Metadiscourse in Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being ...

Diploma Thesis

Metadiscourse in Oscar Wilde’s

The Importance of Being Earnest – A Trivial Play for

serious People

Simone Gasser 1210729

Hermine Penz

SS 17

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 3

2. Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest 4

3. The Theory of Metadiscourse 8

3.1 Hyland’s Model of Metadiscourse 10

3.2 Lee and Subtirelu’s Work on Metadiscourse 26

3.3 Coupland, Garrett, Jaworski, Sachdev

and Williams’ Work on Metadiscourse 33

3.4 Annelie Ädel’s Model of Metadiscourse 37

3.5 Anna Mauranen’s Model of Metadiscourse 53

3.6 Hermine Penz’ Work on Metadiscourse 59

3.7 Deborah Schiffrin’s Model of Metadiscourse 64

4. Analysis of The Importance of Being Earnest 68

4.2 Meta-linguistic Referents 70

4.3 Meta-linguistic Operators 88

4.4 Meta-linguistic Verbs 93

5. Conclusion 116

6. Bibliography 119

3

1. Introduction

The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the uses and functions of metadiscourse in one of Oscar

Wilde’s most famous comedies, The Importance of Being Earnest. At the beginning, I will

briefly present the author and summarize what the play is about. This is to provide a meaningful

context for the passages in the play analysed.

In 2007, Anna Mauranen defined metadiscourse as being “discourse about discourse”

(Mauranen 2007: 4), the ability of language to talk about itself (Mauranen 2007: 4). She further

indicated that this unique feature is not limited to English, but occurs in the majority of human

languages (Mauranen 2007: 4). In my opinion, the fact that metadiscourse is universal across

languages makes analysing it the more interesting.

In the theoretical part of my diploma thesis, I will discuss the works of various linguists on

metadiscourse. I chose to include works that take narrow and broad approaches to the analysis

of metadiscourse in my diploma thesis, as I believe this will give an overview of how far-

reaching and diversified this field of study is. Additionally, many of the chosen researches

concern metadiscourse in classrooms and in English as a lingua franca. The reason I chose to

include these works in my thesis is that I believe they are of particular interest and concern to

me as a future language teacher.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines dramatic texts as “[a] prose

or verse composition, especially one telling a serious story, that is intended for representation

by actors impersonating the characters and performing the dialogue and action” (American

Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). The reason I want to focus on models for

metadiscourse that deal with spoken discourse in my analysis is that plays were written to be

performed rather than read. The model I will be using for my analysis is taken from Deborah

Schiffrin’s work on “Metatalk.” Schiffrin’s (1980) model primarily deals with spoken

interaction. I will explain this model in detail, as this is vital to understanding the functions of

metadiscourse in Oscar Wilde’s comedy I am about to discuss.

4

2. Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest

The immensely satirical comedy of manners is about an English man who is called Jack when

he is in the country but claims to have a shady brother called Ernest who lives in the city. In

fact, it is Jack who calls himself Ernest whenever he is amongst the town’s citizens. In Act I,

Jack visits his friend Algernon in the city. According to him, it is clear that “[w]hen one is in

town one amuses oneself. When one is in the country one amuses other people” (Wilde 1894:

3).

Algernon soon finds out that Jack is in fact pretending to be Ernest, and subsequently calls him

a Bunburyist. Algernon invented that term, as he himself frequently claims to visit a dear old

fellow called Bunbury in the country, whenever he wishes to escape the demanding social

obligations in town. Therefore, both Jack and Algernon are not entirely earnest in who they are

for similar reasons (Wilde 1894: 2-21).

Jack intends to marry Algernon’s cousin, Gwendolen, who knows him as Ernest. Gwendolen

and her mother are both invited for tea at Algernon’s house. As Algernon and his aunt Lady

Bracknell leave the room, Jack takes the opportunity to propose to his beloved. Gwendolen

claims that she is willing to marry him, not least of all because his name is Ernest and she knew

she’d marry her cousin’s friend the moment she heard his name. Gwendolen’s mother does not

approve of the engagement and interrogates Jack as to his age, habits, income, knowledge, and

parents. When Jack admits that he is an orphan who was found in a handbag at a very young

age, Lady Bracknell refuses to let him marry her daughter (Wilde 1894: 2-21).

Jack tells Algernon about Cecily, his ward, who is excessively pretty and only eighteen years

old. Algernon seems to be very interested in meeting Cecily, which Jack would like to prevent

him from doing. The first Act closes as Algernon informs Jack about his intention of going

“Bunburying” the next day (Wilde 1894: 2-21).

Act II opens with Cecily and her teacher Miss Prism in the garden of the Manor House. Miss

Prism’s attempts to interest her pupil in her German lessons fails. Cecily is much more

interested in watering the flowers and writing her own diary and wondering at what her serious

guardian’s brother Ernest might be like, not knowing that it is in fact Jack who calls himself

that name. Cecily announces that she would like Ernest to visit them at the Manor House, as

she is certain her and Miss Prism’s company would influence him positively. Miss Prism,

5

however, does not want to hear anything about Cecily’s imagination and orders her to put away

her diary (Wilde 1894: 21 – 23).

The local clergyman, Dr. Chasuble, enters and Cecily seems to assume a secret attraction

between him and Miss Prism. The young girl tries to talk the two into taking a walk together,

thus also avoiding her tedious German lessons. Cecily succeeds with only little protest coming

from Miss Prism, who is in fact delighted to take a stroll with Dr. Chasuble (Wilde 1894: 23 -

24).

At that moment, Merriman, who is their butler, enters and informs Cecily that Jack’s brother

Ernest has just arrived for a visit. Algernon, who had previously been curious about his friend’s

ward has driven out to the country to get to know Cecily, pretending to be Ernest. Cecily lets

him know that her guardian is not to be back at the Manor until Monday, to which Algernon

reacts with feigned disappointment. The girl informs Algernon that his brother is in town to buy

traveling clothes for him, as Jack intends to send his brother to Australia for some time.

Algernon then proposes that Cecily, instead, help reform him. The two then start flirting with

one another. Cecily pretends to be too busy to reform Algernon’s character in so short a time

and Algernon proposes to reform himself that afternoon. They then both go inside to have

something to eat (Wilde 1894: 24 - 26).

Thereupon Miss Prism and Dr. Chasuble re-enter from their stroll, likewise flirting, when Jack

arrives in the garden dressed in mourning garb. In a mournful voice, Jack informs the two that

he was forced to return earlier as his brother Ernest had passed away. Already in Act I, Jack

entertained the plan of killing his invented brother. Miss Prism and Dr. Chasuble express their

sympathy, the clergyman even proposes to report Jack’s tragedy in his next sermon (Wilde

1894: 26 - 28).

Jack is eager to be christened Ernest, remembering his beloved’s fascination with the name.

therefore, he asks Dr. Chasuble whether it would be possible for him to be christened Ernest

any time soon. Sympathetically, Dr. Chasuble agrees to christen Jack that afternoon. Just as Dr.

Chasuble is about to take his leave, Cecily enters the garden and announces Ernest’s visit to the

Manor (Wilde 1894: 28 – 29).

Jack is enraged upon Algernon’s appearance in the doorway. Cecily believes her guardian’s

strong feelings come from the amount of trouble he has had with his brother over the years. The

girl insists that the two shake hands. Algernon has told her about his invalid friend Bunbury

6

and his visits to him, which made Cecily believe in Algernon’s good soul. Hearing that

Algernon lied to Cecily so barefacedly only contributes to Jack’s anger. However, he sees no

way of exposing Algernon’s lies without revealing his own hypocrisy and thus decides to go

along with the charade (Wilde 1894: 29 – 30).

Jack demands Algernon to leave, who refuses to do so and while alone, talks to himself about

having fallen in love with Cecily. When Cecily enters, Algernon proposes to her. The girl

quickly lets Algernon know that she is not only willing to marry him, but has been fantasising

and writing in her diary for some time about being engaged to Jack’s brother Ernest. Similar to

Gwendolen, Cecily is almost obsessed with the name Ernest, as it “inspires absolute

confidence” (Wilde 1894: 35), which worries Algernon (Wilde 1894: 31 - 35).

Hence, Algernon sets out to find Dr. Chasuble in order to be christened Ernest. Moments later,

Gwendolen arrives at the Manor garden unexpectedly. Neither Cecily nor Gwendolen know

each other. Gwendolen is not happy to learn that Cecily is Jack’s ward, as the young girl is very

beautiful. Cecily, however, informs her that she is not Mr. Ernest Worthing’s ward, but Jack’s

and that she is in fact engaged to Mr. Ernest Worthing. This enrages Gwendolen, and she

informs Cecily that she herself is engaged to the same man. From that moment onwards, the

two ladies manage to treat each other with civility, while simultaneously insulting each other

(Wilde 1894: 35 – 40).

As the two women are insulting each other, Jack and Algernon arrive, both having arranged to

be christened Ernest later that day. Both Cecily and Gwendolen are eager to point out the other

has been deceived: Gwendolen tells Cecily that her fiancé is in fact called Algernon, and Cecily

lets Gwendolen know that the man who she calls Ernest is indeed called Jack. Thus, the two

women learn that they have been lied to and demand to know where Ernest is, as they both find

themselves engaged to that man. When Jack admits his fiction, Cecily and Gwendolen are

furious and retreat to the Manor House arm in arm. This leaves Jack and Algernon alone in the

garden, who both blame each other for what happened. Act II closes with the two men

quarrelling over trivial things (Wilde 1894: 40 – 45).

In Act III, Gwendolen and Cecily admit that they are both eager to forgive the men. Once Jack

and Algernon enter the house, the women confront them and want to learn about their motives.

Algernon assures Cecily that his sole motive for pretending to be Ernest was to meet her.

7

Similarly, Jack convinces Gwendolen that he pretended to be someone else and to have a

brother in order to be able to meet his beloved as often as possible. Gwendolen and Cecily are

convinced the men’s intentions were pure but remember that they are both no longer engaged

to a man called Ernest. Algernon and Jack, however, win them over by telling them about their

intention to be christened Ernest as soon as possible (Wilde 1894: 45 - 47).

Just as the couples are united, Lady Bracknell, Gwendolen’s mother, enters. Algernon quickly

informs his aunt that his friend Bunbury has died and that he is engaged to marry Cecily. Lady

Bracknell is eager for them to marry upon hearing that Cecily is to inherit a great deal of money

when she comes of age. Jack, however, will not consent to his ward’s marriage to Algernon, as

long as Lady Bracknell opposes his marriage to Gwendolen. Nevertheless, Lady Bracknell

remains stubborn. (Wilde 1894: 47 - 52).

Lady Bracknell and Miss Prism meet, and Lady Bracknell asks the teacher severely about the

whereabouts of a baby that Miss Prism cared for almost thirty years earlier. Miss Prism admits

that she lost the male infant, who was placed in a handbag. Jack quickly hurries to get the

handbag he was told he was found in and Miss Prism confirms it is the handbag she left the

baby in so many years before. Lady Bracknell informs Jack that he must be the son of her

deceased sister and thus Algernon’s older brother. In addition, the old lady explains that Jack

was christened after his father, whose name she forgot. They then consult military records and

discover that Jack was in fact christened Ernest John. Jack thus discovers that all these years he

had been telling the truth: his name was both Jack and Ernest and he indeed has a younger

brother, Algernon (Wilde 1894: 53 - 57).

The play closes with three embracing couples, namely Algernon and Cecily, Jack and

Gwendolen and Miss Prism and Dr. Chasuble. (Wilde 1894: 57). Jack recognises having

discovered “the vital Importance of Being Earnest.” (Wilde 1894: 57).

8

3. The Theory of Metadiscourse

Linguists that analyse metadiscourse agree that it describes the universal capacity of language

to refer to itself. However, there are various aspects of metadiscourse that researchers hold

differing opinions on.

First of all, it is important to note that there are numerous terms that different linguists use to

describe metadiscourse. While Deborah Schiffrin (1980) refers to it as “meta-talk”, Ken Hyland

(2005) and Annelie Ädel (2006), for example, prefer the term “metadiscourse” and Anna

Mauranen (2007) opts for the expression “discourse reflexivity.” In my analysis, I will mainly

use the term “metadiscourse.” However, in explaining the works of various linguists on

metadiscourse, I will also refer to it with different terms, such as discourse reflexivity and meta-

talk.

Secondly, in addition to being anything but close to deciding on a single term for metadiscourse,

linguists are also far from agreeing on what to include and exclude in the analysis of

metadiscourse. Ken Hyland defines metadiscourse as “an open category to which writers are

able to add new items according to the needs of the context” (Hyland 2005: 27). Similar to

Hyland, many linguists point out that there are no clear-cut boundaries in the analysis of

metadiscourse and that there are numerous different approaches to studying its functions. Anna

Mauranen (1993) defines the integrative approach, namely the broad definition of

metadiscourse that includes stance, for example, and the non-integrative approach or narrow

definition of metadiscourse, which is more restrictive in its analysis.

I chose to discuss both narrow and broad definitions of metadiscourse in my thesis, as I consider

it vital to demonstrate and emphasise the large diversity of this field. Starting with Ken Hyland’s

(2005) Metadiscourse, I will provide an example for the broad definition of metadiscourse.

Hyland analyses the use of metadiscourse in academic writing, articles and textbooks.

Consulting Hyland’s integrative model of metadiscourse, the researchers Lee and Subtirelu

(2015) compared the use of metadiscourse in English for academic purposes (EAP) lessons

with university lectures. In addition, Nikolas Coupland, Peter Garrett, Adam Jaworski, Itesh

Sachdev and Angie Williams (2004) contributed to the work Metalanguage, a book that consists

of articles dealing with different aspects of metadiscourse. Further, Annelie Ädel (2006) argues

against including stance, for example, into the analysis of metadiscourse, which makes her

approach slightly narrower than Hyland’s. The linguist does, however, include the writer-reader

9

relationship in her analysis of metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English essays. Additionally, both

Mauranen (2007) and Penz (2011) take a rather narrow approach in their articles on

metadiscourse in English as a lingua franca, analysing spoken rather than written interactions.

Finally, Deborah Schiffrin (1980) discusses metadiscourse in spoken interactions applying a

non-integrative model.

10

3.1 Hyland’s Model of Metadiscourse

As mentioned earlier, I believe it is vital to include a model of metadiscourse that takes a broad

approach in my thesis, as in comparison to other models, this will eventually reveal the diversity

of this field. Ken Hyland (2005) not only provides an integrative model of metadiscourse, but

also investigates the functions of metadiscourse in academic texts, articles and textbooks. The

latter especially piqued my interest as a prospective language teacher, which is another reason

I chose to include Hyland’s work.

In his book on Metadiscourse Hyland (2005) discusses existing concepts of metadiscourse.

Furhter, the author’s intention behind the book is to “offer a more robust, explicit and useful

model of metadiscourse” (Hyland 2005: x). He refers to the fact that scholars do not always

agree upon one definition of metadiscourse, often understanding it in different ways and using

it to refer to different aspects of language use. Prior to introducing his own model of

metadiscourse, Hyland intends to provide an overview of different classifications of this field

of study. (Hyland 2005: 1).

In the first chapter of his book, Hyland refers to several scholars, such as Zellig Harris, Vande

Kopple and Crismore, who did early work on the topic. He notes that there is more to

communication than the mere exchanging of information (Hyland 2005: 3), as metadiscourse

describes “the personalities, attitudes and assumptions of those who are communicating”

(Hyland 2005: 3). Hyland believes that it is crucial to bear in mind that neither speaking nor

writing are objective and neutral, but always to some extent include the interests, viewpoints,

feelings and values of the speaker or writer, respectively (Hyland 2005: 4). The author holds

that human interaction involves constant decisions that determine the effect a speaker or writer

has on his/her listeners or readers (Hyland 2005: 3). Those articulating their thoughts actively

consider the social impact of what they are saying or writing using metadiscourse, as it involves

“writers/speakers and their audiences in mutual acts of comprehension and involvement”

(Hyland 2005: 4). Hyland further stresses that for communication to be successful it is vital to

know one’s audience. Being able to assume what a reader or hearer knows already makes it

easier to be comprehensible and convincing. (Hyland 2005: 4 – 5). Thus, different settings and

genres require different usage of metadiscursive elements. To indicate the omnipresence of

metadiscourse, Hyland lists various scholars who have dealt with various aspects of it (Hyland

2005: 5).

11

Despite the deep interest for metadiscourse on the part of numerous scholars, Hyland sees a

need for re-examination, as there seems to be a lack of “theoretical foundation on which to

analyse real texts or to understand how writers communicate effectively” (Hyland 2005: 6). He

sets out to provide a “more theoretically robust, empirically usable and pedagogically useful”

(Hyland 2005: 6) model for metadiscourse in his book (Hyland 2005: 6).

In his research, however, Hyland primarily focuses on facilitating communication and building

a relationship with an audience (Hyland 2005: 5). The author’s book deals with academic

writing, as he believes this to be “central to our personal experience and social identities, and it

is in our writing that understanding of the workings of metadiscourse is likely to have the

greatest payoff” (Hyland 2005: 5 - 6).

Language on the one hand functions to convey content and on the other hand to express personal

affect. Hyland points out that many linguists seem to focus on the function of communication

of information, often at the expense of the function of expressing relations and attitudes.

Further, the author believes that the presentation and organisation of a text guides readers in

understanding it (Hyland 2005: 6 - 8). Through interactional aspects of discourse talkers

become “a conscious and explicit producer of the discourse itself by referring to organizational

or evaluative aspects of the talk” (Hyland 2005: 8). Hyland then stresses that participants of a

discourse always bring in emotions, experiences, background knowledge and expectations

(Hyland 2005: 9). “These interpersonal dimensions influence how they will interpret and

respond to the message and how they will engage in the interaction” (Hyland 2005: 9).

Hyland considers formal lectures to be the most common genre of information transfer. The

author stresses, however, that even in information centred settings there is communication of

affect (Hyland 2005: 10 – 11).

A writer has to manage social relationships in order to be able to successfully communicate

their thoughts. Linguistic and rhetorical choices are influenced by several aspects, such as the

number of readers, whether the readers are known or unknown to the writer, the power relations

between and status of writer and reader and the amount of shared background and topical

knowledge (Hyland 2005: 11 – 12). Hyland adds that written works may have multiple

audiences, which makes it hard for a writer to approach the notion of audience. However, many

writers use styles similar to texts they have encountered and assume their audiences will

recognize this intertextuality and find the text familiar and acceptable (Hyland 2005: 12 - 13).

12

Metadiscourse is […] an important link between a text and its context as it points to the

expectations readers have for certain forms of interactions and engagement. It highlights the

dialogic role of discourse by revealing a writer’s understanding of an audience through the ways

that he or she addresses readers and their needs (Hyland 2005: 13).

Summing up his first chapter, Hyland defines metadiscourse as “aspects of a text which

explicitly organize a discourse or the writer’s stance towards either its content or the reader”

(Hyland 2005: 14).

In chapter two of his book, Hyland provides several definitions of metadiscourse and explains

the notions of proposition, levels of meaning and function (Hyland 2005: 16). He argues that

many linguists have tried to overcome the difficult distinction between what counts as

metadiscourse and what does not by including only text-referential elements (Hyland 2005: 17).

To Hyland, however, “[m]etadiscourse reveals the writer’s awareness of the reader and his or

her need for elaboration, clarification, guidance and interaction” (Hyland 2005: 17). He calls

this a reader-oriented and interpersonal strategy (Hyland 2005: 17).

Hyland regards the definition of proposition rather vague, “but it is generally used to refer to

information about external reality: all that which concerns thoughts, actors or states of affairs

in the world outside the text” (Hyland 2005: 19). He sees the role of metadiscourse in signalling

the writer’s intention in presenting propositional matter. However, metadiscursive

categorisation schemes are often inconsistent (Hyland 2005: 19).

Regarding levels of meaning, Hyland provides examples that illustrate the difference between

propositional discourse, namely the subject matter of a text, and metadiscourse, namely the

meaning of a text (Hyland 2005: 21 – 22).

[The meaning of a text] is the complete package, the result of an interactive process between the

producer and receiver of a text in which the writer chooses forms and expressions which will best

convey his or her material, stance and attitudes (Hyland 2005: 22).

Hyland stresses that the same text written for different audiences or genres will inevitably have

different meanings, partly due to the metadiscourse it contains (Hyland 2005: 23).

Concerning functional analysis, Hyland provides a definition of the term functional, namely the

ways in which language works to attain communicative purposes for users (Hyland 2005: 24).

The author emphasises that when analysing metadiscourse, each item needs to be looked upon

individually to identify the strategies of text producers in particular positions in their discourse,

since “what might be metadiscourse in one rhetorical context may be expressing propositional

material in another” (Hyland 2005: 24).

13

Since there are numerous potential metadiscursive expressions, Hyland points out that lists of

metadiscourse markers will never include all possible expressions. A comprehensive

description of metadiscourse can therefore never be attained (Hyland 2005: 30 – 31).

Summing up his second chapter, Hyland stresses that language aspects can have multifunctional

roles “and that items only function as metadiscourse in relation to other parts of the text”

(Hyland 2005: 36). The shared understandings and conventions of social groups may make it

difficult for researchers to access all metadiscursive items. However, Hyland holds that

consistent categorisations provide a powerful analytical tool for elaborating discourse (Hyland

2005: 36).

In chapter three of Metadiscourse, Hyland provides a clear definition of the term, including

interpersonal aspects, such as evaluation, stance and engagement (Hyland 2005: 37).

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).

The author’s functional approach involves three key principles of metadiscourse. The first

principle considers metadiscourse as distinct from propositional aspects of discourse (Hyland

2005: 38). This principle suggests that metadiscourse “is not simply the ‘glue’ that holds the

more important parts of the text together, but is itself a crucial element of its meaning” (Hyland

2005: 41), as it shows how text and context are related and considers the readers’ needs, current

knowledge, status, understandings and intertextual experiences (Hyland 2005: 41). The second

principle of metadiscourse is that it expresses writer-reader interactions. Hyland here

distinguishes between interactional and interactive resources (Hyland 2005: 43 - 44). While

interactive resources signal that the writer organised their text according to what they assume

the reader’s knowledge and understanding to be, interactional resources “are more personal and

involve the reader collaboratively in the development of the text” (Hyland 2005: 44). The

writer’s awareness of self and the reader relates to their use of explicit signals of connection

between the components of an argument. According to Hyland, metadiscourse always concerns

the interactions between writer and reader. Finally, Hyland’s third principle of metadiscourse

implies that it distinguishes external and internal relations (Hyland 2005: 45). He views

propositions as external relations, while internal relations are relations between aspects of the

discourse (Hyland 2005: 46, 48).

In chapter three, Hyland provides a table with his interpersonal model of metadiscourse, which

I include below to make it easier to follow all expressions.

14

Category Function Examples

Interactive Help to guide the reader through the text Resources

Transitions express relations between main clauses in addition; but; thus; and

Frame markers refer to discourse acts, sequences or stages finally; to conclude; my purpose

is

Endophoric

markers

refer to information in other parts of the text noted above; see Fig; in section 2

Evidentials refer to information from other texts according to X; Z states

Code glosses elaborate propositional meanings namely; e.g.; such as; in other

words

Interactional Involve the reader in the text Resources

Hedges withhold commitment and open dialogue might; perhaps; possible; about

Boosters emphasize certainty or close dialogue in fact; definitely; it is clear that

Attitude

markers

express writer’s attitude to proposition unfortunately; I agree;

surprisingly

Self mentions explicit reference to author(s) I; we; my; me; our

Engagement

markers

explicitly build relationship with reader consider; note; you can see that

(Hyland 2005: 49).

As a next step, Hyland states that interactive resources serve to enhance coherency by

organising propositional information. Transition markers, frame markers, endophoric markers,

evidentials and code glosses belong to this category. Regarding interactional resources, serving

to control the level of personality in a text, Hyland includes hedges, boosters, attitude markers

and engagement markers in this category (Hyland 2005: 50 – 54).

Hyland analysed metadiscourse in postgraduate master and doctoral writing. Among other

findings, Hyland’s results indicate that PhD dissertations contained more metadiscourse due to

their greater length that requires more use of interactive devices to organise arguments. All in

all, the author’s findings prove that the socio-rhetorical contexts of written works haven an

impact on the amount of metadiscourse used (Hyland 2005: 54 – 58). Thus, Hyland is certain

that “metadiscourse provides a link between texts and cultures” (Hyland 2005: 58).

He then explains the interpersonal resources writers use in structuring their texts coherently and

conveying their personality, credibility, reader awareness and relationship to the message. To

the author, the primary function of metadiscourse is to negotiate interactions in texts (Hyland

2005: 59).

In chapter four of his book, Hyland focuses on the strategies of persuasion of rhetoric in

metadiscourse (Hyland 2005: 63). The notion that there is no need for persuasive language in

15

academic discourse, since it presents absolute truths is disproven by the fact that even scientific

observations are fallible. Therefore, in order to convince its audience of the truth of its

arguments, academic writing uses rhetoric (Hyland 2005: 65 – 66). Hyland draws on Crismore

and Farnsworth’s (1989) work on Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”, who found the author

presents himself as “the cautious scientist, using hedges to indicate the relative uncertainty of

his claims and the temperament of a reasonable academic” (Hyland 2005: 67 – 68). His

rhetorical strategy is to ask readers to consider the evidence he presents for his arguments,

which is a strategy common for academic writing even today. Darwin expressed caution for the

arguments he could not prove, which increased his credibility, as the author thus allowed his

audience to participate in the discourse (Hyland 2005: 68). However, Darwin makes frequent

use of boosters, too, which makes him a confident, authoritative persona (Hyland 2005: 69).

With these metadiscursive devices, Darwin established his “ethos”, described by Hyland as the

credibility of the speaker (Hyland 2005: 64). Darwin makes frequent use of attitude markers as

well. Words such as “curiously” and “wonderful” reveal the author’s humanity and excitement,

which strengthens his degree of persuasiveness (Hyland 2005: 70). Finally, interjecting

comments into his text, Darwin “was able to claim an equality with his audience and create a

sense of a joint pursuit of the same scientific goals” (Hyland 2005: 71). In looking into Crismore

and Farnsworth’s work, Hyland illustrates the role of metadiscourse in academic persuasion

and to show how the author’s “ethos” is thus realised (Hyland 2005: 71).

Hyland then looks into metadiscourse and rhetoric in company annual reports, as such

documents have “enormous rhetorical importance in building credibility and imparting

confidence, convincing investors that the company is pursuing sound and effective strategies”

(Hyland 2005: 73). Compared with the director’s report, the CEOs’ letters used seven times as

many interactional devices (Hyland 2005: 74), “to align with readers and engage them in the

promotion of the corporate ideology” (Hyland 2005: 75). Further, CEO letters used many more

code glosses, which served to help readers understand the significance of particular information,

and transitions, serving to ensure clarity of descriptions and assist readers to follow the writer’s

reasoning. Since directors’ reports have the tendency of being rather long, compared to CEOs’

letters, they use endophoric markers more frequently (Hyland 2005: 76 – 77).

To establish their “ethos”, CEOs need to appear confident and trustworthy in their annual

reports. Therefore, persuasive metadiscursive devices, such as hedges, boosters, engagement

markers and evidentials are used (Hyland 2005: 78). While evidentials serve to support the

CEOs’ views, for example, the function of boosters is to “underline certainty and establish an

16

individual presence in the discourse” (Hyland 2005: 78). To strengthen the CEOs’ presence in

the text, self-mention frequently co-occurs with boosters (Hyland 2005: 78). In cases where the

company performed poorly, CEOs seek to create a modest, honest and trustworthy image of

themselves by addressing hard realities. Finally, in several business genres hedges serve to

mitigate the directness by which disappointing outcomes are presented (Hyland 2005: 80).

Hyland describes “pathos” as concerning the characteristics of the audience (Hyland 2005: 64).

For CEOs to show their respect towards the readers, it is vital to address their readers’ situation

and to emphasize with their values and goals (Hyland 2005: 81). Hyland found that “[t]he

categories of engagement markers, attitude markers and hedges, together with the manipulation

of pronoun reference, contribute to the development of a relationship with the reader which

helps realize such affective appeals” (Hyland 2005: 81 - 82).

In sum, in chapter four Hyland illustrates “the descriptive and explanatory power of

metadiscourse by highlighting its key role in realizing the appeals of classical rhetoric in

modern forms of persuasive discourse” (Hyland 2005: 85).

Because metadiscourse represents the social purposes of writers it is a social act rather than simply

a string of language items, and this means that its use will vary enormously depending on the

audience, the purpose and other aspects of the social context (Hyland 2005: 87).

Chapter five of Hyland’s Metadiscourse deals with metadiscourse and genre. According to the

author, a genre is created when members of a community group texts together according to their

content and style (Hyland 2005: 87). “[G]enres are distinguished by clusters of specific

rhetorical features,” one of which is metadiscourse (Hyland 2005: 88). According to Hyland,

metadiscourse demonstrates how different purposes of writers, assumptions they make about

their audiences and various kinds of interactions they establish with their readers are reflected

by language choices (Hyland 2005: 88 - 89).

According to Hyland, a large number of academics establish their reputation and publicise their

works by means of research articles. At first, the author points out that an audience’s adequacy

and acceptability conditions need to be met in negotiating claims (Hyland 2005: 90). Thus, for

a statement to be adequate, it needs to “display a plausible relationship with reality using the

epistemic conventions and argument forms of their disciplines” (Hyland 2005: 90).

Metadiscourse helps the writer draw a line between ideas and reality, which can make a

statement appear appropriate and convincing in the eyes of the potential audience. Additionally,

metadiscourse can help a statement to meet the acceptability conditions by indicating an

awareness of interactional aspects (Hyland 2005: 90 – 91). Hyland looked into 28 research

17

articles from several leading journals and found an average of one metadiscursive element every

15 words. The author found that interactive devices, which function to guide the reading

process, such as transitions were used very commonly (Hyland 2005: 92 - 93). When it comes

to interactional metadiscourse, Hyland found a frequent use of hedges, serving “to open a

dialogue with peers who may hold other views” (Hyland 2005: 93). Summing up,

metadiscourse in research articles serves to express “arguments precisely, explicitly and with

due circumspection” (Hyland 2005: 93).

Popular science articles, which are written for the general public, apply metadiscourse

differently. Popularisations must be written in a way appealing to audiences curious about

scientific findings, but probably lacking necessary domain knowledge. Hyland explains that

therefore, in comparison with research articles, different interactive choices are made in

popularisations. Since they are shorter, popularisations have no necessity of frame markers, for

example. Adopting the style of reporting, popularisations incorporate direct quotations and

make extensive use of the reporting verb “say”. In addition, code glosses serve to explain

unfamiliar terms (Hyland 2005: 95 – 98). Regarding interactional metadiscourse, hedges and

boosters are frequently eliminated, adding to the newsworthiness of the subject. Generally,

attitude and engagement markers serve to convey interactional meanings, as these devices

indicate what is important and encourage readers to engage with the matter. Summing up,

popularisations present their information as newsworthy and relate to real-life concerns in order

to convince the audience of its relevancy (Hyland 2005: 98 – 100).

Hyland further looks into introductory textbooks, which he considers to portray a “compilation

of uncontested facts for impressionable undergraduates” (Hyland 2005: 101). Textbook authors

do not need to persuade experts audiences of a new finding, but to explain recognised facts,

which is why fewer hedges are used in textbooks (Hyland 2005: 108). The author found that

frame markers and endophoric markers structured the discourse referring to arguments, sections

and illustrations. In addition, questions and imperatives were used as both engagement markers

and endophorics, as they frequently referred to previous parts in the discourse. Code glosses

serve to provide definitions or elaborate statements (Hyland 2005: 103 – 107). Compared to

research articles, there is a different writer-reader relationship in textbooks, which explains the

relative absence of self-mention. Textbook audiences are considered less knowledgeable

(Hyland 2005: 111). “This unequal relationship […] seems to allow textbook authors greater

freedom in expressing their opinions towards propositional content” (Hyland 2005: 110).

18

In chapter five, Hyland contrasts research articles, popularisations and textbooks. Research

writers usually address their readers as experts and thus use metadiscourse to underline

solidarity and draw on shared understandings (Hyland 2005: 111). Popularisations, however,

use metadiscourse to introduce findings as newsworthy facts for an audience with rather little

detailed knowledge about a topic (Hyland 2005: 112). Finally, “[f]or a textbook writer,

metadiscourse provides a means of presenting an authoritative authorial stance and of engaging

with readers while setting out information as facts as explicitly as possible” (Hyland 2005: 112).

Hyland suggests that using metadiscourse differently not only allows these writers to achieve

their rhetorical objectives, but also shapes the definitions of their genres and contexts. (Hyland

2005: 112).

Chapter six of “Metadiscourse” investigates the influence of culture on the use of

metadiscourse. Hyland stresses that “culture is not deterministic” (Hyland 2005: 115), as it is

both difficult to define the term and dangerous to lump individuals from the same country

together as a group without making any distinctions (Hyland 2005: 115). With regards to

different writing cultures, Hyland provides the example that English writers are expected to

produce cohesive and coherent works, whereas German writers tend to expect their readers to

dig out essential meaning (Hyland 2005: 116). Therefore, “possible explanation for any

difficulties of comprehension may be related to the amount of effort the writer expects the

reader to invest in the text” (Hyland 2005: 116). In English writing, metadiscourse functions to

“provide transition statements when moving from one idea to the next, to indicate how ideas

are to be linked and understood, and to regularly bring the reader into the text” (Hyland 2005:

116).

Investigating metadiscourse across languages, Hyland draws on comparison made between

evidentials in Chinese and English articles, Spanish and English editorials and articles in

Finnish and English essays. These works have contributed to the understanding of intercultural

linguistic difficulties in writing. (Hyland 2005: 116 - 124). The author then explains further

importance of this research.

This research demonstrates that metadiscourse use is not uniform across languages, reveals how

little is actually universal, encourages us to question a monolithic view of academic writing, and

develops our sensitivity to different metadiscourse practices in second language writing

classrooms (Hyland 2005: 124).

With regards to interactive writing in English, Hyland consulted various studies that looked

into the use of transitions and frame markers. One study suggested, for example, that

Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese and Arabic students considerably overuse transitions such as

19

“and”, “but” and “yet”, thus producing rather long and complex sentences. Additionally, frame

markers are used more by Anglo-American linguists than their Iranian counterparts (Hyland

2005: 125). Consulting Anna Mauranen’s (1993) work, Hyland explains that Finnish writers

use much less metadiscourse, as “the native English speakers displayed more interest in guiding

and orienting readers and in making their presence felt in the text than the Finnish authors when

writing in English” (Hyland 2005: 127). Among other cultures, Finns tend to expect the reader

to accomplish successful communication, thus rendering the reader’s role more demanding than

English writers (Hyland 2005: 128).

Regarding interactional metadiscourse, Hyland draws on Abdollahzadeh’s (2003) study that

shows that Anglo-American Applied Linguistics research papers make much more use of

boosters and attitude markers than the Iranian counterparts. Another study, conducted by

Vassileva (2001), revealed that Bulgarian academics indicated greater detachment and larger

commitment using fewer hedges and more boosters in their papers, for example. A very

extensive comparative study compared rhetorical features in essays from six different language

groups with English speakers (Hyland 2005: 129). Further, according to Hinkel’s (2002) study

“[s]elf mention, boosters and engagement markers were generally far more frequent in the non-

native English speakers’ essays, while hedges were less frequent” (Hyland 2005: 130).

Compared to English speakers, according to Bloor and Bloor (1991: 9) and Clyne (1987),

Germans and Czechs appear to be rather direct in academic writing. In contrast, Hinds’ (1987)

and Harder’s (1984) studies suggest that Japanese speakers, for example, are more cautious and

indirect (Hyland 2005: 133). These findings suggest that cultural backgrounds contribute to the

way a person writes in English. However, Hyland and Milton (1997) found that language

proficiency and a familiarity with metadiscursive conventions may contribute to a learner’s

performance in writing English, too (Hyland 2005: 136).

In his summary of chapter six, Hyland stresses that even though there may be variations in

metadiscursive uses in different writing cultures, there is surely not one single writing practice

for each language (Hyland 2005: 137). The author concludes that “differences in the use of

metadiscourse should be understood not only in relation to the national culture of the writer,

but also in relation to the genre and the immediate discourse community to which the text is

addressed” (Hyland 2005: 137).

In chapter seven of his book, Hyland underlines the importance of community in metadiscourse,

explaining that social contexts and communication go hand in hand. Community can help to

achieve a clearer definition of culture and it complements genre, together providing explanation

20

of the social construction of meaning. Community members usually develop what many

linguists refer to as a discourse community, a community with shared interests and shared ways

of understanding experience that joins together writers, readers and texts in a specific discursive

space. However, Hyland stresses that discourse communities are not to be seen as stable, but

rather hybrid and dynamic. Community members may also be part of several different

communities. Nonetheless, discourse communities do influence social connections and are an

important aspect of metadiscourse (Hyland 2005: 139 – 141).

Disciplinary communities, according to Hyland, can be very constricting in that readers are

more likely persuaded if a writer frames their message in an appropriate, community-recognised

way (Hyland 2005: 141 – 142). The author emphasises that “writing is a community-situated

activity and the effective use of metadiscourse depends on the writer’s observation of

appropriate interpersonal and intertextual relationships” (Hyland 2005: 142).

Comparing the number of metadiscursive elements in articles across disciplines, Hyland found

that metadiscourse was used similarly often, with variation as to which metadiscursive elements

were most frequent in a particular discipline (Hyland 2005: 143).

The use of interactional metadiscourse was found to be much stronger in writers in the

humanities and social sciences in comparison to engineering and science papers. This finding

corresponds to the view that fields such as Philosophy, Sociology and Marketing, for instance,

are very personal and reader-inclusive. Since the humanities and social sciences tend to

recognise alternative opinions and frequently present their arguments in a dialogic way,

boosters and hedges were very commonly used in papers. Boosters were found to function to

suppress alternatives and establish the significance of a work while simultaneously securing

solidarity with the reader. (Hyland 2005: 144 - 146). Since arguments in the “soft” disciplines

tend to be cautious, a strong use of hedges serves to express “the writer’s willingness to

negotiate a claim thereby […] conveying respect for alternative views” (Hyland 2005: 145). In

the “hard” sciences, however, texts rather than individuals gain authority, rendering works more

objective, which is why the use of boosters and hedges is minimised. All in all, both fields use

linguistic devices to successfully interact with colleagues (Hyland 2005: 147).

Regarding self mention, the humanities and social studies frequently use first person to

distinguish their work from others’, while “hard” studies writers tend to downplay their personal

role (Hyland 2005: 148 - 149). Similarly, attitude markers, such as attitude verbs, sentence

adverbs and adjectives, foreground the writer, increase the writer’s credibility and perceived

21

competence and are thus used more frequently in “soft” studies (Hyland 2005: 149 – 151).

Writers in the “hard” field, however, frequently rely on “proven quantitative methods to

establish their claims” (Hyland 2005: 151).

Engagement markers “refer to the various ways writers bring readers into the discourse to relate

to them and anticipate their possible objections” (Hyland 2005: 151). To acknowledge their

readers’ presence, writers in the “soft” sciences frequently use reader pronouns and the

inclusive “we.” This serves to set up a dialogue, claims authority and establishes a position of

confidence. In addition, personal asides add to the writer-reader relationship drawing on a

shared knowledge of what has been said earlier in the discourse. Personal asides and questions

are commonly used in the humanities and social studies. Questions are mostly rhetorical and

serve to pique interest and encourage the reader to explore a viewpoint together with the author

(Hyland 2005: 151 – 154). Further, directives - mostly imperatives - serve to “instruct the reader

to perform an action or to see things in a way determined by the writer” (Hyland 2005: 154)

and to guide readers’ reasoning. Hyland suggests that these engagement features occur more

frequently in the sciences and engineering. The reason for this is that directives are risky and

thus used less by cautious “soft” fields (Hyland 2005: 154 – 155).

Endophorics belong to the category of interactive metadiscourse and refer the reader to material

elsewhere in the discourse. (Hyland 2005: 156). Being a feature primarily of hard disciplines,

endophorics serve to draw a connection between “written and diagrammatic representation

because scientific concepts are typically semiotic hybrids which combine verbal, mathematical

and visual elements” (Hyland 2005: 157). One important feature of communication between

scientists is thus made possible by endophorics that link textual material to diagrammatic forms.

(Hyland 2005: 157).

Regarding evidentials, studies suggest that soft disciplines incorporate more citations.

According to Hyland, referring to prior literature implies that texts depend on their contexts,

thus evidentials help writers and readers build up new knowledge collaboratively. Writers in

hard studies, however, presuppose that their readers have a certain amount of background

knowledge and therefore use less evidentials. Moreover, scientists claim to relate truths they

observed in nature. As their claims are thus socially invariant, they aim at removing human

intervention (Hyland 2005: 157 – 160).

Moreover, Hyland found that metadiscourse appears commonly in textbooks and that

“textbooks play different roles in different disciplines” (Hyland 2005: 162). Interactive forms

22

were used far more often than interactional ones, with transitions, hedges and engagement

markers being the most common devices (Hyland 2005: 162).

Overall, interactional metadiscourse was more common in soft-knowledge disciplines,

especially Philosophy. Humanities and social science books used more hedges, indicating that

some assumptions are still uncertain, while science textbooks in general made greater use of

boosters, thus demonstrating confidence in their claims (Hyland 2005: 162 – 164). Soft fields

used more self mention and attitude markers to take personal responsibility for their arguments.

In contrast, science textbooks frequently used engagement markers to direct readers to certain

parts of the discourse (Hyland 2005: 164 – 165). Soft sciences, on the other hand, use the

inclusive “we” to “engage student readers by drawing them into a shared world of disciplinary

understandings” (Hyland 2005: 165). This encourages students to view themselves as “junior

members of the disciplinary discourse community” (Hyland 2005: 166).

Interactive metadiscursive elements organise the discourse and thus make it easier for the reader

to follow the text. (Hyland 2005: 166). Transitions occur most often in soft fields, where they

serve to connect arguments and thus organise the discourse. Another metadiscursive element

common in soft disciplines are evidential markers, functioning to underline explicit

intertextuality. Science and engineering texts, however, make more use of endophorics, which

serve to help the reader navigate the text, to indicate the connection between visual and verbal

input and thus to render the content understandable (Hyland 2005: 166 – 170).

Summing up chapter seven, Hyland repeats that in research articles, hard disciplines tend to use

metadiscourse to link verbal and visual information and to create a clear line of argument. Soft-

knowledge fields, in contrast, use metadiscourse to build a relationship with readers and engage

them with a text and to establish a clear stance to an argument. Additionally, it was found that

in order to structure a discourse clearly, pedagogical texts use a large number of interactive

features. Some patterns in textbooks will, however, be very similar to the parent community,

thus treating the students as novices of a particular discipline (Hyland 2005: 170 – 171).

Chapter eight deals with metadiscourse in the classroom. Hyland points out the fact that the

opportunities metadiscourse offers language teachers are widely unrecognised, as there is a

focus on content rather than rhetorical teaching. According to the author, it is vital for novice

writers to be aware of their readers’ shared knowledge in order for communication to succeed

(Hyland 2005: 175 – 176). It is through interaction that students “learn to produce language

appropriate to a particular audience and genre, developing the metadiscourse resources we need

23

in response to others” (Hyland 2005: 176). As chapter six explored, it is often hard for language

learners to produce contextualised, coherent and appropriate texts. Frequently boosters, self

mention and engagement markers make learners’ texts appear like informal face-to-face

conversations (Hyland 2005: 176 – 177). Hyland assumes that the difficulty of writers to adapt

their works for readers may be linked with “the different conventions writers are familiar with

from their home communities and cultures” (Hyland 2005: 178). Many EFL and EAP (English

for Academic Purposes) textbooks either omit metadiscourse features or mention these in

passing. As a result, EFL teachers who use such textbooks may be prone to duplicated the

neglection of metadiscourse (Hyland 2005: 178). For learners to receive appropriate instruction

in metadiscourse, it is vital to explicitly teach it to reveal “the important interactive nature of

discourse” (Hyland 2005: 178).

Studies indicate that reading and writing skills improve through the appropriate use of

metadiscourse. Hyland lists various points that underline the benefits of teaching metadiscourse

in detail. In general, it has three main advantages (Hyland 2005: 179).

First, it helps [students] to better understand the cognitive demands that texts make on readers

and the ways writers can assist them to process information. Second, it provides them with the

resources to express a stance towards their statements. Third, it allows them to negotiate this

stance and engage in a community-appropriate dialogue with readers (Hyland 2005: 178).

Using metadiscourse appropriately means for students to “develop a sense of audience” (Hyland

2005: 181) and to be equipped “with the means to engage with that audience appropriately”

(Hyland 2005: 181). Readers expect a text to be well structured, the writer to signal their

intention in writing and their own opinions to be recognised (Hyland 2005: 181). Making

students aware of the rhetorical devices that are common of particular genres and discourse

communities is referred to as “rhetorical consciousness raising” (Hyland 2005: 181). Hyland

lists six points that teachers need to bear in mind in their metadiscourse instructions, one of

which is “to view learning to write as learning to use language” (Hyland 2005: 183). “Focusing

on the functions of metadiscourse features means that developing an awareness of grammar has

to be integrated into the exploration of texts and contexts rather than taught as a discrete

component of writing” (Hyland 2005: 183). As a result, leaning on their contextual knowledge

learners improve in deciding which language they are likely to need for a text (Hyland 2005:

183).

Further, Hyland believes that in order to “emphasize a conscious awareness of recurrent and

useful patterns in target genres” (Hyland 2005: 185), contextual aspects need to be incorporated

into teaching. Analysing texts, such as how metadiscourse is used in students’ textbooks, draws

24

attention to the use of language in relevant contexts. Further, examining text fragments can help

students understand the functions of metadiscourse. Hyland lists several ways this can be

achieved in the classroom (Hyland 2005: 185 – 186). Finally, answering questions about the

text, such as “What is the purpose of the text?” encourages students to consider metadiscursive

elements and helps them “uncover features outside the text which may have influenced the ways

it was written” (Hyland 2005: 186). In order to help students understand their audiences, Hyland

believes teachers should bring a variety of real and simulated audience sources into the

classroom (Hyland 2005: 188). This will aid students in understanding that “texts are embedded

in institutional life, communities and cultures” (Hyland 2005: 189). Additionally, students can

be involved in the analysis of communicative events by deciding on an issue they would like to

research, for example. Correspondingly, students will increasingly grasp the way genres are

embedded in real-world situations (Hyland 2005: 190). Finally, it is important to give students

time to practice writing (Hyland 2005: 190). Hyland holds that creating a text requires “students

to create a textually cohesive, stylistically appropriate and ideationally coherent piece of

discourse with the intention that it will be read and responded to” (Hyland 2005: 190). In order

for students to understand a task completely, it is necessary to provide context, thus specifying

the relevant genre and specific audience of a text. This way students get familiar with the

conventions of various discourse communities (Hyland 2005: 192).

Summing up, Hyland believes exposure to authentic language is a key element of teaching

metadiscursive features (Hyland 2005: 193). According to the author, it is crucial that students

“do not just blindly adopt the cosmetic mannerisms of formal writing, but understand the

contexts where it is used and employ it with discrimination and impact to negotiate the identities

and meanings they intend” (Hyland 2005: 193).

In his conclusion on “Metadiscourse”, Hyland hopes to have been able to clarify the state of

knowledge on metadiscourse, its pedagogical opportunities and to propose an agenda for further

investigation (Hyland 2005: 194). The author intended to “review the contribution

[metadiscourse] has made to the study of rhetoric, genre, culture and discourse communities,

and to suggest it relevance to the teaching of writing” (Hyland 2005: 194). Hyland repeats that

writers are to be seen as social beings that interact with their readers by guiding them in

interpreting their prose the way they intend (Hyland 2005: 194 – 195). Regarding genre, Hyland

underlines that writing is not to be viewed as stable, but is “influenced by professional,

institutional and disciplinary cultures” (Hyland 2005: 196) and different discourse communities

follow different writing patterns. In classrooms, it is important to make students familiar with

25

the conventions that operate in particular discourse settings in order for them to understand

what their audiences expect a text to be like (Hyland 2005: 197 – 198). Hyland’s intention was

to provide a solid theoretical model for metadiscourse (Hyland 2005: 199). The author believes

that in order to understand the personal link of text users and to determine interactional features

of particular genres “more descriptive studies should be done with different genres written for

different populations on different topics” (Hyland 2005: 201). Hyland further sees more need

for research in the metadiscourse use of different languages and discourse communities.

Through knowing about the values, norms and institutional structures, L1 and L2 students can

focus on those metadiscursive features that differ from their usual discourses and thus produce

appropriate texts. In addition, Hyland suggests that there should be more research carried out

on diachronic studies of metadiscourse in order to document variations in patterns of argument,

for example. At the end, Hyland stresses that metadiscourse is a rather new field of study.

(Hyland 2005: 201 – 203).

[Metadiscourse] is, however, a field which holds considerable potential for both description and

explanation, promising to reveal the interactions which underlie all communication and help us

see how discourses are community-specific, historically situated cultural products (Hyland 2005:

203).

26

3.2 Lee and Subtirelu’s Work on Metadiscourse

Lee and Subtirelu (2015) compared the use of metadiscourse in English for academic purposes

(EAP) lessons with university lectures. The authors use Hyland’s integrative model of

metadiscourse to analyse their data, which includes stance and engagement. As a prospective

English teacher, I am interested in the authors’ findings, since Lee and Subtirelu focus on

metadiscourse in the classroom. Therefore, I chose to incorporate their research into my thesis.

In 2015, Joseph J. Lee and Nicholas C. Subtirelu conducted research on the topic

“Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university

lectures” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 52). In their introduction, the authors accentuate that English

for academic purposes, short EAP, has gained importance over the past few decades in both

language teaching and learning. What makes EAP teaching particularly challenging is that

instructors need to simultaneously develop their students’ situated language use and academic

skills (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 52). Examples for such academic skills would be “writing

academic essays, listening to academic lectures, and taking lecture notes” (Lee and Subtirelu

2015: 52).

The primary aim of EAP courses is to assist academically-oriented second language (L2) learners

to gain the literacies and skills necessary to navigate a diverse range of complex academic

discourses and be successful participants in the academy (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 52).

The authors then point out that, while there has already been much research on different

academic discourses of EAP in theory, there seems to be little work done on actual

communication patterns of EAP classrooms. What is more, even though one of EAP’s aims is

to prepare students for university settings, there seems to be little research comparing EAP

classrooms to university content-area classes (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 53). Lee and Subtirelu

believe that further research in this area “can provide important insight for L2 teacher

education” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 53).

The non-propositional functions of language, such as organising the information for an

audience and encouraging them to understand the discourse in a particular way, is what Lee and

Subtirelu refer to as metadiscourse. They explain that the propositional content is both

organised and evaluated by metadiscourse, a field that increasingly interests scholars dealing

with various disciplines and cultures (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 53).

27

With regard to the investigation of how metadiscourse is integrated in spoken discourse, much

research focuses on metadiscursive features of university lectures. This research revealed, for

example, that discourse signalling cues, such as “so” and “okay” help listeners to process the

information they are presented with (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 53). Interpersonal features in

lectures, on the other hand, show the level of interactivity “in different class sizes and lecturing

styles, and how these features can enhance or diminish student engagement” (Lee and Subtirelu

2015: 52). Most findings suggest that these rhetorical and interactive features are vital in spoken

interactions, as they enhance listeners’ understanding and involvement (Lee and Subtirelu

2015: 54). When it comes to EAP teachers’ use of metadiscourse, however, there has hardly

any research been conducted, even though EAP is responsible for preparing academically-

oriented L2 students to navigate through lessons, identifying different textual cues. Lee and

Subtirelu want to investigate the use of metadiscourse in EAP settings, since EAP instructors

engage in various metalinguistic processes, such as pointing to elements of text and language.

Their research questions focus on how EAP teachers and university lecturers use metadiscourse

in classroom and to what extent their use of metadiscourse is different (Lee and Subtirelu 2015:

54).

Lee and Subtirelu analysed 18 EAP lessons with different focuses and 18 university lectures

from diverse disciplines with both teacher and student contributions. They drew their data from

MICASE, The Michigan Corpus of American Spoken English and L2CD, a second language

classroom discourse (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 54). Lee and Subtirelu wanted the classroom

discourse they analyse to be structured similarly to conversation. The authors are convinced

that “such highly interactive forms of classroom discourse would include metadiscoursal

features that differ from those found in monologic lectures” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 54). In

order to be able to compare lessons with one another, they made sure to match each EAP lesson

“with a lecture from MICASE that had a similar ratio of teacher contributions” (Lee and

Subtirelu 2015: 54). However, the length of lessons and class sizes are noticeably smaller in the

L2CD. Thus, their comparison of L2CD and MICASE data cuts across institutional context

(Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 55).

The authors used Hyland’s model of metadiscourse to analyse their data. Hyland takes a rather

broad focus on textual and evaluative metalanguage, including stance and engagement (Lee and

Subtirelu 2015: 55). Therefore, Lee and Subtirelu investigated transitions, frame markers,

endophoric markers and code glosses regarding interactive metadiscourse, which assists “the

audience in following the text structure” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 55). Concerning interactional

28

metadiscourse, which focuses on “linguistic elements that engage the listener or reader in the

unfolding discourse by signalling the speaker’s or writer’s attitude toward and evaluation of the

content and audience” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 55). Here, the authors analysed hedges,

boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers (Lee and Subtirelu 2015:

55).

“AntConc”, a text analysis and concordance tool, was applied to determine instances of

instructors’ use of interactive and interactional metadiscourse in both corpora (Lee and

Subtirelu 2015: 55). Hyland’s model primarily focuses on written language, Lee and Subtirelu

“manually examined each example in its context in order to ensure that all potential items were

functioning as metadiscourse” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 55). The authors then provide examples

for the way they included and excluded certain items from analysis (Lee and Subtirelu 2015:

55).

The authors used several statistics programmes and tests to ensure interrater reliability and to

best be able to compare the two corpora (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 56). Their results indicate

that metadiscourse is omnipresent in both instructional settings. Lee and Subtirelu found that

more than 60 per cent of metadiscourse in both corpora was interactional discourse (Lee and

Subtirelu 2015: 57).

Although metadiscourse usage overall is more frequent in the L2CD, both EAP teachers and

university lecturers employed more interactional metadiscourse […] than interactive

metadiscourse […] in their classroom discourse. […] This result indicates that instructors in both

contexts draw more heavily on metadiscoursal elements that signal their stance toward and

engagement with content and students than on features structuring discourse organization (Lee

and Subtirelu 2015: 57).

These findings coincide with Hyland’s opinion that interactional metadiscourse is the

predominant form of metadiscourse in classroom interactions (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 57).

The authors consider the fact that EAP instructors not only made more use of metadiscourse,

but especially interactive metadiscourse, than university lecturers, to indicate that EAP teachers

tend to guide their students for whom English is their second language more closely through

lessons. In addition, EAP instructors seem to be aware that their students need explicit

scaffolding in order to follow the lesson structure and instructions and to perform tasks

successfully (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 57).

Regarding university settings, the most frequently used metadiscursive category is transitions,

namely the indication of relationships between text parts (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 55, 57). The

authors believe that this refers to the fact that university lectures demand the maintenance of

29

cohesion and coherence, as they cover large amounts of academic content (Lee and Subtirelu

2015: 57). Therefore, showing students relationships between different lecture stages is vital

for them to stay “‘in-tune’ with dense subject content over a lengthy period of time” (Lee and

Subtirelu 2015: 57). Simultaneously, EAP teachers used a large number of transition markers

to show their students how all the information of a lesson ties together. The transitions primarily

used in both corpora were common coordinating conjunctions, such as “and”, “but” and “so.”

The authors provide examples for this (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 57 - 58).

Frame markers, which function to sequence text parts, label text stages, announce goals and to

shift topics, proved to be significantly frequent in both corpora (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 57 –

55, 58). However, they occurred more often in L2CD, mostly used “to mark shifts in lesson

flow, to announce tasks, and to outline and sequence task procedures” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015:

58). Lee and Subtirelu believe that the tendency of EAP teachers to guide their students more

than university lecturers guide theirs stems from the fact that EAP students are yet in the process

of learning English (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 58). These “instructional sequences marked

overtly with […] framing devices are more common in the L2CD than in MICASE” because

EAP teachers feel the need to facilitate students’ comprehension more strongly (Lee and

Subtirelu 2015: 58).

In order to direct students to various pages in course textbooks, EAP teachers used endophoric

markers more often than university lecturers. However, classroom discourse infrequently

requires teachers to point to specific text parts, which is why endophoric markers appeared

rarely in both corpora. “Such real-time interaction allows for other means, such as non-verbal

gestures (e.g., pointing at the board) and/or deictic markers (e.g., here), to direct listeners” (Lee

and Subtirelu 2015: 58 - 59). Additionally, since classroom instructions occur within a set time

frame, “instructors may not perceive the need to explicitly point out where in the discourse

students should refer” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 59).

Evidentials, which serve to reference intertextual material, were used frequently by university

instructors, while they were extraordinarily uncommon in the L2CD corpus (Lee and Subtirelu

2015: 59). Lee and Subtirelu hold that university lectures present information provided by “key

scholars who have shaped and contributed to disciplinary knowledge” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015:

59). Yet in EAP settings, “much of the information presented may be considered codified

knowledge that is owned by disciplinary communities at-large rather than individual members”

(Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 59). The authors further note that it may often be irrelevant to

explicitly refer to external sources in spoken interactions (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 59).

30

Since the clarification of concepts for students is highly important in university settings, Lee

and Subtirelu expected code glosses that generally function to reformulate and exemplify ideas

to be commonplace. However, the authors found only few code glosses in their L2CD data, and

even fewer in the MICASE corpus. In EAP lessons, the meaning of new terms was frequently

reformulated using code glosses. Code glosses further served to illustrate how students were to

complete certain tasks. EAP teachers thus provided their students with various ways of

understanding lesson material and task instructions using these metadiscursive elements (Lee

and Subtirelu 2015: 59).

Engagement markers were the predominant forms of interactional metadiscourse used in both

databases. Both groups of instructors used hedges, which serve to qualify statements (Lee and

Subtirelu 2015: 55), rather frequently. According to Hyland, academic lectures make a recurrent

use of hedges, as instructors often need to display caution towards the presented information.

Most hedges found in the MICASE and L2CD corpora were realized in forms similar to “sort

of” and “kind of”, the common mitigator “just” and models, such as “may” and “could” (Lee

and Subtirelu 2015: 59). According to Lee and Subtirelu, hedges demonstrate modesty and

politeness (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 59). Since the use of hedges reduces the distance between

teachers and learners, “hedges serve an important function in classroom discourse” (Lee and

Subtirelu 2015: 59).

Regarding boosters, which function to express certainty (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 55), Lee and

Subtirelu found that this interactional metadiscourse category was the least represented in both

corpora. The authors ascribe the infrequency of boosters in both databases to instructors’ wish

to reduce the power distance within the classroom (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 60). “[C]lassroom

instructors may choose to limit expressions of certainty in order to open up dialogue with

students […] regardless of the type of course one teaches” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 60).

MICASE instructors mainly used “really” and “actually” as expressions of certainty, while EAP

teachers applied stative verbs such as “know”, serving to stress the teacher’s confidence in their

students’ skills (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 59 - 60).

Attitude markers in general serve to indicate affective position toward a proposition (Lee and

Subtirelu 2015: 55) and help establish an interpersonal relationship between teacher and

students as well as preserving interactivity in the classroom. Regarding the fact that teachers

frequently need to convey their affective position toward the presented information, Lee and

Subtirelu found surprisingly few instances of attitude markers in both corpora. The authors

assume that instructors drew on paralinguistic signals, such as changes in tone of voice and

31

stress or facial expressions in order to convey their attitudes. It is likely that verbal means of

indicating affective position were thus used infrequently (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 60).

In both MICASE and L2CD, “self-mention was the second most frequent interactional

metadiscourse category” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 60). The use of the first person singular “I”

prevailed in both EAP and university instructors. The MICASE and L2CD data Lee and

Subtirelu analysed consisted of rather small classes, which encourages a closer student-teacher

relationship (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 60). The authors ascribe the frequent use of “I” to “the

closer affective and physical distance between instructors and students” (Lee and Subtirelu

2015: 60).

Engagement markers serve to include the audience as participants and to direct their focus in

the developing discourse (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 55) and are the most frequent type of all

metadiscourse categories. While university lecturers used these metadiscursive devices slightly

more often than EAP teachers, both used engagement markers in their instructions to achieve a

high amount of interactivity in their classrooms (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 60). EAP teachers

used engagement markers such as the pronoun “you” to set up pedagogical tasks and to include

their students in the discourse, as in “[…] before you hear the lecture I want you to read the

questions below […]” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 60). Lee and Subtirelu thus argue that

engagement markers function “to maintain students’ engagement and ensure their participation

in performing various pedagogical tasks” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 60). University lecturers

used imperatives, such as “remember” and “look at” and obligation models such as “have to”

in order to guide students to lecture material, while EAP teachers used such directives to mentor

students in accomplishing pedagogical tasks (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 60). The authors see the

main difference between EAP classroom discourse and university lectures in the use of

engagement markers (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 60).

University lectures mostly use engagement markers to orient and focus students’ attention to

academic content in their attempts to impart disciplinary knowledge and to socialize students into

disciplinary communities […]. In contrast, the focus in EAP classes is for students to engage in

academic and language tasks rather than to learn disciplinary content (Lee and Subtirelu 2015:

61).

Thus, in order to establish opportunities for teacher-student interaction, EAP teacher use

engagement markers (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 61).

In their conclusion, Lee and Subtirelu point out that metadiscourse is inseparably linked to the

context and content of teaching in classroom settings (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 61). Further,

they draw the conclusion that metadiscourse plays a bigger role in EAP lessons, “as there is

32

greater necessity for L2 teachers to negotiate classroom interaction for students still in the

process of learning the language” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 61). In addition, the authors found

more use of linguistic expressions to engage students to create interactive and participatory

situations for students to join in various academic tasks in EAP settings. Some linguistic

features, however, such as boosters, hedges, attitude markers and self-mentions, were used to a

similar extent in both corpora (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 61).

The authors further point out that the sizes of both corpora are rather small, with a limited

number of speakers, implying that there is yet research to be done on larger corpora. What is

more, students were not asked their opinion on how engaging and encouraging they found their

lectures and lessons, respectively (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 61). Lee and Subtirelu merely

described “the apparent intentions of speakers and not the uptake by listeners” (Lee and

Subtirelu 2015: 61). They suggest that future research include students’ opinions as well (Lee

and Subtirelu 2015: 61).

In addition, the authors see a necessity for both EAP teachers and university faculties to “gain

deeper insights into the discursive practices of university lecturers” (Lee and Subtirelu 2015:

61), as there is an increasing number of international students in US institutions (Lee and

Subtirelu 2015: 61). Universities may therefore “benefit […] from adjusting their classroom

discursive practices and approaches for a student population that is becoming increasingly

multilingual, multicultural, and international (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 61).

In order to be better able to assist learners in navigating classroom lessons, L2 teachers need to

become more familiar with the rhetorical acts and linguistic patterns of metadiscourse. To Lee

and Subtirelu, understanding the classroom discourse and the influence of their discursive

practice on language learners is vital for teachers, since they are their students’ linguistic role

models (Lee and Subtirelu 2015: 61).

33

3.3 Coupland, Garrett, Jaworski, Sachdev and Williams’

Work on Metadiscourse

Together with several linguists, Adam Jaworski wrote the book Metalanguage in 2004. Two

articles of part three in the book, “Metalanguage and social evaluation,” piqued my interest as

a future language teacher. I therefore include both “Teachers’ beliefs about students’ talk and

silence: Constructing academic success and failure through metapragmatic comments” and

“Adolescents’ lexical repertoires of peer evaluation: Boring prats and English snobs” in my

thesis, as they deal with teachers’ responds to specific metadiscursive aspects and students’

metadiscursive reaction to peers.

Part three of Metalanguage concerns “Metalanguage and social evaluation.” Adam Jaworski

and Itesh Sachdev investigated “Teachers’ beliefs about students’ talk and silence: Constructing

academic success and failure through metapragmatic comments” (Jaworski and Sachdev 2004:

227). Since communication skills are vital in most of today’s careers, language education

emphasises the importance of spoken language education (Jaworski and Sachdev 2004: 227).

The authors gathered their data “from 178 teachers’ references written predominantly for

secondary school and college students who applied for places on a language/communication

related undergraduate degree scheme at a British university through the Universities and

Colleges Admissions System (UCAS)” (Jaworski and Sachdev 2004: 229). Consulting several

UCAS references, the authors found that in general “talk was referred to positively and silence

negatively” (Jaworski and Sachdev 2004: 229).

The authors found that talk is a vital evaluative factor, since it appeared in the majority of

references (Jaworski and Sachdev 2004: 233). “The analyses revealed that all […] of the

references to oracy in this context are positive or highly positive […], e.g. ‘excellent oral

presentations’” (Jaworski and Sachdev 2004: 233). Expressing ideas and contributing to

discussions were outcomes of talk viewed particularly positively (Jaworski and Sachdev 2004:

233).

Silence was mentioned in the data far less than talk and “references to different forms of silence

are found to be mainly negative” (Jaworski and Sachdev 2004: 234), especially in academic

matters. Jaworski and Sachdev found, however, that silence as a personality trait was interpreted

less negatively. The authors associate this with teachers’ general “preference for ‘quiet’

34

students implying submissiveness and obedience over ‘noisy’ students implying

insubordination and disobedience” (Jaworski and Sachdev 2004: 234 – 235).

The authors hold that in some contexts “oracy, verbal competence, articulateness and

participation in discussions will be prized more highly than silent participation, listenership,

and observation” (Jaworski and Sachdev 2004: 238). However, Jaworski and Sachdev stress

that noisy students do not necessarily succeed in their later academic careers, and silence may

aid students in listening and comprehending and thus be beneficial (Jaworski and Sachdev

2004: 239).

Jaworski and Sachdev conclude by stating that to their knowledge no study “has shown a

positive correlation between a student’s amount of speaking in class and his/her academic

achievement” (Jaworski and Sachdev 2004: 240). The authors emphasise the significance of

metalinguistic comments in teachers’ references for students. References on the one hand

advocate the education system’s attention to communication skills and provide evaluations of

students’ talk and silence. On the other hand, references “imply causal links between the amount

of talk produced by individual students and their academic success or failure” (Jaworski and

Sachdev 2004: 242). According to the authors, teacher training should include critical language

and communication awareness (Jaworski and Sachdev 2004: 242).

Peter Garrett, Nicolas Coupland and Angie Williams contributed their work “Adolescents’

lexical repertoires of peer evaluation: Boring prats and English snobs” to part three of

Metalanguage.

In their introduction, the authors emphasise that in language attitude research, young adults are

an important age group (Coupland et al. 2004: 193). “It is frequently emphasised that [young

adulthood] is a period of rapid change and development, with physical changes occurring

alongside changes in self-concept, and a move away from family identity towards peer-group

identity” (Coupland et al. 2004: 193). In addition, adolescents reportedly spend more time with

peers than their families. The increased contact with peers enables social comparison and

forming one’s identity. Not least of all, this happens through language in the form of evaluative

conversations with and about peers (Coupland et al. 2004: 193). The authors note that

“[l]anguage is shown to provide a means through which teenagers try out various identities to

see how others react, and how these identities impact on their social relations with others”

(Coupland et al. 2004: 194). Teenagers show metalinguistic awareness in that they know about

cultural differences. Different ways of talking are associated with belonging to particular groups

35

of peers at school and regional communities. Thus, metalanguage serves to “help clarify the

alternative identities that are available in the social system […], to boost the identity […] one

currently adopts and/or to establish the difficulty or ease with which one might switch to

another” (Coupland et al. 2004: 194). Hence, teenagers evaluate their own identities by

evaluating others’, which adds to a perception of individuality and sociality and is thus “part of

the functioning of language for society” (Coupland et al. 2004: 194).

The authors analyse the first impressions mid-teenagers in schools all over Wales had of audio-

recorded “speakers of their own age who are telling narratives in their dialects to their peers”

(Coupland et al. 2004: 197). Overall, it was found that the first responses of teenagers to what

they heard were rather negative and that they produced a significant amount of evaluative

content. Teenagers were asked to quickly write down whatever their first impressions on the

speakers were (Coupland et al. 2004: 203). Along with several pejorative terms, the authors

found a large proportion of what they call “taboo” items, such as “dickhead, twat [and] wanker”

(Coupland et al. 2004: 204). Some linguists hold that expletives often occur in the language of

teenagers, as they function to reinforce group membership and signal shared interests and

knowledge. Additionally, most taboo items were nominal rather than adjectival (Coupland et

al. 2004: 204 – 205). “[T]hese evaluative items are not only hanging an attribute on an

individual, but also placing an individual in a social space, and indicating where the evaluator

stands in relation to that space” (Coupland et al. 2004: 205). According to the authors, this is a

vital function of evaluation (Coupland et al. 2004: 205).

“Boring” was found to be the most frequently used item, appearing to “convey a general lack

of engagement by the listener” (Coupland et al. 2004: 206). This may be caused by several

factors, such as the narrative performance, for example dialect and tempo, a slow delivery with

frequent pauses or an uninteresting narrative content. Since there are numerous possible

interpretations of the word “boring”, it was at times difficult for the authors to categorise this

item (Coupland et al. 2004: 206). It was found that judges living in rural areas of Wales were

less likely to “downgrade speakers of their age for failing to engage them” (Coupland et al.

2004: 207) as opposed to those living in relatively industrialised areas (Coupland et al. 2004:

207).

Items associated with farming and other activities, Welshness and items referring to socio-

economic factors, such as “posh” and “rich” also frequently occurred in the data. According to

the authors, different judge communities focused on these keywords in different ways

(Coupland et al. 2004: 212 – 215).

36

Drawing a conclusion, the authors state that language attitudes and semantic items are

multidimensional (Coupland et al. 2004: 215), which is why they used a multi-dimensional

scale for their analysis (Coupland et al. 2004: 216). Moreover, keywords are essential in group-

formation, as they can “‘promote’ or ‘relegate’ individuals to membership of ingroups and […]

outgroups. Keywords are often group labels (nominals) rather than just person attributes

(adjectives)” (Coupland et al. 2004: 216). Findings suggest that some keywords, such as words

related to farming were used more by students from rural backgrounds, as those judges are

likely to have more attractive job alternatives in their minds (Coupland et al. 2004: 217). “These

keywords, then, provide a window to these teenagers’ aspirations, to their cultural and spatial

outlooks, and to their assessments of the range and nature of the opportunities, relationships

and identities that might be available to them” (Coupland et al. 2004: 217). Further, most

evaluations had a negative tone in reflecting upon Welsh peers based on personal or

sociocultural criteria. The authors assume that certain speakers were negatively evaluated, as

the judges were at an age where they seek to distance themselves from certain people in order

to be viewed as belonging to a group they identify with more. The authors close their work

pointing out the significance of studying the language of adolescents. (Coupland et al. 2004:

217).

[T]he study of the teenagers’ evaluative repertoires shows itself to be of great value in pointing

us towards a better understanding of the comparisons they are making and the stereotypical

images they are working with, and better enables us to see their life-view and understand how

they are negotiating their identities (Coupland et al. 2004: 217).

37

3.4 Annelie Ädel’s Model of Metadiscourse

Ädel’s (2006) work concerns the use and functions of metadiscourse in Swedish learner essays

as compared to British and American students’ essays. The author’s model of metadiscourse is

rather narrow compared to Hyland’s approach, but includes writer-reader relationship. I include

this work in my thesis, since both Ädel’s findings about various learner strategies portrayed in

their use of metadiscourse and the author’s recommendations for teachers of L2 writing interest

me as a future language teacher.

Annelie Ädel wrote the book Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English in 2006. In her introduction,

the author not only defines metadiscourse as the discourse universal that is “talk about talk”

(Ädel 2006: 1) but also refers to it as “a central feature of language in everyday use” (Ädel

2006: 1). While metadiscourse concerns both spoken and written interactions, Ädel focuses on

written metadiscourse, namely “text about text” (Ädel 2006: 2). As English is spoken by more

people as a second than as a first language, the author is “analysing the written production of

advanced learners of English and comparing it with that of native speakers of British English

(BrE) and American English (AmE)” (Ädel 2006: 3 – 4). To be exact, Ädel aims at analysing

metadiscourse “in written argumentative texts by advanced learners of English whose first

language is Swedish” (Ädel 2006: 4) and at comparing it to corresponding texts written by

American and British native speakers. The reason that reading and writing in English have

become crucial to many people in professional as well as non-professional settings is that

“English is culturally, politically and economically one of the most important languages in the

world” (Ädel 2006: 4).

According to Ädel, the purpose of her book is to provide a solid definition of metadiscourse, to

find out how computer-assisted methods can help analyse metadiscourse and to discover the

differences of metadiscourse use between L1 and L2 writing (Ädel 2006: 5 – 6). Ädel draws

her data from ICLE (the International Corpus of Learner English) (Ädel 2006: 6). It consists of

350 learner essays from three different Swedish universities and 290 essays written by students

that are half speakers of either British or American English (Ädel 2006: 7 – 8).

Regarding personal and impersonal types of metadiscourse, Ädel points out that a writer can

make themselves and their readers explicit by using personal pronouns or noun phrases such as

“the reader”, which creates a personal interaction (Ädel 2006: 13 – 14). Using passives and

impersonal constructions, “does not make explicit reference to the discourse participants.”

38

(Ädel 2006: 14). Ädel finds it intriguing to analyse the use of explicit metadiscourse. Since

every text has an author and readers, the author wants to find out why some writers make

themselves and their readers present in the texts while others do not (Ädel 2006: 14). Ädel

refers to impersonal metadiscourse as the “detached type”, and personal metadiscourse as the

“involved type.” (Ädel 2006: 15).

Based on Jacobson’s functional model of language, Ädel presents her model of metadiscourse,

the “reflexive model” (Ädel 2006: 17) in chapter two of “Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English.”

Ädel uses the metalinguistic, the expressive and the directive functions of language, which

focus on the text and code, the writer and the reader. One or more of these functions may be

present in metadiscourse, with the metalinguistic function being indispensable (Ädel 2006: 17).

“This is so because it is the attention to the text itself as what is ‘communicated’ that is central

to the concept of metadiscourse or, indeed, to all reflexivity in language” (Ädel 2006: 17).

Further, the author does not want to limit her model to textual concepts, but wants to include

both writer and reader into her “reflexive triangle” (Ädel 2006: 18).

Apart from personal and impersonal metadiscourse, Ädel distinguishes between metatext and

writer-reader interaction, which are both types of metadiscourse. What the author refers to as

metatext is structuring, discourse actions and wording of the text. Writer-reader interaction

happens whenever the writer creates a relationship with the reader (Ädel 2006: 20). Ädel then

describes “four configurations […] of components that constitute metadiscourse” (Ädel 2006:

20). According to this, metadiscourse can be text-oriented, as in “in the following”, writer-

oriented, as in “As I stated above”, reader-oriented, as in “you may be thinking” and participant-

oriented, as in “What do we mean by” (Ädel 2006: 21).

Like other researchers, Ädel emphasises that “[m]etadiscourse is a fuzzy category” (Ädel 2006:

22), as it lacks definite boundaries and it is very difficult to distinguish metadiscursive elements

from non-metadiscursive elements. In addition, metadiscourse is a functional rather than formal

category. Therefore, it is necessary to find out “whether the function of a linguistic unit in a

particular context is metadiscursive” (Ädel 2006: 22). Further, to the author it is important to

realise that metadiscursive elements may be multifunctional. In addition, the linguistic context

may decide whether an element that could have several functions is metadiscursive or not. The

author provides several examples to illustrate the importance of context in metadiscourse (Ädel

2006: 23 – 26).

39

In order to both distinguish “between various subtypes of metadiscourse” and shed “more light

on related categories” (Ädel 2006: 27), the author provides explicit features to classify

expressions as metadiscourse. These features are “explicitness, world of discourse, current

discourse, writer qua writer and reader qua reader” (Ädel 2006: 27). Explicitness requires that

the world of the discourse is overtly referred to. This feature indicates self-awareness and

awareness of the reader as “it is the explicit presence of the text, writer, and/or reader” (Ädel

2006: 27). Additionally, Ädel points out that she distinguishes between the world of the

discourse and the real world (Ädel 2006: 27 – 28). “Thus, a basic question to keep in mind

when analysing data is whether the focus is on the ongoing discourse or on other, ‘worldly’,

activities or phenomena that are external to the text” (Ädel 2006: 28). Metadiscourse, according

to Ädel, necessarily refers to the current text, writer or reader, focusing on the self-referentiality

of a text, rather than its intertextuality. The features “writer qua writer” and “reader qua reader”

focus on personal metadiscourse in the current discourse (Ädel 2006: 28 - 29).

In order to classify a textual element as metadiscourse, we need to ask, for example where first

person singular is concerned, whether I refers to the writer appearing in her role as a writer. The

referents of first person plural we should be the writer persona and the imagined reader and no

other persons that do not directly participate in the ongoing discourse (Ädel 2006: 29).

Since personal pronouns mostly either refer to the writer or addressee, they help locate the

current writer and reader of the current text. The most important thing to bear in mind when

deciding if something is metadiscursive or not is the textual element’s context. The personal

pronoun “I” is mostly metadiscursive, except if it occurs in quoted material or reported speech.

The person plural “we”, however, is slightly more complex (Ädel 2006: 30 - 31). This pronoun

essentially is not to be classified as metadiscourse, except if it is an “inclusive authorial we”,

including both the writer and the reader, as in “we are now going to look at” (Ädel 2006: 31).

In addition, Ädel notes that it is often difficult to distinguish the definite and indefinite use of

the pronoun “you” (Ädel 2006: 33). While most examples are generic and could be changed to

“we”, “us”, “our” or “one”, “[v]ery few of the instances of you in the present material

exclusively refer to the imagined reader” (Ädel 2006: 33). When it comes to the pronoun “you”,

Ädel explains that only one category of “you” can be regarded metadiscursive, namely when

“you” works as a directive referring to the intended reader. In these cases, the writer is either

anticipating the reader’s reaction or directly asking the reader a question. These uses of “you”

are metadiscursive as they refer to the writer as a guide in the world of discourse rather than a

real world experiencer (Ädel 2006: 33 – 36).

40

The author then moves on providing an explicit distinction between what she refers to as

“metatext” and “writer-reader interaction” (Ädel 2006: 36). Metatext spells out the participants’

discourse acts, “or refers to aspects of the text itself, such as its organisation and wording, or

the writing of it” (Ädel 2006: 36). This functions to remind the reader of what has previously

been stated, or to announce what the future discourse will be discussing (Ädel 2006: 37). This

type of metadiscourse may also serve to exemplify, conclude, emphasise or argue for or against

something and to rephrase parts of a text, “or give cues to the reader as to the proper

interpretation of elements” (Ädel 2006: 37). Thus, metatext can be personal, being either

participant-, writer- or reader-oriented, or impersonal, being text- or code-oriented (Ädel 2006:

38). Writer-reader interaction, on the other hand, focuses on the relationship between both

participants by addressing the reader directly and thus engaging them in a mock dialogue.

Therefore, the writer-reader interaction is always personal and is either reader-oriented or

participant-oriented (Ädel 2006: 37 – 38). The main functions of metadiscourse according to

Ädel are thus to guide the reader and to comment on the use of language, which classifies as

metatext and to interact with the imagined reader, which classifies as writer-reader interaction

(Ädel 2006: 44).

Ädel continues noting that there are broad and narrow approaches to metadiscourse. While

broad approaches classify what the author refers to as stance as metadiscourse, namely personal

values, assessments, feelings and attitudes, Ädel’s model of metadiscourse excludes stance

(Ädel 2006: 38 – 39). “Linguistic expressions in which the writer primarily acts as an

opinionated persona in the ‘real world’” (Ädel 2006: 39) refer to the writer’s real world

experiences and opinions, not to “strategies undertaken in the world of discourse” (Ädel 2006:

39) and are thus not to be viewed as metadiscourse. Stance markers can be reader-, writer- and

participant-oriented (Ädel 2006: 40). Ädel concludes that most personal pronouns are not used

in a metadiscursive way and refer to “experiences that have been accumulated outside of the

world of discourse” (Ädel 2006: 42), a category the author calls participation. Similar to stance

markers, participation does not focus on the realm of discourse (Ädel 2006: 42).

[I]nstances of the writer performing as an intellectual persona showing her likes and dislikes of

‘real world’ phenomena count as stance markers, whereas other references to the writer as an

actor and experiencer in the ‘real world’ count as participation (Ädel 2006: 43).

Concluding her second chapter, the author again stresses the importance of her reflexive

triangle, consisting of the text/code, the writer and reader. Further, Ädel’s concept of the world

of discourse helps distinguish between what counts as metadiscourse and what does not.

Moreover, reference is vital in classifying textual elements as metadiscourse. “[T]he referent

41

has to be the current text, not other texts” (Ädel 2006: 44) or “the writer qua writer of the current

text in the world of discourse, not the writer as a general experiencer in the world” (Ädel 2006:

44 – 45) or the “reader of the current text” (Ädel 2006: 45). According to this definition, only

few uses of personal pronouns can be regarded as metadiscursive, as opposed to broader

definitions by other researchers that include all personal pronouns (Ädel 2006: 45).

In chapter three of Ädel’s book, the author intends to examine personal metadiscourse, which

either involves pronouns or nouns, such as “writer” and “reader”. With regards to quantifying

personal metadiscourse, the author underlines the difficulty of identifying individual

metadiscursive elements. While some linguists count large chunks of sentences as one single

metadiscursive item, Ädel identifies every single distinct function (Ädel 2006: 47 – 49).

Through the author’s counting it was found out that “one thing that sets learners apart from

native speakers is the density of their metadiscourse; the learners cluster metadiscourse together

in ways that the native speakers do not” (Ädel 2006: 49).

Regarding the distribution of personal metadiscourse in more detail, results show significant

differences across the corpora (Ädel 2006: 52 – 53). “The main pattern is that the Swedish

learners use more than twice as much personal metadiscourse as the American university

students” (Ädel 2006: 53), who use personal metadiscourse twice as often as British students.

There is a considerable overuse of the personal pronoun “I” in the Swedish learners’ texts,

which indicates that writer visibility might be a great concern to Swedish writers, and/or that

avoiding visibility is a great concern for natives. Figures look similar regarding the personal

pronoun “you.” When it comes to the personal pronoun “we”, which serves to appeal to the

imagined reader, Ädel found that differences across countries were much smaller (Ädel 2006:

53 – 54).

Analysing how metadiscursive elements cluster together, Ädel estimated the density of personal

metadiscourse in her corpora (Ädel 2006: 55). “The results confirm that not only do the learners

use more metadiscourse in their texts than the native speakers, but they also use more

metadiscourse at a time” (Ädel 2006: 55). This finding indicates that Swedish language

learners’ overuse of metadiscourse has to do with their tendency to use several metadiscursive

expressions at the same time (Ädel 2006: 55 – 56).

Ädel continues analysing the types of acts that are performed when personal metadiscourse is

used (Ädel 2006: 57). The author believes that “differences across corpora run deeper than

simple frequency of use, and certain discourse functions may not be used across the board”

42

(Ädel 2006: 57). Ädel provides tables with several functions of metadiscourse and their

definitions and examples with respect to her reflective triangle of text, writer and reader (Ädel

2006: 60 – 61).

Regarding the level of code, personal metadiscursive functions are “Defining” and “Saying”

(Ädel 2006: 60). Ädel found, for example, that Swedish learners use metadiscourse more

frequently than natives in order to define terms (Ädel 2006: 62). When the focus lies on the

structure of an essay, metadiscourse serves to introduce a topic, to focus, conclude, exemplify,

remind, add, argue and contextualise (Ädel 2006: 60). With regards to “Exemplifying”, the

author found that learners choose to become visible at times when giving an example, while

native speakers do not (Ädel 2006: 69). In addition, Ädel provides personal metadiscourse

functions for writer-reader interactions, such as “Anticipating the Reader’s Reaction”,

“Clarifying”, “Aligning Perspectives”, “Imagining Scenarios”, “Hypothesising” about and

“Appealing” to the reader (Ädel 2006: 61).

When it comes to the distribution of these discourse functions, Ädel found that British English

speakers were rarely visible in their texts and made use of few functions except for “Introducing

topics”, “Defining” terms and “Aligning perspectives” (Ädel 2006: 79). According to the

author, this “suggests that their writing norm approximates a strictly impersonal style with few

or no instances of mock interaction between the writer and reader” (Ädel 2006: 79). Ädel then

restates that American writers used personal metadiscourse twice as often as British writers. In

American essays, metadiscourse primarily functions to build up the writer-reader relationship,

and they scored highest on “Appealing to the Reader” (Ädel 2006: 79). Additionally, American

writers commonly use text/code oriented discourse functions such as “Saying”, “Defining” and

“Reminding” (Ädel 2006: 79). All functions, however, are most common in Swedish learner

material. The author found that learners most frequently use “Introducing Topic”, “Saying” and

“Defining” (Ädel 2006: 80). Since “Defining”, “Introducing Topic”, “Reminding” and

“Aligning Perspectives” are most common in all corpora, the author concludes that they are

“conventional discourse functions for personal metadiscourse in English-language

argumentative essays” (Ädel 2006: 80).

What is more, Ädel observed that “the differences across the corpora actually do run deeper

than total frequency of use” (Ädel 2006: 81). While the learner and British English groups are

similar in terms of proportions, the American English group uses the most participant-oriented

types and thus differs proportionately (Ädel 2006: 81).

43

The author continues to analyse the frequencies and functions of forms such as “I”, “we” and

“you”, the pronominal “one” and the nouns “writer”, “author” and “reader” (Ädel 2006: 81).

The frequency ranking shows similar results as the overall ranking of personal metadiscourse

use: “learners at the top, American students midway and British students at the bottom” (Ädel

2006: 82). Ädel found that writers use “one” to introduce arguments, to anticipate readers’

reactions and to “soften the taking of positions in argumentation” (Ädel 2006: 85) in order not

to seem combative. What is more, nouns referring to the writer and reader serve to create a

formal impression, for instance when the writer refers to themselves in the third person singular.

Regarding Swedish essays, Ädel sees a connection between the frequent occurrences of

“reader” and the perceived lack of communicative and linguistic competence of the writer (Ädel

2006: 87). “Explicit mentions of the reader may be seen as appeals from the writer to understand

[them] better” (Ädel 2006: 88) and may thus be a learner strategy. Ädel, however, also believes

differences in cultural conventions when it comes to reader and writer visibility may contribute

to the high use of “reader” in the Swicle corpus, which is the Swedish component of the

International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE). (Ädel 2006: 6, 88).

Ädel then introduces several writer persona parameters, such as “Friendliness”, which indicates

“the degree to which the writer and imagined reader are presented as equals” (Ädel 2006: 88),

or “authority”, which indicates the expertise writers ascribe to themselves. These are only two

of eight persona parameters Ädel presents and the author suggests that numerous other

parameters could be added. The author’s findings suggest that British writers prefer a rather

formal style and thus see their readers as less friendly. (Ädel 2006: 89). Ädel holds that

“metadiscourse and writer-reader dialogue may be a means for paving the way for readers to

accept the text more readily” (Ädel 2006: 89). However, as it is unclear what the readers’

reactions will depend on, Ädel sees necessity for further research on the effects of the writer

persona on the reader’s attitude towards a text (Ädel 2006: 89).

Ädel found a high degree of tentativeness in learner essays. According to the author, a frequent

use of hedges made writers appear rather modest. Ädel assumes that Swedish students may feel

the need to apologise for possible obscurities in their texts as they tend to write their essays

under time pressure and may simply lack the time to proofread them. In addition, writing in

Swedish may follow a tendency of mitigation. Therefore, cultural differences in writing may

contribute to the high degree of tentativeness in Swicle (Ädel 2006: 90 – 93).

Ädel concludes chapter three of her book stating that British English writers rarely address their

readers directly and hardly have visible writer personas. Swedish learners form the opposite

44

extreme by overusing personal metadiscourse, while American writers are between the two

extremes (Ädel 2006: 94). However, “[t]he three groups differ in their use of personal

metadiscourse not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively” (Ädel 2006: 94). Learners

frequently show metalinguistic awareness by referring to themselves as writers and their texts

as texts (Ädel 2006: 94). British writers hardly ever use discourse functions of personal

metadiscourse other than “Introducing Topic”, “Defining” and “Aligning Perspectives” (Ädel

2006: 95) and are thus highly invisible, “which suggests that their writing norm favours a

strictly impersonal style” (Ädel 2006: 95). When American writers use personal metadiscourse,

it is mainly to establish and maintain the writer-reader relationship. Swedish learners use

metadiscourse mostly to define terms and introduce topics. Ädel suggests that there are many

“possible influencing factors that may account for the differences in the three groups’ use of

metadiscourse […], such as genre differences, lack of register awareness, learner strategies and

differing cultural conventions for writing” (Ädel 2006: 95).

In chapter four of “Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English”, Ädel looks into the frequencies and

functions of impersonal metadiscourse to find out “whether learners and native speakers differ

as much in their use of impersonal metadiscourse as in personal types” (Ädel 2006: 97). In

addition, in this chapter Ädel explores computer-assisted methods of metadiscursive analysis

(Ädel 2006: 97).

The author establishes four subcategories for impersonal metadiscursive functions, namely

“References to the Text/Code, Phoric Markers, Code Glosses and Discourse Labels” (Ädel

2006: 98). Analysing the distribution of impersonal metadiscourse, Ädel found that learners use

significantly more metadiscursive items than natives. This indicates that learners overuse both

personal and impersonal metadiscourse (Ädel 2006: 99). “In comparison with the results for

personal metadiscourse, however, the differences between groups [in impersonal

metadiscourse] are considerably smaller” (Ädel 2006: 99). It was found that, while American

writers use personal metadiscourse twice as often as British writers, they use impersonal

metadiscourse only slightly more often than British writers (Ädel 2006: 99). This suggests that

“the differences between the British and American essays primarily concern the level of writer

and reader visibility, and not so much the use of impersonal metadiscourse” (Ädel 2006: 99).

Dividing occurrences of impersonal metadiscourse, Ädel created four main groups, namely

Phoric Markers, References to the Text/Code, Code Glosses, and Discourse Labels. The author

found that Code Glosses are used twice as often in British than in American essays, while

American writers use more Discourse Labels than British writers (Ädel 2006: 100 – 101).

45

Ädel’s findings further suggest that “[i]n comparison to the native speakers, the Swedish

learners overuse all of the categories except for Code Glosses” (Ädel 2006: 101).

Phorics, such as “firstly”, “as I noted earlier” or “as noted above”, serve to navigate readers

through a text, pointing to several portions in the current text. Metadiscourse either announces

what is going to be discussed next in the discourse, which would be a cataphoric reference, or

what has already been done in the discourse, which would be an anaphoric reference.

Endophoric references refer to other parts of the text and therefore help make additional

material understandable to the reader (Ädel 2006: 101). Ädel found that deictic expressions,

such as “I, we, you, here, now, above, below, this” (Ädel 2006: 107) render a text

metadiscursive, as “they tend to be used by writers to make reference to the current text, the

current writer and the current reader” (Ädel 2006: 107). Deictic expressions serve to situate the

text, engage the reader and render the text less impersonal by creating an awareness of the

specific time and place of the writing and reading of a text. “Now”, as in “the one I’m going to

discuss now” (Ädel 2006: 107) is used to keep the reader in suspense. Ädel assumes that “the

argumentative essays are too short to have much need of [Phorics]” (Ädel 2006: 108), which

would explain why neither natives nor learners “are very explicit in displaying the structure of

their texts” (Ädel 2006: 108).

References to the Text and Code, such as “essay”, “paragraph” and “text”, are used three times

as often by learners in comparison with native speakers. Ädel found the learner group uses

impersonal and personal metadiscourse in similar ways. While “Defining” and “Saying” are

functions very commonly used by learners in personal metadiscourse, they frequently use

references to the text and code in order to discuss definitions in impersonal metadiscourse. The

author considers the fact that learners are less familiar with the target language as the reason

for them to focus more on definitions of words and expressions. However, while the overusing

of references to text and code may be a learner strategy, Ädel notes that it may as well be a

rhetorical strategy, making the author appear more considerate and careful in their

argumentation. Finally, it may also be a strategy to increase the number of words in an essay

(Ädel 2006: 108 – 113).

Code Glosses, such as “brief” and “namely” are used most by British students. “Mean” in the

sense of signify is used more in the Swicle, however (Ädel 2006: 113 – 115). Regarding

Discourse Lables, “Swedish learner material has the highest frequencies in the majority of

cases, except for such as and state, which are used more frequently by the American writers”

(Ädel 2006: 116).

46

Ädel concludes chapter four stating that “the difference between American and British student

writers lies primarily in the use of personal metadiscourse, but it is also present in impersonal

types” (Ädel 2006: 122). Further, Swedish learners use about 50 per cent more impersonal

metadiscourse than natives. Ädel explains that the category of Phorics does not show statistical

significance, while all other categories do. The author then comments on her aim to explore

computer-assisted ways of identifying metadiscourse, with the greatest difficulty being the fact

that language is often context-dependent. Therefore, “[a] great number of the retrieved search

terms were not metadiscursive, i.e. they did not comment on the ongoing text, nor did they

explicitly refer to the current writer or reader within the world of discourse” (Ädel 2006: 123).

In chapter five of her book, Ädel looks into the specific points in which metadiscourse occurs

in texts (Ädel 2006: 125). “First and final paragraphs, in particular, can be assumed to be good

candidates for specialized forms of discourse that focus on the text, the writer or the reader”

(Ädel 2006: 125). Along with other researchers, Ädel holds that the writer establishes a

relationship with the imagined reader already in the introduction (Ädel 2006: 125). “The

ending, on the other hand, is the last chance a writer has to convince her reader” (Ädel 2006:

125). Therefore, the author’s aim in chapter five “is to explore whether beginnings and endings

also serve particularly important metadiscursive functions in texts” (Ädel 2006: 126).

Personal metadiscourse, according to Ädel, is found more frequently at the beginnings and

endings of texts, a trend especially common in learner essays. American students use more

personal metadiscourse closing their texts, while British writers do so in opening their texts.

The author further found differences in all three groups of students when it comes to the use of

the personal pronouns “I”, “you” and “we” at the beginning or ending of texts (Ädel 2006: 127

– 131).

Regarding the textual distribution of impersonal metadiscourse, Ädel found that metadiscursive

“question”, for instance, is most common at the beginning of essays, especially in learner texts

(Ädel 2006: 131 – 133). Ädel then analyses the textual distribution of questions in more detail.

Questions encourage reader involvement and were found more commonly in the Swicle corpus,

which contributes to the fact that learner texts are more dialogic (Ädel 2006: 133 – 134).

However, Ädel points out that she does not consider questions or exclamations as

metadiscursive per se, as “they do not necessarily involve any explicit reference to the text as

text, or the writer and the reader” (Ädel 2006: 134). American student writers use questions

frequently to open their essays in order to attract the reader’s interest. British students use few

questions, which again indicates that they have a different writing style as compared to learner

47

writers and American writers (Ädel 2006: 135). Further, Ädel found that “the learners and the

British students employ questions for a wider range of functions” (Ädel 2006: 136) and tend to

distribute questions more freely than British writers (Ädel 2006: 136).

Ädel discovered that learners tend to overuse exclamations in comparison with natives. To

achieve strong effect, both learners and American students use exclamations most frequently in

their final paragraphs, while British writers rarely use exclamations (Ädel 2006:136 – 137).

Summarising chapter five, Ädel’s hypothesis that metadiscursive items are particularly likely

at the beginnings and endings of texts has been verified. British and Swedish students

incorporate metadiscourse to a high degree at the beginning of their texts, while American

students use metadiscourse more at the endings of texts. Ädel further found that question marks

dominate the beginnings of American students’ texts, while they use more exclamations at the

end (Ädel 2006: 138). Swedish writers reveal a similar pattern regarding exclamations, but

show “no particular pattern in the distribution of questions” (Ädel 2006: 138). Finally, British

students use hardly any exclamations and spread their questions out evenly across the texts

(Ädel 2006: 138).

Chapter six of Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English deals with possible causes of the variation

in metadiscourse use between natives and Swedish learners. Ädel provides four likely

originators of variation, namely “genre comparability, register awareness, cultural conventions

and general learner strategies” (Ädel 2006: 141). Even though the author considers the latter

two causes vital, she only briefly comments on them as they fall outside the scope of her

investigation (Ädel 2006: 141).

Ädel notes that most researchers have previously dealt with differences between disciplines

rather than genres. Regarding genre comparability of the three corpora, Ädel explains that it is

hard to identify the degree to which genre-related differences in all corpora may have effected

the results. The author notes that native-speaker students use secondary sources, while Swedish

learners had hardly any additional textual input in their exams. Ädel believes that this may have

influenced the use of “question” and “answer” (Ädel 2006: 142 – 143). The Swicle corpus

focuses mostly on “questions and answers posed by the writer persona or the imagined reader”

(Ädel 2006: 143), while “the AmE material refer to questions posed by other people” (Ädel

2006: 143). In addition, learners may prioritise showing off their skills in the English language

and potentially “disguise the fact that they do not know much about the topic” (Ädel 2006:

48

144), while natives tend to focus on proving their analytical writing skills (Ädel 2006: 143 –

144).

“Register awareness involves knowing, for example, when it is effective and appropriate to be

personal or impersonal” (Ädel 2006: 154). Ädel notes that the “degree of training and level of

writing skill are factors that strongly influence the use of metadiscourse” (Ädel 2006: 145).

The author indicates that some findings suggest learner essays express individual feelings and

experiences and are thus more similar to informal speech than academic prose. It is possible

that native-speaker writers are more skilled in writing as they usually undergo more training,

while the Swedish educational system pays much attention to spoken communication in

language classes (Ädel 2006: 145 – 146). Ädel is convinced that “learners should be made

aware of how they might come across to native speakers if they write in a certain way” (Ädel

2006: 146). The author considers it likely, however, that L2 learners may “consciously choose

not to behave in accordance with native-speaker norms” (Ädel 2006: 147) in order to preserve

their own ethnic identities (Ädel 2006: 147).

In the conclusion of chapter six, Ädel emphasises the “difficulty of distinguishing among and

evaluating the different factors that may contribute to the differences between learner writing

and native-speaker writing” (Ädel 2006: 153). The author believes that metadiscourse in

different genres of professional L1 English writing, the use of metadiscourse in Swedish

argumentative writing and metadiscourse in teacher instructions need to be further investigated.

Differences in tasks and instructions, for instance, may have considerably influenced the use of

metadiscourse in the three corpora. Further, the author stresses the importance of register

awareness and believes that a “sufficient body of knowledge about this” (Ädel 2006: 154)

should be provided for professional educators. Additionally, differing writing conventions,

concerning for example writer visibility and the degree of interaction between writer and

audience, may contribute to variation in the use of metadiscourse. Finally, a high degree of

metalinguistic awareness demands a greater cognitive-linguistic effort, which may add to the

overuse of metadiscourse by Swedish learners (Ädel 2006: 154).

Chapter seven of Ädel’s book deals with theories of metadiscourse and aims at explaining what

metadiscourse means. The author stresses that linguists fail to agree on a definite definition of

metadiscourse (Ädel 2006: 157). Ädel quotes Schiffrin (1980: 201), for example, who claims

that “[t]he wide range of phenomena that can be identified as meta-linguistic and the vagueness

surrounding the boundaries between meta-lingual and other functions of language complicate

the task of finding a set of empirical linguistic indicators for [such phenomena].” Ädel,

49

however, intends to “achieve greater theoretical rigour” (Ädel 2006: 157) with her work on

metadiscourse, as she does not accept that the boundaries of metadiscourse are hopelessly

imprecise. Depending on whether or not stance is included in the analysis of metadiscourse,

researchers either take a broad or narrow approach in their investigations (Ädel 2006: 157 –

158).

The author provides a general historical insight into the development of metadiscourse in

linguistics. Drawing on Roman Jakobsons work, Ädel explains that object language has its

focus on entities that are language-external, while metalanguage directs its attention to the code

per se (Ädel 2006: 158 – 159). The author holds that there is broad set of terms that can be

considered inherently metadiscursive, “such as clause, word, language, speak, define and

clarify” (Ädel 2006: 159).

Ädel further explains that metalanguage can have technical and non-technical usages (Ädel

2006: 161). Dictionary definitions, for example, present headwords paradigmatically and do

not refer to objects in the real world, while mentions of terms, as in “Mary is a noun” (Ädel

2006: 161) focuses on the code itself, which enhances the level of reflexivity (Ädel 2006: 161).

When it comes to the functions of metadiscourse, Ädel consults Jakobson’s model and includes

the metalinguistic, the expressive, and the directive functions in her analysis (Ädel 2006: 163).

“The corresponding components of the speech event are the ‘code’, the ‘addresser’, and the

‘addressee’” (Ädel 2006: 163). The expressive and directive functions usually occur in

references to the writer and reader (Ädel 2006: 164). Put in more detail, the “directive function

is oriented towards the addressee and aims at creating a certain response in him” (Ädel 2006:

164). Including questions, personal pronouns you/your/yours, the vocative and imperative, for

example, directives serve to persuade the reader by helping them interpret what the author

means in the discourse (Ädel 2006: 164). The expressive function, on the other hand, reflects

the addressers emotions, “which may be real or feigned” (Ädel 2006: 164). Finally, the

metalinguistic function makes the code more accessible to the reader. Ädel includes illocution

markers in the metalinguistic function, as they comment on the code per se by stating which

speech act is being performed and how texts are organised. In addition, metalinguistic

operations, such as providing synonyms, paraphrasing and filling in elliptical forms as well as

clarifications are important elements in the metalinguistic function (Ädel 2006: 165).

Reflexivity describes the ways in which writers “use language to attract attention to aspects of

language itself, rather than to ideas, arguments or facts” (Ädel 2006: 166) and is interchangeable

50

with the term metalinguistic function (Ädel 2006: 166). While researchers disagree on whether

reflexivity is actually language referring to itself rather than writers and speakers referring to

it, Ädel believes it can be agreed that “such phenomena have not been sufficiently investigated

or understood in linguistics” (Ädel 2006: 167).

Linguists agree that metadiscourse can be characterised as a specialised form of discourse that

can be distinguished from other forms of discourse. However, when it comes to what should be

included and excluded in metadiscursive analysis, researchers tend to hold different opinions.

Ädel intends to outline both the broad and narrow approaches to metadiscourse (Ädel 2006:

167 – 168).

In the broad approach, metadiscourse is seen as the means whereby the writer’s presence in the

discourse is made explicit, whether by displaying attitude towards or commenting on the text, or

by showing how the text is organized. We can also take a reader’s perspective, in which case

metadiscourse would be described as helping readers to organize, interpret and evaluate the

information in a text (Ädel 2006: 168).

While the broad approach is certainly popular among linguists “it has caused problems for

several researchers, because the concept tends to become too all-inclusive” (Ädel 2006: 171).

Therefore, Ädel provides a rather narrow model and intends to distinguish metadiscourse from

other linguistic classifications, such as stance (Ädel 2006: 171).

As a next step, Ädel defines what stance means. Whenever a writer reflects their stance, they

provide an insight into, for instance, their attitudes, feelings and value judgements (Ädel 2006:

173). “One important objective of research into stance is to analyse the various linguistic

options which speakers and writers have at their disposal to express their attitudes and opinions”

(Ädel 2006: 173). In the broad approach to metadiscourse, the attitude of the writer towards

what is being said is vital. These elements are thus placed in the categories validity markers,

which express “the speaker’s commitment to the truth value of what is being said” (Ädel 2006:

174) and attitude markers, denoting “the speaker’s attitude towards the desirability of an action

or event” (Ädel 2006: 174). Additionally, in order to express uncertainty and a lack of

commitment to a statement, writers use hedges, such as “may” and “probably” (Ädel 2006:

174).

The narrow approach to metadiscourse “primarily investigates aspects of text organisation,

while largely excluding interpersonal elements” (Ädel 2006: 175). The linguists Deborah

Schiffrin and Anna Mauranen, for example, take a narrow approach to metadiscourse. To

Mauranen, who analysed academic research reports in L1 and L2 English, for instance, it is

important that metadiscourse always has something to do with the ongoing text. Rhetorical

51

questions are excluded from her analysis, as they deal with the reader-writer relationship rather

than the ongoing discourse. Deborah Schiffrin researched metadiscourse in spoken interactions

and includes metalinguistic referents, operators and verbs (Ädel 2006: 175 – 177). To conclude,

Ädel paraphrases Mauranen’s view that metadiscourse must refer to “the text or the writing

process, while the rest (‘non-metadiscourse’) refers to anything but the text or the writing of it”

(Ädel 2006: 178). Ädel, however, includes both phenomena that refer to the text and the writing

process, “which includes not only the current text, but also the current writer and reader in their

roles as writer and reader” (Ädel 2006: 178 – 179).

In chapter seven, Ädel provides an overview of how different linguists view metadiscourse

(Ädel 2006: 179). While many researchers take a broad approach to metadiscourse and define

it as “text about text” (Ädel 2006: 179), Ädel has “made a theoretical distinction between

‘intertextual’ and ‘metatextual’ reference, counting only the latter as metadiscourse” (Ädel

2006: 179).

In chapter eight of “Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English”, Ädel concludes her three main topics

of research, namely “the theory of metadiscourse, […] the application of computer-assisted

methods to the study of metadiscourse, and […] our knowledge of the use of metadiscourse in

different varieties of English, specifically L2 English writing by Swedish university students”

(Ädel 2006: 181).

According to the author the main problem of the study of metadiscourse is that there is no clear

definition of the term and no clear-cut boundaries as to what to include and exclude from

analysis. Ädel provided a functional model of metadiscourse based on Jakobson’s functions of

language, as she considers this to reach a great degree of precision. The author’s reflexive

triangle includes the metalinguistic, the expressive and the directive functions, thus putting the

text/code, the writer and reader in focus (Ädel 2006: 181 – 182). “To classify an element as

metadiscourse, we should ask whether it makes reference to the current discourse […] and

whether it deals with the world of discourse” (Ädel 2006: 183). Ädel included metatext and

writer-reader interaction into her analysis. Metatext either remarks on the use of language in a

text or guides the reader through it, while in writer-reader interaction metadiscourse serves to

establish and maintain a relationship with the imagined reader (Ädel 2006: 183 – 184). The

author, however, excluded stance and participation from her model, as they “lack the element

of reflexivity” (Ädel 2006: 184). Ädel further provided a taxonomy that shows her findings on

the functions of personal metadiscourse and can easily be expanded (Ädel 2006: 184).

52

In order to be able to draw sharper distinctions between what counts as metadiscourse and what

does not, Ädel applied computer-assisted methods to the study of metadiscourse. The author

stresses that computer-assisted methods by no means replace human analysts, but make larger-

scale systematic research possible. Ädel describes this as “large-scale automatic retrieval

followed by manual analysis” (Ädel 2006: 187). Even though it is very time consuming to apply

computer-assisted methods, the author recommends the approach for two main reasons. Firstly,

having a working taxonomy of discourse functions makes analysis increasingly easier and faster

(Ädel 2006: 189). “Secondly, having a definition of metadiscourse that is relatively clear and

explicit will make the analysis faster and more efficient, making it possible to undertake similar

studies even on very larger corpora” (Ädel 2006: 189).

Finally, Ädel mapped the use of metadiscourse by several groups of writers, revealing both

qualitative and quantitative differences. Overall, learners exhibit a strong overuse of both

personal and impersonal metadiscourse in comparison with native-speakers (Ädel 2006: 189).

While Swedish writers may follow a “rhetoric of modesty” (Ädel 2006: 193), British and

American students display more assertive writer personas (Ädel 2006: 193).

Ädel hopes for future research on learner groups with different language backgrounds, cultural

conventions and on the style of instructional literature, for example (Ädel 2006: 196 – 198).

Finally, the author considers it “appropriate to close this book with some advice for teachers of

L2 writing” (Ädel 2006: 199). In order to avoid overly personal essays, Ädel advices teachers

to provide their students with several models of argumentative texts (Ädel 2006: 199).

“Furthermore, if student writers were allowed to quote secondary sources and draw on other

texts, their general argumentation and their style of writing would stand to gain a great deal”

(Ädel 2006: 199). In addition, reflecting on one’s relationship with the imagined reader could

raise students’ awareness of the appropriate use of metadiscourse (Ädel 2006: 200). Ädel closes

her book with the statement that “[m]ore disciplined classroom discussion about such issues,

and how they are affected by genre, and possibly culture, would be likely to make for more

natural, more efficient and more effective writing” (Ädel 2006: 200).

53

3.5 Anna Mauranen’s Model of Metadiscourse

Anna Mauranen (2007) analyses the functions of metadiscourse in English as a lingua franca.

To my mind, the fact that English is gaining momentum as a lingua franca all over the world

makes it both vital and fascinating to learn about ELF strategies and its functions of

metadiscourse. As a future language teacher, I am particularly interested in the development

and possibilities of the English language. According to Jenkins (2014) “[s]peakers of English

as a lingua franca (ELF) represent the largest contemporary group of English users around the

world.” In my opinion, language teachers should be aware of the fact that their students are

most likely entering this group of English users. As I am certain that the importance of ELF is

thus not to be underestimated, I include Mauranen’s work in my thesis.

In 2007, Anna Mauranen, a Professor of English Philology at the University of Helsinki, looked

into the use of discourse reflexivity in English as a lingua franca. In the introduction to her work

Mauranen states that she wants to find out what happens to a language that is in touch with so

many other languages, judging from the fact that English is the global language of science and

scholarship (Mauranen 2007: 1). Even though there has already been much research done on

syntax, lexis and phonology, Mauranen has the impression that analyses on pragmatics and

discourse structures are widely omitted in language contact research. She asks herself the

question if discourse markers are universal and omnipresent in communication and if the same

applies to discourse reflexivity (Mauranen 2007: 2).

To Mauranen, it is important to stress that she views ELF not as a deficient form of English but

rather as a language of its own. She owes being able to work with a large amount of ELF data

to research groups compiling ELF corpora. Unfortunately, even though “spoken interaction is

the primary mode of language use” (Mauranen 2007: 2), it is more difficult to analyse spoken

language than written language. If the ELFA corpus did not exist, Mauranen likely would not

have been able to explore English as a lingua franca discourse reflexivity in university settings

(Mauranen 2007: 2).

Her main reason for looking into academic speaking was its influentiality and prestige. The

academic use of language, according to Mauranen, strongly influences the standard version of

a language. Even though prominent genres are mostly written, Mauranen found that the key

communication happens in spoken interactions, such as seminars, tutorials and supervisions.

54

Additionally, Mauranen argues that academic interactions are in general rather advanced and

therefore more interesting to analyse (Mauranen 2007: 3).

The author holds that academic genres do not belong to a single nation, but are rather an

international product, which is one reason for her to analyse the usage of discourse reflexivity

in English as a lingua franca interactions. She further points out the unique role ELF holds in

academic settings. It is a language of its own with rules that even native English speakers need

to become acclimated to. Another distinguishing feature of academic language is that it is a part

of secondary socialisation (Mauranen 2007: 3). As people enter an academic setting, they need

to acquire a suitable use of language along with “an array of conventions at all levels of

language use” (Mauranen 2007: 4). Since on the one hand not all English native speakers enter

such academic settings while on the other hand many non-native speakers experience their

academic socialisation primarily in English, Mauranen is keen on investigating ELF

interactions in university settings (Mauranen 2007: 4).

Mauranen describes discourse reflexivity, namely the ability of language to refer to itself as a

“’discourse universal’, i.e. a discourse feature found in a very large number, perhaps all,

languages” (Mauranen 2007: 4). Apart from its universality, metatalk continues to hold the

attention of many scholars due to its “cultural and generic variability” (Mauranen 2007: 4).

Mauranen further hints at the systematic variation of metatalk, given that it is used in various

genres and disciplines. The lines of what belongs to discourse reflexivity are often blurred, as

“there is no closed class of discourse reflexive items” (Mauranen 2007: 4). However, most

scholars seem to agree that it is characterised in functional rather than formal terms. Mauranen

then provides an overview on the main functions of metatalk, which are to organise, describe

and comment on ongoing talk. These functions serve to “guide the hearer in interpreting the

discourse” (Mauranen 2007: 4).

Apart from rendering the discourse clear and accessible for the hearer, discourse reflexivity can

further function to impose authority by limiting the ways in which the hearer can interpret the

discourse. The speaker’s point of view becomes thus more important, reducing the hearer’s

opportunities of negotiation. Mauranen states that this feature of discourse reflexivity can create

“a tension between clarity and interpretative freedom” (Mauranen 2007: 5).

Even though it is common for written work of ELF language users to go through editing often

involving native speaker checking, this is not so common for spoken interactions. Mauranen

sees the reason for the reported overuse of discourse reflexivity in L2 speakers as a result of the

55

constant necessity to bridge gaps in shared knowledge by enhanced clarity and explicitness.

Since L2 interlocutors often do not share a cultural background, the use of metatalk may be

vital to avoid misunderstandings (Mauranen 2007: 5).

Mauranen’s research materials consist of approximately half a million words that occurred in

natural discourse in authentic situations. Though native speakers of English are present in the

conversations at times, they never play big roles in the given spoken interactions. The author

draws her data from different kinds of university interactions, most of which are interactive and

multi-participant events (Mauranen 2007: 6).

The Professor finds that one of the fundamental functions of discourse reflexivity lies in asking

and answering questions. Metatalk serves both to “prepare the ground for actually presenting

the question” and to “make it clear that what follows is to be interpreted as a question,

demanding a response” (Mauranen 2007: 6). The three items Mauranen identifies are “ask”,

“answer” and “question” (Mauranen 2007: 6).

“Question” is the most frequent item occurring in Mauranen’s data drawn from MICASE, the

Michigan Corpus of Spoken Academic English, often performing an evaluative function in the

combination with “good question”. The author presents various examples for this. When it

comes to ELFA, English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings, the framing and prefacing

functions are predominant. Examples for this are “one question”, “my question is” and “I have/

I’ve got a question” (Mauranen 2007: 7).

“Ask” frequently occurred along with elements which are hedging, or distancing, such as

“would like” and “want(ed).” Mauranen ascribes hedges the function of softening the

imposition of the speaker’s opinion. The author attributes the co-occurrence of hedges and the

metadiscursive item “ask” to the so-called discourse collocation, in which “two discourse

pragmatic features whose significance arises from their roles in social interaction, and which

tend to co-occur for interactional rather than lexicogrammatical reasons” (Mauranen 2007: 7).

Mauranen draws the conclusion that the main function of the expression of hedges is to

collocate with discourse reflexivity (Mauranen 2007: 8).

When it comes to “answer,” Mauranen found that it occurred too infrequently to determine any

patterns (Mauranen 2007: 8).

Summing up her findings on question-related items, Mauranen believes that discourse

reflexivity frequently co-occurs with polite tentativeness as “a response to the demands of social

56

interaction” (Mauranen 2007: 8). The reason for this belief is that this notion is neither native

speaker nor ELF speaker exclusive, but occurs in both (Mauranen 2007: 8).

Mauranen goes ahead analysing how fairly generic and fairly specific verbs behave in

metadiscursive expressions. The generic sense verbs she analyses are “discuss” and “bring.”

The main function of the verb “discuss” is to organise the talk, referring both back and forward

in the interaction and thus giving the interlocutors an overview of the topics that were dealt with

already and the ones that will be addressed in the future. The author distinguishes between

immediate discourse organising verbs that deal with ongoing and preceding discourse and long-

range organising verbs that cover future interaction (Mauranen 2007: 9). Mauranen states that

“the full range of functions was used in both ELF and native speaker databases, with some

slight variation in form” (Mauranen 2007: 9).

Concerning the verb “bring”, Mauranen found that it overall functions both to “introduce a topic

to the discussion”, as in “now I er, bring my example from” and to justify a speaker’s own

contribution, as in “I’m bringing this because” (Mauranen 2007: 9-10). With regards to the

evaluation of an interlocutor’s contribution, Mauranen found that native English speakers use

expressions such as “I’m glad you brought that up” quite frequently, while ELF speakers leave

this function out completely. Mauranen believes that this “could be seen as ‘functional

simplification’” (Mauranen 2007: 10) and states that there is yet to be some research conducted

on it (Mauranen 2007: 10).

Regarding verbs with specific senses, Mauranen first looks into the verb “comment”, which

was used proportionally more often by ELF speakers, probably because of the existence of a

related term in many speakers’ first languages (Mauranen 2007: 10, 12). The verb “comment”

functions to provide opinions or explanations and high-frequency auxiliaries often co-occurred

with the verb. Mauranen finds that “comment” can serve to either introduce a speech act, as in

“but before that I still say some brief comments” or to invite a particular kind of speech act, as

in “erm questions comments.” The fact that commenting is an evaluative act explains that there

is a high tendency of hedges to collocate. According to Mauranen, native speakers hedged

“comment” more frequently than ELF speakers. Further differences in use between native and

ELF speakers occur due to ELF speakers’ approximation of the target language and involve

differences in lexical and grammatical choice (Mauranen 2007: 11 - 12). In general, the use of

“comment” of ELF speakers only slightly contrasted that of native speakers (Mauranen 2007:

12).

57

In addition, Mauranen researched the verb “refer”, which can either associate with the verb

“call”, as in “we refer to this as the top of the loop” or with the noun “topic” as in “I’m referring

of course to Basque” (Mauranen 2007: 12). These two meanings were present both in MICASE

and ELFA databases (Mauranen 2007: 12 - 13). Mauranen discovers that ELF speakers focused

on communicative effectiveness rather than accuracy when they used the verb “refer”.

Approximation gives the priority to meaning, which would explain the fact that there was some

uncertainty in form of “refer” in ELF speech (Mauranen 2007: 13 - 14).

In her conclusion, Mauranen emphasises that discourse reflexivity is a discourse universal,

which means it exists independently of the interlocutor’s native language. Further, ELF

interactions follow the traditions of respective academic discourse communities rather than

being culture-dependent (Mauranen 2007: 14).

The most interesting part in analysing metadiscourse in academic ELF interactions to Mauranen

is:

the unpredictability of the discourse situations where a number of background languages and

cultures come into contact and which needs to be managed by the interlocutors (Mauranen 2007:

14).

When it comes to expressions, Mauranen found that there were similarities in function, form

and distribution. However, ELF “forms were often approximate rather than accurate”

(Mauranen 2007: 14), “some form-function pairings were ignored” (Mauranen 2007: 14) and

“some specific functions of expressions were ignored” (Mauranen 2007: 14). Mauranen

attributes this to ELF communication being primarily interested in making oneself understood

rather than choosing the correct form (Mauranen 2007: 14). As long as there is no need for an

ELF speaker to believe that their interlocutors cannot comprehend their use of the verb

“comment”, for example, they will have the feeling that their communication is effective

(Mauranen 2007: 15). Thus “subtle form-meaning correspondences and preferences are likely

to be ignored if they do not cause communicative turbulence” (Mauranen 2007: 15).

However, Mauranen further states that meaning and function did not always remain intact in

ELF interactions. Especially with the verbs “refer” and “bring up” there seems to be a “lack of

perceived sense distinction” (Mauranen 2007: 15). The author believes that there might be

something special about evaluative language use in ELF settings, since the evaluative use of

“bring up” was ignored by English as a lingua franca interlocutors. Therefore, Mauranen sees

a need for further investigation (Mauranen 2007: 15 - 16).

58

Mauranen found discourse collocation in both the MICASE and ELFA databases, which

implies that “fundamental discourse functions are reproduced in ELF” (Mauranen 2007: 15).

She believes that the tendency of discourse reflexivity to collocate with hedging stems from the

fact that it lies in the nature of social interaction to mitigate impositions on others (Mauranen

2007: 15).

The finding that there was less hedging in connection with COMMENT in ELF speech

could be seen as a preference of clarity over interpretative freedom. It is possible that

politeness gets redefined in a global situation (Mauranen 2007: 15).

Summing up, Mauranen is not surprised about having found numerous instances of discourse

reflexivity in English as a lingua franca interactions. Metatalk to a great extent contributes to

clarity and explicitness, two vital features of successful academic discourse (Mauranen 2007:

16).

59

3.6 Hermine Penz’ Work on Metadiscourse

Similar to Mauranen (2007), Hermine Penz (2011) analyses the use and functions of

metadiscourse in ELF spoken interactions. Again, the increasing importance of English as a

lingua franca made me decide to include Penz’ work in my thesis, as I hold that language

teachers should be aware of this group of English users.

In 2011, Professor Hermine Penz, member of the Department of English studies at the Karl-

Franzens university of Graz researched the topic “Metadiscourse in ELF Project Discussions.”

In her introduction, she notes that many ELF researchers argued that metacommunication is not

likely to be found in English as a lingua franca interactions. Penz wants to contribute to the

work that has already been done on spoken ELF discourse, in particular with her findings on

intercultural project discussions (Penz 2011: 185).

Penz mentions the various terms different linguists use for what she refers to as metadiscourse.

However, researchers have not only invented different words to describe metadiscourse, but

also disagree in what is to be included and excluded with respect to its analysis (Penz 2011:

186). Penz further gives an overview on the functions and forms of metadiscourse other scholars

have discovered (Penz 2011: 188).

Regarding the data she used in her analysis, Penz declares they come from “a larger project at

a European institution which has currently 34 member states, which go beyond the range of

countries participating in the European Union” (Penz 2011: 190). Therefore, an average of over

30 European countries are represented in each project. Penz presents two ELF group discussions

that were tape-recorded at an early stage in the project. She categorises most members of the

projects as fairly skilled in intercultural communication who all come from work fields with

educational backgrounds (Penz 2011: 191).

Analysing her data, the author noticed a repeated appearance of metadiscursive elements. Penz

describes the difficulty in counting metadiscursive units, as it was problematic to determine the

scope of respective utterances. While other scholars count minimal units, the author decides on

counting clauses and individual words and phrases. Unlike other scholars before Penz, she

provides examples for her counting methods to establish transparency (Penz 2011: 191).

Penz further talks about the frequency of metadiscourse in ELF interactions. While many

researchers have claimed there is a lack of metadiscursive elements in English as a lingua franca

60

data, Anna Mauranen’s work suggests something different. Mauranen states that both native

speakers and ELF interlocutors use metadiscourse for orientation and effectiveness, with

differences in form rather than frequency (Penz 2011: 192).

Similarly, Penz found numerous metadiscursive instances in her data and provides an overview.

Group work 1 lasted 45 minutes with a total of 140 metadiscursive utterances, while Group

work 2 lasted 90 minutes with metadiscourse appearing 151 times. She stresses that, even

though, considering the duration of both group works, the number of metadiscursive elements

in Group work 2 was considerably smaller than that in Group work 1, both group works suggest

that metadiscourse plays a larger role in ELF interactions than many other scholars would

ascribe to it (Penz 2011: 192). Penz then refers to Mauranen, who found that metadiscourse is

similarly commonplace in ELF settings as it is in native speaker interactions (Penz 2011: 192).

As none of the existing models of metadiscourse was suitable for the predominant functions

Penz found in her data, she developed several new categories. The functions the author found

include code glosses and the clarification of word meaning and concepts, as in “what do we

mean by that”; code glosses for the clarification of propositional meaning, for example “are we

talking about”; the expression of illocutionary intent, as in “that was my question” and the

labelling of preceding, ongoing and subsequent speech activities, for instance “we didn’t

mention” (Penz 2011: 193 – 194).

The author concludes that the clarification of word meaning and concepts is particularly vital

in intercultural work, as many technical terms need to be explained. At times this clarification

happens with foresight before potential communication difficulties appear. Penz found that

these “types of clarification are frequently accomplished by means of metadiscourse” (Penz

2011: 194).

In addition, the clarification of propositional meaning refers to larger units, such as “previous

discourse, reformulations and clarifications of topic” (Penz 2011: 194). The author then

explains why clarification of propositional meaning is frequently needed in international group

works.

In the goal-oriented discourse of project discussions clarification of propositional contents is

extremely important because participants constantly need to check their individual and common

understanding of each other’s contribution in order to arrive at common and agreed upon

interpretations of their meanings and actions (Penz 2011: 194 - 195).

61

Further, if the illocutionary intent behind an utterance remains unexplained, cultural differences

may contribute to misunderstandings. Metadiscourse helps convey the explicit intent of one’s

utterance (Penz 2011: 195).

Considering discourse labelling, its function is to make communicative actions explicit and to

structure the discourse (Penz 2011: 194). Even though this category appeared quite infrequently

in Penz’ data, it “turned out to be useful in studying common ground in some data of the larger

project of which this study is a part” (Penz 2011: 195).

Some metadiscursive expressions appeared more frequently in the two group discussions than

others. “Mean” is the verb that featured extremely often in the category of code glosses.

Similarly, words of saying, such as “say”, “talk”, “ask” occurred repeatedly, while verbs such

as “discuss”, “point out”, “speak” and “tell” appeared less often (Penz 2011: 196).

As note-taking was part of both group works in order to be later able to present the group results,

“metalinguistic references to the process of note-taking were also frequently made” (Penz 2011:

196). For this purpose, the two verbs “write” and “put down” were repeatedly uttered (Penz

2011: 196).

Additionally, the verb “understand” was commonplace in both group discussions. Penz

considers the “[m]etalinguistic reference to the understanding process” (Penz 2011: 194) a vital

part of group discussions. She provides several examples for this, such as “[t]hat’s how I

understand it” and “[f]rom what I understood” (Penz 2011: 196).

The author sums up her findings on the main functions of metadiscourse in both group works.

The metadiscursive expressions, which were employed for various subfunctions, could in general

be seen as a means of making the discourse explicit in a situation where common interpretations

could not be taken for granted (Penz 2011: 196).

With respect to the orientation of metadiscourse, the author explains that Annelie Ädel

established a categorisation of orientation of metadiscourse for written texts. Penz, however,

provides a model that deals with spoken interactions. In general, metadiscourse can be oriented

either on the discourse itself, the speaker, the hearer or the group (Penz 2011: 196). The author

provides a table that shows the frequencies of orientation of metadiscourse in her data.

Discourse-oriented metadiscourse is generally mirrored in impersonal constructions, while the

other categories of orientation are viewed as personal metadiscourse. Penz found that

impersonal metadiscourse was the least likely in her data. While speaker- and group-oriented

orientation are used quite equally, hearer-oriented discourse orientation evens out somewhere

62

in the middle (Penz 2011: 197). Thus, “in the activity of intercultural project discussions both

speaker and group orientation are equally important” (Penz 2011: 197).

Group orientation plays a crucial role in situations where features of meaning have to be agreed

upon by all the members of the group. The pronoun “we” is used when the speaker includes not

only all the group members, but also him/herself. The inclusive “we” functions to establish a

common ground. Sentences, such as “What do we mean by that?” emphasise that the whole

group is working towards the same goal of arriving at common definitions of meanings. The

focus of metadiscourse here lies on the group process (Penz 2011: 198).

Summing up, Penz repeats that the high incidence of metadiscourse in the ELF group works

she analysed to some extent contradicts earlier works on the topic. Furthermore, her study

indicates that metadiscourse is primarily used for clarification of meanings of words, concepts

and propositions, to make speech activities explicit and to structure and monitor discourse.

Along with the function of building common ground, all these functions can be defined to raise

explicitness and to establish shared interpretations. According to Penz, achieving a shared

culture of communication is vital in intercultural group work (Penz 2011: 198).

However, the author stresses that the results of her research “should probably be interpreted to

be rather an expression of a particular activity type than as a characteristic feature of English as

a lingua franca in general” (Penz 2011: 199), as the occurrence and functions of metadiscourse

vary immensely among different activity types (Penz 2011: 199).

When it comes to discourse orientation, Penz found that group-orientation and speaker-

orientation are equally important in her data, while hearer-oriented metadiscourse comes in last.

She believes this has to do with the strong orientation among all the participants of a group

discussion to build common ground (Penz 2011: 199). Since the groups Penz analysed are

relatively small, she believes “[t]he group orientation […] could be seen as a reflection of the

communicative context of small group discussions” (Penz 2011: 199).

Penz then briefly notes that hearer-orientation serves to confirm or dispute the other’s

interpretation, to interpret the interlocutor’s utterance or to serve as point of departure for the

following discourse (Penz 2011: 199).

At the end of her paper, Penz points out that there has been relatively little research on

metadiscourse in spoken interactions. While the author believes she could contribute to this

63

fairly neglected field of interest, she hopes there is more research to come especially in more

varied activity types in English as a lingua franca (Penz 2011: 199).

64

3.7 Deborah Schiffrin’s Model of Metadiscourse

As mentioned earlier, I chose to analyse Oscar Wilde’s play consulting Deborah Schiffrin’s

(1980) model of metadiscourse, which deals with spoken interactions. Since plays were written

to be performed rather than read, I am using Schiffrin’s non-integrative model of metadiscourse

for my analysis. As previously alluded, I will explain this model in detail, as this is vital to

understanding the functions of metadiscourse in Oscar Wilde’s comedy I am about to discuss.

In 1980, Deborah Schiffrin asked herself how talk is integrated into a discourse and what

functions this might have. Schiffrin drew her data, consisting of tape-recorded spoken

interactions, from sociolinguistic fieldwork (Schiffrin 1980: 200). “Language can be used to

talk about itself, that is, it can serve as its own meta-language” (Schiffrin 1980: 200). Schiffrin

stresses the difficulty of establishing a model for metadiscourse (Schiffrin 1980: 200). Other

scholars agree that “it is not easy to characterise [metadiscourse] in a way that would make

everybody happy” (Ädel & Mauranen 2010: 1). Beyond it being discourse about discourse,

different models of different scholars have little in common with one another when it comes to

drawing the boundaries of metadiscourse (Ädel & Mauranen 2010: 1). It can be argued that the

different approaches in the analysis of metadiscourse have to do with the genres analysed. It is

no surprise that Marina Bondi, for example, who analysed metadiscursive elements in

textbooks, uses a vastly different approach to a linguist dealing with spoken interaction (Bondi

2010). While Schiffrin follows a rather narrow approach to the topic, other linguists, such as

Ken Hyland, for example, are more lenient when it comes to including evidentials, boosters etc.

in their analysis of metadiscourse (Hyland 2005).

The wide range of phenomena that can be identified as meta-linguistic and the vagueness

surrounding the boundaries between meta-lingual and other functions of language complicate the

task of finding a set of empirical linguistic indicators for meta-talk (Schiffrin 1980: 201).

Not being unaware of this problem, Schiffrin determines three metadiscursive indicators:

“meta-linguistic referents, operators, and verbs” (Schiffrin 1980: 201).

Meta-linguistic referents

Schiffrin includes language itself, discourse deixis and demonstrative pronouns in this category.

Words and structures would be examples for elements that are referred to found in the language

per se. Discourse deixis describes the spatial and temporal context of an utterance, such as the

65

first point, formerly, the latter, for instance. Lastly, demonstrative pronouns, such as Let me say

this, I do not agree with that, for example, point to items within the text rather than elements

occurring outside of the text (Schiffrin 1980: 201-202).

Meta-linguistic operators

Operators are viewed as a combination or modification of arguments or statements into more

complex structures that reflect logical operations. So-called higher-level predicates “whose

arguments are prepositions in the text” (Schiffrin 1980: 202) [w]ould be right, wrong, true,

false and the verb mean (Schiffrin 1980: 202).

Meta-linguistic verbs

One aspect of meta-languages is that they have terms for things within the language. Therefore,

they can talk about and refer to speech per se. Schiffrin defines verbs of saying, such as tell,

ask, say; and the naming of speech events, for example argue and joke; as well as verbs that

indicate that something will happen to a particular piece of talk, namely explain, define or

clarify (Schiffrin 1980: 202).

What is crucial to all meta-linguistic elements is that they concentrate on talk, therefore they

need linguistic context (Schiffrin 1980: 202). “The scope of a particular piece of meta-talk is

determined as much by what is in the discourse surrounding that meta-talk as by any

characteristics of the meta-talk per se” (Schiffrin 1980: 204). According to Schiffrin, not only

the scope of meta-talk, but also its location and functions need to be considered when analysing

its linguistic context (Schiffrin 1980: 204).

Schiffrin further defines two functional elements of meta-talk, namely organizational and

evaluative brackets. Discourse brackets in general serve to separate units of speech from one

another (Schiffrin 1980: 206).

Organizational brackets, as the term suggests, help the speaker organise their talk. They can be

initiating, as in I'll answer it in this way, with afterwards providing an answer; and terminating,

as in That's how I see it, at the end of stating an opinion, for example (Schiffrin 1980: 207).

Labeled brackets also help organise a discourse unit, as they can initiate a claim, as in The point

is; and aim to prove a claim, as in There is a reason (Schiffrin 1980: 210, 212 - 213). Schiffrin

further considers self- and other-repairs. Speech units that contain self-repair or reformulation

66

frequently include the phrase in other words or the verb mean (Schiffrin 1980: 213 - 214).

Finally, so-called renewal brackets serve to refer to something previously stated in the ongoing

discourse and therefore also function to organise the talk, for example As I say (Schiffrin 1980:

216).

In addition, Schiffrin found that all discourse brackets, however, do not only function to

organize a speaker’s talk, but can also have an evaluative function. Such evaluative brackets

frequently take on the form of reformulation and other-repair, as in What do you mean? or You

(don’t) mean. Other repairs are used to ”cancel, and/or replace particular items in the discourse”

(Schiffrin 1980: 217). Either the listener wants the speaker to reformulate what has been said

or offers a candidate repair for the speaker's utterance. Such brackets may, however, also

function as renewal brackets, by reminding the speaker of what they have said before (Schiffrin

1980: 222).

Evaluative brackets serve to evaluate the speaker's talk in the form of an argument, as in I

disagree with that, That is not the point or That's her opinion (Schiffrin 1980: 219).

”Explanations and challenging evaluations form an argument, and it is within this

conversational and interactional context that metatalk functions as an evaluative bracke”

(Schiffrin 1980: 219). It could thus be argued that whenever metadiscourse focuses on an

interlocutor's talk, it is more likely serving as an evaluative bracket than an organizational

bracket (Schiffrin 1980: 221).

Summing up, ”meta-talk that brackets a cancelation, substitution, rephrasing, or renewal of

material found in an interlocutor's explanation acts as an evaluative bracket around that

explanation” (Schiffrin 1980: 224).

Another form of evaluative brackets is also frequently put to use metadiscursively, namely

referring to one's own talk. For example, I am not arguing that, is a form of self-repair that

simultaneously cancels out the listener's challenge. Negatives, such as Do not tell me, are often

used ”when the affirmative has been explicitly stated or is somehow expected” (Schiffrin 1980:

227). In this case, the speaker may be expecting a challenge to their utterance. They seek to

cancel out that challenge by introducing it themselves and at the same time opening up an

opportunity to refute it (Schiffrin 1980: 227). Additionally, meta-talk not seldomly aims at

evaluating the speaker's position, as in That's my opinion or That's right. In these and many

other examples, the speaker seeks to reemphasize, confirm and strengthen what they have just

been saying. Thus, reinforcing one's own position can be a function performed by meta-talk

67

(Schiffrin 1980: 225 – 228). This expressive function of language stresses the importance of

one's utterances.

68

4. Analysis of The Importance of Being Earnest

For my analysis, I will focus on instances of discourse about ongoing discourse. I will briefly

explain why the following example and similar instances of meta-talk do not classify as

metadiscourse.

Algernon. What shall we do after dinner? Go to a theatre?

Jack. Oh no! I loathe listening.

Algernon. Well, let us go to the Club?

Jack. Oh, no! I hate talking (Wilde 1894: 19).

Since in this example, Jack is speaking in general about his dislike of talking, rather than

commenting on the ongoing discourse, I will exclude this and similar examples from my

analysis.

Similarly, in the following example, the verbs of saying says and talk appear to be

metadiscursive. However, I exclude this and similar examples from my analysis, as they do not

deal with the ongoing discourse within The Importance of Being Earnest, but rather with

something that has been said outside the world of discourse and hypothetical speculations about

future discourse.

Cecily. Miss Prism says that all good looks are a snare

Algernon. They are a snare that every sensible man would like to be caught in.

Cecily. Oh, I don’t think I would care to catch a sensible man. I shouldn’t know what to talk to

him about (Wilde 1894: 26).

Whenever a character refers to what he or she has been told it needs to be investigated whether

they refer to utterances inside or outside of the ongoing discourse in the play. In my opinion,

words and phrases that refer to discourse outside of The Importance of Being Earnest do not

classify as discourse about ongoing discourse.

Additionally, I chose not to include performative verbs, such as suppose and bet in my analysis.

I am aware that it could be argued that verbs that convey the performed speech acts they denote

are metadiscursive. However, I decided to stick strictly to Deborah Schiffrin’s category of meta-

linguistic verbs in my analysis, which does not include performative verbs.

Further, I want to clarify that this is a qualitative rather than a quantitative approach to analysing

metadiscourse. Therefore, I will not provide numbers of metadiscursive incidents. In addition,

as I find many incidents to be both organisational and evaluative, I will not organise the

69

incidents of metadiscourse in The Importance of Being Earnest into the categories of

organisational and evaluative brackets. I will organise them into the categories of meta-

linguistic referents, operators and verbs.

In the following, the words and phrases in bold are the metadiscursive elements I found in the

respective text passages. Since analysing every single instance of meta-talk would go far

beyond the scope of this seminar paper, I will focus on those metadiscursive instances that best

exemplify the predominant functions meta-talk fulfils in The Importance of Being Earnest.

Some instances of metadiscourse may happen to fall in more than one category but will only be

mentioned in one. This is because I put the respective examples into the categories I consider

predominant.

70

4.1 Meta-linguistic Referents

Schiffrin (1980) includes language itself, discourse deixis and demonstrative pronouns in the

category of meta-linguistic referents. In the following I will provide examples, explanations

and functions for all three sub-categories of meta-linguistic referents found in The Importance

of Being Earnest.

4.1.1 The “entity referred to is something in the language per se.”

(Schiffrin 1980: 201).

Examples for elements that are referred to found in the language per se would be words and

structures (Schiffrin 1980: 201). In the first examples, Gwendolen and Jack discuss the name

Ernest and Miss Prism and Cecily discuss modern novels (Wilde 1894: 12, 23).

Gwendolen. But your name is Ernest.

Jack. Yes, I know it is. But supposing it was something else? Do you mean to say you

couldn’t love me then?

Gwendolen. [Glibly.] Ah! that is clearly a metaphysical speculation, and like most

metaphysical speculations has very little reference at all to the actual facts of real life, as we

know them (Wilde 1894: 12).

Cecily. […] And was your novel ever published?

Miss Prism. Alas! no. The manuscript unfortunately was abandoned. [Cecily starts.] I use the

word in the sense of lost or mislaid. To your work, child, these speculations are profitless

(Wilde 1894: 23).

In the first example, Gwendolen uses meta-talk to define the previous discourse as speculative

and to give her opinion on such discourse. The use of meta-talk helps Gwendolen avoid

answering Jack’s question directly. Since she does not find that sort of metaphysical speculation

realistic, she does not dignify Jack’s question with a direct response. Similarly, Miss Prism

wishes to end the conversation about modern novels by referring to such speculations as

profitless in the second example. Thus, Miss Prism uses metadiscourse to inform her student

that they should rather focus on the German lesson than speculate on Miss Prism’s novels.

Gwendolen’s mother, Lady Bracknell, explains that in order for her to consent to Gwendolen’s

and Jack’s marriage, Jack first needs to answer a few questions (Wilde 1894: 14).

Lady Bracknell. […] I feel bound to tell you that you are not down on my list of eligible

young men, although I have the same list as the dear Duchess of Bolton has. We work together,

71

in fact. However, I am quite ready to enter your name, should your answers be what a really

affectionate mother requires (Wilde 1894: 14).

Lady Bracknell uses meta-talk to organise not only her talk, but also Jack’s part in the

conversation. She states that there will be questions asked by her that Jack is to answer. It is

only when these answers satisfy Lady Bracknell, that Jack gets to marry her daughter. In this

example, meta-talk not only functions to organise the further course of the conversation, but

also serves to establish clear power relations. It is Lady Bracknell to decide whether she chooses

to give Jack what he desires, namely her daughter’s hand. Therefore, I believe the use of

metadiscourse in this example functions to stress Lady Bracknell’s power over Jack.

In the following examples, Jack and Algernon discuss the nature of arguments and Algernon

stresses that he does not want his cousin Gwendolen to talk to Jack about their engagement

(Wilde 1894: 17, 19).

Jack. Well, I won't argue about the matter. You always want to

argue about things.

Algernon. That is exactly what things were originally made for.

Jack. Upon my word, if I thought that, I’d shoot myself . . . [A pause.] You don’t think there

is any chance of Gwendolen becoming like her mother in about a hundred and fifty years, do

you, Algy? (Wilde 1894: 17).

Algernon: Gwendolen, upon my word!

Gwendolen. Algy, kindly turn your back. I have something very

particular to say to Mr. Worthing.

Algernon. Really, Gwendolen, I don't think I can allow this at

all (Wilde 1894: 19).

In both examples, upon my word functions to stress the speakers’ point. In the first example,

Jack claims that having a particular mindset would lead him to commit suicide. He uses

metadiscourse in order to emphasise that he means it. Upon my word fulfils a similar function

in the second example. Algernon does not want to allow Gwendolen to marry Jack and

emphasises the seriousness of his objections using meta-talk.

In the following examples, Dr. Chasuble and Miss Prism explain their ambiguous metaphors

(Wilde 1894: 23, 26 – 27).

Chasuble. I hope, Cecily, you are not inattentive.

Cecily. Oh, I am afraid I am.

Chasuble. That is strange. Were I fortunate enough to be Miss Prism’s pupil, I would hang

upon her lips. [Miss Prism glares.] I spoke metaphorically.—My metaphor was drawn from

bees. Ahem! Mr. Worthing, I suppose, has not returned from town yet? (Wilde 1894: 23).

72

Miss Prism. […] Maturity can always be depended on. Ripeness can be trusted. Young women

are green. [Dr. Chasuble starts.] I spoke horticulturally. My metaphor was drawn from fruits.

But where is Cecily? (Wilde 1894: 26 – 27).

In the first example, Dr. Chasuble uses metadiscourse to express what he said was not to be

taken literally. He meant that he would metaphorically hang upon Miss Prism’s lips, were he

her student. Similarly, Miss Prism needs to clarify her metaphor of young women being green

in the second example. She uses metadiscourse to express what she actually intended to say,

namely that young women are immature and inexperienced. I believe the fact that both Dr.

Chasuble and Miss Prism need to repair and explain their metaphors at different points in the

discourse contributes to the comical effect of the play.

In the first example, Dr. Chasuble makes a classical allusion about Miss Prism’s profession

(Wilde 1894: 23, 27).

Chasuble. […] But I must not disturb Egeria and her pupil any longer.

Miss Prism. Egeria? My name is Laetitia, Doctor.

Chasuble. [Bowing.] A classical allusion merely, drawn from the Pagan authors. I shall see you

both no doubt at Evensong? (Wilde 1894: 23).

In the first example, Miss Prism misinterprets Dr. Chasuble’s allusion and believes he forgot

her name. The clergyman then uses metadiscourse to explain that, rather than forgetting Miss

Prism’s name, he merely made a classical allusion about her profession.

In the following example, Miss Prism tells Dr. Chasuble that he should get married (Wilde

1894: 26).

Miss Prism. You are too much alone, dear Dr. Chasuble. You should get married. A

misanthrope I can understand—a womanthrope, never!

Chasuble. [With a scholar’s shudder.] Believe me, I do not deserve so neologistic a phrase.

The precept as well as the practice of the Primitive Church was distinctly against matrimony.

(Wilde 1894: 26).

Dr. Chasuble uses metadiscourse to evaluate Miss Prism’s phrase womanthrope. He refers to

the term as neologistic and explains that clergymen were originally not meant to marry. Thus,

in this example metadiscourse serves to refer to and evaluate Miss Prism’s statement.

In the following examples of metadiscursive elements, I intend to particularly focus on the use

and functions of the word question. Gwendolen and Cecily talk about what they would like to

know from Jack and Cecily quizzes Algernon about his lie of being Jack’s brother Ernest in the

first and second examples (Wilde 1894: 41, 45 – 46).

Cecily. [Rather brightly.] There is just one question I would like to be allowed to ask my

guardian.

73

Gwendolen. An admirable idea! Mr. Worthing, there is just one question I would like to be

permitted to put to you. Where is your brother Ernest? We are both engaged to be married to

your brother Ernest, so it is a matter of some importance to us to know where your brother

Ernest is at present (Wilde 1894: 41).

Cecily uses metadiscourse to refer to her fiancé’s alleged name Ernest. Similar to Gwendolen,

Cecily is fascinated by that particular name and has always wanted to marry a man whose name

is Ernest. In the second example, both Cecily and Gwendolen state that they have a question to

put to Jack. Since both Jack and Algernon pretended to be named Ernest, the two women find

themselves engaged to a man called Ernest. Thus, both Gwendolen and Cecily use

metadiscourse in expressing their wish to be informed where their fiancé Ernest is to be found.

Cecily. […] Mr. Moncrieff, kindly answer me the following question. Why did you pretend to

be my guardian’s brother?

Algernon. In order that I might have an opportunity of meeting you.

Cecily. [To Gwendolen.] That certainly seems a satisfactory explanation, does it not?

Gwendolen. Yes, dear, if you can believe him.

Cecily. I don’t. But that does not affect the wonderful beauty of his answer.

Gwendolen. True. In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity is the vital thing. Mr.

Worthing, what explanation can you offer to me for pretending to have a brother?

[…]

Gwendolen. […] Their explanations appear to be quite satisfactory, especially Mr. Worthing’s.

That seems to me to have the stamp of truth upon it (Wilde 1894: 45 – 46).

Cecily uses metadiscourse to structure her talk. Before actually asking Algernon a question, she

informs him that she is about to ask him a question that she wishes to be answered.

Jack. Then the question had better be cleared up at once. Aunt Augusta, a moment. At the time

when Miss Prism left me in the hand-bag, had I been christened already? (Wilde 1894: 56).

Finally, metadiscourse aids Jack in structuring his talk, as he refers to the necessity of asking

the obvious question of whether he had already been christened when Miss Prism left him in

her handbag as a baby. Metadiscourse functions to structure Jack’s talk and thus prepares his

interlocutor for the question he is about to ask.

I found that the metalinguistic referent question fulfils slightly different functions in these

instances. In the first and second example Cecily and Gwendolen use metadiscourse to

introduce their questions. Before actually uttering their inquiries, they structure their discourse

in stating that they are about to ask their interlocutors something. Finally, Jack uses the

metadiscursive referent question to structure the discourse in the final example. The functions

of the word question in these examples thus are to organise the discourse by introducing a

question, thus stating what the following discourse will be about.

74

Example three, however, contains several additional linguistic referents. The words

explanation(s) and answer refer to what Jack and Algernon said in explaining and justifying

their lies and can thus be classified as renewal brackets. Further, these three instances function

as evaluative brackets, as Gwendolen and Cecily use metadiscourse to evaluate the explanations

and answers they received as satisfactory and beautiful. Additionally, in “what explanation can

you offer to me […]?” (Wilde 1894: 46), Gwendolen uses metadiscourse to demand an

explanation from Jack.

In the following example, Lady Bracknell clarifies that she wishes all communication between

Jack and her daughter Gwendolen to end (Wilde 1894: 47).

Lady Bracknell. […] [Turns to Jack.] […] But of course, you will clearly understand that all

communication between yourself and my daughter must cease immediately from this moment

[…] (Wilde 1894: 47).

The use of metadiscourse refers to the interactions between Jack and Gwendolen. Lady

Bracknell demonstrates her authority in stating that she does not approve of their engagement

and wants them to cease all communication. Lady Bracknell establishes power relations in

forbidding Jack to interact with her daughter.

The metalinguistic referent that will be focused on primarily in the following is the word

consent. In the first example, Algernon states that he does not approve of Jack’s plan to marry

his cousin Gwendolen (Wilde 1894: 4). Next, Lady Bracknell consents to Algernon’s marriage

with Cecily, while Jack declines to allow this marriage in the example after that (Wilde 1894:

50). In the final two examples, Lady Bracknell again agrees to their marriage and states that

Jack’s consent will not be necessary as soon as Cecily comes of age (Wilde 1894: 50 – 51).

Algernon. […] In the second place, I don’t give my consent (Wilde 1894: 4).

Lady Bracknell. […] [To Cecily.] Dear child, of course you know that Algernon has nothing

but his debts to depend upon. But I do not approve of mercenary marriages. When I married

Lord Bracknell I had no fortune of any kind. But I never dreamed for a moment of allowing that

to stand in my way. Well, I suppose I must give my consent (Wilde 1894: 50).

Algernon stresses that his opinion on the subject is a reason against Jack’s liaison with

Gwendolen in the first example. Algernon thus uses metadiscourse to emphasise that he feels

he has a say in his cousin’s relationships. Similarly, Lady Bracknell emphasises her influence

on the love life of her nephew Algernon using metadiscourse in the second example. Since

Cecily appears to be wealthy, Lady Bracknell considers the girl suitable for her nephew.

75

Jack. I beg your pardon for interrupting you, Lady Bracknell, but this engagement is quite out

of the question. I am Miss Cardew’s guardian, and she cannot marry without my consent until

she comes of age. That consent I absolutely decline to give (Wilde 1894: 50).

Lady Bracknell. Ahem! Mr. Worthing, after careful consideration I have decided entirely to

overlook my nephew’s conduct to you.

Jack. That is very generous of you, Lady Bracknell. My own decision, however, is unalterable.

I decline to give my consent (Wilde 1894: 50 – 51).

Jack states twice that he does not consent to this engagement as Cecily’s guardian. Thus, Jack

uses three metadiscursive referents in total to emphasise that he will not consent to this love. I

believe Jack’s frequent use of metadiscursive elements functions to emphasise his authority

regarding the subject of Algernon’s and Cecily’s engagement. Jack stresses the say he has in

his ward’s love life again in the next example. I believe that the repeated use of the word consent

in these examples functions to emphasise the importance of Jack’s opinion on the matter and to

remind his interlocutors of his objection to the marriage.

In the following example, Lady Bracknell states that Jack’s consent will not be necessary as

soon as Cecily comes of age (Wilde 1894: 50 – 51).

Lady Bracknell. […] Well, it will not be very long before you are of age and free from the

restraints of tutelage. So I don’t think your guardian’s consent is, after all, a matter of any

importance. (Wilde 1894: 50 – 51).

Lady Bracknell attempts to diminish the importance of Jack’s consent in the matter by stating

that Cecily will be able to make her own decisions as soon as she is of age. Thus, Lady

Bracknell’s use of metadiscourse functions to relativize Jack’s earlier refusal.

The next example deals with the emotional charge of both Jack and Lady Bracknell upon being

close to find out whether the two are related to one another (Wilde 1894: 55).

Chasuble. [Looking up.] It has stopped now. [The noise is redoubled.]

Lady Bracknell. I wish he would arrive at some conclusion.

Gwendolen. This suspense is terrible. I hope it will last. [Enter Jack with a hand-bag of black

leather in his hand.]

Jack. [Rushing over to Miss Prism.] Is this the handbag, Miss Prism? Examine it carefully

before you speak. The happiness of more than one life depends on your answer (Wilde 1894:

55).

Jack asks Miss Prism about the handbag and explains that much depends on her reply before

giving her a chance to answer. In demanding an answer from Miss Prism Jack structures the

subsequent discourse. In earlier examples, metadiscourse served to introduce a question. In this

example, however, metadiscourse serves to refer to the previously asked question. I believe this

functions to emphasise the importance of the answer to that question.

76

4.1.2 Discourse Deixis

Describing the spatial and temporal context of utterances, ‘the first point’, ‘formerly’, ‘the

latter’ and ‘for instance’ would be examples of discourse deixis (Schiffrin 1980: 202). In the

first example, Jack and Algernon talk about Algernon dining with his aunt Lady Bracknell, and

discuss marriage in the second example (Wilde 1894: 4, 8).

Jack. You had much better dine with your Aunt Augusta.

Algernon. I haven’t the smallest intention of doing anything of the kind. To begin with, I dined

there on Monday, and once a week is quite enough to dine with one’s own relations. In the

second place, whenever I do dine there I am always treated as a member of the family, and sent

down with either no woman at all, or two. In the third place, I know perfectly well whom she

will place me next to, to-night. She will place me next Mary Farquhar, who always flirts with her

own husband across the dinner-table […] (Wilde 1894: 8).

Algernon. Well, in the first place girls never marry the men they flirt with. Girls don’t think it

right.

Jack. Oh, that is nonsense!

Algernon. It isn’t. It is a great truth. It accounts for the extraordinary number of bachelors that

one sees all over the place. In the second place, I don’t give my consent (Wilde 1894: 4).

These instances of discourse deixis serve to help Algernon organise and structure his talk

(Schiffrin 1980: 201-202). He presents several distinguishable arguments in both examples and

uses meta-talk to indicate the beginning of each new argument.

4.1.3 Demonstrative Pronouns

Demonstrative pronouns, as in I do not agree with that, for example, point to items within the

text rather than elements occurring outside of the text (Schiffrin 1980: 202).

In the following examples, the recurring instances of demonstrative pronouns uttered by Jack

are used metadiscursively as they all point to something said by Algernon (Schiffrin 1980: 202).

Algernon. Well, in the first place girls never marry the men they flirt with. Girls don't think it

right.

Jack. Oh, that is nonsense! (Wilde 1894: 4).

Algernon. Nothing will induce me to part with Bunbury, and if you ever get married, which

seems to me extremely problematic, you will be very glad to know Bunbury. A man who

marries without knowing Bunbury has a very tedious time of it.

Jack. That is nonsense. If I marry a charming girl like Gwendolen, and she is the only girl I

ever saw in my life that I would marry, I certainly won’t want to know Bunbury (Wilde 1894:

8).

77

Algernon. My dear boy, I love hearing my relations abused. It is the only thing that makes me

put up with them at all. Relations are simply a tedious pack of people, who haven't got the

remotest knowledge of how to live, nor the smallest instinct about when to die.

Jack. Oh, that is nonsense! (Wilde 1894: 17)

Algernon. The only way to behave to a woman is to make love to her, if she is pretty, and to

someone else, if she is plain.

Jack. Oh, that is nonsense! (Wilde 1894: 18).

Jack. If you don't take care, your friend Bunbury will get you into a serious scrape someday.

Algernon. I love scrapes. They are the only things that are never serious.

Jack. Oh, that’s nonsense, Algy. You never talk anything but nonsense (Wilde 1894: 21).

Jack. My dear fellow, the sooner you give up that nonsense the better. I made arrangements

this morning with Dr. Chasuble to be christened myself at 5.30, and I naturally will take the

name of Ernest. Gwendolen would wish it. We can’t both be christened Ernest. It’s absurd.

Besides, I have a perfect right to be christened if I like. There is no evidence at all that I have

ever been christened by anybody. I should think it extremely probable I never was, and so does

Dr. Chasuble. It is entirely different in your case. You have been christened already.

Algernon. Yes, but I have not been christened for years.

Jack. Yes, but you have been christened. That is the important thing (Wilde 1894: 44).

Jack frequently considers statements made by Algernon as nonsense. He uses meta-talk to give

his opinion on what his friend utters. The function here might be of satirical nature. While Jack

talks nonsense to several people very close to him, as he tricks them into believing to be

someone else or to have a brother, he simultaneously accuses others of talking nonsense,

seemingly not recognising the irony. He might also be so eager to point out nonsense in others’

talk in order to distract his interlocutor from his own lies and fiddles. In the final example, a

second, different use of the demonstrative pronoun that occurs. Both Jack and Algernon want

to be christened Ernest. Since Jack does not know his biological parents and, unlike Algernon,

has likely never been christened, he believes that he is more entitled to the ceremony. The

demonstrative pronoun serves to refer to the fact that Algernon has been christened already and

to emphasise that Jack believes he should thus be granted the privilege to be christened Ernest.

Algernon and Jack talk about proposing in the following example (Wilde 1894: 4).

Algernon. I really don’t see anything romantic in proposing. It is very romantic to be in

love. But there is nothing romantic about a definite proposal. Why, one may be accepted. One

usually is, I believe. Then the excitement is all over. The very essence of romance is

uncertainty. If ever I get married, I’ll certainly try to forget the fact.

Jack. I have no doubt about that, dear Algy. The Divorce Court was specially invented for

people whose memories are so curiously constituted (Wilde 1894: 4).

Again, the demonstrative pronoun that is an example for meta-talk, as it points to how Algernon

views the act of proposing (Schiffrin 1980: 202). That here functions as an organisational

bracket that helps Jack indicate that what has just been said is Algernon’s opinion (Schiffrin

78

1980: 206). While stating that Jack does not doubt the accuracy of what Algernon said, he goes

on implying that exactly forgetting about one’s marriage is what leads to divorce. Thus, he turns

Algernon’s argument against him, using metadiscourse.

The following instances of metadiscourse all help structure the discourse in The Importance of

Being Earnest. In the first examples, Jack and Algernon discuss Jack’s country lodgings,

marriage and the essence of arguments (Wilde 1894: 7 – 8, 17).

Algernon. Where is that place in the country, by the way?

Jack. That is nothing to you, dear boy. You are not going to be invited . . . I may tell you candidly

that the place is not in Shropshire (Wilde 1894: 7).

Algernon. Then your wife will. You don’t seem to realise, that in married life three is company

and two is none.

Jack. [Sententiously.] That, my dear young friend, is the theory that the corrupt French Drama

has been propounding for the last fifty years (Wilde 1894: 8).

Jack. Well, I won’t argue about the matter. You always want to argue about things.

Algernon. That is exactly what things were originally made for.

Jack. Upon my word, if I thought that, I’d shoot myself . . . [A pause.] You don’t think there is

any chance of Gwendolen becoming like her mother in about a hundred and fifty years, do you,

Algy? (Wilde 1894: 17).

Additionally, Cecily and Miss Prism discuss Jack’s sense of responsibility and modern novels

(Wilde 1894: 22 – 23).

Miss Prism. [Drawing herself up.] Your guardian enjoys the best of health, and his gravity of

demeanour is especially to be commended in one so comparatively young as he is. I know no

one who has a higher sense of duty and responsibility.

Cecily. I suppose that is why he often looks a little bored when we three are together (Wilde

1894: 22).

Miss Prism. Do not speak slightingly of the three-volume novel, Cecily. I wrote one myself in

earlier days.

Cecily. Did you really, Miss Prism? How wonderfully clever you are! I hope it did not end

happily? I don’t like novels that end happily. They depress me so much.

Miss Prism. The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means

(Wilde 1894: 22 – 23).

In the next examples, Algernon pretends to be Ernest while visiting Jack’s Manor. He convinces

Cecily that he wants to be a better man and that she must help him. Algernon then flirts with

Cecily (Wilde 1894: 25 – 26).

Algernon. Oh, well! The accounts I have received of Australia and the next world, are not

particularly encouraging. This world is good enough for me, cousin Cecily.

Cecily. Yes, but are you good enough for it?

Algernon. I’m afraid I’m not that. That is why I want you to reform me. You might make that

your mission, if you don’t mind, cousin Cecily (Wilde 1894: 25).

79

Algernon. In fact, now you mention the subject, I have been very bad in my own small way

Cecily. I don’t think you should be so proud of that, though I am sure it must have been very

pleasant (Wilde 1894: 25).

Algernon. I will. I feel better already.

Cecily. You are looking a little worse.

Algernon. That is because I am hungry (Wilde 1894: 25 – 26).

Algernon. Because you are like a pink rose, Cousin Cecily.

Cecily. I don’t think it can be right for you to talk to me like that. Miss Prism never says such

things to me (Wilde 1894: 26).

Miss Prism provides her opinion on celibacy to Dr. Chasuble, and talks to the clergyman about

the merits of women (Wilde 1894: 26 – 27).

Chasuble. [...]The precept as well as the practice of the Primitive Church was distinctly against

matrimony.

Miss Prism. [Sententiously.] That is obviously the reason why the Primitive Church has not

lasted up to the present day. And you do not seem to realise, dear Doctor, that by persistently

remaining single, a man converts himself into a permanent public temptation. Men should be

more careful; this very celibacy leads weaker vessels astray (Wilde 1894: 26).

Miss Prism. No married man is ever attractive except to his wife.

Chasuble. And often, I’ve been told, not even to her.

Miss Prism. That depends on the intellectual sympathies of the woman […] (Wilde 1894: 26 –

27).

When Jack informs Miss Prism and Dr. Chasuble that his invented brother has died, Dr.

Chasuble offers to refer to Jack’s loss in his next sermon and talks about the duties clergyman

fulfil, not least of christenings. The two then arrange for Jack to be christened the same

afternoon (Wilde 1894: 28). Further, Cecily and Jack talk about Jack’s alleged brother Ernest

(Wilde 1894: 29).

Jack. Ah! that reminds me, you mentioned christenings I think, Dr. Chasuble? I suppose you

know how to christen all right? […] (Wilde 1894: 28).

Chasuble. […] At what hour would you wish the ceremony performed?

Jack. Oh, I might trot round about five if that would suit you (Wilde 1894: 28).

Jack. What nonsense! I haven’t got a brother.

Cecily. Oh, don’t say that. However badly he may have behaved to you in the past he is still

your brother. […] (Wilde 1894: 29).

As soon as Jack finds out that Algernon is at his manor pretending to be his brother, he asks his

friend to leave. Algernon agrees to go as soon as Jack changes from his mourning clothes into

something more appropriate. Algernon informs Jack that he cast an eye on Cecily. Soon after

that, Gwendolen wants to visit her beloved Jack and she and Cecily meet. At first, the two

80

women like each other, but when they realise that they are both engaged to Ernest, their tone

becomes rather snappy (Wilde 1894: 31, 36, 39).

Algernon. Yes, if you are not too long. I never saw anybody take so long to dress, and with

such little result.

Jack. Well, at any rate, that is better than being always over- dressed as you are (Wilde 1894:

31).

Algernon. Well, Cecily is a darling.

Jack. You are not to talk of Miss Cardew like that. I don’t like it (Wilde 1894: 31).

Gwendolen. And you will always call me Gwendolen, won’t you?

Cecily. If you wish.

Gwendolen. Then that is all quite settled, is it not? (Wilde 1894: 36).

Gwendolen. Outside the family circle, papa, I am glad to say, is entirely unknown. I think that

is quite as it should be. The home seems to me to be the proper sphere for the man. And

certainly once a man begins to neglect his domestic duties he becomes painfully effeminate,

does he not? And I don’t like that. […] (Wilde 1894: 36).

Gwendolen. Are there many interesting walks in the vicinity, Miss Cardew?

Cecily. Oh! yes! a great many. From the top of one of the hills quite close one can see five

counties.

Gwendolen. Five counties! I don’t think I should like that; I hate crowds.

Cecily. [Sweetly.] I suppose that is why you live in town? [...] (Wilde 1894: 39).

In the following examples, Jack and Algernon discuss the likelihood of Jack and Gwendolen’s

marriage and Algernon’s habit of eating muffins whenever he is upset (Wilde 1894: 43 – 44).

Algernon. I don’t think there is much likelihood, Jack, of you and Miss Fairfax being united.

Jack. Well, that is no business of yours.

Algernon. If it was my business, I wouldn’t talk about it. [Begins to eat muffins.] It is very

vulgar to talk about one’s business. Only people like stock-brokers do that, and then merely at

dinner parties (Wilde 1894: 43).

Algernon. When I am in trouble, eating is the only thing that consoles me. […] At the present

moment I am eating muffins because I am unhappy. Besides, I am particularly fond of muffins.

[Rising.]

Jack. [Rising.] Well, that is no reason why you should eat them all in that greedy way. […]

(Wilde 1894: 43).

Algernon. That may be. But the muffins are the same. [He seizes the muffin-dish from Jack.]

(Wilde 1894: 44).

In the following, Lady Bracknell and Algernon talk about society after Algernon informed his

aunt about the tragic fate of his invented friend Bunbury, and Jack informs Lady Bracknell that

he will only allow Algernon to marry his ward if she consents to Jack’s marriage with her

daughter Gwendolen. In addition, Dr. Chasuble informs Lady Bracknell that both Jack and

Algernon have arranged to be baptised later that day (Wilde 1894: 48, 50, 52).

81

Algernon. My dear Aunt Augusta, I mean [Bunbury] was found out! The doctors found out that

Bunbury could not live, that is what I mean—so Bunbury died (Wilde 1894: 48).

Algernon. Cecily is the sweetest, dearest, prettiest girl in the whole world. And I don’t care

twopence about social possibilities.

Lady Bracknell. Never speak disrespectfully of Society, Algernon. Only people who can’t get

into it do that. [To Cecily.] […] (Wilde 1894: 50).

Jack. Then a passionate celibacy is all that any of us can look forward to.

Lady Bracknell. That is not the destiny I propose for Gwendolen […] (Wilde 1894: 52).

Chasuble. [Looking rather puzzled, and pointing to Jack and Algernon.] Both these gentlemen

have expressed a desire for immediate baptism.

Lady Bracknell. At their age? The idea is grotesque and irreligious! Algernon […] Lord

Bracknell would be highly displeased if he learned that that was the way in which you wasted

your time and money (Wilde 1894: 52).

In the final example, Jack learns that he has been baptised before he was lost as a baby (Wilde

1894: 56).

Jack. Then I was christened! That is settled. Now, what name was I given? Let me know the

worst (Wilde 1894: 56).

The above instances of metadiscourse all refer to what has been said. Therefore, they function

to organise the conversation as renewal brackets (Schiffrin 1980: 216).

Jack and Algernon discuss the nature of proposals in the next example (Wilde 1894: 3 – 4).

Jack. I am in love with Gwendolen. I have come up to town expressly to propose to her.

Algernon. I thought you had come up for pleasure? . . . I call that business (Wilde 1894: 3-4).

I put this instance of meta-talk into the category of demonstrative pronouns rather than meta-

linguistic verbs, as I believe that is the predominant metadiscursive element. Along with an

organisational function, I detected other-repair in this example as well. While Jack put forward

that he considers proposing to his beloved pleasurable, Algernon wants to contradict this

statement by renewing what Jack said. He then gives his opinion, namely that proposing to

someone is business.

In the following extract, the entity referred to is located both before and after the demonstrative

pronoun that. Lady Bracknell and Jack both interrogate Miss Prism about the baby she was

supposed to look after years earlier (Wilde 1894: 53 – 54).

Lady Bracknell. [In a severe, judicial voice.] Prism! [Miss Prism bows her head in shame.]

Come here, Prism! [Miss Prism approaches in a humble manner.] Prism! Where is that baby?

[...] Twenty-eight years ago, Prism, you left Lord Bracknell’s house, Number 104, Upper

Grosvenor Street, in charge of a perambulator that contained a baby of the male sex. You never

returned. A few weeks later, through the elaborate investigations of the Metropolitan police, the

82

perambulator was discovered at midnight, standing by itself in a remote corner of Bayswater. It

contained the manuscript of a three-volume novel of more than usually revolting sentimentality.

[…] But the baby was not there! [...] Prism! Where is that baby? [A pause.]

Miss Prism. […] On the morning of the day you mention, a day that is for ever branded on my

memory, I prepared as usual to take the baby out in its perambulator. I had also with me a

somewhat old, but capacious hand-bag in which I had intended to place the manuscript of a

work of fiction that I had written during my few unoccupied hours. In a moment of mental

abstraction, for which I never can forgive myself, I deposited the manuscript in the basinette,

and placed the baby in the hand-bag.

[…]

Jack. Miss Prism, this is a matter of no small importance to me. I insist on knowing where you

deposited the hand-bag that contained that infant (Wilde 1894: 53 – 54).

Again, the function of metadiscourse is to organise the talk by referring to what is being said.

In earlier examples, metadiscourse followed the entity referred to. What I find intriguing about

this extract is that the entity referred to both precedes and immediately follows the

demonstrative pronoun that. Moreover, that refers to a human being, namely a baby, rather than

objects or situations in these examples.

The next examples of demonstrative pronouns take evaluative functions, which is why I will be

focusing on the evaluation of what is being said or has been said, in either one’s own or one’s

interlocutor’s talk. In the first examples, Jack and Algernon talk about Jack’s cigarette case and

Algernon’s invented term Bunburyism (Wilde 1894: 5 – 6). In the last of the three instances,

Lady Bracknell says that she considers it better to have money in investments than in land

(Wilde 1894: 14 – 15).

Jack. There is no good offering a large reward now that the thing is found.

Algernon. I think that is rather mean of you, Ernest, I must say. [Opens case and examines it.]

However, it makes no matter, for, now that I look at the inscription inside, I find that the thing

isn't yours after all (Wilde 1894: 5).

Jack. Bunburyist? What on earth do you mean by a Bunburyist? Algernon. I’ll reveal to you the meaning of that incomparable expression as soon as you are

kind enough to inform me […] (Wilde 1894: 6).

Lady Bracknell. […] What is your income?

Jack. Between seven and eight thousand a year.

Lady Bracknell. […] In land, or in investments?

Lady Bracknell. That is satisfactory. What between the duties expected of one during one’s

lifetime, and the duties exacted from one after one’s death, land has ceased to be either a profit

or a pleasure. It gives one position, and prevents one from keeping it up. That’s all that can be

said about land (Wilde 1894: 14-15).

That’s all that can be said functions as a terminal bracket, as it indicates that Lady Bracknell is

not going to add anything to what she just said. That referring to the point she just put forward

fulfils an organisational function (Schiffrin 1980: 209).

83

The other instances of demonstrative pronouns above all take evaluative functions, as there is

evaluation of what is being said or has been said, focusing on either one’s own or one’s

interlocutor’s talk. Algernon praises his own incomparable expression by referring to it using

metadiscourse. Here, metadiscourse functions to reemphasize the beauty of his own phrase

(Schiffrin 1980: 225). He also evaluates Jack’s utterance in saying that he considers it rather

mean, thus focusing on his interlocutor’s talk. As the two are having an argument and Algernon

is evaluating Jack’s statement, that is used metadiscursively (Schiffrin 1980: 221). Finally,

Lady Bracknell asks Jack whether his income is made in investments or land, and uses that as

a terminal bracket, indicating that she finds Jack’s answer on his income coming from

investments satisfactory. She then goes on talking about the disadvantages of owning land.

Although that refers to what Jack said, it can be argued that the use of metadiscourse here

functions to strengthen Lady Bracknell’s own evaluation of money from investments being

more beneficial; which is why she is happy to hear that Jack obtains his money mainly from

investments (Wilde 1894: 14 - 15).

In addition, Miss Prism comments on taking a walk with Dr. Chasuble (Wilde 1894: 24).

Miss Prism. I think, dear Doctor, I will have a stroll with you. I find I have a headache after all,

and a walk might do it good.

Chasuble. With pleasure, Miss Prism, with pleasure. We might go as far as the schools and

back.

Miss Prism. That would be delightful […] (Wilde 1894: 23 – 24).

Miss Prism considers Dr. Chasuble’s proposal to walk to the schools with her delightful. In this

instance, Miss Prism is referring to and evaluating her interlocutor’s talk. Meta-talk thus

functions both as a renewal and evaluative bracket.

In the following, Cecily hypothesises about whether Jack’s brother Ernest has a wicked or a

good nature. Further, the young girl informs Algernon who pretends to be visiting Jack that his

alleged brother is not currently present at the manor (Wilde 1894: 24 – 25).

Cecily. […] You, I see from your card, are Uncle Jack’s brother, […] my wicked cousin Ernest.

Algernon. Oh! I am not really wicked at all, cousin Cecily. You mustn’t think that I am wicked.

Cecily. If you are not, then you have certainly been deceiving us all in a very inexcusable

manner. I hope you have not been leading a double life, pretending to be wicked and being

really good all the time. That would be hypocrisy (Wilde 1894: 24).

Cecily. I can’t understand how you are here at all. Uncle Jack won’t be back till Monday

afternoon.

Algernon. That is a great disappointment. I am obliged to go up by the first train on Monday

morning. I have a business appointment that I am anxious… to miss? (Wilde 1894: 25).

In the first example, Cecily states that she would consider it hypocritical of Ernest to pretend to

be wicked while actually having a good nature. I believe Wilde was aspiring to some comical

84

effect here, since the audience would rather consider a person who is wicked but pretending to

be good a hypocrite. However, Cecily is evaluating her own speculation on Algernon’s, or

Ernest’s, nature. The young girl uses a terminal bracket to stress that were her speculation about

Algernon truthful, she would consider him a hypocrit. In the second example, Algernon reacts

to the news that his alleged brother Jack is not expected to return soon. Referring to Cecily’s

talk, Algernon uses metadiscourse to express that he considers the news disappointing. It is

obvious, however, that Algernon indeed expected Jack to be absent and merely wanted to meet

his friend’s ward Cecily.

In the following examples, Jack and Algernon argue about wardrobe, Bunburyism, eating

muffins and Jack’s engagement with Gwendolen (Wilde 1894: 31, 42 – 43).

Algernon. Yes, if you are not too long. I never saw anybody take so long to dress, and with

such little result.

Jack. Well, at any rate, that is better than being always over- dressed as you are (Wilde 1894:

31).

Jack. Well, you’ve no right whatsoever to Bunbury here.

Algernon. That is absurd. One has a right to Bunbury anywhere one chooses. Every serious

Bunburyist knows that (Wilde 1894: 42).

Algernon. But you have just said it was perfectly heartless to eat muffins.

Jack. I said it was perfectly heartless of you, under the circumstances. That is a very different

thing (Wilde 1894: 43).

Algernon. I don’t think there is much likelihood, Jack, of you and Miss Fairfax being united.

Jack. Well, that is no business of yours.

Algernon. If it was my business, I wouldn’t talk about it. [Begins to eat muffins.] It is very

vulgar to talk about one’s business. Only people like stock-brokers do that, and then merely at

dinner parties (Wilde 1894: 43).

In the first example, Jack evaluates what his interlocutor Algernon said about dressing oneself.

In essence, Jack considers it better to take one’s time when dressing than to be over-dressed.

Further, Algernon refers to what Jack said as absurd in the second example. I discussed Jack’s

frequent use of the word nonsense earlier. To my mind, Algernon uses metadiscourse in a

similar way in this example. He calls Jack’s objection to Bunburying absurd and talks about the

rules of Bunburyism. Bunburyism is, however, a fictitious term invented by Algernon that

carries no meaning outside of Algernon’s world. Therefore, I consider it possible that Algernon

wants to distract from the absurdity of his invented term by evaluating his interlocutor’s

comment as absurd. In the next example, Jack clarifies that there is a difference between him

eating muffins and Algernon doing so. He uses metadiscourse to refer to and emphasise that

difference. Finally, Jack states that he does not consider his and Gwendolen’s love lives to be

of any concern to Algernon. He uses metadiscourse to evaluate Algernon’s comment about his

85

relationship with Gwendolen as being irrelevant. In addition, Algernon uses the demonstrative

pronoun that to refer to his own talk, which functions to organise the discourse.

In the next examples, Gwendolen and Cecily comment on Jack’s and Algernon’s behaviour.

The women just found out that both men have pretended to be someone else (Wilde 1894: 45).

Gwendolen. The fact that they did not follow us at once into the house, as anyone else would

have done, seems to me to show that they have some sense of shame left.

Cecily. They have been eating muffins. That looks like repentance (Wilde 1894: 45).

Cecily. They’re approaching. That’s very forward of them (Wilde 1894: 45).

In both examples, Cecily refers to her own descriptions of what the men are doing. Firstly, she

believes that the fact that Jack and Algernon have been eating muffins proves that they have

some sense of shame left. Secondly, Cecily considers it bold of the men to approach herself and

Gwendolen. In both cases, Cecily uses metadiscourse to express her evaluation of the men’s

actions.

In the final three examples of the use of evaluative brackets with the demonstrative pronoun

that, Lady Bracknell comments on hearing about Cecily’s fortune, and tells Jack that she

considers his ward eligible for Algernon. Further, Lady Bracknell believes Jack’s objection to

Algernon’s and Cecily’s engagement will not matter as soon as Cecily comes of age (Wilde

1894: 48, 51).

Jack. [In a clear, cold voice.] Miss Cardew is the grand-daughter of the late Mr. Thomas

Cardew of 149 Belgrave Square, S.W.; Gervase Park, Dorking, Surrey; and the Sporran,

Fifeshire, N.B.

Lady Bracknell. That sounds not unsatisfactory. […] (Wilde 1894: 48).

Lady Bracknell. Ahem! Mr. Worthing, after careful consideration I have decided entirely to

overlook my nephew’s conduct to you.

Jack. That is very generous of you, Lady Bracknell. My own decision, however, is unalterable.

I decline to give my consent (Wilde 1894: 51).

Jack. Pray excuse me, Lady Bracknell, for interrupting you again, but it is only fair to tell you

that according to the terms of her grandfather’s will Miss Cardew does not come legally of age

till she is thirty-five.

Lady Bracknell. That does not seem to me to be a grave objection. Thirty-five is a very

attractive age. London society is full of women of the very highest birth who have, of their own

free choice, remained thirty-five for years […] (Wilde 1894: 51).

In the first example, Lady Bracknell evaluates Cecily’s origin as satisfactory by referring to her

interlocutor’s talk. She uses metadiscourse to evaluate and express her opinion on Cecily’s

family legacy. In the second example, Jack informs Lady Bracknell that he considers it very

generous of her to view Cecily as an eligible match for her nephew Algernon. However, he

86

himself still objects to the match. Jack uses metadiscourse to provide his opinion and to evaluate

what Lady Bracknell said. Finally, Lady Bracknell uses metadiscourse in the last example to

relativize Jack’s objection to Algernon’s engagement with Cecily. Since Jack will not be

Cecily’s ward forever, Lady Bracknell believes his opinion on the matter is not very important.

Summing up, in all above examples of evaluation, metadiscourse functions to give one’s

opinion on what has been said, either in an argument or to strengthen one’s own phrase.

In the following instances of metadiscourse, the demonstrative pronoun that serves to indicate

that the speaker has brought up all their arguments and points and that their turn is over. In the

first two examples, Jack questions Algernon’s Bunburyism (Wilde 1894: 31 – 32), and

Algernon questions Jack’s intentions towards his cousin Gwendolen (Wilde 1894: 43).

Jack. […] This Bunburying, as you call it, has not been a great success for you. [...]

Algernon. I think it has been a great success. I’m in love with Cecily, and that is everything

(Wilde 1894: 31 – 32).

Algernon. I can see no possible defence at all for your deceiving a brilliant, clever, thoroughly

experienced young lady like Miss Fairfax. To say nothing of the fact that she is my cousin.

Jack. I wanted to be engaged to Gwendolen, that is all. I love her (Wilde 1894: 43).

In the above examples, both Algernon and Jack use metadiscourse to indicate that they have

finished talking. In addition, they both want to convince one another that they are in love with

Cecily and Gwendolen, and have no bad intentions. I believe it contributes to the humour in the

play that both friends mistrust each other’s intentions equally.

In the following example, Cecily and Gwendolen interrogate Jack and Algernon about their

fiddles (Wilde 1894: 45 – 46).

Cecily. [To Gwendolen.] That certainly seems a satisfactory explanation, does it not?

Gwendolen. Yes, dear, if you can believe him.

Cecily. I don’t. But that does not affect the wonderful beauty of his answer.

[…]

Gwendolen. […] Their explanations appear to be quite satisfactory, especially Mr. Worthing’s.

That seems to me to have the stamp of truth upon it. […]

Gwendolen and Cecily […] Your Christian names are still an insuperable barrier. That is all!

Jack and Algernon [...] Our Christian names! Is that all? But we are going to be christened this

afternoon. (Wilde 1894: 45 – 46).

The two instances of demonstrative pronouns that appear at the beginning of this extract renew

what has been said earlier in the conversation. Thus, they function to organise the discourse.

Additionally, after Gwendolen and Cecily accepted the men’s apologies, there is yet one

insuperable barrier, namely the men’s names. The women use metadiscourse to indicate that

they have brought forward all their objections and are done talking. Then, Jack and Algernon

87

repeat the phrase in asking Is that all? They use metadiscourse to indicate that the ladies’

objection is not relevant at all, as both Algernon and Jack will be christened soon.

In the following, Lady Bracknell quizzes Jack about his ward’s fortune (Wilde 1894: 49).

Lady Bracknell. […] Mr. Worthing, I had better ask you if Miss Cardew has any little fortune?

Jack. Oh! about a hundred and thirty thousand pounds in the Funds. That is all. […]

Lady Bracknell. [To Cecily.] Come over here, dear. [Cecily goes across.] Pretty child! your

dress is sadly simple, and your hair seems almost as Nature might have left it. But we can soon

alter all that. […] (Wilde 1894: 49).

Jack uses metadiscourse to indicate both that he listed everything Cecily possesses and that he

has finished his turn. In addition, Lady Bracknell uses the demonstrative pronoun that to refer

to what she said before and thus organise the discourse.

88

4.2 Meta-linguistic Operators

Schiffrin describes meta-linguistic operators as a combination or modification of arguments or

statements into more complex structures that reflect logical operations. So-called higher-level

predicates “whose arguments are prepositions in the text” (Schiffrin 1980: 202) would be right,

wrong, true, false and the verb mean (Schiffrin 1980: 202).

In the first example of meta-linguistic operators, Algernon and Jack talk about Jack’s cigarette

case (Wilde 1894: 5).

Algernon. Bring me that cigarette case Mr. Worthing left in the smoking-room the last time he

dined here.

Lane. Yes, sir. [LANE goes out.]

Jack. Do you mean to say you have had my cigarette case all this time? I wish to goodness you

had let me know. I have been writing frantic letters to Scotland Yard about it. I was very nearly

offering a large reward (Wilde 1894: 5).

Mean here serves to express Jack’s apparent inability to understand that his friend has had his

cigarette case while he has been spending some time more or less desperately searching for it.

In the following, Jack and Algernon discuss Jack’s ward Cecily and Algernon’s invented term

Bunburyism (Wilde 1894: 4 – 7). Further, Jack is given the rather confusing news that his

invented brother Ernest has come for a visit in the last example (Wilde 1894: 29).

Algernon. My dear fellow, Gwendolen is my first cousin. And before I allow you to marry her,

you will have to clear up the whole question of Cecily. [Rings bell.]

Jack. Cecily! What on earth do you mean? What do you mean, Algy, by Cecily! I don’t know

any one of the name of Cecily (Wilde 1894: 4-5).

Jack. Bunburyist? What on earth do you mean by a Bunburyist? (Wilde 1894: 6).

Algernon. […] What you really are is a Bunburyist. I was quite right in saying you were a

Bunburyist. You are one of the most advanced Bunburyists I know.

Jack. What on earth do you mean?

Algernon. You have invented a very useful younger brother called Ernest, in order that you

may be able to come up to town as often as you like. I have invented an invaluable permanent

invalid called Bunbury, in order that I may be able to go down into the country whenever I

choose. Bunbury is perfectly invaluable […] (Wilde 1894: 7).

Jack. My brother is in the dining-room? I don’t know what it all means. I think it is perfectly

absurd (Wilde 1894: 29).

Jack frequently uses meta-linguistic operators to question what Algernon says or to demand

clarification. In the first example, Jack wants to deny knowing someone of the name of Cecily.

He uses metadiscourse to emphasise that he really has no idea why Algernon would accuse him

of knowing someone of that name. In the following two examples, Jack requires that Algernon

give him an explanation of the term Bunburyist. He uses meta-talk to indicate that he does not

89

know what Algernon means by the term and to demand an explanation. Finally, Jack evaluates

the news that his fictitious brother should have come to visit him absurd in the last example.

Jack uses metadiscourse to express his bewilderment, as it is rather odd that his invented brother

Ernest should pay him a visit.

In the following instances, Gwendolen and Jack as well as Algernon and Cecily discuss the

women’s fascination with the name Ernest (Wilde 1894: 12, 35).

Gwendolen. […] We live, as I hope you know, Mr Worthing, in an age of ideals. […] and my

ideal has always been to love some one of the name of Ernest. There is something in that name

that inspires absolute confidence. The moment Algernon first mentioned to me that he had a

friend called Ernest, I knew I was destined to love you.

[…]

Jack. But you don’t really mean to say that you couldn’t love me if my name wasn’t Ernest?

Gwendolen. But your name is Ernest.

Jack. Yes, I know it is. But supposing it was something else? Do you mean to say you

couldn’t love me then?

Gwendolen. [Glibly.] Ah! that is clearly a metaphysical speculation, and like most

metaphysical speculations has very little reference at all to the actual facts of real life, as we

know them (Wilde 1894: 12).

Cecily. […] I pity any poor married woman whose husband is not called Ernest.

Algernon. But, my dear child, do you mean to say you could not love me if I had some other

name? (Wilde 1894: 35).

In these examples, “negatives are used […] when the affirmative has been explicitly stated or

is somehow expected” (Schiffrin 1980: 227). Jack uses cancelation brackets, as he fears that

Gwendolen only likes him for his name. Similarly, Algernon pretends to be called Ernest later

in the play and Cecily seems to be equally fascinated by the name. The repetition of the dialogue

has a comical effect in the play. Just like Jack, Algernon too uses cancelation brackets, since he

fears that Cecily is honest in saying that she wants her husband to be called Ernest.

Jack and Algernon talk about Jack’s proposal to Gwendolen in the following example (Wilde

1894: 17).

Jack. Good morning! [Algernon, from the other room, strikes up the Wedding March. Jack looks

perfectly furious, and goes to the door.] For goodness’ sake don’t play that ghastly tune, Algy.

How idiotic you are! [The music stops and Algernon enters cheerily.]

Algernon. Didn’t it go off all right, old boy? You don’t mean to say Gwendolen refused you?

I know it is a way she has. She is always refusing people […] (Wilde 1894: 17).

I believe the predominant instance of meta-talk in this example is the word mean. Algernon

uses the negative here, as he is expecting – and in this case also hoping for – the affirmative,

namely that Gwendolen refused Jack’s proposal (Schiffrin 1980: 227).

90

In the next instances of metadiscursive operators, Jack expresses his wish both to get christened

and married as soon as possible (Wilde 1894: 12). In addition, Cecily wishes to know whether

Algernon is engaged to Gwendolen (Wilde 1894: 41). Finally, Algernon and Lady Bracknell

discuss the death of Algernon’s fictive friend Bunbury (Wilde 1894: 47 – 48).

Jack. Gwendolen, I must get christened at once—I mean we must get married at once. There is

no time to be lost (Wilde 1894: 12).

Cecily. […] are you engaged to be married to this young lady?

Algernon. [...] To what young lady? Good heavens! Gwendolen!

Cecily. Yes! to good heavens, Gwendolen, I mean to Gwendolen (Wilde 1894: 41).

Algernon. […] Oh! I killed Bunbury this afternoon. I mean poor Bunbury died this afternoon.

Lady Bracknell. What did he die of?

Algernon. Bunbury? Oh, he was quite exploded.

Lady Bracknell. Exploded! Was he the victim of a revolutionary outrage? […]

Algernon. My dear Aunt Augusta, I mean he was found out! The doctors found out that

Bunbury could not live, that is what I mean—so Bunbury died (Wilde 1894: 47 - 48).

The above examples are a case of immediate self-repair. The candidate repair follows the meta-

linguistic phrase I mean, as is often the case in self-repairs (Schiffrin 1980: 214). In the first

example, the function of meta-talk is for Jack to clarify what he actually meant. Since both

christenings and weddings are performed in churches, it is possible that Jack just had a slip of

the tongue. However, this is more likely a Freudian slip, as Jack in fact wants to get christened.

He found out that Gwendolen is very fond of his pseudonym Ernest and therefore wants to

change his name legally to Ernest. Therefore, the meta-linguistic operator functions not only as

self-repair, but also as an ironical device. In the second instance, Cecily is rather agitated as she

fears that Algernon is engaged to another woman and thus makes a slip of the tongue in

repeating her beloved’s phrase good heavens. Cecily immediately repairs her utterance using

metadiscourse. In the third example, Algernon makes two Freudian slips. Firstly, he states that

he killed his fictitious friend Bunbury. Algernon and Jack previously discussed killing the

invented characters Bunbury and Ernest. Algernon’s slip of the tongue thus may have happened

since he is used to the expression of killing Bunbury. He uses meta-talk to repair the statement

and to introduce what he actually intended to say. Secondly, Algernon tells his aunt that

Bunbury exploded, which leads to further misunderstandings. Thus, he repairs his previous

statement and uses metadiscourse to reveal what he meant to say, namely that his friend died

because his doctors gave up hope. Algernon then uses metadiscourse in repeating the utterance

once more to stress his last claim. He also uses the word that metadiscursively, referring to what

he said earlier. The demonstrative pronoun serves to organise Algernon’s talk.

91

In the following, the focus of analysis will be on higher-level predicates, such as right, true,

and wrong. Algernon observes the nature of men and women in the first of the following

instances of meta-linguistic operators (Wilde 1894: 18). In the second and third examples,

Cecily and Gwendolen discuss whether they believe and value what Jack and Algernon said to

them (Wilde 1894: 45 – 46).

Algernon. All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does. That’s his.

Jack. Is that clever?

Algernon. It is perfectly phrased! and quite as true as any observation in civilised life should be

(Wilde 1894: 18).

Gwendolen. Yes, dear, if you can believe him.

Cecily. I don’t. But that does not affect the wonderful beauty of his answer.

Gwendolen. True. In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity is the vital thing. […]

(Wilde 1894: 45 – 46).

Cecily. I am more than content with what Mr. Moncrieff said. His voice alone inspires one with

absolute credulity.

Cecily. Yes. I mean no.

Gwendolen. True! I had forgotten. There are principles at stake that one cannot surrender.

Which of us should tell them? The task is not a pleasant one (Wilde 1894: 46).

Firstly, Algernon praises his own phrasing of women’s tragedy. He uses metadiscourse to stress

how truthful he finds his utterance. Secondly, Gwendolen evaluates Cecily’s utterances in the

second and third examples as being true. She uses meta-talk to indicate that she shares her

friend’s opinion in both cases. In addition, Cecily makes a self-repair in the third example.

Similarly to instances of self-repair discussed earlier, metadiscourse in this example functions

to take back what Cecily said and to convey what she intended to say.

In the next example of higher-level predicates, Lady Bracknell and Gwendolen talk about her

daughter’s engagement with Jack (Wilde 1894: 47). Finally, Lady Bracknell tells Cecily that it

is alright for women to lie about their age (Wilde 1894: 51).

Lady Bracknell. Gwendolen! What does this mean?

Gwendolen. Merely that I am engaged to be married to Mr. Worthing, mamma.

Lady Bracknell. Come here. Sit down. […] [Turns to Jack.] Her unhappy father is, I am glad

to say, under the impression that she is attending a more than usually lengthy lecture by the

University Extension Scheme on the Influence of a permanent income on Thought. I do not

propose to undeceive him. Indeed I have never undeceived him on any question. I would

consider it wrong. […] (Wilde 1894: 47).

Lady Bracknell. You are perfectly right in making some slight alteration. Indeed, no woman

should ever be quite accurate about her age. It looks so calculating… […] (Wilde 1894: 51).

Lady Bracknell first uses metadiscourse to inquire about how the previous discourse is to be

interpreted. She then informs Jack that she never undeceived her husband and would consider

doing so wrong. Lady Bracknell thus uses metadiscourse to deliver her attitude towards

92

undeceiving one’s spouse. In the last example, Lady Bracknell informs Cecily that she is right

in lying about her age, as many fashionable women do. Lady Bracknell uses meta-talk to convey

her opinion on making alterations to one’s age as a woman.

Summing up, I found that higher-level predicates may evaluate the speaker’s or the

interlocutor’s talk.

In the following instance, the clergyman Chasuble asks Lady Bracknell’s opinion. Miss Prism

just revealed that she left the baby she was supposed to take care of years earlier in her handbag.

(Wilde 1894: 54).

Chasuble. What do you think this means, Lady Bracknell?

Lady Bracknell. I dare not even suspect, Dr. Chasuble. I need hardly tell you that in families of

high position strange coincidences are not supposed to occur […] (Wilde 1894: 54).

Earlier in the discourse, Lady Bracknell recognised Miss Prism and it was revealed that the

teacher had lost a baby she was supposed to take care of a long time ago. Dr. Chasuble suspects

that Lady Bracknell knows more about that baby. He uses metadiscourse to enquire about her

opinion on the matter.

In the following example, Jack learns that his true name is John Ernest, which reveals that he

has been telling the truth about being called both Jack and Ernest. (Wilde 1894: 57).

Jack. The Army Lists of the last forty years are here. These delightful records should have been

my constant study. [...] Moncrieff! Lieutenant 1840, Captain, Lieutenant-Colonel, Colonel,

General 1869, Christian names, Ernest John. [...] I always told you, Gwendolen, my name was

Ernest, didn’t I? Well, it is Ernest after all. I mean it naturally is Ernest (Wilde 1894: 57).

Jack uses metadiscourse to stress his utterance. Since both he and Algernon have been talking

about altering their names previously in the discourse, Jack emphasises that he now has proof

that his name is naturally Ernest and that there is thus no need for him to change his name. Jack

also stresses that he technically been telling the truth about his name his entire life.

93

4.3 Meta-linguistic Verbs

Schiffrin places verbs of saying, such as tell, ask and say, the naming of speech events, for

example argue and joke and verbs that indicate that something will happen to a particular piece

of talk, namely explain, define or clarify in the category of meta-linguistic verbs (Schiffrin

1980: 202).

4.3.1 Verbs of saying

The following examples all contain verbs of saying. Since this category is rather large, I will

distinguish between three different types of verbs of saying. Firstly, I will focus on verbs that

concern the speaker’s talk. The second sub-category will be about the interlocutor’s talk and in

the third category the talk referred to is uttered by a third person.

4. 3. 1. 1 Verbs referring to the speaker’s talk

In the following examples, the current speaker is referring to their own talk. In the first example,

Algernon is having a conversation with his butler Lane (Wilde 1894: 2).

Algernon. […] I don’t play accurately—anyone can play accurately—but I play with wonderful

expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life.

Lane. Yes, sir.

Algernon. And, speaking of the science of Life, have you got the cucumber sandwiches cut for

Lady Bracknell? (Wilde 1894: 2).

Speaking of fulfils an organisational function. It appears as if the previous bit of the

conversation reminded Algernon of something he intended to ask his butler Lane (Wilde 1894:

2). He uses metadiscourse to organise his utterance: while he and his interlocutor are

deliberating on the subject of the science of Life, he introduces a question he implies to be

related to that subject using metalanguage. In this example, speaking of functions as an

organisational bracket, as it helps the speaker introduce new information that is related to what

was previously said. I believe it does not fit the category of either an initial or terminal bracket.

However, it serves to organise Algernon’s talk (Schiffrin 1980: 216).

In the following examples, Algernon, pretending to be Ernest, tells Jack that he intends to be a

better brother in the future (Wilde 1894: 29). Next, Jack tells Cecily and Gwendolen the truth

about his brother (Wilde 1894: 41 – 42). In the third example, Gwendolen and Cecily want to

inform the men that there is one more objection to forgiving their lies, namely their Christian

94

names (Wilde 1894: 46). Jack informs Lady Bracknell that Cecily will remain his ward until

she turns thirty-five in the fourth example (Wilde 1894: 51 – 52). Finally, Lady Bracknell

explains to Dr. Chasuble that they are about to discover the strange family coincidence of Jack

being related to her (Wilde 1894: 54).

Algernon. Brother John, I have come down from town to tell you that I am very sorry for all the

trouble I have given you, and that I intend to lead a better life in the future. [Jack glares at him

and does not take his hand.] (Wilde 1894: 29).

Jack. [Slowly and hesitatingly.] Gwendolen—Cecily—it is very painful for me to be forced to

speak the truth. It is the first time in my life that I have ever been reduced to such a painful

position, and I am really quite inexperienced in doing anything of the kind. However, I will tell

you quite frankly that I have no brother Ernest. I have no brother at all. I never had a brother in

my life, and I certainly have not the smallest intention of ever having one in the future (Wilde

1894: 41 – 42).

Gwendolen. […] Which of us should tell them? The task is not a pleasant one.

Cecily. Could we not both speak at the same time? […] (Wilde 1894: 46).

Jack. Pray excuse me, Lady Bracknell, for interrupting you again, but it is only fair to tell you

that according to the terms of her grandfather’s will Miss Cardew does not come legally of age

till she is thirty-five.

Lady Bracknell. That does not seem to me to be a grave objection. Thirty-five is a very

attractive age. […] I see no reason why our dear Cecily should not be even still more attractive

at the age you mention than she is at present. There will be a large accumulation of property

(Wilde 1894: 51 – 52).

Chasuble. What do you think this means, Lady Bracknell?

Lady Bracknell. I dare not even suspect, Dr. Chasuble. I need hardly tell you that in families of

high position strange coincidences are not supposed to occur. They are hardly considered the

thing (Wilde 1894: 54).

In the first example, Algernon uses metadiscourse to inform Jack what he intends to do next in

the discourse, namely to inform Jack that he wants to become a better brother. In the second

example, Jack uses meta-talk to inform his interlocutors about what he intends to do with the

subsequent discourse. Thus, he organises the conversation. Additionally, he claims that it is

painful for him to speak the truth. To my mind, this serves as an evaluative bracket, as Jack

renders his negative feelings towards having to tell the truth. In the third example, Gwendolen

and Cecily try to organise the subsequent discourse in discussing who should tell the men about

their final objection to forgiving them. The two women then decide to speak at the same time.

Therefore, metadiscourse functions to structure the women’s talk in this example. Jack and

Lady Bracknell use metadiscourse in the final two examples to prepare their interlocutors for

what they are going to say next. Jack considers it fair to inform Lady Bracknell about when his

ward will come of age. Thus, metadiscourse takes an evaluative function in the fourth example

95

as well. In addition, Lady Bracknell refers to her interlocutor’s talk using the word mention to

organise the discourse. In the final example, she states what she considers to be the obvious

about high class families.

In the following, Lady Bracknell stresses that she wants to ask Jack several questions before

she can give her consent to his engagement with Gwendolen (Wilde 1894: 13 – 14).

Lady Bracknell. Pardon me, you are not engaged to anyone. When you do become engaged to

someone, I, or your father, should his health permit him, will inform you of the fact. An

engagement should come on a young girl as a surprise, pleasant or unpleasant, as the case may

be. It is hardly a matter that she could be allowed to arrange for herself . . . And now I have a

few questions to put to you, Mr. Worthing. While I am making these inquiries, you,

Gwendolen, will wait for me below in the carriage (Wilde 1894: 13-14).

Lady Bracknell is organising the subsequent discourse. She additionally exercises power over

her interlocutors, telling them exactly what is about to happen. Meta-talk here serves an

organisational cause and functions to establish power relations.

In the following, Algernon comments on Jack’s engagement with Gwendolen (Wilde 1894: 43).

Algernon. I don’t think there is much likelihood, Jack, of you and Miss Fairfax being united.

Jack. Well, that is no business of yours.

Algernon. If it was my business, I wouldn’t talk about it. [Begins to eat muffins.] It is very

vulgar to talk about one’s business. Only people like stock-brokers do that, and then merely at

dinner parties (Wilde 1894: 43).

Algernon uses metadiscourse to refer to what he said earlier. Thus, meta-talk enhances

coherence and organises the discourse in this example.

In the following, Gwendolen and Cecily found out that Algernon and Jack both lied to them.

Angrily, the two women decide that they will not break the silence (Wilde 1894: 45).

Gwendolen. This dignified silence seems to produce an unpleasant effect.

Cecily. A most distasteful one.

Gwendolen. But we will not be the first to speak (Wilde 1894: 45).

In this example, Gwendolen and Cecily use meta-talk to decide what is going to happen next in

the discourse. They agree that Jack and Algernon will have to break the silence.

In the following instances of metadiscursive verbs, Algernon reprimands Jack for eating

muffins and explains to Jack why he will not leave the manor (Wilde 1894: 44 – 45). In addition,

Jack reveals Algernon’s wicked nature to Lady Bracknell shortly before learning that he is in

fact Algernon’s elder brother and was christened Ernest John (Wilde 1894: 50 – 51, 55 – 57).

Algernon. Jack, you are at the muffins again! I wish you wouldn’t. There are only two left.

[Takes them.] I told you I was particularly fond of muffins (Wilde 1894: 44).

96

Jack. Algernon! I have already told you to go. I don’t want you here. Why don’t you go!

Algernon. I haven’t quite finished my tea yet! and there is still one muffin left. [Jack groans,

and sinks into a chair. Algernon still continues eating.] (Wilde 1894: 44 – 45).

Lady Bracknell. Untruthful! My nephew Algernon? Impossible! He is an Oxonian.

Jack. I fear there can be no possible doubt about the matter. This afternoon during my

temporary absence in London on an important question of romance, he obtained admission to

my house by means of the false pretence of being my brother […] And what makes his conduct

all the more heartless is, that he was perfectly well aware from the first that I have no brother,

that I never had a brother, and that I don’t intend to have a brother, not even of any kind. I

distinctly told him so myself yesterday afternoon (Wilde 1894: 50 – 51).

Lady Bracknell. I am afraid that the news I have to give you will not altogether please you.

You are the son of my poor sister, Mrs. Moncrieff, and consequently Algernon’s elder brother.

Jack. Algy’s elder brother! Then I have a brother after all. I knew I had a brother! I always said

I had a brother! Cecily,—how could you have ever doubted that I had a brother? […] (Wilde

1894: 55 – 56).

Jack. The Army Lists of the last forty years are here. These delightful records should have been

my constant study. […] Moncrieff! Lieutenant 1840, Captain, Lieutenant-Colonel, Colonel,

General 1869, Christian names, Ernest John. [Puts book very quietly down and speaks quite

calmly.] I always told you, Gwendolen, my name was Ernest, didn’t I? Well, it is Ernest after

all. I mean it naturally is Ernest (Wilde 1894: 57).

In the first two examples, metadiscourse functions as a renewal bracket to remind the

interlocutor of something the speaker mentioned earlier in the discourse. Algernon is annoyed

by the necessity to remind his friend that he is fond of muffins and does not want Jack to eat

any. Similarly, Jack is annoyed because he has to remind his friend to leave the manor.

However, using metadiscourse to remind one another of what has been said earlier reemphasises

the respective speaker’s previous statement. In the third example, however, Jack informs Lady

Bracknell about what he said to Algernon. In this example, meta-talk functions to stress the

speaker’s point. Jack wants to convince Lady Bracknell that Algernon has a bad nature because

Algernon ignored that Jack does not have a brother, even though Jack distinctly told him so. In

the final two examples, Jack’s fiddles about having a younger brother and about being called

both Jack and Ernest resolve as if by magic. He uses metadiscourse to remind Cecily and

Gwendolen that he has in fact unknowingly been telling the truth about his name his entire life.

Algernon and Jack talk about Jack’s country manor in the first example (Wilde 1894: 7). Then,

Jack tells Gwendolen that he does not particularly care for the name Ernest (Wilde 1894: 12).

In addition, Lady Bracknell makes inquiries about Jack’s habits in order to find out whether he

is suited to become her daughter’s husband (Wilde 1894: 14). In the next examples, Jack

enquires about Dr. Chasuble’s duties as a clergyman, Cecily informs Gwendolen that she is Mr.

Worthing’s ward and the two women talk about Jack and Ernest (Wilde 1894: 28, 37). Further,

97

Lady Bracknell makes inquiries about Cecily’s income and the lady tries to convince Jack to

let his ward marry her nephew Algernon in the final two examples (Wilde 1894: 49, 52).

Algernon. Where is that place in the country, by the way?

Jack. That is nothing to you, dear boy. You are not going to be invited . . . I may tell you

candidly that the place is not in Shropshire (Wilde 1894: 7).

Jack. Personally, darling, to speak quite candidly, I don’t much care about the name of Ernest

. . . I don’t think the name suits me at all (Wilde 1894: 12).

Lady Bracknell. [Pencil and note-book in hand.] I feel bound to tell you that you are not down

on my list of eligible young men, although I have the same list as the dear Duchess of Bolton has.

We work together, in fact. However, I am quite ready to enter your name, should your answers

be what a really affectionate mother requires. Do you smoke? (Wilde 1894: 14).

Jack. Ah! that reminds me, you mentioned christenings I think, Dr. Chasuble? I suppose you

know how to christen all right? [...] I mean, of course, you are continually christening, aren’t

you?

Miss Prism. It is, I regret to say, one of the Rector’s most constant duties in this parish. I have

often spoken to the poorer classes on the subject. But they don’t seem to know what thrift is

(Wilde 1894: 28).

Gwendolen. Oh! It is strange he never mentioned to me that he had a ward. How secretive of

him! He grows more interesting hourly. I am not sure, however, that the news inspires me with

feelings of unmixed delight. [Rising and going to her.] I am very fond of you, Cecily; I have

liked you ever since I met you! But I am bound to state that now that I know that you are Mr.

Worthing’s ward, I cannot help expressing a wish you were—well, just a little older than you

seem to be—and not quite so very alluring in appearance. In fact, if I may speak candidly -

Cecily. Pray do! I think that whenever one has anything unpleasant to say, one should always be

quite candid.

Gwendolen. Well, to speak with perfect candour, Cecily, I wish that you were fully forty-two,

and more than usually plain for your age. Ernest has a strong upright nature. He is the very soul

of truth and honour. Disloyalty would be as impossible to him as deception. But even men of

the noblest possible moral character are extremely susceptible to the influence of the physical

charms of others. Modern, no less than Ancient History, supplies us with many most painful

examples of what I refer to. If it were not so, indeed, History would be quite unreadable.

Cecily. I beg your pardon, Gwendolen, did you say Ernest? (Wilde 1894: 37).

Gwendolen. [Sitting down again.] Ernest never mentioned to me that he had a brother.

Cecily. I am sorry to say they have not been on good terms for a long time. (Wilde 1894: 37).

Lady Bracknell. […] As a matter of form, Mr. Worthing, I had better ask you if Miss Cardew

has any little fortune?

Jack. Oh! about a hundred and thirty thousand pounds in the Funds. That is all. Goodbye, Lady

Bracknell. So pleased to have seen you.

Lady Bracknell. [Sitting down again.] A moment, Mr. Worthing. A hundred and thirty

thousand pounds! And in the Funds! Miss Cardew seems to me a most attractive young lady,

now that I look at her. Few girls of the present day have any really solid qualities, any of the

qualities that last, and improve with time. We live, I regret to say, in an age of surfaces. […]

(Wilde 1894: 49).

Lady Bracknell. My dear Mr. Worthing, as Miss Cardew states positively that she cannot wait

till she is thirty-five—a remark which I am bound to say seems to me to show a somewhat

impatient nature—I would beg of you to reconsider your decision (Wilde 1894: 52).

98

Regarding the purpose of constructions such as I cannot help expressing, I must/regret to say,

I am sorry to say or I feel/am bound to tell you/state, I believe the speaker stresses what they

are saying. In saying I feel bound to tell you in the first example, for instance, Lady Bracknell

communicates that she feels she must be honest with Jack, even though she is aware that what

she must say will make her interlocutor unhappy. I believe Lady Bracknell’s mitigation of the

bad news that she does not consider Jack eligible for her daughter mirrors the courtesy expected

from members of the upper class, rather than Lady Bracknell’s sincere regret of what she is

telling Jack. Lady Bracknell, Cecily and Gwendolen use similar phrases in several examples.

Regarding phrases such as to speak candidly or with perfect candour may appear after and

before the piece of talk they refer to. I believe such constructions are used to emphasise the

speaker’s sincerity. Further, constructions such as I had better ask you or what I refer to help

organise the discourse in preparing the interlocutor for a question or in referring to what has

been said before. Similarly, did you say Ernest? and Miss Cardew states positively structure the

conversation. However, these instances focus on the interlocutor’s talk.

In the first instance, Lady Bracknell finds out about her daughter’s engagement. Next, Lady

Bracknell criticises Jack’s upbringing. The fact that Jack does not know his biological parents

prevents him from being eligible for Lady Bracknell’s daughter (Wilde 1894: 13, 16). In the

examples after that, both Cecily and Gwendolen ask Jack and Algernon who they are engaged

to (Wilde 1894: 40 – 41). Then Jack complains about Algernon eating muffins (Wilde 1894:

43). In the final examples, Lady Bracknell enquires about Algernon’s friend Bunbury, Algernon

and Miss Prism (Wilde 1894: 47 – 48, 50, 53).

Gwendolen. Mamma! […] I must beg you to retire. This is no place for you. Besides, Mr.

Worthing has not quite finished yet.

Lady Bracknell. Finished what, may I ask?

Gwendolen. I am engaged to Mr. Worthing, mamma (Wilde 1894: 13).

Lady Bracknell. The line is immaterial. Mr. Worthing, I confess I feel somewhat bewildered by

what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred, in a hand-bag, whether it had

handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life that

reminds one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution. […] As for the particular locality

in which the hand-bag was found, a cloak-room at a railway station might serve to conceal a

social indiscretion—has probably, indeed, been used for that purpose before now-but it could

hardly be regarded as an assured basis for a recognised position in good society.

Jack. May I ask you then what you would advise me to do? I need hardly say I would do

anything in the world to ensure Gwendolen’s happiness (Wilde 1894: 16).

Jack. Gwendolen! Darling! [Offers to kiss her.]

Gwendolen. [Draws back.] A moment! May I ask if you are engaged to be married to this

young lady? [Points to Cecily.] (Wilde 1894: 40).

99

Cecily. [Drawing back.] A moment, Ernest! May I ask you—are you engaged to be married to

this young lady?

Algernon. [Looking round.] To what young lady? Good heavens! Gwendolen!

Cecily. Yes! to good heavens, Gwendolen, I mean to Gwendolen (Wilde 1894: 41).

Jack. I say it’s perfectly heartless your eating muffins at all, under the circumstances.

Algernon. When I am in trouble, eating is the only thing that consoles me. […] At the present

moment I am eating muffins because I am unhappy. Besides, I am particularly fond of muffins.

[Rising.] (Wilde 1894: 43).

Lady Bracknell. May I ask if it is in this house that your invalid friend Mr. Bunbury resides?

(Wilde 1894: 47).

Lady Bracknell. […] And now that we have finally got rid of this Mr. Bunbury, may I ask,

Mr. Worthing, who is that young person whose hand my nephew Algernon is now holding in

what seems to me a peculiarly unnecessary manner? (Wilde 1894: 47 - 48).

Lady Bracknell. To speak frankly, I am not in favour of long engagements. They give people

the opportunity of finding out each other’s character before marriage, which I think is never

advisable.

Jack. I beg your pardon for interrupting you, Lady Bracknell, but this engagement is quite out

of the question. I am Miss Cardew’s guardian, and she cannot marry without my consent until

she comes of age. That consent I absolutely decline to give.

Lady Bracknell. Upon what grounds may I ask? Algernon is an extremely, I may almost say

an ostentatiously, eligible young man. He has nothing, but he looks everything. What more can

one desire?

Jack. It pains me very much to have to speak frankly to you, Lady Bracknell, about your

nephew, but the fact is that I do not approve at all of his moral character. I suspect him of being

untruthful. [Algernon and Cecily look at him in indignant amazement.] (Wilde 1894: 50).

Lady Bracknell. It is obviously the same person. May I ask what position she holds in your

household? (Wilde 1894: 53).

In the above examples, meta-talk refers to the speaker’s own talk and functions to state

explicitly what one is doing. In saying May I ask, the speaker may be preparing their interlocutor

for the question to come. The question can, however, also precede the phrase May I ask. In such

cases, I believe the metadiscursive phrase functions to emphasise that the speaker is asking a

question. This works similarly for verbs such as talk, say, speak and mention. Using these verbs

in discourse serves to organise the talk, as these metadiscursive elements state what the speaker

intends to do or is already doing with the language in the subsequent discourse. In Oscar Wilde’s

The Importance of Being Earnest, I found that constructions with the verb ask may either

precede or follow the content the speaker wants to convey. As mentioned earlier, performative

verbs, such as beg, admit and suppose are not included in this analysis. In addition, the phrase

to speak frankly serves to stress the speaker’s honesty.

100

Algernon discusses servants’ consumption of champagne with his butler Lane in the first

example (Wilde 1894: 2). In the final two examples Gwendolen and Cecily interrogate Jack

and Algernon about their fiddles (Wilde 1894: 41, 45).

Algernon. Why is it that at a bachelor’s establishment the servants invariably drink the

champagne? I ask merely for information (Wilde 1894: 2).

Cecily. [Rather brightly.] There is just one question I would like to be allowed to ask my

guardian

Gwendolen. An admirable idea! Mr. Worthing, there is just one question I would like to be

permitted to put to you. Where is your brother Ernest? We are both engaged to be married to

your brother Ernest, so it is a matter of some importance to us to know where your brother

Ernest is at present (Wilde 1894: 41).

Gwendolen. Mr. Worthing, I have something very particular to ask you. […] (Wilde 1894: 45).

The speakers in the above examples refer to their own talk and thus organise the discourse in

stating what they intend to do or are doing with the language. The metalinguistic verb ask and

the phrase to put a question to someone may either precede or follow the question.

In the following, Jack and Algernon discuss Jack’s ward Cecily’s nature (Wilde 1894: 18).

Additionally, Gwendolen talks about her father to Cecily and Lady Bracknell discusses Jack’s

and Gwendolen’s engagement (Wilde 1894: 36, 47).

Jack. Oh, that is all right. Cecily is not a silly romantic girl, I am glad to say. She has got a

capital appetite, goes long walks, and pays no attention at all to her lessons (Wilde 1894: 18).

Gwendolen. […] My father is Lord Bracknell. You have never heard of papa, I suppose?

Cecily. I don’t think so.

Gwendolen. Outside the family circle, papa, I am glad to say, is entirely unknown […] (Wilde

1894: 36).

Lady Bracknell. Gwendolen! What does this mean?

Gwendolen. Merely that I am engaged to be married to Mr. Worthing, mamma.

Lady Bracknell. Come here. Sit down. […] [Turns to Jack.] […] Her unhappy father is, I am

glad to say, under the impression that she is attending a more than usually lengthy lecture by

the University Extension Scheme on the Influence of a permanent income on Thought. […]

(Wilde 1894: 47).

Jack, Gwendolen and Lady Bracknell use the metadiscursive expression I am glad to say to

express their relief about the information that follows in the discourse. Thus, metadiscourse

functions to convey the feeling Jack and both women have about what they are saying.

In the following example, Algernon expresses his dislike of Jack’s decision of not offering him

a reward for finding his cigarette case (Wilde 1894: 5). Additionally, Jack and Gwendolen talk

about the name Ernest and Algernon, pretending to be Ernest, talks about his alleged brother in

the instance after that (Wilde 1894: 12, 30). Further, Cecily explains to Algernon how she fell

in love with him and Jack and Algernon talk about Cecily (Wilde 1894: 33, 43). In the final

101

instance of metadiscursive verbs, Algernon and Jack discuss Jack’s invented brother Ernest

(Wilde 1894: 44).

Algernon. I think that is rather mean of you, Ernest, I must say. [...] However, it makes no

matter, for, now that I look at the inscription inside, I find that the thing isn’t yours after all

(Wilde 1894: 5).

Jack. Well, really, Gwendolen, I must say that I think there are lots of other much nicer names.

I think Jack, for instance, a charming name (Wilde 1894: 12).

Algernon. Of course I admit that the faults were all on my side. But I must say that I think that

Brother John’s coldness to me is peculiarly painful. I expected a more enthusiastic welcome,

especially considering it is the first time I have come here (Wilde 1894: 30).

Algernon. But how did we become engaged?

Cecily. Well, ever since dear Uncle Jack first confessed to us that he had a younger brother who

was very wicked and bad, you of course have formed the chief topic of conversation between

myself and Miss Prism. […] I daresay it was foolish of me, but I fell in love with you, Ernest

(Wilde 1894: 33).

Jack. As for your conduct towards Miss Cardew, I must say that your taking in a sweet, simple,

innocent girl like that is quite inexcusable. To say nothing of the fact that she is my ward.

Algernon. I can see no possible defence at all for your deceiving a brilliant, clever, thoroughly

experienced young lady like Miss Fairfax. To say nothing of the fact that she is my cousin.

(Wilde 1894: 43).

Algernon. Quite so. So I know my constitution can stand it. If you are not quite sure about your

ever having been christened, I must say I think it rather dangerous your venturing on it now. It

might make you very unwell. You can hardly have forgotten that someone very closely

connected with you was very nearly carried off this week in Paris by a severe chill.

Jack. Yes, but you said yourself that a severe chill was not hereditary.

Algernon. It usen’t to be, I know—but I daresay it is now. Science is always making wonderful

improvements in things (Wilde 1894: 44).

The phrases I daresay and I must say refer to the speaker’s own talk and thus organise the

discourse in stating what the speaker intends to do or is doing with the language. In Oscar

Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest, I found that the phrase I must say may either precede

or follow the content the speaker wants to convey. In addition, in example five, the phrase to

say nothing of the fact that functions to stress that there is more than one reason both Jack and

Algernon oppose to each other’s love affairs. Apart from Cecily being Jack’s ward, Jack holds

that Algernon should not engage with her for different reasons. Similarly, Algernon puts

forward several objections to Jack’s engagement with Gwendolen, apart from Gwendolen being

Algernon’s cousin.

Lady Bracknell and Jack talk about Jack’s parents in the first example and Jack talks badly

about Lady Bracknell in front of Algernon in the second (Wilde 1894: 15 – 17). Further, Dr.

Chasuble and Cecily talk about the young woman’s German lesson and Miss Prism explains

why she believes young women can’t be trusted (Wilde 1894: 23, 26 – 27).

102

Lady Bracknell. To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose

both looks like carelessness. Who was your father? He was evidently a man of some wealth.

Was he born in what the Radical papers call the purple of commerce, or did he rise from the

ranks of the aristocracy?

Jack. I am afraid I really don’t know. The fact is, Lady Bracknell, I said I had lost my parents.

It would be nearer the truth to say that my parents seem to have lost me . . . I don’t actually

know who I am by birth. I was . . . well, I was found (Wilde 1894: 15-16).

Jack. […] Her mother is perfectly unbearable. Never met such a Gorgon . . . I don’t really

know what a Gorgon is like, but I am quite sure that Lady Bracknell is one. In any case, she is a

monster, without being a myth, which is rather unfair . . . I beg your pardon, Algy, I suppose I

shouldn’t talk about your own aunt in that way before you (Wilde 1894: 17).

Chasuble. I hope, Cecily, you are not inattentive.

Cecily. Oh, I am afraid I am.

Chasuble. That is strange. Were I fortunate enough to be Miss Prism’s pupil, I would hang

upon her lips. [Miss Prism glares.] I spoke metaphorically.—My metaphor was drawn from

bees. Ahem! Mr. Worthing, I suppose, has not returned from town yet? (Wilde 1894: 23).

Miss Prism. […] Maturity can always be depended on. Ripeness can be trusted. Young women

are green. [Dr. Chasuble starts.] I spoke horticulturally. My metaphor was drawn from fruits.

But where is Cecily? (Wilde 1894: 26 – 27).

The first example is a renewal bracket that serves to repair the speaker’s talk. Jack repeats what

he has said and then goes on telling the truth. He rephrases his previous utterance using meta-

talk. To my mind, the second example can also be seen as self-repair, since Jack uses meta-talk

to apologise and take back what he said about his friend’s aunt. Finally, Dr. Chasuble and Miss

Prism use metadiscourse in the final two examples to repair their ambiguous utterances and to

explain what they actually meant to say.

Algernon and Jack talk about Algernon’s invented term Bunburyism in the first example (Wilde

1894: 8). In the second example, Cecily alludes that Miss Prism would like to take a walk with

Dr. Chasuble and Gwendolen points out Cecily’s mistake of putting sugar into her tea in the

third instance (Wilde 1894: 23, 40).

Algernon. […] I have invented an invaluable permanent invalid called Bunbury, in order that I

may be able to go down into the country whenever I choose. Bunbury is perfectly invaluable. If

it wasn’t for Bunbury’s extraordinary bad health, for instance, I wouldn’t be able to dine with

you at Willis’s to-night, for I have been really engaged to Aunt Augusta for more than a week.

Jack. I haven’t asked you to dine with me anywhere to-night (Wilde 1894: 8).

Chasuble. And how are we this morning? Miss Prism, you are, I trust, well?

Cecily. Miss Prism has just been complaining of a slight headache. I think it would do her so

much good to have a short stroll with you in the Park, Dr. Chasuble.

Miss Prism. Cecily, I have not mentioned anything about a headache (Wilde 1894: 23).

Gwendolen. You have filled my tea with lumps of sugar, and though I asked most distinctly for

bread and butter, you have given me cake. I am known for the gentleness of my disposition, and

the extraordinary sweetness of my nature, but I warn you, Miss Cardew, you may go too far

(Wilde 1894: 40).

103

In the first example, Jack wants to clarify the apparent misunderstanding of Algernon. Since

Algernon implies that he in fact has been asked to dine with Jack, Jack’s utterance can be seen

as other-repair. Similarly, Miss Prism stresses that she did not mention having a headache to

Cecily in the second example, thus also repairing her interlocutor’s utterance. Finally,

Gwendolen uses metadiscourse to point out Cecily’s mistake of putting sugar into her tea in the

last example.

In the following, Gwendolen tells Cecily how much she likes her already (Wilde 1894: 36).

Further, Cecily tells Gwendolen about Ernest’s proposal (Wilde 1894: 38).

Gwendolen. Cecily Cardew? [Moving to her and shaking hands.] What a very sweet name! [...]

I like you already more than I can say. My first impressions of people are never wrong.

Cecily. How nice of you to like me so much after we have known each other such a

comparatively short time. Pray sit down.

Gwendolen. [Still standing up.] I may call you Cecily, may I not? (Wilde 1894: 36).

Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any

mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he

clearly has changed his mind (Wilde 1894: 38).

With the phrase more than I can say/tell, both women express that what they feel goes beyond

words. Thus, they use metadiscourse to convey what they feel very strongly about.

Additionally, Gwendolen uses metadiscourse to ask Cecily’s permission to call her new friend

by her first name.

In the following example, Algernon and Jack are having an argument over the truth, modern

life and modern literature. Algernon calls Jack a Bunburyist, a term he invented, alluding to

Jack’s excuse to spend time in the city every now and then in order to visit his fictitious younger

brother Ernest (Wilde 1894: 7).

Algernon. Literary criticism is not your forte, my dear fellow. Don’t try it. You should leave

that to people who haven’t been at a University. They do it so well in the daily papers. What

you really are is a Bunburyist. I was quite right in saying you were a Bunburyist. You are one

of the most advanced Bunburyists I know (Wilde 1894: 7).

Right here could be seen as a demonstrative pronoun. Right in saying, however, in my opinion

is a verb that is used metalinguistically. Algernon is referring back to what he uttered earlier in

the conversation and shortly before the meta-talk, namely that Jack is a Bunburyist. He is thus

renewing previously mentioned information, which serves to organise his talk. In addition, the

meta-talk functions to strengthen his point and can thus be seen as an evaluative bracket

(Schiffrin 1980: 225).

104

The metalinguistic verb phrases that will be focused on primarily in the following all contain

the word consent. In the first example, Algernon states that he does not approve of Jack’s plan

to marry his cousin Gwendolen (Wilde 1894: 4). Next, Lady Bracknell consents to Algernon’s

marriage with Cecily, while Jack declines to allow this marriage in the examples after that

(Wilde 1894: 50 - 51).

Algernon. […] In the second place, I don’t give my consent (Wilde 1894: 4).

Lady Bracknell. […] [To Cecily.] Dear child, of course you know that Algernon has nothing

but his debts to depend upon. But I do not approve of mercenary marriages. When I married

Lord Bracknell I had no fortune of any kind. But I never dreamed for a moment of allowing that

to stand in my way. Well, I suppose I must give my consent (Wilde 1894: 50).

Algernon stresses that his opinion on the subject is a reason against Jack’s liaison with

Gwendolen in the first example. Algernon thus uses metadiscourse to emphasise that he feels

he has a say in his cousin’s relationships. Similarly, Lady Bracknell emphasises her influence

on the love life of her nephew Algernon using metadiscourse in the second example. Since

Cecily appears to be wealthy, Lady Bracknell considers the girl suitable for her nephew.

Jack. I beg your pardon for interrupting you, Lady Bracknell, but this engagement is quite out

of the question. I am Miss Cardew’s guardian, and she cannot marry without my consent until

she comes of age. That consent I absolutely decline to give (Wilde 1894: 50).

Lady Bracknell. Ahem! Mr. Worthing, after careful consideration I have decided entirely to

overlook my nephew’s conduct to you.

Jack. That is very generous of you, Lady Bracknell. My own decision, however, is unalterable.

I decline to give my consent (Wilde 1894: 50 – 51).

Jack states twice that he does not consent to this engagement as Cecily’s guardian. Thus, Jack

uses three metadiscursive verb phrases in total to emphasise that he will not consent to this love.

I believe Jack’s frequent use of metadiscursive elements functions to emphasise his authority

regarding the subject of Algernon’s and Cecily’s engagement. Jack stresses the say he has in

his ward’s love life again in the next example. I believe that the repeated use of the word consent

in these examples functions to emphasise the importance of Jack’s opinion on the matter and to

remind his interlocutors of his objection to the marriage.

Summing up, I found that all constructions of verb phrases with the word consent served to

emphasise a character’s influence.

105

4. 3. 1. 2 Verbs referring to the interlocutor’s talk

The following examples of metadiscursive verbs focus on the interlocutors’ talk.

In the next examples of meta-linguistic verbs, Jack and Algernon talk about Jack’s ward Cecily

and about Cecily’s reaction to the death of Jack’s invented brother Ernest (Wilde 1894: 5, 18).

In addition, Jack and Gwendolen discuss their engagement in the second example (Wilde 1894:

13).

Jack. I am quite aware of the fact, and I don’t propose to discuss modern culture. It isn’t the sort

of thing one should talk of in private. I simply want my cigarette case back.

Algernon. Yes; but this isn’t your cigarette case. This cigarette case is a present from some one

of the name of Cecily, and you said you didn’t know any one of that name.

Jack. Well, if you want to know, Cecily happens to be my aunt (Wilde 1894: 5).

Jack. [Astounded.] Well… surely. You know that I love you, and you led me to believe, Miss

Fairfax, that you were not absolutely indifferent to me.

Gwendolen. I adore you. But you haven’t proposed to me yet. Nothing has been said at all

about marriage. The subject has not even been touched on (Wilde 1894: 13).

Jack. Very well, then. My poor brother Ernest too carried off suddenly, in Paris, by a severe chill.

That gets rid of him.

Algernon. But I thought you said that . . . Miss Cardew was a little too much interested in your

poor brother Ernest? Won’t she feel his loss a good deal?

Jack. Oh, that is all right. Cecily is not a silly romantic girl, I am glad to say. She has got a capital

appetite, goes long walks, and pays no attention at all to her lessons (Wilde 1894: 18).

The first example is a renewal bracket, as it repeats previously stated information, namely that

Jack claimed not to know anyone of the name Cecily. By reminding Jack of what he said,

Algernon lays open his friend’s lie and thus pushes Jack into telling him the truth. Therefore,

he uses metadiscourse to exercise power over Jack, urging him to tell the truth. In the second

example, Gwendolen wants to make clear that Jack has not yet talked to her about marriage, to

avoid misunderstandings. In the third example, Algernon wants to remind Jack of what he said

earlier. He uses a renewal bracket to introduce the subsequent question on Cecily’s emotional

state.

In the following, Jack enquires about Dr. Chasuble’s duties as a clergyman and talks to

Algernon about Bunburying (Wilde 1894: 28). Algernon tries to impress Cecily in the example

after that (Wilde 1894: 25). Additionally, Jack and Algernon talk about muffins and Jack wants

Algernon to leave the manor (Wilde 1894: 43 – 44). Finally, Lady Bracknell enquires about

Miss Prism (Wilde 1894: 53).

106

Jack. Ah! that reminds me, you mentioned christenings I think, Dr. Chasuble? I suppose you

know how to christen all right? [Dr. Chasuble looks astounded.] I mean, of course, you are

continually christening, aren’t you? (Wilde 1894: 28).

Jack. Your vanity is ridiculous, your conduct an outrage, and your presence in my garden

utterly absurd. However, you have got to catch the four-five, and I hope you will have a pleasant

journey back to town. This Bunburying, as you call it, has not been a great success for you.

[Goes into the house.] (Wilde 1894: 31 – 32).

Algernon. In fact, now you mention the subject, I have been very bad in my own small way.

Cecily. I don’t think you should be so proud of that, though I am sure it must have been very

pleasant (Wilde 1894: 25).

Algernon. But you have just said it was perfectly heartless to eat muffins.

Jack. I said it was perfectly heartless of you, under the circumstances […] (Wilde 1894: 43).

Jack. Algy, I wish to goodness you would go.

Algernon. You can’t possibly ask me to go without having some dinner […] (Wilde 1894: 44).

Chasuble. […] I will return to the church at once. Indeed, I have just been informed by the

pew-opener that for the last hour and a half Miss Prism has been waiting for me in the vestry.

Lady Bracknell. [Starting.] Miss Prism! Did I hear you mention a Miss Prism? (Wilde 1894:

53).

In the first example, Jack uses a renewal bracket to refer to what Dr. Chasuble said earlier and

thus structures the conversation. Jack mentions that he is using Algernon’s invented expression

Bunburyism in the example after that. This may also function to structure the discourse.

However, I believe the use of metadiscourse primarily serves to stress that the term Bunburyism

was Algernon’s invention and that Jack does not approve of such behaviour. Algernon renews

what Cecily said earlier in the discourse in the third example. The use of metadiscourse both

structures the conversation and increases coherence, and indicates that what Cecily said

triggered Algernon’s memories of his wicked life. The example after that is a renewal bracket,

as Algernon repeats previously stated information, namely that Jack does not approve of eating

muffins. By reminding his friend of that, Algernon wants to point out the absurdity of Jack

eating muffins. Jack then refers to his own talk by clarifying that he actually meant Algernon

should not eat any muffins. In the fifth example, Algernon uses meta-talk to express his outrage

about Jack asking him to leave the manor before dinner. Finally, Lady Bracknell enquires about

Miss Prism in the last example. Since Lady Bracknell thinks she heard Dr. Chasuble mention

Miss Prism, she uses metadiscourse to make sure she heard right.

Summing up, metadiscourse functions primarily as organisational brackets in the above

examples. The speakers either refer to their interlocutor’s talk to enhance coherence or to make

sure they understood correctly.

107

In the following, Jack and Algernon talk about Jack’s dishonesty when it comes to telling

Algernon about his ward Cecily (Wilde 1894: 6). The two men discuss what is engraved in

Jack’s cigarette case in the example after that. As “From little Cecily, with her fondest love to

her dear Uncle Jack” (Wilde 1894: 6) is written on it, Algernon demands some explanation as

to Jack’s real name. Further, Jack accuses Algernon of talking nonsense as the latter explains

that a severe chill may in fact be hereditary due to scientific improvements (Wilde 1894: 44).

Finally, Cecily wants to know why Algernon lied to her about being Jack’s brother (Wilde

1894: 45 – 46).

Algernon. Yes, but that does not account for the fact that your small Aunt Cecily, who lives at

Tunbridge Wells, calls you her dear uncle. Come, old boy, you had much better have the thing

out at once.

Jack. My dear Algy, you talk exactly as if you were a dentist. It is very vulgar to talk like a

dentist when one isn’t a dentist. It produces a false impression (Wilde 1894: 6).

Algernon. […] Besides, your name isn’t Jack at all; it is Ernest.

Jack. It isn’t Ernest; it’s Jack.

Algernon. You have always told me it was Ernest. I have introduced you to everyone as

Ernest. You answer to the name of Ernest. You look as if your name was Ernest. You are the

most earnest-looking person I ever saw in my life. It is perfectly absurd your saying that your

name isn’t Ernest […] (Wilde 1894: 6).

Jack. [Picking up the muffin-dish.] Oh, that is nonsense; you are always talking nonsense

(Wilde 1894: 44).

Cecily. […] Why did you pretend to be my guardian’s brother?

Algernon. In order that I might have an opportunity of meeting you.

[…]

Cecily. I am more than content with what Mr. Moncrieff said. His voice alone inspires one with

absolute credulity (Wilde 1894: 45 – 46).

Jack and Cecily comment on Algernon’s talk in an argument in first and final two examples.

They both use metadiscourse as an evaluative bracket. (Schiffrin 1980: 221).

The following instances of metadiscursive verbs focus on the use of imperative. Algernon

demands an explanation from Jack about his real name and about what is engraved in the

cigarette case in the following examples (Wilde 1894: 6 – 7). The second example of meta-talk

can be seen as a renewal bracket. It refers back to Jack claiming that his name is not Ernest

while simultaneously giving Algernon’s opinion on that claim, namely that it is absurd. Since

“[r]enewal brackets can also be applied to another person’s talk, and they then form an

evaluative move in an argument,” (Schiffrin 1980: 222) I believe that in this example, Algernon

uses meta-talk to challenge Jack’s statement. He puts forward several arguments that serve to

108

prove the absurdity of Jack’s claiming not to be Ernest and then uses metadiscourse to underline

these arguments.

Algernon. Well, that is exactly what dentists always do. Now, go on! Tell me the whole

thing. [...] (Wilde 1894: 6).

Algernon. I’ll reveal to you the meaning of that incomparable expression as soon as you are

kind enough to inform me why you are Ernest in town and Jack in the country. (Wilde 1894: 6).

Algernon. [...] Come, old boy, you had much better have the thing out at once. (Wilde 1894:

6).

Algernon. Here it is. [Hands cigarette case.] Now produce your explanation, and pray make

it improbable. [Sits on sofa.] (Wilde 1894: 7).

Algernon. [...] Now, go on. Why are you Ernest in town and Jack in the country? (Wilde

1894: 7).

Algernon frequently uses imperative constructions to structure the discourse. Therefore, the

meta-talk fulfils an organisational function. However, since Algernon is not only structuring

his own talk but also Jack’s, it can be argued that he exercises power over Jack in order to obtain

desired information. The second example seems to be phrased very politely. However,

Algernon is pressing Jack to give him some information, as he takes lead in structuring the

discourse. First Jack is to give him an answer, then he will receive an explanation of the term

Bunburying.

Cecily and Algernon give orders to Merriman and Cecily reprimands her ward for being rude

to his alleged brother (Wilde 1894: 24, 29, 33, 35 - 36). Finally, Cecily demands to know why

Algernon lied to her about being Jack’s brother (Wilde 1894: 45).

Cecily. Ask Mr. Ernest Worthing to come here. I suppose you had better talk to the

housekeeper about a room for him (Wilde 1894: 24).

Cecily. Your brother Ernest. He arrived about half an hour ago.

Jack. What nonsense! I haven’t got a brother.

Cecily. Oh, don’t say that. However badly he may have behaved to you in the past he is still

your brother. You couldn’t be so heartless as to disown him. I’ll tell him to come out. And you

will shake hands with him, won’t you, Uncle Jack? […] (Wilde 1894: 29).

Merriman. The dog-cart is waiting, sir.

Algernon. Tell it to come round next week, at the same hour (Wilde 1894: 33).

Merriman. A Miss Fairfax has just called to see Mr. Worthing. On very important business,

Miss Fairfax states.

[…]

Cecily. Pray ask the lady to come out here; Mr. Worthing is sure to be back soon. And you can

bring tea (Wilde 1894: 35 - 36).

Cecily. […] Mr. Moncrieff, kindly answer me the following question. Why did you pretend to

be my guardian’s brother? (Wilde 1894: 45).

109

In the first example, Cecily gives orders to the butler Merriman. She structures Merriman’s

discourse with Algernon and the housekeeper in telling her butler precisely what to say to them.

Since Merriman works for Jack and his ward, Cecily uses the imperative to maintain the power

relations between herself and her butler. In the example after that, Cecily asks Jack not to talk

badly of his brother, unknowing that Jack is in fact telling the truth when he says that he has no

brother. Cecily uses metadiscourse to demand politeness from her guardian. Further, the young

woman uses metadiscourse in stating that she intends to tell Algernon to join them in the garden.

In the final two examples, both Cecily and Algernon use the imperative in giving butler

Merriman orders, again telling the butler precisely what to say to the dog-cart and Miss Fairfax.

In the example after that, Merriman refers to what Gwendolen said. Thus, metadiscourse

additionally serves to renew what a third person said in this example. Finally, Cecily uses

metadiscourse to introduce her question in the last example. She demands an answer from

Algernon, but mitigates her use of imperative with the adverb kindly.

Summing up, I found the use of the imperative primarily functions to organise the subsequent

discourse. However, the imperative may serve to maintain the power relations between a butler

and their employer, to obtain desired information and to demand politeness from an

interlocutor. In telling one’s interlocutor what to say or talk about next, the speaker is

automatically exercising power. Thus, the use of imperative has several functions.

Jack and Gwendolen talk about the weather while they are alone in the first example (Wilde

1894: 11). In addition, Miss Prism and Cecily discuss modern novels and Algernon tells his

aunt Lady Bracknell about his affections for Cecily (Wilde 1894: 50, 53 – 54). In the last

example, Lady Bracknell and Jack interrogate Miss Prism about the whereabouts of the baby

she was to take care after years earlier (Wilde 1894: 53 – 54).

Jack. Charming day it has been, Miss Fairfax.

Gwendolen. Pray don’t talk to me about the weather, Mr. Worthing. Whenever people talk to

me about the weather, I always feel quite certain that they mean something else. And that

makes me so nervous.

Jack. I do mean something else (Wilde 1894: 11).

Miss Prism. Memory, my dear Cecily, is the diary that we all carry about with us.

Cecily. Yes, but it usually chronicles the things that have never happened, and couldn’t possibly

have happened. I believe that Memory is responsible for nearly all the three-volume novels that

Mudie sends us.

Miss Prism. Do not speak slightingly of the three-volume novel, Cecily. I wrote one myself in

earlier days (Wilde 1894: 22).

Algernon. Cecily is the sweetest, dearest, prettiest girl in the whole world. And I don’t care

twopence about social possibilities.

Lady Bracknell. Never speak disrespectfully of Society, Algernon (Wilde 1894: 50).

110

Lady Bracknell. […] Prism! Where is that baby? [A pause.]

Miss Prism. Lady Bracknell, I admit with shame that I do not know. […] On the morning of the

day you mention, a day that is for ever branded on my memory, I prepared as usual to take the

baby out in its perambulator. I had also with me a somewhat old, but capacious hand-bag in

which I had intended to place the manuscript of a work of fiction that I had written during my

few unoccupied hours. In a moment of mental abstraction, for which I never can forgive myself,

I deposited the manuscript in the basinette, and placed the baby in the hand-bag.

Jack. [Who has been listening attentively.] But where did you deposit the hand-bag?

Miss Prism. Do not ask me, Mr. Worthing (Wilde 1894: 53 – 54).

In the first example, Gwendolen uses a negative imperative to terminate a string of conversation

after the “affirmative has been explicitly stated” (Schiffrin 1980: 227). She does not wish to

talk about the weather with Jack. Similarly, Miss Prism and Lady Bracknell use negative

imperatives to end a string of conversation and to avoid unpleasant questions. In addition, Miss

Prism refers to Lady Bracknell’s talk in the final example. This serves to organise the discourse.

Gwendolen and Jack dance around the subject of his marriage proposal in the following (Wilde

1894: 13).

Gwendolen. Yes, Mr. Worthing, what have you got to say to me?

Jack. You know what I have got to say to you.

Gwendolen. Yes, but you don’t say it (Wilde 1894: 13).

In this discourse, Gwendolen comments on her interlocutor’s talk. As the two are having an

argument, meta-talk serves an evaluative function. Both Gwendolen and Jack know what Jack

wants to say to her. However, it is Gwendolen who clarifies that Jack does not say it. She uses

meta-talk to urge him to a statement.

Algernon asks Jack rather unpleasant questions about whether he informed his intended fiancé

Gwendolen about his real name and his ward Cecily in the following two examples (Wilde

1894: 18 – 19).

Algernon. By the way, did you tell Gwendolen the truth about your being Ernest in town, and

Jack in the country? (Wilde 1894: 18).

Algernon. Have you told Gwendolen yet that you have an excessively pretty ward who is only

just eighteen? (Wilde 1894: 19).

In these examples, Algernon and Jack are having arguments. Algernon uses metadiscourse to

remind Jack of the fact that he may not have been completely honest with Gwendolen and

Cecily. Even though Algernon appears to be asking innocent questions, it is clear that he wants

to appeal to Jack’s conscience. Algernon wants to press his friend into admitting that he in fact

has been dishonest with both women.

111

4. 3. 1. 3 Verbs referring to a third person’s talk

In the following, metadiscursive verbs will refer to a third person’s talk.

In the first example, Merriman informs Cecily that Jack’s alleged brother Ernest has arrived at

the manor (Wilde 1894: 24). Cecily talks to Algernon about Jack shortly after that (Wilde 1894:

25).

Merriman. Mr. Ernest Worthing has just driven over from the station. He has brought his

luggage with him.

Cecily. [Takes the card and reads it.] ‘Mr. Ernest Worthing, B. 4, The Albany, W.’ Uncle Jack’s

brother! Did you tell him Mr. Worthing was in town?

Merriman. Yes, Miss. He seemed very much disappointed. I mentioned that you and Miss

Prism were in the garden. He said he was anxious to speak to you privately for a moment.

(Wilde 1894: 24).

Cecily. Well, I know, of course, how important it is not to keep a business engagement, if one

wants to retain any sense of the beauty of life, but still I think you had better wait till Uncle Jack

arrives. I know he wants to speak to you about your emigrating (Wilde 1894: 25).

Since Cecily was not present during the conversation between Merriman and Algernon, the

butler informs the young woman about what Algernon said. In this example, metadiscourse

serves to enhance coherence. Further, Cecily and Merriman refer to what the butler said to

Algernon, which also serves to render the discourse more coherent.

In the following examples, Cecily and Jack talk about Jack’s alleged brother Ernest, Gwendolen

tells Cecily that Ernest proposed to her and Lady Bracknell tells Jack that Miss Prism knows

more about his biological family (Wilde 1894: 30, 38, 55).

Cecily. Uncle Jack, do be nice. There is some good in everyone. Ernest has just been telling me

about his poor invalid friend Mr. Bunbury whom he goes to visit so often. And surely there

must be much good in one who is kind to an invalid, and leaves the pleasures of London to sit

by a bed of pain.

Jack. Oh! he has been talking about Bunbury, has he?

Cecily. Yes, he has told me all about poor Mr. Bunbury, and his terrible state of health.

Jack. Bunbury! Well, I won’t have him talk to you about Bunbury or about anything else. It is

enough to drive one perfectly frantic (Wilde 1894: 30).

Gwendolen. [Examines diary through her lorgnettte carefully.] It is certainly very curious, for

he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. […] I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is

any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim (Wilde 1894: 38).

Miss Prism. [Still more indignant.] Mr. Worthing, there is some error. [Pointing to Lady

Bracknell.] There is the lady who can tell you who you really are (Wilde 1894: 55).

In the first example, Cecily uses metadiscourse to inform Jack about what Algernon told her.

Jack is outraged that his friend is pretending to be his brother Ernest. I believe Jack repeats

112

Cecily’s utterance angrily, as he cannot believe what he is hearing. He uses metadiscourse to

make sure he understood his ward correctly. When Cecily repeats her utterance, Jack is furious.

He tells his ward that he will not let Algernon talk to her about Bunbury again. Thus, Jack uses

meta-talk to exclude the topic of Bunburyism from future discourse. In the second example,

Gwendolen informs Cecily that Jack proposed to her the day before. Since both women believe

to be engaged to Ernest Worthing, Gwendolen uses metadiscourse to clarify that Mr. Worthing

asked for her hand earlier. Finally, Lady Bracknell informs Jack that Miss Prism knows about

his origin. In telling Jack where he can find the information he is searching for, Lady Bracknell

indirectly structures the subsequent discourse.

The next example deals with the emotional charge of both Jack and Lady Bracknell upon being

close to find out whether the two are related to one another (Wilde 1894: 55).

Chasuble. [Looking up.] It has stopped now. [The noise is redoubled.]

Lady Bracknell. I wish he would arrive at some conclusion.

Gwendolen. This suspense is terrible. I hope it will last. [Enter Jack with a hand-bag of black

leather in his hand.]

The word conclusion indicates that Lady Bracknell wishes the question whether Jack is the

baby Miss Prism left in her handbag years earlier to be answered. The use of metadiscourse

helps Lady Bracknell express her uneasiness and her desire to find out the truth about Jack’s

origins.

113

4.3.2 Naming of speech events

In the first example of the naming of a speech event, Algernon expresses his socially critic

stance towards what one should and should not do in an attempt to distract from the actual topic

he is arguing about with Jack (Wilde 1894: 5).

Algernon. Oh! it is absurd to have a hard and fast rule about what one should read and what

one shouldn’t. More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn’t read.

Jack. I am quite aware of the fact, and I don’t propose to discuss modern culture. It isn’t the

sort of thing one should talk of in private. I simply want my cigarette case back (Wilde 1894:

5).

Discuss can be viewed as the naming of a speech event. Jack wants to clarify what he is not

doing, namely proposing to discuss modern culture. The use of metadiscourse may function to

show Algernon that he will not fall for his attempts to divert the conversation. Thus, to make

sure he does not wish to dwell on the topic, but wants to focus on his cigarette case, Jack uses

metadiscourse.

Algernon and Jack discuss marriage proposals in the first example and relatives in the second

(Wilde 1894: 4, 17).

Algernon. I really don’t see anything romantic in proposing. It is very romantic to be in love.

But there is nothing romantic about a definite proposal. Why, one may be accepted. One usually

is, I believe. Then the excitement is all over. The very essence of romance is uncertainty. If ever

I get married, I’ll certainly try to forget the fact.

Jack. I have no doubt about that, dear Algy. The Divorce Court was specially invented for

people whose memories are so curiously constituted.

Algernon. Oh! There is no use speculating on that subject. Divorces are made in Heaven […]

(Wilde 1894: 4).

Algernon. My dear boy, I love hearing my relations abused. It is the only thing that makes me

put up with them at all. Relations are simply a tedious pack of people, who haven’t got the

remotest knowledge of how to live, nor the smallest instinct about when to die.

Jack. Oh, that is nonsense!

Algernon. It isn’t!

Jack. Well, I won’t argue about the matter. You always want to argue about things (Wilde

1894: 17).

Both examples use meta-talk to terminate a dispute and strengthen the speaker’s point. In the

first example, Algernon uses meta-talk to clarify what he and Jack have been doing, namely

speculating on marriage and divorces. After having done so, Algernon wants to terminate the

topic, and to have the last word. The use of metadiscourse gives him an opportunity to not only

let go of the dispute, but also to win it. In the second example, Jack wants to clarify that he does

not intend to argue with Algernon about relations and accuses his friend of arguing too much.

Using metadiscourse, he terminates their dispute.

114

Jack suspects that Miss Prism may know more about his biological parents and is thus very

agitated. In the following example, Lady Bracknell comments on Jack’s aroused state (Wilde

1894: 55).

Lady Bracknell. This noise is extremely unpleasant. It sounds as if he was having an

argument. I dislike arguments of any kind. They are always vulgar, and often convincing.

(Wilde 1894: 55).

Lady Bracknell compares Jack agitation to having an argument. To her mind, arguments are

rather unpleasant. Thus, by comparing Jack’s excitement with having an argument, Lady

Bracknell expresses her general dislike of any noisy behaviour using metadiscourse. She

evaluates Jack’s behaviour as vulgar.

4.3.3 Verbs indicating what will happen to a piece of talk

In the following instance of a verb that indicates what will happen next in the discourse,

Algernon tells Jack that he is about to explain the term Bunburyism to his friend (Wilde 1894:

6).

Jack. Bunburyist? What on earth do you mean by a Bunburyist?

Algernon. I’ll reveal to you the meaning of that incomparable expression as soon as you are

kind enough to inform me why you are Ernest in town and Jack in the country (Wilde 1894: 6).

Algernon uses metadiscourse in this example mainly to structure the course of the conversation.

He promises to reveal the meaning of Bunburying as soon as Jack tells him the truth about his

name. Therefore, it can be argued that Algernon uses meta-talk to persuade, or even to

pressurize Jack. He is thus performing an act of power with the help of a metadiscursive

element.

Cecily’s teacher, Miss Prism, uses metadiscourse in the following example as she tells her

procrastinating student what will happen next in the German lesson (Wilde 1894: 21).

Miss Prism. [Calling.] Cecily, Cecily! Surely such a utilitarian occupation as the watering of

flowers is rather Moulton’s duty than yours? Especially at a moment when intellectual pleasures

await you. Your German grammar is on the table. Pray open it at page fifteen. We will repeat

yesterday’s lesson (Wilde 1894: 21).

Cecily is not eager to learn German and busies herself with watering the flowers instead. Miss

Prism, however, tells Cecily to open her grammar book and informs her student that they will

repeat the lesson of the day before. Miss Prism uses meta-talk to guide Cecily and informs her

student of what the following discourse will be about, namely German. In addition, the use of

115

meta-talk serves to clarify that as her teacher, Miss Prism has the upper hand in deciding what

is going to happen next. Therefore, Miss Prism’s use of metadiscourse functions both to

organise the discourse and to let her student know that she intends to repeat the German lesson,

no matter how Cecily may feel about it. Through meta-talk, Miss Prism establishes her authority

as Cecily’s teacher.

116

5. Conclusion

I found that metalinguistic referents, where the “entity referred to is something in the language

per se” (Schiffrin 1980: 201) serve both organisational and evaluative functions in The

Importance of Being Earnest. They frequently function to organise the speaker’s talk by

renewing what has been said. For example, the word question was frequently used either to

introduce or refer to a question, which served to organise the discourse. In addition, I found

instances where metalinguistic referents are used to organise the subsequent discourse, namely

not only the speaker’s, but also the interlocutor’s part in the conversation. I believe this may

function to establish power relations. Additionally, I found that renewal brackets and

constructions with upon my word serve to stress the speaker’s argument. Regarding the

evaluative functions of metalinguistic referents, I found that when an interlocutor’s talk is

praised as being satisfactory and beautiful this is viewed as an evaluative bracket.

Instances of discourse deixis are rather rare in The Importance of Being Earnest and function

to organise Algernon’s talk.

The most frequent use of the demonstrative pronoun that is to refer to what has been said or

will be said. Therefore, metadiscourse mainly functions to organise the conversation.

Additionally, I found that Jack frequently evaluates statements made by Algernon as nonsense.

He uses metadiscourse in pointing out his opinion about what his friend Algernon says. To my

mind, this may function to distract from his own lies and fiddles. Further, I found that

metadiscourse often evaluates what is being said or has been said, in either one’s own or one’s

interlocutor’s talk. Thus, the use of demonstrative pronouns serves to give one’s opinion on

what has been said, either in an argument or to strengthen one’s own phrase. Finally, I found

that phrases similar to that is all serve to show that a speaker has brought forward all their points

and arguments. Thus, the use of a demonstrative pronoun may also function to indicate that a

speaker’s turn is over.

Regarding metalinguistic operators, both Algernon and Jack frequently use negatives when they

expect the positive or when it has already been articulated (Schiffrin 1980: 227). The word

mean is often used by Jack to question what his friend means. To my mind, this is ironic in that

it is in fact Jack who is not always quite truthful with his interlocutors, which is why it would

make more sense to question him as to the meaning of his utterances. Further, meta-talk is

frequently used to demand explanations and to repair a speaker’s utterance. In addition, I found

117

that higher-level predicates may evaluate both the speaker’s and the interlocutor’s talk. All in

all, metalinguistic operators predominantly serve evaluative functions in The Importance of

Being Earnest.

Since I found many instances of verbs of saying, I created three sub-categories, namely verbs

that focus on the speaker’s, the interlocutor’s or a third person’s talk. Verbs that focus on the

speaker’s talk serve evaluative and organisational functions. Meta-talk may renew previously

stated information to remind one’s interlocutor of what has been said. In addition, I found that

phrases such as I am glad/regret to say function to stress the speaker’s point and to convey their

feelings and attitudes towards what they are saying. Constructions such as to speak candidly

serve to emphasise the speaker’s sincerity. In addition, I found instances of self-repair where

meta-talk functions to reformulate what the speaker said. Moreover, renewal brackets and other-

repair often function to establish power by calling the interlocutor lying and demanding the

truth.

Referring to an interlocutor’s talk can have both organisational and evaluative functions. The

speaker may use meta-talk to organise the discourse, to enhance coherence and to make sure

they understood correctly by renewing what has been said. Further, meta-talk enables the

speaker to convey their feelings about what has been said. I found that metadiscursive verbs are

also frequently used to structure the ongoing discourse in the form of imperatives. This not only

fulfils organisational but also evaluative functions. It exercises power over the interlocutor in

telling them how the subsequent discourse is to go about, often urging them to say something.

Thus, metadiscursive verbs may function to press one’s interlocutor to a statement in order to

obtain desired information and to establish power relations. Negative imperatives, on the other

hand, are used to end a string of conversation and to avoid unpleasant questions.

I found that whenever a speaker is referring to the talk of a third person, it is to inform the

interlocutor about what has been said during their absence. Thus, when Cecily tells Jack about

her conversation with Algernon, metadiscourse serves to enhance coherence. Further, I found

that a third person’s talk may also be referred to in order to structure the subsequent discourse.

Thus, when Lady Bracknell informs Jack that Miss Prism knows more about his past, she

indirectly determines what will happen in the subsequent discourse.

The instances of naming of a speech event I found in The Importance of Being Earnest either

serve to terminate a topic or to avoid giving a direct answer. Further, the naming of a speech

event can take an evaluative function.

118

Verbs that indicate what will happen to a piece of talk are very infrequent in The Importance of

Being Earnest. I found that such verbs are used both to organise the discourse and to establish

power relations. In stating what is going to happen next in the discourse, the speaker

automatically assumes power.

It can be concluded that – except for discourse deixis, where I discovered purely organisational

functions – all categories of meta-talk established by Deborah Schiffrin can fulfil both

organisational and evaluative functions.

119

6. Bibliography

Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel (2003). “Interpersonal metadiscourse in ELT papers by Iranian and

Anglo-American academic writers”. Paper presented at the INGED conference

Multiculturalism in ELT Practices: Unity and Diversity, Basket University, Ankara.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. "drama." [Online].

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/drama. [2016-12-23].

Ädel, Annelie (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English Discourse. Amsterdam/

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). “Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives”. Nordic

Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1-11.

Biography.com Editors (n.d.). “Oscar Wilde Biography“. A&E Television Networks. [Online].

http://www.biography.com/people/oscar-wilde-9531078. [2016-12-23].

Bloor, Meriel and Bloor, Thomas (1991). “Cultural expectations and socio-pragmatic failure in

academic writing”. In: P. Adams, B. Heaton and P. Howarth (eds). Socio-cultural Issues in

English for Academic Purposes. Review of ELT. Basingstoke: Modern English

Publications/British Council.

Bondi, Marina (2010). “Metadiscursive practices in introductions: Phraseology and semantic

sequences across genres”. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 99-123.

Clyne, Michael (1987). “Cultural differences in the organisation of academic texts”. Journal of

Pragmatics. 11, 211 – 47.

Coupland, Nikolas, Garrett, Peter and Williams, Angie (2004). “Adolescents’ lexical

repertoires of peer evaluation: Boring prats and English snobs”. In: A. Jaworski, N. Coupland

and D. Galasinski (eds). Metalanguage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 193 – 225.

Crismore, Avon; Farnsworth, Rodney (1989). “Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring

interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos”. Rhetoric Review. 8 (1), 91-112.

Harder, Bernhard (1984). “Cultural attitudes in discourse analysis”. Canadian Journal of

Linguistics. 29, 115 – 30.

120

Hinds, John (1987). “Reader versus writer responsibility: a new typology”. In: U. Connor and

R. B. Kaplan (eds). Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. Reading, MA: Addison

Wesley.

Hinkel, Eli (2002). Second Language Writers’ Text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hyland, Ken (2005). Metadiscourse. Exploring Interaction in Writing. London/New York:

Continuum.

Hyland, Ken and Milton, John (1997). “Hedging in L1 and L2 student writing”. Journal of

Second Language Wrting. 6(2), 183 – 206.

Jaworski, Adam and Sachdev, Itesh (2004). “Teachers’ beliefs about students’ talk and silence:

Constructing academic success and failure through metapragmatic comments”. In: A. Jaworski,

N. Coupland and D. Galasinski (eds). Metalanguage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 227 – 244.

Jenkins, Jennifer and Leung, Constant (2014). English as a lingua franca. John Wiley & Sons,

Inc..

Lee, Joseph J. and Subtirelu, Nicholas C. (2015). “Metadiscourse in the classroom: A

comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures”. English for Specific Purposes,

37, 52 – 62.

Mauranen, Anna (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt a. Main: Peter

Lang.

Mauranen, Anna (2007). “Discourse reflexivity and international speakers–How is it used in

English as a lingua franca”. Jezik in slovstvo, 52(3/4), 1-19.

Penz, Hermine (2011). “‘What do we mean by that?’: Metadiscourse in ELF Project

Discussions”. Latest Trends in ELF Research, 185 – 201.

Schiffrin, Deborah (1980). “Metatalk: Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse.”

Sociolinguistic Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction 50: 199-236.

Vassileva, Irena (2001). “Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic

writing”. English for Specific Purposes. 20(1), 83 – 102.

Wilde, Oscar (1894). The Importance of being Earnest. London. Amazon Distribution. Leipzig.