Metadiscourse guides how readers interact with a text and process the information they find. Because texts differ in purpose and audience, so do patterns of metadiscourse use. This research examines the patterns of metadiscourse use in topic-based writing, developed following a structured authoring method. The resulting writing is modular, nonhierarchical, and nonlinear, which creates user experience issues related to attention as well as information selection, ordering, processing, and navigation. The patterns of language use in topic-based writing reveal how metadiscourse might help readers address these reader experience issues.
AmentK. (2003). Single sourcing: Building modular documentation. William Andrew.
6.
AndersenR.BatovaT. (2015). The current state of component content management: An integrative literature review. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 58(3), 247–270.
7.
ArcherD. (2009). Does frequency really matter? In D. Archer (Ed.), What’s in a word-list?: Investigating word frequency and keyword extraction (pp. 1–16). Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
8.
BaehrC.LangS. (2019). Hypertext theory: Theoretical foundations for technical communication in the 21st century. Technical Communication, 66(1), 93–104.
9.
BailieR. A.HusetJ. (2015). The effect of CMS technology on writing styles and processes: Two case studies. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 58(3), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2016.2516642
10.
BakerM. (2013). Every page is page one: Topic-based writing for technical communication and the web. XML Press.
11.
BarkerT. T. (2003). Writing software documentation. Longman.
BiberD.DouglasB.ConradS.ReppenR. (2000). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.
16.
BoettgerR. K.WulffS. (2014). The naked truth about the naked this: Investigating grammatical prescriptivism in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(2), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2013.803919
17.
BrezinaV. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press.
CarradiniS. (2016). An organizational structure of indie rock musicians as displayed by Facebook usage. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 48, 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616667677
20.
CarrollJ. M. (1990). The Nurnberg funnel: Designing minimalist instruction for practical computer skill. The MIT Press.
ClarkD. (2014). Rhetorical challenges and concerns in enterprise content management. In vom BrockeJ.SimonsA. (Eds.), Enterprise content management in information systems research: Foundations, methods and cases (pp. 63–74). Springer.
23.
CrismoreA. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. Peter Lang.
24.
CrismoreA.MarkkanenR.SteffensenM. 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
25.
DavisC.EbleM. (2020). Inclusive audience analysis and creating manageable content. In BridgefordT. (Ed.), Teaching content management in technical and professional communication (pp. 141–154). Routledge.
26.
DushL. (2015). When writing becomes content. College Composition and Communication, 67(2), 173–196.
27.
EgbertJ. (2019). Corpus design and representativeness. In SardinhaT. B.PintoM. V. (Eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues (pp. 27–42).
JamesW. (2019). Essays in radical empiricism. Anodos Books.
38.
JonssonE.NormanD. A. (2002). Inner navigation: Why we get lost in the world and how we find our way. SciELO Chile.
39.
KauferD.IshizakiS. (2011). Docuscope: Computer-aided rhetorical analysis. In McCarthyP.BoonthumC. (Eds.), Applied Natural Language Processing and Content Analysis: Advances in Identification, Investigation, and Resolution (pp. 276–297). IGI Global.
40.
KauferD.IshizakiS.CaiX. (2016). Analyzing the language of citation across discipline and experience levels: An automated dictionary approach. Journal of Writing Research, 7(3), 453–483. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.07
41.
LanhamR. A. (2006). The economics of attention: Style and substance in the age of information. University of Chicago Press.
PirolliP. (2007). Information foraging theory: Adaptive interaction with information. Oxford University Press.
45.
PirolliP.CardS. (1995). Information foraging in information access environments [Conference session]. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, United States. pp. 51–58.
46.
PovolnáR. (2020). Persuasion in technical discourse: The role of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in user manuals. In Dontcheva-NavratilovaO.AdamM.PovolnáR.VogelR. (Eds.), Persuasion in specialised discourses (pp. 229–262). Springer International Publishing.
47.
PriestleyM.HargisG.CarpenterS. (2001). DITA: An XML-based technical documentation authoring and publishing architecture. Technical Communication, 48(3), 352–367.
