STANCE AND ENGAGEMENT IN EFL LEARNER INTERACTIONS
Downloads
This study seeks to understand the construction of stance and engagement in Indonesian EFL learners’ interactions during panel discussions and group presentations in the classroom. Employing Hyland’s (2005) framework, we investigate stance and engagement markers in Universitas Negeri Malang Spoken English in Academia Konteks (UMSpEAKs), a spoken corpus of EFL learners’ speech in academic contexts. The overall findings show that stance projection is more common than audience engagement. Stance projection in both speech events is constructed by hedges and self-mentions. There seems to be a reluctance among the learners to use other stance markers such as boosters and attitude markers. Regarding audience engagement, audience mentions are highly frequent, while directives, asides, knowledge references, and questions are rarely used. These findings indicate that the speakers in both speech events tend to project a humble and polite stance, which sometimes leads to an uncertain and ambiguous self-projection. These speakers are inclined to address the audience by using the second-person pronoun you to keep them engaged in the interactions.
Downloads
Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.441
Aisyah, N. (2016). An analysis of teachers’ talk in an EFL classroom. Journal of English and Education, 4(2), 63-79. https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/L-E/article/view/4633.
Akinci, S. (2016). A cross-disciplinary study of stance markers in research articles written by students and experts (Master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Iowa, USA). https://doi.org/10.31274/etd-180810-4747
Alkhatnai, M. (2017). Vague language and its social role. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(2), 122-127. https://doi.org/10.17507/TPLS.0702.05
Amiryousefi, M., & Rasekh, A. E. (2010). Metadiscourse: Definitions, issues and its implications for English teachers. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 159-167. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p159
Amelia, R. (2022). Indonesian EFL students’ attitude toward group presentations. Indonesian Journal of Integrated English Language Teaching, 8(1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.24014/ijielt.v8i1.17434
Angelina, P. (2019). Improving Indonesian EFL students’ speaking skill through Pecha Kucha. LLT Journal, 22(1), 86-97. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.2019.220109
Anthony, L. (2017). Corpus linguistics and vocabulary: A commentary on four studies. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 6(2), 79-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.7820/vli.v06.2.Anthony
Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc (Version 3.5.8) [Computer Software]. Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
Aull, L. L. & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination, Four Essays. University of Texas Press.
Basthomi, Y., Wijayanti, L. T., Yannuar, N., & Widiati, U. (2015). Third person point of view in EFL academic writing: Ventriloquizing. Social Sciences & Humanities, 23(4), 1099-1114. http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/kss.v1i3.743
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.
Brooks, G. & Wilson, J. (2014). Using group presentations to improve students’ English language skills. Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities Review, 19, 199-212. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:141544632.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Longman.
Bucy, M. C. (2006). Encouraging critical thinking through expert panel discussions. College Teaching, 54(2), 222-224. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.54.2.222-224
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. Written Communication, 10, 39-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
Dagarin, M. (2004). Classroom interaction and communication strategies in learning English as a foreign language. ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries, 1(1–2), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.1.1-2.127-139
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). Exploring learner language through corpora: Comparing and interpreting corpus frequency information. Language Learning, 67(S1), 130–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12226
Gilquin, G. (2008). Hesitation markers among EFL learners: Pragmatic deficiency or difference? In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente (pp. 119-150). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199024.119
Heng, C. S., & Tan, H. (2010). Extracting and comparing the intricacies of metadiscourse of two written persuasive corpora. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 6(3), 124-146. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1084990
Hidayati, M., Choiron, N. F., & Basthomi, Y. (2019). Students’ discourse strategies in a classroom debate performance. KnE Social Sciences, 3(10), 460-467. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i10.3934
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.215
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/ijes.8.2.49151
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Kang, K. I. (2015). Peer interaction: A compromise or a necessity? APPLE Award Winning Papers in AL and TESOL, 15(2), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.7916/D8B57WP7
Kizil, A. S. (2017). The use of metadiscourse in spoken interlanguage of EFL learners: A contrastive analysis. In K. Cermakova & J. Rotschedl (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Teaching & Education Conference, Venice (pp. 121-134). http://dx.doi.org/10.20472/TEC.2017.004.010
Kolesnikova, O., & González-González, O.-A. (2016). Spoken English learner corpora. Research in Computing Science, 130, 111–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.13053/rcs-130-1-10
Leech, G. (1998). Preface. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer, (pp. xiv-xx). Longman.
Lin, Y. L. (2013). Vague language and interpersonal communication: An analysis of adolescent intercultural conversation. International Journal of Society, Culture, & Language, 1(2), 69-81. http://www.ijscl.net/article_2955.html.
Lucero, E. & Rouse, M. (2017). Classroom interaction in ELTE undergraduate programs: Characteristics and pedagogical implications. Colombia Applied Linguistics Journal, 19(2), 193-208. https://doi.org/10.14483/22487085.10801
Mameghani, A. A. & Ebrahimi, S. F. E. (2017). Realization of attitude and engagement markers in students’ presentations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6(2), 73-77. https://doi.org/10.7575/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.2p.73
Marchi, A. (2009). If on a winter’s night two researchers… A challenge to assumptions of soundness of interpretation. Critical Approach to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines (CADAAD) Journal, 3(1), 1-20. https://ugp.rug.nl/cadaad/article/view/42033.
Mardiningrum, A. & Ramadhani, D. R. (2022). Classroom oral presentation: Students’ challenges and how they cope. Eralingua: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Asing dan Sastra, 6(1), 103-119. https://doi.org/10.26858/eralingua.v6i1.28487
McEnery, T. & Xiao, R. (2010). What corpora can offer in language teaching and learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 364-380). Routledge.
Mingzhi, X. (2005). Enhancing interaction in our EFL classroom. CELEA Journal, 28(2), 56-62.
Nesari, A. J. (2015). Dialogism versus monologism: A Bakhtinian approach to teaching. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 205, 642-647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.09.101
Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010) Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19(4), 261-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.516831
Pratiwi, L. R., Basthomi, Y., Yannuar, N., Hidayati, M., Choiron, N. F., & Rofiqoh. (2020). “You know” as a discourse marker in English learners’ spoken discourse: UM-SpEAKs. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt / Egyptology, 17(7), 6974–6994. https://archives.palarch.nl/index.php/jae/article/view/3096
Prayoga, F. (2018). The impact of topic-based group discussion on EFL learners’ speaking performance. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 8(2), 40-45. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:210712812.
Ramoroka, B. T. (2017). The use of interactional metadisdourse features to present a textual voice: A case study of undergraduate writing in two departments at the University of Botswana. Reading & Writing, 8(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v8i1.128
Rashidi, N. & Rafieerad, M. (2010). Analyzing patterns of classroom interaction in EFL classrooms in Iran. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 7(3), 93-120. https://www.asiatefl.org/main/download_pdf.php?i=161&c=1419304107
Read, B., Francis, B. & Robson, J. (2001). “Playing safe”: Undergraduate essay writing and presentation of the student “voice”. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(3), 387-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690124289
Rose, R. L. (1998). The communicative value of filled pauses in spontaneous speech [Master’s thesis, Birmingham University, Birmingham, United Kingdom]. http://www.roselab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/resources/file/madissertation.pdf
Sofyan, R. R. & Mahmud, M. (2018). Teacher talk in classroom interaction: A study at an English department in Indonesia. ELT Worldwide, 1(1), 45-58. https://doi.org/10.26858/eltww.v1i1.841
Sundari, H. (2017). Classroom interaction in teaching English as foreign language at lower secondary schools in Indonesia. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(6), 147-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.6p.147
Suryati, N. (2015). Classroom interactions strategies employed by English teachers at lower secondary schools. TEFLIN Journal, 26(2), 247-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v26i2/247-264
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
Widiati, U. & Cahyono, B. Y. (2006). The teaching of EFL speaking in the Indonesian context: The state of the art. Bahasa dan Seni, 34(2), 269-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/jip.v13i3.40
Wiechmann, D. & Fuhs, S. (2006). Corpus linguistics resources concordancing software. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 107-127. https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.006
Yang, W. (2014). Stance and engagement: A corpus-based study of academic spoken discourse across science domains. LSP Journal, 5(1), 62-78. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:54779013.
Yoon, S. (2020). The learner corpora of spoken English: What has been done and what should be done? Language Research, 56(1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.30961/lr.2020.56.1.29
Yu, S. H. & Cadman, K. (2009). EFL learners’ connection with audience in group presentations: The significance of frame and person markers. TESOL in Context, 2, 1-16. https://tesol.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/TiC_S2_Yu.Cadman3.pdf
Zainil, Y. (2013). Input-output interplay in Indonesian EFL classrooms: A conversational analytical study. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(3), 497-513. https://www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/ajis/article/view/1661.
Zakaria, M. K., & Malik, F. A. (2017). Metadiscourse in academic writing of pre-university Arab students at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). MATEC Web of Conferences. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201815005086
Zareva, A. (2013). Self-mention and the projection of multiple identity roles in TESOL graduate student presentations: The influence of written academic genres. English for Specific Purposes, 32(2), 72-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.11.001
Copyright (c) 2025 Cita Nuary Ishak, Yazid Basthomi, Maria Hidayati, Anik Nunuk Wulyani, Nurenzia Yannuar, Nabhan Fuad Choiron, Isyaku Hassan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
