Teaching multimodal metadiscourse in academic English as a foreign language
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi.21423Keywords:
multimodality, metadiscourse, learning, teaching, academic EnglishAbstract
Even though both visual and textual elements create multimodal discourse, the former have received less attention (Kumpf, 2000) than the latter (Hyland, 2005) when teaching a foreign language. The hypothesis of this study is that teaching how multimodal metadiscourse is organized in academic writing may be beneficial if implemented in English for specific purposes. The objectives of this analysis are to identify the patterns of multimodal metadiscourse and to study if teaching the categories of multimodal metadiscourse could improve performance at communicating effectively in an increasingly multimodal world. Thus, a corpus of sixty-four academic papers on engineering written by native English speakers was compiled. Then, the visual and textual metadiscourse elements were classified with a tool and manually to identify patterns that could be used for teaching multimodal metadiscourse. Additionally, the frequencies of the textual and visual elements were identified. Tasks based on the results were proposed and carried out with an experimental group at Universitat Politècnica de València. The results show the patterns of multimodal metadiscourse, the classifications and the outcomes of the experiment with the students. Finally, conclusions shown that multimodal literacy is not implicit or associated to language proficiency, it should be instructed.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Ädel, A. (2017). Remember that your reader cannot read your mind: Problem/solution-oriented metadiscourse in teacher feedback on student writing. English for Specific Purposes, 45, 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.002
Albalat-Mascarell, A., & Carrió-Pastor, M.L. (2019). Self-representation in political campaign talk: A functional metadiscourse approach to self-mentions in televised presidential debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 147, 86-99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.011
Austin, N., Hampel, R., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2017). Video conferencing and multimodal expression of voice: Children's conversations using Skype for second language development in a telecollaborative setting. System, 64, 87-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.003
Bao, X. (2017). Application of Multimodality to Teaching Reading. English Language and Literature Studies, 7(3), 78-84. https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v7n3p78
Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F., & Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System, 83, 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.010.
Bernad-Mechó, E. (2018). A multimodal approach to metadiscourse as an organizational tool in lectures. Doctoral Dissertation. Universitat Jaume I.
Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in University essays in English literature and sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13-25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.005
Carrió-Pastor, M.L. (2014). Estudio contrastivo de la variación de términos e imágenes en el discurso multimodal. In Chelo Vargas (Ed.), TIC, trabajo colaborativo e interacción en Terminología y Traducción (pp. 556-564). Comares.
Carrió-Pastor, M.L. (2016). A contrastive study of interactive metadiscourse in academic papers written in English and in Spanish. In Francisco Alonso Almeida, Laura Cruz García & Víctor González Ruiz (Eds.), Corpus-based studies on language varieties (pp. 89-114). Peter Lang.
Carrió-Pastor, M.L. (2019a). Different ways to express personal attitudes in Spanish and English engineering papers: An analysis of metadiscourse devices, affective evaluation and sentiment analysis. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 15 (1): 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2019-0004
Carrió-Pastor, M.L. (2019b). Phraseology in specialised language: a contrastive analysis of mitigation in academic papers. In R. Mitkov & G. Corpas (eds.). Computational and Corpus-Based Phraseology (pp.61-72). Springer.
Carrió-Pastor, M.L. (2021, in press). Multimodal metadiscourse in digital academic journals on linguistics, engineering and medicine. European Journal of English Studies, 25.
Coccetta, F. (2018). Developing university students’ multimodal communicative competence: Field research into multimodal text studies in English. System, 77, 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.004
Crawford Camiciottoli, B., & Campoy-Cubillo, M.C. (2018). Introduction: The nexus of multimodality, multimodal literacy, and English language teaching in research and practice in higher education settings. System, 77, 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.005
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M.S. (1993). Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish University students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
Davis, B., & Mason, P. (2004). Trying on Voices: Using Questions to Establish Authority, Identity, and Recipient Design in Electronic Discourse. In R. Scollon and P. LeVine (Eds.), Discourse and Technology: multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 47-58). Georgetown University Press.
DePalma, M.J., & Alexander, K.P. (2018). Harnessing writers' potential through distributed
collaboration: A pedagogical approach for supporting student learning in multimodal composition. System, 77, 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.007.
Farías, M., Obilinovic, K., & Orrego, R. (2007). Implications of Multimodal Learning Models for foreign language teaching and learning. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 9, 174-199.
Gillaerts, P., & van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstract. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
Guichon, N., & MacLornan, S. (2008). The effects of multimodality on L2 learners: Implications for CALL resource design. System, 36, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.11.005
Ho, W.Y.J., & Tai, K.W.H. (2020). Doing expertise multilingually and multimodally in online English teaching videos. System, 94, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102340.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedges and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English and Chinese medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 2795-2809.
Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to Students: Metadiscourse in Introductory Coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M.S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90012-8
Jiang, L., & Luk, J. (2016). Multimodal composing as a learning activity in English classrooms: Inquiring into the sources of its motivational capacity. System, 59, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.04.001
Kress G. (2004). Multimodality, representation and new media. Information Design Journal, 12(2), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1075/idjdd.12.2.03kre
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1990). Reading images. Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. Bloomsbury Academic.
Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and composition, 22, 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.004
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
Kumpf, E.P. (2000). Visual metadiscourse: Designing the considerate text. Technical Communication Quarterly, 9(4), 401-424.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10572250009364707
Lee, H., Hampel, R., & Kukulsa-Hulme, A. (2019). Gesture in speaking tasks beyond the classroom: An exploration of the multimodal negotiation of meaning via Skype videoconferencing on mobile devices. System, 81, 26-38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.013
Lee, J.J., & Subtirelu, N.C. (2015). Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.005
Li, M. (2020). Multimodal pedagogy in TESOL teacher education: Students’ perspectives. System, 94, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102337
Martín-Laguna, S., & Alcón, E. (2015). Do Learners Rely on Metadiscourse Markers? An Exploratory Study in English, Catalan and Spanish. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173, 85-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.035
MacCambridge, L. (2019). If you can defend your own point of view, you’re good: Norms
of voice construction in student writing on an international Master’s programme. English for Specific Purposes, 54, 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.01.003
Magnusson, P., & Godhe, A.L. (2019). Multimodality in Language Education – Implications for Teaching. Designs for Learning, 11(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.127
Moya, P., & Carrió-Pastor, M.L. (2018). Estrategias de intensificación en los comentarios digitales sobre noticias en español: Un análisis de la variación entre España y Chile. Spanish in Context, 15, 369-391. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.00019.car
Mur Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068-3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: a methodological framework. Routledge.
Peng, J.E. (2019). The roles of multimodal pedagogic effects and classroom environment in willingness to communicate in English. System, 82, 161-173.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.04.006
Satar, H.M., & Wigham, C.R. (2017). Multimodal instruction-giving practices in webconferencing-supported language teaching. System, 70, 63-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.002
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22, 58-78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58
Uclés-Ramada, G. (2020). Mitigation and boosting as face-protection functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 169, 206-218.
Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). Discourse about discourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2015). Multimodality in Education: Some Directions and Some Questions. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 582-589. https://doi.org/10.1002/TESQ.242
Yeo, J., & Nielsen, W. (2020). Multimodal science teaching and learning. Learning, Research and Practice, 6(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2020.1752043
Albalat-Mascarell, A., & Carrió-Pastor, M.L. (2019). Self-representation in political campaign talk: A functional metadiscourse approach to self-mentions in televised presidential debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 147, 86-99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.011
Austin, N., Hampel, R., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2017). Video conferencing and multimodal expression of voice: Children's conversations using Skype for second language development in a telecollaborative setting. System, 64, 87-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.003
Bao, X. (2017). Application of Multimodality to Teaching Reading. English Language and Literature Studies, 7(3), 78-84. https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v7n3p78
Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F., & Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System, 83, 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.010.
Bernad-Mechó, E. (2018). A multimodal approach to metadiscourse as an organizational tool in lectures. Doctoral Dissertation. Universitat Jaume I.
Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in University essays in English literature and sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13-25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.005
Carrió-Pastor, M.L. (2014). Estudio contrastivo de la variación de términos e imágenes en el discurso multimodal. In Chelo Vargas (Ed.), TIC, trabajo colaborativo e interacción en Terminología y Traducción (pp. 556-564). Comares.
Carrió-Pastor, M.L. (2016). A contrastive study of interactive metadiscourse in academic papers written in English and in Spanish. In Francisco Alonso Almeida, Laura Cruz García & Víctor González Ruiz (Eds.), Corpus-based studies on language varieties (pp. 89-114). Peter Lang.
Carrió-Pastor, M.L. (2019a). Different ways to express personal attitudes in Spanish and English engineering papers: An analysis of metadiscourse devices, affective evaluation and sentiment analysis. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 15 (1): 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2019-0004
Carrió-Pastor, M.L. (2019b). Phraseology in specialised language: a contrastive analysis of mitigation in academic papers. In R. Mitkov & G. Corpas (eds.). Computational and Corpus-Based Phraseology (pp.61-72). Springer.
Carrió-Pastor, M.L. (2021, in press). Multimodal metadiscourse in digital academic journals on linguistics, engineering and medicine. European Journal of English Studies, 25.
Coccetta, F. (2018). Developing university students’ multimodal communicative competence: Field research into multimodal text studies in English. System, 77, 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.004
Crawford Camiciottoli, B., & Campoy-Cubillo, M.C. (2018). Introduction: The nexus of multimodality, multimodal literacy, and English language teaching in research and practice in higher education settings. System, 77, 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.005
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M.S. (1993). Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish University students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
Davis, B., & Mason, P. (2004). Trying on Voices: Using Questions to Establish Authority, Identity, and Recipient Design in Electronic Discourse. In R. Scollon and P. LeVine (Eds.), Discourse and Technology: multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 47-58). Georgetown University Press.
DePalma, M.J., & Alexander, K.P. (2018). Harnessing writers' potential through distributed
collaboration: A pedagogical approach for supporting student learning in multimodal composition. System, 77, 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.007.
Farías, M., Obilinovic, K., & Orrego, R. (2007). Implications of Multimodal Learning Models for foreign language teaching and learning. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 9, 174-199.
Gillaerts, P., & van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstract. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
Guichon, N., & MacLornan, S. (2008). The effects of multimodality on L2 learners: Implications for CALL resource design. System, 36, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.11.005
Ho, W.Y.J., & Tai, K.W.H. (2020). Doing expertise multilingually and multimodally in online English teaching videos. System, 94, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102340.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedges and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English and Chinese medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 2795-2809.
Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to Students: Metadiscourse in Introductory Coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M.S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90012-8
Jiang, L., & Luk, J. (2016). Multimodal composing as a learning activity in English classrooms: Inquiring into the sources of its motivational capacity. System, 59, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.04.001
Kress G. (2004). Multimodality, representation and new media. Information Design Journal, 12(2), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1075/idjdd.12.2.03kre
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1990). Reading images. Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. Bloomsbury Academic.
Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and composition, 22, 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.004
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
Kumpf, E.P. (2000). Visual metadiscourse: Designing the considerate text. Technical Communication Quarterly, 9(4), 401-424.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10572250009364707
Lee, H., Hampel, R., & Kukulsa-Hulme, A. (2019). Gesture in speaking tasks beyond the classroom: An exploration of the multimodal negotiation of meaning via Skype videoconferencing on mobile devices. System, 81, 26-38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.013
Lee, J.J., & Subtirelu, N.C. (2015). Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.005
Li, M. (2020). Multimodal pedagogy in TESOL teacher education: Students’ perspectives. System, 94, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102337
Martín-Laguna, S., & Alcón, E. (2015). Do Learners Rely on Metadiscourse Markers? An Exploratory Study in English, Catalan and Spanish. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173, 85-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.035
MacCambridge, L. (2019). If you can defend your own point of view, you’re good: Norms
of voice construction in student writing on an international Master’s programme. English for Specific Purposes, 54, 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.01.003
Magnusson, P., & Godhe, A.L. (2019). Multimodality in Language Education – Implications for Teaching. Designs for Learning, 11(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.127
Moya, P., & Carrió-Pastor, M.L. (2018). Estrategias de intensificación en los comentarios digitales sobre noticias en español: Un análisis de la variación entre España y Chile. Spanish in Context, 15, 369-391. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.00019.car
Mur Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068-3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: a methodological framework. Routledge.
Peng, J.E. (2019). The roles of multimodal pedagogic effects and classroom environment in willingness to communicate in English. System, 82, 161-173.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.04.006
Satar, H.M., & Wigham, C.R. (2017). Multimodal instruction-giving practices in webconferencing-supported language teaching. System, 70, 63-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.002
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22, 58-78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58
Uclés-Ramada, G. (2020). Mitigation and boosting as face-protection functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 169, 206-218.
Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). Discourse about discourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2015). Multimodality in Education: Some Directions and Some Questions. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 582-589. https://doi.org/10.1002/TESQ.242
Yeo, J., & Nielsen, W. (2020). Multimodal science teaching and learning. Learning, Research and Practice, 6(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2020.1752043
Downloads
Published
2022-01-22
How to Cite
Carrió Pastor, M. L. (2022). Teaching multimodal metadiscourse in academic English as a foreign language. Porta Linguarum An International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning, 155–172. https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi.21423
Issue
Section
Articles
License
The authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- The authors retain copyright and guarantee to the journal the right to be the first to publish the work as well as licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the authorship of the work and the initial publication in this journal.
- Authors may separately enter into additional agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal (e.g., placing it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to disseminate their work electronically (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their own website) before and during the submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
