1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Second Language Studies
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Stance and engagement in digital oratory
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study adopts a corpus-assisted approach to examine differences in interactional metadiscourse (IM) between TED Talks and L2 student digital persuasive speeches. Two corpora were compiled for analysis: a TED corpus and a STU corpus comprising English speeches delivered by L2 students in a public speaking course at a Hong Kong university. Quantitative results revealed significant differences across all IM categories except hedges, with the TED corpus showing higher frequencies of self-mentions and boosters, and the STU corpus featuring more directives and audience pronouns. Qualitative analysis further indicated that L2 students employed a narrower range of IM forms, often overusing or underusing specific types, resulting in less persuasive stance and weaker emotional appeal. The rhetorical divergences between the two genres offer valuable insights for L2 public speaking pedagogy, highlighting the importance of explicit instruction in stance and engagement through the effective use of IM in digital oratory.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00058.hua
2025-11-06
2025-12-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00058.hua
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ädel, A.
    (2023) Adopting a ‘move’ rather than a ‘marker’ approach to metadiscourse: A taxonomy for spoken student presentations. English for Specific Purposes, , –. 10.1016/j.esp.2022.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, C.
    (2016) TED Talks: The official TED guide to public speaking: Tips and tricks for giving unforgettable speeches and presentations. Hachette UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakhtin, M. M.
    (1986) Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.; V. W. McGee, Trans.). University of Texas Press. 10.7560/720466
     https://doi.org/10.7560/720466 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D.
    (2006) Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for academic purposes, (), –. 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
    (2004) If you look at lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, (), –. 10.1093/applin/25.3.371
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  7. Caliendo, G., & Compagnone, A.
    (2014) Expressing epistemic stance in university lectures and ted talks: a contrastive corpus-based analysis. Lingue e Linguaggi, . 10.1285/i22390359v11p105
     https://doi.org/10.1285/i22390359v11p105 [Google Scholar]
  8. Calsamiglia, H., & van Dijk, T. A.
    (2004) Popularization discourse and knowledge about the genome. Discourse & Society, (), –. 10.1177/0957926504043705
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504043705 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chou, I., Li, W., & Liu, K.
    (2023) Representation of interactional metadiscourse in translated and native English: A corpus-assisted study. PloS one, (), 10.1371/journal.pone.0284849
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284849 [Google Scholar]
  10. Crosthwaite, P., Boynton, S., & Cole III, S.
    (2017) Exploring rater conceptions of academic stance and engagement during group tutorial discussion assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, , –. 10.1016/j.jeap.2017.04.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  11. Duwila, S. & Probowati, Y.
    (2020) Personal metadiscourse features on TED Talks by British speakers. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Gallo, C.
    (2014) Talk like TED: the 9 public speaking secrets of the world’s top minds. Pan Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Gotti, M.
    (2014) Reformulation and recontextualization in popularization discourse. Ibérica, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Granger, S.
    (1998) Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. InS. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp.–). Addison Wesley Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gries, S. Th.
    (2018) On over- and underuse in learner corpus research and multifactoriality in corpus linguistics more generally. Journal of Second Language Studies, (), –. 10.1075/jsls.00005.gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00005.gri [Google Scholar]
  16. Hinkel, E.
    (1995) The use of modal verbs as a reflection of cultural values. TESOL quarterly, (), –. 10.2307/3587627
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3587627 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hyland, K.
    (2005a) Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum, London, UK
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2005b) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, (), –. 10.1177/1461445605050365
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2017) Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going?. Journal of pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hyland, K., Wang, W., & Jiang, F. K.
    (2022) Metadiscourse across languages and genres: An overview. Lingua, . 10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103205
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103205 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hyland, K., & Zou, H.
    (2021) “I believe the findings are fascinating”: Stance in three-minute theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, , 10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100973
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100973 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hyland, K. & Zou, H.
    (2022) Pithy persuasion: Engagement in 3 Minute Thesis presentations, Applied Linguistics, (), –, 10.1093/applin/amab017
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amab017 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jiang, J., & Lim, F. V.
    (2022) Popularizing science: Analyzing presenters’ multimodal orchestration in a TED talk. Ibérica, (), –. 10.17398/2340‑2784.44.179
     https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.44.179 [Google Scholar]
  24. Johns, A. M.
    (Ed.) (2002) Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410604262
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410604262 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jovic, M., Kurtishi, I., & AlAfnan, M.
    (2023) The persuasive power of hedges: Insights from TED Talks. World Journal of English Language, (). 10.5430/wjel.v13n5p200
     https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n5p200 [Google Scholar]
  26. Karia, A.
    (2013) How to deliver a great TED Talk: Presentation secrets of the world’s best speakers. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kuswoyo, H., & Siregar, R. A.
    (2019) Interpersonal metadiscourse markers as persuasive strategies in oral business presentation. Lingua Cultura, (), –. 10.21512/lc.v13i4.5882
     https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v13i4.5882 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lasagabaster, D., & Bier, A.
    (2025) An examination of the use of spoken interactional metadiscourse markers in EMI lectures from different disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, , –. 10.1016/j.esp.2025.05.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2025.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lind, S. J.
    (2012) Teaching digital oratory: Public speaking 2.0. Communication Teacher, (), –. 10.1080/17404622.2012.659193
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2012.659193 [Google Scholar]
  30. Liu, K., Yin, H., & Cheung, A. K.
    (2024) Interactional metadiscourse in translated and non-translated medical research article abstracts: a corpus-assisted study. Perspectives, –. 10.1080/0907676X.2024.2328756
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2024.2328756 [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, C.-Y., & Chen, H.-J.
    (2020) Functional variation of lexical bundles in academic lectures and TED talks. Register Studies, (), –. 10.1075/rs.18003.liu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18003.liu [Google Scholar]
  32. Lucas, S., & Stob, P.
    (2020) The art of public speaking. New York: McGraw-Hill.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. MacKrill, K., Silvester, C., Pennebaker, J. W., & Petrie, K. J.
    (2021) What makes an idea worth spreading? Language markers of popularity in TED Talks by academics and other speakers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, (), –. 10.1002/asi.24471
     https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24471 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mak, B.
    (2011) An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners. System, (), –. 10.1016/j.system.2011.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  35. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D.
    (2008) Genre relations. Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Mattiello, E.
    (2017) The popularisation of science via TED talks. International Journal of Language Studies, .
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Nadeem, N.
    (2021) “Stories that are worth spreading” A communicative model of TED talk narratives. Narrative Inquiry, (), –. 10.1075/ni.19037.nad
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.19037.nad [Google Scholar]
  38. Pierini, F.
    (2019) The popularization of specialized knowledge through TED Talks: The case of positive psychology. International Journal of English Linguistics, (), –. 10.5539/ijel.v9n4p15
     https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n4p15 [Google Scholar]
  39. Polo, F. J. F.
    (2018) Functions of “you” in conference presentations. English for Specific Purposes, , –. 10.1016/j.esp.2017.10.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Powers, J.
    (2016) Public Speaking: The Lively Art. New York: McGraw-Hill
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Qiu, X., & Jiang, F. K.
    (2021) Stance and engagement in 3MT presentations: How students communicate disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, , . 10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100976
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100976 [Google Scholar]
  42. Rose, D., & Martin, J. N.
    (2012) Learning to write/reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. University of Toronto Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Rossette-Crake, F.
    (2020) ‘The new oratory’: Public speaking practice in the digital, neoliberal age. Discourse Studies, (), –. 10.1177/1461445620916363
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620916363 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2022) Digital oratory as discursive practice. Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑031‑18984‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18984-5 [Google Scholar]
  45. Scott, M.
    (2020) WordSmith Tools version 8, Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Scotto di Carlo, G.
    (2014a) The role of proximity in online popularizations: The case of TED Talks. Discourse Studies, (), –. 10.1177/1461445614538565
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614538565 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2014b) Ethos in TED talks: the role of credibility in popularised texts. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS-Linguistics and Literature, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. (2015) Stance in TED Talks: Strategic use of subjective adjectives in online popularization. Iberica, , –. 10.17398/2340‑2784.42.33
     https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.42.33 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2018) Patterns of clusivity in TED Talks. Iberica, (), –. https://revistaiberica.org/index.php/iberica/article/view/137
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H.
    (2019) Cultures and persons: Characterizing national and other types of cultural difference can also aid our understanding and prediction of individual variability. Frontiers in Psychology, . 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02689
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02689 [Google Scholar]
  51. Swales, J. M.
    (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (2004) Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge university press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524827
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wang, W., & Csomay, E.
    (2024) Constructing proximity in popularization discourse: Evidence from lexical bundles in TED Talks. English for Specific Purposes, , –. 10.1016/j.esp.2023.10.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  54. Wingrove, P. & Crosthwaite, P.
    (2022) Multi-dimensional exploratory factor analysis of TED Talks. Register Studies, (), –. 10.1075/rs.21008.win
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.21008.win [Google Scholar]
  55. Woodrow, L.
    (2006) Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC journal, (), –. 10.1177/0033688206071315
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206071315 [Google Scholar]
  56. Wu, S., & Li, Z.
    (2024) How semantic prosody is acquired in novel word learning: Evidence from the “Double-Date Tree” effect. Acta Psychologica Sinica, (), –. 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00531
     https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00531 [Google Scholar]
  57. Xiao, Y.
    (2017) Chinese ELF learners’ acquisition of modal verbs: A corpus-based study. International Journal of English Linguistics, (), –. 10.5539/ijel.v7n6p164
     https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n6p164 [Google Scholar]
  58. Yang, W.
    (2014) Stance and engagement: A corpus-based analysis of academic spoken discourse across science domains. LSP Journal-Language for special purposes, professional communication, knowledge management and cognition, ().
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Yang, X.
    (2018) A Corpus-Based Study of Modal Verbs in Chinese Learners’ Academic Writing. English Language Teaching, (), –. 10.5539/elt.v11n2p122
     https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n2p122 [Google Scholar]
  60. Zareva, A.
    (2011) ‘And so that was it’: Linking adverbials in student academic presentations. RELC Journal, (), –. 10.1177/0033688210390664
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688210390664 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00058.hua
Loading
Stance and engagement in digital oratory
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00058.hua
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00058.hua
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00058.hua
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: stance ; public speaking ; interactional metadiscourse ; corpus linguistics ; digital oratory ; engagement

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error