OAP 10

Rhetorical features

+/- no of utterances

selected linguistic exponents

Summary + 8

Critique + 2 About this topic not much research has been done yet.

Because this table was based only on questionnaires (...), what they were saying could be a little different from (...).

Implications -

Relevance + 2 (...) we had a presentation on vocabulary, but now I’m going to talk about (...).

Epistemic stance + 7 According to experts, (...).

(...), so they tried to replace this term ‘non-native’ and

‘non-native speaker’ with the more or less accomplished appellation ‘users of English’ and ‘expert speakers of English’ (...).

First I’d like to speak about the interviews because it’s easier to say whether (...).

Emotional engagement

+ 1 The first one is about NEST. It’s got nothing to do with birds or anything like that.

Novelty -

Immediacy - Conflict/tension -

Support items + 1 You can see the table (...).

Audience involvement

+ 4 (...) will we have to make a contrast between them or not?

So now we’re trying to revise this table from (...).

Table 27: An overview of the rhetorical composition of OAP 10

146 Interactive

features

+/- no of occurrences

type of

linguistic exponent

illustrations Personal deictics + 8 1^st person pronoun

2^nd person pronoun

Markers + 1 so

Imprecise quantifiers

+ 2 approximator, other less frequent types

a little somehow Table 28: An overview of the interactional composition of OAP 10

The speaker delivering OAP 10 opts for a somewhat unique opening. Instead of treating his presentation in isolation, he attempts to relate it to presentations previously given by other members of the group: Research projects in the field of second language often focus on various aspects of the learning process. Recently, we have heard a presentation on vocabulary, but now I’m going to speak about teachers and teaching processes. So my presentation will be about the area of native versus non-native English teachers. This approach does not only ensure that the broader implications of the research project in question will not be neglected, but also reveals the presenter’s awareness of the audience members’ prior experience and the importance of coherence in an intertextual and intersituational sense. This conscious effort may easily be shown to contribute to the realisation of a function seen as of paramount importance in Morita’s (2000) model: relevance (i.e. ‘relating the topic to the audience members’

experiences’, p. 301).

Another rhetorical feature, audience involvement, emerges in the subsequent sentence, in the form of three direct questions, with last one sounding like a poetic query: So what is the pros and cons in native teachers and non-native teachers, and what is the benefit of having them or not having them, or will we have to make a contrast between them or not? A rejoinder, however, is immediately provided by the presenter himself expressing an epistemic stance associated with the relative novice:

According to experts, there are more and more non-native teachers than native ones.

147 This statement is directly followed by an additional question (Why do we have to distinguish native and non-native teachers of English?), leading to a brief summary on historical development. From this string of questions it becomes obvious that the presenter is not seeking any concrete answers from his audience. Nevertheless, even utterances of this kind may be classified as efforts to attain audience involvement or to engage the audience by singling out controversial issue, the underlying aim being exhorting the audience to think together with presenter and to identify with the main concerns that exert considerable influence on the approach adopted by the presenter in structuring and sharing information.

In a brief summary depicting the most outstanding historical developments resulting in the current statues quo, the speaker succeeds in projecting an epistemic stance in a rather idiosyncratic way: First, in the 70s and 80s some people attacked this view, so they tried to replace this term ‘non-native’ and ‘native speaker of English’ with the more or less accomplished appellation ‘users of English’ and ‘expert speakers of English’. Although Morita (2000) defines the concept of epistemic stance in a comparatively narrower sense (cf. pp. 289-290), if one gives the criterion on the presenter ‘openly enunciating his or her standpoint on a controversial issue’ multiple renderings by juxtaposing it with the entry on ‘enunciate’ in the Oxford Dictionary of English (i.e. ‘express [...] in clear or definite terms’, p. 581), it is not difficult to conclude that usage of labels, such as ‘more or less accomplish appellation’ does indeed convey a value judgement.

Delineating an epistemic stance continues in the ensuing section of the presentation.

Sometimes it seems uncertain whether the speaker raises a question to aid audience involvement or utilises the interrogative form to grant himself an opportunity to asseverate his position on a blatantly controversial issue: But these terms, ‘non-native

148 teachers’ and ‘native teachers’, are still widely used by teachers and researchers as well. But why? Because they don’t really have a meaning, so you can decide in yourself if you want to be a native or not. This critically minded assertion naturally gives way to a more extensive critique of literary sources, apparently not mentioned in the research article that constitutes the basis of OAP 10 but picked by the presenter himself. The inclusion of external sources, conversely, enhances the presenter’s credibility, hence further validating the epistemic stance secured previously by the speaker. This critique, however, lacks any caustic or berating remarks, but makes use of humoristic elements in a way that seems to have a positive effect on the emotional engagements of the audience: This article has four kinds of theses. The first one is about NEST. It’s got nothing to do with birds or anything like that. At the same time, apart from humour, the presenter uses another device to assuage the acuteness of the criticism he is putting forward. By drawing on an interactive feature which does not seem to be particularly widely applied in the sample, the presenter of OAP 10 uses imprecise quantifiers to assume control of the severity of his critiques: But this native and non-native thing is a good starting point to talk about these issues somehow; Because this table was based only on questionnaires, and the teachers were asked about themselves and maybe what they are saying could be a little different from how they’re behaving in the lessons.

Similarly to OAP 09, OAP 10 also contains phrases of structural signalling as well as comments intended to justify the presenter’s decision regarding the segmentation of information: So the results. First, I’d like to speak about the interviews because it’s easier to say what they think about themselves than talk about this topic.

149