Persuasion in Persian Narrative: A Comparative Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers in Narrative Texts Based on Aristotle's Persuasive Triangle

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Linguistics, Marv.C., Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran

2 Department of English Language, Marv. C., Islamic Azad university, marvdasht, Iran

Abstract

Systematic study of the linguistic instruments of persuasion in literary narrative, through the integration of discourse analysis models and traditional rhetoric, provides the basis for a scientific explanation of the role of extratextual factors such as gender in shaping the argumentative structures of the text. The present study, adopting a discourse-analytic approach and drawing on Hyland’s (2005) model of metadiscourse markers and Aristotle’s persuasive triangle—logos, ethos, and pathos—examines the mechanisms of persuasion in Persian narrative in four major works of contemporary Iranian literature: Savushun by Simin Daneshvar, Khabe zemestani by Goli Taraghi, Cheshmhayash by Bozorg Alavi, and Az ranji ke mibarim by Jalal Al-e Ahmad. The corpus consists of the online texts of these works, and the data were analyzed using statistical tests to assess gender differences and interactive/interactional patterns. The findings showed that male authors make significantly greater use of interactive markers—transitions, frame markers, evidentials, endophoric markers, and code glosses—which are consistent with logos-oriented persuasion and argumentative organization. By contrast, female authors make significantly greater use of interactional markers, particularly self-mentions, strengthening ethos and emotional connection with the reader, namely pathos. At the level of individual works, Az ranji ke mibarim was the most logos-oriented, Savushun the most ethos-oriented, Khabe zemestani the most pathos-oriented, and Cheshmhayash the most balanced. The results confirm the role of gender while emphasizing personal style and narrative discourse type in shaping persuasion.Therefore, metadiscourse markers, beyond organizing the text, are indicative of the ideological and stylistic choices of authors.

Keywords

References

Ahangari, S. & Kazemi, M. (2014). A Content Analysis of ‘Alice in Wonderland’ Regarding Metadiscourse Elements. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature. 3(3). 10-18. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.3p.10.
Ahmadi, L. (2022). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Scientific Texts      (Based on Research Articles Written by Native and Non-Native Speakers). Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 99-110. https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2022.4.7
Alavi, Bozorg (2008). Cheshmhayash . 9th ed., Tehran: Negah.
Al-e Ahmad, Jalal (1995). Az Ranji ke Mibarim. Tehran: Ferdows Publications.
AlJazrawi, D. A., & AlJazrawi, Z. A. (2019). The use of meta-discourse an analysis of interactive and interactional markers in English short stories as a type of literary genre. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 8(3), 66-77.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.8n.3p.66
Anthony, L. (2020). AntConc (Version 3.5.9). Waseda University, Tokyo.
https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. & Steffensen, M.S. (1993). Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students. Written Communication. 10(1). 39-71 https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of pragmatics. 40(1),
Daneshvar, Simin (2016). Suvashun [Suvashun]. 21st ed., Tehran: Kharazmi 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
Ghahremani Mina, Kh & Biria, R. (2017). Exploring Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Discussion Sections of Social and Medical Science Articles. Research in English education. V2 . N 4, 11-7. https://doi.org/10.29252/ijree.2.4.11
Ghafoori, N., & Oghbatalab, R. (2012). A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: Male vs. Female Authors of Research Articles in Applied Linguistics. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5, 87-113. https://www.sid.ir/paper/627007/fa.
Hedayati, Mahtab (2008). Biography, style and thought of Bozorg Alavi, [Unpublished master's thesis]. Tarbiat Moallem University of Tehran.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic journal of  English Studies. Special Issue on Metadiscourse. 9 (2): 125-143. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Hyland, K. & Jiang, K. (2019). Text-organizing metadiscourse: tracking changes in  rhetorical persuasion. Journal of Historical Pragmatics . 20 (1)
Larson, C. (2010). Persuasion: reception and responsibility. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Longo, B. (1994). The Role of Metadiscourse in Persuasion. Technical Communication, 1(2), 348–352.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/43090348
Mahmoudi Jezeh, S. S. (2013). A stylistic study of Jalal Al-e Ahmad's short stories [Unpublished master's thesis]. Alzahra University.
Mirabedini, Hassan (1998). One Hundred Years of Story Writing in Iran. Tehran: Cheshmeh.
Mostafavi, M. & Tajalli, G. (2012). Metadiscoursal Markers in Medical and Literary Texts. International Journal of English Linguistics. 2(3). 64.  https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n3p64
 
Rezaei, A. A., & Ghobadi, A. (2021). A comparative study of metadiscourse markers in geology research articles. Language Horizons, 5 (2), 7- 26.
Sadeghi, K. & Esmaili, S. (2012). Frequency of Textual Metadiscourse Resources (MTRs) in Two Original and Simplified Novels. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 3(4). 647- 652. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.4.647-652
Taraghi, Goli (2013). Khab-e Zemestani. Tehran: Niloufar.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader. Applied Linguistics, 22, 58-78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58
Tse, P. & Hyland, K. (2008). ‘Robot Kung fu’: Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy review., Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 40, Issue 7, Pages 1232-1248, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.002
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse metadiscourse. College Composition & Communication, 36(1), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198511781
Journal of Linguistics & Iranian Languages
Volume 10, Issue 4
February 2026
Pages 19-47

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 January 2026
  • Revise Date: 26 May 2026
  • Accept Date: 30 May 2026

Share

How to cite

Statistics