Introducing a conference paper: Getting interpersonal with your audience

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Introducing a conference paper: Getting

interpersonal with your audience

Susan Hooda,*, Gail Foreyb,1

aFaculty of Education, University of Technology, Sydney, Broadway, Sydney 2007, AustraliabThe Department of English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

Abstract

One of the key means by which knowledge is disseminated in the academic discourse community

is the spoken presentation of papers at an academic conference. In contrast to the written research

article, the spoken presentation remains relatively under-researched from a linguistic perspective,

limiting the knowledge available for explicating this kind of discourse in academic language

programs. In this paper, we draw on a social semiotic theory of language (Systemic Functional

Linguistics) and of gesture, to frame a multi-layered exploration of interpersonal meaning in this

register that incorporates attention to generic staging, to expressions of attitude, and to the co-

expression of attitudinal language and gesture. The data are a set of plenary presentations at an

academic conference, and the study aims to explore means by which the speakers construe a

relationship of solidarity with their audiences in the introductory or ‘set-up’ stage of their talk.

q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Conference presentations; Evaluation; Gesture; Interpersonal meanings; Systemic Functional

Linguistics; English for academic purposes; Advanced academic literacy

1. Introduction

The context for a spoken academic conference presentation may range from an

invited plenary to a short parallel paper or workshop. In terms of audience, the forum

may vary from one that is large in size and mixed in expertise to a small group of

colleagues and fellow experts. The paper may also present research at various levels of

4 (2005) 291–306

www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

1475-1585/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.003

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C61 2 9514 3972; fax: C61 2 9514 3939.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Hood), [email protected] (G. Forey).1 Tel.: C852 2766 7577; fax: C852 2333 6569.

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291–306292

completion, from work in progress to post-publication dissemination, and the

presentation is likely to represent just one step on what Ventola (2002) refers to as

a ‘semiotic spanning’ across a sequence of events. Across the varied contexts of

spoken conference presentations there are, nonetheless, a number of features that are

likely to be characteristic of the discourse. In most instances, for example, the oral

performance is strongly associated with the development of a parallel written text. As

such, a spoken conference presentation is likely to be a highly reflective text with

many features that correspond to written research writing. On the other hand, there is

an immediacy of audience in time and in place. This suggests a pressure in the other

direction, towards a more interactive text, as the writer shapes the message in ways

intended to connect with the immediate context.

In our research, we consider this latter characteristic of the discourse. We explore ways

in which speakers shape their talk to (inter)act interpersonally with their audience, to set-

up a relationship of solidarity. The data we analyse in this paper are plenary presentations,

and we focus on the initial stage, referred to as the set-up. Our assumption is that this initial

stage will represent a valuable site for exploring the discourse strategies speakers employ

to resolve inherent tensions and to construe a relationship of solidarity or rapport with their

audience. These inherent tensions exist, for example, around the status of the speaker as

relative expert in their field, and the fact that the success of the presentation rests largely on

audience approval and a positive judgement or appreciation of the speaker’s contribution.

From the point of view of the audience, there is a tension to be resolved in terms of the

extent to which they feel accommodated in the presentation, as part of the relevant

discourse community, off-set against the cost of attendance.

To date, the extensive and rapidly growing body of literature on the language of

research reporting has been overwhelmingly focused on reporting in a written form, for

example as research articles, theses, essays or proposals. Some of this research focuses

specifically on interpersonal meanings, on evaluative stance and on ways in which the

reader is taken account of in the written text (e.g., Hunston & Thompson, 2000; Hyland,

1998). Literature which addresses the spoken dimension of research as seminar or

conference presentations, is often in the form of pedagogic guides targeted primarily to

undergraduate or graduate students (e.g., Madden & Rohlck, 1997), or is focused on

business or professional settings (e.g., Kline, 2004). Valuable contributions to applied

linguistic research into the language of academic conference presentation include studies

by Thompson (1997) who compares interactive features found in research articles and

presentations, and Charles and Ventola (2002) who address connections within the

presentation between the spoken text and the visuals of the slide show. They discuss, for

example, how in referring to contextualising slides, the speaker’s evaluative language

functions to bring the speaker and the audience closer together as they share emotive

responses. The interpersonal aspect of conference presentations is also addressed in

Frobert-Adamo (2002) who points to the important function that humour plays in this kind

of interaction.

Also informing this study is a body of research within Systemic Functional Linguistic

(SFL) theory that considers interpersonal meaning across different kinds of texts, both

spoken and written (e.g., Eggins & Slade, 1997; Martin & Rose, 2003; White, 2003). The

theory enables us to explore the ways in which interpersonal meanings are encoded in

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291–306 293

a whole range of grammatical and lexical choices, and most importantly how they pattern

and flow across texts. The notion of interpersonal meaning as one of the three

metafunctions of language (along with the ideational and the textual) also provides us with

a semiotic framework to explore meaning-making beyond language. Because SFL theory

models language as social semiotic (Halliday, 1978), that is, as a social meaning-making

system, it has provided a theoretical foundation for studies of other social semiotic

systems, notably those of visual image (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996), gesture and

positioning (e.g., Martinec, 2000, 2001), and space (Martin and Stenglin, 2005). The

common theoretical basis for modelling these different semiotics provides for integrated

multimodal discourse studies, where meaning is seen to be constructed both through

different semiotic systems, but also importantly in the interaction of these different

systems (e.g., van Leeuwen, 2005). In this study, we aim to incorporate a multimodal

analysis of interpersonal meanings by considering the role of gesture alongside that of

language (Kendon, 2004; Martinec, 2004). Whereas gesture is most typically used to refer

to movements of the hands and arms, we also incorporate analysis of both head and facial

movements, for example, nodding, and raising of eyebrows, that co-occur with speech

(Scollon, 1995).

Drawing on Kendon (2004) and Martinec (2004) we interpret gesture as intimately

connected to language, as a kind of embodied expression that is integral to the utterance. In

this sense, we could consider parallels to phonology on ‘the expression plane’ of language

(Halliday, 1994). Phonology itself would clearly add a further dimension to research such

as we undertake here, but for reasons of space we have chosen to focus on the less well

explored resources of gesture.

While gesture can be studied from many perspectives, we are concerned in this

study with the co-occurrence of gestures with interpersonal choices in the language of

the speaker, and in particular with how they function in relation to expressions of

attitude. It is important to note that, as with the interpretation of interpersonal

meanings encoded in language, we acknowledge the possibility of varied reader

positions related to our social and cultural positioning. We also note that our focus is

on the construal of meanings through the discourse of the text, with reference to a

comprehensive theory of language and gesture as social semiotic. There is no attention

given in the design of this research to issues of evaluation of the effectiveness of any

of the presentations.

2. The study

Our research explores features of language and gesture in a set of five conference

plenary presentations in English at a language testing conference in Hong Kong in 1998.

The conference involved plenary papers only, presented by a group of invited speakers, all

experts within their field. The audience numbered approximately forty including the

presenters. As such it represented a relatively intimate conference setting.

The conference presentations were audio and videotaped, then transcribed and claused.

An initial analysis of generic structure identified a set-up stage in each presentation. The

boundary between the set-up stage and the main body of the presentation is signalled in all


cases by discourse markers such as “well,” “OK,” “right,” “alright,” and/or by lexis

signalling the shift, for example: “let’s get started,” “let me start then by.,” “alright so

now,” “one of the first issues,” as well as in marked shifts in aspects of gesture or

positioning. The set-up stage functions on the one hand to situate the talk in the immediate

context, and on the other to provide the point of departure for the presentation ‘proper’. In

this study, we focus on a more detailed analysis of this stage in each talk, and in particular

on interpersonal meanings in the discourse. Towards this end, we undertake a closer

analysis of sub-staging or phases within this stage of the genre, and an analysis of

expressions of attitude and how these expressions pattern across the discourse. Video data

were used to analyse and develop categorisations of facial, head and hand gestures, and

descriptions of gesture were aligned with the corresponding language on transcriptions of

the data.

3. Genre and interpersonal meaning

An analysis of the generic structuring of the texts reveals that while the set-up stage

itself is evident in all the presentations, there is considerable variation in how this stage is

realised across the different presentations. Table 1 provides a summary representation of

the length (with the number of words shown brackets) and identifiable sub-stages of each

set-up.

In terms of length, S3 is the shortest text at only 14 words. Yet, in this brief set-up we

can identify three components that include thanking the convenor, thanking the audience,

and signalling the transition to the talk proper: “Thank you very much (convenor’s name)

/Thank you very much everybody/Let’s get started.” The longest text, S4’s extended 695

word set-up, also includes thanks to the convenor and ends with a transition to the

presentation proper. However, in addition the speaker identifies the topic, contextualises

the presentation, previews the content and structure of the talk, and includes references to

the contribution of others who are present as well as a number of jokes. If we take a

metafunctional orientation to the identified stages we could argue that five of the six

speakers include at least one sub-stage which foregrounds ideational meanings (identify

topic, or contextualise research), one sub-stage which foregrounds textual meaning

(preview structure of presentation; signal transition to next stage) and one sub-stage which

foregrounds interpersonal meaning (introduce, greet/thank; refer to contribution of others;

joke). In this sense these set-up stages function in accordance with Martin’s (1992) notion

of Macro-theme, functioning as predictive of the presentation as a whole. Speaker S3,

noted above as having the shortest set-up stage, does not include any ideational

orientation, that is, he does not indicate the topic of the talk in this stage. This presentation

is also the only one in which the speaker read a paper. In this case, the paper proper begins

with a statement of the content focus. Examples of instantiations at each sub-stage are

included in Table 2.

An analysis of moves or sub-stages in the genre enables us to identify particular

phases of text in which interpersonal meaning is foregrounded, for example, in phases

of thanking or joking (see Eggins & Slade, 1997; Frobert-Adamo, 2002). However,

this does not take us far enough. We know that interpersonal meanings pattern

Table 1

Components of the set-up stage of the presentations

Components of the

‘set-up’

Speaker

1a (447)

Speaker

1b (36)

Speaker

2 (291)

Speaker

3 (14)

Speaker

4 (695)

Speaker

5 (233)

Introduce self as

presenter

x

Introduce

co-presenter

x co-presenter

present

x co-presenter

not present

Thank convenor x x x x x

Greet/thank

audience

x x

Check technological

support

x

Refer to support

resources (e.g. hand-

out)

x

Check composition of

audience

x

Discuss conference

location

x x

Identify topic x x x x

Contextualise the

presentation

x x

Preview the content/

structure of

presentation

x x x

Refer to contribution

of others (include

others present)

x x x

Joke/humour x x x

Signal transition to

next stage

x x x x x x


prosodically in texts (Halliday, 1994; Martin, 1992). They spread across the discourse

rather than being confined to discrete generic stages, or specific grammatical or lexical

instantiations. So we expect to find interpersonally loaded language throughout the

talk. Of interest is the ways these meanings pattern in the text, and how they shift

from one phase of text to another.

4. Discourse semantics and interpersonal meaning

The next stage of analysis, then, is to consider interpersonal meaning from a discourse

semantic perspective, and here we make reference to Appraisal theory (Martin & Rose,

2003) as represented in Fig. 1.

The system of Engagement, referred to in Fig. 1, has to do with the space that is opened

up or closed down to other voices in the text-the degree to which a text is relatively

monoglossic or heteroglossic (after Bakhtin, 1935/1981; see White, 2003). The extent to

Table 2

Examples of each sub-stage of the introductory section

Sub-stage Example text

Introduce co-presenter I’m co-presenting with xx,.. [S1a]

Introduce self I haven’t got anyone to introduce me, but probably during your second day here

in this room, you got a general idea of who I am. For those of you who only came

today, I’m xx. [S1a]

Thank convenor I’d like to thank xx very much for inviting me back to Hong Kong [S4]

Greet/thank audience thank you very much everybody [S3]

Check technology Get myself wired here. Can you all hear me? [S5]

Refer to support resources

(e.g. handout)

What I’ve given you is in the form of a rather detailed handout. [S4]

Check composition of

audience

If there is a reporter, could you declare yourself?. [S2]

Discuss conference

location

I think there is such a tremendous potential in Hong Kong for . [S5]

Identify topic The title of my talk is . [S4]

Contextualise presentation .something different, some new systems, some new set of benchmarks or

frameworks is being developed around the world almost on a daily basis . [S4]

Preview content/structure

of presentation

and I’ll talk a little bit at the end about the kinds of things that have come very

recently particularly around (xxx) and how that relates to this project [S1]

Refer to contribution of

others (incl. Present)

I’d like to say that it’s huh very nice this morning to see xx in the audience. [S2]

.until relatively recently we didn’t know very much about . [S4]

Joke/humour Okay, I’m just giving myself a two-item criterion reference test. Can see paper,

but cannot see audience [laughter]. Can see audience, but cannot see paper

[laughter]. Ah, I have to make a high stakes decision here. (I’m going) for option

A. Can see paper, but cannot see audience. Um, so you’ll excuse the blank stare

on my face. .[S4]

Signal transition to next

stage

Right. Quickly into the background. [S2]


which speakers allow space for negotiation of meanings into their talk, even as monologic

text, construes the listener as having more or less potential to ‘interact’ with the

presentation. Opening up heteroglossic space might be expected to encourage

the inclusion of the audience. Within Appraisal theory one resource for Engagement is

the projection of others’ words into the text, either in direct quotation or as in the following

cases, indirectly.

S4: .we’ve heard that from a lot of previous speakers.

S2: .xx mentioned earlier that their program is ..

However, such references to other speakers are unlikely to engage the audience as a

whole. More common in the data are ways of signalling degrees of openness to other

unspecified voices through uses of modality and counter-expectancy (Martin & Rose,

2003). In the following extracts, for example, the speakers construe propositions as in

negotiation with other voices through encoding modality as possibility or inclination

(underlined). In the same examples, counter-expectancy markers (boxed) also function to

imply the other countered voice (Martin & Rose, 2003).

Fig. 1. Model of Appraisal from Martin and Rose (2003).


S4: what I want to do is to, if possible, .So, basically what I want to do is to take you through a series of ah if you like very

very tentative generalisations.S2: and so I’d like to give you a quick background

S1b: I suppose one of the first issues.

Our focus from a discourse semantic perspective is with how these kinds of choices

pattern in the text, and as the examples above suggest, we find that within the set-up stage

these choices occur predominantly in phases of the text where the speaker is previewing or

transitioning to the content of their presentation. The speakers present their own

contribution as one position among others, and in the process they provide space for an

audience that may well include some whose views do not readily align with their own. (For

a much more extensive exploration of the Engagement dimension of Appraisal see White,

2003, and Martin & White, 2005).

The other key dimension to Appraisal theory (as represented in Fig. 1) is that of

Attitude. Martin and Rose (2003) suggest that expressions of attitude play a key role in

aligning people in relationships of solidarity. We focus particular attention, therefore, on

how and where attitude is expressed in the discourse. Attitude is analysed as representing

either Affect—the expression of feelings or emotions, Judgement—the valuing of people’s

character or behaviour, or Appreciation—the valuing of things, events, phenomenon. One

feature of this evaluative lexis is that it can be graded up or down in value. The grading of

evaluative meanings is referred to in Fig. 2 as Graduation (see Hood, 2004, and Hood &

Martin, 2005, for a detailed system of options in Graduation). In the following instances of

graded Appreciation, the explicit Attitude is in bold and the Graduation is in italics.


S1a: .areas that are certainly for me are quite interestingS2: .I’d be very interested in feedback

S4: .things .which are of great interest

An analysis of explicit Attitude in the data reveals that there is a strong attitudinal

orientation to the set-up stage of each presentation. Explicit Attitude is expressed as

Appreciation, as in

S4: . A very high-stakes form of assessment (Cvaluation)

S4: . this research is not going particularly well (Kvaluation)

S5: . the pre-eminent locus for research (Cvaluation)

as Affect, for example

S1a: . I am pleased to be able to introduce. (Chappiness)

S2: .it normally gets people amused (Chappiness)

S3: .thank you very much (Chappiness)

S4: .I also enjoy coming back to Hong Kong (Chappiness)

S5: . I always wanted to sit in the Vice Chancellor’s chair. (Cdesire)

and as Judgement, as in

S2: . sorry to be officious (Kcapacity)

S2: . because we abuse each other (Kpropriety)

S4: .the blank stare on my face (Kcapacity)

S4: .I have to confess (Kpropriety)

Affect encodes feelings and emotions, and Judgement encodes the evaluation of people

and their behaviour. It can be argued that Attitude expressed as Affect or Judgement is,

therefore, in a sense more personal than Appreciation that is to do with the

institutionalisation of Affect in the realm of aesthetics, and the valuing of things.

Expressions of Affect or Judgement in the discourse therefore contribute to a more

personal stance on the part of the presenter.

A further step in an analysis of Appraisal is to consider patterns in the data in terms of

what is being appraised, and how. To this point, we have considered the explicit encoding

of evaluation in terms that carry an intrinsic positive or negative value (e.g. interesting C;

blank K). This explicit expression of value is referred to as inscribed Attitude. However,

we also need to consider the potential for language choices to imply an evaluative reading

even though there is no explicit inscription of value. In analysing the data in this study for

choices that flag an attitudinal reading, we draw on Hood (2004) who identifies the key

role played by resources of Graduation in this respect. As Hood identifies, when speakers

grade a meaning that is not in itself attitudinal, that is where they grade some objective

meaning of, for example, quantity or location, they give that meaning a subjective slant.

The listener is clued in to interpreting the meaning as evaluative in some respect, as

implying a value. So, for example, when presenter S4 refers to the fact that “an awful lot of

things” have been happening in a particular place, the grading up of quantity in “an awful


lot” encourages an interpretation that the location is significant in some way. A similar

evaluative interpretation is evoked when issues are described as “common to all sorts of

educational systems” (S4).

A detailed analysis of what is appraised and how it is appraised is presented in Table 3

for the set-up stage for S4. The categories of Appraised are in column 1. Column 2 lists the

instances of both explicit Attitude (bold) as well as instances where the grading of non-

attitudinal meanings evokes an attitudinal interpretation (italics). Column 3 identifies the

instance as either inscribed (Ins) or evoked (Ev). The fourth column identifies the Attitude

as positive (C) or negative (K), as Affect (Aff), Appreciation (App) or Judgement (Jud)

and as subcategories of each (see Martin, 2000). In these data, subcategories include

Affect as happiness (hap) and desire (des); Appreciation as valuation (val), composition

(comp) or reaction (react); and Judgement as tenacity (ten), capacity (cap), veracity (ver),

or propriety (prop).

Table 3 reveals patterns in the distribution of different kinds of Attitude. Of note, for

example, is the strong preference for inscribed Affect and Judgement in the presenter’s

evaluations of himself or his audience. This is in sharp contrast to the dominance of

evoked Appreciation in reference to the presenter’s own paper, or to other research in the

field. The presenter’s own research is flagged as positive and other research most often as

negative (c.f. Hood, 2004 on Attitude in written research paper introductions). The

knowledge domain, that is the world that is being researched, is initially evaluated

indirectly, but this builds progressively in the discourse and culminates in a strengthening

of the negative Appreciation, in “demands”; “new demands”; “increased demands,” and

finally in negative Judgement in “impose.”

.What for example, teachers thought of them, how it changed teachers’ practices,

how administrators used the information which was yielded by these systems and

how people on a day to day basis were managing to handle the demands of

assessment, new demands, increased demands that such systems imposed on

them.

The evaluation of the knowledge domain functions to establish the presenters’

contribution as worthwhile in that it is addressing a problematic field.

Resources for encoding Attitude function in different ways in different phases of the

discourse, establishing different kinds of interpersonal relationships between presenter

and audience. In some phases of the set-up, for example in thanking the audience,

expressions of Affect encourage a positive solidarity of a shared sense of well-being

(happiness). In previewing the presentation, positive Affect encourages a rapport of

positive anticipation (desire). In referring to the location of the conference, the

audience is strongly encouraged, we could say compelled, to align with the speaker’s

explicit positive Appreciation. In other phases of the discourse, the encouragement is

less explicit. In relation to the content of the talk, the audience is encouraged to align

both through an implied positive Appreciation of the presenter’s own contribution as

well as through some negative Appreciation of the contribution of others. The resources

of Attitude function not only to make interpersonal connections with the audience, but

sometimes overtly and sometimes subtly and implicitly to align the audience with the

speaker’s position.

Table 3

Analysis of Attitude for the set-up stage of S4

1 Appraised Some instances of attitude (inscribed

attitude in bold evoked attitude in italics)

3 Inscribed (Ins)/

evoked (Ev)

4 kind of attitude

Audience you’ll excuse Ins C Jud: prop

wish to Ins C Aff: des

Self as presenter blank stare Ins K Jud: cap

that age Ev K Jud: cap

thank .very much Ins C Aff: hap

for 16 or 17 years Ev C Jud: ten

With interest Ins C App: react

enjoy Ins C Aff: hap

a long standing interest Ins (Ev) C App (CJud:ten)

interest Ins C App: react

confess Ins K Jud: prop

not .particularly well Ins K Jud: cap

started in 1981 Ev C Jud: ten

a quarter of a page Ev K Jud: cap

a bit of interest about.2071 Ins (Ev) C App (Jud: ten)

hoping Ins C Aff: des

I want to Ins C Aff: des

try to use Ev KJud: cap



interested Ins C App: react

Context of presentation

(Hong Kong)

particularly interesting Ins C App: react

all kinds of innovations Ins C App: val

something new Ev C App: val

something big Ev C App: val

an awful lot of things Ev C App: val

great interest Ins C App: react

all over the world Ev C App:val

a lot of issues Ev C App: val

common to all sorts of Ev C App: val

not just here Ev C App: val

Presentation process,

resources etc

high stakes Ins C App: val

rather detailed Ins C App: comp

reasonably extensive Ins C App: comp

not completely up-to-date Ins K App: comp

Knowledge domain of

research

something different Ev C App:val

some new Ev C App: val

some new Ev C App: val

around the world Ev C App: val

new Ev C App: val

all around the world Ev C App: val

at the moment Ev C App: val

innovations Ins C App: val

day-to-day basis Ev C Jud: ten

managing to handle Ev C Jud: cap

demands of assessment Ins K App: val

new demands Ins K App: val(continued on next page)


Table 3 (continued)

1 Appraised Some instances of attitude (inscribed

attitude in bold evoked attitude in italics)

3 Inscribed (Ins)/

evoked (Ev)

4 kind of attitude

increased demands Ins K App: val

impose Ins K Jud: prop

actual .reality Ev C App:val

Presenter’s research a series of.generalisations Ev C App: val

a lot of themes Ev C App: val

a lot of .issues Ev C App: val

slightly different take Ev C App:val

Other research(ers)/

contributions to field of

knowledge

various sources Ev C App:val

now emerging Ev CApp:val

various forms of Ev C App: val

not .talked about a great deal Ev K App: val

conventional Ins K App: val

relatively recently Ev C App: val

not know very much Ev K App: val

a lot of.speakers Ev C App: val


A closer look at each category of Appraised in Table 3 can reveal more about the

presenter’s strategies for alignment. One interesting feature that emerges in the presenter

S4’s evaluations of himself is the number of instances of positive Judgement as tenacity (e.g.

‘for 16 or 17 years’) accompanied by instances of negative Judgement as capacity (e.g.

blank stare; not. well). Negative self-evaluations might at first seem somewhat out of

place in a talk by an expert in the field. The impact of this apparent disjunction of values in

the context is, however, to elicit laughter from the audience, as it is apparently interpreted as

self-deprecating humour (see Eggins & Slade, 1997 on humour and disjunctive meanings).

This text corresponds to our identification of a joke phase in the set-up. In this context, the

expertise of the speaker is not in dispute, and the disjunction functions to support solidarity

in shared humour. In a different context, for example where a presenter is discussing the

research that is the basis of the main body of their presentation, or where the presenter has

less acknowledged expertise, a quite different reaction might result.

A discourse semantic perspective on Attitude, allows us to account for the fact that

evaluative language can be encoded across multiple systems of lexicogrammar, as is

evident in the examples in Table 3. It also allows us to consider how different resources

interact with each other across the discourse, how they co-pattern in phases of the genre,

and how values are developed throughout the text. Such a perspective offers an important

alternative and complementary take on interpersonal meanings from the quantification

achieved in corpus studies.

5. Gesture and interpersonal meaning

To this point, we have considered an analysis of phases in the set-up stage of conference

paper presentations as well as the discourse semantic patterning of expressions of Attitude


across the stage. The next step in our analysis is to move beyond language to consider the

co-expression of interpersonal meanings in the semiotic of gesture.

The discussion in this section is based on an analysis of gesture as facial, head, and hand

movements that co-occur with speech, resulting in a comprehensive though not exhaustive

categorization of movements. Analyses reveal that the extent and nature of the gestures

used vary markedly from speaker to speaker. Speaker 5, for example, was seated behind a

desk and used minimal gesture. Others, such as Speaker 2, were standing away from

furniture and were highly animated, using a wide range of hand gestures with high

frequency. The variations suggest both individual and contextual variables in the extent of

use of gesture. However, our primary focus is on patterns in the co-occurrence of gesture

with language. Following Martinec (2001), we consider the role of gestures

metafunctionally, and in this paper the focus is on how gestures function interpersonally.

We map the gestures on to the corresponding clauses and wordings identified within

phases and stages of the text, in order to identify correspondences between gesture and

interpersonal resources of language. This is illustrated in an extract from S4 in Table 4.

Such an analysis enables an exploration of ways in which the two semiotic systems of

language and gesture relate in the construal of interpersonal meaning.

Analyses reveal several ways in which gesture functions interpersonally in relation to

language choices. There are instances where gestures function to signal stance in a phase

of discourse, before that stance is signalled linguistically. That is, the gestures encourage

the audience to interpret what is about to be said in a particular way. In Table 4, 10.1, the

speaker initiates an episode of humour through the use of gesture, with a subtle shift in

facial expressions. The speaker raises an eyebrow as he begins this phase of discourse. A

similar gesture accompanies the commencement of a second episode of humour in 13.2.

For this speaker, the eyebrow raise seems to function as a discourse marker, signalling

shifts in orientation from the serious to the humorous.

There are also instances where the speaker’s gestures and language are semantically

parallel. An expression of explicit positive Affect, such as ‘thank’ is paralleled in a gesture

that embodies pleasure, typically a smile. The co-articulation in language and gesture can

be interpreted as a kind of amplification of the positive Affect. In Table 4, 14.2, a

downward turned mouth and dropped head amplify the negative Appreciation encoded in

‘not . particularly well,’ by embodying an additional meaning of negative Affect, of

disappointment.

There are many other instances where expressions of explicit Attitude are accentuated

by an accompanying gesture. There are also instances where the implication of attitude is

strengthened in this way. For example, in 10.1 the speaker’s utterance ‘big’ is

accompanied by a quick up–down nod of head, further encouraging the listener to

interpret this as evaluative. However, while we can argue that in the phase of text below,

the graded experiential meanings (underlined) encourage an evaluative interpretation, they

do not explain the audience’s laughter:

And every time I come back here there is something new and something big that is

happening (laughter)

An explanation of the audience reaction can, however, be explained with reference to

the accompanying gestures. The raised eyebrow on ‘every,’ the half smile embracing

Table 4

Analysis of gesture for S4

Extract (clauses

and clause

complexes)

Phase Gestures (corresponding wording)

Hands Head and Face

8.1/8.1.1 Ah, I’d like to thank XX

very much for [[inviting

me back to Hong Kong]]

Thanks

8.2 which is a place [[I’ve

been visiting fairly fre-

quently for the last six-

teen, seventeen years]]

Discuss

location

Hands on hips

9.1 I’ve always found Hands in pockets Gaze scans room slowly

right to left, right to left

9.2 that it’s a particularly

interesting laboratory for

all kinds of curriculum

and assessment inno-

vation

10.1/10.1.1 And every time [[I come

back here]] there is

something new and

something big [[that is

happening]] (laughter)

Discuss

location/

humour

Raises eyebrow (every);

little head shake (there

is); half smile (some-

thing new.happening);

nods head (big) full smile

(laughter)

11.1 And eh I await with

interest each time

Discuss

location

Left barrel wave!4

11.2 to see [[what it is going

to be]]

Left barrel wave!2

12.1 And this time there is an

awful lot of things going

on, I think,

Touches notes Looks down once;

serious expression

12.2/12.2.1 which are of great inter-

est to ah not only to

language testers but

anybody [[involved in

language curriculum

development all over the

world]]

“

12.3a because a lot of the

issues

“ Looks down once

12.4 hhsome of which I will be

talking about shortlyii

Preview

content

Hands in pockets Looks down at notes

12.3a are common to all sorts

of education systems not

just here

“

13.1 I also enjoy coming back

to Hong Kong

Humour/

joke

“ Scans left to right

13.2 because it allows me to

continue a long standing

interest of mine, a

research interest

“ Quick head nod

(between ‘to’ and ‘con-

tinue’) scans left to right

(continued on next page)


Table 4 (continued)

Extract (clauses

and clause

complexes)

Phase Gestures (corresponding wording)

Hands Head and Face

13.3/13.3.1 which is in [[analysing

the interaction patterns

between myself and

Hong Kong taxi drivers]]

(laughter)

Scans left to right;

slightest smile; eyebrow

raise (patterns); looks

down (drivers)

14.1 I eh I have to confess Looks up; raises eye-

brow (confess)

14.2 this eh this research is

not going particularly

well

Touches notes (this

research)

Expression of disap-

pointment (not); looks

down (particularly)

15.1 I started in 1981 Scan left to right

and I now have a quarter

of a page of data

(laughter)

Touches notes Smile (laughter)

16.1 But eh I’m hoping Smile

16.2 if I continue to come

back

Left barrel wave!2

(continue to come)

16.3 then it might yield

something of a bit of

interest about the year

2071 (laughter .laugh-

ter)

Touches notes Smile (laughter) quick

head nod (2071)


‘new,’ and the nod to exaggerate ‘big’ all function to signal playful, cynical surprise. The

speaker’s full smile in response to the audience laughter confirms their interpretation.

Speaker and audience commune in a shared response to the object of appraisal.

Interestingly, both the episodes of humour discussed above are immediately preceded

by a gaze that scans the audience back and forth (9.1–9.2, and 13.1). We could interpret

this kind of gesture as an embodiment of projection, as the speaker bodily constructs the

audience in its entirety as interlocutor for the forthcoming phases of discourse, phases that

culminate in audience participation in laughter. Gestures that function to construct all

members of the audience as interactants in this way have parallels in the resources of

Engagement discussed earlier. They function to establish inclusivity.

This account of some of the ways in which gesture functions in relation to language in

the construal of interpersonal meaning is necessarily very brief. It serves only to highlight

the importance of considering interpersonal meaning-making beyond language itself, and

alongside language. We have indicated, for example, some ways in which we can consider

the interpersonal function of gesture in relation to Appraisal, in the expression of Attitude,

Graduation and Engagement. However, more research is needed on the ways in which

gesture can expand the meaning potential of the speaker, interpersonally as well as

ideationally and textually.


6. Conclusion

In this study, we identify a number of rhetorical strategies that speakers draw on in the

set-up stage of conference presentations, as they aim to connect with and align their

audience in a shared face-to-face context for dissemination of academic knowledge. We

identify ways in which particular stages or phases of discourse foreground interpersonal

over ideational meanings, how resources of Appraisal can represent a speaker’s position as

more or less open to negotiation, and can encourage a sense of solidarity around shared

attitudes and values, and we consider how gesture can function, in tandem with language,

to encourage an alignment of the audience with the speaker. When these resources are

considered together we can begin to see the complex nature of the rhetorical strategies

employed by speakers in resolving tensions and in helping to construe a positive

relationship of solidarity with their audiences. The resources are rich and their

interrelationships are complex, considerably more complex than is presented in

prescriptive do’s and don’ts in some pedagogic contexts. Yet, while we would argue

the value in advanced academic literacy programs of modelling and deconstructing the

discourse to see how connections between speaker and audience are intensified or

diminished, and how they change in nature from one phase to another as the talk unfolds,

we acknowledge the need for a great deal more exploration of how such insights can

inform teaching/training practices. We also acknowledge that in this paper we focus on

just the initial stage of a small selection of plenary presentations. More extensive research

is needed across a range of contexts and speaker expertise.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr Guenter Plum and Andrew Leung

who were members of the research team in early stages of this research. This paper reports

research funded by Grants no G-S997 and G.71.37.S804 from the Hong Kong Polytechnic

University.

References

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). In M. Holquist, C. Emerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays

Trans. Austin: University of Texas Press (Original work published in 1935).

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. 169–210). Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main.

Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.

Frobert-Adamo, M. (2002). Humour in oral presentation: What’s the joke? In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, &

S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 211–226). Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning.

London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Introducing functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Hood, S. (2004). Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing: A focus on the introductions to research

reports. In L. Ravelli, & R. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: contextualized frameworks (pp. 22–44).

London: Continuum.


Hood, S., & Martin, J. R. (2005). Invoking attitude: the play of graduation in appraising discourse. In R. Hasan,

C. Matthiessen & J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language. London: Equinox.

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of

discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kline, J. A. (2004). Speaking effectively: Achieving excellence in presentations. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle

River, NJ.

Kress, G., & van Leeuween, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.

Madden, C. G., & Rohlck, T. N. (1997). Discussion and interaction in the academic community. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press.

Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in english. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.),

Evaluation in text authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142–175). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse. London: Continuum.

Martin, J. R., & Stenglin, M. (2005). Materialising reconciliation: Negotiating difference in a trans-colonial

exhibition. In T. Royce & W. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse.

Mahwah. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. London: Palgrave.

Martinec, R. (2000). Types of process in action. Semiotica, 130(3/4), 243–268.

Martinec, R. (2001). Interpersonal resources in action. Semiotica, 135(1/4), 114–117.

Martinec, R. (2004). Gestures that co-occur with speech as a systematic resource: the realization of experiential

meanings in indexes. Social Semiotics, 14(2), 193–213.

Scollon, S. (1995). The faces of world English: Nonverbal contextualization cues in TV news broadcasts Paper

presented at the second international conference on world Englishes. Japan: Nagoya.

Thompson, S. (1997). Presenting research: A study of interaction in academic monologue. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Liverpool University, UK.

van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.

Ventola, E. (2002). Why and what kind of focus in conference presentations? In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, &

S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 15–50). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance.

Text, 23(2), 259–284.

Susan Hood is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at the University of Technology, Sydney. Her

research interests are in linguistics and education. Her Ph.D. is a study of evaluative stance in academic research

writing drawing on Systemic Functional Linguistics. She has taught and researched in EAP in Australia and in

Hong Kong.

Gail Forey is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Her

research interests are critical discourse analysis, English for specific purposes and systemic functional linguistics.

She has taught and researched in England, Japan and Hong Kong.

Date post:	05-Sep-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	susan-hood
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Introducing a conference paper: Getting interpersonal with your audience

Documents