Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers as Persuasive Strategies in Oral Business Presentation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v13i4.5882Keywords:
interpersonal metadiscourse markers (IMDMs), interactive metadiscourse, interactional metadiscourse, oral business presentationAbstract
This research was conducted to examine the use of interpersonal metadiscourse markers (IMDMs) in Steve Jobs’ oral business presentation using Hyland’s model. It further aimed to investigate the interpersonal metadiscourse categories and subcategories applied and most predominantly occurring in the type of oral business presentation. A descriptive qualitative method was employed in this research. One and a half-hour of Steve Jobs’ keynotes at annual Macworld tradeshow on January 9th, 2007 were collected and analyzed. The results reveal that interactional subcategory; engagement markers are mostly used by Steve Jobs. Meanwhile, in interactive subcategory transition markers are dominantly used. It indicates that by using interpersonal metadiscourse markers, Steve Jobs expresses his idea, supports his argument, and convinces the audiences by establishing a relationship with them. This research also argues that metadiscourse theory facilitates an involvement between the speaker and the listener and provides a way for mutual comprehension. Thus, the findings have a pivotal implication on how IMDMs might improve the field related to communication skills in professional life or business.
Plum Analytics
References
Ahour, T., & Maleki, S. E. (2014). The effect of metadiscourse instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ speaking ability. English Language Teaching, 7(10), 69-75. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n10p69.
Aluthman, E. S. (2018). A cross-disciplinary investigation of textual metadiscourse markers in academic writing. International Journal of Linguistics, 10(2), 19-38. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v10i2.12916
Alyousef, H. S. (2015). An investigation of metadiscourse features in international postgraduate business students’ texts: The use of interactive and interactional markers in tertiary multimodal finance texts. SAGE Open, 5(4), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015610796.
Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in academic book reviews. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 713–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.097.
Bu, J. (2014). Towards a pragmatic analysis of metadiscourse in academic lectures: From relevance to adaptation. Discourse Studies, 16(4), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613519019.
Coughter, P. (2012). The art of the pitch: Persuasion and presentation skills that win business (1st Ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish University students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003.
Davoodi, K. (2016). On the use of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in conclusion section of language testing articles. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(4), 211-216.
Duruk, E. (2017). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in a written register used by Turkish writers. International Journal of Management and Applied Science, 3(8), 87-94.
Esmer, E. (2017). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in Turkish election rally speeches delivered by pro-Turkish and pro- Kurdish leaders. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajss.4-4-2.
Fu, X. (2012). The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies, 14(4), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612450373.
Gallo, C. (2017). The presentation secrets of Steve Jobs: How to be insanely great in front of any audience. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gholami, M., Tajalli, G., & Shokrpour, N. (2014). An investigation of metadiscourse markers in English medical texts and their Persian translation based on Hyland’s model. European Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 1-41.
Gholami, J., & Ilghami, R. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and journal impact factor: Non-native writers vs. native writers. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Education, 44(4), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20961.
Gordon, C., & Luke, M. (2016). Metadiscourse in group supervision: How school counselors-in-training construct their transitional professional identities. Discourse Studies, 18(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615613180.
Grez, L. D., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2009). The impact of goal orientation, self-reflection, and personal characteristics on the acquisition of oral presentation skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(3), 293–306.
Haruna, H. H., Ibrahim, B., Haruna, M., Ibrahim, B., & Yunus, K. (2018). Metadiscourse in students’ academic writing: Case study of Umaru Musa Yar’adua University and Al-Qalam University Katsina. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(7), 83-92. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n7p83.
Ho, V. (2018). Using metadiscourse in making persuasive attempts through workplace request emails. Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.06.015.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London; New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007.
Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2016). Nouns and academic interactions: A neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 508-531. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw023.
Jolles, R. L. (2017). How to run seminars and workshops. New Jersey: Wiley.
Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.006.
Kosasih, F. R. (2018). A genre analysis of thesis abtracts at a State University in Banten. Lingua Cultura, 12(1), 9-14. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v12i1.1963.
Mahmoodian, H., & Simin, S. (2017). Comparative study of metadiscourse markers employed in defense sessions of TEFL and Persian literature graduate students. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 7(2), 65-78. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2017.1793.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2014) Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th Ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Malmström, H. (2016). Engaging the congregation: The place of metadiscourse in contemporary preaching. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu052.
Massaabi, A. (2014). Metadiscourse and reading research articles (RA) in English by Tunisian Geography faculty. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1110–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.523.
Mina, K. G., & Biria, R. (2017). Exploring interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in discussion sections of social and medical science articles. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(4), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.29252/ijree.2.4.11.
Niebuhr, O., Thumm, J., & Michalsky, J. (2018). Shapes and timing in charismatic speech: Evidence from sounds and melodies. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody. Berlin, German. pp 582-586. doi: 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-118.
Nikitina, A. (2011). Successful public speaking. London: Bookboon.
Ozdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011.
Patil, Z. N. (2005). Oral presentation skills for prospective business executives. The Asian ESP Journal, 1(3).
Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.004.
Saddhono, K., & Kasim, F. (2016). The form and function of local language in directive speech act at a university in Central Sulawesi. Lingua Cultura, 10(1), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v10i1.848.
Sukma, B. P., & Sujatna, E. T. S. (2014). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in opinion articles: A study of texts written by Indonesian writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(2), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.2p.16.
Sukma, B. P. (2017). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers as persuasive strategies in Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign speeches. Aksara, 29(2), 283-292. https://doi.org/10.29255/aksara.v29i2.82.283-292.
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: Guilford Press.
Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (2012). L2 learners’ use of metadiscourse markers in online discussion forums. Issues in Language Teaching, 1(1), 93-121.
Wagner, E. T. (2013). Five reasons 8 out of 10 businesses fail. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2013/09/12/five-reasons-8-out-of-10-businesses-fail/#5a434a986978
Wong, S. M. C., & Yap, F. H. (2015). “Did Obama care create new jobs?” An analysis of Mitt Romney’s use of rhetorical questions in the 2012 US presidential election campaign. Text & Talk, An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 35(5), 643-668. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2015-0018.
Yipei, N. (2013). Investigating the interpersonal and textual meaning of Steve Jobs’ Stanford speech in terms Hyland’s metadiscourse theory. International Journal of Journal and Linguistics, 1(4), 90-96. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20130104.12.
Zareifard, R., & Alinezhad, B. (2014). A study of interactional metadiscourse markers and gender in the defense seminars of Persian speakers. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(1), 231-238. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2014.v4n1p231.
Zhang, M. (2016). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies, 18(2), 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615623907.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License - Share Alike that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. 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 acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
c. 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.
USER RIGHTS
All articles published Open Access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. We are continuously working with our author communities to select the best choice of license options, currently being defined for this journal as follows: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA)
