A reframing of models may be required when analysying interpersonal metadiscourse, especially when the focus of analysis is on variations accross genre, as in the case proposed by Bednarek (2008). Unless the model applied is general enough to cater for differences across corpora, it should be reformulated, or at least adapted. Otherwise, we may run the risk of imposing ready-made categories (originally emerging from other genres) to other discoursal units, and, in consequence, on different types of meanings. 

Thank you for your comment, Mariana, I couldn't agree more. In fact, apart from my article (2016) where I advocate for a triangulation of genre, discipline and language when it comes to interpersonal discourse analyses, I am preparing a round table on this specific subject together with other colleagues from the universities of Zaragoza and Milan (Italy), to be proposed and held -if accepted- at the CILC (Congreso Internacional de Lingüística de Corpus) Conference, to be held in Paris next 2017. It would be nice to meet you there.

Thank you Francisca for your answer. It would be very nice to meet you in Paris. I was taking a look at the CfP, it looks very interesting. I am planning to attend the ESFLC in Salamanca on the same month. I am also planning to visit Manchester (UK) as an Erasmus scholar for a month next year, I have not decided when precisely, but it would be great to meet somewhere and even consider possibilities of joint work. When I read what you do, it reminds me of what I do. It seems that we have taken an interest in very similar areas of study. It is great to be in touch. 

Also thank you, Mariana, for your friendly answer. Yes, I think that we share similar interests in a number of academic issues. We'll surely keep in touch! If you finally decide to attend CILC 2017 in Paris, let me know. Best regards.

Dear Francisca Suau-Jiménez,

You have certainly broached up a very interesting question. More currently, many scholars (e.g., Ken Hyland, 2004) have expressed concern over the failure of the model in attaining its explanatory potentials. In point of fact, a number of problematic issues in metadiscourse research have been enumerated including lack of theoretical rigor, empirical confusion, multi functionality of metadiscourse items, and as you have rightly observed, variability of professional and social genres across different domains. As a consequence, a reframing and reappraisal of the model deems necessary. For more details, I refer you to the following files. I hope they can be helpful:

Best regards,

R. Biria

Dear Reza Biria,

Thank you for your answer and your interesting comments and files, some of which I already knew, especially Hyland and Tse (2004), which I have largely used in my own research and in my master's classes (www.uv.es/maes). It is true that the issues concerning the inner weakness of the model have been pointed out in a number of ways, but it is also true that, as far as I know, there haven't been serious theoretical or methodological proposals on how to tackle this problem. This is why I have posed the question here. As I said before, some colleagues and myself will hold a round table at the next CILC 2017 in Paris, where we'll attempt to pinpoint the problem taking into account our own research difficulties and results from different variables (corpus, genre, domain and language). We'll also try to reach some conclusions/proposals that can help further research. I would also like to refer you to the following file, which is my humble contribution to this matter so far. Once the round table is approved by the CILC committee I will announce it in this platform.

Best,

Francisca Suau-Jiménez

I would like to add something, with reference to my contribution (Suau-Jiménez 2015), referenced in the previous post. To me, a very important theoretical issue is that of interpersonal metadiscursive markers representing propositional content, which I claim for, in line with what Hyland & Tse (2004) already suggested, and in opposition to what Flowerdew (2015) stands for. 

Thank you Francisca, thank you Reza for your insightful comments. I have been involved in this dialogue on several occasions with various colleagues. I, like many other scholars, started my interpersonal metadiscursive anlysis following Hyland (e.g. 1998, 2005) and suddenly came to a point where I realised I was short of theoretical dimensions that could capture the complexity of the linguistic and social phenomenon under analysis. The problem also arises when you move to the scrutiny of other genres, which are, in a way, not so standardised or stable. Theoretical categories seem to work if you analyse academic genres, but when you attempt to move to others, the house of cards falls. In your paper Francisa (2015), you claim … “the construction of stance and engagement in these two web-genres is, […],the result of three contextual variables that constrain and shape their interpersonal pattern: language, genre and discipline" (p.216). I think that here lies the key: we need a theory that conceptualises language, genre and discipline  as a single, unified, indivisible phenomenon, and that theory cannot be one that is not a theory of discourse. In my experience, the only theory that is capable of incorporating all dimensions of meaning creating is Systemic Functional Linguistics, the System of Appraisal, in particular, for the analysis of interpersonalily and intrapersonality. Occasionally, I have combined the theory with more critical or historical approaches, like Wodak's (2000, 2003). It has worked perfectly for me. I hope it does for you too.

Dear Mariana,

Again thank you for your also very insightful comments! I departed from Systemic Functional Linguistics in some of my works (Suau-Jiménez 2001, 2010) and I think it is one of the more reliable theories since, among other things, it provides a solution to the dilemma between genre/register, which is at least tangent to many analyses. Halliday is to me one of the most insightful and reliable linguists when it comes to language in use, no doubt. And yes, the Appraisal theory seems to be able to solve problems related with stance and engagement in relation with content, thus assuming the propositional aspect of texts. However, since I have been working (and fighting) with interpersonal metadiscourse as a framework for analysis, I would like to deepen into it and try to bring a small contribution if possible. Both models (IM and AT) seem to be parallel frameworks in some aspects and it would be sensible to bear in mind this fact.