Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Text & Talk

An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies

Ed. by Sarangi, Srikant


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.400
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.750

CiteScore 2018: 0.61

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.305
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.670

Online
ISSN
1860-7349
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 36, Issue 1

Issues

Discourse of persuasion: a preliminary study of the use of metadiscourse in policy documents

Victor Ho
Published Online: 2016-03-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2016-0001

Abstract

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government has proposed a number of reform initiatives in different policy areas since its establishment in 1997. This paper explores and discusses the HKSAR government’s discursive attempt to persuade the people of Hong Kong to accept two education policy reforms it has proposed. Adopting a corpus-based approach and drawing upon the construct of metadiscourse as the method of inquiry in the study, the author found that the HKSAR government had appealed to logos, ethos, and pathos with metadiscourse in the policy reform discourse in actualizing its persuasive attempts. The present study represents a modest attempt to analyze the policy document genre from a metadiscursive perspective and to inform writers of the genre of the possible ways to textualize the three means of persuasion – logos, ethos, and pathos – who will then be more aware of the resources that they can use to enhance the persuasiveness of their writing.

Keywords: metadiscourse; discourse; policy reforms; persuasion; logos/ethos/pathos

References

  • Abdi, Reza. 2002. Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies 4(2). 139–145.Google Scholar

  • Afros, Elena & Catherine Schryer. 2009. Promotional (meta)discourse in research articles in language and literary studies. English for Specific Purposes 28. 58–68.Google Scholar

  • Bhatia, Vijay. 2004. Worlds of written discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Carroll, Archie & Ann Buchholtz. 2009. Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

  • Crismore, Avon & Rodney Farnsworth. 1989. Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review 8(1). 91–112.Google Scholar

  • Crismore, Avon & Rodney Farnsworth. 1990. Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In Water Nash (ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse, 118–136. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Dafouz-Milne, Emma. 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.Google Scholar

  • Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. 2009. Nicastro reconvenes Special Advisory Committee on St. Louis public schools. www.dese.mo.gov (accessed 1 August 2013).

  • DfES. 1997. Meeting the childcare challenge: The national childcare strategy. U.K.: HMSO.Google Scholar

  • Education Department. 1981. General guidelines on moral education in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.Google Scholar

  • Fairclough, Norman. 2000. Discourse, social theory, and social research: The discourse of welfare reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2). 163–195.Google Scholar

  • Fischer, Frank & John Forester (eds.) (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

  • Flowerdew, John. 2004. The discursive construction of a world-class city. Discourse & Society 15(5). 579–605.Google Scholar

  • Fox, Charles & Hugh Miller. 1995. Postmodern public administration: Towards discourse. Thousand Oaks; London; New Delhi: SAGE.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, Michael. 2001. Literacy and linguistics: Relationships between spoken and written language. In Ann Burns & Caroline Coffin (eds.): Analyzing English in a global context, 181–193. London; New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

  • Halliday, Michael & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

  • Halmari, Helena. 2005. In search of “successful” political persuasion: A comparison of the styles of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. In Helena Halmari & Tuija Virtanen (eds.), Persuasion across genres, 105–134. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • The Harvard Team. 1999. Improving Hong Kong’s health care system: Why and for whom? Hong Kong: Government Printer.Google Scholar

  • Hastings, Annette. 1998. Connecting linguistic structures and social practices: A discursive approach to social policy analysis. Journal of Social Policy 27(2). 191–211.Google Scholar

  • Ho, Victor. 2011. The shifting of health responsibility from government to people in Hong Kong. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 8(1). 49–70.Google Scholar

  • Ho, Victor. 2014. Managing rapport through evaluation in grounder – A qualitative study. Journal of Pragmatics 61. 63–77.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 1998a. Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication 35(2). 224–245.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 1998b. Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30(4). 437–455.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse. London; New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken, & Polly Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25(2). 156–177.Google Scholar

  • Khabbazi-Oskouei, Leila. 2013. Propositional or non-propositional, that is the question: A new approach to analyzing ‘interpersonal metadiscourse’ in editorials. Journal of Pragmatics 47. 93–107.Google Scholar

  • Lin, Ling & Stephen Evans. 2012. Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary perspective. English for Specific Purposes 31. 150–160.Google Scholar

  • Locher, Miriam & Richard Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1. 9–33.Google Scholar

  • Martin, Jim & Peter White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Morris, Paul & Ka-ki Chan. 1997. Cross-curricular themes and curriculum reform in Hong Kong: Policy as discourse. British Journal of Education Studies 45(3). 248–262.Google Scholar

  • Osgood, Jayne. 2009. Childcare workforce reform in England and the early years professional: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy 24(6). 733–751.Google Scholar

  • Rogers, Rebecca. 2012. In the aftermath of a state takeover of a school district: A case study in public consultative discourse analysis. Urban Education 47(5). 910–938.Google Scholar

  • Saarinen, Taina. 2008. Persuasive presuppositions in OECD and EU higher education policy documents. Discourse Studies 10(3). 341–359.Google Scholar

  • Sadeghi, Vahid & Moses Samuel. 2013. Genre analysis of letters of appeal. Discourse Studies 15(2). 229–245.Google Scholar

  • The Scottish Office. 1988. New life for urban Scotland. Edinburgh: The Scottish Office.Google Scholar

  • Slay, Francis. 2006. From the mayor’s desk. http:www.mayorslay.com/desk (accessed 1 August 2013).

  • Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2008. Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory, 2nd edn, 11–47. London; New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Vande Kopple, William. 2002. Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In Ellen Barton & Gail Stygall (eds.), Discourse studies in composition, 91–114. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar

  • Vergaro, Carla. 2004. Discourse strategies of Italian and English sales promotion letters. English for Specific Purposes 23(2). 181–207.Google Scholar

  • Virtanen, Tuija. 2005. “Polls and surveys show”: Public opinion as a persuasive device in editorial discourse. In Helena Halmari & Tuija Virtanen (eds.), Persuasion across genres, 105–134. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Williams, Joseph. 1981. Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Boston: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar

  • Yeung, Loritta. 2007. In search of commonalities: Some linguistic and rhetorical features of business reports as a genre. English for Specific Purposes 26. 156–179.Google Scholar

  • Zhou, Sijing. 2012. ‘Advertorials’: A genre-based analysis of an emerging hybridized genre. Discourse & Communication 6(3). 323–346.Google Scholar

About the article

Victor Ho

Victor Ho completed his PhD in linguistics at Macquarie University, Australia. He is currently Assistant Professor in the Department of English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. His research interests include pragmatics, professional communication, and intercultural communication. He has published in Text & Talk, Journal of Pragmatics, Intercultural Pragmatics, Discourse Studies, and Functions of Language.


Published Online: 2016-03-09

Published in Print: 2016-01-01


Citation Information: Text & Talk, Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 1–21, ISSN (Online) 1860-7349, ISSN (Print) 1860-7330, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2016-0001.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Maryam Farnia and Nahid Mohammadi
Discourse and Interaction, 2019, Volume 11, Number 2, Page 27
[2]
Ashley Simpson and Fred Dervin
Palgrave Communications, 2017, Volume 3, Number 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in