Metadiscourse functions in English and Persian sociology articles : a study in contrastive rhetoric

This study on contrastive rhetoric reports on metadiscourse functions in sociology articles in Persian and English. The results have revealed a higher number of metadiscourse elements in the English texts. Among the different metadiscourse elements used, text connectors are the most frequently employed in both languages. Modality markers are the second most frequent in both languages although the English writers used nearly twice the number of these markers. Overall, it is found that the frequency of textual metadiscourse markers is greater than the interpersonal markers in both language samples. It was further revealed that the Persian writers of sociology texts are less interested in explicitly orienting the readers and some of the main points in an article, especially in the concluding section, are left for the readers to infer. This, we believe, is the result of less reliance on academic writing in the educational system of the country. Instead, the Iranians are largely encouraged to employ a flowery language and rhetoric to decorate their writing in their school years which makes them less attentive of their readers.

Use of reference in the narratives of Kurdish-Persian bilingual children

This study investigates some of the differences and similarities between Kurdish-Persian bilinguals and Persian monolinguals with respect to the use of referring expressions in spoken narratives. The narratives were elicited from 36 participants, consisting of 24 bilinguals (groups 1 and 2) and 12 monolinguals (group 3) in the first four grades of primary school using the Mayer’s (1969) book ‘Frog, where are you?’. The results have revealed that group 1 (bilingual told the story in Kurdish) used definite noun phrases most frequently followed by zero anaphors, indefinite noun phrases and pronouns. Group 2 who narrated the story in Persian produced definite nouns most frequently followed by pronouns, zero anaphors and indefinite noun phrases and group 3 (Persian monolinguals) employed definite noun phrases followed by zero anaphors, pronouns, and indefinite noun phrases. The significant difference between groups 1 and 2 and groups 2 and 3 has been in indefinite noun phrases and between groups 1 and 3 in the use of pronouns. One reason is that children universally apply similar strategies regardless of their first language (Berman, 2001). The conclusion is that some of the differences are due to the difference in the structure between Persian and the dialects of Kurdish.