An Analysis of Logical Transitions in Sam Chui’s Review of Emirates Airline

Authors

  • Euro Hokiarto Tanjung Petra Christian University
  • Samuel Gunawan Petra Christian University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.9744/katakita.13.3.374-379

Keywords:

blog analysis, Hypophora, logical transitions, Metabasis, Procatalepsis, Sam Chui, YouTube

Abstract

This research investigates the use of logical transitions in Sam Chui’s reviews of Emirates Airline, which consist of one YouTube video and one blog article. By applying Robert A. Harris’s (2018) framework—Metabasis, Procatalepsis, and Hypophora—the study adopts a qualitative approach, supported by quantitative data to address the third research question concerning frequency and distribution. The findings reveal that, although all three types of transitions appear in both platforms, their usage patterns differ. In the video, Metabasis is used most frequently (42.10%), followed by Procatalepsis (31.57%) and Hypophora (26.31%). Meanwhile, in the blog article, Metabasis is more dominant too (69.56%), with Procatalepsis and Hypophora less often at 26.08% and 4.34%, respectively. These variations seem to stem from the inherent differences between spoken and written communication. While blog readers rely on explicit textual signals to navigate content at their own pace, video viewers benefit from visual and auditory cues that ease transitions without requiring overt markers. As such, written discourse tends to emphasize structural cohesion through devices like Metabasis. Although limited in scope, this study offers insights into how rhetorical strategies vary across media formats, contributing to digital discourse and multi-discourse communication studies.

References

Barroga, E., & Matanguihan, G. J. (2021). Creating logical flow when writing scientific articles. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 36(40). https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e275

Caldas-Coulthard, C. R., & Coulthard, M. (2013). Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis. Routledge.

Dingemanse, M. (2010). Deborah Tannen, talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University press, 2007. Pp. X, 233. PB $24.99. Language in Society, 39(1), 139-140. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404509990765

Dörnyei, Z. (2011). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.

Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(98)00101-5

Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (2014). Cohesion in English. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315836010

Harris, R. A. (2018). Writing with clarity and style: A guide to rhetorical devices for contemporary writers (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 475-482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364740

Downloads

Published

2025-12-30

Issue

Section

Articles