A functional analysis of metadiscourse markers in political discourse: Persuasive strategies in Netanyahu’s speeches
Vol.18,No.2(2025)
Discourse and Interaction
Bahram Kazemian
Shatha Naiyf Qaiwer
This study aims to examine the persuasive impact of metadiscourse (MD) markers in political speeches. It seeks to determine the extent to which MD practices contribute to the construction of persuasive discourse within this genre. To achieve this objective, a discourse analysis is applied to ten political speeches delivered by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel. Hyland’s (2005a, 2005b) interpersonal models of MD are employed to investigate the frequency and persuasive impact of interactive and interactional devices utilized in speeches. The research has revealed that the persuasive intent conveyed through MD was largely dependent on the context. Consequently, Netanyahu often employed a combination of techniques to structure his discourse, influence audiences, capture their attention, and engage them in arguments. In addition, interactional devices were employed more frequently than interactive ones, indicating that engaging audiences in arguments and demonstrating one’s stance and assessment of propositions were more likely to contribute to the construction of a persuasive political speech. The research results can be shared with foreign and second language learners, instructors, and speakers to enhance their understanding of the linguistic and pragmatic conventions employed in political discourse. Additionally, it can shed light on how persuasive discourse is constructed using MD markers.
persuasion; Netanyahu’ speeches; audience; political discourse; metadiscourse markers
Bahram Kazemian
Islamic Azad Univercity
Bahram Kazemian, a PhD holder in English Language and Linguistics from Islamic Azad University, Iran, is an academic researcher. He currently serves as the managing director of the Unique Language Center in Tabriz, Iran. His major thrust areas of expertise encompass Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), critical discourse analysis, rhetoric and rhetorical devices, Appraisal Framework, TEFL, TESOL, and metadiscourse markers.
Shatha Naiyf Qaiwer
Department of English, College of Education for Women, University of Baghdad, Iraq.
Shatha N. Qaiwer holds a Ph.D. in English Language and Linguistics from the University of Nottingham, UK. Currently, she holds a teaching position at the University of Baghdad, College of Education for Women, the Department of English. Her research interests encompass discourse and language studies.
Abusalim, N., Zidouni, S., Alghazo, S., Rababah, G., & Rayyan, M. (2022). Textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in political discourse: A case study. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 9(1), 2124683. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2022.2124683
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, pp. 69-97.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.
Cao, F. & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007
Chen, Y. (2017). On identity construction strategies in Hillary Clinton’s campaign speech. In L. Sun, L. Hale, Q. Fan, & J. Zhang (Eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth Northeast Asia International Symposium on Language, Literature and Translation (pp. 467-473). The American Scholars Press.
Cuddon, J. A. (2012). A dictionary of literary terms and literary theory. Wiley.
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. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2007.10.003
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2008). Some functions of self-reference in diplomatic addresses. Discourse and Interaction 1(1), 7–24.
Fraser, B. (2010). Hedging in political discourse. Perspectives in politics and discourse, 36, 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.36.16fra
Ho, V. (2016). Discourse of persuasion: A preliminary study of the use of metadiscourse in policy documents. Text & Talk, 36(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2016-0001
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jslw.2004.02.001
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(1), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Kashiha, H. (2021). Stance-taking across monologic and dialogic modes of academic speech. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 39(4), 352–362. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2021.1964371
Kashiha, H. (2022). On persuasive strategies: Metadiscourse practices in political speeches. Discourse and Interaction, 15(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI20221-77
Kazemian, B. (2015). Describing discourse: A practical guide to discourse analysis. Asian Journal of Communication, 25(5), 546–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2015 .1076991
Kazemian, B., & Hashemi, S. (2014). Critical discourse analysis of Barack Obama’s 2012 speeches: Views from systemic functional linguistics and rhetoric. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(6), 1178–1187. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.6.11781187
Kazemian, B., Qaiwer, S. N., & Mohammadian, S. (2021). Islamification vs. islamophobia: A message to the youth in the occident: Critical and rhetorical inquiries. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 12(5), 786–799. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1205.19
Mai, H. (2016). An intercultural analysis of meta-discourse markers as persuasive power in Chinese and American political speeches. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 4(6), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20160406.13
Mansour, E., & Alghazo, S. M. (2021). Hedging in political discourse: The case of Trump’s speeches. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures, 13(3), 375–399. https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.13.3.1
Miššíková, G. (2007). Maxim hedges in political discourse: A contrastive perspective. Topics in Linguistics, 1, 145–152.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Guilt as a mechanism of persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pifatu (Eds.) The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 329–344). Sage.
Rosingana, G. C. (2018). Fictionalizing scenarios in political discourse. In J. Pelclová & W. Lu (Eds.) Persuasion in public discourse (pp. 85–108). John Benjamins.
van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250
Veloso, F. O., & Feng, D. (2018). “The end is near”: Negative attitude and fear in political discourse. In J. Pelclová & W. Lu (Eds.) Persuasion in public discourse (pp. 109–124). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.79.06vel
Woods, N. (2006). Describing discourse: A practical guide to discourse analysis. Routledge.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2025 Dr., Dr.