The presentation on the investigation of interactional metadiscourse markers in public speaking. Interactional metadiscourse resources were found to be helpful in promoting speaking skills of EFL learners.

1. ༼ སྐུ་གཟུགས་བཟང་པོ། ༽
“They may forget what you
said, but they will never forget
how you made them feel”

3. OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Result & Discussion
Conclusion
• Background and rationale
• Objective and questions
• Research design
• Analysis scheme
• Answers for questions
• Interactional markers
• Relation to speaking skill
• Future study suggestions
• Metadiscourse
• AppraisalTheory

4. Introduction

5. Background
English – global language
Spoken in linguistically
diverse country
“InThimphu, the capital city, every
language of Bhutan can be heard”
L2/FL
Language of instruction
and communication

6. PUBLIC SPEAKING
face-to-face conversation
speech becomes comprehensible with metadiscourse
act of presenting a speech - exchange of information
change difficult or dry into coherent texts

7. PUBLIC SPEAKING

8. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Spoken text Written text

9. Speech of Mr.TsheringTobgay
country leader
inspirational speaker

10. Objectives
Identify Analyze

11. • What interactional metadiscourse
markers are used in Mr.Tshering
Tobgay’s speeches?
• Do the interactional metadiscourse
markers used in Mr.Tshering
Tobgay’s speeches differ when he
gave speeches on different topics?
Research
questions

12. Significance
• Contribution to metadiscourse study
• Inspire speakers
• Motivate teachers
• Encourage students

13. Literature Review

14. DEFINITION OF METADISCOURSE
Kopple (1985)
“Writer [or speaker] do not add propositional material but
help our reader [or speaker] to organize, classify, interpret,
evaluate, and react to such material” (p. 83).

15. DEFINITION OF METADISCOURSE
Crismore et al. (1993)
“Linguistic material in the texts, written or spoken, which
does not add anything to the propositional content but that
is intended to help the reader [or listener] organize, interpret
and evaluate the information given”

16. DEFINITION OF METADISCOURSE
Hyland (2005)
“…the cover term for the self-reflective expressions used to
negotiate interactional meaning in the text, assisting the
writer [or speaker] to express a viewpoint and engage with
readers [or listeners] as member of a particular community”
(p. 37).

17. MODELS OF METADISCOURSE
Classification System for Metadiscourse by Kopple (1985)
Metadiscourse Categorization by Crismore et al. (1993)
Interpersonal Model of Metadiscourse by Hyland (2005)

18. CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR METADISCOURSE BY
(VANDE KOPPLE, 1985)
Textual
Text connectives
Code glosses
Validity markers
Narrators
Interpersonal
Illocution markers
Attitude markers
Commentaries

19. METADISCOURSE CATEGORIZATION BY
(CRISMORE ET AL., 1993)
Metadiscourse
Textual
Textual
Logical
connectives
Sequencers
Reminders
Topicalizer
Interpretive
Code glosses
Illocution markers
Announcements
Interpersonal
Hedges
Certainty markers
Attributers

20. Textual
assists the author to
construct a well-
structured text cohesively
and coherently to tutor
the audience
Interpersonal
fabrication between the
writer and reader or the
speaker and listener
(Milne, 2003)

21. All metadiscourse categories are interpersonal because “… it
takes account of the reader’s [or speaker’s] knowledge,
textual experiences, and processing needs and that it
provides writers [or speakers] with an armory of rhetorical
appeals to achieve this” (Hyland andTse, 2004; Hyland, 2005)
KEN HYLAND’S PERSPECTIVE

22. INTERPERSONAL MODEL OF METADISCOURSE BY
(HYLAND, 2005)
Interactive
Transition markers
Frame markers
Endophoric markers
Evidentials
Code glosses
Interactional
Hedges
Boosters
Attitude markers
Self-mention
Engagement markers

23. Interactive dimension
Hyland (2005): supports writers or
speakers to organize
propositional content to make it
coherent.
Hyland (2010): helps in systematic
organization of discourse to
anticipate readers’ or listeners’
knowledge and reflecting their
explicit assessment guide that can
be recovered from texts
Interactional dimension
involve readers or listeners in the
interaction and indicate the writers’
or speakers’ perspective towards
the propositional content.
concerns writers’ or speakers’ effort
to control level of personalities in
texts and establishes suitable
relationships with interlocutors in
the discourse.

24. INTERACTIONAL MODEL OF METADISCOURSE
(HYLAND, 2005)

25. Research Method

26. RESEARCH DESIGN
Qualitative
research
Content
analysis
English
speeches

27. SAMPLING AND FRAMEWORK
Purposive sampling
Speeches of the Prime Minister
Interactional metadiscourse
The Appraisal theory

28. FRAMEWORK BACKGROUND
Interactional metadiscourse
(Hyland, 2005)
involve listeners in the
interaction
indicate the speakers’
perspective towards the
propositional content.
The Appraisal theory
(Martin &White, 2005)
describes and explains the
way language is used
assess effectiveness or
usefulness of something
or somebody

29. FRAMEWORK INSTRUMENT
Metadiscourse
Interactional markers
Hedges
Boosters
Attitude Markers
Self-markers
Engagement Markers
The AppraisalTheory
Attitude regions
Affect
Judgement
Appreciation

30. Result and Discussion

31. Interactional
Markers
Speeches
Total
Speech 1 Speech 2 Speech 3 Speech 4
Total
raw
no.
Per
1000
words
Total
raw
no.
Per
1000
words
Total
raw
no.
Per
1000
words
Total
raw
no.
Per
1000
words
Grand
Total
raw no.
Grand
Total
per
1000
words
Hedges 90 49.7 68 59.2 34 26.1 60 38.6 252 173.6
Boosters 145 80.1 114 99.3 107 82.1 66 42.5 432 304.0
Attitude
Markers
Affect 41 22.6 25 21.8 29 22.3 26 16.7 121 83.4
Judgement 47 26.0 32 27.9 68 52.2 71 45.7 218 151.7
Appreciation 63 34.8 33 28.7 62 47.6 63 40.5 221 151.7
Self-Markers 232 128.1 60 52.3 133 102.1 43 27.7 468 310.1
Engagement Markers 119 65.7 68 59.2 174 133.5 100 64.4 461 322.8
Total 737 407.0 400 348.4 607 465.8 429 276.1 2173 1497.3

32. 173.6
304.0
386.8
310.1 322.8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Hedges Boosters Attitude
Markers
Self-Markers Engagement
Markers
RQ1.What interactional metadiscourse markers are used in
Mr.TsheringTobgay’s speeches?

33. RQ2.Do the interactional metadiscourse markers used in
Mr.TsheringTobgay’s speeches differ when he gave
speeches on different topics?
407.0
348.4
465.8
276.1
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
Speech 1 Speech 2 Speech 3 Speech 4

34. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Interactional Markers
Speech (1-4)
Pearson
Chi-Square
Sig.
Hedges 12.00 0.213
Boosters 12.00 0.213
Attitude Markers 12.00 0.213
Self-Markers 12.00 0.213
Engagement 12.00 0.213

35. DISCUSSION
Attitude markers
speaker’s attitude to the proposition
expressed the interpersonal relationship

36. Attitude
affect: emotional reactions
appreciation: evaluation of the value of people/things
judgement: assessing the behavior of people/things

37. Engagement markers
depicted face-to-face conversations
involved audiences in a discourse

38. Self-mention markers
speaker involved with audiences
speaker-listener relationships

39. Boosters
portrayed decisiveness, certainty, and confidence
persuaded and convinced his listeners

40. Hedges
created positions of negotiation
displayed humble and cautious face in a discourse

41. Conclusion

42. connected with and informed audiences in an
interactive, clear, and elaborate directions
metadiscourse literature of spoken text
develop students’ speaking skill
facilitate teachers in the classroom teaching
encourage general passionate speakers

43. SUGGESTIONS
fuzzy taxonomy
interactive and interactional
size of data

44. Thank
You