliable resources.
Excerpt 8 (No 39/VI)
When ASEAN was born, there were a good number of skeptics who would not believe that, given the wide divergences of view among the ASEAN countries, the differences in the political and economic systems of its founding members, it would ever succeed(B) in this endeavor at regional cooperation.
Excerpt 9 (No 40/VI)
Well, ASEAN proved all its critics wrong and it is now a vibrant reality(B), an Association recognized not only in its own region but also in the world at large as one of the most successful regional cooperative schemes.
Both of the boosters above are support each other. They are locating in the
proposal of International Multifaith Youth Assembly 2014 in the same paragraph.
39
and convince that this agenda will be much useful because bringing the appropriate
reason about why International Multifaith Youth Assembly 2014 have to be held.
4.1.2.3 Attitude Markers
Attitude Markers characterize the writer’s affective in text through surprise,
agreement, importance, obligation, and frustration. They are often signaled by verbs,
adverbs, and adjective. The writer used this marker to put forward his attitude the
topics or problems written in the text.
This marker becomes the lowest markers found in ten of project proposals of
Global Peace Foundation Indonesia. It appears 6 times of 69 data or 8,7% of the total
markers. The 6 data containing the attitude markers, they are data in number 10, 11,
35, 44, 55, 56. They are in form of words especially, increasingly, ironically,
unfortunately. Here the researcher takes three data to be discussed.
Excerpt 10 (No 10, 11/ III)
The culture of selfish-individualism is seriously(B) affecting
especially(AM) the youths, as they increasingly(AM) look after their own individual interests without considering the needs of society or the community.
Both of the attitude markers support especially(AM) and increasingly(AM) each other in the sentence. The writer makes the sentence above as the cause and followed
by the next sentence as the effect. But, they have different function. The marker
40
number of young people who only look after their own individual interests without
considering the needs of society or the community.
Excerpt 11 (No 35/V)
Ironically(AM), the perpetrators always claim to have done it in the name of religion.
The engagement marker Ironically(AM) takes from Interfaith Summit 2012 proposal. This program becomes one of the efforts to eradicate social problems cause
of self-individualism. Interfaith Summit 2012 is the beginning program of Global
Peace Foundation Indonesia that discussed and shared about what is actually the
cause of the conflicts happened and makes the world seems not in peace anymore.
Global Peace Foundation Indonesia takes a serious action towards those problems
and held the similar activity annually. Recently, Global Peace announce trough their
program Global Peace Youth Interfaith Assembly 2016 that the problems appears is
not always caused in the name of religions.
The engagement marker Ironically(AM) much showing the writer surprising. It support by the answer in the next similar program they held lately. Mentioning at
Global Peace Youth Interfaith Assembly 2016 proposal that the cause of conflicts are
also could be because of less of education by young people and the media, not merely
41
Excerpt 12 (No 44/VI)
Unfortunately(AM) it has been the case that identities, particularly(B)
religious identity has been known to cause or exacerbate conflicts with and between various communities of faith.
The attitude marker Unfortunately(AM) found in the International Multifaith Youth Assembly 2014. The attitude marker Unfortunately(AM) also show the writer surprising of the problems happened in Asia that almost of the people assume that it
is because the divers religions it has. In fact, International Multifaith Youth Assembly
2014 is also one of the annual program of the Global Peace Indonesia that became an
effort to eradicate religions conflicts.
4.1.2.4 Self Mentions
Self Mention is the writer conscious choice to mention their self
representation. The writer cannot avoid the relation among them, the reader, and the
argument they made.
Self Mentions are the fourth marker of the interpersonal metadiscouse theory
by Ken Hyland in 2005. It finds out 17 times from 69 data or 24.6% from 100%. It
appears in data number 4, 8, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 26, 32, 36, 41, 53, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67.
They are in form of words we and our. Here are the discussions from boosters.
Excerpt 13 (No 32/IV)
42
mention marker, our(SM). The writer points out that they are also part of Indonesia. It is indicate their agreement that Indonesia is home to many religious communities and
beliefs.
Excerpt 14 (No 67/IX)
We(SM) are giving the recognition to dedicated individuals who are building foundations for peace through their activity.
The self mention We(SM) takes from U-Gen Summit 2014 “Moral and Innovative Young Leaders for Indonesia”. The member of Global Peace Youth
Indonesia from all local chapter gather in this program to shared about social
condition and social activities they have done in the region. One of the agenda of this
program is U-gen Award. The award gives to appreciate to the best young people
who have been doing something to their community and implement aboutliving for
the greater good. Here, it indicates the writer cannot avoid that they are part of the
staff or committee of the program. Means, the writer also appreciate the to the best
young people.
4.1.2.5 Engagement Markers
The Engagement markers are an explicit relation build between the writer and
the reader. The Engagement markers function to address the reader, try to achieving
the reader expectations to the argument written, and it could to guiding the reader to
43
This marker becomes the latest markers found in ten of project proposals of
Global Peace Foundation Indonesia. It appears 8 times of 69 data or 11.6% of the
total markers. The 8 data containing the engagement markers, they are data in number
2, 24, 25, 33, 34, 47, 64, 65. They are in form of words can, you leraned, you think, it
is important to note that, thus. Here the researcher takes three data to be discussed.
Excerpt 15 (No 2/II)
Refer to Ki Hadjar Dewantara’s thought as the Indonesian education founding father, school is a garden where is every students can(EM) unleash their potential with happiness, in another words education is not a burden at all.
The engagement marker can(EM) takes from Proposal Character And Creativity Initiative. It is find out at the third from the fourth paragraph of the
background proposal.
The first paragraph starts with a question about school, “Is it school is the
pleasant place?” The questions followed by an answer that is complicated. These first
paragraph ends with a research that mention that between 2011 – 2013 captured more
than 113.000 conversation in social media about school and most of conversation said
that schooling more like a burden for student.
The second paragraph mentions another problems cause of bad education in
Indonesia. They are unemployment, corruption and global competition. The
paragraph ends using convincing sentence that Global Peace Education and the
44
The third paragraph starts using a statement indicate how Indonesia’s
education should be. The following sentence comes from Ki Hajar Dewantara as the
father of education in Indonesia thought.
The engagement marker can(EM) locates at the sentence of Ki Hajar Dewantara’s thought. The function of engagement marker can(EM) is not to build the reader expectation but for guiding the reader into the same interpretation about
education as what Ki Hajar Dewantara’s thought.
Excerpt 16 (No 33, 34/ IV)
9.30 am Session (3) - Ryan's well video Discussion - Learning from Ryan's story
Ryan's well video brings out the spirit of giving of a 7 year old boy to help African children get clean drinking water by building wells. It is a great(B) teaching material to bring out the message of Living for others,
never give up, giving beyond boundaries and the spirit of One Family under God. Group discussion: What have you learned(EM) from Ryan? Why do you think(EM) Ryan could succeed despite lots of challenges? The engagement marker you learned(EM) and you think(EM) takes from Proposal Global Peace Volunteer Camp 1.15 Regional Indonesia - Malaysia
with the theme ‘Young People Making Change’. The engagement marker you learned(EM) and you think(EM) found not at the background but in the program activities. Both of engagement markers found at a day before the last day. Usually,
the staff or the committee gives unforgettable activities in hope it becomes a long-life
experience for the participants almost in the last day of the program. According to the
45
The discussion session entitled Learning from Ryan's Story starts with
watching together the video of Ryan’s well. Then, one of the Global Peace staff open
the discussion by reviewing what have watched by the participants and in order to
make sure that the participants have the same interpretation as what Global Peace
means trough the Ryan’s story.
The engagement marker you learned(EM) and you think(EM) written in the proposal functions almost the same as what the Global Peace staff do in the practice
that is to avoiding misunderstanding. Therefore, except for addressing the reader you learned(EM) and you think(EM) also functions to guiding the reader into the same interpretation as what the Global Peace propose. It is also supports by the previous
sentence before the markers appear.
4.2 Discussions
Metadiscourse could be one of the new devices to analyzing and maintaining
relationship between the reader and the writer. It is important to maintaining
relationship in written text and moreover in real life. Knowing what to say and to
whom be significant to prevent misunderstanding. It is the reason of the importance
of knowing textual and interpersonal meaning that it also part of metadiscourse. Two
of three research results interpersonal meaning much takes apart in metadiscourse
research. Thus, the present research tries to focus only at the interactional
46
writer used hedges to show the writer tolerance and open dialogue to the reader. The
sentence is served is an opinion rather than a fact. The choice of hedges depends on
the context of the text, the importance of the commitment, relationship between the
speaker and the hearer. Hedges can be written or uttered once or several times
depending on how persuasive the writer wants to achieve. The more persuasive the
sentence is made; the many more hedges will be appeared.
One of the ways to achieve persuasive massages is trough hedges. From the
hedges the writer let the reader feel like having dialogue with the reader. In the real
life a conversation can be happened between two people when one of them tell about
their opinion and end their words trough question tag, “it is look nice, isn’t it?” then
the conversation will start. It is the same in the written text especially in the project
proposal. When the project proposal already has the certain reader that is company,
community, and even to the individual. The hedges keep having the big influence in
building the writing of the project proposal that is to make the reader proposed
interest to read and to know about the project proposed. However it is hard for people
to read and get information only without feels inviting to give comment about the
information given. Therefore, it is seldom for people to read news. They prefer to
read opinion because the feeling of involving the reader opinion too, whether it is
agree or disagree.
The Global Peace Foundation Indonesia, as the name they own, has doing a
47
them. As an organization who works for peace, Global Peace Foundation Indonesia
also put a careful way towards writing an article or even project proposal proved by
highest finding of hedges in their project proposals.
In the other hand, others interactional metadiscourse markers also takes much
power to bring peace in Global Peace Foundation project proposals. To open dialogue
between the writer and the reader also can used attitude markers and engagement
markers. However, the softness way to involve the reader in the text is trough hedges.
The same finding with the previous research from Dafouz M (2008), Yipei
and Lingling (2013), Sukma and Sujatna (2014) is that interpersonal meaning almost
embodies all the use of the language to express opinion, influence, and interact with
the reader. It means the interactional metadiscourse meaning gives much benefit in
maintaining the relationship between the reader and the writer.
The researcher also found the relation of interactional metadiscourse markers
with Islamic views. The good way to maintaining relationship with others is stated in
a Hadist of The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Al-Bukhari shahih book no. 6477.
َنْﯾَﺑ ﺎَﻣَدَﻌْﺑَأ ِرﺎﱠﻧﻟا ﻲِﻓ ﺎَﮭِﺑ ىِوْﮭَﯾ ﺎَﮭْﯾِﻓ ﺎَﻣ ُنﱠﯾَﺑَﺗَﯾ ﺎَﻣ ِﺔَﻣِﻠَﻛْﻟﺎِﺑ ُمﱠﻠَﻛَﺗَﯾَﻟ َدْﺑَﻌْﻟا ﱠنِإ
ِب ِرْﻐَﻣْﻟا َو ِقِرْﺳَﻣْﻟا
"Indeed, one who uttered a word that does not think about what the
48
There is also a verse in Holly Qur’an Surah Ar-Rahmaan: 60 which tell us
about the answer of the kindness.
ُنﺎَﺳ ْﺣِ ْﻹا ﱠﻻِإ ِنﺎَﺳْﺣِ ْﻹا ُءاَزَﺟ ْلَھ
“Is there any Reward for Good - other than Good?”
The Hadist and Surah above suggest us to doing kindness and also thinking
first before uttered the sentence to others people. We have to know whom and what
have to say in order to avoid hurting others people. Allah SWT sees all the people as
in the same way. As a Muslim we have to be careful even though we have to speak
others people who have different religion in order to avoiding conflicts in the name of
the religion. If we are not doing it, Allah SWT will get us into hell that it farther than
the distance east to west, Naudzubillah. For the people who always follow Allah
ways in doing any kinds of kindness, Allah SWT guarantee us many kinds of
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This last chapter of this research consists of two parts; conclusion and
suggestion. The researcher concludes the result of this research and gives
recommendation for the next researchers.
5.1 Conclusion
The researcher concludes that interactional metadiscourse markers is
important device to achieve interpersonal meaning in written text which means
interactional metadiscourse markers help the writer much in maintaining relationship
with the reader.
In this research, the researchers found 69 data containing interactional
metadiscourse markers by the Global Peace Foundation Indonesia project proposal.
All the types of interactional metadiscourse markers based on Hyland (2005) are used
in the Global Peace Foundation Indonesia project proposal. They are; hedges,
boosters, attitude markers, self mentions, and engagement markers. The highest
frequency or the dominant marker used in the project proposal is hedges with 23
(33.3%) data out of 69 data (100%). The other markers found with the lower
frequency, they are; boosters 15 data (21.8%), attitude markers 6 data (8.7%), self
mentions 17 data (24.6%), and engagement markers 8 data (11.6%). The hedges as
50
The result found that interactional metadiscourse markers used in the project
proposal depends on the persuasive level the writer wants to achieve. There are three
markers that can be used to address and open dialogue with the reader, they are;
hedges, attitude markers, and engagement markers. The highest number of hedges
found in the project proposals show that Global Peace Foundation really takes
carefully the words order to convey their opinion about peace. It is proved by many
hedges used in projects proposal as it indicates that this markers is the smoothest
way, besides attitude markers, and engagement markers.
In conclusion, the hedges found reflects that the Global Peace Foundation
Indonesia as the organization who works for peace has equal way to achieve peace,
both trough social activities and written text.
5.2 Suggestion
This research tries to reveal the reflection of interactional metadiscourse
markers which focuses on introduction/overview/background and program/program
details/activities from ten project proposal of Global Peace Foundation Indonesia.
The researcher recommends for the next researcher to focus their research on each of
interactional metadiscourse markers. The future researcher can also focus explore the
use of interactional metadiscourse markers by selecting others topic that untouched
yet especially in the social rather than academic writing. The various research of
interactional metadiscourse markers media, area of focus, and aspect of life hopefully
REFERENCES
Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscouse Strategies in Research Articles: A Study of The Differences Across Subsections. The Journal of Teaching Language Skill. Ser. 62/4
Attarn, Atena. (2014). Study of Metadiscourse in ESP Articles: A Comparison of English Articles written by Iranian and English Native Speaker. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, Vol. 5, No. 1 Crismore, A., Markanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive
writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71.
Dafouz, Emma. 2007. The pragmatics role of textual and interpersonal
metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of
persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse.Journal of Pragmatics in, 40, 95-113, October 5th, 2007. Retrieved on June 19th, 2015 from www.elsivier.com/rocate/pragma
Heng, C.S. and Tan, Helen. 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), 2010, Vol. 6, Issue 3, pp. 124-146.
https://almanhaj.or.id/3197-menjaga-lisan-agar-selalu-berbicara-baik.html. Retrieved at 23 January 2017
http://www.unco.edu/osp/proposal/docs/congress.pdf. Retrieved at 23 Agustus 2016 Hyland, Ken. (2005). Metadiscourse. London & New York: Continuum.
Hyland, Ken. 1997. Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic
metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 437-455, 12 November 1997. Retrieved on June 19th, 2015 from
www2.caes.hku.hk/kenhyland/files/2012/08/metadisc.jop_.pdf
52
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal.
Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177
Khedri, M., Chan, S. H., & Helen, T. (2015). Interpersonal-driven Features in Research Article Abstracts: Cross-disciplinary Metadiscoursal Perspective. Pertanika Journal. Vol. 23, No. 2
Litosseliti, Lia. (2010). Research Method in Linguistics. Quran-Terjemah.org (software)
Sukma, B.P. and Sujatna E.T. 2014. Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in Opinion Articles: A Study of Texts Written by Indonesian Writers.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, ISSN 2200-3592 (Print), ISSN 2200-3452, Vol. 3 No. 2; March 2014.
Retrieved on June 19th, 2015 from
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.2p.16
Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text, 15 (1), 103-127. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the
reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
Toumi, Naouel. 2009. A Model for the Investigation of Reflexive Metadiscourse in Research Article. Language Studies Working Papers, ISSN 2040-3461, Vol. 1 (2009) 64-73.
Vande Kopple, W. J. V. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse.
College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
