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

Metadiscourse has been identified as a valuable rhetorical resource in the process of persuasion. It refers to self-reflective linguistic expressions that guide readers through a text, representing the writer’s interaction with both the evolving discourse and the anticipated audience. Grounded in a view of writing as social engagement, this study investigated the use of metadiscourse markers in opinion articles from two prominent newspapers: Tehran Times (a non-native English publication) and The New York Times (a native English publication). The aim was to identify cross-cultural differences in persuasive writing strategies employed by columnists and freelance writers within the newspaper genre. To this end, a corpus of ۲۰۰ opinion articles published in ۲۰۲۳ was analyzed using Hyland’s (۲۰۰۵) model of metadiscourse, focusing on the frequency and distribution of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers. The results indicated that Iranian non-natives used more interactive metadiscourse markers, while natives used more interactional metadiscourse markers. Furthermore, quantitative analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the overall use of metadiscourse and in the specific use of its two subcategories. The findings highlight distinct rhetorical preferences between native and non-native English writers, suggesting that cultural norms influence persuasive writing styles. These insights have pedagogical implications for language instruction, offering guidance on challenges faced by English language learners in mastering effective discourse strategies.

کلیدواژه ها:

discourse analysis ، genre analysis ، interactional metadiscourse markers ، interactive metadiscourse markers ، native and non-native English newspapers ، opinion articles