Rhetorical features in academic spoken discourse: The case of attitude and engagement markers


Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Аннотация

Studying the role of linguistic features in creating bonds between speakers that go beyond simply conveying thoughts helps to highlight how language users express their evaluations and guide others’ interpretations. This study focuses on attitude and engagement markers in academic spoken English. It aims to determine whether native and non-native speakers of English differ in their use of attitude and engagement markers across academic fields, levels of interactivity, gender, and academic roles. Data were drawn from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) and analysed using Hyland’s (2005) taxonomy. The results of the UNIANOVA inferential statistics indicated that the use of these rhetorical markers was conditioned not only by discipline or academic division, but also by level of interactivity, gender, academic role and cultural background. In addition, the results supported the idea that native speakers’ research practices within the discourse community influenced the frequency patterns of attitude and engagement markers in their discourse, and that non-native speakers needed to be made aware of adhering to disciplinary standards of discourse. They showed the impact of cultural background as well as situational factors and interpersonal relationships on communication styles and demonstrated that linguistic choices reflect cultural norms and expectations, which is crucial for understanding communication in multicultural academic environments. This study linguistically provides valuable insights into the complexities of language use in academic contexts, highlighting the social and interactive dimensions of communication. It also suggests that awareness of these rhetorical features could help speakers establish within the norms of the discourse community.

Авторлар туралы

Arkan Alnayily

Islamic Azad University

Email: Arkanalnayly34@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-5913-8159

MA at the English Department of Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan (Isfahan) University. He is currently serving as the Director of Educational Supervision in Diwaniyah Governorate. His research interests include discourse analysis

Isfahan, Iran

Sara Mansouri

Islamic Azad University

Email: saramansouri@iau.ac.ir
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7792-6640

PhD in English Language Teaching and is Assistant Professor at the English Department of Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch, Iran. Her expertise lies in corpus linguistics with a specialization in discourse analysis

Najafabad, Iran

Parivash Esmaeili

Islamic Azad University

Хат алмасуға жауапты Автор.
Email: parivashesmaeili@iau.ac.ir
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4622-9009

Assistant Professor of English Literature at the Department of English at the Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch, Iran. Her research interests include cognitive linguistics and cognitive poetics with a focus on linguistic study at the micro-textual level

Najafabad, Iran

Әдебиет тізімі

  1. Ädel, Annelie. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (Vol. 24). John Benjamins Publishing.
  2. Alghazo, Sharif, Mohd Nour Al Salem & Imran Alrashdan. 2021. Stance and engagement in English and Arabic research article abstracts. System 103. 102681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102681
  3. Al-Rickaby, Amjed. 2020. A critical discourse analysis of stance and engagement markers in English and Arabic newspaper opinion articles in 2016. Journal of University of Babylon for Humanities 28 (4).182–194.
  4. Ayad, Dgedh. 2022. A corpus analysis of engagement markers in Facebook status updates: Exploring age and gender effects. CDELT Occasional Papers in the Development of English Education 77 (1). 97–126. https://doi.org/10.21608/opde.2022.241790
  5. Azar, Ali Sorayyaei & Azirah Hashim. 2019. The impact of attitude markers on enhancing evaluation in the review article genre. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 19 (1). 153–173. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1901-09
  6. Back, Juhyun. 2014. A corpus-based study of interactional metadiscourse in L1 and L2 academic research articles: Writer identity and reader engagement. The Journal of Linguistics Science 70. 213–236. UCI : G704-000944.2014..70.002
  7. Boginskaya, Olga A. 2022. Functional categories of hedges: A diachronic study of Russian research article abstracts. Russian Journal of Linguistics 26 (3). 645–667. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30017
  8. Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa. 2019. Authorial engagement in business emails: A cross-cultural analysis of attitude and engagement markers. In Carmen Sancho Guinda (ed.), Engagement in professional genres, 47–66. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.301.03car
  9. Crosthwaite, Peter, Lisa Cheung, Feng (Kevin) Jiang. 2017. Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes 46. 107–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.02.001
  10. Farr, Fiona & Anne O’Keeffe, A. 2002. Would as a hedging device in an Irish context. Using corpora to explore linguistic variation 9. 25.
  11. Graesser, Arthur C. & Danielle S. McNamara. 2011. Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science 3. 371–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01081.x
  12. Graesser, Arthur C., Danielle S. McNamara, Max M. Louwerse & Zhiqiang Cai. 2004. Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 3. 193–202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564
  13. Heine, Bernd, Wenjiang Yang & Seongha Rhee. 2024. Discourse-pragmatic markers of (inter)subjective stance in Asian languages. Russian Journal of Linguistics 28 (4). 751–770. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-40718
  14. Hyland, Ken. 2001. Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication 18 (4). 549–574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005
  15. Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary Discourses. In Michigan Classics (ed.), Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.6719
  16. Hyland, Ken. 2005a. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  17. Hyland, Ken. 2005b. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7 (2). 173–192.
  18. Hyland, Ken. 2019. Second Language Writing. Cambridge university press.
  19. Hyland, Ken & Feng Jiang. 2023. Interaction in written texts: A bibliometric study of published research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 13 (4). 903–924. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.40220
  20. Hyland, Ken & Pole Tse. 2005. Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language 12 (1). 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.12.1.03hyl
  21. Khatibi, Zarrin & Rajab Esfandiari. 2021. Comparative analysis of engagement markers in research article introductions and conclusions. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies 8 (3). 1–24. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2021.14944.1825
  22. Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers. 2009. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
  23. Mohammed, Abuelgasim S. E. & Abdulaziz B. Sanosi. 2024. Informality in academic English texts by Arabic and British scholars: A corpus study. Russian Journal f Linguistics 28 (3). 633–654. https://doi.org/ 10.22363/2687-0088-36282
  24. Nayernia, Akram. 2019. Attitude markers in book reviews: The case of applied linguistics discourse community. Linguistics 13 (1). 126–146.
  25. Papangkorn, Papitchaya & Supakorn Phoocharoensil. 2021. A comparative study of stance and engagement used by English and Thai speakers in English argumentative essays. International Journal of Instruction 14 (1). 867–888.
  26. Poos, Deanna. & Rita Simpson. 2002. Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging. In Randi Reppen, Susan M. Fitzmaurice & Douglas Biber (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 3–24. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
  27. Qiu, Xuyan & Feng (Kevin) Jiang. 2021. Stance and engagement in 3MT presentations: How students communicate disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 51. 100976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100976
  28. Shahriari, Hesamoddin & Farzaneh Shadloo. 2019. Interaction in argumentative essays: The case of engagement. Discourse and Interaction 12 (1). 96–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/DI2019-1-96
  29. Simpson, Rita, Lyman James Briggs, Janine Ovens & John Swales. 1999. The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
  30. Solnyshkina, Marina. I., Elena V. Harkova & Yulia N. Ebzeeva. 2023. Text content variables as a function of comprehension: Propositional discourse analysis. Russian Journal of Linguistics 27 (4). 938–956. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-35915
  31. Wazni, Ali, Sara Mansouri & Sousan Sattar Boroujeni. 2023. A contrastive study of boosters in a Corpus of Academic Spoken English. BELT – Brazilian English Language Teaching Journal 14 (1). 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.15448/2178-3640.2023.1.45028
  32. Wu, Bin & Brian Paltridge. 2021. Stance expressions in academic writing: A corpus-based comparison of Chinese students’ MA dissertations and PhD theses. Lingua 253. 103071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103071
  33. Zbenovich, Claudia, Tatiana Larina & Vladimir Ozyumenko. 2024. Culture and identity in critical remarks: A case study of Russian and Israeli academic classroom discourse. Pragmatics and Society 15 (3). 351–375. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.20064.zbe

Қосымша файлдар

Қосымша файлдар
Әрекет
1. JATS XML

© Alnayily A., Mansouri S., Esmaeili P., 2025

Creative Commons License
Бұл мақала лицензия бойынша қол жетімді Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).