A Pragma-Critical Analysis of Meta-Interactional Markers in Children’s Literature: A Comparative Study of Gricean Maxim Adherence in Perrault and Grimm

This study critically examines the pragmatic functions of meta-interactional markers in children’s narratives through a Gricean pragma-critical framework. Focusing on Charles Perrault’s "Little Red Riding Hood" and Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm’s "Little Red Cap," it investigates how these markers facilitate or impede effective communication, narrative engagement, and socio-cultural representation. As a pioneering cross-textual analysis, this research employs both qualitative and quantitative methods to elucidate stylistic divergences: Grimm’s version predominantly employs directive markers aligned with instructional purposes, whereas Perrault’s narrative emphasizes expressive and rhetorical markers that underscore moral and aesthetic nuances. The findings demonstrate how authors strategically utilize pragmatic markers to serve pedagogical and socio-cultural functions, thereby extending Grice’s cooperative principles into the domain of literary pragmatics. This comparative approach advances understanding of how meta-interactional markers shape narrative coherence, moral interpretation, and intercultural literacy, offering valuable implications for both literary analysis and language education.

Meta-interactional markers, Children's Stories, Pragmatic dimensions, Cooperative Principle

1. AlJazrawi, D. A., & AlJazrawi, Z. A. (2019). The use of metadiscourse: 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. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.8n.3p.66 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in academic book reviews. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 713–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.097 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. El-Dakhs, D. A. S., Yahya, N., & Pawlak, M. (2022). Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7(44). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00175-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Furman, R., & Özyürek, A. (2007). Development of interactional discourse markers: Insights from Turkish children’s and adults’ oral narratives. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(10), 1742–1757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.01.008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Gezegin, B. B., & Baş, M. (2020). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of research articles and book reviews. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.710204 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Herbert, P., Sihombing, J., & Thao, N. V. (2018). The functions of discourse markers in fairy tale of Thumbelina by Hans Christian Andersen. International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application, 1(2), 33. https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.v1i2.2134 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Herman, J., Sihombing, J., & Thao, N. V. (2018). The functions of discourse markers in Fairy Tale of Thumbelina by Hans Christian Andersen. International Journal of Education & Curriculum Application, 1(2). http://journal.ummat.ac.id/index.php/IJECA, https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.v1i2.2134 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hyland, K. (2004b). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Khosravi, M., & Babaii, E. (2017). Reply articles: Where impoliteness and judgment coincide. Journal of Politeness Research, 13(1), 143–167. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0020 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Labinska, B., Matiichuk, K., & Morarash, H. (2020). Enhancing learners’ communicative skills through audio-visual means. Revista Românească pentru Educație Multidimensională, 12(2), 220–236. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/12.2/275 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Latawiec, B. M., Anderson, R. C., Ma, S., & Latavietz, B. (2016). Influence of collaborative reasoning discussions on metadiscourse in children’s essays. Text & Talk, 36(1), 23–46. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Pershey, M. G. (2000). Children’s elicited use of pragmatic language functions: How six- and seven-year-old children adapt to the interactional environments of story scenarios. Language Awareness, 9(4), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667147 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Panzeri, F., & Foppolo, F. (2021). Children’s and adults’ sensitivity to Gricean maxims and to the maximize presupposition principle. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 624628. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624628 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Peltokorpi, S. (2025). Promoting bodily-tactile interactions between mothers and their young children with visual impairment and additional disabilities: Four early intervention studies (Doctoral dissertation). Turun Yliopiston Julkaisuja – Annales Universitatis Turkuensis Sarja – Ser. B Osa – Tom. 752 | Humaniora | Turku. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Saidi, M., & Saiedi, M. (2020). How do scientists reach their target audience? Academic and popular science articles in nutrition. Nutrition and Food Sciences Research, 7(4), 1–6. http://nfsr.sbmu.ac.ir/article-1-436-en.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2006). ‘So what is the problem this book addresses?’: Interactions in academic book reviews. Text & Talk, 26(6), 767–790. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. Composition and Communication, 26, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Culture: The (In) Human Engagement with Nature
• Identity Crisis in Orhan Pamuk’s The Black Book: A Critical Interpretation
• Metaphor in Pop-Up Swahili Sayings: Is it a New Meaning or a New Idea?
• Racial Identity and Ecological Belonging in Toni Morrison’s Beloved: A Study through Social Identity Theory and Eco-Race Theory
• The Role of Non-Human Agency in Contemporary Literature: A Posthumanist Analysis