Metadiscourse

Metadiscourse refers to the elements of a text that help readers interpret the discourse beyond its propositional content. It encompasses devices that organize the text, signal the writer’s stance, and engage the reader, rather than contributing to the subject matter itself. Examples include transitions that connect ideas, frame markers that indicate the structure of the argument, endophoric references that point to other parts of the text, and explanations or glosses that clarify terms or concepts.

A widely cited framework in the study of metadiscourse is Hyland’s model, which partitions metadiscourse into interactive and interactional components. Interactive metadiscourse consists of devices that help readers navigate the text’s organization: transitions (for example, therefore, however), frame markers (in this paper, first, to conclude), and endophoric markers that refer to other sections of the text. Interactional metadiscourse signals the writer’s stance toward the content and the reader, including attitude markers (unfortunately, clearly), hedges (perhaps, probably), boosters (indeed, clearly), engagement markers that address the reader (you can see), and self-mentions (I argue, this study).

Metadiscourse is commonly found in academic writing but also appears in journalism and public discourse. Its use can affect readability, perceived objectivity, and persuasive impact, shaping how readers interpret arguments and follow reasoning. Researchers study metadiscourse to understand genre conventions, cross-cultural differences, and how writers manage uncertainty, emphasis, and audience engagement across contexts.