Metadiscourse has traditionally been defined in general as “a text about a text”. This overly broad and rather imprecise definition implies a certain degree of reflexivity with which a text can refer to or speak about itself or its parts. The concept of metadiscourse may have borrowed its property of reflexivity from language in general, which can also function reflexively by commenting on the language or verbal system itself. In this reflective form of language, called “metalanguage,” the metalinguistic function of language, which is also at the heart of the metadiscourse model used in this study, is most evident. The metalinguistic function is one of the six functions of language proposed by Jakobson (1998), and the other five are expressive, directive, referential, poetic and phatic. The first three functions of language mentioned – metalinguistic, expressive and directive functions – embody the concept of metadiscourse in this study and will be discussed later in this chapter. Another, more well-known function of language is that of Halliday (1994), which includes three functions: ideational, interpersonal and textual functions. Most researchers have used metadiscourse models inspired by Hallidayan functions of language, called “systemic-functional models inspired by grammar” by Ädel (2006: 16). Differences in the bases on which the concept of metadiscourse is developed effectively influence the delimitations of metadiscourse. Metadiscourse models within the broad approach, or “integrative” approach, in Mauranen's (1993) terms, consider metadiscourse as part of discourse. by emphasizing the Hallidayan “textual” and “interpersonal” functions of language. Textual function can be seen in attitudes toward or toward propositional content...... middle of paper ......itude Markers mark the writer's attitude toward propositional content (Unfortunately). The last type is the “Commentary”, which engages the reader in an imagined dialogue (Consider…; Suppose…). Vande Kopple's classification serves as the basis for Markannen et al's (1993) study of metadiscourse in American and Finnish English argumentative texts by university. students. Crismore et al (1993) proceeded by raising the gender aspects of metadiscourse, while Luukka (1994), by studying the oral and written versions of five articles in Finnish, introduced 'contextual metadiscourse'. “Contextual metadiscourse” mainly concerns the situation of an oral presentation and the materials used in it. It allows participants in the speech “to comment on their previous or future actions, or to draw attention to the tables and figures they present”. (Luukka 1994: 80).