OAP 21

188

189 presentation is based on. The first major rhetorical function that is realised in this talk may most easily be grasped from the aspect of relevance. However, it is interesting to discover that as opposed to the patterns yielded by the data collected for the purposes of the present investigation, which largely coincide with Morita’s (2000) definition of relevance, predicated upon the establishment of a link between the topic and the audience members’ experience, or represent slightly different approach to personalising content by constructing connections with the presenter’s own individual reality, OAP 21 features an orientation which emphasises a sense of relevance by attempting to reconstruct the author’s initial rationale for the project: It was conducted because there was ... there had been no researches previously that showed Hungarian students learning English and their motivation in connection with that. Only primary school students were researched.

The mentioning of the rationale as antecedent or backdrop to the study also helps the speaker move on to making announcements about her intention in terms of structuring her talk, as reflected by the signposts she uses and the indications of an even more subtle segmentation of information: First, I’d like to talk about motivation in general and, then secondly, about the research itself. Initially, I’d like to talk about the importance of learning of motivation in learning a foreign language because it really requires a great deal of significant effort and willpower to be proficient in a given foreign language, and motivation is the main factor that ensures this to be fulfilled, I mean these efforts. In addition to the simple act of providing information on structuring, it is especially in the final part of this passage that the presence of yet another function, namely the communication of a sense of immediacy is undoubtedly detected. This example, therefore, seems to suggest that centralising the aspect of relevance and setting it against a broader context of related research projects along with contemporaneous

190 hints at gaps or inadequacies in previously conducted inquires, fairly naturally results in allusions to the immediacy or urgency of the issue concerned.

Following the indication of a proposed structure, in unison with the directions outlined therein, the presenter embarks on a well-detailed summary of the theoretical background, i.e. the components of motivation. In this section the speaker supplies compelling evidence of her relative-expertly epistemic role by consistently employing a terminology associated with professional accounts (Instrumental motivation offers the pragmatic and utilitarian benefits of becoming proficient in a language when you the language as a tool in your later life). Moreover, it becomes obvious that the presenter’s expert-like attitude to the subject matter does not in the least preclude further endeavours to relate even highly theoretical points to the audience’s own world.

Although in the previous utterance the use of the second person pronoun may as well be interpreted as a means of wording generally applicable assertions, the remainder of this summary section furnishes clues that unequivocally speak to the presenter’s conscious efforts to adapt her theoretical discussion to the circumstances presumably familiar for her audience: The other group is the situation specific motives. How you feel when you’re in a group and you’re expected to show some progress.

This commentary characterised by a felicitous selection of vocabulary reinforcing the presenter’s image as a relative expert on the epistemic stance scale is carried on with in the ensuing structural unit, as heralded in the introductory part of the talk, focusing the research design. However, this part represents an almost seamless continuation of the preceding summary of theoretical underpinnings not only with regard to the confident use of professional lexis but also in terms of blending it with an interactional feature, the second person pronoun, a streak encountered in the previous section as well.

Notwithstanding the striking similarities in these two respects between these two

191 consecutive section, as opposed to the summary on the theoretical background, it remains dubious in the commentary on the research design whether the frequent appearance of the pronoun you is to be considered as dominant stylistic trait of the presenter’s diction as no signs of the speaker’s intention to relate any of the research methodological considerations described are observable.

Regarding the utility of personal deictics, the context of the presentation radically changes from the second half onwards. After the extensive discussion of both the theoretical and the methodological background, the presenter adopts versatile roles, all marked by one common feature: the presence of systematic measures geared towards audience involvement. This special attention to the members of the audience is evidenced in the manner the presenter uses visual support: And then I’ve brought you some examples. On the left you can see the comparison of motivation and, based on definitions, some examples. (...) And in fact, I would like to show you some tables. With a projector it would have been better because it looks too small. At the same time, it is interesting to note that even when commenting on information delivered to the audience by means of visual items, the presenter further enhances her expert-like epistemic stance, but not in a patronising or ostracising fashion but in a manner that implies that she assumes that audience members are equally well-versed with the content points in question and the concomitant procedural vocabulary: On the right, just to show you, standard deviation, it is quite punctual, and in the middle you can see the mean result.

Scrutinising this utterance, conversely, affords another observation. By treating members of the audience as peers, the presenter accomplishes considerably more than a mere act of egalitarianism: she invites them for a joint venture aimed at interpreting data together, fulfilling the criteria of social collaboration postulated by Morita (2000, p.

292). Further development of social collaboration may be identified in the ensuing

192 discussion, where the speaker employs the technique of personalisation to create a relationship based on simultaneous vicarious impression and cognition: So it’s a significant decreasing. When you go to school, in the first year you are very enthusiastic and you think you quite know the basics, but in the second year you realise it’s not really the same. And then you learn and get used to the whole atmosphere. And the number shows the value will increase.

Despite the well-concerted efforts to foster an environment of joint thinking, the presenter seems to become too deeply embroiled in the countless cross-comparisons of statistical data and the related interpretations. However, in the midst of a variety of roles and voices she has been assuming so far during her talk, the speaker does not appear to be ready to abdicate her prevalent role of the relative expert. This tendency is reinforced by the conclusion she is making. Unlike most other presenters in the sample of the present research project, who plainly tend to cite the conclusion formulated by the author(s) of the article, the presenter of OAP 21 puts forward concluding remarks of her own and, subsequently, develops them into implications: My own conclusion is that motivation indeed plays a very crucial role, and, of course, the related results should be very good. And that special attention is needed in the vase fourth year students because they lose their motivation because of the final examinations. So they should be motivated more. And awareness of learning the language for practical reasons should be raised.

Regarding the analysis of OAP 21 from the point of view of the interactive features present in it, it has already been suggested several times above that the second person plural pronoun seems to be pervasive interactional characteristic of this talk, account for by, in large measure, the presenter’s conscious efforts to achieve audience involvement.

193