The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students
Abstract
Metadiscourse refers to writers' discourse about their discourse—their directions for how readers should read, react to, and evaluate what they have written about the subject matter. In this study the authors divided metadiscourse into textual metadiscourse (text markers and interpretive markers) and interpersonal metadiscourse (hedges, certainty markers, attributors, attitude markers, and commentary). The purpose was to investigate cultural and gender variations in the use of metadiscourse in the United States and Finland by asking whether U.S. and Finnish writers use the same amounts and types and whether gender makes any difference. The analyses revealed that students in both countries used all categories and subcategories, but that there were some cultural and gender differences in the amounts and types used. Finnish students and male students used more metadiscourse than U.S. students and female students. Students in both countries used much more interpersonal than textual metadiscourse with Finnish males using the most and U.S. males the least. The study provides partial evidence for the universality of metadiscourse and suggests the need for more cross-cultural studies of its use and/or more attention to it in teaching composition.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline?
Dahl, T. (2004) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004 · Cited by 433
Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse
Hyland, K. (1998) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/s0378-2166(98)00009-5 · Cited by 422
Predicting second language writing proficiency: the roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012) · Journal of Research in Reading · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x · Cited by 331
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002 · Cited by 256
Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives
Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010) · Nordic Journal of English Studies · doi:10.35360/njes.215 · Cited by 185
Metadata
- Authors
- CRISMORE, A., MARKKANEN, R., & STEFFENSEN, M. S.
- Venue
- Written Communication
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1993-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-71
- ISSN
- 0741-0883 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8472
- OpenAlex
- W2040826310
- Cited by
- 743
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 52.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0741088393010001002
- The paper
- CRISMORE, A., MARKKANEN, R., & STEFFENSEN, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students. Written Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.