An Analysis of Logical Transitions in Sam Chui’s Review of Emirates Airline
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.9744/katakita.13.3.374-379Keywords:
blog analysis, Hypophora, logical transitions, Metabasis, Procatalepsis, Sam Chui, YouTubeAbstract
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
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).












