Prensas de la Universidad

miscelánea

vol. 69

2024

I S C E E AL Á N

literature, lm and

cultural studies

language

and linguistics

vol. 70

2024

a journal of english

and american studies

miscelánea

Literatura, cine

y estudios culturales

Lengua y lingüística

miscelánea

revista de estudios ingleses

y norteamericanos

vol. 70

2024

Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies

se publica con la ayuda económica del Departamento

de Filología Inglesa y Alemana de la Facultad de

Filosofía y Letras y del Vicerrectorado de Política

Científica de la Universidad de Zaragoza.

Publicación semestral (2 vols. al año) del Departamento

de Filología Inglesa y Alemana de la Universidad de

Zaragoza./ Published twice a year by the Department of

English and German Philology, University of Zaragoza,

Spain.

Las suscripciones deberán dirigirse a/

Please address subscriptions to:

Revista Miscelánea

Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza

Edicio de Ciencias Geológicas

C/ Pedro Cerbuna, 12. 50009 Zaragoza

puz@unizar.es http://puz.unizar.es

Precio de la suscripción (anual)/

Subscription price (2 volumes):

15 euros

(IVA incluido/ VAT included)

Edición y ©:

Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza

Departamento de Filología Inglesa y Alemana

de la Universidad de Zaragoza

Selección de textos:

Consejo de redacción de Miscelánea

Vol. 70 - Diciembre 2024

Dirección, coordinación, tratamiento de textos

y edición electrónica:

Silvia Pellicer Ortín (Literatura, cine

y estudios culturales)

Pilar Mur Dueñas (Lengua y lingüística)

Oana Maria Carciu (Reseñas)

Editora de producción:

María Ferrández San Miguel

Revisor de estilo:

Oliver Shaw

Lucía Alonso Ollacarizqueta

Auxiliares de redacción:

María Abizanda Cardona

Claudia Aguas Albero

Marta Bagüés Bautista

Andrés Buesa Artal

Yolanda Hernáiz Martínez

Laura Larrodera Arcega

Carmen Sáez González

Ana Sancho Ortiz

Paula Wood Borque

Diseño gráfico:

Isidro Ferrer

Maquetación:

Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza

Imprime:

Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Zaragoza.

ISSN: 1137-6368

e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Depósito legal: Z-2811-2004

Prensas de la Universidad

de Zaragoza

Departamento

de Filología Inglesa

y Alemana

miscelánea

a journal of english

and american studies

2024

Edición electrónica/

Internet homepage:

<https://papiro.unizar.es/ojs/index.php/misc>

Cuenta de Twitter:

@MiscelaneaUZ

Directoras/Editors:

Silvia Pellicer Ortín (literatura, cine y estudios culturales)

Universidad de Zaragoza

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8928-7295>

Pilar Mur Dueñas (lengua y lingüística)

Universidad de Zaragoza

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8966-1013>

Oana Maria Carciu (Reseñas). Universidad de Zaragoza

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5799-0461>

Ayudantes de dirección/Assistants to the Editors:

Marta Cerezo Moreno. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1986-4848>

Ignacio Palacios Martínez. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9202-9190>

Editora de producción/Copy Editor:

María Ferrández San Miguel. Universidad de Zaragoza

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4402-0815>

Redacción, correspondencia e intercambios:

Departamento de Filología Inglesa y Alemana

Facultad de Filosofía y Letras

Universidad de Zaragoza

50009 Zaragoza · Spain

Tel. 976 762413 – 976 761525

E-mail:

miscelanea@unizar.es

Edición en Red/Online Edition:

<https://papiro.unizar.es/ojs/index.php/misc>

miscelánea

Consejo Asesor/

Board of Advisors

Rosario Arias

Universidad de Málaga, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6252-3956>

Jean-Michel Ganteau

University Paul-Valéry, Montpellier III, Francia

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3147-0430>

Terttu Nevalainen

University of Helsinki, Finlandia

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3088-4903>

Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza

Ibáñez

Universidad de La Rioja, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1200-2850>

Consejo Cientíco y Evaluador/

Board of Referees

Annelie Ädel

Dalarn University, Suecia

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9706-0074>

Laura Alba Juez

Universidad Nacional de Educación a

Distancia, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3869-8494>

Eva Alcón Soler

Universitat Jaume I, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2261-5378>

Bárbara Arizti Martín

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8803-1308>

Sonia Baelo Allué

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1191-0160>

Antonio Andrés Ballesteros

González

Universidad Nacional de Educación a

Distancia, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3067-7712>

Gerd Bayer

University of Erlangen-Nurenberg, Alemania

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9831-0522>

Jesús Benito Sánchez

Universidad de Valladolid, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8819-3411>

Miguel Ángel Benítez Castro

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8514-5943>

Ana Bocanegra Valle

Universidad de Cádiz, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2856-0814>

Christoph Bode

Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich,

Alemania

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5006-5804>

Ruth Breeze

Universidad de Navarra, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8132-225X>

Joseph Brooker

Birkbeck College, University of London, Reino

Unido

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9245-010X>

Gert Buelens

Ghent University, Bélgica

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2683-0059>

David Callahan

University of Aveiro, Portugal

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4183-6691>

Javier Calle Martín

Universidad de Málaga, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1040-5979>

Johan Callens

Free University of Brussels, Bélgica

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1506-5942>

Mónica Calvo Pascual

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3846-468X>

Isabel Carrera Suárez

Universidad de Oviedo, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7121-6528>

Frederic Chaume Varela

Universitat Jaume I, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4843-5228>

María Rocío Cobo Piñero

Universidad de Sevilla, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3814-7799>

Francisco Collado Rodríguez

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2922-9194>

Juan Camilo Conde Silvestre

Universidad de Murcia, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6985-0036>

Stef Craps

Ghent University, Bruselas, Bélgica

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6720-1689>

Maria Josep Cuenca

Universidad de Valencia, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8606-713>

Rocío G. Davis

Universidad de Navarra, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1417-9702>

Celestino Deleyto Alcalá

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3087-4556>

Marc Delrez

University of Liège, Bélgica

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0817-8407>

Jorge Díaz Cintas

Imperial College, London, Reino Unido

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1058-5757>

Olga Dontcheva-Navratilova

Masaryk University, República Checa

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0378-7975>

Isabel Durán Giménez-Rico

Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6026-0184>

Maite Escudero Alías

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3116-3641>

Gibson Ferguson

University of Shefeld, Reino Unido

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5748-577X>

Javier Fernández Polo

Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1657-9323>

María del Mar Gallego Duran

Universidad de Huelva, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5518-7667>

María Luisa García Lecumberri

Universidad del País Vasco, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8651-7558>

Luis Miguel García Mainar

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3169-5920>

Cristina Garrigós González

Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia,

España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8047-9733>

Rosa González Casademont

Universidad de Barcelona, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2038-0699>

Constante González Groba

Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0556-8362>

Pilar González Vera

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4919-8113>

Maurizio Gotti

University of Bergamo, Italia

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7203-4830>

Ignacio Guillén Galve

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5304-1290>

Christian Gutleben

University of Nice, Francia

Felicity Hand

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3766-6266>

Luc Herman

University of Antwerp, Bélgica

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6013-2900>

María Isabel Herrando Rodrigo

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3895-5534>

María Dolores Herrero Granado

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1363-0189>

Tamar Jeffers-McDonald

University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, Reino Unido

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4905-2525>

Deborah Jermyn

University of Roehampton, London, Reino Unido

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9261-9887>

Jane Jordan

Kingston University, London, Reino Unido

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2129-6504>

Enrique Lafuente Millán

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4783-3953>

Rosa Lorés Sanz

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5574-6182>

Hilaria Loyo Gómez

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4933-2199>

Zenón Luis Martínez

Universidad de Huelva, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5228-7822>

María José Luzón Marco

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0454-5457>

Ana Manzanas Calvo

Universidad de Salamanca, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9830-638X>

Belén Martín Lucas

Universidad de Vigo, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5660-1559>

Paula Martín Salván

Universidad de Córdoba, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8514-2670>

María Jesús Martínez Alfaro

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7335-7690>

Silvia Martínez Falquina

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8054-095X>

Sergio Maruenda Bataller

Universitat de València, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3041-0110>

Paul McDonald

University of Nottingham, Reino Unido

Arsenio Jesús Moya Guijarro

Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha,

España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6591-6680>

Laura Muresan

The Bucharest University of Economic

Studies, Bucharest, Rumanía

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5585-2863>

Silvia Murillo Ornat

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1369-3590>

Marita Nadal Blasco

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2902-7613>

Claus-Peter Neumann

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6950-9153>

Elena Oliete Aldea

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8197-1199>

Susana Onega Jaén

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1672-4276>

Beatriz Oria Gómez

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0663-0519>

Nieves Pascual Soler

Universidad Internacional de Valencia,

España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8962-5298>

Viorica Eleonora Patea Birk

Universidad de Salamanca, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3291-5574>

Beatriz Penas Ibáñez

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2418-4695>

Javier Pérez Guerra

Universidad de Vigo, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8882-667X>

Ramón Plo Alastrué

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1151-1661>

Juan Antonio Prieto Pablos

Universidad de Sevilla, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8912-2818>

Paula Rautionaho

University of Eastern Finland, Finlandia

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5239-8407>

Constanza del Río Álvaro

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3370-3020>

María Isabel Romero Ruiz

Universidad de Málaga, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8084-4865>

Miguel F. Ruiz Garrido

Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9647-1039>

Noelia Ruiz Madrid

Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9800-5624>

Manuela Ruiz Pardos

Universidad de Zaragoza, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9115-1020>

Dora Sales Salvador

Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6290-2013>

Lena Steveker

University of Luxembourg, Luxemburgo

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6234-6790>

Juan Antonio Suárez Sánchez

Universidad de Murcia, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8303-044>

Rubén Valdés Miyares

Universidad de Oviedo, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9564-595X>

Javier Valenzuela

Universidad de Murcia, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0007-7943>

Rafael Vélez Núñez

Universidad de Cádiz, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0405-7357>

Francisco Yus Ramos

Universidad de Alicante, España

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5276-3251>

Krystyna Warchał

University of Silesia, Polonia

<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8422-4911>

Articles

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive

Study of Textual References in L2 Czech

Master’s Theses and Native English

Academic Writing

Marcadores endofóricos: un estudio

contrastivo de las referencias textuales

en el inglés académico de trabajos n

de máster escritos por estudiantes

checos en inglés como segunda lengua

y por hablantes nativos

MARIE LAHODOVÁ VALIŠOVÁ

(Masaryk University, Czech Republic)

table of contents

KATARZYNA MATLAS

(University of Silesia in Katowice,

Poland)

‘Feedback Means the World to Me’:

Constructing Proximity in Canon-

compliant Fanction

‘Feedback Means the World to Me’:

la construcción de la proximidad

en la fancción ajustada al canon

ROCÍO RIESTRA-CAMACHO

(Universidad de Oviedo)

Verbal and Non-verbal Realizations of

Persuasive Strategies in Video Resumes

Formas verbales y no verbales

de estrategias persuasivas en los

videocurrículums

Spaces of S(h)elf-Care: Therapeutic

Narrative Readings of Anorexia

Espacios de auto(cción)-cuidado:

lecturas narrativas terapéuticas en la

anorexia

117

Articles

MARÍA ÁNGELES MESTRE-SEGARRA

(Universitat Jaume I)

ANNA MICHELLE SABATINI

(Universidad Nacional

de Educación a Distancia, UNED)

Metempsychosis and Individual Identity

in Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Black Cat”

Metempsicosis e identidad individual en

“El gato negro” de Edgar Allan Poe

ENCARNACIÓN ALMAZÁN-RUIZ

(Universidad de Jaén)

AROA ORREQUIA-BAREA

(Universidad de Cádiz)

A Corpus Study of Brexit Political

Discourse: Exploring Modality through

Lexical Modals

Un estudio de corpus sobre el discurso

político del Brexit: la modalidad a través

de los modales léxicos

139

159

177

Articles

LUCÍA RAMÍREZ GARCÍA

(Universidad de Málaga)

AÍDA DÍAZ BILD

(Universidad de La Laguna) Reading Martin Amis’s Recreation of

the Perpetrator’s Gaze in The Zone of

Interest

La recreación de la mirada del

perpetrador en The Zone of Interest, de

Martin Amis

Static and Kinetic Utopianism in

Octavia Butler’s Parable of The Sower

Utopismo estático y cinético en La

parábola del sembrador de Octavia

Butler

197

FRANCISCO JOSÉ CORTÉS VIECO

(Universidad Complutense de Madrid) An Education for (Future) Health

Professionals and Literary Scholars:

Audre Lorde’s The Cancer Journals and

Marisa Marchetto’s Cancer Vixen

Una educación para (futuras/os)

profesionales de la salud y expertas/os en

literatura: The Cancer Journals de Audre

Lorde y Cancer Vixen de Marisa Marchetto

217

239 243

261

Acknowledgements

251

Notes for contributors

BEATRICE MELODIA FESTA

(University of Verona, Italy) Shadowing Femi(ni)cide, Madness and

the Politics of Female Control in Louisa

May Alcott’s “A Whisper in the Dark”

La sombra del feminicidio, locura y la

política de control femenino en “Un

susurro en la oscuridad” de Louisa May

Alcott

ANDREA VALEIRAS FERNÁNDEZ

(Universidade da Coruña)

Dimitra Fimi, Alistair J.P. Sims (eds.):

Imagining the Celtic Past in Modern

Fantasy. London: Bloomsbury

Academic, 2023

JAVIER FERNÁNDEZ-CRUZ

(Universidad de Málaga)

Eva M. Gómez-Jiménez, Michael Toolan

(eds.): The Discursive Construction Of

Economic Inequality: Cads Approaches to

the British Media. London and New York:

Bloomsbury Academic, 2020

Reviews

Articles

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

ENDOPHORIC SIGNPOSTING: A CONTRASTIVE

STUDY OF TEXTUAL REFERENCES IN L2 CZECH

MASTER’S THESES AND NATIVE ENGLISH

ACADEMIC WRITING

MARCADORES ENDOFÓRICOS: UN ESTUDIO

CONTRASTIVO DE LAS REFERENCIAS TEXTUALES

EN EL INGLÉS ACADÉMICO DE TRABAJOS

FIN DE MÁSTER ESCRITOS POR ESTUDIANTES

CHECOS EN INGLÉS COMO SEGUNDA LENGUA

Y POR HABLANTES NATIVOS

https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20249976

MARIE LAHODOVÁ VALIŠOVÁ

Masaryk University, Czech Republic

marie.lahodova@med.muni.cz

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6411-0012>

Abstract

The aim of this study is to contribute to cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary

discourse analysis, shedding light on English L2 learners’ metadiscursive practices.

Focusing on a specialised learner corpus of English-medium Master’s theses

written by Czech university students, the research explores the occurrence of

endophoric markers and their characteristics. To enable cross-linguistic and cross-

cultural comparison, a reference corpus of representative L1 English academic

discourse was compiled. A new taxonomy used here, which draws on Hyland’s list

of endophoric markers (2005) and an extensive literature review, categorises

endophoric markers into three groups: purely directional, markers using specific

words, and a category combining the first two. The study investigates the

occurrence and function of these markers, focusing on anaphoric, cataphoric, and

non-directional references. It also aims to identify differences in the usage of

endophoric markers in English between L2 novice writers and experienced L1

academic writers, providing insights into trends and patterns in the employment of

endophoric markers in academic writing in a way that accounts for disciplinary and

linguistic factors. The results reveal higher endophoric marker frequencies in the

Master’s Thesis Corpus, suggesting distinctive discourse patterns among Czech

learners using English as an L2, with a predominance of specific endophoric

markers and notable cross-disciplinary variation.

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Keywords: metadiscourse, endophoric markers, Master’s thesis, academic

discourse, cross-cultural analysis.

Resumen

El objetivo de este estudio es contribuir al análisis del discurso intercultural e

interdisciplinar, arrojando luz sobre las prácticas metadiscursivas de los estudiantes

de inglés como segunda lengua. La investigación, basada en un corpus especializado

de Trabajos de Fin de Máster en lengua inglesa escritos por estudiantes universitarios

checos, explora el uso de marcadores endofóricos y sus características. Para permitir

la comparación interlingüística e intercultural, se compiló un corpus de referencia

que representa el discurso académico en inglés de hablantes nativos.

Se utiliza una nueva taxonomía que, basada en la lista de marcadores endofóricos

de Hyland (2005) y en una extensa revisión bibliográfica, clasifica los marcadores

endofóricos en tres grupos: puramente direccionales, marcadores que utilizan

palabras específicas y una categoría que combina los dos primeros. El estudio

explora dónde cuándo y cómo aparecen estos marcadores y la función que tienen,

centrándose en las referencias anafóricas, catafóricas y no direccionales. También

pretende identificar las diferencias que hay en el uso de marcadores endofóricos

entre escritores noveles para quienes el inglés es su segunda lengua y escritores

académicos expertos para quienes el inglés es su primera lengua. Así mismo, tiene

como objetivo proporcionar información sobre tendencias y patrones en el empleo

de marcadores endofóricos en la escritura académica en lengua inglesa, teniendo

en cuenta la influencia en su uso de factores disciplinares y lingüísticos.

Los resultados revelan una mayor frecuencia de marcadores endofóricos en el

corpus de Trabajos de Fin de Máster, lo que sugiere patrones discursivos distintivos

entre los estudiantes checos que utilizan el inglés como segunda lengua, con

predominio de marcadores endofóricos específicos y notables variaciones entre

disciplinas.

Palabras clave: metadiscurso, marcadores endofóricos, Trabajos de Fin de Máster

(TFM), discurso académico, análisis intercultural.

1. Introduction

Over the past two decades, metadiscourse has received considerable attention in

English for academic purposes research. Metadiscourse markers in academic genres

have been analysed using Hyland’s (2005) classification scheme and in the models

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

published by Mauranen (1993) and Ädel (2006). Endophoric markers have been

examined alongside other features of metadiscourse across various genres,

languages, and disciplines, as well as over time. This study adopts Hyland’s (2005)

interpersonal model of metadiscourse, which distinguishes between the interactive

and interactional categories of metadiscourse. Interactional metadiscourse devices

aim to engage the reader with the text (e.g. hedges, boosters, attitude markers),

while interactive metadiscourse markers aim to guide the reader through the text

(e.g. frame markers, endophoric markers, evidentials).

Endophoric markers play a crucial role as metadiscourse devices, enabling writers

to reference elements within the same text (e.g. as mentioned above, in Section 3

below). This, in turn, makes it easier for readers to make connections between

different parts of the text and comprehend the author’s argumentative structure.

As Hyland states, these markers “make additional ideational material salient and

therefore available to the reader” (2005: 51). By “referring to earlier material or

anticipating something yet to come”, writers help the reader “steer to a preferred

interpretation or reading of the discourse” (2005: 51).

It is widely acknowledged that endophoric markers are crucial metadiscourse

elements frequently employed in various forms of writing, such as books, research

articles (RAs), student essays, Master’s theses (MTs), and PhD dissertations. They

act as signposts, guiding readers to specific facts, examples, methods, and research

findings presented elsewhere in the text. However, endophoric markers are

typically studied in conjunction with other categories of interactive metadiscourse,

rather than as a distinct metadiscourse category.

Cross-linguistic variations in the use of metadiscourse including endophoric

markers have been studied in RAs, MTs and essays written in English and other

languages, such as Chinese (Kim and Lim 2013; Mu et al. 2015), Spanish (Mur-

Dueñas 2011; Lee and Casal 2014), Catalan and Spanish (Martín-Laguna and

Alcón 2015) and French and Norwegian (Dahl 2004), among others.

Several studies have explored metadiscourse use in learner academic writing in

English, comparing L1 and L2 users and various proficiency levels (e.g. Liao

2020). Ädel (2006) discovered that Swedish students tended to overuse

metadiscourse markers in their L2 English essays compared to American and

British university students, indicating potential issues with communicative

competence. In contrast, Burneikaitė’s (2008, 2009) study comparing L1 and L2

MTs in English by students in Britain and Lithuania produced different results.

The underuse of endophoric markers by L2 Lithuanian students was argued to be

a consequence of their “inexperience in structuring lengthy texts” (Burneikaitė

2008: 45). Kobayashi (2017) investigated the developmental patterns of

metadiscourse in L2 English essays by Asian learners with diverse L1 backgrounds,

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

identifying varying frequencies of metadiscourse use across proficiency levels.

These differences were attributed to the learners’ L1 rhetorical strategies rather

than their lexical or grammatical competence or level of proficiency.

A wide range of cross-disciplinary studies have revealed varying frequencies and

uses of endophoric markers in complete RAs (Cao and Hu 2014; Hyland and

Jiang 2020) as well as in RA introductions (Del Saz Rubio 2011; Kawase 2015)

and abstracts (Khedri et al. 2013; El-Dakhs 2018). Cao and Hu (2014) studied

the use of endophoric markers in quantitative and qualitative RAs in three soft

disciplines (applied linguistics, education and psychology). Clear cross-disciplinary

differences were identified: the applied linguistics and education RAs employed

linear references (i.e. forward or backward references) more frequently than the

psychology RAs. Nevertheless, on the whole non-linear endophoric reference

dominated (e.g. see Table 1, in Fig. 2, as demonstrated in Excerpt 3). Hyland (2005)

noted that within soft disciplines, endophoric markers serve as a mechanism to

enhance discourse, with a primary goal of facilitating readers’ swift and direct

access to relevant information distributed across various sections of the text.

In recent years, there has been significant attention given to the evolving

understanding of interactive metadiscourse in academic writing, particularly in

RAs, with a focus on its use across diverse disciplines, both soft and hard. Khedri

et al. (2013) analysed 60 RA abstracts in applied linguistics and economics; Dahl

(2004) examined 180 RAs in medicine, economics, and linguistics; Khalili and

Aslanabadi (2014) studied 20 RAs in dentistry; and Celiešienė and Sabulyte

(2018) compared metadiscourse marker usage in RAs in informatics, energy, and

civil engineering. The results indicated that hard science texts employ more visual

elements, which accounts for the frequent use of endophoric markers and code

glosses. This practice ensures effective signposting and accurate interpretation by

the reader of the information provided. Another cross-disciplinary research study

compared Master’s and doctoral dissertations across six disciplines written in

English by L2 Hong Kong students (Hyland 2004). The results revealed that

students in the hard disciplines, particularly those in engineering, demonstrated a

relatively higher use of endophoric markers. This highlighted “the multi-modal

nature of scientific discourse” (Hyland 2004: 147) and the increased dependence

on arguments requiring frequent reference to elements such as tables, figures,

examples, and photographs. Hyland and Jiang (2020) conducted a diachronic

study analysing a corpus of 2.2 million words from articles in top journals across

four academic disciplines, aiming to explore changes in interactive metadiscourse

usage since 1965. The results indicate an increased usage of endophoric markers in

English across diverse disciplines over the past 30 years. This upward trend seems

to reflect a growing tendency for texts to become more explicit, employing

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

techniques like exemplification, illustration, and referencing tables and graphical

data to clarify associations (Hyland and Jiang 2020).

Research into endophoric markers extends beyond RAs and includes other genres

such as undergraduate essays (Ädel 2006), MTs (Lee and Casal 2014), postgraduate

dissertations (Hyland and Tse 2004; Kawase 2015), and university textbooks

(Hyland 1999). Bunton’s (1999) study on postgraduate dissertations revealed

that higher level endophoric references, i.e. those referring to larger portions of

text or operating over greater distances, were more frequent. This phenomenon

was attributed to the length of the texts. However, considerable variations among

writers were also reported.

To date, research on Czech English-medium learner discourse has been limited to

a handful of studies that concentrate on individual metadiscourse markers, such as

sentence linkers (Vogel 2008; Povolná 2012), code glosses (Guziurová 2022),

attitude markers (Jančaříková 2023) and self-mention (Dontcheva-Navrátilová

2023). However, there have been no investigations into the use of endophoric

markers by Czech students in English.

As noted above, few studies to date have focused on metadiscourse in L2 MTs

across soft disciplines. This paper aims to fill this gap by examining endophoric

markers in L2 MTs written in English by Czech university students. Two corpora

were compiled for this purpose: the Master’s Thesis Corpus (MT_LLE) and the

Research Article Corpus (RA_LLE). These corpora were used to compare and

contrast the use of endophoric markers by English L2 and L1 writers, examining

differences across levels of writing expertise and linguacultural dimensions.

Additionally, the realisation of endophoric markers is compared across three

disciplines, i.e. linguistics, literary studies, and education. These disciplines are

integral to English studies at Czech universities, and the MTs included in the L2

corpus focus on these specific areas. A new taxonomy was devised and used in the

analysis (for more details concerning the taxonomy, see Section 2.4).

This study seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. What is the frequency of occurrence, realisation, and function of endophoric

markers in English-medium L2 (Czech) MTs and L1 published RAs?

2. What are the similarities and differences in the frequency of occurrence,

realisation, and function of endophoric markers in English-medium L2

(Czech) MTs and L1 published RAs?

3. What are the similarities and differences in the frequency of occurrence,

realisation, and function of endophoric markers in the three disciplines in

English-medium L2 (Czech) MTs and L1 (English) published RAs?

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

2. Data and Methodology

2.1. Corpus Characteristics and Compilation

For the present study, two distinct corpora were compiled: the Master’s Thesis

Corpus (MT_LLE) and the Research Article Corpus (RA_LLE). Each of these

corpora will be discussed in the following section, accompanied by an explanation

of the selection criteria applied.

The analysis of endophoric markers was conducted on a specialised learner corpus of

English-medium MTs written by Czech university students majoring in English

language and literature, either at the Faculty of Arts or the Faculty of Education of

Masaryk University in Brno. The corpus comprises theses written and submitted

from 2010 to 2018. The following additional criteria were applied: the authors’

native/first language is Czech (L1), and only theses awarded high grades, that is, ‘A’

(‘Excellent’/‘Merit’), were included. A total of 48 MTs were included in the corpus,

distributed equally across three academic disciplines: linguistics, literary studies, and

education, with 16 theses drawn from each discipline. Prior to the analysis, all MTs

underwent a refinement process, which involved the removal of elements such as

abstracts, citations, tables, and figures. This approach ensured that the analysis

focused exclusively on the students’ written discourse in running text found within

the MT macrostructure. The corpus comprises a total of 948,000 words.

In order to investigate typical elements of metadiscourse in the MT corpus, it was

necessary to compile a reference corpus representing L1 English academic

discourse. Due to the fact that there is no corpus of English L1 MTs available, the

reference corpus (RA_LLE) comprises RAs authored by scholars who are native

English speakers and affiliated with universities in Britain or the United States. The

authors’ native speaker status (L1) is indicated by their names, affiliations, and

CVs. The selection process exclusively considered articles from the same three

fields or disciplines as in the MT corpus, i.e. linguistics, literary studies, and

education. These articles were single-authored, produced between 2010 and

2018, and published in widely recognised international journals indexed in the

Web of Science database. Linguistics articles were sourced from Discourse &

Communication, the Journal of Pragmatics, and Applied Linguistics. Literary

studies articles were selected from Eighteenth-Century Fiction, New Literary

History, and SEL: Studies in English Literature. Articles focusing on educational

themes were taken from Language and Education, Language Teaching Research,

and Language Learning. The corpus comprises 36 articles (12 articles per

discipline), all of which have undergone the same cleaning process applied in the

MT_LLE corpus. The total word count for this corpus is 243,000 words (see

Table 1 below).

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Corpus No. of texts Word count Disciplines

MT_LLE 48 948,000 Linguistics, literary studies, education

RA_LLE 36 243,000 Linguistics, literary studies, education

Table 1. Composition of the MT_LLE and RA_LLE

2.2. Corpus Comparison and ‘Tertium Comparationis’

Due to the unavailability of MTs authored by L1 English writers, no reference

corpus could be compiled. Flowerdew (2015) aligns with Tribble (2002) in

suggesting that in the absence of a directly comparable corpus, concessions must

be made, and an ‘analogue’ corpus can be used. This refers to a corpus that closely

resembles student writing in terms of genre and discipline (Flowerdew 2015: 60).

The approach adheres to the ‘tertium comparationis’ criteria advocated by Connor

and Moreno (2005: 155; see also Moreno 2008: 25). Therefore, the reference

corpus of RAs (RA_LLA) was carefully compiled to mirror the MT_LLE corpus as

closely as possible. Despite the differences between MTs and RAs in their aims,

scope, audience, and criteria (Paltridge 2002; Flowerdew 2015), it has been

argued that “there are significant overlaps in lexico-grammar and rhetorical

functions” (Flowerdew 2015: 60). As certain sections of MTs (or dissertations)

may eventually evolve into RAs (Swales 1990: 178), previous research on

metadiscourse has often juxtaposed MTs with RAs, serving as potential templates

for inexperienced writers (see, for instance, Koutsantoni 2006; Pujol Dahme and

Selfa Sastre 2015; Abdollahzadeh 2019; Qiu and Ma 2019).

The MT_LLE corpus and RA_LLE corpus are fully comparable in terms of

disciplines (linguistics, literary studies, and education), as well as the time span in

which they were written (2010-2018). The analysis of the corpora thus incorporates

the concept of intercultural, cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary variation.

While it is worth noting that the sizes of these corpora vary, the primary focus of

this study is to explore the occurrence of endophoric markers in theses written in

English by Czech native speakers. To mitigate the discrepancies in corpus size, the

research findings were normalised to occurrences per 10,000 words, and the log-

likelihood ratio test was applied to account for size differences. This approach

allows for drawing reliable conclusions while acknowledging the inherent

limitations of the differing corpus sizes.

2.3. Procedure

Both corpora were compiled and searched using SketchEngine software (Kilgarriff

et al. 2004). Statistical significance was determined using the non-parametric log-

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

likelihood test, following common practice in specialised corpus analysis. A

significance level of <0.05 was established, with very low p-values indicated as

<0.001.

Based on Hyland’s (2005) list of endophoric markers and a comprehensive review

of the relevant literature, a list of endophoric markers was compiled and searched

within the corpora. After this initial stage, additional items identified as potential

endophoric markers (e.g. extract, excerpt, here) were added to the list. It was

required that every instance of potential endophoric markers be examined in

context to ensure that they functioned as expected. According to Hyland and Tse

(2004), who drew on Bunton’s (1999) distinction between ‘research acts’ and

‘writer acts’, each potential discourse marker must be assessed to determine

whether it carries propositional value (Example 1) or metadiscoursal value

(Example 2) (Hyland and Tse 2004: 166).

(1) It was not enough for the teachers to value students’ voices in the

discussion; many of them felt they had to vanish completely, following

procedures for discussion that completely removed the teacher from

participation. (RA_EDU_04)

(2) The following extracts show other instances of Cherry’s praise of Canadian-

born ice hockey players while at the same time reiterating their Canadian

regional allegiance and affinity. (MT_LIT_03)

The token following is used as a metadiscoursal device in Example 2; however, in

the context of Example 1, it signals discourse-external relations.

Furthermore, within the dimension of interactive metadiscourse, careful attention

has to be given to certain markers, which could be assessed either as frame markers

or as endophoric markers, based on the context. Below are two examples of the

token analysis in context (Examples 3 and 4):

(3) I turn now to an analysis of what these contrasts mean in terms of language

use. (RA_LIN_12)

(4) Nevertheless, as demonstrated in the analysis, considerable attention to

the choice of lexico-grammatical items needs to be paid. (MT_LIN_09)

In Example 3, the word analysis introduces or frames the content that follows and

is typically categorised as a frame marker, labelling the stage of the discourse based

on Hyland’s theory of metadiscourse. In Example 4, the phrase in the analysis

functions as an endophoric marker, referring to the specific analysis within the

same text for content and clarification.

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

2.4. Taxonomy

When analysing endophoric markers, authors typically provide a list of such

markers or offer a few examples (Hyland and Tse 2004; Hyland 2005). Bunton

(1999), influenced by Mauranen’s (1993) research on metatext and text

reflexivity and by Crismore and Farnsworth’s (1990) terms of reviews and

previews, created a taxonomy of endophoric markers. He referred to them as

‘text references’ and proposed a taxonomy that distinguishes between linear and

non-linear text references. Linear text references are explicit references to other

parts of the linear text. They are further categorised based on the direction of the

reference as reviews “looking back, repeating, summarising or referring to an

earlier stage of the text” (e.g. as noted earlier in the paper), previews “looking

forward, anticipating, summarising or referring to a later stage of the text” (e.g.

the next section), and overviews “looking in both directions, referring to the

current stage of the text in overall terms” (Bunton 1999: 45). It is worth noting

that ‘overviews’ in this context concern references that consider the text from a

broader perspective —e.g. “This was only used by X among the (subjects)

examined in this thesis” (Bunton 1999: 46). Bunton also showed the level of

reference (scope), which may refer to the written discourse as a whole or to a

specific chapter. Additionally, he explored the distance to the text segment being

referred to. Non-linear text references are explicit references to tables, figures,

charts, or appendices.

This taxonomy, expanded using Hyland’s (1999, 2005) theory of metadiscourse

to distinguish between endophoric and frame markers, served as a valuable

framework in Cao and Hu’s (2014) analysis of RAs. Burneikaitė (2009)

incorporated Bunton’s (1999) classification of metatext into her work, which

resulted in a classification that divides endophoric markers into non-linear and

linear text references. As with Bunton’s taxonomy, non-linear text references cover

elements like appendices, tables, figures, charts, graphs, and diagrams. Concerning

linear text references, the author classified them into several levels: thesis-level

markers (e.g. paper, study, thesis, analysis, dissertation, research (work), essay, article,

project), chapter/section-level markers (e.g. chapter, (sub)section, part, paragraph),

sentence-level markers (e.g. example, instance, illustration, sentence, case) and

vague markers (e.g. above, below, further, following, previously, what follows,

remainder) (Burneikaitė 2009: 13).

In an attempt to capture and categorise all instances of endophoric markers

identified in the corpora. I propose the following taxonomy. While it has some

similarities with Bunton’s taxonomy, it is primarily based on Hyland’s definition of

metadiscourse and the interactive dimension, taking into account additional

elements identified in the data.

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

I partially agree with the decision to divide endophoric markers into linear and

non-linear elements. However, when analysing the corpora, I came across

instances of endophoric markers that might be classified as non-linear according

to existing taxonomies, although their context and function indicated otherwise.

For example, the marker table in the following sentences does not qualify as an

example of non-linear reference since it refers back or ahead (see Examples in 5).

(5) As we have seen, the focus on significance also leads researchers astray in

suggesting that nonsignificant findings should not even be reported, as in

Table 1 above; not reporting full findings only helps to further obscure

what was observed in the data and why patterns might or might not have

been statistically significant in the first place. (RA_EDU_11)

Table 1 below represents only a sample of relevant verbs (i.e. verbs related

to the issue of existence or appearance on the scene) as presented in the

book. (MT_LIN_02)

For that reason, I abandoned the distinction between linear and non-linear and in

its place propose the following taxonomy (see Table 2).

Endophoric markers are categorised into three groups: purely directional markers,

markers using specific words, and a category that combines the first two. Markers

using specific words can refer to the entire discourse (article, essay, here [non-

directional reference], paper, study, thesis, work), to individual parts of the discourse

(analysis, chapter/subchapter, conclusion, discussion, introduction, page, paragraph,

part, section/subsection) or to items incorporated into the discourse (appendix,

chart, diagram, example, excerpt, extract, figure, here [either as backward or

forward reference], table). These markers can refer back or ahead by the use of

tenses (Examples in 6) or immediate context (Example 7).

(6) In the examples analysed so far, I have shown how the interview is designed

to foreground the IE’s feelings and thoughts, to be collaborative rather

than confrontational, and to establish a version of events in terms of what

happened to her personally. (RA_LIN_01)

These key concepts will be applied in the analysis of online weight loss

advertising. (MT_LIN_13)

(7) The items in the FLCAS (Horwitz et al., 1986) reflect the above

mentioned characteristics of an anxious student, as we can see in these

examples: <EXAMPLE>, or <EXAMPLE>. (MT_EDU_09)

Moreover, they can also serve as non-directional endophoric markers, pointing to the

current discourse, section, or incorporated item itself (Examples in 8). When combined

with clearly directional markers, thus labelled as combined endophoric markers, they

can, of course, serve as anaphoric and cataphoric signposting markers (Example 9).

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

categories

Subcategories

MT_LLE RA_LLE LL G2 p-value

n pttw n pttw

Purely

directional 608 6.4 60 2.5 64.6176 <0.001

Specific 2,079 21.9 509 21.0 0.8714 0.3506

Reference to the

entire written

discourse 234 2.4 132 5.4 47.8588 <0.001

Reference to

individual parts

of the written

discourse

927 9.8 69 2.9 140.9983 <0.001

Reference to

items

incorporated

into the written

discourse

918 9.6 308 12.7 15.9739 <0.001

Combined 1,256 13.2 128 5.3 127.0166 <0.001

TOTAL 3,943 41.6 697 28.7 89.3992 <0.001

Table 3. General frequency of endophoric markers across the corpora (Abbreviations: n:

number; pttw: per ten thousand words)

Comparing the three categories of endophoric markers (purely directional, specific,

and combined), the highest frequency of endophoric references in both corpora

was associated with specific endophoric markers. The frequency of specific markers

was nearly the same in the MT_LLE and RA_LLE corpora (21.9 and 21.0,

respectively; LL test, p-value 0.3506), which may indicate a genre-related trend in

research writing. This aspect will be examined further in a cross-disciplinary

analysis of specific endophoric references later in this section.

Another salient observation regarding specific reference and its three subcategories

is the frequency of referencing items integrated into the discourse. This referencing

frequency was notably higher in the RA_LLE corpus (12.7 occurrences) compared

to the MT_LLE corpus (9.6 occurrences), and this difference was found to be

statistically significant (p-value < 0.001). In contrast, combined endophoric

markers were more prevalent in the MT_LLE corpus (13.2) than in the RA_LLE

corpus (5.3), and again this difference was statistically significant (p-value <

0.001). Similar results have been found in engineering RAs, where a greater

density of lexical bundles occurred (e.g. is shown in Figure) (Hyland 2008). This

may suggest that Czech undergraduate students tend to be exceptionally clear or

meticulous when directing their readers to specific parts of their discourse in

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

English-medium theses. They emphasise this by using multiple endophoric

markers simultaneously, as illustrated in Example 14.

(14) It has been mentioned in the opening paragraph of this section (see page 49)

that in his novel Ellis attributes the rampant indifference that leads to the

collapse of communication not only to the influence of television but also

of glossy magazines. (MT_LIT_05)

Within each category of endophoric markers (i.e. purely directional, specific, and

combined), endophoric markers can be categorised as anaphoric or cataphoric.

Additionally, specific reference markers can also be classified as non-directional

(see Table 2).

Concerning the overall distinctions among anaphoric, cataphoric, and non-

directional references, Table 4 provides a summary of the data in both the RA_

LLE and MT_LLE corpora. Anaphoric reference predominates over cataphoric

in both corpora, as authors tend to revisit previously mentioned content,

reinforcing the reader’s recollection of already presented knowledge. Anaphoric

reference occurs most frequently among Czech L2 English student writers, at a

rate of 16.3 occurrences per 10,000 words, while L1 English expert writers

predominantly use non-directional reference, with a frequency of 13.2 instances

per 10,000 words. This difference is statistically significant (p-value < 0.001).

However, the difference in the use of non-directional reference between the

MT_LLE and RA_LLE corpora was not found to be statistically significant

(p-value 0.0952).

MT_LLE

pttw

RA_LLE

pttw LL G2 p-value

Anaphoric reference 1,548 16.3 246 10.7 54.4399 <0.001

Cataphoric

reference 1,273 13.4 131 5.4 126.7413 <0.001

Non-directional

reference 1,122 11. 8 320 13.2 2.7844 0.0952

Table 4. Anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional endophoric markers across the corpora

In Lee and Casal’s (2014) investigation of engineering MTs, the results indicated

that L1 English writers directed readers’ attention to previously and subsequently

discussed material equally. In contrast, Spanish L1 authors primarily included

vague anaphoric reference markers. It is worth noting that Czech students use all

three types of reference at comparable frequencies, ranging from 11.8 to 16.3

occurrences in their English-medium theses. Expert English L1 writers, conversely,

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

exhibit a clear preference for non-directional and anaphoric reference, with

frequencies of 13.2 and 10.7 occurrences per 10,000 words, respectively.

Anaphoric markers, which were used both purely directionally and in combined

phrases, were counted collectively, and the comparison of their frequency across

the corpora can be seen in Figure 1. The most frequently used anaphoric markers

in all three corpora were the words above (frequency of 4.8 in MT_LLE and 2.0 in

RA_LLE) and previous/ly (2.0 in MT_LLE and 0.7 in RA_LLE). This aligns with

the findings of Hyland and Jiang (2020), who identified above as the most

frequently used linear marker in both 1965 and 1985. The third most frequently

used anaphoric marker in the MT_LLE corpus was already, occurring at a rate of

1.4, in contrast to its significantly lower incidence in the RA_LLE corpus, where

its frequency was 0.2. This vague anaphoric reference is not commonly used in

English; however, in Czech, the formal phrase “jak již bylo zmíněno” [as has

already been mentioned] is a frequently used anaphoric marker within academic

discourse. Therefore, the more frequent use of the marker already by Czech

students when writing in English might be attributed to cross-linguistic influence

from the Czech language.

Figure 1. Anaphoric reference markers (purely directional and combined, counted together)

Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of cataphoric reference markers across the

corpora. The two most commonly used cataphoric markers were consistent across

both corpora: following (frequency of 6.0 in MT_LLE and 2.2 in RA_LLE) and

below (1.8 in MT_LLE and 1.3 in RA_LLE). Czech students and expert writers

used next at a similar frequency (0.6 and 0.5, respectively). Czech students also

employed the marker further (on), but this marker did not appear in the RA_LLE

corpus. A similar pattern was observed with the marker subsequent/ly, which was

absent from the RA_LLE corpus.

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

The following part of the results section will examine cross-disciplinary variations

regarding the occurrence, realisation, and frequency of endophoric markers. A

more in-depth exploration is provided for specific endophoric markers and their

three subcategories, as these markers were the most frequent form of endophoric

reference across both corpora.

Table 5 presents the distribution of references to the entire discourse, drawing data

from the category of endophoric reference using specific expressions. When

referencing their written discourse, authors predominantly employed terms such as

thesis and work in MTs, and article and study in RAs. The second most frequently

used term in the MT_LLE was here, which ranked third in the RA_LLE corpus.

However, it had a higher frequency than in MT_LLE, with 1.2 occurrences per

10,000 words. Here functioned as a self-reference word to denote the thesis or

article itself. In parts of the corpora it was challenging to discern whether the

reference pointed to the entire discourse or a specific part (e.g. a section) (see

Examples 15 and 16). Consequently, all instances of here referring to the entire

discourse or its parts were included in the count.

(15) The interview excerpts considered here come from a larger ethnographic

project involving individuals who immigrated to a small Midwestern city

in the US, which I have named Midtown, and who were enrolled in free

ESL classes offered by a social services agency. (RA_LIN_09)

(16) In conclusion I would like to say that I hope I have correctly grasped the

issues compiled in this section, however, I rather apologize here for any

prospective misinterpretation. (MT_LIT_04)

Figure 2. Cataphoric reference markers (purely directional and combined, counted together)

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Reference to the entire

written discourse

MT_LLE RA_LLE

n pttw n pttw

article 0 0.0 42 1.7

essay 0 0.0 8 0.3

here 41 0.4 29 1.2

paper 20 0.2 18 0.7

study 19 0.2 32 1.3

thesis 119 1.3 0 0.0

work 35 0.4 3 0.1

TOTAL 234 2.5 132 5.4

Table 5. Distribution of reference to the entire written discourse (in specific category only)

As mentioned above, endophoric reference to individual parts of the discourse and

to items incorporated into the discourse reveals similarities in the research-oriented

genre (theses and articles). Therefore, a closer examination of these two

subcategories, especially investigation of cross-disciplinary variations among the

three disciplines (linguistics, literary studies, and education), would be insightful.

Table 6 summarises the distribution of references to individual parts of the written

discourse, drawing data from the specific-only and combined categories and

counting them together. The relative frequencies clearly indicate that referencing

individual parts of the written discourse was significantly higher in MT_LLE than

in RA_LLE across all three disciplines, possibly explained by the length of the

research genre. While references to chapters and subchapters were the most frequent

endophoric markers across all three disciplines of MT_LLE, such references were

naturally absent in RA_LLE, as these are not part of the texts. Reference to sections

and subsections occurred across all three disciplines, with the incidence consistently

higher in MT_LLE than in RA_LLE.

Concerning frequency of references to specific parts of discourse across

disciplines, linguistics showed the highest occurrence of endophoric reference in

both MA_LLE and RA_LLE (19.7, 9.4 respectively). However, upon closer

examination of specific references to analysis and discussion, which appear in

both research genres and are considered core parts of each research study, clear

differences emerge.

Reference to analysis was more frequent in RAs than in MTs in linguistics and

education studies, highlighting the significance of analysis sections in RAs, as

recognised by expert writers. Reference to discussion was also more frequent in

RAs in linguistics, with the same frequency found in MTs and RAs in education.

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Reference to pages, frequently mentioned in lists of endophoric markers in

various studies of RAs (cf. Hyland 2005; Lee and Casal 2014), was absent from

RAs in all three disciplines, and in the MT corpus only 19 instances were

found.

Based on the description so far and the contents of Table 6, it is evident that

reference to individual parts of the discourse was lowest in literary studies MTs and

RAs. This is explained by the focus of the discipline itself; as analysis and discussion

are distributed throughout the discourse in literary studies, there is no clear

tendency to refer to them explicitly.

Reference to

individual parts of the

written discourse

Linguistics Literary studies Education

MT_LIN RA_LIN MT_LIT RA_LIT MT_

EDU RA_EDU

pttw pttw pttw pttw pttw pttw

analysis 3.3 4.0 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.4

chapter/subchapter 4.4 0.0 4.1 0.0 8.8 0.0

conclusion 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0

discussion 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2

introduction 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0

page 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

paragraph 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0

part 4.4 0.1 1.3 0.4 3.0 0.1

section/subsection 6.1 4.2 0.8 0.6 2.2 1.2

TOTAL 19.7 9.4 8.8 1.1 15.0 1.9

Table 6. Distribution of reference to individual parts of the written discourse (data taken from

specific and combined category, counted together)

Table 7 illustrates the distribution of references to items incorporated into the

discourse, with data taken from the specific-only and combined categories and

counted together. Once again, endophoric markers are used significantly less in

the discipline of literary studies in both MTs and RAs. The highest frequency

was identified in linguistics studies in both MTs and RAs (with the frequency

almost equal), while in the discipline of education, RAs displayed much higher

use of these markers than MTs (15.2 to 9.6, respectively).

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Reference to items

incorporated into

the discourse

Linguistics Literary studies Education

MT_LIN RA_LIN MT_LIT RA_LIT MT_EDU RA_EDU

pttw pttw pttw pttw pttw pttw

appendix 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 2.2 0.2

chart 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0

diagram 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

example 8.9 5.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 3.4

excerpt 0.5 4.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.9

extract 2.5 7. 9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

figure 2.3 4.8 0.0 0.4 2.6 2.0

here 3.0 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.6

table 7. 8 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.6 6.0

TOTAL 28.2 26.8 1.7 1.1 9.6 15.2

Table 7. Distribution of reference to items incorporated into the discourse (data taken from

specific and combined category, counted together)

Regarding the actual words used in the endophoric markers, the most frequently

used references to incorporated items in linguistics MTs were example, table, and

here, whereas in linguistics RAs, they were extract, example, excerpt, and figure. In

literary studies MTs and RAs, the most frequent references were example and here.

The endophoric marker here is used either as an anaphoric marker (Example 17) or

a cataphoric marker (Example 18), often substituting for words such as example,

extract, excerpt, etc.

(17) Initially putting laughter and tears together, Hazlitt soon adopts the

conventional approach of having tears signify pathos and laughter

embodying derision: <EXAMPLE>. While laughter is not a sign of pity

here, it is indicative of the sympathetic imagination since laughter reflects

our capacity to discern what is “unreasonable and unnecessary” in others

and act accordingly. (RA_LIT_10)

(18) Let me demonstrate it on a few examples here: <EXAMPLE>. Simple

structured compliments such as <EXAMPLE> or <EXAMPLE> are often

exploited by the characters as well (10.2%). (MT_LIN_11)

In the education MT corpus, the most frequently used reference words in this

subcategory were table, figure, and appendix/appendices, while in the education

RA corpus, they were table, example, and figure. In education RAs, references to

tables were twice as frequent as in MTs (6.0 and 2.6, respectively). References to

figures were almost the same in MTs as in RAs. Another distinction was that

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

authors of MTs across all three disciplines made more references to appendix/

appendices. Once again, the variation is attributed to the structural norms of RAs

in different journals, where appendices are not common, while in MTs, use of

appendices is frequent.

The occurrence of endophoric reference to items incorporated into discourse,

especially to visual aids like figures and tables, is notably scarcer in literary studies

than in linguistics and education. This scarcity can be explained by the primary

focus in literary studies on descriptive analysis, introduction of and commentary

on quotes from literary works or secondary sources, and presentation of important

examples.

When combining references to examples, excerpts, extracts, and here in linguistics,

authors in both MTs and RAs relied on them more than authors writing within the

field of education (14.9 in MTs and 19.6 in RAs in linguistics compared to 1.4 in

MTs and 6.9 in RAs in education). In contrast, references to findings summarised

using visual materials (e.g. charts, diagrams, figures, and tables), the differences were

less pronounced. Authors of RAs in education showed a higher reliance on these

visual materials (8.1 in RA_EDU, 6.1 in MT_EDU), whereas in MTs this type of

reference was more frequent in linguistics (11.8 in MT_LIN, 6.7 in RA_LIN).

4. Conclusion

The extent to which endophoric markers are explicitly taught in academic English

writing courses varies. In many courses, the primary focus is on teaching students

to structure their writing, develop arguments, use evidence, and cite sources

properly. However, depending on the course’s curriculum, the instructor’s

approach, and the students’ proficiency levels, endophoric markers can be covered

to some extent. These markers are crucial for ensuring coherence and cohesion in

academic writing. Endophoric signposting helps readers understand the

relationships between different parts of the text and navigate the content smoothly,

making it particularly important in longer and more complex pieces of writing,

such as the MT.

The analysis of endophoric markers across the Master’s Thesis Corpus (MT_LLE)

and the reference corpus, the Research Article Corpus (RA_LLE), has revealed

distinctive patterns in how Czech university students majoring in English language

and literature use these markers compared to L1 English-speaking writers.

A new taxonomy of endophoric markers was developed for this study. The

taxonomy categorises endophoric markers into purely directional, specific, and

combined markers, enabling a more nuanced understanding of how these markers

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

function in different contexts. The overall findings revealed that the MT_LLE

corpus contained a significantly higher frequency of endophoric markers (41.6

per 10,000 words) as compared with the reference corpus (28.7 per 10,000

words in RA_LLE). This difference can be attributed to the respective length of

the two types of written discourse, as described in other research studies (cf.

Bunton 1999). However, discourse length cannot be the sole factor influencing

the use of endophoric markers. Crismore et al. (1993) suggest that the use of

metadiscourse is closely linked to socio-cultural contexts. This is consistent with

the findings reported in a study by Afzaal et al. (2021) on the use of metadiscourse

markers, comparing introductions of MTs written in Chinese and US universities.

The lower use of metadiscourse markers found in Chinese introductions was

attributed not only to the shorter length of the texts but also to socio-cultural

factors. In Chinese writing, readers are required to take on a larger role in

determining the relationship of specific sections within the text as a whole (Afzaal

et al. 2021: 12).

The more frequent use of certain types and realisations of endophoric markers in

RA_LLE suggests a clear link to the function of endophoric markers as used by

expert writers. Notably, combined endophoric markers integrating specific and

purely directional markers were more prevalent in the MT_LLE corpus, indicating

a comprehensive approach by Czech students in guiding readers within their

English written discourse, albeit suggestive of their inexperience. Conversely,

specific markers referring to the entire discourse, individual parts, or items

incorporated into the discourse were equally prevalent in both the MT_LLE and

RA_LLA corpora (21.9 and 21.0, respectively; LL test, p-value 0.3506), suggesting

a shared emphasis on signposting and guiding readers through research-genre

texts. Furthermore, within this category, referencing to the discourse itself or to

items incorporated into the written discourse prevailed in RA_LLE compared to

MT_LLE, and the results were found to be statistically significant.

The examination of anaphoric, cataphoric, and non-directional reference highlights

further differences between the corpora that cannot be explained solely by the

length of the texts that make up the corpora but rather by the function of particular

endophoric markers. Anaphoric reference dominates in Czech L2 English student

writing, whereas English-speaking expert writers primarily employ non-directional

reference, indicating a difference in the use of markers between Czech students

and experienced L1 English-speaking writers. Similarly, Cao and Hu (2014)

identified a prevalence of non-directional reference in their study. Therefore,

academic English courses that emphasise the significance of non-directional

reference, as observed in expert writing, can enhance students’ proficiency in the

use of English academic discourse.

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Cross-disciplinary analysis also revealed variations in the use of endophoric

markers. For instance, linguistics exhibited a higher occurrence of endophoric

reference in both the MT_LLE and RA_LLE corpora. On the other hand, MTs

in education displayed a significantly lower incidence of these markers than RAs

in the same discipline. This is something that can be addressed by instructors of

academic English by encouraging students to use more endophoric reference

when presenting their results in the discipline of education. They could reference

items integrated into their discourse, such as tables and examples, based on and

closely related to either the quantitative or qualitative methods of their research

study.

Academic writing instruction in English and coursebooks typically cover

metadiscourse and include exercises for practising specific structures. However,

endophoric markers are often treated as implicit knowledge that everyone is

expected to possess and use. Consequently, there tends to be a lack of exercises

with which to practice this aspect.

These findings highlight the potential for enhancing English academic writing

courses, enabling students to develop skills for effectively communicating their

ideas and arguments in written form. Additionally, students should be familiarised

with the conventions of English academic discourse in their discipline, including

the use of endophoric markers. One approach could involve students identifying

endophoric markers in samples of specific text genres, thereby making their implicit

knowledge about the use of endophoric markers explicit. Moreover, instruction on

metadiscourse, including endophoric markers, can be integrated with introductory

lessons on using corpus tools and building their own corpora. Awareness-raising

activities could be employed to compare the use of endophoric markers in expert

writing within their discipline with their own written output. Such activities can

facilitate their development as proficient and knowledgeable writers and corpus

users, which can later assist them in constructing their own corpora and conducting

research.

I acknowledge several limitations in this study. Firstly, there was a discrepancy in

the size of the corpora, suggesting a need for an increase in the size of the reference

corpus. To address this issue, the research findings were normalised to occurrences

per 10,000 words. Additionally, there is potential for further research, including

the addition of another reference corpus, such as one made up of PhD dissertations

written in English (L2) by Czech university students, to investigate developmental

patterns. Further research could also involve a broader range of disciplines, possibly

including the hard sciences. Despite these limitations, the corpus-based analysis

provided valuable insights into how Czech students use endophoric markers in

their MTs across three disciplines in the humanities.

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Czech Science Foundation grant 21-12150S

Intercultural variation in writer-reader interaction in English-medium academic

discourse by Czech and Anglophone novice writers.

Works Cited

AbDOLLAHzADEH, Esmaeel. 2019. “A Coss-cultural Study of Hedging in Discussion Sections by

Junior and Senior Academic Writers”. Ibérica 38: 177-202.

ÄDEL, Annelie. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Publishing. <https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24>.

AfzAAL, Muhammad, Muhammad Ilyas CHIsHtI, Chao LIu and Chenxia zHAng. 2021. “Metadiscourse

in Chinese and American Graduate Dissertation Introductions”. Cogent Arts & Humanities: 8 (1).

<https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2021.1970879>.

buntOn, David. 1999. “The Use of Higher Level Metatext in Ph.D. Theses”. English for Specific

Purposes 18: 41-56. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00022-2>.

buRnEIkAItė, Nida. 2008. “Metadiscourse in Linguistics Master’s Theses in English L1 and L2”.

Kalbotyra 59 (3): 38-47.

buRnEIkAItė, Nida. 2009. “Endophoric Markers in Linguistics Master’s Theses in English L1 and

L2”. Žmogus ir žodis 3: 11-16.

CAO, Feng and Guangwei Hu. 2014. “Interactive Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A

Comparative Study of Paradigmatic and Disciplinary Influences”. Journal of Pragmatics 66: 15-

31. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007>.

CELIEŠIEnė, Vilija and Erika sAbuLytE. 2018. “Metadiscourse Markers in Technical Texts”. International

Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture 5 (4): 1-14.

CRIsMORE, Avon and Rodney fARnswORtH. 1990. “Metadiscourse in Popular and Professional

Science Discourse”. In Walter, Nash (ed.) The Writing Scholar. Studies in Academic Discourse.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage: 119-136.

CRIsMORE, Avon, Raija MARkkAnEn and Margaret s. stEffEnsEn. 1993. “Metadiscourse in Persuasive

Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students”. Written

Communication 10 (1): 39-71. <https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002>.

COnnOR, Ulla and Ana I. MOREnO. 2005. “Tertium Comparationis: A Vital Component in Contrastive

Rhetoric Research”. In Bruthiaux, Paul, Dwight Atkinson, William Eggington, William Grabe and

Vaidehi Ramanathan (eds.) Directions in Applied Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Robert B.

Kaplan. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters: 153-164. <https://doi.

org/10.21832/9781853598500-015>.

DAHL, Trine. 2004. “Textual Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A Marker of National Culture or

of Academic Discipline?” Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1807-1825. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

pragma.2004.05.004>.

DEL sAz RubIO, M. Milagros. 2011. “A Pragmatic Approach to the Macro-structure and

Endophoric Signposting: A Contrastive Study of Textual References

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Metadiscoursal Features of Research Article Introductions in the Field of Agricultural Sciences”.

English for Specific Purposes 30 (4): 258-271. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002 >.

DOntCHEVA-nAVRÁtILOVÁ, Olga. 2023. “Self-mention in L2 (Czech) Learner Academic Discourse:

Realisations, Functions and Distribution across Master’s Theses”. Journal of English for

Academic Purposes 64: 1475-1585. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101272>.

EL-DAkHs, Dina Abdel Salam. 2018. “Why Are Abstracts in PhD Theses and Research Articles

Different? A Genre-specific Perspective”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 36: 48-60.

<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.09.005>.

fLOwERDEw, Lynne. 2015. “Using Corpus-based Research and Online Academic Corpora to Inform

Writing of the Discussion Section of a Thesis”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20: 58-

68. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.06.001>.

guzIuROVÁ, Tereza. 2022. “Glossing an Argument: Reformulation and Exemplification in L2

Master ’s Theses”. Topics in Linguistics 23 (2): 18-35. <https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2022-0009>.

HyLAnD, Ken. 1999. “Talking to Students: Metadiscourse in Introductory Coursebooks”. English

for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 3-26. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2>.

HyLAnD, Ken. 2004. “Disciplinary Interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing”.

Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 133-151. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001 >.

HyLAnD, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.

HyLAnD, Ken. 2008. “Academic Clusters: Text Patterning in Published and Postgraduate Writing”.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18: 41-62.

HyLAnD, Ken and Feng Kevin JIAng. 2020. “Text-organizing Metadiscourse: Tracking Changes in

Rhetorical Persuasion”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21 (1): 137-164. <https://doi.org/10.1075/

jhp.00039.hyl>.

HyLAnD, Ken and Polly tsE. 2004. “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal”. Applied

Linguistics 25 (2): 156-177. <https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156>.

JAnčAříkOVÁ, Renata. 2023. “Attitude Markers in L2 Learners’ Academic Writing: A Case Study of

Master’s Theses by Czech Students Compared to L1 Students’ Writings”. Brno Studies in English

49 (1): 5-31. <https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2023-1-1>.

kAwAsE, Tomoyuki. 2015. “Metadiscourse in the Introductions of PhD Theses and Research

Articles”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20: 114-124. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

jeap.2015.08.006>.

kHALILI, Assef and Majid AsLAnAbADI. 2014. “The Use of Metadiscourse Devices by Non-native

Speakers in Research Articles”. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Discourse Analysis 2 (2): 21-

34. <https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2017.13648>

kHEDRI, Mohsen, Chan Swee HEng and Seyed Foad EbRAHIMI. 2013. “An Exploration of Interactive

Metadiscourse Markers in Academic Research Article Abstracts in Two Disciplines”. Discourse

Studies 15 (3): 319-331. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613480588>.

kILgARRIff, Adam, Pavel RyCHLy, Pavel sMRz and David tugwELL. 2004. “ITRI-04-08 the Sketch

Engine”. Lexical Computing. Available from <https://www.sketchengine.eu/>.

kIM, Loi Chek and Jason Miin-Hwa LIM. 2013. “Metadiscourse in English and Chinese Research

Article Introductions”. Discourse Studies 15 (2): 129-146. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612471476>.

kObAyAsHI, Yuichiro. 2017. “Developmental Patterns of Metadiscourse in Second Language

Writing”. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 21 (2): 41-54. <https://doi.

org/10.25256/PAAL.21.2.3>.

Marie Lahodová Vališová

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 15-40 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

kOutsAntOnI, Dimitra. 2006. “Rhetorical Strategies in Engineering Research Articles and Research

Theses: Advanced Academic Literacy and Relations of Power”. Journal of English for Academic

Purposes 5: 19-36. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.002>.

LEE, Joseph J. and J. Elliott CAsAL. 2014. “Metadiscourse in Results and Discussion Chapters: A

Cross-linguistic Analysis of English and Spanish Thesis Writers in Engineering”. System 46: 39-

54. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009>.

LIAO, Jianling. 2020. “Metadiscourse, Cohesion, and Engagement in L2 Written Discourse”.

Languages 25 (5): 1-21. <https://doi.org/10.3390/languages5020025>.

MARtín-LAgunA, Sofía and Eva ALCón. 2015. “Do Learners Rely on Metadiscourse Markers? An

Exploratory Study in English, Catalan and Spanish”. Social and Behavioral Sciences 173: 85-92.

<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.035>.

MAuRAnEn, Anna. 1993. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study.

Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

MOREnO, Ana I. 2008. “The Importance of Comparable Corpora in Cross-cultural Studies”. In

Connor, Ulla, Ed Nagelhout and William V. Rozycki (eds.) Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to

Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 25-41.

Mu, Congjun, Lawrence Jun zHAng, John EHRICH and Huaqing HOng. 2015. “The Use of

Metadiscourse for Knowledge Construction in Chinese and English Research Articles”. Journal

of English for Academic Purposes 20: 135-148. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003>.

MuR-DuEñAs, Pilar. 2011. “An Intercultural Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Research

Articles Written in English and in Spanish”. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3068-3079. <https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002>.

PALtRIDgE, Brian. 2002. “Thesis and Dissertation Writing: An Examination of Published Advice

and Actual Practice”. English for Specific Purposes 16: 61-70. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-

4906(00)00025-9>.

POVOLnÁ, Renata. 2012. “Causal and Contrastive Discourse Markers in Novice Academic Writing”.

Brno Studies in English 38 (2): 131-148. <https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2012-2-8>.

PuJOL DAHME, Ana and Moisés sELfA sAstRE. 2015. “The Transition from University to Publication:

and English”. Ibérica 30: 155-181.

QIu, Xuyan and Xiaohao MA. 2019. “Disciplinary Enculturation and Authorial Stance: Comparison

of Stance Features among Master’s Dissertations, Doctoral Theses, and Research Articles”.

Ibérica 38: 327-348.

swALEs, John. 1990. Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:

Cambridge U.P.

tRIbbLE, Christopher. 2002. “Corpora and Corpus Analysis: New Windows on Academic Writing”.

In Flowerdew, John (ed.) Academic Discourse. London: Longman: 131-149. <https://doi.

org/10.4324/9781315838069>.

VOgEL, Radek. 2008. “Sentence Linkers in Essays and Papers by Native vs. Non-native Writers”.

Discourse and Interaction 1 (2): 119-126.

Received: 10/12/2023

Accepted: 03/04/2024

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

‘FEEDBACK MEANS THE WORLD TO ME’:

CONSTRUCTING PROXIMITY IN CANON-

COMPLIANT FANFICTION

‘FEEDBACK MEANS THE WORLD TO ME’:

LA CONSTRUCCIÓN DE LA PROXIMIDAD

EN LA FANFICCIÓN AJUSTADA AL CANON

https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.202410256

KATARZYNA MATLAS

University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland

kmatlas@us.edu.pl

<https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8066-5525>

Abstract

This paper examines the linguistic strategies used in English to create proximity

within the online fandom community. The study applies close reading techniques

to analyse three works of fanfiction belonging to a canon-compliant subgenre. It

explores how authors from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds establish a

relationship with their readers by demonstrating their affiliation with fandom

(proximity of membership) and dedication to the source material (proximity of

commitment). To investigate these techniques, the study employs the model of

proximity defined by Hyland (2010), extended by the findings of Suau-Jiménez

(2019, 2020). The analysis includes both the main text and the metatext, revealing

similarities in the techniques used by the authors to establish proximity through

organisation, argument, credibility, stance and engagement.

Keywords: proximity, interpersonality, fanfiction, fan studies, genre.

Resumen

Este artículo examina las estrategias lingüísticas empleadas en inglés para crear

proximidad dentro de la comunidad de fan en línea. El estudio incorpora técnicas

de lectura atenta para analizar tres fanfictions o fanficciones pertenecientes a un

Katarzyna Matlas

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

subgénero que se ajusta al canon. Explora el modo en el que autores de diversos

orígenes socioculturales establecen vínculos con sus lectores demostrando su

afiliación al fandom o comunidad fan (proximidad de pertenencia) y su dedicación

al material original (proximidad de compromiso). Para investigar estas técnicas, el

estudio emplea el modelo de proximidad definido por Hyland (2010), ampliado

por los hallazgos de Suau-Jiménez (2019, 2020). El análisis incluye tanto el texto

principal como el metatexto y revela que hay similitudes en las técnicas empleadas

por los autores para establecer las facetas que constituyen la proximidad:

organización, argumentación, credibilidad, postura y compromiso.

Palabras clave: proximidad, interpersonalidad, fanficciones, estudios sobre

aficionados, género.

1. Introduction

This paper is an attempt to explore how reader interaction is encouraged by the

linguistic strategies used in English by fanfiction writers. The first section of the

article introduces fandom as a community with defined practices, such as the

creation of fanfiction. In the following parts, fanfiction will be described as a form

of communication between writers and readers. Furthermore, I will briefly present

research on fanfiction and introduce the notion of proximity, which may be

constructed within fanfiction to facilitate interaction and engagement among

members of the community, and present the analysis of the study data. In the last

section, I will discuss the results and attempt to determine how fanfiction writers

may construct proximity in canon-compliant fanfiction and how they use language

to present and justify their writing.

1.1. What is a Fandom?

The word “fan” comes from the Latin fanaticus, which describes a devotee

(Jenkins 1992). Fans participate in activities to express their deep affection for a

certain product or person; they form a community and create texts, art and music

based on their common interest. An online group that shares traditions, opinions,

perspectives and social norms is called a fandom (Kobus 2018). Each fandom has

its object of affection such as a video game, book or television series. A fandom is

characterised by their practices of “prosumption”, meaning consumption and

production. “Prosumer”, a term coined by Alvin Toffler (1980), was defined as an

agent who both consumes a product and produces it in remade form. These

practices of “prosumption” include critical reinterpretation (Silberstein-Bamford

2023), appropriation, immersion (Van Steenhuyse 2011) and creative output.

Constructing Proximity in Canon-compliant Fanfiction

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Fans form groups and function as communities with defined practices, constituting

a participatory culture “inviting many forms of participation and levels of

engagement” (Jenkins 1992: 2). Fanfiction writing is one of the practices used for

initiating interaction and discussion among members of the community.

1.2. What is Fanfiction?

Fanfiction is one of the most popular forms of production within fandom. It allows

the writer to disaggregate and reorganise the source material and create a text

based on another text (Hellekson and Busse 2014). By reusing features from a

well-established universe, such as characters or settings, fanfiction develops a new

narrative which refines the source material and makes it flawless in the eyes of the

author (Oberc 2015). Fanfiction is the result of deep analysis of source material

and expands on certain scenes, plotlines and character personalities. It is a process

of “retelling” carried out in a participatory culture, which allows people to assume

multiple roles simultaneously, that is, author, receiver and critic. Online writing

allows everyone, regardless of their gender, age or social status, to express their

opinions, be creative or engage in discussion with the help of the story (Menise

2020).

Classifying fanfiction can be difficult because each fandom has its own set of terms

and conventions. Fanfiction is not a single uniform category; instead, we can only

identify certain patterns and trends within it. Several taxonomies have been

developed for fanfiction over the years (see Bacon-Smith 1992; Jenkins 1992;

Pugh 2005; Kobus 2018), although there is no official system of categorisation to

date. This study focuses on canon-compliant fanfiction, a type of fanfiction that

does not change the original storyline and whose main purpose is to explain and

elaborate on certain aspects of the plot (Kobus 2018). The story may be set before,

during or after the events of the original work. Writers often interpret the original

events and draw conclusions, which are then incorporated into the new text. In

canon-compliant fanfiction, any additions to the plot must be implemented

convincingly to ensure the reader understands how they improve upon the original.

These additions function in much the same way as arguments.1 An argument is a

new element of the plot which aims to enhance and complement the original

work, increasing the satisfaction of both the author and the readers.

A fandom has an in-group register, which is also a criterion for membership. It is

assumed that several genres of fanfiction coexist within a fandom, and members

employ specific terminology to refer to original material. To be a member of a

fandom, one must possess a satisfactory comprehension of the source material and

the related terminology. Similarly, discourse communities also require “a threshold

of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise”

Katarzyna Matlas

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

(Swales 1990: 27). A fandom may be considered a discourse community that uses

specialised terminology and tropes to achieve its communicative goals.

1.3. Interactions in Digital Fanfiction Writing

In participatory cultures, shared practices such as writing and reading fanfiction

serve as means of communication. Communicative events happen mostly in the

metatext (e.g. author’s notes, comments, tags) and across multiple websites

(author’s social media), where every fan may participate.

With the emergence of the Web 2.0, most fandom activities shifted to the

internet, and several websites were established to serve as repositories for user-

generated content and to facilitate interaction. In the context of fanfiction,

authors may either post their work all at once or release it in a serialised format,

with new chapters being published on a schedule or whenever they find time.

Some authors may choose to release their work in parts to gather feedback from

readers.

The most popular webpage for posting fanfiction, Archive of Our Own (AO3),

allows users to interact with fanfiction passively and actively through two levels

—textual and metatextual. The textual level concerns the story itself, while the

metatextual level allows for interaction between the author and readers. For

fanfiction to be published on AO3, it needs to have a proper description and

appropriate tagging, as the fans use tags to search for content. Tags are

metatextual markers that inform the reader of the type of content they may

anticipate. The AO3 syntax of tagging is not specifically regulated and may be

seen as a distinctive mode of communication, or a space where the author may

include their informal reflections. At the end of each chapter, readers can post

their comments. The comments section also enables the readers to engage in

conversation between themselves or with the author. When the format of

fanfiction is serialised, AO3 allows the user to subscribe to a particular piece and

be notified of new updates via email. Readers may give ‘kudos’ to a work

(equivalent to a ‘like’ on social media) or bookmark it, that is, save it to a user

account or private collection so they may return to the story without the fear of

forgetting the title or author. A comment section may be used as a means of

communication, but the author of fanfiction may also communicate with readers

using the author’s notes, which appear before the main text. The author’s notes

may give reasons why the story was written or explain certain cultural conventions,

but they are predominantly used to share the author’s thoughts, ask readers for

opinions and show gratitude to readers for reading the story. In the author’s

notes, writers may also provide links to their social media profiles so they can stay

in touch with readers outside AO3.

Constructing Proximity in Canon-compliant Fanfiction

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Fanfiction may be divided into parts, although the lines separating them are often

blurred. Texts open with an introduction, which informs readers about when and

where in the source material’s timeline the fanfiction takes place, while the main

body presents the arguments (author’s additions) followed by the ending.

The participatory nature of a fandom allows everybody to be a creator. Fanfiction

writers post under pseudonyms and seldom disclose personal information such as

nationality, age or gender. A fandom may be considered a safe space, and fanfiction

writing encourages participants to explore their gender identity or sexual

preferences without revealing their identity to the public (see Dym et al. 2019;

Dym and Fiesler 2020). Fanfiction provides a means for writers to reflect on and

interpret the emotions evoked by the source material, as well as to modify and

enhance the story to make it more engaging and satisfying for both the author and

the reader.

AO3 is a platform for fans to exchange feedback. Public reviews are encouraged

and valued. Readers can choose to interact with the work of other fans by sharing

their opinions on the story or the writing. Feedback can reassure authors and lead

them to improve their writing by offering constructive criticism. As Cheng and

Frens noted, such exchanges improve interpretive skills, allowing for reflection on

both source material and fanfiction from different perspectives. The ability to

improve writing based on feedback applies to creative, professional and academic

writing (2022: 402). Furthermore, more dedicated writers of fanfiction often

collaborate with a ‘beta-reader’, who reviews their work before publication.

Fanfiction is part of an online gifting culture, which determines the amount and type

of interaction expected between members and the assumed reciprocity of

contributions. Metatext is used to perform various fan activities including criticism

and appraisals. Every individual may feel a need to engage with fan creations, whether

directly or indirectly, by liking a work of fanfiction or leaving a comment (Kobus

2018). Individuals give and receive fan products, resulting in the creation of social

relationships centred around a mutual object of affection (Hellekson 2009).

Reciprocity can deepen the bond between individuals and may increase the prestige

of good authors, earning them renown for their selfless creations (Kobus 2018).

To have their work assessed, writers need to establish a certain level of

interaction with the audience. This can be achieved through the use of

metatext, engagement markers and the organisation of the fanfiction itself,

which includes the effective portrayal of characters, a well-constructed narrative

and an emotional resonance with the reader that may prompt them to engage

with the text. It has been observed that fans tend to document their observations

and discuss any rejection or reinterpretation of the established material in the

metatext (Bennett 2014).

Katarzyna Matlas

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

1.4. Previous Studies on Fanfiction

One of the most prominent studies on fan behaviour is Henry Jenkins’s Textual

Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture (1992), which uses De Certeau’s

(1984) notion of poaching to describe fans as meaning-makers while placing them

in a position of resistance to the publishing industry. At first, analyses falsely treated

fans as a homogenous group (Bronwen 2011) and focused heavily on feminist and

gender overtones found in fanfiction. Russ (2014) states that fanfiction is explicitly

feminist pornography, while Lamb and Veith (2014) argue that fanfiction is a

sphere where explicit sexual content must be understood as a woman’s desire for

equality in a relationship, which does not fall under societal hierarchies of gender

roles. Woledge (2006) observes that in fanfiction texts, a woman’s hidden desire

for intercourse is reshaped as the highest form of trust and emotional connection.

In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of literature on power

dynamics within digitally-mediated communities, such as the work by Harris

(1998) and Jancovich (2002), who explored how fans’ migration to the internet

space has impacted their activity and their relationship with social hierarchies,

using theories developed by Foucault and Bourdieu. Furthermore, scholars studied

how fans are attached to media and how they interact with it in relation to fanfiction

(see Gray 2003; van Monsjou and Mar 2019). Fanfiction has been considered a

feminist genre (see Bacon-Smith 1992; Bury 2005; Woledge 2006) and a space for

activism (see Allred and Gray 2021), identity expression (see Dym et al. 2019;

Dym and Fiesler 2020) and communal literacy acquisition (see DeLuca 2018;

Rodriguez Aragon and Davis 2019).

The anthology The Fan Fiction Studies Reader (2014), edited by Karen Hellekson

and Kristine Busse, provides an overview of fan studies and situates this scholarly

work mainly within the realms of media and cultural studies. The book explores

fan creations and the ways they are written and distributed.

However, this existing research has been limited to fanfiction’s psychological,

social and cultural aspects, while its linguistic features have not been sufficiently

explored. Previous linguistic research into the genre has mostly contributed to

second language acquisition (see Black 2005, 2006), self-taught critical literacy

(see Edfeldt et al. 2012) or linguistic practices in mixed-language fanfiction (see

Leppänen 2012). What seems to be lacking is a thorough exploration of the

linguistic facets of fanfiction written in English. This paper aims to explore the

linguistic aspects of discourse within and around fanfiction.

Fanfiction is a reader-oriented type of writing. Fanfiction authors must convince

readers of the validity of their additions to receive a positive reception. This

behaviour is also present in other reader-oriented genres. In research articles,

writers establish proximity to enhance the credibility of their claims. Fanfiction

Constructing Proximity in Canon-compliant Fanfiction

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

authors may also use proximity to persuade readers, as this notion focuses on

positioning the author in relation to their text and community, which ought to

satisfy the reader’s expectations (Hyland 2010). Compared to other subgenres,

proximity may be most prominently visible in canon-compliant fanfiction due

to its purpose of enhancing the original work: authors may make specific

language choices to establish proximity, therefore increasing the validity of their

additions.

Proximity fosters reader-oriented writing, as the recipient needs to recognise the

structure and anticipate the writer’s purposes. Proximity has been applied to

academic writing (see Hyland 2010; Dressen-Hammouda 2014; Zhang and

Cheung 2018; Herrando-Rodrigo 2019) and is assumed to be part of the process

of negotiating authors’ claims in articles. Furthermore, proximity has been applied

to multimodal discourse (see Scotto di Carlo 2014; Tereszkiewicz and Szczyrbak

2022). Different facets of proximity (credibility and stance) portrayed in

promotional genres have been studied (see Suau-Jiménez 2019, 2020), but there

appears to be little or no research on proximity in fanfiction. Proximity may be a

crucial element in understanding the intrinsic reciprocity associated with writing

practices within fandom.

This article will seek to reveal ways in which fanfiction writers construct proximity

in canon-compliant fanfiction and how they use language to present and justify

their argument using Hyland’s (2010) framework of proximity as expanded by the

findings of Suau-Jiménez (2019, 2020).

1.5. Proximity

Proximity is a well-researched notion among academic, popular science and

educational genres (see Hyland 2010; Dressen-Hammouda 2014; Scotto di Carlo

2014; Zhang and Cheung 2018; Herrando-Rodrigo 2019; Luzón Marco 2019;

Hyland and Zou 2021; Tereszkiewicz and Szczyrbak 2022; Bocanegra-Valle 2023,

among others), whereas studies of proximity in other genres seem to be scarce (see

Suau-Jiménez 2016, 2019, 2020). Proximity has been chosen as the theoretical

framework for this research due to its applicability to reader-oriented writing such

as fanfiction. Whereas terms such as metadiscourse, interdiscursivity, interpersonality

and stance may also concern closeness between interactants, they touch upon

different relational aspects. Metadiscourse concerns linguistic resources that

organise the discourse, helping the reader interpret the text as intended by the

author (Hyland 2004). In contrast, proximity focuses on specific strategies within

metadiscourse. Interdiscursivity refers to connections between different texts. One

facet of proximity —credibility— may also draw on shared knowledge from other

texts. Both interpersonality, which concerns the relationship between the writer

Katarzyna Matlas

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

and the reader, and stance, which refers to the writer’s attitude towards the

information, are incorporated into the notion of proximity (Hyland 2010).

Therefore, proximity seems to be the most comprehensive notion with which to

analyse linguistic strategies used to model the relation between the author, the

reader and the presented content in the fanfiction genre.

In the context of academic discourse, Hyland argues that authors use a variety of

linguistic resources to represent themselves and their material while fulfilling the

audience’s expectations. Authors were observed to use meticulously chosen lexis

to establish readers as “interactants” (2010: 116) with whom they discuss

arguments within the norms of the community. Similar observations have also

been made outside strictly academic contexts. Both Wang and Csomay (2024) and

Scotto di Carlo (2014), using Hyland’s concept of proximity, studied how speakers

in TED talks pass their knowledge on to non-expert listeners through linguistic

strategies of engagement and persuasion. Various facets of proximity in promotional

discourse, such as stance and credibility, have been researched by Suau-Jiménez

(2016, 2019, 2020), who suggested that travel agencies and hotels construct

proximity to encourage customers to choose their services.

Proximity may be divided into proximity of membership and proximity of

commitment (Hyland 2010). Proximity of membership refers to the author’s use

of linguistic conventions to present themselves as knowledgeable members of the

community. In fandom, this is achieved through a deep comprehension of the

source material and a proficiency in the use of vocabulary and register that mirrors

the original. Proximity of commitment reveals the author’s attitude towards the

original text, that is, which elements they appreciate, which parts of the material

are in their opinion underdeveloped, and which elements should be elaborated

upon to derive more satisfaction from the reading. These two facets of proximity

are used to emphasise the “recipient design” of the text, which refers to the various

ways in which a writer may express respect and sensitivity towards other readers

through a carefully chosen lexicon and range of topics (Sacks et al. 1974: 727).

Fanfiction writers may need to establish proximity as an invitation to the reader to

enter the discourse and analyse the validity of their contributions.

Proximity is created through aspects such as organisation, argument, credibility,

stance and engagement (Hyland 2010). Here, it is worth noting that Hyland’s

model was originally proposed as applicable to English-language academic and

popular science genres. Suau-Jiménez (2016) argues that proximity is achieved

differently according to the genre in which it is constructed and is a result of at

least three variables: language, genre and discipline. These variables render specific

patterns of genre-related rhetorical functions. In later research, Suau-Jiménez et

al. (2021) proposed a new concept called discursive interpersonality. The notion of

Constructing Proximity in Canon-compliant Fanfiction

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

discursive interpersonality focuses on each text and its discourse as the starting

point for analysis. It encompasses a broader variety of strategies according to each

genre’s features, which include verbal, visual and lexical-grammatical markers (self-

nomination, evaluative adjectives, imperative verbs) not included in Hyland’s

previous model.

Organisation refers to the form of the presented argument (Tereszkiewicz and

Szczyrbak 2022), such as the structure of the text and the location of the main

argument. The argument adheres to the readers’ expectations, and it attempts to

show the author’s respect and engagement with the field of research. In fanfiction,

an author’s reinterpretation of elements from the original material can be

considered an argument. Arguments may include added scenes that seek to further

explore certain events not present in the source material, or they may elaborate on

abandoned or unresolved themes from the original text. Proper organisation

impacts the reader’s experience, as the reader may anticipate the parts in the

fanfiction where additions have been integrated to enrich the original narrative.

Organisation may also portray modifications as convincing and plausible for the

audience.

In research articles, credibility is established by demonstrating expertise in research

methods and meticulous work while maintaining objectivity. In popularisation,

credibility is maintained by using direct quotes and reporting verbs to attribute

statements to the scientist (Tereszkiewicz and Szczyrbak 2022). Suau-Jiménez

(2016) and Suau-Jiménez et al. (2021) highlight that in promotional genres, the

involvement of the reader is more marked. Writers may try to attain credibility

through direct allusions (you/the readers) or imperative verbs or personalised

agentive self-mentions (I, me, my, our) as they try to persuade the reader in a

friendly, trustworthy way. The same may be said for fanfiction: credibility may be

achieved through references to the source material and the author’s self-mentions

in the metatext.

Stance linguistically portrays the author’s perspective. Stance represents the

“attitudinal dimension” (Hyland 2005: 176), that is, how writers present

themselves and convey their opinions. In scientific writing, authors often use

modals (should, can) and hedging (seems, appear) to qualify their commitment and

present their arguments as plausible, opening up space for discussion, whereas in

popular science articles, this tentativeness is often removed, and the scientists are

presented as expert contributors through the use of boosters. Popularisations tend

to emphasise the ingenuity of research findings through evaluative adjectives like

great or crazy (Scotto di Carlo 2014: 600). In some genres, stance and engagement

markers (inclusive we) may overlap (Suau-Jiménez 2016), although they have

different functions. The authors may appear more persuasive if they personalise the

Katarzyna Matlas

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

text (through self-nomination), demonstrate membership (plural we) or use

attitudinal markers such as imposing or magnificent (Suau-Jiménez et al. 2021:

128). The research paper’s author responds to an ongoing discourse and anticipates

the reader’s response, who may only find particular arguments valid. Writers of

fanfiction also have to situate themselves within the existing discourse and

persuasively present their interpretation. As will be shown in the findings and

discussion sections, fanfiction is a highly affective and interaction-driven channel

of communication, full of evaluative adjectives and pronouns used to express the

author’s position and persuade readers.

Engagement is the direct address to readers to make them feel involved and inspire

interaction (Tereszkiewicz and Szczyrbak 2022). Engagement is reader-oriented,

as it uses inclusive pronouns, direct questions, personal anecdotes and references

to shared knowledge. In research articles, engagement is maintained by inclusive

we to indicate that the author is part of the same community and shares the same

area of interest, whereas in popular texts, inclusive we assumes solidarity. Xia and

Hafner (2021) observed that in the online popularisation process assisted by

audio-visuals, the speaker creates a participatory relationship between the speaker

and the audience through the use of the first person plural and its possessive

adjective. Furthermore, engagement can be increased by combining gestures,

humour, informality (lack of punctuation, slang, emoji) and visuals. In fanfiction,

these behaviours function on both the metatextual level (where authors may make

humorous remarks or directly ask readers for feedback) and the textual level (where

they may incorporate visuals) of fanfiction writing.

2. Methodology and Material

To conduct this study, a case study approach was adopted, and a corpus consisting

of three fanfictions was gathered from the Archive of Our Own website, the site of

choice for authors who write in English. Each is part of the subgenre known as

canon-compliant fanfiction and is based on different source material. AO3 allows

the writer to publish under a pseudonym; however, authors may refer readers to

their social media accounts in the metatext. In the present case, two of the three

authors studied have shared personal information on social media outlets (see

Table 1). Canon-compliant was selected as the subgenre studied due to its

restrictive form. Arguments or contributions have to be carefully crafted so they fit

the original narrative while being a valuable addition. Texts were selected based on

their tags (canon-compliant) or clearly established timeframe within source

material in the work’s description. To provide variety in the study, chosen texts are

based on different source materials and have been written by different authors. As

Constructing Proximity in Canon-compliant Fanfiction

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

the writer must assure the audience that they are a member of the community and

are knowledgeable of the original text through specific language cues, the texts

were analysed in search of proximity-creating linguistic techniques, which position

authors as competent colleagues who bring innovative contributions to the

community.

Title Author (gender, age,

nationality)

Type

of source

material

Number

of words

Date of

publication

online

Serialisation

“Whoops, I

Almost Killed

You Again 天

官赐苦，鬼拂

忌”

(WIAKYA)

TentativeWanderer

(unknown, 20+,

unknown)

Book 5,664 2020-12-11 Published

weekly over

a month

“hey son, i

killed your

daddy”

(HSIKYD)

MissingNoo

(nonbinary, 26,

American)

Manga 8,942 2021-06-07 Published

fully

“I Love You

the Same”

(ILYTS)

Yllirya (female, 26,

unknown) Video

Game 3,901 2023-11-10 Published

fully

This study adopts the concept of proximity (Hyland 2010) broadened by Suau-

Jiménez’s (2019, 2020) findings to demonstrate how different authors construct

proximity through organisation, argument, credibility, stance and engagement.

Using close reading techniques, linguistic features are identified for each of the five

facets that help the writer establish a connection with their readers, both in the

main text and in the metatext.

3. Findings

3.1. Organisation

In the context of fanfiction, organisation may refer to both the textual and

metatextual levels. On the textual level, each text starts with the introduction of

the time and space, locating the novel event on the canon2 timeline. Locating the

action within a timeframe requires knowledge about the chronology of the events

and specific nomenclature which situates the author as an expert with proper

qualifications, thus expressing membership in the fandom (Examples 1 and 2):

Table 1. Corpus presentation

Katarzyna Matlas

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

(1) When had it started? He wasn’t sure. The change seemed gradual. What

had changed over the past few months? Most notably, his acquisition of an

interesting new housemate in Puji Shrine, roughly five months ago.

(WIAKYA, 2021)

(2) It starts out as a deceptively nice day for this. […] The Kyoto exchange

event is over and a collective sigh has passed through the school, a deep

breath none of them even realized they were holding.

(HSIKYD, 2021)

Mentioning the important events from the source material (Example 1:

“housemate”; Example 2: “Kyoto exchange event”) confirms the author’s

expertise and belonging to the target community. Example 1 also uses rhetorical

questions to initiate interaction with the reader and represents the train of thought

of the main character, who in the original book often speaks to himself. Both

examples establish approximate location and time, shaping the spatio-temporal

characteristics of the argument in the context of important original situations.

Both examples use lexicon associated with the passing of time and motion

(“started”, “gradual”, “changed”, “over” in Example 1; “passed” in Example 2)

to enrich the dynamics of the narrative before the introduction of the argument

(additional scenes).

In the third fanfiction, which is based on a game, the introduction is placed in the

metatext. In the description and tags (Example 3: “Tag: After 4.2 AQ”), the author

specifies that this new scene takes place directly after an important plot line (called

AQ —archon quest). In the notes, the writer states that they attempt to explore the

emotional trauma that the characters endured during the events (Example 3: “fic

is the result of these. I couldn’t go by how Neuvi can feel in his old position”.)

Locating the event within the timeframe is done outside the text itself:

(3) Tag: After 4.2 AQ

Notes: 4.2 AQ left me with a lot of feelings and this fic is the result of

these. I couldn’t go by how Neuvi can feel in his old position —even

before the AQ— but especially now in the light of the new events and

truth. Knowing what is in his future. (ILYTS, 2023)

Considering the metatextual level of fanfiction, some visual tools may be used at

the beginning or end of a chapter to provide context and strike a less formal tone.

In the present case, visuals are only used in the first fanfiction, which is based on a

popular Chinese novel. They segment the text and provide humorous commentary

on the previous chapter, at the same time engaging the reader. As demonstrated in

Constructing Proximity in Canon-compliant Fanfiction

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Example 4, the author uses intertextuality to reference both the internet-specific

mode of communication known as memes and the original source by creating a

comic image (as indicated by the watermark of the site where the original meme

was modified with text boxes —Kapwing). The author establishes a connection

between their work and the audience’s common knowledge by referencing the

important event from the source material (giving the ashes), which was originally

not fully developed. This also sets a humorous tone for the fanfiction.

(4)

(WIAKYA 2021)

In two fanfictions, the main addition is foregrounded on the metatextual level in

the tags. As tags appear before the main text, the reader may anticipate the

contributions and their purpose (“reasoning” in Example 3a; “Filling in the plot

hole of how Hua Cheng managed to ‘survive’ Xie Lian’s curse” in Example 4a).

3.2. Argument Presentation

Not all arguments are well-received. To conduct a proper discussion, arguments

must be negotiated as credible contributions to existing knowledge. In fanfiction,

an argument is a new addition that satisfies the audience’s needs and is relevant to

the established universe. If the source material is an ongoing series, the authors

often argue for innovations in the most topical fragments:

Katarzyna Matlas

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

(5) Renovations, that’s new. Wriothesley only nods, not seeing the need to ask

for more as he’s sure this will be explained soon. He trails along Neuvillette

as he leads them to the audience’s area —and it’s a smaller disaster. [...] To

sit in the empty Opera Epiclese’s partially ruined interior and [...] To look

at the stage that hosted their sufferings.

(ILYTS, 2023)

Example 5 is an excerpt from a fanfiction of a regularly updated video game and

refers to the newest events from the game’s story. The destruction of the theatre’s

interior is a significant event in the game’s story. However, the source material

does not mention the main characters’ reaction to the loss of the building. The

author presents their interpretation of possible reactions and links it to the original

event. This addition (argument) addresses the needs of the gamers who were

unsatisfied with the lack of continuity or coherence within the game itself.

Entextualisation may take different forms to meet the audience’s needs. As shown

by Examples 6 and 7, it may take the form of quotations from the source and

character-focused narrative (“‘In two or three years, my kid will get sold to the

Zen’in clan. Do whatever you want’” in Example 6 is a quote from the source

material) or references to the cultural aspects of the original material (in Example

7, “zhang” is a Chinese unit of length, varying depending on dynasty). Proximity

is also constructed by specific language choices, including terminology or

references to characters and objects from the original source, which establish a link

between the new text and the canon (“gege” and “san lang” in Example 8 are

official nicknames for the characters in the book). Shared knowledge also adds to

the readers’ engagement.

(6) Something flashes across Megumi’s expression. Whether it’s hatred or

hope, Gojo can’t quite tell. “What the hell is that supposed to mean?”

‘In two or three years, my kid will get sold to the Zen’in clan. Do whatever

you want.’

“Before he died, he told me he’d planned to sell you to the Zen’in clan”,

(HSIKYD, 2021)

(7) In the past, whenever he went fishing, there would hardly be any fish fit

for human consumption within a one-zhang radius of him.

(WIAKYA, 2021)

(8) Xie Lian confessed, “San Lang, I…I lost the ring you gave me”.

Hua Cheng said, “I know”. Before Xie Lian could feel properly mortified,

Constructing Proximity in Canon-compliant Fanfiction

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Hua Cheng added, “Don’t worry, gege, nothing bad will happen to it, I

promise”.

(WIAKYA, 2021)

3.3. Credibility

Authors establish credibility in fanfiction by demonstrating knowledge of cultural

norms followed in the original story setting (Example 9: “hebao”) or by the proper

use of honorifics (Example 10: “Okkotsu-senpai”).

(9) Notes:

Drawstring pouch: hebao 荷包, for storing small objects, hung at the

waist. For pics, see https://ziseviolet.tumblr.com/tagged/hebao

(WIAKYA, 2021)

(10) Megumi cuts in, “[...] and tried to kill Okkotsu-senpai?”

(HSIKYD, 2021)

Credibility is also maintained when an author portrays commitment and deep

knowledge of the material. ILYTS is a fanfiction of a video game, with characters

inspired by particular nations and their cultures. The source material implies that,

in addition to the global language, constructed for the game, different nations

within the game use real-life languages, based on the culture they are inspired by.

This information is less known by casual fans, so the author may use this fact to

develop the characters further and portray them switching between the native and

the second language when under emotional turmoil (Example 11). The author

may also reference more obscure or hidden elements of the plotline, demonstrating

their expertise on the subject matter (Example 12: “usurper of his predecessor” or

“Mekas are still working”). Code-switching and recontextualisation of specific

terminology can signal to the reader that the writer is knowledgeable about the

source material and is not just a casual fan.

(11) “I am yours, Mon Chéri. I love you now and I will love you forever. You

have my word”.

(ILYTS, 2023)

(12) […] the byproducts of the usurper of his predecessor and him, the ones he

could, he should hate —that freed all of them. He, somehow, even made it

happen that the Mekas are still working in the city […]

(ILYTS, 2023, emphasis in original)

Katarzyna Matlas

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

In some genres, credibility may be increased if the reader is more directly

acknowledged (Suau-Jiménez 2020). This may be achieved by direct allusions

(Example 13: “few readers”), self-mentions (Example 14: “went straight to my

heart”; Example 15: “means the world to me”) or imperative verbs (Example 13:

“Talk to me”; Example 14: “happy reading!”; Example 15: “find me”), as in the

following passages:

(13) Talk to me [...] The first few readers might not have seen it ’cause I added

it later.

(WIAKYA, 2021)

(14) went straight to my heart [...] happy reading!

(HSIKYD, 2021)

(15) Feedback means the world to me [...] find me also on twt :)

(ILYTS, 2023)

3.4. Stance

Stance in fanfiction is almost unidentifiable on the textual level, but tags and

author’s notes are abundant in stance-taking expressions. Stance is mostly indicated

by attitude markers (Example 16: “I just love them” and “so much”; Example 17:

“IMPORTANT”; Example 18: “joyful enough”), self-nomination (Example 18:

“talk to me”; Example 20: “means the world to me”) and opening a space for

discussion (Example 20: “I’d love to read your thoughts”). Stance may also be

represented by a visual resource such as emojis (Example 22).

(16) Additional Tags: god. I just love them both so much.

(HSIKYD, 2021)

(17) IMPORTANT!!: AO3 is screwing with my upload time. [...] I’m writing

this to manage your expectations.

(WIAKYA, 2021)

(18) Dear people who were/are joyful enough to talk to me.

(WIAKYA, 2021)

(19) hey, i hope you enjoyed this! thank you so much for reading.

(HSIKYD, 2021)

(20) Feedback means the world to me, I’d love to read your thoughts, let it be

even just a few words or a bunch of emotes. I’m immensely grateful for all!♥

(ILYTS, 2023)

Constructing Proximity in Canon-compliant Fanfiction

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

(21) I think it’s so impractical of Hua Cheng to give Xie Lian his ashes. Probably

wouldn’t do it myself, because it looks like the set-up for a tragic Romeo-

and-Juliet death situation [...].

(WIAKYA, 2021)

(22) a Ghost King does not do take-backsies. 💍🔪💍💍💍💍🎭💍

(WIAKYA, 2021)

Example 17 directly acknowledges a framing of the argument to meet the

audience’s needs (“I’m writing this to manage your expectations”), representing

the author’s intent to avoid disappointing readers while contributing to the

fandom. Example 19’s lack of proper capitalisation indicates an informal tone,

highlighting the proximity of membership as a fellow fan. The author’s notes

may explain what was the motivation behind writing this work. As shown in

Example 21, the author wanted to explore the consequences of giving a

valuable possession (ashes) to another person (“it’s so impractical”, “set-up for

a tragic”).

3.5. Engagement

Engagement is essential to the reciprocal nature of fanfiction, as it directly

acknowledges readers and attempts to connect to them. In fanfiction, engagement

may only be seen in the metatext. While the second person pronoun you is the

most explicit way to bring the reader into the discussion, authors may use inclusive

we to introduce themselves as a member of a community with shared experience

(as in Example 23: “we saw some dust”):

(23) about the Opera: we saw some dust flying around when the Narwhal came

[…].

(ILYTS, 2023)

The second person pronoun you is also used in fanfiction as the preferred way of

engaging the community (Example 24: “If you want to, you can share”).

Engagement is also possible through directives (Example 25: “please go along”)

and questions (Example 26: “Attack until when/until what happens?”).

(24) If you want to, you can share the fic memes and info posted on my

accounts here!

(WIAKYA, 2021)

(25) […] please go along with my HC that it suffered some harm in the process.

(ILYTS, 2023)

Katarzyna Matlas

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

(26) [...] the way she phrased her order [...] “Attack Hua Cheng”? Attack until

when/until what happens?

(WIAKYA, 2021)

In the author’s notes, a number of engagement markers have been included. In

these fanfictions, the author’s notes appear to be structured similarly. First, the

writer may thank the reader for choosing their text to read (Example 28: “thank

you so much for reading”; Example 29: “Thank you for reading!”); then they try

to further establish a bond with the audience by sharing their social media accounts

(Example 27: “My Twitter:@TTTVWanderer”; Example 28: “you can also find me

on tumblr!”; Example 29: “find me also on twt”) while encouraging the audience

to leave comments regarding the accuracy of the fanfiction in relation to the canon

material (Example 27: “I welcome constructive criticism!”; Example 28:

“comments and kudos always make my day!”; Example 29: “Feedback means the

world to me”).

(27) Notes:

I welcome constructive criticism! Even stuff that’s not exactly criticism,

but suggestions or preferences. I like seeing different points of view, and

I’m not going to let them affect me unduly, so do me a favour and tell

me if you felt something was off.

🍜 Click kudos to feed me. Click comment to bless me. 󰁧Share this

fic to PURIFY. MY. SOUL! […]

My Twitter: @TTTVWanderer

My Tumblr: @tentative-wanderer

(WIAKYA, 2021)

(28) Notes:

hey, i hope you enjoyed this! thank you so much for reading. i think toji’s

such an interesting character [...]

in the meantime, i don’t really use twitter, but i’ve got an instagram

meme/shitpost page that’s mostly jjk right now. you can also find me on

tumblr!

comments and kudos always make my day! thanks again!

(HSIKYD, 2021)

(29) Notes:

Thank you for reading! Feedback means the world to me, I’d love to read

your thoughts, let it be even just a few words or a bunch of emotes. I’m

immensely grateful for all!♥

find me also on twt 😊

(ILYTS, 2023)

Constructing Proximity in Canon-compliant Fanfiction

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

The reader’s attention is attracted by the author’s notes which directly address them

and encourage them to interact through discourse markers (“in the meantime” in

Example 28), personal thoughts (“i think toji’s such an interesting character” in

Example 28) and non-verbal communication (emoji in Example 27; Example 29).

Additionally, engagement can be enhanced by referencing real-life events. In

fanfiction, the author’s notes may refer to personal or real-life events to facilitate

discussion (Example 30: “Happy Winter Solstice! [...] I bet many people are

celebrating it this weekend”). The use of appropriate register and slang can increase

the accessibility of the material, promoting open interaction (Example 31: “lonely

dawg. No-pressure”).

(30) Happy Winter Solstice! Technically it’s not here yet but I bet many people

are celebrating it this weekend

(WIAKYA, 2021)

(31) Or just come chat with this lonely dawg. No-pressure chats in which it’s

okay if you or I reply super late.

(WIAKYA, 2021)

In fanfiction metatext, there are numerous examples of informality, indicated by

colloquialisms, slang, emoticons and emojis. These elements may provide a sense of

genuineness and entertainment, which encourages author-reader communication.

4. Discussion and Concluding Remarks

The objective of this study was to determine ways in which fanfiction writers may

construct proximity in canon-compliant fanfiction and how they use language to

present and justify their argument. Interpersonality within the discourse community

is crucial; in the fanfiction genre, the relation between the writer and their audience

is reciprocal, as the author provides the fan with content, and the reader offers

their commentary or critique.

The study demonstrates that proximity may play a crucial role in facilitating

interaction and discussion among participants. Writers establish proximity of

membership by displaying their expertise within the area of shared interest, using

specific terminology, informality and proper organisation. Authors achieve

credibility in fanfiction through self-mentions, referencing obscure elements of the

original storyline, incorporating quotations and providing additional explanations

in metatext. The argument should be framed through cultural references, specific

language choices and overall recognisability to link the text with the original

material. Proximity of commitment is formed through stance and by displaying

personal attitudes. Addressing the audience directly and informally may increase

Katarzyna Matlas

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

their engagement by reducing the tension of the interaction. Proximity is a means

for the author to encourage the reader to engage in discussion about the validity

of a particular addition.

Established proximity may result in interaction in the comment section, as fans,

encouraged by the authors’ direct address and requests for feedback, provide

commentary in the form of praise (as shown in Example 32: “this was beautiful”),

critique (as shown in Example 33: “you should add”) and discussions about

elements in the fanfiction (as shown in Example 34).

(32)

(HSIKYD, 2021)

(33)

(HSIKYD, 2021)

(34)

(ILYTS, 2023)

Constructing Proximity in Canon-compliant Fanfiction

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

The analysis of the collected data indicates that proximity seems to be present in

fanfiction text and metatext. Establishing proximity in canon-compliant fanfiction

may facilitate discussion through various tools, such as the comment section or

authors’ social media (only two of three writers shared their social media profiles

in author’s notes):

(35)

(X account of ILYTS author – yllirya)

(36)

(Tumblr account of HSIKYD author – MissingNooo)

However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. The corpus

analysed is relatively small, consisting of only three fanfictions, totalling 18,507

Katarzyna Matlas

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

words and representing only one subgenre. Furthermore, full information about

the authors’ background was inaccessible.

Nevertheless, the texts were written by different authors and were based on

different materials, each representing a different medium, that is, a book, a manga,

and a video game. It is worth noting that these fanfictions were published in

different years and reflect different stages of the source material. While the book is

complete, the manga and video game are ongoing franchises that are constantly

evolving. Despite these differences, proximity was achieved through similar means,

facilitating further discussion and engagement.

Further research is needed to investigate the creation of proximity in different

subgenres of fanfiction and textual contexts. Additionally, methods for creating

proximity in fanfictions about real-life people or historical figures should be

explored. As fanfiction is a hybrid genre, proximity may be achieved differently

according to the tags and subgenres, which may also be taken into consideration.

Notes

1. Arguments in academic writing

are additions to the existing knowledge that

the author wants the readers to accept. They

need to adhere to readers’ expectation and to

be adequately justified (Hyland 2005).

2. Source material which serves

as the foundation for fan creations and is a

unifying force within the fandom community.

May be used as an adjective to mean “original”.

Works Cited

ALLRED, Alyse Marie and Collin M. GRAy. 2021. “‘Be Gay, Do Crimes’: The Co-Production and

Activist Potential of Contemporary Fanzines”. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer

Interaction 5 (CSCW2): 1-35. <https://doi.org/10.1145/3479520>.

Archive of Our Own. 2024. <https://archiveofourown.org/>. Accessed May 5, 2024.

bACOn-sMItH, Camille. 1992. Enterprising Women: Television Fandom and the Creation of Popular

Myth. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

bEnnEtt, Lucy. 2014. “Tracing Textual Poachers: Reflections on the Development of Fan Studies

and Digital Fandom”. The Journal of Fandom Studies 2 (1): 5-20. <https://doi.org/10.1386/

jfs.2.1.5_1>.

bLACk, Rebecca W. 2005. “Access and Affiliation: The Literacy and Composition Practices of

English-Language Learners in an Online Fanfiction Community”. Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy 49 (2): 118-128. <https://doi.org/10.1598/jaal.49.2.4>.

bLACk, Rebecca W. 2006. “Language, Culture, and Identity in Online Fanfiction”. E-Learning and

Digital Media 3 (2): 170-184. <https://doi.org/10.2304/ELEA.2006.3.2.170>.

Constructing Proximity in Canon-compliant Fanfiction

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

bOCAnEgRA-VALLE, Ana. 2023. “Engaging in Predatory Practices: How Editors Persuade Prospective

Authors”. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 93: 117-129. <https://doi.org/10.5209/

clac.82441>.

bROnwEn, Thomas. 2011. “What is Fanfiction and Why Are People Saying Such Nice Things about

It?” Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies 3 (1): 1-24. <https://doi.org/10.5250/

storyworlds.3.2011.0001>.

buRy, Rhiannon. 2005. Cyberspaces of Their Own: Female Fandoms Online. New York: Peter Lang.

CHEng, Ruijia and Jenna fREns. 2022. “Feedback Exchange and Online Affinity: A Case Study of

Online Fanfiction Writers”. Association for Computing Machinery 6 (CSCW2): 402:1-402:29.

<https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3555127>.

DE CERtEAu, Michel. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of

California Press.

DELuCA, Katherine. 2018. “Shared Passions, Shared Compositions: Online Fandom Communities

and Affinity Groups as Sites for Public Writing Pedagogy”. Computers and Composition 47: 75-

92. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2017.12.003>.

DREssEn-HAMMOuDA, Dacia. 2014. “Measuring the Voice of Disciplinarity in Scientific Writing: A

Longitudinal Exploration of Experienced Writers in Geology”. English for Specific Purposes 34:

14-25. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.10.001>.

DyM, Brianna, Jed R. bRubAkER, Casey fIEsLER and Bryan sEMAAn. 2019. “‘Coming Out Okay’:

Community Narratives for LGBTQ Identity Recovery Work”. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-

Computer Interaction 3 (CSCW): 1-28. <https://doi.org/10.1145/3359256>.

DyM, Brianna and Casey fIEsLER. 2020. “Social Norm Vulnerability and its Consequences for

Privacy and Safety in an Online Community”. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer

Interaction 4 (CSCW2): 1-24. <https://doi.org/10.1145/3415226>.

EDfELDt, Chatarina, Anneli fJORDEVIk and Hiroko InOsE. 2012. “Fan Culture as an Informal Learning

Environment: Presentation of a NGL Project”. Ngl 2012 Next Generation Learning Conference,

Falun, Högskolan Dalarna, February 21-23. <http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=d

iva2%3A549613&dswid=-8417>.

gRAy, Jonathan. 2003. “New Audiences, New Textualities: Anti-Fans and Non-Fans”. International

Journal of Cultural Studies 6 (1): 64-81. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877903006001004>.

HARRIs, Cheryl. 1998. “A Sociology of Television Fandom”. In Harris, Cheryl and Alexander Alison

(eds.) Theorizing Fandom: Fans, Subculture and Identity. Creskill: Hampton Press: 41-57.

HELLEksOn, Karen. 2009. “A Fannish Field of Value: Online Fan Gift Culture”. Cinema Journal 48

(4): 113 - 118 . <https://doi.org/10.1353/cj.0.0140>.

HELLEksOn, Karen and Kristina bussE. (eds.) 2014. The Fan Fiction Studies Reader. Iowa City:

University of Iowa Press.

HERRAnDO-RODRIgO, Isabel. 2019. “Raising Awareness Around Writers’ Voice in Academic

Discourse: An Analysis of Writers’ (In)visibility”. Brno Studies in English 45 (2): 53-76. <https://

doi.org/10.5817/bse2019-2-3>.

“hey son, I killed your daddy”, MissingN000. <https://archiveofourown.org/works/31803790>.

Accessed December 20, 2023.

HyLAnD, Ken and Polly tsE. 2004. “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal”. Applied

Linguistics 25 (2): 156-177. <https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156>.

Katarzyna Matlas

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

HyLAnD, Ken. 2005. “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse”.

Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173-192. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365>.

HyLAnD, Ken. 2010. “Constructing Proximity: Relating to Readers in Popular and Professional

Science”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 116-127. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jeap.2010.02.003>.

HyLAnD, Ken and Hang Joanna zOu. 2021. “‘I Believe the Findings are Fascinating’: Stance in

Three-Minute Theses”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 50: 1-13. <https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100973>.

“I Love You the Same”. Yllirya. <https://archiveofourown.org/works/51500413>. Accessed

December 20, 2023.

JAnCOVICH, Mark. 2002. “Cult Fictions: Cult Movies, Subcultural Capital and the Production of

Cultural Distinctions”. Cultural Studies 16 (2): 306-322. <https://doi.org/10.1080/0950238011010

7607>.

JEnkIns, Henry. 1992. Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture. New York:

Routledge.

kObus, Aldona. 2018. FANDOM. Fanowskie modele odbioru. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe

Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.

LAMb, Patricia Frazer and Diana L. VEItH. 2014. “Romantic Myth, Transcendence, and Star Trek

Zines”. In Hellekson, Karen and Kristina Busse (eds.): 97-115.

LEPPÄnEn, Sirpa. 2012. “Linguistic and Generic Hybridity in Web Writing: The Case of Fan Fiction”.

In Sebba, Mark, Shahrzad Mahootian and Carla Jonsson (eds.) Language Mixing and Code-

Switching in Writing: Approaches to Mixed-Language Written Discourse. New York: Routledge:

233-254. <https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203136133>.

Luzón MARCO, Maria José. 2019. “Bridging the Gap Between Experts and Publics: The Role of

Multimodality in Disseminating Research in Online Videos”. Ibérica (37): 167-192.

MEnIsE, Tatjana. 2020. Fairy Tales in Transmedia Communication: Fanfiction. PhD Dissertation.

University of Tartu, Estonia.

ObERC, Agnieszka. 2015. “I Write. You Write. They Write. The Literary Works of Fandom as Factor

in Integrating the Community”. In Gärdenfors, Peter, William Powers, Jarosław Płuciennik and

Michał Wróblewski (eds.) On-line/Off-line. Between Text and Experience Writing as a Lifestyle.

Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego: 63-74.

PugH, Sheenagh. 2005. The Democratic Genre: Fan Fiction in a Literary Context. Bridgend: Seren.

RODRIguEz ARAgOn, Cecilia and Katie DAVIs. 2019. Writers in the Secret Garden: Fanfiction, Youth,

and New Forms of Mentoring. Cambridge: The Mit Press.

Russ, Joanna. 2014. “Pornography by Women for Women, with Love”. In Hellekson, Karen and

Kristina Busse (eds.): 82-96.

SACks, Harvey, Emanuel A. sCHEgLOff and Gail JEffERsOn. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the

Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation”. Language 50 (4): 696-735. <https://doi.

org/10.2307/412243>.

sCOttO DI CARLO, Giuseppina. 2014. “The Role of Proximity in Online Popularizations: The Case of

TED Talks”. Discourse Studies 16 (5): 591-606. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614538565>.

sILbERstEIn-bAMfORD, Fabienne. 2023. “The ‘Fanfic Lens’: Fan Writing’s Impact on Media

Consumption”. Participations. Journal of Audience and Reception Studies 19 (2): 145-164.

Constructing Proximity in Canon-compliant Fanfiction

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 41-65 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

suAu-JIMénEz, Francisca. 2016. “What Can the Discursive Construction of Stance and Engagement

Voices in Traveler Forums and Tourism Promotional Websites Bring to a Cultural, Cross-generic

and Disciplinary View of Interpersonality?” Ibérica 31: 199-220.

suAu-JIMénEz, Francisca. 2019. “How Hotel Websites May Discursively Adjust to Customer

Preferences Using Online Criticism”. Ibérica 38: 203-226.

SuAu-JIMénEz, Francisca. 2020. “Closeness and Distance Through the Agentive Authorial Voice”.

International Journal of English Studies 20 (1): 73-92. <https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.416301>.

suAu-JIMénEz, Francisca, Rosa LORés sAnz, Giovanna MAPELLI and Isabel HERRAnDO-RODRIgO. 2021.

“La interpersonalidad discursiva como alternativa al metadiscurso interpersonal”. Onomázein:

Revista de Lingüística Filología y Traducción 54: 113-141. <https://doi.org/10.7764/

onomazein.54.07>.

swALEs, John. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:

Cambridge U.P.

tEREszkIEwICz, Anna and Magdalena szCzyRbAk. 2022. “‘We Poles Are Pill Poppers’: Proximity in

Polish Medical Popularisation Videos on YouTube”. Ibérica 44: 207-238. <https://doi.

org/10.17398/2340-2784.44.207>.

tOffLER, Alvin. 1980. The Third Wave. London: Collins.

VAn MOnsJOu, Elizabeth and Raymond A. MAR. 2019. “Interest and Investment in Fictional

Romances”. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 13 (4): 431-449. <https://doi.

org/10.1037/aca0000191>.

VAn stEEnHuysE, Veerle. 2011. “The Writing and Reading of Fan Fiction and Transformation Theory”.

CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 13 (4): 1-9. <https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-

4374.1691>.

wAng, Wei and Eniko CsOMAy. 2024. “Constructing Proximity in Popularization Discourse:

Evidence from Lexical Bundles in TED Talks”. English for Specific Purposes 73: 95-109. <https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.10.003>.

“Whoops, I Almost Killed You Again 天官赐苦，鬼拂”. TentativeWanderer. <https://archiveofou

rown.org/works/28014660/chapters/68624541>. Accessed December 20, 2023.

wOLEDgE, Elizabeth. 2006. “Intimatopia. Genre Intersections Between Slash and the Mainstream”.

In Hellekson, Karen and Kristina Busse (eds.) Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the

Internet. Jefferson: McFarland: 97-114.

XIA, Sichen Ada and Christoph A. HAfnER. 2021. “Engaging the Online Audience in the Digital Era:

A Multimodal Analysis of Engagement Strategies in TED Talk Videos”. Ibérica (42): 33-58. <https://

doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.42.33>.

zHAng, Weiyu and Yin Ling CHEung. 2018. “The Construction of Authorial Voice in Writing Research

Articles: A Corpus-based Study from an APPRAISAL Theory Perspective”. International Journal

of English Studies 18 (2): 53-75. <https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2018/2/320261>.

Received: 15/02/2024

Accepted: 07/05/2024

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 67-92 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

A CORPUS STUDY OF BREXIT POLITICAL

DISCOURSE: EXPLORING MODALITY THROUGH

LEXICAL MODALS

UN ESTUDIO DE CORPUS SOBRE EL DISCURSO

POLÍTICO DEL BREXIT: LA MODALIDAD

A TRAVÉS DE LOS MODALES LÉXICOS

https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20249837

ENCARNACIÓN ALMAZÁN-RUIZ

ealmazan@ujaen.es

Universidad de Jaén

<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8724-6596>

AROA ORREQUIA-BAREA

aroa.orrequia@uca.es

Universidad de Cádiz

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1478-7847>

Abstract

This paper aims to analyse the lexical modals used in the political speeches given

by Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn during the final months of the Brexit process.

This study explores whether lexical choice shows the politicians’ commitment to

their constituents, particularly to determine which lexical modals each politician

uses and which semantic implication(s) these modals convey. The study is

descriptive-interpretative and uses the corpus-assisted discourse studies approach.

It contributes to research on modality in the English language by examining parts

of speech other than (semi)auxiliary modal verbs. As the corpus analysis shows,

lexical modals are a prominent resource employed by politicians to present facts to

their audience.

Keywords: modality, lexical modals, corpus-assisted discourse studies, political

discourse, Brexit.

Resumen

El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar los modales léxicos utilizados en los discursos

políticos de Boris Johnson y Jeremy Corbyn durante los últimos meses del proceso

del Brexit. Este estudio se centra en investigar si la elección léxica muestra el

Encarnación Almazán-Ruiz and Aroa Orrequia-Barea

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 67-92 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

compromiso de los políticos con sus votantes, determinando qué modales léxicos

utiliza cada político y qué implicación o implicaciones semánticas transmiten. El

estudio es descriptivo e interpretativo y se ha realizado mediante la metodología

del análisis del discurso asistido por corpus. Este artículo, al examinar otras clases

de palabras diferentes a los verbos modales, contribuye a la investigación sobre la

modalidad en la lengua inglesa. Como muestra el análisis del corpus, los políticos

emplean los modales léxicos como un recurso destacado para presentar los hechos

a la audiencia.

Palabras clave: modalidad, modales léxicos, estudios del discurso asistido por

corpus, discurso político, Brexit.

1. Introduction

After the United Kingdom (UK) held a referendum on June 23, 2016, to

determine whether the country should remain a member of the European Union

(EU) or leave it, a process known as Brexit was initiated. Although the referendum

result was fairly close —52% vs 48%—1 more than half of voters chose to leave the

EU. From the time the referendum was held until the withdrawal took effect, a

few years went by in which the political confrontation between the leaders of the

country’s two main parties, Boris Johnson of the Conservative Party and Jeremy

Corbyn from the Labour Party, drew wide attention.

As language is the main instrument at the disposal of politicians, it is relevant and

worthwhile to analyse political discourse, since linguistic traces can uncover

political stance. Speakers may have different opinions on the same issue, leading to

the presentation of facts in one way or another; therefore, the speaker’s attitude

towards a given proposition is very significant from a linguistic point of view and

is related to so-called modality.

The semantic category of modality is mainly associated with the speaker’s attitude

towards the situation or facts expressed in the clause. Apart from including a

(semi)auxiliary modal verb in the verb phrase, there are other linguistic devices

that the speaker can use to express modality. According to Huddleston and Pullum,

“lexical modals” are other word classes (i.e. adjectives, adverbs, nouns, lexical

verbs) that can also convey the same meaning as (semi)auxiliary modal verbs

(2002: 173). Depending on the meaning expressed in the utterance, modality is

classified as either epistemic or deontic (Huddleston 1988a: 78-80).

Therefore, this paper aims to compare and analyse the lexical modals used in the

political speeches of both politicians during the last months of the Brexit process.

As most studies on modality have focused exclusively on (semi)auxiliary modal

A Corpus Study of Brexit Political Discourse: Exploring Modality

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 67-92 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

verbs, we intend to study the connections between modality expressed through

lexical modals and the political context in which it occurs, namely the Brexit

process (Paltridge 2012: 186). This analysis thus fills a gap in the research on

modality and seeks to shed light on the nuances and intricacies of modality, further

expanding the scope of modal research by exploring the concept beyond the realm

of (semi)auxiliary modal verbs. In this sense, the study extends a previous analysis

of (semi)auxiliary modal verbs in the Brexit political discourse (Orrequia-Barea

and Almazán-Ruiz 2021), as there is relatively scarce literature on the topic and a

lack of case studies. These two studies examine how modality might influence the

public’s perception of facts since politicians use it, for instance, to present facts as

possible or necessary.

This descriptive-interpretative study uses Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies

(CADS) as its methodology (Baker 2020). It describes lexical modals using data

from political discourse on Brexit. The study seeks to answer three main research

questions: (RQ1) Which parts of speech —other than (semi)auxiliary modal

verbs— are more commonly used to express modality in the political speeches of

Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn on Brexit? (RQ2) Are lexical modals more

frequently used than (semi)auxiliary modal verbs? (RQ3) Which politician uses

lexical modals more frequently in his discourse and what does this reveal?

After this introductory section, this paper is organised as follows. Sections 2 and 3

provide the political and theoretical background, focusing on political discourse

on Brexit, and on modality and lexical modals, respectively. Section 4 describes the

data and methods used to analyse the corpus. Sections 5 and 6 include the results

and the discussion. Finally, some conclusions are drawn in Section 7.

2. Language, Politics and Brexit

Language is a distinctive feature of human beings, which becomes particularly

relevant in politics. In political contexts, language is used to persuade the audience

to take a particular political position. According to Ananko, communication in

politics is essential as it helps political processes advance (2017: 128). Furthermore,

communication can contribute to politicians’ ability to influence society and make

it more cohesive. In this vein, Chilton and Schaffner state that “politics cannot be

conducted without language, and it is probably the case that the use of language

in the constitution of social groups leads to what we call ‘politics’ in a broad sense”

(in Dunmire 2012: 735). Likewise, Fairclough highlights that politics is language

since it “consists in the disputes and struggles which occur in language and over

language” (1989: 23).

Encarnación Almazán-Ruiz and Aroa Orrequia-Barea

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 67-92 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Political language functions as an index of the speaker’s current view of reality, just

as the audience’s interpretation of the same language may indicate an entirely

different perspective (Edelman 1985: 10). Discourse interpretation and the

possible implicit message underlying the words uttered become crucial in the

political context, because expressing thoughts and conveying ideas is not neutral,

and language always carries a purpose and meaning. Still, language simultaneously

represents the intended meaning of the utterance (Ekawati 2019: 6). In this

regard, the context and the timing of political discourse must be considered, as

they will determine the interpretation of the particular language aspects analysed.

Furthermore, the linguistic devices used to reach the electorate can reveal how

politicians present facts.

As is well known, the UK has been notably ambivalent to EU membership. Only

two years after joining the EU, the country held its first referendum to determine

whether to remain in the European alliance, and two-thirds of voters chose to

maintain membership in 1975 (Somai and Biedermann 2016: 139). Several

decades later, the British nation again faced a choice between remaining or

embracing an uncertain future shaped by a new reality (Torrecuadrada García-

Lozano and García Fuente 2017: 5), as numerous socio-economic and political

aspects would have to be decided if the UK ultimately split from the EU. In the

so-called Brexit referendum on 23 June 2016, Britons voted to leave the EU.

The Brexit movement demanded the UK’s exit from the EU, primarily to restore the

nation’s control. In an attempt to please Euroskeptics, the Prime Minister at the

time, David Cameron, negotiated a deal with the EU to improve the UK’s economic

governance, competitiveness, sovereignty and control over the welfare state, and the

free movement of people (Torrecuadrada García-Lozano and García Fuente 2017:

14). The unexpected result of the referendum led to Cameron’s resignation, and a

particularly troubled period in the UK political scenario began. After two years of

negotiating with the EU to make Brexit take effect, his successor, the Conservative

Theresa May, also resigned as Prime Minister. Then, the former Mayor of the City

of London, Boris Johnson, clearly in favour of Brexit, became Prime Minister.

3. Mood, Modality and Lexical Modals

In a broad and traditional sense, the distinction between mood and modality is

established by defining the former as a grammatical category that, in English, can be

expressed in different ways. The latter, in contrast, is a semantic category related to the

different implications expressed in the sentence. As Nuyts states, these two concepts

have been the subject of numerous linguistic studies, both synchronic and diachronic

(2016: 2). However, although mood and modality often appear together, the scholar

A Corpus Study of Brexit Political Discourse: Exploring Modality

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 67-92 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

points out that while “mood is the older term”, “modality […] has become the

absolutely dominant concept in the last several decades” (Nuyts 2016: 1).

According to Huddleston (1988a; 1988b), mood is a grammatical property of the

verb phrase, similar to tense or aspect, and can be marked analytically by the

presence of (semi)auxiliary modal verbs. In addition, the subjunctive and the

imperative are considered inflectional mood-related forms. Nuyts (2016) remarks

that the term mood has been used in the literature to refer to three linguistic

domains: the domain of the grammatical characteristics and formal realisations in

the verb phrase, the dichotomy of indicative and subjunctive, and the domain

between the distinction of sentence types and their illocutionary classification.

Nevertheless, it could be said that mood is “the grammatical coding of modal

meaning in verb inflections” (Depraetere and Reed 2020: 207). As Khomutova

concludes, mood is also considered “the morphological means of expressing

modality” (2014: 400).

Modality is defined as a semantic category related to different meanings or

functions, which, as Huddleston et al. point out, “express certain kinds of alteration

in the relation of clause contents to reality” (2021: 70). The authors state that

“modality relates to the ways in which the possible situations described in a clause

can relate to reality” (2021: 69). In this regard, a given situation can be expressed

in various ways, which affect and determine the sense and meaning of what is

described in the clause. Although modality is mainly expressed in English by non-

inflectional resources such as modal verbs, other lexical categories such as adverbs,

adjectives or nouns can be related to the expression of modality.

Since modality relates to how events are presented in an utterance, the speaker’s

perspective and involvement in these events become particularly meaningful.

Accordingly, a distinction is made in the literature between what is considered

modal and non-modal, and this distinction is associated with the dichotomy

between factual and non-factual (Palmer 2001: 1). As Traugott states, “modal

utterances are non-factual and […] involve speaker’s comments on the necessity or

possibility of the state of affairs” (2011: 382).

The concepts of possibility and necessity become particularly relevant in the

context of modality, since the traditional and most widely used classification among

scholars (Quirk et al. 1985; Huddleston 1988a and 1988b; Bybee and Fleischman

1995; Palmer 2001) is to determine whether events are presented as something

that may happen or as something necessary. Although there is no agreement in the

literature when it comes to establishing a taxonomy of types of modality (Nuyts

2016), in a traditional and general sense, modality can be epistemic and deontic.

There is also a lack of consensus regarding terminology and the typology used to

distinguish modals. However, the two most widely accepted terms in the literature

Encarnación Almazán-Ruiz and Aroa Orrequia-Barea

miscelánea 70 (2024): pp. 67-92 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

are epistemic and deontic. Scholars (e.g. Rozumko 2019; Huddleston and Pullum

2002) use the etymology of both terms to clarify them. Both terms, epistemic and

deontic, are derived from the Greek knowledge and binding, respectively. That is

the reason why epistemic modality is related to “qualifications concerning the

speaker’s knowledge”, and deontic modality is connected to “a matter of imposing

obligation or prohibition, granting permission, and the like” (Huddleston and

Pullum 2002: 178).

Therefore, establishing the differences between the two types of modality2 entails

determining the speaker’s viewpoint on the events conveyed in the utterance.

According to Palmer, “with epistemic modality, speakers express their judgements

about the factual status of the proposition” (2001: 8), whereas “deontic modality

relates to obligation or permission, emanating from an external source” (2001: 9).

Palmer’s words can be used to determine a broad distinction between the two

types of modality. Nevertheless, more significant traits are worth mentioning.

As Rozumko states, it is necessary to consider that linguistic communication

involves not only the speaker but also the addressee and the social context in which

communication takes place (2019: 19-20). Hence, when analysing modality, it is

important to consider that events or what is said by the speaker are rarely intended

to express their viewpoint. Moreover, Nuyts points out that in both types of

modality, a scale can be established to determine the degree of certainty or

possibility in the case of epistemic modality and the level of obligation regarding