DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/parole.v13i1.32-42

The Arts of Lobbying: Scrutinizing the Functions of Interactional Meta-discourse in Model United Nations Conferences

Department of English Literature, Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim, Jl. Gajayana, Dinoyo, Malang Indonesia 65144, Indonesia

Received: 15 Sep 2022; Published: 30 Apr 2023.
Open Access Copyright (c) 2023 PAROLE: Journal of Linguistics and Education under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

This study explores how speakers use interactional markers in the diplomatic speech Model United Nations Conference. We used a discourse analysis approach focusing on the meta-discourse markers; the analyzed data comes from the speech utterances based on 10 representative delegates. The data was taken on 27-28 March during the conference day. The five research classifications are hedges, Boosters, Attitude Markers, Engagement, and Self-mentions. The result reveals that the speakers use 280 interactional markers. Besides, the speaker's use of interactional markers might designate a tendency that would impact the audience's agreement on the topic.

Fulltext View|Download Email colleagues
Keywords:  Meta-discourse, Interactional Markers, Model United Nations, Diplomatic Speech

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Article
Language : EN
Most cited articles
Frontmatter Interruptions and Silences in Conversations: A Turn-Taking Analysis Frontmatter Frontmatter Frontmatter More cited articles
  1. Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia. John Benjamins
  2. Ädel, A. (2008). “What uh the folks who did this survey found‟: Expert Attribution in Spoken Academic Lectures.” Nordic Journal of English Studies 7, 3: 83-102
  3. Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A Taxonomy of Metadiscourse in Spoken and Written Academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.218
  4. Aimah, S., Mulyadi, D., & Ifadah, M. (2019). Metadiscourse Markers Written in Introduction Section of Final Project of Unimus Efl Learners. English Review: Journal of English Education, 7(2), 109. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v7i2.1717
  5. Akoto, O. Y., & Afful, J. B. A. (2020). Variations in Metadiscourse Use in English Language Introduction and Literature Review Thesis Chapters. Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching, 4(2), 390–408. https://doi.org/10.30743/ll.v4i2.2601
  6. AlJazrawi, D. A., & AlJazrawi, Z. A. (2019). The Use of Meta-discourse: An Analysis of Interactive and Interactional Markers in English Short Stories as a Type of Literary Genre. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 8(3), 66. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.8n.3p.66
  7. Alkhathlan, M. (2019). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: An Investigation of Saudi EFL Students’ Research Articles. Linguistics and Literature Studies, 7(5), 220–225. https://doi.org/10.13189/lls.2019.070505
  8. Ali, A., Rashid, A., & Abbas, S. (2020). Metadiscourse Markers in Political Discourse: A Corpus-Assisted Study of Hedges and Boosters in Benazir Bhutto’s Speeches. Global Social Sciences Review, V (III), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2020(v-iii).06
  9. Angraini, R., & Effrianti, M. D. (2020). Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in Speeches of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia. Literary Criticism, 6(1), 1–10
  10. Azijah, D. P., & Gulö, I. (2020). Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in Jacinda Ardern Speech At Christchurch Memorial. Linguistics and Literature Journal, 1(2), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.33365/llj.v1i2.594
  11. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications
  12. Dawd, K. O., & Salih, S. M. (2020). Covert Persuasion in English Advertisements and Political Speeches. Koya University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.14500/kujhss.v3n1y2020.pp41-52
  13. Detrianto, B., Rahardjo, M., & Susilowati, M. (2020). The Landscape of International Students’ Slips of the Tongue in Indonesian Contexts. Icri 2018, 96–103. https://doi.org/10.5220/0009917000960103
  14. Ebrahimi, S. J. (2018). The Role of Metadiscourse Markers in Comprehending Texts of Reading Comprehension Books Published in Iran and Oxford University Press. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(3), 90. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.3p.90
  15. Faiz, A., Yulianti, A. I., & Septiana, D. (2020). Trump’s Speech about Jerusalem: An Analysis on Persuasive Strategies. Journal of Pragmatics Research, 2(2), 160–176. https://doi.org/10.18326/jopr.v2i2.160-176
  16. Firdaus, A., & Shartika, M. (2021). Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers and Appraisal Portrayed in BBC’s CoronaVirus News Report. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Social Science (ICONETOS 2020), 529(Iconetos 2020), 794–802. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210421.115
  17. Halliday. (1989). M. A. K. Halliday-Spoken and Written Language-Oxford University Press (1989)
  18. Hammad, F. M., & Hussein, J. Q. (2021). Persuasive Strategies in WHO COVID-19 Virtual Press Conferences. Journal of the College of Education for Women, 32(2), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.36231/coedw.v32i2.1501
  19. Hart, D., & Siniver, A. (2020). The meaning of diplomacy. International Negotiation, September, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-BJA10003
  20. Hasanah, U., & Wahyudi, R. (2015). Meaning-Making of Hedges in the Gossip Column of the Jakarta Post. Jurnal Humaniora, 27(2), 207. https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.v27i2.8717
  21. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455
  22. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
  23. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum
  24. Ilie, C. (2002). Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates. Journal of Language and Politics, 2(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.2.1.05ili
  25. Istiani, R., & Puspita, D. (2020). Interactional Metadiscourse used in Bloomberg International Debate. Linguistics and Literature Journal, 1(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.33365/llj.v1i1.160
  26. Lambert, V. a., & Lambert, C. E. (2013). Qualitative Descriptive Research: An Acceptable Design. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, 16(4), 255–256. http://antispam.kmutt.ac.th/index.php/PRIJNR/article/download/5805/5064
  27. Jesuit, D. K., & Endless, B. (2018). Model United Nations and experiential learning: An assessment of changes in knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 9(4), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.17499/jsser.99849
  28. Nasution, S. S., & Sukmawati, N. N. (2019). Model United Nations: Improving the Students’ Speaking Skill. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 4(2), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v4i2.2100
  29. Nugroho, A. (2019). Exploring Metadiscourse Use in Thesis Abstracts: A CrossCultural Study. Journal of English Language and Culture, 9(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.30813/jelc.v9i2.1689
  30. Raharjo, M. (2020), Pengantar Metodologi Penelitian Studi Kasus Metode Campuran (Moxed Method), Penelitian dan Pengembangan (R&D). CV Mazda Media Publishing. Malang. ISBN: 978-623-7334-91-0
  31. Raharjo, M. (2020). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif untuk Ilmu – Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora dari Teori ke Praktik Republika Media Publishing Malang. ISBN:978-623- 7334-83-5
  32. Resnik, P. (2017). Metadiscourse in spoken interaction in ESL: A multilingual perspective. AAA: Arbeiten Aus Anglistik Und Amerikanistik, 42(2), 189–210. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26379471
  33. Saraswati, B., & Pasaribu, T. A. (2019). Metadiscourse markers and gender variation in journal articles. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics
  34. Tatsuki, D. H., & Zenuk-Nishide, L. (2019). MUN Perspectives on Teaching and Learning : A Focus on Negotiation. Journal of English Language and Culture, 9(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.30813/jelc.v9i2.1689
  35. Vasheghani Farahani, M. (2020). Metadiscourse in Academic Written and Spoken English: A Comparative Corpus-Based Inquiry. Research in Language, 18(3), 319–341. https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.18.3.05
  36. Zahro, F., Irham, & Degaf, A. (2021). Scrutinizing metadiscourse functions in Indonesian efl students: A case study on the classroom written and spoken discourses. Mextesol Journal, 45(2), 0–2
  37. Zhang, M. (2016). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies, 18(2), 204–222. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24815288

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2026-07-14 10:14:54

No citation recorded.