A Comparative Analysis of Audience Metadiscourse Used in Chinese and American New Year Speeches


  • Yijia Fang




Audience Metadiscourse; New Year Speeches; Metapragmatic Awareness.


Audience metadiscourse refers to the speech choices made by the speakers to indicate their metapragmatic awareness of the audience. It encompasses expressions including directly referring to the audience as “you” and “we”, generic expressions, imperative expressions, and rhetorical interrogative expressions. This study primarily focuses on describing and analyzing the representational forms, pragmatic functions, and different metapragmatic awareness reflected in audience metadiscourse in self-built corpus of Chinese-American new year speeches during about ten years. This study helps to enrich the dimensions of metapragmatic analysis by focusing on the pragmatic functions and usage of audience discourse from the perspective of the audience, highlighting the interpersonal and interactive nature of language use.


Download data is not yet available.


Al-Subhi, A. S. 2022. Metadiscourse in online advertising: Exploring linguistic and visual metadiscourse in social media advertisements. [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, (187):24-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.027

Ädel, A. 2006. Crismore,A.,R. Markkanen & M. Steffensen. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing:A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students [J]. Written Communication, (1):39.

Ädel, A. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24

Ädel, A. 2010. Just to give you a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. [J]. Nordic Journal of English Studies, (2):69-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.218

Ädel, A. 2017. Remember that your reader cannot read your mind: Problem/solution-oriented metadiscourse in teacher feedback on student writing. [J]. English for Specific Purposes, (45):54-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.002

Birhan, A. T. 2021. An exploration of metadiscourse usage in book review articles across three academic disciplines: a contrastive analysis of corpus-based research approach. [J]. Scientometrics, (126):2885-2902. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03822-w

Crismore A. 1989. Talking with readers: metadiscourse as rhetorical act. [M]. New York: Peter Lang, (4):96.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. [M]. Written communication, 10(1):39-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002

Caliendo, G. & A. Compagnone. 2014. Expressing epistemic stance in university lectures and TED talks: A contrastive corpus-based analysis. [J]. Lingue Linguaggi, (11):105-122.

Dafouz-Milne, E. 2008. The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. [J]. Journal of pragmatics, (40):95-113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003

Farghal, M., & Kalakh, B. 2019. Engagement in translation: Interactional metadiscourse markers in American presidential debates. [J]. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures, 12(1):103-122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.12.1.7

Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. 2010. Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. [J]. Journal of English for Academic purposes, (2):128-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004

Hyland, K. 1998b. Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, (4):437-455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5

Hyland, K & Polly Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal [J]. Applied Linguistics, (25):156-177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156

Hyland, K. 2004. Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2):133-151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001

Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse. [M]. London: Contiuum.

Hyland, K. 2010. Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, (2): 116-127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003

Hyland, K. 2019. Metadiscourse: Exploring writing in interaction (2nd ed.). [M]. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hübler, A. 2011. Metapragamatics. [A]. In W. Bublitz & N. Norrick (eds.). Foundations of Pragmatics. [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hu, G., & Cao, F. 2015. Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. [J] English for Specific Purposes, (39):12-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.002

Ho, Victor., & Li, Cissy. 2018. The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students' timed argumentative essays. [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, (33):3-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001

Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. 2016. Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, (33):21-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004

Mai, H. 2016. An intercultural analysis of meta-discourse markers as persuasive power in Chinese and American political speeches. [J]. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, (6):207-219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20160406.13

Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. 2015. The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, (20):135-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003

Mirzaeian, E. 2020. An intra-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers used in Obama and Trump’s speeches on the Iran nuclear deal. Corpus Pragmatics, (4):191-205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00076-7

Wu X & Yang H. 2022. Unpacking the Functions of Personal Metadiscourse in Teachers’ Classroom DisVerschueren, 2000course. [J]. Sustainability. 2022; (14):1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013502

Verschueren. 2000. Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. [J]. Pragmatics, (4):439-456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.4.02ver

Čech, R. 2014. Language and ideology: quantitative thematic analysis of New Year speeches given by Czechoslovak and Czech presidents (1949-2011). [J]. Qual Quant, (48):899-910. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9811-3

Cheng X G.2009. The construction of subjectivity and intersubjectivity in the perspective of Philosophy of language [J]. Foreign Language Teaching and Learning, (1):9-15.

Chen Xin-Ren. 2020. A new model of meta-discourse classification based on meta-pragmatics [J]. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching, (4):1-9.

Chang Yixin.2022. A comparative analysis of the interpersonal meaning of German and Chinese New Year Speeches from the perspective of Discourse Analysis. [J]. Western Journal, (171):28-33.

Fu Xiaoli & Xu jiujiu. 2012. New progress in international meta-discourse research. [J]. Current Linguistics, (14):260-271.

Guo H W, & Lu J W.2020. A comparative study on multi-dimensional functions of teachers' classroom meta-discourse. Modern Foreign Languages, 43(2): 248-259.

Jiang H.2019. Meta-pragmatics: Concepts, applications and prospects. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, (4):138-150.

Jiang H. 2020. Meta-pragmatic analysis of audience meta-discourse in TED Talks [J]. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching, (4):24-34.

Mai Hongyu & Shi Xiaoran. 2020. A comparative analysis of metaphors used in New Year's Messages in the United States, China and Singapore. Comparative Research on cultural Innovation, (1):85-86.

Ma Wenxing. 2020. Analysis of Critical discourse in American President's New Year Address. Xi 'an International Studies University.

Ran Z Han & Ran Y P.2015. Meta-discourse research from the perspective of Discourse analysis: Problems and breakthroughs. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching, (2):38-44.

Wang Yingpin.2022. A comparative study on meta-discourse features of Chinese and German leaders' New Year speeches. Journal of Tongji University (Social Science Edition), 33(1):116-128.

Yang Zhenyu & Liu Fengguang. 2017. The construction of pragmatic identity in US President Obama's New Year Address. Journal of Language Education, 5(2):28-32.




How to Cite

Fang, Y. (2023). A Comparative Analysis of Audience Metadiscourse Used in Chinese and American New Year Speeches. BCP Education & Psychology, 10, 134–147. https://doi.org/10.54691/bcpep.v10i.5215