


































Education, Language and Sociology Research 

ISSN 2690-3644 (Print) ISSN 2690-3652 (Online) 

Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr 

139 
 

Original Paper 

A Functional Study of Meta-discourse 

Fanyu Mao1 

1 Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang, China 

 

Received: May 1, 2023    Accepted: May 26, 2023   Online Published: June 13, 2023 

doi:10.22158/elsr.v4n2p139     URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elsr.v4n2p139 

 

Abstract 

With the development of the discourse analysis theory, researchers have begun to pay attention to the 

meaning of discourse itself, and the meta-discourse has become a hot spot in discourse research. The 

definitions of meta-discourse in different schools are different and have their own biases, but the meta-

discourse role has been widely accepted of organizing the discourse, expressing the author’s views, and 

considering the reader’s reflection, which is a way for the author to carry out the structure of the paper 

and organize ideas. From the perspective of Halliday’s system and function, this paper analyzes the three 

major functions of metadiscourse: ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions. The ideational 

metadiscourse can affect the propositional content and semantic interpretation of discourse to a certain 

extent. The interpersonal metadiscourse helps understand and evaluate propositional information, 

establish the relationship between the author and the reader and emphasize the interaction between them. 

The textual meta-discourse helps the writer express how they connect conceptual materials and how the 

text produces meaning in the context. In addition, the author believes that the use of the meta-discourse 

also reflects the interactive, inter-subjective, and dialogic features of the discourse. 

Keywords 

meta-discourse, function, study 

 

1. Introduction 

The study of metadiscourse can be dated back to the 60s of the 20th century. Zellig Harris coined the 

term metadiscourse in 1959 to understand the use of language, providing a way for authors/speakers to 

guide audiences to understand the discourse. Later, Williams (1981), Vande Kopple (1985), Crismore 

(1989), Hyland (2005), etc. further developed this concept, placing into the category of the metadiscourse 

the ambiguous language, connectives, and various commentaries that can indicate author/speaker 

intervention in the discourse to influence the reader. Many scholars have explained this concept and 

proposed an analytical framework, which has been applied to the empirical research in various fields 

such as discourse analysis, academic English, and English teaching. People realize that in the process of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

140 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

using language, the author conveys not only the attitude towards the proposition, but also the attitude 

towards the reader. The scope of research has also expanded from focusing on the basic propositional 

content of the discourse to studying the interpersonal functions of the discourse. As a master of the 

metadiscourse research, Hyland (2005) placed the metadiscourse in social context, emphasizing that 

metadiscourse can promote the interaction between the discourse and the context, and then realizing the 

organic interaction between the two sides of the communication. But as Hyland (2005) pointed out, the 

metadiscourse still lacks a theoretical basis and is vague in practical application. Previous researches 

have often distinguished the transmission of information from the transmission of emotions, focusing on 

the meaning of propositions and ways of expressing ideas and ignoring the fact that communicative 

participants can create discourse. Through the connection between meta-discourse and functional 

linguistics, this paper focuses on the relationship between the discourse producers, users and the 

discourse itself, discusses the interaction between meta-discourse and ideational function, interpersonal 

function and textual function, explains the ideational meaning, interpersonal meaning and textual 

meaning of the metadiscourse, and summarizes the universal characteristics of the discourse, so as to 

deepen our understanding of the nature, law and function of language. 

 

2. Definition of Metadiscourse 

Since Harris (1959), the study of the metadiscourse has developed rapidly, and many scholars have tried 

to define “metadiscourse”. In general, there are two major schools of exploration in this area: the 

functional linguistic path and the sociolinguistic path. Vande Kopple (1985) argued that the 

metadiscourse is “discourse about discourse”, which has nothing to do with propositional content and is 

mainly used to guide readers to organize, classify, interpret, and evaluate the information conveyed by 

the text. Crismore (1989) made a clear distinction between primary discourse and metadiscourse, arguing 

that the basic discourse is used to express propositional content, while metadiscourse is to help readers 

understand, comment, and respond to propositional information about a topic. On the other hand, the 

concept of metadiscourse has also attracted the interest of many sociolinguists. On the basis of Meyer 

(1975)’s use of signaling to explain the linguistic construction and semantic content of metadiscourse, 

Schiffrin (2007) argued that metadiscourse is metatalk that can be used to organize and evaluate the 

discourse. Yu Jianping (2007) and Yang Xinzhang (2007) started from the three meta-functions of 

Halliday, and believed that metadiscourse is the linguistic mechanism that expresses the linguistic 

structure and the attitude of the speaker in the discourse. Xu (2006) questioned the notion of “discourse 

about discourse”, arguing that metadiscourse should be seen as a means of incorporating the speaker’s 

attitudes and perspectives into the passage, thus attracting the attention of the listener or reader. 

Due to the ambiguity and openness of the concept of metadiscourse, there is currently no consensus on 

its content, and the author uses the views of Hyland, the main representative of interactive metadiscourse. 

Hyland (2005) defines metadiscourse as a form of self-reflective expression used to negotiate the 

interactive meaning of discourse, helping the author or speaker to express his or her opinion and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

141 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

communicate with the reader as a member of society, such as As you might recall, It seems, to a certain 

extent, etc., which play the role of regulating and organizing basic discourse in communication, reflecting 

the speaker or the author’s communicative intentions and stances and leading the audience to understand 

the discourse and engage in interactive communication (Vande Kopple, 1985). This definition 

emphasizes the interpersonal meanings of metadiscourse such as evaluation, attitude, and participation. 

Hyland (2005) views metadiscourse as a linguistic component that helps the speaker express his or her 

opinions and establish interaction with the listener from a functional point of view.  

 

3. Classification of Metadiscourse 

The discourse in language communication includes primary discourse and metadiscourse, in which the 

basic discourse expresses propositional information about the topic, and the metadiscourse guides readers 

to organize, understand, comment on propositional information, and respond to the propositional content. 

Many scholars have also proposed a variety of classification frameworks for the metadiscourse. Kopple 

(1985, p. 83; 1988, p. 236) divided the metadiscourse into textual metadiscourse and interpersonal 

metadiscourse. Ifantidou (2005, p. 1328) divided it into intradiscourse metadiscourse and 

interdisciplinary metadiscourse. Among them, the classification method of Hyland (2005) is more 

commonly used. Hyland believes that basic discourse and metadiscourse are inseparable, because 

discourse must both represent propositional content and achieve two functions of interaction with the 

reader. Essentially, the metadiscourse is a series of language organization methods adopted by the author 

(or speaker) of the text in the process of language communication to help the reader (or listener) better 

process and understand the information to be expressed. The metadiscourse units can be composed of 

words, phrases, sentences, or even larger grammatical structures, with functions such as marking the 

structure of discourse and expressing the author’s attitude towards the content of the discourse and the 

reader. Based on the research of his predecessors, Hyland divided metadiscourse into two categories: 

interactive metadiscourse and interactional metadiscourse. Hyland (2005) argued that the metadiscourse 

is as important as fundamental discourse, and that metadiscourse is a representation of self-reflection 

used in negotiated texts. The interactive metadiscourse guides readers to pay attention to the discourse 

organization and the author’s discourse construction. It includes: transitions, pointing to the connection 

between clauses; frame markers, pointing to speech acts, chronological sequence or steps; endophoric 

markers or internal pointing, pointing to information elsewhere in the text; evidentials, pointing to 

information in other texts outside; code glosses, explanation of the propositional meaning. Interactional 

meta-discourse aims to establish an interactive relationship with readers, focusing on the expression of 

the author’s position, which includes: hedges, implying that the author’s point of view is not completely 

certain; boosters, expressing the author’s affirmation of the argument; attitude markers, expressing the 

author’s attitude towards the proposition; self mentions, explicit reference to the author; engagement 

markers, explicit reference to the reader. The specific classification and functions are shown in Table 1. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

142 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 1. Meta-discourse Model (Hyland, 2005, p. 49) 

category function examples 

(interactive 

metadiscourse) 

transitions Expressing the relationship between 

the clauses 

In addition, but etc. 

frame markers Referring to speech acts, 

chronological sequence or step 

Finally, to conclude 

endophoric markers  Referring to information elsewhere 

in the text 

Noted above, in section 2 

evidentials Referring to information in other 

texts outside 

According to sb. states 

code glosses Detailed elaboration Namely, such as 

(interactional 

metadiscourse) 

hedges Weakening the author’s certainty 

about the proposition 

Might, perhaps 

boosters  Strengthening the author’s certainty 

about the proposition 

In fact, definitely 

attitude markers Expressing the author’s attitude I agree,  surprisingly 

self mentions Mentioning author himself or 

herself 

I, we, etc 

engagement 

markers 

Establishing the relationship with 

readers 

Consider, note, you 

 

4. Functions of Metadiscourse 

The function of metadiscourse refers to how the metadiscourse achieves the communication purpose 

required by the author, which is related to whether the discourse can make requests as the author wishes, 

guide readers to respond, explain meanings and ask questions. We have the following consensus on the 

function of metadiscourse: (1) metadiscourse can help guide readers to understand the content of the 

proposition of the discourse, and reflect the author’s attitude towards the content and reader; (2) 

Metadiscourse can help readers organize, interpret, and evaluate the information provided by the 

discourse. Halliday (1978) believed that language embodies ideational, interpersonal and textual 

functions at the same time. The meaning of discourse is the result of the fusion of three metafunctions. 

From the point of view of systematic functional linguistics, language is a system of meaning, and the 

lexical grammar choices we make in communication are the result of context triggering. At the same 

time, these choices also construct the context, and the context also constrains choices. Halliday argues 

that discourse allows speakers to create discourse that connects the ideational meaning and interpersonal 

systems to context. The ideational semantic system expresses the function of language to transmit new 

information, and the interpersonal semantic system expresses the speaker’s intervention in speech events, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

143 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

including the speaker’s attitude, evaluation, judgment, expectation and requirements. Textual semantic 

system means to connect narratives about the world and organize the discourse into propositions. At the 

same time, it connects the narrative and the reader and organizes it into a metadiscourse. 

4.1 Ideational Function of Metadiscourse 

Ideational function refers to the empirical function and logical function embodied in the discourse. The 

experiential function refers to the speaker’s use of words to describe the objective world and the inner 

world, talk about their experiences and emphasize the speaker’s reflection of them. Language does not 

express itself in a loose form when it reflects everything and all processes in the objective and the inner 

world. The representation of language has a certain logic, or juxtaposition or subordination, that is, the 

logical function of language. The empirical function and the logical function superimpose each other to 

form the ideational function of the discourse. 

The metadiscourse is an organic component of discourse. A metadiscourse is a discourse distinct from 

the content of a proposition, which is similar to the ideational function of language. Propositional 

information and metadiscourse often appear together in this text, sometimes in the same sentence, and 

both play an equally important role in the coherence and meaning of the text. Ifantidou (2005) argued 

that metadiscourse does not merely assume the function of non-propositional, auxiliary, secondary textual 

interpretation. Although most metadiscourses do not affect the propositional content of the discourse, 

some adverbs indicating possibility, connectives indicating cause and effect, etc. can indeed affect the 

propositional content. There are adverbs that indicate evidential adverbials, such as obviously, clearly, 

evidently, etc., and adverbs that indicate hearsay adverbials, such as allegedly, admittedly, reportedly, etc., 

have propositional functions. Like propositional information, metadiscourse can express the author ’s 

intention and is an integral part of the information. It can help the text to establish a connection with the 

context, and consider the reader’s needs, comprehension, existing knowledge, and text experience 

acquired. Therefore, metadiscourse also has an ideational function. However, the ideational function of 

metadiscourse and that proposed by Halliday are not equivalent, but the part and whole relationship. The 

ideational function of metadiscourse is a part of the one proposed by Halliday. Halliday’s ideational 

function describes activities in the real world, and focuses on information outside the discourse, that is, 

external information while that of the metadiscourse conveys the information inside the text, the thought, 

state or behavior inside the text. 

4.2 Interpersonal Function of Metadiscourse 

The interpersonal meaning of words is inseparable from the person who uses them. Human beings are 

social animals with social attributes, psychological intentions, cognitive ability and value judgment 

ability. In social interactions, people realize their intentions through the discourse functions of words to 

convey belief, feelings, and actions, and to influence or change the views, positions, attitudes, and 

behaviors of others (Thompson, 1996, 2000, p. 28). Words are the vehicle for the speaker to engage in 

all meaningful actions. First, the speaker uses words to convey his or her views on people, things, and 

the world. Second, the speaker uses words to build bridges with others and build and maintain 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

144 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

interpersonal relationships. Third, the speaker exerts some degree of influence on the behavior of others 

through his words. Vande Kopple (1985) and others believed that the interactional metadiscourse 

corresponds to the interpersonal function proposed by Halliday. The Interactional metadiscourse includes 

hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and engagement markers. The metadiscourse is closely related to the 

three subsystems of the evaluation system. For example, curious, fortunate, surprising, etc. indicating 

attitude, broadly, roughly, from our perspective, etc. indicating engagement, always, definitely, truly, etc. 

indicating graduation, are respectively attitude markers, hedges, and boosters in metadiscourse. In 

addition, there is an overlap between interpersonal metadiscourse and the modality proposed by Halliday. 

Modal verbs that express modality, modal appendages, and verb extensions can all fall under the category 

of metadiscourse. Mood appendages and evaluation appendages in modal adjoins, such as clearly, in fact, 

personally, frankly, no doubt, in general, strictly speaking, etc. have metadiscourse functions with tone 

appendages indicating the strength of evaluation, and comment appendages the speaker’s attitude and 

comments on a proposition. Martin and White (2005) proposed that the evaluation system includes three 

subsystems: attitude, engagement, and graduation, focusing on the author’s evaluation of people, things 

and events at the basic discourse level, systematically analyzing the vocabulary resources that express 

the meaning of evaluation while the metadiscourse expresses the evaluation significance of the entire 

proposition. For example,  

(1) Hopefully these new ventures in a market with tremendous potential will bring us more profits to the 

group. 

Hopefully in the sentence is the attitude metadiscourse marker, evaluating the whole proposition, while 

tremendous is evaluating the subsequent noun potential, and these two evaluations often coexist in the 

discourse. 

Researchers believe that the main function of interactional metadiscourse is to establish the relationship 

between the author and the reader, to realize the exchange of the author’s thoughts and the reader’s 

thoughts, thus reflecting the interpersonal function. 

4.3 Textual Function of Metadiscourse 

The discourse is an interactive relationship formed between language and society, politics and culture. It 

is not only the carrier of various human activities, but also the carrier of negotiation and construction of 

social relations. The textual function emphasizes the speaker’s organization and construction of discourse. 

In the process of using the discourse, the speaker mainly expresses the complete thought, and the 

conveyance of thought requires the conveyance and organization of information to reflect a certain sense 

of hierarchy and logical relationship, to indicate the relationship between information, and reflect the 

process of constructing the discourse. 

The metadiscourse is the author’s method of engaging readers and creating coherent discourse, 

expressing how the discourse is used to create and maintain relationships with readers. In order to better 

achieve the purpose of communication, the speaker must adopt the appropriate form of metadiscourse, 

for example, using the hedge possible to suppress commitment or start a dialogue; the attitude marker 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

145 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

unfortunately to express the speaker’s regret. Scholars such as Hyland (2005) pointed out that the 

metadiscourse refers to those elements in a discourse that are conducive to forming coherent discourses 

and displaying the author’s personality, credibility, reader awareness and their relationship with 

information. According to Hyland’s classification, the metadiscourse is usually embodied by 

conjunctions (so, because, and), adverbs (sequently, first, therefore) and phrases (as a result, on the other 

hand, needless to say). Scholars such as Vande Kopple (1985) believed that interactional metadiscourse 

corresponds to the textual function proposed by Halliday. They participate in the construction of 

information and pay attention to the cohesion and coherence of discourse. The metadiscourse can guide 

readers to understand the text and express their attitudes towards propositions or readers. For example: 

(2) In the next section I will focus explicitly on ecotourism. 

(3) We firmly believe we are well positioned to become a multi-media technology leader.  

In the example (2) and (3), the internal reference mark in the next section, self-proclaimed words I and 

we, and attitude marks focus on, believe, will, explicitly, firmly and well positioned play a role in guiding 

readers and expressing opinions and attitudes. 

In addition, Hyland placed metadiscourse in the social context, emphasizing that metadiscourse can 

promote the interaction between discourse and context, and then realize the organic interaction between 

the two parties in communication (Hyland, 2005). Contextual factors include the speech act domain, the 

discourse domain, and the participation domain, stylistic domain and non-linguistic domain (Wang & He, 

2022). Moreover, connectives can organize texts and connect activities in the world outside the text. For 

example: 

(4) In contrast to western culture, Asian societies put emphasis on an interdependent view of self and 

collectivism.  

In contrast in example (4) is used to compare the characteristics of two cultures, expressing the 

relationship between western culture and Asian society, and has an empirical tendency. Authors are not 

only creating cohesive discourse, but also trying to align themselves with the expectations of the 

community and influence their readers. 

All in all, from the point of view of Systemic Functional Linguistics, both propositional sentences and 

metadiscourse have three metafunctions, but there are qualitative differences. First, the function and 

meaning of propositional sentences are highly systematic, independent and context-dependent, realized 

by independent systems. For example, the ideational metafunction and meaning of propositional 

sentences are realized through the transitivity system; the interpersonal metafunction and meaning are 

realized through the modality system; Textual metafunction is realized through the analysis of theme-

rheme structure. Different from propositional sentences, the ideational, interpersonal and textual 

functions and meanings of metadiscourse in the lexicogrammatical sense are unitary and cohesive. As 

mentioned above, metadiscourse is the non-propositional components before propositional sentences, 

such as conjunctions, commentary adjuncts, linking adjuncts, curses, call words, interjections, and 

projective clauses. When these non-propositional components appear as linguistic phenomena 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

146 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

independently of propositional sentences, their respective functions and meanings do not have three 

functions at the same time, but one of them. For example, conjunctions and connecting adjuncts are 

mainly used to plan the layout of the article, only having the meaning of organizing the article; 

commentary adjuncts, curses, calls, and interjections are mainly used to influence interpersonal 

relationships, only having interpersonal meaning; projective clauses and commentary clauses are mainly 

used to present concepts or experiences, only having conceptual or empirical meanings. Another 

characteristic of metadiscourse is cohesiveness. That is to say, it must be attached to the propositional 

sentence and combined with the propositional sentence to form a larger unit of discourse. 

 

5. Discourse Features—Interactive, Intersubjective and Dialogic 

The core of metadiscourse theory is that communication is not only the exchange of information, goods 

and services, but also involves the identities, attitudes and thoughts of both parties in the communication. 

The use of the metadiscourse not only refers to people, places and activities in the real world but also 

recognizes, constructs and negotiates social relations. From the perspective of functional linguistics, 

language use often includes communicative use and interactive use, that is, language can express content 

as well as interpersonal relationships and attitudes. Sinclair (1981) emphasized the importance of 

language interaction and divided discourse into interactive and automatic layers. The automatic layer 

refers to the way in which experiences unfold gradually through the organization and maintenance of the 

discourse structure. The interactive layer refers to the way language is used to negotiate with others to 

build a relationship with the reader. Hoey (2001) defined discourse as follows: the discourse is a 

purposeful and spontaneous interaction between one or more authors and one or more readers. The author 

takes the lead in the interaction and controls most of the information. Hoey regards interaction as the 

core of discourse. The roles involved in the interaction are the author and the reader. As the producer and 

interpreter of the text, they must participate in the generation and understanding of the text, and interact 

with the subject of the text. All these activities are carried out in the context and participate in the 

construction of the new context. 

In addition, speech markers, which reflect the relationship between sound and dialogue, are closely 

related to the metadiscourse. A discourse contains two or more interacting voices and is thus polyphonic. 

Various sounds exist in different relationships, such as compatibility, opposition, contradiction or 

complementarity. Martin and White (2005) divided polyphony into contractile polyphony and expansive 

polyphony. Expanded polyphony is divided into belonging and acceptance, indicating that one kind of 

opinion may exist, and there may be other different value positions and opinions, opening up a space for 

dialogue, encouraging, inviting, and eliciting the intervention of different voices. The essence of sound 

is the meaning negotiation between the author and the potential reader, and behind these voices are 

subjects with different consciousnesses, positions and opinions, so the construction and understanding of 

the meaning of the discourse is not personal, but interpersonal, social, and intersubjective. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

147 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The specific form of existence of language is the discourse, and it refers to the unit of verbal 

communication, which reflects the unique ideology and value and position of the discourse author, and 

is in dialogue with other related discourses. Conversationality is a central concept in the philosophy of 

language and in the theory of literary criticism. Since the metadiscourse is the means used by authors to 

organize the discourse, attract readers, and express their attitude towards the content and audience, 

Hyland (2005, p. 13) argued that the metadiscourse connects the important link between the discourse 

and the context, highlighting the role of the discourse as a dialogue. In language communication, a 

distinctive feature of human cognition is the ability of humans to see problems from the perspective of 

others, so the use of metadiscourse reflects the interactive, intersubjective and dialogic characteristics of 

the discourse. 

 

6. Conclusion 

From the above discussion and analysis, it can be seen that the study of the metadiscourse is influenced 

by the three meta-functions of Halliday (1978), noting the interactivity of ideational meaning, 

interpersonal meaning, and textual meaning. At the metadiscourse level, the author can influence the 

ideational content to a certain extent, helping the author connect, organize, and interpret the material, 

express personality and evaluation and attitude towards the conceptual content and help the reader 

associate the text with a specific context, constructing a persuasive and coherent discourse in a specific 

context. The interaction of the discourse indicates that the discourse is constructed by the author and the 

reader or audience, so the construction of the meaning of the discourse should be seen as social rather 

than personal. And the use of metadiscourse is the most obvious sign of this interaction, and its use 

reflects the interactivity, intersubjectivity and dialogue of the discourse communication. Because of these 

functions of the metadiscourse, the author can not only process obscure texts into logical and easy-to-

understand articles, but also associate the text with a specific context, conveying the author’s personality, 

trust, attention and connection to the audience (Chen, 2020). The metadiscourse research regards the 

discourse as a process and attaches importance to the effectiveness of communication, which can provide 

references for the subsequent development of the metadiscourse research. 

 

References 

Chen, X. (Apr. 2020). Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University (Social Sciences Edition), 20(2). 

Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with Readers: Meta-discourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang. 

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and 

Meaning. London: Arnold.  

Harris, Z. (1959). The Transformational Model of Language Structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(1), 

27-29. 

Hoey, M. (2001). Textual Interaction. London: Routledge. 

Hyland, K. (2005). Meta-discourse. London:Continuum. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 2, 2023 

148 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Ifantidou, E. (2005). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Meta-discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 

1325-1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.006 

Martin, J. R., & White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London and New 

York: Pal-grave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 

Meyer, B. (1975). The Organization of Prose and Its Effects on Memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.  

Schiffrin, D. (2007). Discourse Markers. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 

Sinclair, J. (1981). Planes of Discourse. In S. Rizvi (Ed.), The two-fold Voice: Essays in honour of Ramesh 

Mohan (pp. 70-89). Salzburg: Salzburg University Press. 

Thompson, G., & Zhou, J. (2000). Evaluation and Organization in Text: The Structuring Role of 

Evaluative Disjuncts. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text (pp. 121-141). 

Oxford: OUP.  

Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Meta-discourse. College Composition and 

Communication, 36(1), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609 

Wang, M. Q., & He, C. Y. (2022). Research on Relational Meta-discourse in Conflicting Conversations 

from the Perspective of Interpersonal Pragmatics. Journal of Foreign Languages, 45(3). 

Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace (3rd ed.). Boston:Scott Foresman. 

Xu, J. J. (2006). On the Scope and Classification of Meta-discourse. Contemporary Linguistics, 4. 

Yang, X. Z. (2007). Meta-discourse and Function of Language. Foreign Language and Foreign Language 

Teaching, 12. 

Yu, J. P. (2007). Stylistic Characteristics and Interaction of Meta-discourse. China Science and 

Technology Translation, 4, 43-47. 

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.006
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910
https://doi.org/10.2307/357609

