A Corpus-based Analysis Of Metadiscourse In International Business Meetings

The present study investigates how persuasion is achieved in international business meetings with metadiscourse. The general research topic can be further divided into 3 research questions:(1) To what extent, does the frequency of metadiscoursal devices used by English as Lingua Franca users in international meetings differ from those employed by native speakers?(2) How do metadiscoursal devices realize persuasion through means of logos, pathos and ethos in international business meetings respectively?(3) What factors are at work and how they interact when English as lingua franca users choose metadiscoursal devices in international business meetings?With our intention to find out the patterns of metadiscourse by two different groups of speakers, we adopt a corpus-based discourse analysis. Relevant data from the two corpora – Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English(English as lingua franca’s discourse) and Business English Corpus(native speakers’ discourse) were collected to answer the research questions above.Generally, previous studies on metadiscourse in business discourse have proved its importance in written genre, but the spoken data, like discourse in business meetings, has received little attention. On the other hand, only a few metadiscoursal devices have been intensively studied in the spoken discourse of non-native speakers. To overcome the possible limitations, this thesis attempts to discover the usage features and rhetoric effect of over 150 metadiscoursal devices employed by English as Lingua Franca users in international business meetings.The specific choice of metadiscoursal devices falls within the Hyland’s(2005) model and Sternstr?m’s(1994) model, of which the latter is to compliment the possible pitfalls of Hyland’s model in spoken genre. The analysis of the rhetoric effect of MDs is conducted within a framework of Aristotle’s three means of persuasion: logos, pathos and ethos, which have been proved to be feasible across a span of cultures.The research findings are as the followings:(1) The form of metadiscourse in English as lingua franca’s discourse is fairly different from that of native speakers. The total frequency of metadiscoursal devices is significantly lower and the range of metadiscoursal devices is also less diversified in VOICE. English as lingua franca users have particular preferences for some items like certain transitions and frame markers, mhm, ok, yeah etc; thus the usage of metadiscoursal devices is routinized.(2) Persuasion is mainly achieved through three means of appeals. Transition, frame markers and code glosses secures the surface logicality through explicitly marking the logic relationship between clauses, stages of argument and so on. Ethos is built by speakers through their professional images in specific situations with metadiscoursal devices like hedges and boosters. Pathos is simply achieved through the strengthening of group bonding with personal pronouns, engagement markers and attitude markers.(3) The deviation in the frequency of certain types of metadiscoursal devices lead to the different rhetorical forms in both corpora. English as lingua franca users are generally less explicit in marking surface logicality, more inclined to use reinforced statement and use more backchannel strategy than alignment ones. The major reason for this difference is that the context in English as lingua franca settings is multicultural one instead of a single and united culture. These differences are possibly caused by the compromise made within different cultures, English as Lingua Franca users’ less sensitiveness to the delicate balance between hedges and boosters and the inappropriate situation for using alignment strategy in English as Lingua Franca settings.