Exploring gender differences in using metadiscourse for political opinion writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol8iss1pp333-356Abstract
Background and Purpose: Metadiscourse marker is one of the most commonly-used linguistic devices in persuasive writing, and it shapes writer’s arguments to the needs and expectations of the target readers. Research has consistently shown that women, on average, are less politically interested, informed, and efficacious than men. However, this does not necessarily imply that male columnists are more persuasive than female columnists when writing political opinion articles. Hence, the present study aims to investigate how male and female columnists use metadiscourse markers in political opinion writing to effectively direct their political views toward their readers.
Methodology: This descriptive study used frequency analysis, comparative analysis, and a semi-structured interview with eight ardent readers to examine metadiscourse markers used by male and female columnists in their political opinion articles, as well as the impact of persuasion on their readers. 100 opinion articles about Malaysia's 14th general election were chosen from two English-language online newspaper portals in Malaysia, The Star and the New Straits Times.
Findings: The findings revealed that female columnists employed more metadiscourse markers than male columnists. Respondents concluded that articles with more metadiscourse markers used in the text, particularly in the interpersonal category, appeared to be more persuasive. Furthermore, the findings indicated that female columnists presented a more convincing image than those produced by male columnists.
Contributions: As research conducted on gender differences in political writing is still rare, this research provided information regarding gender preferences in using metadiscourse markers in political opinion articles. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by informing researchers and opinion writers about the many types of metadiscourse markers that may be used to establish rapport between writers and readers.
Keywords: Metadiscourse markers, persuasive writing, gender, male, female, political-opinion articles.
References
Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., & Shimoni, A. R. (2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text, 23(3), 321–346.
Asekere, G. (2021). The 2020 general elections in Ghana: An analysis of the issues, voting pattern and impact. Social Sciences, 10(1), 15-27.
Barabas, J., Jennifer, J., William, P., & Carlisle R. (2014). The question(s) of political knowledge. American Political Science Review, 108(4), 840-855.
Beauvais, P. (1989). A speech-act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 61(1), 11-30.
Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2003). The private roots of public action. Gender, equality and political participation. Harvard University Press.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional Science discourse. Writing scholar. Studies in academic Discourse.
Sage.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish
university students. Written Communication 10(1), 39-71.
Dafouz, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion : A cross-
linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.
Dafouz, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad
Complutense, 11(1), 29-52.
Daby, M. (2020). The gender gap in political clientelism: Problem-solving networks and the division of political work in Argentina. Comparative
Political Studies, 54(2), 215-244.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2013). Language and gender. Cambridge University Press.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 21(1), 461–490.
Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., Velasco-Sacristán, M., Arribas-Baño, A., & Samaniego-Fernández, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in
slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(8), 1291–1307.
Ghafoori, N., & Oghbatalab, R. (2012). A comparative study of metadiscourse in academic writing: Male vs female authors of research articles in
applied linguistics. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 87-113.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticizing experience as technical knowledge. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading Science:
Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of Science (pp. 185-235). Routledge.
Ho, V. (2016). Discourse of persuasion: A preliminary study of the use of metadiscourse in policy documents. Text & Talk, 36(1), 1-21.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. & P. Tse (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(1), 437-455.
Jerit, J., & Barabas, J. (2017). Revisiting the gender gap in political knowledge. Political Behavior, 39(1), 817–838.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Cambridge University Press.
Le, E. (2004). Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and editorialist’s authority. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(1), 687–714.
Mäki, H., Voeten, M., Vauras, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2001). Predicting writing skill development with word recognition and preschool readiness skills.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14(1), 643–672.
Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples.
Discourse Processes, 45(1), 211–236.
Noorian, M., & Biria, R. (2010). Interpersonal metadiscourse in persuasive journalism: A study of texts by American and Iranian EFL columnists.
Journal of Modern Language, 20(1), 64-79.
Permana Sukma, B., & Sari Sujatna, E. (2014). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in opinion articles: A study of texts written by Indonesian writers.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(2), 16-21.
Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2019). Gender differences in reading and writing achievement: Evidence from the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP). American Psychologist, 74(4), 445–458.
Saadi, Z. K., & Roosta, M. (2014). Investigating textual, interpersonal, and visual metadiscourse markers in English and Persian advertisements.
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(4), 299–309.
Sanbonmatsu, K. (2003). Gender-related political knowledge and the descriptive representation of women. Political Behavior, 25(4), 367-388.
Sanford, S. G. (2012). A comparison of metadiscourse markers and writing quality in adolescent written narratives.
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2385&context=etd
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2385&context=etd
Seyyedrezaie, Z. S., & Vahedi, V. S. (2017). Projecting gender identity through metadiscourse. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 301-310.
Shen, Y. (2010). Qualitative characteristics of coherence, substitution, and reference by non-english major Chinese students. English Language
Teaching, 3(2), 104-114.
UN Woman. (2021). Facts and figures: Women’s leadership and political participation. https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-
politicalparticipation/facts-and-figures
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Opinions and ideologies in the press. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to media discourse (pp. 21-63). Blackwell.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
Verba, S., Burns, N., & Schlozman, K. L. (1997). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement. Journal of Politics, 59(1), 1051–72.
Virtanen, M., Kivimäki, M., Joensuu, M., Virtanen, P., Elovainio, M., & Vahtera, J. (2005). Temporary employment and health: A review. International
Journal of Epidemiology, 34(3), 610–622.
Wan Azizah, W. I. (2002). Women in politics: Reflections from Malaysia. International IDEA.
https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/chapters/women-in-parliament/perempuan-di-parlemen-bukan-sekedar-jumlah-EN-case-study-
malaysia.pdf
Yang, Y., Tam, F., Graham, S. J., Sun, G., Li, J., Gu, C., ... Zuo, Z. (2020). Men and women differ in the neural basis of handwriting. Human Brain
Mapping, 41(10), 2642–2655.
Yeganeh, M. T., & Ghoreyshi, S. M. (2015). Exploring gender differences in the use of discourse markers in Iranian academic research articles. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192(1), 684-689.
Zadeh, Z. R., Baharlooei, R., & Simin, S. (2015). Gender-based study of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in conclusion sections of
English master theses. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 47(1), 195-208.
