Teaching multimodal metadiscourse in academic English as a foreign language

  1. Carrió Pastor, María Luisa 1
  1. 1 Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
    info

    Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01460j859

Revista:
Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

ISSN: 1697-7467

Año de publicación: 2022

Título del ejemplar: Monográfico

Número: 4

Páginas: 155-172

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.30827/PORTALIN.VI.21423 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Aunque tanto los elementos visuales como los textuales conforman el discurso multimodal, los primeros han recibido menos atención (Kumpf, 2000) que los segundos (Hyland, 2005) cuando se enseña una lengua extranjera. La hipótesis de este estudio es que enseñar el metadiscurso multimodal en la escritura académica puede ser beneficioso en la adquisición del inglés para fines específicos. Los objetivos son identificar los patrones del metadiscurso multimodal y estudiar si enseñarlo puede mejorar la capacidad para comunicarse de forma efectiva en un entorno multimodal. Se compiló un corpus de sesenta y cuatro artículos académicos del área de ingeniería escritos por hablantes nativos ingleses. A continuación, se clasificaron los elementos visuales y textuales del metadiscurso con una herramienta y de forma manual para identificar patrones que pudieran ser utilizados para la enseñanza del metadiscurso multimodal. Adicionalmente, se identificaron las frecuencias de los elementos textuales y visuales. Se propusieron tareas basadas en los resultados en un grupo experimental en la UPV. Los resultados muestran los patrones del metadiscurso multimodal, las clasificaciones y los resultados del experimento. Finalmente, en las conclusiones se evidenció que la dimensión multimodal no está implícita o asociada al conocimiento de una lengua, si no que ha de ser enseñada.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • 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
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet