OAP 16

Rhetorical features

+/- no of utterances

selected linguistic exponents

Summary + 6

Critique -

Implications -

Relevance + 3 And I’d share with you a personal experience of mine (...).

(...) to know our own identity, we have to know the other cultures and the countries and other people as well.

Epistemic stance + 3 (...) I’d like to tell you a few words about a source related to my choice.

The structure of this paper is very simple.

Emotional engagement

+ 4 (...) in Bangladesh you can’t write personal names on shoes because they cover the dirty parts of your body.

It is very sad only 40% (...).

(...) he even gave them vodka to drink.

Novelty + 2 (...) I’ve found it very interesting.

Immediacy + 1 And, of course, this solution has to be continued (...) Conflict/tension -

Support items + 1 You can also find the URL thing printed on the handout.

Audience involvement

+ 5 And I’d also like to recommend you to read this article (...).

OK?

Table 39: An overview of the rhetorical composition of OAP 16

Interactive features

+/- no of occurrences

type of

linguistic exponent

illustrations Personal deictics + 16 1^st person pronoun

2^nd person pronoun

Markers + 4 single-phrase

marker

so, thing Imprecise

quantifiers

-

Table 40: An overview of the interactional composition of OAP 16

In a manner dissimilar to any of the previously analysed presentations, instead of simply delineating the research topic, OAP 16 commences with the expression of an epistemic stance. In fact, before focusing on the single main article her presentation is supposed to be based on, the speaker cites a different publication representing a source of background information, which have apparently assisted the presenter in better

169 comprehending the issues dealt with in her main article: First of all, I’d like to tell you a few words about a related source. It was a great deal of help for me because it is related to my topic. So I’d like to introduce you to various things on code and culture and language learning. And I’d also like to recommend you to read this very article on the Internet because I’ve found it very interesting. You can also find the URL thing printed on the handout. Although, strictly speaking, this introductory section does not necessarily satisfy the criteria set by Morita (2000, pp. 289-290) for an utterance to be labelled ‘Epistemic Stance’ as the presenter does not provide an analysis or critique, enactment of one of the two possible roles associated with this feature of discourse socialisation (i.e. that of the relative expert) is nonetheless detectable in it. In other words, it seems plausible to suggest, and the opening of OAP 16 could serve as a case in point, that, by adopting a broader perspective on epistemic stance, as was the case with OAP 10 above, where the use of labels (i.e. emotionally or judgementally marked adjectives) was interpreted as indicative of a value judgement, utterances revealing the presenter’s insightfulness about the epistemic complexities involved could similarly be classified as communication of an epistemic stance. However, it must be remarked that considering contextual imbedding of the introductory portion of this presentation, the identification of the presenter’s epistemic stance as characteristic of the relative expert should be treated with due caution as, despite the perspicacity and professional awareness the speaker manifests, she also admits to her relative lack of familiarity with the theoretical foundations of the field (cf. a great deal of help for me). This acknowledgement inevitably brings the presenter closer to the relative novice. The co-occurrence of these two epistemic roles, however, well illustrates the transitory and developmental nature of the process of academic discourse socialisation, aptly described

170 by Morita as a process of ‘disciplinary enculturation and apprenticeship into academic discourse and cultures’ (p. 280).

At the same time, a closer look at the opening part of OAP 16 shows that, besides the realisation of the rhetorical function ‘epistemic stance’, a series of other components of the Morita (2000) model are tangible. Invigorated by the utility and subject-related relevance of the secondary literary source she has discovered, the presenter wholeheartedly exhorts her audience to follow suit and read the article themselves as well, thereby advancing social collaboration. To inspirit her listeners to act upon her advice, the speaker conveys a sense of novelty through the word interesting, and it is also evident that she is relying on some visual support to facilitate the attainment of her goal (cf. You can also find URL thing printed on the handout).

It is only after these preparatory measures that the actual topic of the main article the presentation is chiefly predicated on is disclosed (culture incorporated in second language learning). Prior to embarking on an extensive summary of the research design, the presenter comments on the paper itself by employing a label, a move demonstrated to be pertinent to the communication of an epistemic stance earlier in the present study:

The structure of this paper is very simple – it consists of six sections. In addition, it is well worth noting that continued audience engagement is stimulated by a variety of rhetorical and interactive instruments. For instance, it is saliently visible that the summary is full of one type of personal deictics, namely the first person plural pronoun both in its nominative and accusative forms: In Section 2, he gives use the problems inherent in this topic and, in the Discussion Part, he gives us some solutions. (...); He gives us an example on this, (...). But we have to know that in Bangladesh you can’t write personal names on shoes (...). Other techniques include emotional engagement (It is very sad that only 40% of Japanese teachers are native), suggesting a sense of

171 novelty (And one of the most interesting solutions is that there should be free reading classes where children and, well, teachers could read comics, paperbacks and magazines in the target language) and pointing out immediacy (And, of course, this solution has to be continued and there have to be free language learning hours in which children can read books and everything).

In addition, it gradually becomes obvious that the presenter endeavours not only to achieve and sustain audience involvement but to intensify it as she proceeds with her talk. This effort is especially discernable in her approach whereby she combines emphasis on relevance with emotional engagement to secure this aim. To expand an illustration to one of the solutions proposed by the author, which she cites from the article, she adds her own example with all the rhetorical benefits that personalisation could bring: One example is about a Russian teacher who, to create a Russian atmosphere in the class, gave Russian names to students and he even gave them vodka to drink (laughter is heard in the background). And I would share with you a personal experience of mine, too, that my mom told that when she used to go to English class at grammar school, they also had English names, too. And they could choose names for themselves. And it made them fell happy that they felt they were English and enjoyed being English and participating in English classes. Although the presenter does not seem to produce a conclusion reflecting her own assessment of the practical merits of the research, she further pursues this relevance stressing approach even in the final part of her talk, not departing from her systematic usage of first person plural pronouns as a means of accentuating an audience-centred, inclusive attitude in her diction: And finally, in the concluding section, he tells us once more that it’s really important to teach culture and the language as well, and that, to know the world or to know our own identity, we have to know the other cultures and the countries and other people as well.

172 Apart from the first person plural pronoun, exemplified in the immediately preceding utterances cited above and earlier, to provide illustrations of the linguistic exponents of the presenter’s persistent efforts to, at least rhetorically, involve the audience in the construction of her discourse, other interactive features are also encountered in various places during the OAP. The second most frequently occurring categories of interactive elements are two other subtypes of personal deictics, namely first person singular and second person plural pronouns. In addition to personal deictics, the occasional use of markers is also evident in OAP 16 represented by several occurrences of so, employed in a transition signalling function, and a single occurrence of the word thing, suggesting a deficiency lexical performance or preparation, or as a stylistic device indicative of a level of informality vis-à-vis the audience.

173