Persuasive Discourse: Metadiscourse Practices in Chinese Live Streaming
https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7919-2025-24-4-30-41
Abstract
In e-commerce live streaming, businesses are increasingly turning to “TikTok short video + live streaming”, which features as a key marketing method. This study attempts to investigate how persuasive discourse is constructed in this genre through metadiscourse practices. By drawing on Hyland’s (2005) interactional models of metadiscourse and Verschueren’s (1999) metapragmatic awareness theory, this study examines the pragmatic functions of persuasive discourse and the metapragmatic awareness of the streamers reflected on TikTok. This research provides streamers with insights on how to achieve their marketing goals more effectively by enhancing their own metapragmatic awareness and using appropriate practices of persuasive discourse.
Supporting agencies: This paper was made possible with the financial support of the Ministry of Education Research of Social Sciences (Youth project funding), China (21YJC740006) and NWNU, China (NWNU-SKQN2021-05)
About the Authors
Qian Chen
Northwest Normal University
China
China
Lanzhou
Yaping Li
Northwest Normal University
China
China
Lanzhou
References
1. Ädel A. Metadiscourse across three varieties of English: American, British, and advanced learner English. In: Connor U., Nagelhout E., Rozycki W. (eds.) Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Pragmatics and Beyond New series, 169, published online on 1 July 2008, John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 45–62. DOI 10.1075/pbns.169.06ade
2. Beauvais P. J. A Speech Act Theory of Metadiscourse. Written Communication, 1989, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 11–30. DOI 10.1177/0741088389006001002
3. Chen Xinren. A New Metadiscourse Classification Based on Metapragmatics. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching. 2020, no. 4, pp. 1–10, 24, 147. DOI 10.13458/j.cnki.flatt. 004692
4. Culpeper J., Haugh M. Pragmatics and the English language. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, 301 p.
5. Harris Z. S. Introduction to Transformations. In: Papers in Structural and Transformational Linguistics. Formal Linguistics Series. Dordrecht, Springer, 1970. pp. 383–389. DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-6059-1_22
6. He Zhongqing, Yan Yufei. A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse in the Introduction of Interdisciplinary Academic Papers. Foreign Language Teaching. 2021, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 26–30. DOI 10.16362/j.cnki.cn61-1023/h.2021.05.005
7. Humă B. Language and Persuasion: A Discursive Psychological Approach. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2023, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1–14. DOI 10.1111/spc3.12755
8. Hyland K. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 2005, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 173–192. DOI 10.1177/1461445605050365
9. Hyland K. Discourse Studies Reader: Essential Excerpts. London, New Delhi, New York, Sydney, Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. 347 p.
10. Hyland K. Metadiscourse: What is it and Where is it Going? Journal of Pragmatics, 2017, vol. 113, pp. 16–29. DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
11. Jiang Hui. Metapragmatic Analysis of Audience Metadiscourse in TED Talks. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching, 2020, no. 4, pp. 25–35, 147. DOI 10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.004694
12. Jiang Hui. Metapragmatic Interpretation of the Construction “What are you/we talking about”. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching, 2022, no.4, pp. 66–75, 147. DOI 10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.004871
13. Jones J. G., Simons H. W. Persuasion in Society (3rd ed.). New York, Routledge, 2017. 556 p. DOI 10.4324/9781315739816
14. Kashiha H. Academic Lectures Versus Political Speeches: Metadiscourse Functions Affected by the Role of the Audience. Journal of Pragmatics, 2022, vol. 190, pp. 60–72. DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.003
15. Kopple W. J. Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 1985, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 82–93.
16. Kuhi D., Behnam B. Generic Variations and Metadiscourse Use in the Writing of Applied Linguists: A Comparative Study and Preliminary Framework. Written Communication, 2011, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 97–141. DOI 10.1177/0741088310387259
17. Liu Ping, Ran Yongping. Complaint Responses: Metapragmatic Discourse and Negotiation Awareness. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching. 2020, no. 4, pp. 11–24, 147. DOI 10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.004693
18. Mauranen A. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. A Textlinguistic Study. Frankfurt, Peter Lang, 1993, 280 p.
19. O’Keefe D. J. Guilt as a mechanism of persuasion. In: Dillard, J. P. and Pifatu, M. (eds). The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. London, Sage Publications, 2002, pp. 329–344.
20. Valero-Garcés C. Contrastive ESP Rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English Economics Texts. English for Specific Purposes, 1996, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 279–294. DOI 10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00013-0
21. Van Dijk T. A. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society, 2006, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 359–383. DOI 10.1177/0957926506060250
22. Verschueren J. Understanding Pragmatics. London, New York, Arnold, 1999. 295 p.
23. Verschueren J. Notes on the Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language Use. Pragmatics, 2000, vol. 10 no. 4, pp. 439–456. DOI 10.1075/prag.10.4.02ver
Review
For citations:
Chen Q., Li Ya. Persuasive Discourse: Metadiscourse Practices in Chinese Live Streaming. Vestnik NSU. Series: History and Philology. 2025;24(4):30-41. https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7919-2025-24-4-30-41
Views:
43
Email this article 