Metadiscourse and Persuasion in Expert-Written Online Product Reviews
Abstract
As online shopping becomes more widespread, consumers often rely on expert reviews to sift through countless product options and make smart purchasing decisions. Expert-written reviews, particularly those from reputable sources like Wirecutter, are viewed as more authoritative and trustworthy compared to user-generated reviews, making them a significant genre for analysis. This corpus-based study investigates the use of metadiscourse in expert-written online product reviews from The New York Times’ Wirecutter, focusing on how reviewers construct persuasive appeals through credibility (ethos), emotion (pathos), and rational (logos). Employing Hyland’s (2005a) Interpersonal Model of Metadiscourse, the analysis examines interactive markers (transitions, code glosses, endophoric markers, evidentials, frame markers) and interactional markers (self-mentions, attitude markers, hedges, boosters, engagement markers). The findings reveal a predominance of interactional metadiscourse, with self-mentions occurring most frequently, followed by engagement markers, attitude markers, hedges, and boosters. Among interactive markers, transitions were most common, followed by code glosses, evidentials, frame markers, and endophoric markers. This distribution highlights the dual focus of expert reviewers: establishing a credible authorial presence through self-mentions and ensuring coherence through transitions. The strategic use of self-mentions not only enhances credibility (ethos) but also fosters a sense of connection with readers, projecting the reviewers as authoritative yet relatable voices. Transitions aid in comparing products and structuring evaluations, ensuring clarity and rational appeal (logos). These findings shed light on the rhetorical strategies in expert reviews, contributing to linguistic and metadiscourse analysis. This study also offers practical guidance for crafting persuasive digital content, highlighting how metadiscourse supports effective persuasion.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ädel, A. (2012). ‘What I want you to remember is…’. English Text Construction, 5(1), pp.101– 127. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.06ade .
Ädel, A. (2018). Variation in Metadiscursive ‘You’ Across Genres: From Research Articles to Teacher Feedback. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0037 .
AlJazrawi, D., & AlJazrawi, Z. (2021). Metadiscourse as a Way of Achieving Persuasion in Literary Criticism Texts. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 21(3), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2021-2103-14
Al-Subhi, A. S. (2022). Metadiscourse in online advertising: Exploring linguistic and visual metadiscourse in social advertisements. Journal of Pragmatics, 187, 24-40.
Azar, A. S., & Hashim, A. (2019). The Impact of Attitude Markers on Enhancing Evaluation in the Review Article Genre. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 19(1), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1901-09
Aziz, R. A., & Baharum, N. D. (2021). Metadiscourse in the Bank Negara Malaysia Governor’s speech texts. Asia Pacific Journal of Corpus Research, 2(2), 1-15.
Bae, S. & Lee, T. (2011). Product type and consumers’ perception of online consumer reviews. Electronic Markets, 21(4), pp.255–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-011-0072-0 .
Baluch, A. (2024, February 16). 13 Profitable Dropshipping Products To Sell In 2024 – Forbes Advisor. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/dropshipping-products/
Bianchi, F. (2012). Culture, corpora and semantics: Methodological issues in using elicited and corpus data for cultural comparison. University of Salento. https://www.academia.edu/120458342/Culture_corpora_and_semantics
Birhan, A.T. (2021). An exploration of metadiscourse usage in book review articles across three academic disciplines: a contrastive analysis of corpus-based research approach. Scientometrics. 126, 2885-2902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03822-w
Brezina, V., & Platt, W. (2023). LancsBox X 3.0.0 [software package]. https://lancsbox.lancaster.ac.uk
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007
Carradini , S., & Swarts, J. (2023). Text at Scale: Corpus Analysis in Technical Communication. University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/TPC-B.2023.2104
Chen, L., & Chun, L. (2023). Interactional metadiscourse in news commentaries: A corpus-based study of China Daily and The New York Times. Journal of Pragmatics, 212, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.04.018
Chen, T., Samaranayake, P., Cen, X., Qi, M., & Lan, Y.-C. (2022). The Impact of Online Reviews on Consumers’ Purchasing Decisions: Evidence from an Eye-Tracking Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(13). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.865702
Chen, Y., & Xie, J. (2005). Third-Party Product Review and Firm Marketing Strategy. Marketing Science, 24, 218-240. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0089
Chen, Y., & Xie, J. (2008). Online Consumer Review: Word-of-mouth as a new element of marketing communication mix. Management Science, 54(3), 477-491. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0810
Crowston, K., & Williams, M. (1997). Reproduced and Emergent Genres of Communication on the World-Wide Web. The Information Society, 16(3), 201–215. doi: 10.1080/01972240050133652.
Duke, D. (2023, March 13). Why User-Generated Content is Winning. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/03/13/why-user-generated-content-is-winning/
Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2022). Designing and Evaluating Language Corpora. Cambridge University Press.
Elwalda, A., Lü, K., & Ali, M. (2016). Perceived derived attributes of online customer reviews. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 306-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.051
Erarslan, A. (2021). Correlation between Metadiscourse, Lexical Complexity, Readability and Writing Performance in EFL University Students’ Research-based Essays. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9(S1-May), 238–254. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9is1-may.4017
Farahani, M. (2019). Metadiscourse in Academic English Texts: A Corpus-driven probe into British Academic Written English Corpus. Studies About Languages, 34, pp.56–73. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.34.21816.
FAQ: What Are the Types of Media Writing? (And Who Uses Them). (2024, March 11). Retrieved from Indeed.com: https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/what-are-the-types-of-media-writing
Forbes.com. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/03/13/why-user-generated-content-is-winning/?sh=373045f06e94
Guo, F., Chen, J., Li, M., Ye, G., & Li, J. (2022). How do expert reviews and consumer reviews affect purchasing decisions? An event-related potential study. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 15(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/npe0000157
Haggin, P. (2021, July 6). Wirecutter’s audience growth and loyal readership. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/06/wirecutter-loyal-readership.html
He, M. (2019). A comparative study of metadiscourse in economics research articles and opinion pieces [Unpublished thesis].
He, M., & Abdul Rahim, H. (2019). Comparing Engagement Markers in Economics Research Articles and Opinion Pieces: A Corpus-based Study. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 19(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1902-01
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic Word-Of-Mouth Via Consumer-Opinion Platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38-52. https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/dir.10073
Ho, V. (2016). Discourse of persuasion: a preliminary study of the use of metadiscourse in policy documents. Text & Talk, 36(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2016-0001
Ho, V. (2018). Using metadiscourse in making persuasive attempts through workplace request emails. Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.06.015
Hong, W., Yu, Z., Wu, L., & Pu, X. (2020). Influencing factors of the persuasiveness of online reviews considering persuasion methods. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100912
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795–2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring Corporate Rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO's Letter. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hyland, K. (2000). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Sage Publications.
Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a Gloss: Exemplifying and Reformulating in Academic Discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), pp.266–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm011.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (Kevin). (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001
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., & Zou, H. (Joanna). (2020). In the frame: Signalling structure in academic articles and blogs. Journal of Pragmatics, 165, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.002
Hyland , K., Wang, W., & Jiang, F. (2021). Metadiscourse across languages and genres: An overview. Lingua, 265(103205). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103205
Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M.-H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612471476
Lee, B. and Hong, A.L. (2024). Interpersonal Metadiscourse: Changing Patterns in Linguistics Book Reviews. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 24(2), pp.76–92. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2024-2402-05.
Lee, S. H., & Ro, H. (2016). The impact of online reviews on attitude changes: The differential effects of review attributes and consumer knowledge. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 56, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.04.004
Li, M., Huang, L., Tan, C.-H., & Wei, K.-K. (2013). Helpfulness of Online Product Reviews as Seen by Consumers: Source and Content Features. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17(4), 101-136. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415170404
Ling, M., & Elgort, I. (2023). New Types of Evidence in Online Learning Spaces: A Corpus-Based Study. RELC Journal, 54(2), 410–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231175236
Liu, Z., Lei, S., Guo, Y., & Zhou, Z. (2020). The interaction effect of online review language style and product type on consumers’ purchase intentions. Palgrave Communications, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0387-6
Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2010). What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 34(1), 185-200. https://doi.org/10.2307/20721420
Nausa, R. (2019). Modality and Code Glosses to Transition from Academic Written to Oral Discourses. Íkala, 24(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v24n01a02
Robinson, M. B., Jerskey, M., & Fulwiler, T. (2021). Writing Guide with Handbook. Houston, Texas, USA: OpenStax. Retrieved from https://openstax.org/details/books/writing-guide
Shengli, L., & Fan, L. (2019). The interaction effects of online reviews and free samples on consumers' downloads: An empirical analysis. Information Processing and Management , 56, 102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102071
Sholikha, I. M. (2019). Language of Ads: Exploring Persuasive Strategies of Promotional. Jurnal Universitas Sebelas Meret, 741-751.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. (1992). The automatic analysis of corpora. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Directions in corpus linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82, Stockholm, 4–8 August 1991 (pp. 379–397). Mouton de Gruyter.
Situmeang, F. B., Leenders, M. A., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2014). History matters: The impact of reviews and sales of earlier versions of a product on consumer and expert reviews of new editions. European Management Journal, 32(1), 73-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2013.11.001
Sun, Y. (2024). The use of interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A corpus-based case study of astronautics. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.18178/ijssh.2024.14.2.1193
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292430
Vásquez, C. (2014). The discourse of online consumer reviews. Bloomsbury Academic.
Wang, F., & Karimi, S. (2017). Linguistic Style and Online Review Helpfulness. International Conference on Interaction Sciences.
Wang, Y., Kim, J., & Kim, J. (2021). The financial impact of online customer reviews in the restaurant industry: A moderating effect of brand equity. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 95, 102895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102895
Zhao, X.(R)., Wang, L., Guo, X. and Law, R. (2015), The influence of online reviews to online hotel booking intentions, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(6), 1343-1364. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2013-0542
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2025-2502-13
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
eISSN : 2550-2131
ISSN : 1675-8021