OAP 12

Rhetorical features

+/- no of utterances

selected linguistic exponents

Summary + 11

Critique + 12 What I didn’t find really good was that in this research (...) Implications + 1 (...) and motivation should get more emphasis in the

training as well.

Relevance + 3 (...) I have some personal experience about this (...)

(...) it is a very relevant topic because, I think, based on my experience (...).

Epistemic stance + 7 (...), it’s important to know that Fehér Endre is (...).

(...) that’s why we can talk about an action research in this case.

And I think that the components of situation-specific motivation is quite obvious.

Motivation level was around 4 on a 1 to 6 scale, so it was pretty high.

Emotional engagement

+ 1 I could hardly understand the teacher (...)

Novelty -

Immediacy + 4 (...) but I’d be very interested in a research project which covered a larger area of the country, (...) because I think that’s a very important thing.

Conflict/tension -

Support items + 2 (...) subcategories, which you can read on your handout.

And I have some sample questions (...) of the questionnaire.

Audience involvement

+ 4 I don’t know if you can see it properly.

But at the end, of you have some questions about it, I’ll answer them.

Table 31: An overview of the rhetorical composition of OAP 12

152 Interactive

features

+/- no of occurrences

type of

linguistic exponent

illustrations Personal deictics + 25 1^st person pronoun

2^nd person pronoun

Markers -

Imprecise quantifiers

+ 1 other less frequent types

pretty Table 32: An overview of the interactional composition of OAP 12

Following the announcement of the research topic (motivation to learn at three secondary schools in Hungary), the speaker launches a well-planned summary of the background of the research both in terms of orientation and the setting. Instead of simply giving a long list of circumstances and empirical considerations, the presenter opts for an approach whereby her own presence and active involvement in the construction of discourse are accentuated. This endeavour becomes palpable in three different ways. One of them is the communication of an epistemic stance by marking particular conditions as ‘important’ from the point of view comprehending the peculiarities of the research design: Actually, it’s important to know that Fehér Endre is an English teacher at a secondary school in Újpest, so he’s kind of involved in the project and that’s why we can talk about an action research in this case. Interestingly enough, this single utterance contains another attribute which also contributes to the affirmation of the presenter’s epistemic stance through a different vehicle: the exert-like identification of research methodological categorisations, exemplified by the appellation

‘action research’. A third way of assuming the role of the relative expert is evidenced by a marked tendency to issue professionally sound and rhetorically self-confident commentaries on certain research processes: Fehér Endre’s research has shown that motivation is made up of various factors, but the research also came up with the hypothesis that pupils studying at different types of secondary schools might be motivated in different ways. That’s why he decided to make a research about these kinds of students. What he wanted to highlight in this research was the differences in

153 motivation at different schools. He divided the major categories into several subcategories, which you can read on you handout. The speaker’s highly judgmental take on research the author’s research methodological decision, with reference to elements of the research design depicted on the handouts distributed to members of the audience, is further intensified by the ensuing comment: And I think that the components of situation specific motivation is quite obvious.

Systematic reliance on visual items, employed with the express aim of foregrounding certain details of the empirical framework, is observed in other instances, too: And I have sine sample questions or sample statements of the questionnaire ... I don’t know if you can see it properly (here the presenter is pointing to the screen). This latter utterance, at the same time, well illustrates the speaker’s persistent efforts to establish links between her and her audience. This conscious tendency of the presenter to involve her listeners in the discourse process is not, however, confined to simple check-backs on the participants’ ability to receive and internalise new information. Whenever she expounds on a pivotal theoretical point, she invites the audience to draw parallels taken from their own reality, thus not only promoting social collaboration by, contemporaneously, directing attention to the relevance of the issue in question. The conclusive fulfilment of this double function is best seen in situations when, encouraged by the speaker, members of the audience pose questions, relating a lately elucidated content point to their own background: So instrumental motivation is like when you want to have a language exam?

Moreover, the utilisation of aspects of relevance for even more genuine audience engagement is manifested in a proportionally substantial stretch of discourse, in which the presenter relates her own personal experience in order to give weight to the practical utility of a particular content point, incorporating elements of emotional engagement: I

154 have to mention that I have some personal experience about this because when I got to high school, I could hardly speak English. And we got a native speaker teacher, and I had to get accustomed to his manner of speaking. At the beginning it was very difficult to enjoy the class because I could hardly understand the teacher (giggle is heard in the background). The presenter, however, does not stop at this very personal level but continues her discourse by the interpretation of the research findings, ultimately further improving social collaboration, but showing signs of thoughtful time management as well: (...) fourth graders had a significantly lower value. And I’d like to tell that Fehér Endre gave an explanation for this, but I don’t have the time to explain it. But at the end, if you have some questions about it, I’ll answer them.

Regarding its structural composition, OAP 12 displays remarkably well-thought-out segmentation, ensuring that the audience can clearly follow thematic progressions of the talk. Evocative, inter alia, of OAP 04 and OAP 09 in this respect, this oral presentation contains straightforward transitional devices: And basically that is about the analysis.

And now I’d like to share with you my opinion about the project. The indication of this final section of the talk, in turn, foreshadows a thoroughly organised and particularly perspicacious critical discussion of a number of issues touched upon in the article, deemed to controversial by the presenter. The first critique is characterised by negative criticism. It is remarkable to notice that even when performing rhetorical function of presenting a critique, the speaker inserts elements which convey a sense of immediacy and, in one instance, makes an additional attempt at audience involvement: What I didn’t find really good was that in this research he focused only on one small area of the country, and I noticed this indicated in the title of the research, but I’d be very interested in a research project which covered a larger area of the country, for example on students’ motivation in countryside schools because I think that’s a very important

155 thing. And the other thing I noticed was that there was actually no data about the students’ knowledge of English because it’s OK that their motivation is high, but it’d be interesting to see how it appeared in their actual knowledge. And another thing was that I didn’t mention that there was a vocational school with foreign trade in the focus, which I don’t think was a very good choice because, with foreign trade, you’d concentrate more on a foreign language than in a normal school.

To ensure balance in her critical evaluation of the objectives, scope, apparatus and outcome of the research project, the presenter proceeds with a countervailing critique giving prominence to features she appreciates in the project. In relation to this subsection, it is worth noting that presenter, similarly to her multifarious treatment in the previous negative critique, fulfils more than one rhetorical functions. This time besides immediacy, she shows cognisance of the importance of pointing out relevance:

But I think that the positive feature of the article was that Fehér Endre, being an English teacher himself, was an expert on the topic, and that’s why his analysis and suggestions were really good, and I think it is obvious that he had personal experience about teaching English, and that’s why his conclusions were really proper and appropriate. And another thing that I found very good was that it is a very relevant topic because I think, based on my experience, that motivation plays a crucial role in the learning of a foreign language. Finally, this positively worded critique naturally leads up to the formulation of an implication, which also sounds like a suggestion for professional practice: And motivation should get more emphasis in the training as well.

With respect to the interactive features present in OAP 12, given the highly individualistic and strongly opinionated nature of this presentation, it should be seen as a corollary that it abounds in personal deictics, with the first person singular pronoun outnumbering all other subtypes by far. Apart from personal deictics, another category

156 of interactive features is represented in one occurrence: the imprecise quantifier ‘pretty much’, albeit used as the modifier of an adjective, but, no doubt, realising a hedging function.