Realization of Attitude and Engagement Markers in Students’ Presentations

Alireza Afshar Mameghani, Seyed Foad Ebrahimi


Speakers use some interactional resources to convey their feelings or feedbacks to the prepositional content and attempt to build personal relationships with the listeners. Two of these resources are attitude and engagement markers and are used to express speakers’ attitudes to preposition and to build relationships with listeners, respectively. This study intended to analyze the use of attitude and engagement markers in native English student presentations. To this end, eleven student presentations were extracted from the MiCASE corpus and analyzed to ascertain the use of attitude and engagement markers using Hyland (2005) taxonomy. The results showed that students try more to engage listeners and build relationships with them to ensure they are attentive and follow the presentations. The most common engagement markers were “you” and “see”. These two markers engage speakers and listeners in an explicit manner. Attitude markers received less attention compared with engagement markers; the most common attitude marker found in the presentations was “interesting”. The results of this study could be included in instructions on how students should use interactive resources such as engagement and attitude markers in their presentations.



attitude, engagement, student presentations

Full Text:



Akbas, E. (2012). Exploring metadiscourse in master’s dissertation abstracts: Cultural and linguistic variations across postgraduate writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(1), 12-26.

Atmaca, C. (2016). Comparison of hedges in ma theses and ph. D. Dissertations in elt. Journal of World of Turks/Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken, 8(2).

Boshrabadi, A. M., Biria, R., & Zavari, Z. (2014). A Cross Cultural Analysis of Textual and Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers: The Case of Economic Articles in English and Persian Newspapers. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(2), 59-66.

Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16 (3), 279-96.

Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscurse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8, 91-112.

Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95-113.

Harris, Z. (1959). The Transformational Model of Language Structure. Anthropological Linguistics 1(1): 27-29.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 30, 437-455.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.

Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S. J., & Chan, S. H. (2013). Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(1), 65-74.

Khedri, M., Chan, S. H., & Ebrahimi, F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319-331.

Khedri, M., Chan, S. H., & Tan, H. (2015). Interpersonal-driven features in research article abstracts: cross-disciplinary metadiscoursal perspective.Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 23(2), 303-314.

Malinowski, B (1927). Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages. In: Ogden, C. K. / Richards, I. A. (edd.), (21927), Meaning of Meaning. New York: Harcourt, 296 -336.

Shi, W., & Han, J. (2014). Research on Writing Samples from the Perspective of Metadiscourse. English Language Teaching, 7(11), 151.

Soler, V. (2002). Analysing adjectives in scientific discourse: an exploratory study with educational applications for Spanish speakers at advanced university level. English for Specific Purposes, 21(2), 145-165.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vande Kopple & W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication. Vol. 36, 82-93.

Williams, J. (1991). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Boston: Scott Foressman.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.