Functional Analysis of Engagement Markers in Academic Spoken Genre: Discussion Sessions in Focus
محورهای موضوعی : Second Language Educationسیدفواد ابراهیمی 1 , Mohammad Javad Tandiseh 2
1 - English Department, Shadegan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shadegan, Iran
2 - Department of English, Boushehr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Boushehr, Iran
کلید واژه: Engagement Markers, Discussion Sessions, Meta-discourse Makers, MICASE, Spoken Genres,
چکیده مقاله :
Abstract:
The study investigates the use and functions of engagement markers in students’ nine discussion sessions taken from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) corpus which was analyzed using Hyland’s (2016) taxonomy of engagement markers, including four main functions of listeners’ mention, questions, appealing to shared knowledge, directives, and personal asides. The results showed that a) engagement markers were found to be frequently enough to be considered a significant feature in interactive spoken genres, b) about half of the engagement realizations were dedicated to the listeners’ mention highlighting the engagement of the audiences and listeners adding an interactive sense to the discussion sessions, and c) within the four functions, some engagement markers were more frequent than others suggesting the importance of highlighting these features for students to use when participating in the similar genres. Thus, engagement markers play a pivotal role in the realization of the interactive nature of spoken genres.
Abstract:
The study investigates the use and functions of engagement markers in students’ nine discussion sessions taken from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) corpus which was analyzed using Hyland’s (2016) taxonomy of engagement markers, including four main functions of listeners’ mention, questions, appealing to shared knowledge, directives, and personal asides. The results showed that a) engagement markers were found to be frequently enough to be considered a significant feature in interactive spoken genres, b) about half of the engagement realizations were dedicated to the listeners’ mention highlighting the engagement of the audiences and listeners adding an interactive sense to the discussion sessions, and c) within the four functions, some engagement markers were more frequent than others suggesting the importance of highlighting these features for students to use when participating in the similar genres. Thus, engagement markers play a pivotal role in the realization of the interactive nature of spoken genres.
Ädel, A. (2006). Meta-discourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Albalat-Mascarell, A., & Carrio-Pastor, M. L. (2019). Self-representation in political campaign talk: A functional meta-discourse approach to self-mentions in televised presidential debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 147, 86-99.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Meta-discourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal meta-discourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.
Gezegin, B. B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of meta-discourse in academic book reviews. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 713-718.
Ghafoori, N., & Oghbatalab, R. (2012). A comparative study of metadiscourse in academic writing: Male vs. female authors of research. articles in applied linguistics. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 87-113.
Harris, Z. S. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 27-29.
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Meta-discourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 215-239.
Hyland, K. (2002b). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text, 22(4), 529-557.
Hyland, K. (2004). A convincing argument: Corpus analysis and academic persuasion. In U. Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 87-112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2005). Meta-discourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Meta-discourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics 10(1), 1-35.
Salahshoor, F., & Afsari, P. (2017). An investigation of interactional meta-discourse in discussion and conclusion sections of social and natural science master theses. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 5(2), 7-14.
Vande, K., & William J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on meta-discourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
Webber, P. (1994). The function of questions in different medical English genres. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 325-382.
Zou, H. J., & Hyland, K. (2020). Think about how fascinating this is: Engagement in academic blogs across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 43, 1475-1585.
