Modal coherence in specialised discoursea case study of persuasive oral presentations in business and academia

  1. Julia Valeiras-Jurado
Revista:
Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE )

ISSN: 1139-7241

Año de publicación: 2019

Número: 37

Páginas: 87-114

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE )

Resumen

The multimodal character of academic and business discourse has long been acknowledged. Several studies have brought to the fore the multimodal nature of academic and business genres, and have shown that spoken or written words are only one among the many resources available to convey meaning (Carter-Thomas & Rowley-Jolivet, 2003; Kast, 2008; Querol-Julián & Fortanet-Gómez, 2012, 2014; Morell, 2014, 2015). In particular, in the case of persuasive oral genres within business and academia, semiotic modes such as gestures (Kendon, 2004) or intonation (Brazil, 1997) play a crucial role in the design of a persuasive message. This is the case of conference presentations, research dissemination talks and product pitches. In these genres speakers have been shown to resort to multimodal persuasive strategies to craft an effective presentation (Valeiras-Jurado & Ruiz-Madrid, 2015; Valeiras-Jurado, 2015; Valeiras-Jurado, Ruiz-Madrid & Jacobs, 2018). This paper probes into what exactly makes these persuasive presentations effective. Specifically, the question addressed is whether it is the choice of persuasive strategies, the number of semiotic modes, or the consistency in the use of these modes (i.e. modal coherence) that affects persuasion more directly. The case study presented in this paper compares a research dissemination talk and a product pitch. The study combines video-based, computer-aided multimodal discourse analysis (MDA) with ethnographic interviews. The results suggest that modal coherence is of crucial importance for the effectiveness of a persuasive presentation. Likewise, several practices detrimental to persuasion are identified. These findings have interesting pedagogical implications, since they can contribute with a genre-based, multimodal methodology to the teaching of English for Specific Purposes (ESP)

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Bamford, J. (2007). “Accentuating the positive. Evaluation and persuasive discourse in business presentations” in J. Bamford & R. Salvi (eds.), Business Discourse: Language at work, 135-155. Rome: Aracne Editrice.
  • Bamford, J. (2008). “Telling a convincing story: A corpus assisted analysis of business presentations” in A. Martelli & V. Pulcini (eds.), Investigating English with Corpora. Studies in Honour of Maria Teresa Prat, 277–291. Rome: Aracne Editrice.
  • Bavelas, J., N. Chovil, L. Coates, & L. Roe (1995). “Gestures specialized for dialogue”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21,4: 394-405.
  • Bowker, J. (2006). “Referential and affective force in oral business presentations: The role of narration” in J. Bamford & M. Bondi (eds.), Managing Interaction in Professional Discourse: Intercultural and Interdiscoursal Perspectives, 58-71. Rome: Officina.
  • Bowker, J. (2007). “Uncovering Intentionality and the Process of Persuasion in Oral Business Narratives” in J. Bamford, R. Salvi & J. Boker (eds.), Business Discourse: Language at work, 47-87. Rome: Aracne Editrice.
  • Brazil, D. (1997). The Communicative Value of Intonation in English, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Busà, M.G. (2010). “Sounding Natural : Improving Oral Presentation Skills”. Language Value 2: 51-67.
  • Caliendo, G. (2014). “The popularisation of science in web-based genres” in G. Caliendo & G. Bongo (eds.), The Language of Popularisation: Theoretical and Descriptive Models, 101-132. Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Caliendo, G., & A. Compagnone (2014). “Expressing epistemic stance in university lectures and Ted Talks : A contrastive corpus-based analysis”. Lingue e Linguaggi 11: 105-122.
  • Carter, R. (1997). Working With Texts: A Core Book for Language Analysis. London: Routledge.
  • Carter-Thomas, S., & E. Rowley-Jolivet (2003). “Analysing the scientific conference presentation (CP): A methodological overview of a multimodal genre”. ASp: La Revue du GERAS 40,39-40: 59-72.
  • Compagnone, A. (2015). “The reconceptualization of academic discourse as a professional practice in the digital age : A critical genre analysis of TED Talks”. HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business 27,54: 49-69.
  • Holler, J. (2010). “Speakers’ use of interactive gestures as markers of common ground”. Gesture in Embodied Communication and Human-Computer Interaction 5934: 11-22.
  • Hood, S., & G. Forey (2005). “Introducing a conference paper: Getting interpersonal with your audience”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4(4): 291–306.
  • Hyland, K. (2005). “A convincing argument: Corpus analysis and academic persuasion” in U. Connor & T. Upton (eds.), Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics, 87-114. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Kast, B. (2008). iKeynote-Representation, Rhetoric and Visual Communication by Steve Jobs in His Keynote Ar Macworld 2007 (Unpublished PhD). Salzburg: University of Salzburg.
  • Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication, 2nd ed. London: Taylor and Francis.
  • Lakoff, R. (1982). “Persuasive discourse and ordinary conversation, with examples from advertising” in D. Tannen (ed.), Analysing Discourse: Text and Talk, 25-42. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
  • Masi, S. (2016). “Gestures in motion in TED Talks: Towards a multimodal literacy” in V. Bongsinori (ed.), Multimodality across Communicative Settings, Discourse, Domains and Genres, 146-165. Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • McGregor, A., B. Zielinski, C. Meyers, & M. Reed (2016). “An exploration of teaching intonation using a TED Talk” in Proceedings of the 7th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference, 143-149. Iowa City: Iowa State University.
  • McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Morell, T. (2014). “Communicating research at international conferences: A multimodal analysis of an intercultural or a disciplinary specific genre?” in A. Lyda & K. Warchal (eds.), Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research, 153-162. Heidelberg: Springer.
  • Morell, T. (2015). “International conference paper presentations: A multimodal analysis to determine effectiveness”. English for Specific Purposes 37: 137-150. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.10.002 [03/02/2017]
  • Niebuhr, O., J. Voße, & A. Brem (2016). “What makes a charismatic speaker? A computer-based acoustic-prosodic analysis of Steve Jobs tone of voice”. Computers in Human Behavior 64: 366-382.
  • Norris, S. (2004a). Analysing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. London & New York: Continuum.
  • Norris, S. (2004b). “Multimodal Discourse Analysis: A conceptual framework”. in P. Levine & R. Scollon (eds.) Discourse and Technology. Multimodal Discourse Analysis, 101-115. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
  • Palmer-Silveira, J.C. (2015). “Multimodality in business communication: Body language as a visual aid in student presentations” in B. Crawford Camiciottoli & I. Fortanet-Gómez (eds.), Multimodal Analysis in Academic Settings: From Research to Teaching, 171-192. London: Routledge.
  • Querol-Julián, M. (2011). “Evaluation in discussion sessions of conference paper presentations: A multimodal approach”. Saarbrücken, Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing GmbH & Co. K.G. Google Scholar.
  • Querol-Julián, M., & I. Fortanet-Gómez (2012). “Multimodal evaluation in academic discussion sessions: How do presenters act and react?” English for Specific Purposes 31,4: 271-283.
  • Querol-Julián, M., & I. Fortanet-Gómez (2014). “Evaluation in discussion sessions of conference presentations: Theoretical foundations for a multimodal analysis”. Kalbotyra 66: 77-97.
  • Räisänen, C. (1999). “The conference forum as a system of genres . A socio-cultural study of academic conference practices in automotive crash-safety engineering”. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Gothenburg Studies in English. Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
  • Räisänen, C. (2002). “The conference forum: A system of interrelated genres and discursive practices” in E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (eds.), The Language of Conferencing, 69-93. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
  • Rendle-Short, J. (2005). “Managing the transitions between talk and silence in the academic monologue”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38,2: 179-218.
  • Rendle-Short, J. (2006). The Academic Presentation: Situated Talk in Action. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
  • Rowley-Jolivet, E. (1999). “The pivotal role of conference papers in the network of scientific communication” ASp 26: 179-196.
  • Rowley-Jolivet, E., & S. Carter-Thomas (2005). “The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: Context, argument and interaction”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15: 45-70.
  • Scotto di Carlo, G. (2014). “Ethos in Ted Talks : The role of credibility in popularised texts”. Facta Universitatis 12: 81-91.
  • Swales, J., & A. Burke (2003). “‘It’s really fascinating work’: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers” in P. Leistyna & C.F. Meyer (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, 1-18. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.
  • Tang, K. (2013). “Instantiation of multimodal semiotic systems in science classroom discourse”. Language Sciences 37: 22-35. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.08.003) [03/02/2017]
  • Tickle-Degnen, L., & R. Rosenthal (1990). “The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates”. Psychological Inquiry 1,4: 285-293.URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449345. [03/02/2017]
  • Valeiras-Jurado, J. & Ruiz-Madrid, N. (2015). “A multimodal approach to product presentations”. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 173: 252-258.
  • Valeiras-Jurado, J. (2015). “A multimodal approach to persuasion in conference presentations” in B. Crawford-Camiciottoli & I. Fortanet-Gómez (eds.), Multimodal Analysis in Academic Settings. From Research to Teaching, 108-130. London: Routledge.
  • Valeiras-Jurado, J., Ruiz-Madrid, N. & Jacobs, G. (2018) “Revisiting persuasion in oral academic and professional genres. Towards a methodological framework for multimodal discourse analysis of research dissemination talks”. Iberica 35: 93-118.
  • Wulff, S., J. Swales, & K. Keller (2009). “‘We have about seven minutes for questions’: The discussion sessions from a specialized conference”. English for Specific Purposes 28,2: 79-92.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet