Iberica 13


Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-34

ISSN: 1139-7241 / e-ISSN: 2340-2784

Abstract

In this paper we provide an overview of  past and current research on
metadiscourse and highlight new research discourses emerging from the field.
We trace the category back to its critical and theoretical origins, examining the
three ‘waves’ that have configured it over the last four decades. We investigate
how metadiscourse has evolved and the reasons why it continues fascinating
researchers in professional and academic fields in a variety of  disciplines and
domains. We then focus on the fact that, as communication moves online and a
variety of  genres become digitalised, researchers active in metadiscourse are
increasingly concerned with digital communication and are accordingly
questioning (or adapting) well-established methodologies, but also proposing
new and much-needed perspectives on reflexivity. The field is undoubtedly in a
flux and new and interesting approaches and eclectic frameworks are emerging,
which merit consideration. 

Keywords: metadiscourse, reflexivity, discourse analysis, genre analysis,
digitalization.

Resumen

Crónica de tres olas. Acerca de la historia y de la teoría del metadiscurso

El presente artículo ofrece una retrospectiva de la investigación del metadiscurso,
con especial énfasis en la emergencia de nuevas perspectivas de análisis. En él se
rastrean los orígenes teóricos y críticos de esta categoría y se examinan las tres
olas que han moldeado el metadiscurso en las últimas cuatro décadas. Asimismo,
se muestra cómo ha evolucionado y por qué sigue fascinando a los investigadores
de ámbitos académicos y profesionales de diferentes disciplinas y dominios. Por
otra parte, se muestra cómo los investigadores que trabajan activamente en el
análisis del metadiscurso cada vez prestan mayor atención a la comunicación

A tale of  three waves: Or, concerning
the history and theory of  metadiscourse

Larissa D’Angelo & Stefania Consonni1

Universitá degli Studi di Bergamo (Italy)
larissa.dangelo@unibg.it & stefania.consonni@unibg.it 

13



Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-34

LArIssA D’AngELO & sTEFAnIA COnsOnnI

digital, como consecuencia de la mayor relevancia que ha ido adquiriendo la
comunicación en Internet y la digitalización que han sufrido diferentes géneros
textuales. Todo ello está llevando a cuestionar y adaptar algunas metodologías ya
establecidas en relación con el metadiscurso y a formular nuevas propuestas en
torno a la reflexividad. Así pues, este campo de investigación está, sin duda,
evolucionando de manera constante y dando lugar a interesantes acercamientos

novedosos y marcos de análisis eclécticos que se han de tener en cuenta. 

Palabras clave: metadiscurso, reflexividad, análisis del discurso, análisis de
género, digitalización.

1. Prologue: Of  p a re r g a, and other marital facts

In what is probably the first portrait of  an artist’s wife in Europe, Margareta
van Eyck sat for her husband Jan in early 1439 (Fig. 1). In three-quarter view,
half-length on a dark background with light coming from the left, she is
depicted in an accurate tone of  typically bourgeois discretion. A triumph of
naturalistic representation, Margareta is vividly captured as she gazes at the
viewer, and a vigilant observer she is indeed, her blue-grey eyes scrutinising
an encoded beholder (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996) –despite it being unclear
whether this is her spouse, as befits marital life, or an external onlooker.

What interests us here is, however, the occurrences taking place in the
original wooden frame, a liminal area of  the artwork that lies outside the
canonical ‘sphere’ of  pictorial representation. Painted in imitation of  dark-
veined greige marble, it bears two orders of  trompe-l’oeil epigraphic pseudo-
inscriptions in Latin. Van Eyck, that is, has encased in the artwork’s frame
mouldings a verbal apparatus that complements his lifelike representation of
his wife. In the upper edge inscription, Margareta herself  informs us about
her identity and relationship to the author, and the work’s date of
completion: “co[n]iv[n]x m[eu]s joh[ann]es me c[om]plevit an[n]o 1439˚ 15˚
ivnij” (‘my husband Johannes completed me in the year 1439 on the 15th of
June’). On the lower edge (see detail in Fig. 2), she goes on to reveal her age
at the time of  the portrait: “[a]etas mea triginta triv[m] an[n]orv[m]” (‘my age
is thirty-three years’). 

14



Most importantly, to the right of  the frame’s lower moulding, there appears
van Eyck’s personal motto, a phrase in ancient Flemish transliterated in
greek capital letters: “ALC Ixh xAn” (‘As [bEsT As] I CAn’). This is an
utterance that works as an expression of  ironic modesty, revealing the
painter’s awareness about the quality of  the execution, indisputably daring
and yet inescapably other than (or utterly inferior to) nature itself. 

Why begin this overview on metadiscourse by citing van Eyck’s eccentric
artwork? because instances of  textual and visual metadiscourse, which today
are highly debated topics, indeed pervade the history of  humankind. In early
panel painting, for instance, frames were essential elements, often made out
of  the very same piece of  wood as the painting itself, or nailed to it with
utmost care. The frame often became an essential part of  the artwork, not

A TALE OF ThrEE WAVEs: Or, COnCErnIng ThE hIsTOry AnD ThEOry OF METADIsCOursE

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-34 15

 
Figure 1. Jan van Eyck, Portrait of Margareta van Eyck (1439), oil on panel, 41.2 x 34.6 cm (original frame included), Bruges, Groeningemuseum. 

 
        

 
        

 
        

 
        

 
        

 
        

 
        

 
        

 
        

 
        

 
        

 
        

 
        

 
        

 
        

 
        gFi e ur 1. Jan 

 
        yck,Evan Jan kcEynavaaMfotirPo

 
        k nigri (om c.64 3 x.21, 4lena pn oli), o934(1

 
        sumegninero, Gsegru), Bdedulcn iem fralan

 
        mues .

Figure 1. Jan van Eyck, Portrait of Margareta van Eyck (1439), oil on panel,

41.2 x 34.6 cm (original frame included), Bruges, Groeningemuseum

LARISSA D’ANGELO & STEFANIA CONSONNI 

apparatus that complements his lifelike representation of his wife. In the upper edge inscription, 
Margareta herself informs us about her identity and relationship to the author, and the work’s date of 
completion: “co[n]iv[n]x m[eu]s joh[ann]es me c[om]plevit an[n]o 1439˚ 15˚ ivnij” (‘my husband 
Johannes completed me in the year 1439 on the 15th of June’). On the lower edge (see detail in Fig. 
2), she goes on to reveal her age at the time of the portrait: “[a]etas mea triginta triv[m] an[n]orv[m]” 
(‘my age is thirty-three years’).  
 

 
Figure 2. Jan van Eyck, Portrait of Margareta van Eyck (1439), detail from lower frame moulding. 

Most importantly, to the right of the frame’s lower moulding, there appears van Eyck’s personal 
motto, a phrase in ancient Flemish transliterated in Greek capital letters: “ALC IXH XAN” (‘AS [BEST 
AS] I CAN’). This is an utterance that works as an expression of ironic modesty, revealing the painter’s 
awareness about the quality of the execution, indisputably daring and yet inescapably other than (or 
utterly inferior to) nature itself.  
Why begin this overview on metadiscourse by citing van Eyck’s eccentric artwork? Because 
instances of textual and visual metadiscourse, which today are highly debated topics, indeed pervade 
the history of humankind. In early panel painting, for instance, frames were essential elements, often 
made out of the very same piece of wood as the painting itself, or nailed to it with utmost care. The 
frame often became an essential part of the artwork, not only physically, but also conceptually, in that 
it carried texts. And these texts helped the viewer in ‘reading’ the image, so much so that text, frame, 
and picture were equally structural parts of the artwork (Kiilerich, 2001). Ever since antiquity, 
aesthetics and critical theory have employed the multifaceted term parergon (para, ‘beside’, and 
ergon, ‘work’) to indicate the metalinguistic affordances of non-propositional devices such as van 
Eyck’s frame inscriptions, which extend far beyond the role of accessory by-work, subordinate 
embellishments or filling supplements to an artwork’s main subject. Despite its historical origin as 
the expression of a ‘peripheral’ form of beauty –which is how, for instance, Kant (1790) and J.J. 
Winckelmann (1850) considered it, as an addendum to an artwork’s propositional content–, the 
principle of parergonality has progressively developed into a cunning manifestation of reflexive 
intelligence.  
Parerga are nowadays in fact identified with the material and/or conceptual thresholds, boundaries 
or even literal margins of a text (Duro, 2019), as semiotic resources whose purpose is not to add to 
the work’s ideational dimension, but to jump beyond the referential function of representation. To 
point, that is, to the very act of representation itself, and to reveal the dialogical relations (suggestions, 
assumptions, expectations, interpretations, negotiations, etc.) that are nurtured amongst the different 
social actors that partake in the semiotic process: authors, recipients and discourse itself. The function 
of parerga is thus not intrinsically propositional, but extrinsically social and epistemological. It is 
indeed metadiscoursal. “[N]either work (ergon) nor outside the work [hors d’oeuvre], neither inside 
or outside, neither above nor below”, they “giv[e] rise” to the artwork’s ‘sphere’ in its broader sense 
(Derrida 1987: 9). A form of discourse on the artwork itself qua discourse, the parergon plunges the 
ergon within the fabric of textual, contextual, interpersonal and social relationships and discourses in 
which they jointly take shape and meaning.  
To come closer to the more familiar terms of applied linguistics, we may say that van Eyck’s 
metadiscoursal expedients set the stage for a full reading of his painting’s ideational contents. Quite 
in the fashion of margins in medieval manuscripts, these parerga are consubstantial with the subject 
matter of the actual painting, to such an extent that it is unthinkable to separate panel from frame, 
icon from text (or wife from husband, for that matter). In particular, Jan’s motto complements and 
integrates Margareta’s likeness, for which it provides hermeneutic scaffolding, suggesting the artist’s 

L A SSIAR AD’ NGE

thatustrappaa
rsheatrergaaM
“itpl

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

O LNGE & S AINTEFA C ONNIONS

keilfeilshisntemeplomct
ussnformif lers r hebouta

nn]eoh[aju]s[ev[n]x o[n]i

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

wshiof on itantesprereke
tp hionsitalrend ay tintdei

n[n]o tvi]pl[omnn]e

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

nsidgeer uppehetIn . feiw
ork’swhetnd ahor, utaheto t

(‘m”i15˚ 1439˚ n[n]o 

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

on, iptricns
of etdaork’s
nd bahus

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

“on:iteplomc
omcsnneohaJ

on sgoehes2), 
hi ts igey a(‘m

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

nn]eoh[aju]s[emv[n]x o[n]ic
1439 r ayehetn iemd eteplom

ithettagear helavereo ton 
yrthi - ’). rsa yeehret

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

n[n]o atvie]pl[omcemsnn]e
15heton 1439 th O’). uneJof 

at]e[a“:tiraporthetof emi

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

y (‘m”i15˚ 1439˚ n[n]o 
dee(sdgeer eowlhetn O te
n[n]orv[ma] v[mritantgiritaemsa

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

nd bahusy 
g. iFn iliat
]”n[n]orv[m

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

aportmitosM
sphraao, totm

AS] NACI ’). hiT
boutassnereawa
or trinfey irletut
tn gibehy W
etof sencatnsi

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

gFi eur yck,Evan Jan 2. arPo

frahetof ghtriheto ty, lnta
nsrath simelFnteincan ies

asishi n encrae that orksw
cxeehetof y tilquahetbout

f. lest iureto) naor t
sdiatemon wervioveshi
csdiatemluasvind aluaxte

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

kcEynataaMfoti m frolitae), d934(1

ng, dioulmr eowl’semfra
atpiack ereGn id etraetilns

issxpreen asaorks roniiof on 
ng riday blaputsndiion, iutc

ycEn vang iticby eourscs
ghlhireay odath chiw, eoursc

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

gnidluo memr fraewo lm .

k’sycEn varsappearehet
“:rsettella XANXH ICAL (‘”

hetng ilaverey, tsodemcroni
heoty blpaacsneityend ang 

crinteccek’syc ork?wrta
endei, scopitd etbadey ghl

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

lonarspek’s
(‘AS [ TSBE

r’sentipahe
(or n hatr he

eusacBeork?
dervaped 

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

of ory tshihet
hetof outdeam

ben eoftemfra
sxtetd erriacti

nd a uretcpi w
nd ascithetsea

gonre ork’) ‘w, 
emfrak’sycE
ntehmsillbeme

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

hu ndnkiam . nepay rlaeIn 
of ecepiemasry vehe ood w

tof rtpalaintessen aemacbe
td pelhesxteteshetnd A. s

paluratructsy llquaereew
plmevehaory hetlacitricnd 

nguilatemhetetacndiio tork’) 
exteh chiw, onsiptricnsie

sntemeupplsng illfior snt

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

ghly , 
fra, encatnsifor ng, intipal
or f, lesting intipahetsaood 

het orkwrta physy onlnot, 
n ir ewevihe ng’dia‘re het

hetof srtpa rta elii(Kork w
td etecfaitulmhetd oyepl

ngu nonof sencffordaacitsi
of erolhetyond ber fand e

ubjsn iamork’swrtan ao t

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

, opiy ghl
emelelaintessereewsemfra
tosmuth tiwtio td elinaor 
luapteoncco slabuty, llaciphys

geami , hucmo s so etthat
hcrie , encisr veE2001). 

rmet epar a s‘be, 
non- ucssecvidelonaitipropos

byory sseccaof - ubordisork, w
lacoritshistietpiseD. tceubj

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

pe
n eoft, snte

heT. reac
thatn iy, ll
, emfra, xte

y, tquiinta
nd a’, deis
n vasah uc
etnaubordi
san gioril

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

ntehmsillbeme
th on issxpreee

lkenciW nn am
paof eplincpri

. encgeillenti
garearP nowrea

lraetiln veeor 
deiork’swhet
t, sithat, ntpoi

onsiptumssa

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

sntemeupplsng illfior snt
of form’ lrapheri‘peaof on 

, tid redeionsc(1850) nn sa
sprogreshay tilrgonarepa

d efiintdeitcfan iysdaanow
aof nsrgiaml xtet uro(D ,

o tbuton, insemdilonaitade
ntesprereof tcary veheto t
onsitatrpreentionsitatcxpee

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

ubjsn iamork’swrtan ao t
y utabeof – , howsih chiw

wrtan ao tndumddean as
cao ntid opelvedey lveis

or nd/alarietamheth tiwd 
2019), ourcsreciotimessa

ntreferehetyond bep umjo 
tlavereo tnd af, lestion itant
that.) cteonsitaigotneons

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

lacoritshistietpiseD. tceubj
(1790) ntaK, encatnsifor 

ontclonaitiproposork’sw
unnic of on itatsfeniamng 

bounda, dsholshretluapteonccor 
notsiepurposehoswseourc

ntesprereof on itfunclaint
ugge(sonsitalrelacogiladihe
hettongsmad urenurtreat

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

san gioril
. .JJnd a(1790) 

nteont – het, 
vexieflreof 

seribounda
o tdd ao tnot
o Ton. itant

ugge , onsits
ntreffedihe

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

, onsiptumssa
hatorstcalaiocs

of epar si
diatemd endei

ine, deisoutor 
1987:darrie(D

gonre tn hitiw
oiy jheh tchiw
oslceomco T
aourscsdiatem

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

onsitatrpreenti, onsitatcxpee
ciotimeshetn ikeartpatha

y llacinsrintinothust propos
ork wr heti]e[N“. laourscsdi

het, ”owlbenor bovear heti
eourscsdiof formA9). 1987:
eontc, luaxtetof cbrifahet

nd m apeha skeay tlntoi niae
r ailimfaoremheto tr eos

geatshettessntedixpeela

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

that.) cte, onsitaigotne, ons
ntepiicre, horsuta:sseprocc
lacinsrixtebut, lonaitipropos

(ork gonre whetdeisoutnor ) 
wrtaheto t”esri] v[egi“y he

f lestiork wrtaheton qua di
ocsnd alonarsrpeenti, luaxte

ng. ni
tsnguiild eipplaof srmet

pashiof ng diarelfula

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

hettongsmad urenurtreat
heTf. lestieourscsdind asnt
ogiolmetspiend alaiocsy ll

[ork w eruvd’oeshor tine], 
stin i’ rephe‘sork’sw broa

het, eourscsdi epar pl
csdind apshionsitalrelaioc

vathaty asy amew, scit
ngintipa eontclonaitadei’s

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

ntreffedihe
on itfunche

siIt. lacogi
deinsir he

ensesr debroa
hetsungepl
n iseoursc

k’sycEn va
etuiQsnt

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

aourscsdiatem
on hisfahetn i
hetof r ettam

xtetfromon ci
enti rgaaMsetgra

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

geatshettessntedixpeela
mlvaediemn insrgiamof 
ah ucso tng, intipaluatca

nd, bahusfromfeiw(or xt
wfor , ssnekeil’satrerga hi

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

pashiof ng diarelfula
,sptricnusam eshet epar

nkahiuntsitithatntexten a
ulcirtpaIn r). ettamthatfor 
ciutneermhesdeprovitih c

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

ngintipa eontclonaitadei’s
ga heth tiwlaintatubsonscrea

fromlnepaetrapaeso teblnka
meplomco totmn’saJr, aul

c tng itsuggesng, diffolacs

   

        
        

      
         

             
 

 

 
         

         
         

           
     

 
       

     
      

          
        

          
       

      
       

     
       

     
     

    
 

        
             

      
       

     
          

        
    

      
           

       
 

       
           

          
          

       
       

etuiQ. snt
tceubjshe
, emfrafrom

nd asntem
’stsirtahet

Figure 2. Jan van Eyck, Portrait of Margareta van Eyck (1439), detail from lower frame moulding.



only physically, but also conceptually, in that it carried texts. And these texts
helped the viewer in ‘reading’ the image, so much so that text, frame, and
picture were equally structural parts of  the artwork (Kiilerich, 2001). Ever
since antiquity, aesthetics and critical theory have employed the multifaceted
term parergon (para, ‘beside’, and ergon, ‘work’) to indicate the metalinguistic
affordances of  non-propositional devices such as van Eyck’s frame
inscriptions, which extend far beyond the role of  accessory by-work,
subordinate embellishments or filling supplements to an artwork’s main
subject. Despite its historical origin as the expression of  a ‘peripheral’ form
of  beauty –which is how, for instance, Kant (1790) and J.J. Winckelmann
(1850) considered it, as an addendum to an artwork’s propositional content–,
the principle of  parergonality has progressively developed into a cunning
manifestation of  reflexive intelligence. 

Parerga are nowadays in fact identified with the material and/or conceptual
thresholds, boundaries or even literal margins of  a text (Duro, 2019), as
semiotic resources whose purpose is not to add to the work’s ideational
dimension, but to jump beyond the referential function of  representation.
To point, that is, to the very act of  representation itself, and to reveal the
dialogical relations (suggestions, assumptions, expectations, interpretations,
negotiations, etc.) that are nurtured amongst the different social actors that
partake in the semiotic process: authors, recipients and discourse itself. The
function of  parerga is thus not intrinsically propositional, but extrinsically
social and epistemological. It is indeed metadiscoursal. “[n]either work
(ergon) nor outside the work [hors d’oeuvre], neither inside or outside, neither
above nor below”, they “giv[e] rise” to the artwork’s ‘sphere’ in its broader
sense (Derrida 1987: 9). A form of  discourse on the artwork itself  qua
discourse, the parergon plunges the ergon within the fabric of  textual,
contextual, interpersonal and social relationships and discourses in which
they jointly take shape and meaning. 

To come closer to the more familiar terms of  applied linguistics, we may say
that van Eyck’s metadiscoursal expedients set the stage for a full reading of
his painting’s ideational contents. Quite in the fashion of  margins in
medieval manuscripts, these parerga are consubstantial with the subject
matter of  the actual painting, to such an extent that it is unthinkable to
separate panel from frame, icon from text (or wife from husband, for that
matter). In particular, Jan’s motto complements and integrates Margareta’s
likeness, for which it provides hermeneutic scaffolding, suggesting the
artist’s awareness that, even with the best intentions, representation can only

LArIssA D’AngELO & sTEFAnIA COnsOnnI

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-3416



get as close as it can to empirical reality. It also implies that –whatever
semiotic system it may employ, be it visual or verbal or (as in this case)
hybrid– language itself  works as an integrated system of  strata (Jakobson,
1985), in which a referential drive towards a text-external reality (the ergon,
Margareta’s portrait) is complemented and counterbalanced by a
metalinguistic function (the parergon, Jan’s philosophy of  representation). A
full intelligibility of  the meanings conveyed by the artwork as a whole
therefore depends on the systemic and functional relations between, on the
one hand, the ergon’s ideational dimension and, on the other, the parergon’s
interpersonal and textual resources (halliday, 2002 & 2004). As with good
marriages, or linguistic systems, there is no untying the knot: the artwork’s
‘sphere’ comprises and articulates all metafunctions, binding and structuring
the work’s social existence as much as its privileged relation with the world
and with language itself.

All of  these phenomena –regardless, obviously, of  aesthetic parameters– we
nowadays read as metadiscourse, or to be more precise, visual metadiscourse.
The interactional dynamics synthesised in Margareta’s size of  frame and
oblique angle stance; her inquisitive demand gaze; the temporal and
metaleptic anchors fictionally carved in the frame mouldings; and especially
Jan’s first-person “ALC Ixh xAn”, a reflexive downtoner which condenses an
attitude of  paradoxical disengagement from the illusionistic epistemicity of
his pictorial grammar in a gesture of  ornamental exoticism. All the
parergonal facts that make van Eyck’s portrait of  his wife such a dazzling
visual (as well as verbal) artwork may be analysed, contrasted and discussed
in relation to metadiscoursal resources (such as hedges and boosters, frame,
attitude, self-mention and engagement markers; hyland, 2005), or to
metadiscoursal criteria such as reflexivity, explicitness, intratextuality
(Mauranen, 1993; Ädel, 2006; Ädel & Mauranen, 2010). For, despite the
taxonomic or even conceptual fuzziness it may have produced over time
(nash, 1992: 100; hyland, 2005: 16) as different ‘waves’ of  studies have
developed and interconnected, metadiscourse is still a long way from
declining in interest, fascination and versatility across languages, cultures and
media. 

In what follows, we compile a concise critical history of  metadiscourse over
the last four decades (section 2), tracing it back to its various formulations
and different approaches in applied linguistics and providing reasons why it
has become such an all-pervasive “discourse universal” (Mauranen, 2010a).
We then focus on the most recent developments of  the category, in

A TALE OF ThrEE WAVEs: Or, COnCErnIng ThE hIsTOry AnD ThEOry OF METADIsCOursE

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-34 17



particular regard to today’s increasing digitalization of  knowledge and
discourse, and discuss some new and promising directions for future
research (section 3). hopefully, we will highlight some of  the reasons why
metadiscourse has been –and still is– a must-have compass to language and
communication in an ever-increasing variety of  domains, genres and settings.
As van Eyck’s Portrait of  Margareta seems to suggest, metadiscourse is among
the most intriguing and productive facets of  our social and intellectual life.
It shapes and explains nearly everything. Marriage excluded, of  course.

2. The three waves: A short history of  metadiscourse

Metadiscourse has been circulating in Western culture for a long time. Its
manifestations in verbal discourse can be traced as far back as the Middle
Ages, and to different domains such as science, medicine, biography,
narrative and poetry (Alter, 1975; hutcheon, 1980; Waugh, 1984;
Taavitsainen, 1999). Its roots also embrace the history of  visual discourses
such as heraldry, painting, sculpture and architecture (Foucault, 1966;
Dällenbach, 1977; Flam, 2009; stead, 2017), and even music (Mannion,
2019). And yet, not until the early 1980s did the ways in which authors may
embed marks of  authorship and/or potential (or actual) readership in texts,
so as to steer and shape the reception and interpretation thereof, become the
object of  systematic and specialised scrutiny on the part of  applied
linguistics. Interest towards metadiscourse was triggered by the ‘interactional
turn’ of  language analysis in the late 1970s (sinclair & Courthald, 1975); it
was then crucially fuelled by halliday’s trifunctional model (2002 & 2004), in
which the centuries-old vocation of  language to represent the ‘real’ world
–the one supposedly standing prior to, and outside of, sign systems– was re-
perspectivised by the interpersonal and textual metafunctions, accounting
for the intersubjective processes performed by language in terms of  social
relationships and the compositional arrangements structuring language’s
meaning-making processes (2004: 29).

As is part of  the legend, the first conceptual appearances of  metadiscourse
were somewhat low profile, to some extent reminiscent of  early (and fairly
restrictive) formulations of  the parergon, i.e. as an apparatus of  peripheral,
residual areas of  the text where contents that are not propositional, and thus
appear to exceed the text’s main subject, tend to be stored. That is, as
ancillary paraphernalia of  the ergon (‘normal’, first-degree referential

LArIssA D’AngELO & sTEFAnIA COnsOnnI

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-3418



discourse). harris first defined metadiscourse as a set of  subsidiary kernels,
“entirely different” in content from a text’s main kernels, “except that they
often contain one word from […] or a pronoun referring to a main kernel”
(1970 [1959]: 464-65), thus underlying their satellite status with respect to the
referential pertinence of  fully-fledged propositional cores. Likewise,
Williams described it in terms of  second-degree “writing about writing,
whatever does not refer to the subject matter being addressed” (1981: 84),
while Crismore shifted the focus to the in-fieri poststructuralist notion of
‘discourse’ as he spoke of  “discoursing about discourse” (1984: 280). Vande
Kopple (1985: 83) identified it with material “which does not add
propositional information but which signals the presence of  an author”, thus
bringing in the explicitation of  a principle of  authorship (burke, 1995) as its
main trigger, while Crismore, Markkannen and steffensen completed the
picture by incorporating the opposite side of  the semiotic spectrum, that is,
the reader/listener. Irrelevant to a text’s ideational sphere, metadiscourse is
key in structuring its organisation, interpretation and evaluation on the part
of  the audience (1993: 39). 

What immediately emerges from this ‘first wave’ of  metadiscourse research
is how beneficial the category can be to the study of  aspects of  textuality
which did not receive attention until the end of  the 1970s, when the so-
called ‘textual turn’ (Ferraris, 1986) climbed over language’s referentiality to
investigate semiosis in extenso, that is, the entire semiotic spectrum of
communication, from its origin to its arrival point, as part of  a text’s
message. here lies the “distinct element of  sophistication” that
metadiscourse bestows on language: it allows us to produce meanings that
go “beyond referential information about states of  affairs” (Mauranen,
forthc.) and cover discourse itself  in its full sense, as “the social use of
language” (Danesi, 2016: 204). An incrementally dynamic vision of
metadiscourse has thus taken shape, also nurtured by two classics of
language-as-socialization theory. On the one hand, Foucault’s historicist
notion of  discourse as “a group of  sequences of  signs” existing within
specific social, cultural and ideological settings that –far from being
accessory elements in the interpretation of  texts, are foregrounded as the
very conditions of  their existence– provided an intersubjective and
materialist standpoint from which even specialised discourse, such as
“clinical discourse, economic discourse, the discourse of  natural history,
psychiatric discourse”, should always be examined (1969: 108). On the other
hand, bakhtin’s theory of  dialogism clarified that any discourse has to some

A TALE OF ThrEE WAVEs: Or, COnCErnIng ThE hIsTOry AnD ThEOry OF METADIsCOursE

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-34 19



extent “already been articulated, disputed, elucidated, and evaluated in
various ways”, so that “various viewpoints, world views, and trends cross,
converge and diverge in it” (1979: 94). For this reason, any discourse works
as a two-way chain of  communication, pivoting “responsive reactions and
dialogic reverberations” with both its predecessors and addressees. The role
“of  the others for whom [an] utterance is constructed is extremely great”,
for these ‘others’ are the “active participants” from whom the speaker/writer
expects and elicits a response (1979: 95-96).

As the material non-neutrality and intersubjective porousness of  discourse
increasingly became the shared patrimony of  critical theory and applied
linguistics along the 1990s and 2000s, more and more attention was devoted
to the analysis of  the personality, attitude, credibility, authority, cognitive and
epistemic traits of  authors, and likewise to the various aspects that form their
encoded recipients’ identikit (although it must be admitted that spoken
discourse entered the stage quite late, and has so far attracted much less
limelight than written communication.) since then, metadiscourse has
extensively been analysed and compared across cultures and languages
(Crismore, Markkannen & steffensen, 1993; Mauranen, 1993b; Valero-
garcés, 1996; bunton, 1999) and in different disciplinary domains and
communicative genres, from EAP (Mauranen, 1993a; Thompson, 2003;
hyland, 2000, 2005) to L1 and L2 student writing practices (swales, 1990;
hyland, 2004), EsL, EsP and EAP practice and pedagogy (Intraprawat &
steffensen, 1995; Cheng & steffensen, 1996; Camiciottoli, 2003; bondi &
borelli, 2018), ELF (Mauranen, 2010a, 2010b, 2012); scientific discourse
(hyland, 1998; hyland & Tse, 2004; bamford & bondi, 2011; hyland &
sancho-guinda, 2012), news and advertising discourse (Fuertes-Olivera et
al., 2001; Dafouz-Milne, 2008), business and corporate discourse (hyland,
1998; De groot et al., 2016), etc. 

This ‘second wave’ of  studies had the indisputable benefit of  categorisation,
providing analytical body and bulk to the intuitions of  poststructuralism and
‘interactional’ textual analysis in the 1970-80s. The singling out of  systematic
criteria and measurable parameters for identifying, quantifying and comparing
linguistic expressions of  metadiscourse thus became a key task of  research. A
whole family tree of  taxonomies developed, in which different generations
confront and complement each other –producing brilliant bifurcations as
much as fuzzy family resemblances. To start with, there was the issue of
where to draw a dividing line between metadiscourse and automated
language, so as to put together a toolbox for discourse analysis that would be

LArIssA D’AngELO & sTEFAnIA COnsOnnI

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-3420



applicable to a potentially wide variety of  contexts. This was no minor
concern, if  we bear in mind that, essentially, metadiscourse is about
strategically making certain language choices in certain material situations
–and not others. Orienting the communicative situation via certain (and not
other) types of  interactive resource (logical transitions, endophorics,
evidential or frame markers, etc.), or disciplining discourse itself  through
specific interactional manoeuvres (epistemic markers, self-mentions, second-
person engagement markers, etc.) which help govern the text’s dialogue with
its reader/listener, is indeed an art of  flexibility. hence we see the need for
‘soft’ –as opposed to schematic and rigid– categorizations. If  early chartings
of  the phenomenon limited it to metatextual (Valero-garcés, 1996; bunton,
1999) or illocutionary resources (beauvais, 1989; quoted in hyland, 2005:
199), more articulate approaches rapidly emerged. Vande Kopple’s model
(1985), for instance, based on seven types of  markers pertaining to textual
and interpersonal functions, although challenged by some objections
concerning its applicability limits (berkenkotter & huckin, 1995), stimulated
revisions such as Crismore, Markkannen and steffensen’s model (1993) and
upgrades such as hyland’s systematisation (2005).

It is at this stage of  research –referred to as the (broader) ‘interactive’, or
‘integrative’ tradition– that key distinctions were introduced to sharpen the
category of  metadiscourse and counterbalance its development as, in
hyland’s terms, an umbrella term for all expressions that configure and
negotiate meaning-making patterns, by way of  “assisting the writer (or
speaker) to express a viewpoint and engage with readers as members of  a
particular community” (2005: 37). In particular, metadiscourse was clarified
as covering exclusively those “aspects of  the text that embody writer-reader
interactions”, for it allows writers to encode their positioning and attitude
towards propositional contents, as well as enabling readers to be guided
along the text and perceive said positioning and attitude (hyland & Tse,
2004). secondly, it achieves this through different orders of  resources, which
hyland (2005) labels “interactive” and “interactional” (as suggested by
Thompson, 2001), accounting for, respectively, assisting readers with the
apprehension, organisation and evaluation of  the text’s ideational contents,
and involving and engaging them in the construction of  a mutually shared
discursive pact. And finally, it concerns only text-internal relations, that is,
reflexive phenomena that pertain to the world of  the ongoing discourse only,
thus excluding other metatextual occurrences, such as intertextuality
(hyland, 2005: 38). 

A TALE OF ThrEE WAVEs: Or, COnCErnIng ThE hIsTOry AnD ThEOry OF METADIsCOursE

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-34 21



but to go back to the above question: why has metadiscourse become such
a “discourse universal” (Mauranen, 2010)? Although a univocally coherent
answer may hardly be formulated (and would probably prove reductive), it is
clear how metadiscourse has been critically construed in the 1990-2000s –for
reasons it seems to partially share with the logic of  the parergon– as a
paradigm of  language’s anti-referential cleverness. Conceptualised as
scaffolding composed of  lexical, grammatical and semantic elements at work
both within and beyond sentence level, its function is to circumscribe,
encapsulate and regulate the social and hermeneutical life of  discursive
artefacts, by dialectically designing their interpersonal borders as a privileged
observatory for the trifunctional operativity of  language (halliday, 2002,
2004). Indeed, it seems that much of  the fascination with metadiscourse
comes from a paradox. For this articulate constellation of  second-degree,
anti-mimetic resources –eccentric with respect to language’s ‘primary’
ideational mission–, by centripetally drawing us towards the centre of
semiosis, contributes to a more sophisticated representation of  empirical
reality. As it happens, one may add, with Jan van Eyck’s “ALC Ixh xAn” motto
in the frame moulding of  his wife’s portrait. by refracting and
perspectivizing reality, metadiscourse co-constructs it in its multifaceted
social and epistemological complexity. It operates not to the detriment, but
to the dialectical advantage of  language’s representative mission, precisely
because it returns discourse to the material universe of  intersubjective
relations it is always and inevitably produced in. In lieu of  an answer, another
paradox may therefore result from the above question. Metadiscourse’s anti-
referential cleverness may in fact be but the surface manifestation of  as a
subtler form of  epistemological wisdom.

Interestingly, encouraging developments in this direction may come from the
‘third wave’ of  metadiscourse studies, also known as the (narrower) ‘non-
integrative’ strand. A bright bifurcation in the genealogy of  metadiscourse
research (Mauranen, 1993a, 1993b), it pivots on what Ädel labels “reflexive
turn” model (2006, 2010). Assuming metadiscourse to be “discourse about
the ongoing discourse” (Mauranen, forthc.) –thus covering verbalizations on
“the evolving discourse itself  or its linguistic form, including references to
the writer-speaker qua writer-speaker and the (imagined or actual) audience
qua audience of  the current discourse” (Ädel, 2010: 75)– this model
reintegrates the metatextual component expunged by the interactive
tradition. And by doing so, it gives even more prominence to the
epistemological ‘creativity’ of  metadiscourse. In Jakobson’s terms (1960),

LArIssA D’AngELO & sTEFAnIA COnsOnnI

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-3422



metadiscourse triangulates the expressive function (material expressing the
speaker/writer’s persona), the directive function (material expressing the
envisaged or material reader/listener’s persona) and the metalinguistic
function (Jakobson, 1985), covering ‘discourse-internal discourse’, i.e.
verbalizations of  the semiotic code itself. And yet, referentiality being the
great absentee in the reflexive triangle does not prevent metadiscourse from
performing key cognitive functions. Quite the contrary, in fact, as this model
even further unveils the semiotic mission carried out by this explicit,
discourse-internal and intratextual second-degree order of  language: the very
making of  language into discourse, that is, into an “interpersonal activity whose
form is determined by its social purposes” (Leech & short, 1987: 168). 

Anything but detrimental to the ongoing development of  this research area,
the bifurcation between the interactive and the reflexive model has brought
about productive methodological distinctions, and even more interesting
hybridizations. On the one hand, the devising of  ‘thin’ analytical approaches,
typical of  second-wave studies (Vande Kopple, 1985; Crismore, Markkannen
& steffensen, 1993; hyland, 1998, 2004, 2005) allowed pioneering
quantitative surveys of  the phenomenon, whose insight into the occurrence
and distribution of  markers across extended corpora and heterogeneous
discourse domains and genres has instantiated the large-scale charting out of
a previously unexplored territory that is typical of  the taxonomical strand of
research in the 1990-2000s. ‘Thick’ methods of  analysis, usually data-
oriented, are on the other hand typically used in the later reflexive model,
and translate into qualitative discourse-analytical approaches, smaller in scale
but more focused on contextual, social and cultural variables (Ädel, 2006,
forthc.; Pérez-Llantada, 2010; bondi, 2010; rodway, 2018; Mauranen,
forthc.). needless to say, approaches can also be interwoven, so as to
combine both larger-scale and context-specific analysis (Akbas &
hatipoğlu, 2018) –which adds to the reasons why metadiscourse proves a
multifaceted, complexifying lens through which the epistemology of  culture
and discourse may be fruitfully observed.

Through the thick and thin, forty years after its inauguration, the field of
metadiscourse is still in a flux, and very much so. Today’s rapidly changing
contexts, media and modes of  communication –and particularly the
inception of  digital culture, as well as of  multi-semiotic literacy practices in
all domains of  discourse, public and private, scientific and popular– indeed
seem to bestow even more relevance on the study of  metadiscourse, and call,
now more than ever, for theoretical flexibility and analytical eclecticism.

A TALE OF ThrEE WAVEs: Or, COnCErnIng ThE hIsTOry AnD ThEOry OF METADIsCOursE

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-34 23



3. A new wave: Metadiscourse in digital communication

As the previous section has illustrated, the field of  metadiscourse can be
easily perceived as a busy forge from which new, thought-provoking studies
continue to emerge, driving researchers towards uncharted waters.
underpinning this continuously innovative inclination is current research
work on metadiscourse, along with the development of  new research
methodologies, including visual research methods and combinations of
qualitative (‘thick’) and quantitative (‘thin’) approaches with special focuses
on discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, and genre analysis. In particular, we
are starting to realise that as digital and social media have gradually entered
our daily lives in the past two decades, our academic and non-academic
communication practices have also changed. Along with the linguistic
practices in which people engage, and the nature of  the social networks they
construct, there is a strong and growing interest in how people create
meaning not just through language, but through a range of  digital resources.
It has become clear that the communicative immediacy of  digital media, and
the spectrum of  genres (or hybridised forms) now available, dictate the way
we engage in meaning-making practices in a multimodal environment.

The growing interest in digital discourse on the part of  researchers is
exemplified by the biannual Metadiscourse Across Genres (MAG) conference that
in June 2019 gathered a substantial group of  researchers at the university of
bergamo (Italy)2 to discuss the latest metadiscourse developments and the
move towards digital forms of  communication. All this excitement on the
part of  metadiscourse scholarship, however, should not come as a surprise.
As previously discussed, metadiscourse is largely viewed as an aspect of
language that is highly dialogic and interpersonal (hyland, 2005; Ädel, 2006).
since the field was established in the 1980s, most of  the research work has
revolved around written, monologic academic genres, leaving behind those
modes where synchronous/asynchronous communication with one’s readers
and listeners is central (garzone et al., 2007; Jones, Chik & hafner, 2015;
Pérez-Llantada, 2016). An interest in those oral and written forms that offer
academic and non-academic writers extensive space for self-expression and
engagement with readers was therefore long due. 

researchers such as Miller and Dawn (2004), Davies and Merchant (2007),
Mortensen and Walker (2002) and more importantly, Luzón (2006, 2010)
have been pioneers of  one of  the digital genres that has been studied most
since its appearance: the academic blog. Once again, we see that the interest

LArIssA D’AngELO & sTEFAnIA COnsOnnI

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-3424



is still centred on the academic world and how scholars engage with readers,
how they disseminate results, express opinions and build an academic
persona, but the leap had finally been made. From that point on, it has been
clear that the Web, together with the explosion of  digital technologies, is the
driving force that changes the way scientific knowledge circulates and how
the public accesses scientific information (buehl, 2015), for example through
websites (Alejo gonzález, 2005), microblogs and blogs (bondi, 2018;
Kuteeva & Mauranen, 2018; Zou & hyland, 2019), open-source materials,
podcasts (Pérez-Llantada, 2016), Wikis (Kuteeva, 2011, 2016), Vlogs (Ädel,
orthc.) and Tweets (sclafani, 2017; Aitamurto & Varma, 2018; Zappavigna,
2018).

soon enough, a significant number of  studies primarily focused on academic
blogs (Luzón, 2006, 2010, 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2018; Walker, 2006; Trench,
2008; Mauranen, 2013; Kuteeva, 2016; bondi, 2018; Malavasi, 2020) revealed
the intimate, highly dialogic nature of  this digital genre, where a
popularization and democratization of  scientific discourse takes place and
where the scholar is held immediately (and sometimes vehemently)
accountable for what s/he writes. As Zou and hyland (2019) note, the blog
offers the immediate advantage of  enhancing one’s visibility, constructing
one’s persona and disseminating one’s research work to a wider, more diverse
type of  audience, which goes beyond one’s disciplinary field. however, the
immediacy of  response and the uncertainty in the type of  audience reached
through digital genres forces him/her to correctly implement and manage
strategies of  recontextualization (Puschmann, 2013; yus, 2015; bondi, 2018),
in order to linguistically adjust and rhetorically repackage a scientific text, so
that it can be understood by non-experts too (Myers, 2010; Campagna et al.,
2012). not only does the author have to carefully consider how to present
material, but s/he will also have to possess a firm command of  interactional
strategies and a range of  language and discourse features to manage the
dialogic speech that takes place within a digital environment (Puschmann,
2015; Zou & hyland, 2019). specific writing abilities have to be cultivated to
pursue this pragmatic goal, which may confirm the ‘creative’ affordances of
metadiscourse, as discussed above. On the other hand, this trend
immediately shows how digitalization is straining the whole domain of
academic and scientific communication in ways that twenty years ago were
unimaginable.

Only a handful of  metadiscourse studies have so far focused on the
alterations that are increasingly visible in the interpersonal dimension of

A TALE OF ThrEE WAVEs: Or, COnCErnIng ThE hIsTOry AnD ThEOry OF METADIsCOursE

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-34 25



academic discourses the more they become digitalised. These are explored by
yus (2015), for example, who looks at the use and frequency of
interpersonality markers in academic discourse located and communicated
on the Web vs. offline academic discourse, finding that as the text becomes
more digitalised, common-ground markers seem to decrease, while similes,
boosters and direct addresses to the audience increase. his study underlines
the difficulties academic digital writers face when trying to predict the
audience’s background knowledge and the impulsivity of  readers’
interpretations. similar issues also emerge in bondi’s (2018) empirical study
of  three economics blogs, in which academic economists commonly engage.
In bondi’s corpus-based study, the participant-oriented dimension of  posts
clearly suggests that the prominent use of  reader engagement markers, self-
mentions, as well as text-oriented and action-oriented elements, is justified by
the will to guide readers through the text, making sure the argument is
understood and the writer’s position and ideas are commonly shared along
the whole spectrum of  communication. Along the same lines, Zou and
hyland’s (2019) corpus-based analysis compares blog posts and traditional
journal research articles, using the stance and engagement model (see
hyland, 2005), emphasising how academic writers create a different writer
persona and apply different rhetorical choices when their research is
recontextualised online. 

These initial metadiscursive studies have started to delve into the complex
ways the communicative immediacy of  digital media, along with the
spectrum of  genres (and progressively hybridised forms) now available, have
inevitably influenced the way we communicate and the way we make
meaning in a more widespread, lesshomogeneous, multimodal environment,
the common notion of  an academy perceived as an ‘ivory tower’, out of
reach to a non-expert readership (Puschmann, 2015). 

In particular, several contributions in this direction have stemmed from the
2019 MAG conference, investigating progressively hybridised academic
genres that have migrated –or are in the process of  migrating– from
analogue to digital format. some have a clear pedagogical matrix, belonging
to the universe of  students’ writing practices: from MA dissertations to
internship reports (Fendri, 2020; Thomson, 2020), undergraduate research
papers and upper secondary pupil essays (MacIntyre, 2020). That is to say,
they analysed material produced by learners as a unidirectional and
standardised product meant for assessment at school or university.
Thomson’s (2020) study, for example, focuses on traditional novice writing

LArIssA D’AngELO & sTEFAnIA COnsOnnI

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-3426



practices across educational contexts (norway, sweden and the uK) and
different argumentative genres. In particular, he looks at the interactional
expression of  attitude in pre-tertiary essays of  five different kinds. Attention
is paid to how different proportions of  individual value-laden lexis and
grammar vs. impersonal presentation of  propositional content and logical
argumentation may serve the communicative purposes of  academic vs.
professional writing, as exemplified by upper secondary school essays in
different countries. McIntyre’s (2020) study investigates the related issue of
how undergraduate students’ citation practices are being impacted by the
growing shift towards on-screen dissemination contexts. The study
questions the extent to which explicit training in the use of  evidentials may
help novices to build a solid authorial self, and the limits of  the digital format
for the development of  critical competencies.

Also worth further investigation are writing practices in which the
hybridization between different modes and media is more or less stabilised,
and where various pragmatic functions and communicative expectations
have fully been taken over by digitalization, such as for instance e-mails
(bogdanovic & gak, 2020), university websites and MOOCs (giordano &
Marongiu, 2020). These are bidirectional screen genres mainly used for
student-professor or student-institution communication, that is, for more
structured dialogical exchange between the two parties involved in academic
knowledge dissemination. Interestingly, as in the case of  blogs, these digital
academic genres function as a vantage point from which we may observe
both sides of  the phenomenon, thus tracing the different ways in which
scientific or pedagogic contents may effectively be conveyed with the
specific chain of  communication (and ecosystem) that is represented by
academic discourse communities.

Despite the ongoing and ever-increasing democratization and popularization
of  knowledge that are being boosted by digital technology, the changing
conventions of  asymmetric, peer-to-peer scientific communication are still a
favourite area of  research for metadiscourse scholarship. Mauranen (orthc.)
for example, after extensively researching discourse reflexivity in spoken
dialogues (e.g. Mauranen 2002, 2003, 2005), and ascertaining that it diverges
considerably from metadiscourse in the written mode, decided to consider
research blog discussions, as they provided her with a combined perspective
on discourse reflexivity, one that is dialogic but also written. she found
evidence that there is more open and direct evaluation in digital than spoken
dialogues, especially when participants engage in debates and negotiate

A TALE OF ThrEE WAVEs: Or, COnCErnIng ThE hIsTOry AnD ThEOry OF METADIsCOursE

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-34 27



disagreement: a phenomenon that may only be interpreted by taking into
account the specific communicative affordances of  online dialogicity. she
then reveals the limitations of  monologue-based models and calls for more
adequate metadiscourse models to further the field of  study. Finally, she
firmly believes that the greater explicitness found in digital forms of
communication, driven by many lingua franca situations, offers an ideal
opportunity for exploring metadiscourse as a potential discourse universal.
ylva biri (orthc.) corpus-based analysis examines instead the usage and
functions of  metadiscourse in English-speaking online communities. she
recognises that different social networking sites (snss) have different
technological features or affordances, which is why metadiscourse is here
considered in different settings. A working metadiscourse framework is
developed to illustrate how metadiscourse is used in twelve online
communities, taken from three social media platforms –Twitter, reddit, and
Tumblr– and four polarised political topics of  interest are considered: alt-
right, red pill, feminism, and the resist movement. 

sancho-guinda (orthc.) examines the visual abstract and its graphical
format. The author considers the role of  visual and filmic metadiscourses as
“narrative transformers” and regards ‘stylisation’ as a phenomenon
interestingly capable of  enriching but also hindering scientific meaning. To
this end, sancho-guinda comments on samples from science blog archives
and JCr journals and draws on a mixed methodological framework,
comprising not only hyland’s well-known metadiscourse model, but also
incorporating stimuli from critical genre analysis, multimodal and visual
analysis, social semiotics, narrative and positioning theories, and the
conceptual theory of  metaphor. her eclectic contribution is particularly
relevant, we believe, because it not only considers the regenring and
transduction processes that scientific information undergoes when it is
transformed into a condensed visual narrative, but also attempts to tackle
and categorise visual metadiscourse, an area of  research still
underrepresented (see for example Kumpf, 2000; Fechine & Pontes, 2012;
Degroot et al., 2016; D’Angelo, 2016, 2018) and which, in the  times of
increasing visualization and digitalization we are facing,  has become a
necessary  avenue of  research.

Another set of  innovative studies have also emerged from the 2019 MAG
conference, which solidly move away from a scriptocentric tradition,
contributing to the theory of  metadiscourse and to our understanding of  the
role metadiscourse and related ‘meta’ phenomena may play in less researched

LArIssA D’AngELO & sTEFAnIA COnsOnnI

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-3428



digital forms of  communication. For instance, Delibegović Džanić and
berberović (orthc.) analyse text-image advertisements with idiomatic
expressions with the aim of, on the one hand, investigating how visual
elements play a crucial role in understanding the cognitive and rhetorical
functions of  advertisements, and on the other hand, of  establishing to what
extent hidden cognitive mechanisms involved in the interpretation of
advertising can be explained using conceptual blending theory. This leads to
the idea that blending contributes to the creativity and effectiveness of
pictorial advertisements. As with sancho-guinda’s work, this is a most
welcome contribution, as it seeks to devise a much-needed framework of
visual metadiscursive elements that, especially in digital genres, represent
significant meaning-making devices that cognitively and rhetorically
complement the accompanying text. 

It is not by chance that we selected Ädel’s (orthc.) contribution to conclude
this historical and critical overview of  past and present metadiscourse
research, for her study is particularly representative of  the changes the field
has undergone, and the dive into deep waters we are witnessing. In her work,
we see her reflexive model (2006) revisited and applied to a sample vlog
(video blog), functioning as a case study. Through in-depth qualitative
analysis, the uses of  metadiscourse in the vlog are illustrated and
neighbouring categories are pinpointed, so that crucial delimitations and
differences between metadiscourse and related phenomena emerge. What is
particularly relevant here is that particular semiotic resources, such as
paralinguistic and visual cues, are used to support the (verbal) metadiscourse
investigated in vlogs. she coins the term “synchronous intertextuality” to
refer to how the intertext (in this case, a simulator game) is operating while
the vlogger is interacting with it, revealing a very different type of
intertextuality than the one we usually see in academic discourse. 

At the end of  this journey, we cannot but join Ädel when she concludes that
a ‘new wave’ of  metadiscourse studies is envisioned for the future, where the
research focus moves more firmly from the non-propositional and
interpersonal to the reflexive. such a move, we agree, would lead to a firmer
grounding of  metadiscourse in the theory of  reflexivity, and to a deeper
understanding of  the sea change that, today more than ever, our culture is
undergoing. 

Article history:
Received 21 February 2021

Received in revised form 25 February 2021
Accepted 26 February 2021

A TALE OF ThrEE WAVEs: Or, COnCErnIng ThE hIsTOry AnD ThEOry OF METADIsCOursE

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-34 29



References

LArIssA D’AngELO & sTEFAnIA COnsOnnI

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-3430

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2
English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ädel, A. (2010). “Just to give you kind of a map of
where we are going’: A taxonomy of metadiscourse
in spoken and written academic English”. Nordic
Journal of English Studies 9(2): 69-97.

Ädel, A. (2018). “Variation in metadiscursive ‘you’
across genres: From research articles to teacher
feedback”. Educational Sciences: Theory &
Practice 18(4): 777-796.

Ädel, A. (forthc.). “Reflections on reflexivity in
digital communication: Toward a third wave of
metadiscourse studies” in A. Mauranen, L.
D’Angelo & S.M. Maci (eds.), Insights into
Metadiscourse: New Research and Approaches in

Digital Communication. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Ädel, A. & A. Mauranen (2010). “Metadiscourse:
Diverse and divided perspectives”. Nordic Journal
of English Studies 9(2): 1-11.

Aitamurto, T. & A. Varma (2018). “The constructive
role of journalism: Contentious metadiscourse on
constructive journalism and solutions journalism”.
Journalism Practice 12(6): 695-713.

Akbas, E. & C. Hatipoğlu (2018). “Metadiscourse
variations across academic genres: Rhetorical
preferences in textual and interpersonal markers”.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice 18(4):
767-775.

Alejo González, R. (2005). “Textual metadiscourse
in commercial websites”. Ibérica, Journal of the
European Association of Languages for Specific

Purposes 9: 33-52.

Alter, R. (1975). Partial Magic: The Novel as a
Self-Conscious Genre. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1979). Speech Genres and Other
Late Essays. Translated by V.W. McGee. Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1986.

Bamford, J. & M. Bondi (eds.). (2011). Dialogue
within Discourse Communities: Metadiscursive

Perspectives on Academic Genres. Berlin: de
Gruyter.

Beauvais, P. (1989). “A speech-act theory of
metadiscourse”. Written Communication 6(1): 11-
30.

Berkenkotter, C. & T.N. Huckin (1995). Genre
Knowledge in Disciplinary Communities. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bogdanovic, V. & D. Gak (2020). “Creating a

trusting student–professor relationship:
Engagement markers in academic e-mail
communication” in L. D’Angelo, S. Consonni & P.
Anesa (eds.), Digital Communication and
Metadiscourse: Changing Perspectives in

Academic Genres, 103-128. Bergamo: Cerlis.

Bondi, M. (2010). “Metadiscursive practices in
introductions: Phraseology and semantic
sequences across genres”. Nordic Journal of
English Studies 9(2): 99-123.

Bondi, M. (2018). “Try to prove me wrong:
Dialogicity and audience involvement in
economics blogs”. Discourse, Context & Media 24:
33-42.

Bondi, M. & C. Borelli (2018). “Publishing in
English: ELF writers, textual voices and
metadiscourse” in P. Mur-Dueñas & J. Šinkūnienė
(eds.), Intercultural Perspectives on Research
Writing, 217-236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Buehl, J. (2015). “Revolution or evolution? Casing
the impact of digital media on the rhetoric of
science” in A. Gross & J. Buehl (eds.), Science and
the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a

Digital Age, 1-10. Amityville: Baywood.

Bunton, D. (1999). “The use of higher level
metatext in PhD theses”. English for Specific
Purposes 18: 41-56.

Burke, S. (ed.) (1995). Authorship: From Plato to
the Postmodern: A Reader. Edinburgh: Edinburg
University Press.

Camiciottoli, B.C. (2003). “Metadiscourse and ESP
reading comprehension: An exploratory study”,
Reading in a Foreign Language 15(1): 28-44.

Campagna, S., G. Garzone, C. Ilie & E. Rowley-
Jolivet (eds.) (2012). Evolving Genres in Web-
mediated Communication. Bern: Peter Lang.

Cheng, X. & M.S. Steffensen (1996).
“Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student
writing”. Research in the Teaching of English
30(2): 149-181.

Crismore, A. (1984). “The rhetoric of textbooks:
Metadiscourse”. Journal of Curriculum Studies
16(3): 279-96.

Crismore, A., R. Markkanen & M.S. Steffensen
(1993). “Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A
study of texts written by American and Finnish
University students”. Written Communication
10(1): 39-71.

Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). “The pragmatic role of
textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers



A TALE OF ThrEE WAVEs: Or, COnCErnIng ThE hIsTOry AnD ThEOry OF METADIsCOursE

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-34 31

in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A
cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse”.
Journal of Pragmatics 40(1): 95-113.

Dällenbach, L. (1977). Le récit spéculaire. Essai
sur la mise en abyme. Paris: Seuil.

Danesi, M. (2016). Language, Society, and New
Media: Sociolinguistics Today. London: Routledge.

D’Angelo, L. (2016). Academic Posters: A Textual
and Visual Metadiscourse Analysis. Bern: Peter
Lang.

D’Angelo, L. (2018). “Disciplinary cultures in
academic posters: A textual and visual
metadiscourse analysis”. Lingue e linguaggi 28:
69-83.

Davies, J. & G. Merchant (2007). “Looking from
the inside out: Academic blogging as new literacy”
in C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (eds.), A New
Literacies Sampler, 167-198. New York: Peter
Lang.

De Groot, E., C. Nickerson, H. Korzilius & M.
Gerritsen (2016). “Picture this: Developing a
model for the analysis of visual metadiscourse”.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication

30(2): 165-201.

Delibegović Džanić, N. & S. Berberović (forthc.).
“Lemons and watermelons: Visual advertising and
conceptual blending” in A. Mauranen, L. D’Angelo
& S.M. Maci (eds.), Insights into Metadiscourse:
New Research and Approaches in Digital

Communication. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fechine, L.A.R. & A.L. Pontes (2012). “The visual
metadiscourse of the inserts of an English
dictionary”. Calidoscópio 10(3): 294-300.

Fendri, E. (2020). “A comparative analysis of
identity construction in digital academic discourse:
Tunisian EFL students as a case study” in L.
D’Angelo, S. Consonni & P. Anesa (eds.), Digital
Communication and Metadiscourse: Changing

Perspectives in Academic Genres, 73-101.
Bergamo: Cerlis.

Ferraris, M. (1986). La svolta testuale. Il
decostruzionismo in Derrida, Lyotard, gli Yale

Critics. Milano: Unicopli.

Flam, J. (2009). “Carl Einstein and metasculpture”.
Notes in the History of Art 29(1): 31-34.

Foucault, M. (1966). The Order of Things: An
Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Translated
by Alan Sheridan. London: Routledge, 2002.

Foucault, M. (1969). The Archaeology of
Knowledge. Translated by A.M. Sheridan Smith.
New York: Pantheon, 1972.

Fuertes-Olivera, P.A., M. Velasco-Sacristán, A.
Arribas-Baño & E. Samaniego-Fernández (2001).
“Persuasion and advertising English:
Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines”. Journal
of Pragmatics 33(8): 1291-1307.

Garzone, G., G. Poncini & P. Catenaccio (eds.)
(2007). Multimodality in Corporate
Communication: Web Genres and Discursive

Identity. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

Giordano, M.V. & M.A. Marongiu (2020). “‘And as I
said at the beginning, this is a journey in which we
are embarking’: Metadiscourse as a rhetorical
strategy in online teaching methodology courses”,
in L. D’Angelo, S. Consonni & P. Anesa (eds.),
Digital Communication and Metadiscourse:

Changing Perspectives in Academic Genres, 129-
159. Bergamo: Cerlis.

Halliday, M.A.K. (2002). On Grammar. London:
Continuum.

Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). An Introduction to
Functional Grammar: Third Edition. London:
Hodder Arnold.

Harris, Z.S. (1970 [1959]). “Linguistic
transformations for information retrieval” in Z.S.
Harris, Papers in Structural and Transformational
Linguistics, 458-471. Dordrecht: Springer.

Hutcheon, L. (1980). Narcissistic Narrative: The
Metafictional Paradox. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid
Laurier University Press.

Hyland, K. (1998). “Persuasion and context: The
pragmatics of academic metadiscourse”. Journal
of Pragmatics 30(4): 437-455.

Hyland, K. (2004). “Graduates’ attitude: The
generic structure of dissertation
acknowledgements”. English for Specific
Purposes 23(3): 303-324.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring
Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2017). “Metadiscourse: What is it and
where is it going?”. Journal of Pragmatics 113: 16-
29.

Hyland, K. & P. Tse (2004). “Metadiscourse in
academic writing: A reappraisal”. Applied
Linguistics 25(2): 156-177.

Hyland. K. & C. Sancho-Guinda (eds.) (2012).
Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Intaraprawat, P. & M.S. Steffensen (1995). “The
use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL
essays”. Journal of Second Language Writing
4(3): 253-272.



LArIssA D’AngELO & sTEFAnIA COnsOnnI

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-3432

Jakobson, R. (1960). “Linguistics and poetics” in
D. Lodge & N. Wood (eds.), Modern Criticism and
Theory: A Reader, 32‐57. London: Longman.

Jakobson, R. (1985). “Metalanguage as a linguistic
problem” in S. Rudy (ed.), Selected Writings: Vol.
VII, 113-121. The Hague: Mouton.

Jones, R.H., A. Chik & C.A. Hafner (eds.) (2015).
Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing Discourse

Analysis in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge.

Kant, I. (1790). Critique of the Power of
Judgement. Translated by P. Guyer & E.
Matthews. Cambridge: CUP.

Kiilerich, B. (2001). “Savedoff, Frames and
Parergonality”. Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism 59(3): 320-233.

Kress, G. & T. Van Leeuwen (1996). Reading
Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London:
Routledge.

Kumpf, E.P. (2000). “Visual metadiscourse:
Designing the considerate text”. Technical
Communication Quarterly 9(4): 401-424.

Kuteeva, M. (2011). “Wikis and academic writing:
Changing the writer-reader relationship”. English
for Specific Purposes 30(1): 44-57.

Kuteeva, M. (2016). “Research blogs, tweets, and
wikis” in K. Hyland & P. Shaw (eds.), The
Routledge Handbook of English for Academic

Purposes, 433-445. London: Routledge.

Kuteeva, M. & A. Mauranen (2018). “Digital
academic discourse: Texts and contexts”.
Discourse, Context & Media 24: 1-7.

Leech, G. & M. Short (1987). Style in Fiction: A
Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose.
Harlow: Pearson & Longman.

Luzón, M.J. (2006). “Research group-blogs: Sites
for self-presentation and collaboration” in C.P.
Neumann, R. Pló & C. Pérez-Llantada (eds.),
Proceedings of the 5th International AELFE

Conference, 629-634. Zaragoza: Prensas
Universitarias.

Luzón, M.J. (2010). “Bloggers’ status and social
presence in academic weblogs” in R. Lorés, P. Mur
& E. Lafuente (eds.), Constructing Interpersonality:
Multiple Perspectives on Written Academic

Genres, 295-310. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars.

Luzόn, M.J. (2012). “‘Your argument is wrong’: A
contribution to the study of evaluation in academic
weblogs”. Text & Talk 32(2): 145-165.

Luzόn, M.J. (2013a). “Narratives in academic
blogs” in M. Gotti & C. Sancho-Guinda (eds.),

Narratives in Academic and Professional Genres,
175-193. Bern: Peter Lang.

Luzόn, M.J. (2013b). “Public Communication of
science in blogs recontextualizing scientific
discourse for a diversified audience”. Written
Communication 30(4): 428-457.

Luzón, M.J. (2018). “Constructing academic
identities online: Identity performance in research
group blogs written by multilingual scholars”.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 33: 24-
39.

Maci, S.M. (2016). “A framework for medical poster
multimodal analysis: A pilot study” in F. Daniele &
G. Garzone (eds.), Communicating Science,
Popularizing Science, 49-71. Milano:
FrancoAngeli.

Malavasi, D. (2020). “Academic writing vs.
blogging: Paul Krugman as a case study” in M.
Gotti, S.M. Maci & M. Sala (eds.), Scholarly
Pathways: Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge

Exchange in Academia, 83-101. Bern: Peter Lang.

Mannion, R. (2019). Mise en Abyme: Immersive
Performance and Composition Practices through

Interdisciplinarity, Collaboration and Music

Technology. PhD thesis. London: Royal College of
Music.

Mauranen, A. (1993a). “Contrastive ESP rhetoric:
Metatext in Finnish-English economic texts”.
English for Specific Purposes 12(1): 3-22.

Mauranen, A. (1993b). Cultural Differences in
Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study. Bern:
Peter Lang.

Mauranen, A. (2010a). “Discourse reflexivity: A
discourse universal? The case of ELF”. Nordic
Journal of English Studies 9(2): 13-40.

Mauranen, A. (2010b). “Features of English as a
lingua franca in academia”. Helsinki English
Studies 6(6): 6-28.

Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic
English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers.
Cambridge: CUP.

Mauranen, A. (2013). “Hybridism, edutainment,
and doubt: Science blogging finding its feet”.
Nordic Journal of English Studies 12(1): 7-36.

Mauranen, A. (forthc.). “‘Gonna write about it on
my blog too’: Metadiscourse in research blog
discussions” in A. Mauranen, L. D’Angelo & S.
Maci (eds.), Insights into Metadiscourse: New
Research and Approaches in Digital

Communication, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

MacIntyre, R. (2020). “Citation machines: The use
of evidentials in the academic writing of Japanese



A TALE OF ThrEE WAVEs: Or, COnCErnIng ThE hIsTOry AnD ThEOry OF METADIsCOursE

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-34 33

university students” in L. D’Angelo, S. Consonni &
P. Anesa (eds.), Digital Communication and
Metadiscourse: Changing Perspectives in

Academic Genres, 55-72. Bergamo: Cerlis.

Miller, C.R. & S. Dawn (2004). “Blogging as social
action: A genre analysis of the weblog” in L.J.
Gurak, S. Antonijevic, L. Johnson, C. Ratliff & J.
Reyman (eds.), Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric,
Community, and Culture of Weblogs. URL:
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/blogging_as_
social_action_a_genre_analysis_of_the_weblog.h
tml [18/02/2021].

Mortensen, T. & J. Walker (2002). “Blogging
thoughts: Personal publication as an online
research tool” in A. Morrison (ed.), Researching
ICTs in Context, 249-279. Oslo: InterMedia Report.

Myers, G. (2010). The Discourse of Blogs and
Wikis. London: Continuum.

Nash, W. (1992). An Uncommon Tongue. London:
Routledge.

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2010). “The discourse
functions of metadiscourse in published academic
writing: Issues of culture and language”. Nordic
Journal of English Studies, 9(2): 41-68.

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2016). “How is the digital
medium shaping research genres? Some cross-
disciplinary trends”. ESP Today 4: 22-42.

Puschmann, C. (2013). “Blogging” in S. Herring, D.
Stein & T. Virtanen (eds.), Pragmatics of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 83-108.
Berlin: De Gruyter.

Rodway. C.L. (2018). “Metadiscourse use in a
dialogic feedback practice”. Educational Sciences:
Theory and Practice 18(4): 797-812.

Sancho-Guinda, C. (forthc.). “This has changed:
‘Out-of-the-box’ metadiscourse in scientific
graphical abstracts”, in A. Mauranen, L. D’Angelo
& S.M. Maci (eds.), Insights into Metadiscourse:
New Research and Approaches in Digital

Communication. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sancho-Guinda, C. (ed.) (2019). Engagement in
Professional Genres. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

Sclafani, J. (2017). Talking Donald Trump: A
Sociolinguistic Study of Style, Metadiscourse, and

Political Identity. London: Routledge.

Sinclair, J.M. & R.M. Coulthard (1975). Towards an
Analysis of Discourse: The English used by

Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: OUP.

Stead, N. (2017). “Within and without
architecture”. Places Journal, January 2017.
https://doi.org/10.22269.170110.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in
Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:
CUP.

Taavitsainen, I. (1999). “Metadiscursive practices
and the evolution of early English medical writing
(1375-1550)” in J.M. Kirk (ed.), Corpora Galore:
Analyses and Techniques in Describing English,
191-207. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Thompson, G. (2001). “Interaction in academic
writing: Learning to argue with the reader”. Applied
Linguistics 22(1): 58-78.

Thompson, S.E. (2003). “Text-structuring
metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of
organisation in academic lectures”. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 2(1): 5-20.

Thomson, J.J. (2020). “Attitude markers in upper
secondary pupil essays across educational
contexts and genres”, in L. D’Angelo, S. Consonni
& P. Anesa (eds.), Digital Communication and
Metadiscourse: Changing Perspectives in

Academic Genres, 22-54. Bergamo: Cerlis.

Trench, B. (2008). “Internet: Turning science
communication inside-out” in M. Bucchi & B.
Trench (eds.), Handbook of Public Communication
of Science and Technology, 185-198. London:
Routledge.

Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). “Some exploratory
discourse on metadiscourse”, College
Composition and Communication 36(1): 82-93.

Walker, J. (2006). “Blogging from inside the ivory
tower” in A. Bruns & J. Jacobs (eds.), Uses of
Blogs, 127-138. New York: Peter Lang.

Waugh, P. (1984). Metafiction: The Theory and
Practice of Self-Conscious Fiction. London:
Routledge.

Williams, E. (1981). “Argument structure and
morphology”. Linguistic Review 1(1), 81-114.

Winckelmann, J.J. (1850). The History of Ancient
Art Among the Greeks. Translated by G.H. Lodge.
Miami: Hard Press, 2017.

Yus, F. (2015). “Interactions with readers through
online specialized genres: specificity or
adaptability?” in L. Gil-Salmon & C. Soler-Monreal
(eds.), Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres,
189-208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Zappavigna, M. (2018). Searchable Talk:
Hashtags and Social Media Metadiscourse.
London: Bloomsbury.

Zou, H. & K. Hyland (2019). “Reworking research:
Interactions in academic articles and blogs”.
Discourse Studies 21(6): 713-733.



Larissa D’Angelo is Associate Professor of  English language at the
Department of  Foreign Languages, Literatures and Cultures of  the
university of  bergamo and an active member of  the research Centre on
Languages for specific Purposes (CErLIs). her main research interests deal
with the translation of  texts aimed at Children and young Adults, Audio-
visual Translation and multimodal genre analyses.

Stefania Consonni is a researcher in English linguistics at the university of
bergamo (Italy). she has published books and essays on textual paradigms
and narratology; the semiotics of  visual and verbal language; the history and
theory of  spatialization and visualization; the semiotic, pragmatic and
epistemological features of  traditional and new genres within academic,
scientific, entertainment and media discourse.

NOTES 

1 Although this paper has been planned jointly, stefania Consonni is responsible for sections 1-2 and

Larissa D’Angelo for section 3.

2 Metadiscourse Across Genres (MAG) 2019: Metadiscourse in Digital Communication: What has changed? An

International Conference hosted by CErLIs, university of  bergamo, Italy (27-29 June 2019). urL:

https://dllcs.unibg.it/it/seminari-e-convegni/convegni-e-workshop/mag-2019.

LArIssA D’AngELO & sTEFAnIA COnsOnnI

Ibérica 40 (2020): 13-3434