Advertisement

Engagement and Narrative

  • Michael Guest
Chapter
Part of the Springer Texts in Education book series (SPTE)

Abstract

In this chapter, we will examine the relationship between presenter and audience by considering the use of stance and engagement, as well as noting the pivotal role that the use of narrative plays in conference presentations.

References

  1. Carter-Thomas, S., & Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2005). The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: Context, argument and interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 45–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Charles, C., & Ventola, E. (2002). A multi-semiotic genre: The conference slide show. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 169–209). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  3. Dubois, B. L. (1980). Genre and structure of biomedical speeches. Forum Linguisticum, V, 140–68.Google Scholar
  4. Dubois, B. L. (1987). Something on the order of around forty to forty-four: Imprecise numerical expressions in biomedical slide talks. Language and Society, 16, 527–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  6. Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  7. Hunston, S. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice (pp. 57–73). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  8. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mauranen, A., Pérez-Llantada, C., & Swales, J. M. (2010). Academic Englishes: A standardised knowledge? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.) The world Englishes handbook, (pp. 634–652).Google Scholar
  11. Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 279–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  13. Myers, G. (1994). Narratives of science and nature in popularizing molecular genetics. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 179–190). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Plum, G. A. (1988). Text and contextual conditioning in spoken English: A genre-based approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  15. Rendle-Short, J. (2006). The academic presentation: Situated talk in action. Aldershot UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2012). Oralising text slides in scientific conference presentations: A multimodal corpus analysis. In A. Boulton, S. Carter-Thomas, & E. Rowley-Jolivet (Eds.), Corpus-informed research and learning in ESP: Issues and applications, (pp. 135–166).Google Scholar
  17. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Shalom, C. (2002). The academic conference: A forum for enacting genre knowledge. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 51–68). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  19. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Tannen, D. (1989) Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. In Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Thompson, S. E. (2002). ‘As the story unfolds’: The uses of narrative in research presentations. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 147–168). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  22. Ventola, E. (2002). Why and what kind of focus on conference presentations. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 15–50). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  23. Webber, P. (2002). The paper is now open for discussion. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 247–254). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  24. Webber, P. (2005). Interactive features in medical conference monologue. English for Specific Purposes Journal, 24(2), 157–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weissberg, B. (1993). The graduate seminar: another research-process genre. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. White, P. R. (2002). Appraisal—The language of evaluation and stance. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1–23). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of MiyazakiMiyazakiJapan

Personalised recommendations