Academic literature on the topic 'Interactive metadiscourse'

碩士<br>國立臺灣師範大學<br>英語學系<br>107<br>Metadiscourse is discourse about discourse. When we write or speak, we reflexively make commentary on the discourse we are involved in. With the help of metadiscourse, the writer/speaker can link textual elements together, structure the text, communicate intended meanings, evaluation, and attitude with the reader/hearer, and interact with the reader/hearer overtly. Most researches in the past have focused on metadiscourse in the written register, while metadiscourse is also pervasive and crucial in speaking (Ädel & Mauranen, 2010). Metadiscourse studies in Chinese also overwhelmingly emphasize on the written register and comparative studies across languages. Therefore, metadiscourse in Chinese spoken interaction is worth investigation. This study attempts to make up the gap of metadiscourse studies in Chinese, and investigate how metadiscourse is used in Chinese spoken interaction. The dataset for analysis is collected from two TV talk shows in Taiwan, Bringing up Parents (BUP), a forum-like talk show, and Xiaoyan Date (XYD), an entertainer interview talk show. Three episodes of each talk show are used for analysis. Vande Kopple’s approach (1985; 2002) is primarily adopted to define and categorize metadiscourse, and some modifications are made to accommodate Chinese spoken data. Six main types in total are identified: Text connectives, Code gloss, Communicative acts, Epistemology marker, Attitude marker, and Commentary. The six main types are further classified on the basis of their functions. With this dataset, it is aimed to find out the commonly-used metadiscourse expressions in Chinese, for what purposes metadiscourse is exploited at both textual and interactive level, and whether the speaker makes use of metadiscourse differently in different discourse types. Metadiscourse in the two talk shows will be compared regarding similarities and differences qualitatively and quantitatively. For quantitative analysis, Chi-square test will be conducted with the help of R (R Core Team, 2014) to examine the association between metadiscourse and discourse types. Both qualitative and quantitative results will be interpreted by adopting Biber and Conrad’s situational characteristics (2009). In terms of similarities of the two talk shows, results of this study show that metadiscourse expressions in the two talk shows have a lot of overlaps at both lexical level and phrasal or sentential level. At lexical level, conjunction words (e.g., 因為, 可是, and 如果) are used a lot to mark logical relationship. Some discourse markers are used to fulfill metadiscourse functions (e.g., 那, 就是, and 你知道). In addition, performative verbs (Searle, 1989), e.g., 建議, 假設, and 開玩笑, and discourse organizing words (McCarthy, 1991), e.g., 問題, 重點, and 原因, are repeatedly used in the data. As for phrasal and sentential level, certain metadiscourse is realized in similar constructions. For example, tag questions are frequently used for Comment on probable views of Commentary. Metadiscourse can also be expressed by a full sentence. The hedging effects of Shields (subtypes of Epistemology marker) can be reached by a complete sentence to admit the speaker’s lack of confidence. As for differences of metadiscourse use, metadiscourse mainly differs from three aspects: frequency and distribution, purposes of use, and position in turns. The number of occurrences of each metadiscourse function is a reflection of the participants’ preference in different discourse types. The speaker is aware of the context s/he is involved in and accordingly chooses appropriate metadiscourse strategies to facilitate successful communication. For example, the frequency of Text connective in BUP outnumbers that in XYD, displaying the speaker’s need of Text connective to help organize a longer text and convey more complex ideas. Metadiscourse can also differ in the speaker’s purposes of use. Instances of metadiscourse of the same category may be used for different specific purposes within context. For example, saptio-temporal markers in Text connective are exploited by the host in XYD to interrupt the guests’ talks diverged from the main topic and draw their attention back on a previous unfinished topic or a new topic. However, in BUP, spatio-temporal markers are simply used by the host to move forward the communication. Different positions of metadiscourse in turns reflect the different features of discourse. For example, Clarification in Code gloss is usually used before possible misinterpretation happens in BUP. On the contrary, in XYD Clarification is made after the hearer has questioned the speaker. This shows that participants in the two shows have different degrees of carefulness about their own utterances and relationship between participants is also different. Findings of this study suggest that Chinese metadiscourse may have a group of commonly used expressions and typical constructions. On the other hand, the differences of metadiscourse use between the two shows imply that metadiscourse is used differently in different types of context. These findings provide pedagogical implications that we may provide a list of common metadiscourse expressions for students, but we still have to help them be conscious of the intricate differences of metadiscourse use in varying discourse types for effective and successful communication. Moreover, this study also offers implications for future metadiscourse studies in terms of the importance of investigating metadiscourse at both textual level and interactive level since metadiscourse may function differently in different situations.

(in English): The diploma thesis explores the means of expressing interpersonal function (metadiscourse) in English academic lectures. This function includes means mitigating the proposition of authors (hedges), expressions boosting its credibility (booster), instances reflecting attitude of the author (attitude markers) and means referring to both, the author himself (self-mentions) and the audience (engagement markers). For the purpose of the analysis, the integrative approach of Ken Hyland was chosen. It explores interpersonal resources as well as interactive resources in written academic discourse. Means organizing text into an intelligible and comprehensible unit will be also studied. The excerpted instances of metadiscourse were examined with respect to their function and realization form. In a case of realization forms, we expected to find means expressing modality (modal verbs, adverbs, adjectives), evaluative adjectives and adverbs, conjunctions and an array of personal pronouns referring to the participants of lectures. The findings showed surprising deviations in the categories of boosters, extended frame markers and attitude markers. Remaining categories, despite the different mode of the data (spoken academic language) corresponded with Hyland's findings from written academic discourse.