Article published In:
Internet Pragmatics: Online-First Articles

Salience management

The role of metadiscourse in online new product launch conferences

| Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
| Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
This article zooms in on metadiscourse resources to explore their salience management in online new product launch (hereafter NPL) conferences, adopting the salience theory of socio-cognitive approach (hereafter SCA) as the theoretical foundation. Drawing on data from 16 online NPL conferences presented by non-native English speakers, it is found that different types of metadiscourse resources are employed to manage the salience of specific contextual factors in metacognitive, metarepresentational and metacommunicative dimensions, motivated by the presenter’s inherent salience and awareness of recipient design. This article not only strengthens the assumption that the salience theory of SCA can provide a new perspective for metadiscourse research, but also sheds light on how to understand the effectiveness of online business communication in the intercultural context.
Keywords: metadiscourse, business communication, socio-cognitive approach, salience management, new product launch conferences
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Salience theory in SCA
    • 2.2Definition and classification of metadiscourse
    • 2.3Metadiscourse in advertising
    • 2.4Classification of metapragmatic awareness
  • 3.Data collection
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Types of metadiscourse in NPL conferences
    • 4.2Salience management in different dimensions
      • 4.2.1Metacognitive dimension
        • Salience of given information
        • Salience of new information
        • Salience of elusive information
        • Salience of epistemic status of information
      • 4.2.2Metarepresentational dimension
      • 4.2.3Metacommunicative dimension
        • Salience of recipient design
        • Salience of status
        • Salience of attitude
    • 4.3Summary
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 16 September 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00114.liu
References (40)
References
Adel, Annelie. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Subhi, Aisha Saadi. 2022. “Metadiscourse in online advertising: Exploring linguistic and visual metadiscourse in social media advertisements.” Journal of Pragmatics 1871: 24–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bax, Stephen, Fumiyo Nakatsuhara, and Daniel Waller. 2019. “Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels.” System 831: 79–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capar, Nejat, and Masaaki Katobe. 2003. “The relationship between international diversification and performance in service firms.” Journal of International Business Studies 34(4): 345–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. “Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view.” In Subject and Topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Xinren. 2020. “Jiyu yuanyuyong de yuanhuayu fenlei xinni [A new taxonomy of metadiscourse based on metapragmatics].” Waiyu yu Waiyu Jiaoxue [Foreign Language and Education] (4): 1–10.Google Scholar
Crismore, Avon, Raija Markkannen, and Margare Steffensen. 1993. “Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students.” Written Communication 101: 39–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Michael Haugh. 2014. Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, Laura. 2017. “Evidentials in advertising: A sample study.” Revista de Linguistica y Lenguas Aplicadas 121: 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski. 1988. “On the generation and interpretation of demonstrative expressions.” Proceeding of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: 216–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. “Giveness, implicature, and demonstrative expressions in English discourse.” In Papers from the Parasession on Language in Context, ed. by Randolph Graczyk, Bradley Music, and Caroline Wiltshire, 89–103. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
. 1990. “Givenness, implicature, and the form of referring expressions in discourse.” Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 442–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Zellig. 1959. “Linguistic transformations for information retrieval.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information: 937–950.Google Scholar
Ho, Victor. 2018. “Using metadiscourse in making persuasive attempts through workplace request emails.” Journal of Pragmatics 1341: 70–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ho, Victor, and Cissy Li. 2018. “The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 331: 53–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 2007. “‘Don’t blame me for criticizing you…’: A study of metapragmatics comments in Thai.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram, Bublitz, and Axel Hübler, 29–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going?” Journal of Pragmatics 1131: 16–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken, and Polly Tse. 2004. “Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal.” Applied Linguistics 25(2): 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. “Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics.” In Style in Language, ed. by Thomas Sebeok, 350–449. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas, and Sara Smith. 1996. “Explicit and implicit ways of enhancing common ground in conversations.” Pragmatics 6(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Kaounides, Lakis. 1999. “Science, technology and global competitive advantage.” International Studies of Management and Organizations 29(1): 53–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. “Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 40(3): 385–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. “Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(6): 2889–2897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. “The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics.” Pragmatics and Society 1(1): 50–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “The interplay of recipient design and salience in shaping speaker’s utterance.” In Reference and Representation in Thought and Language, ed. by Maria de Ponte, and Kepa Korta, 238–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2019. English as a Lingua Franca: The Pragmatic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Zhijun, and Jinfen Xu. 2020. “Reflexive metadiscourse in Chinese and English sociology research article introductions and discussions.” Journal of Pragmatics 1591: 47–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Ping, and Huiying Liu. 2021. “Salience adjusting: Metapragmatic expressions in complaint responses.” Journal of Pragmatics 1761: 150–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 1993. “Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts.” English for Specific Purposes 121: 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohammed, Nahar Al-Ali, Meera B. Sahawneh, and Safaa M. Hamzeh. 2023. “How to get more views: An analysis of metadiscoursal and discoursal linguistic cues in Arabic clickbait headlines.” Internet Pragmatics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mu, Congjun, Lawrence Jun Zhang, John Ehrich, and Huaqing Hong. 2015. “The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles.” Journal of English for Academic Purpose 20 1: 135–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1978. “Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 79–112. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teece, David, Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen. 1997. “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.” Strategic Management Journal 18(7): 509–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vande Kopple, William. 1985. “Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse.” College Composition and Communication 361: 82–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasquez, Camilla. 2015. “‘Don’t even get me started…’: Interactive metadiscourse in online consumer reviews.” In Digital Business Discourse, ed. by Erika Darics, 19–39. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 2000. “Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use.” Pragmatics 10(4): 439–456.Google Scholar
Wang, Xueyu. 2012. “Guanggao quanshuo zhong de yuanhuayu ziyuan he shenfen jiangou [Metadiscourse and identity construction in advertisements].” Tianjin Waiguoyu Daxue Xuebao [Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University] 19(3): 1–7.Google Scholar
Zjakic, Hana, Chong Han, and Xiangdong Liu. 2017. “‘Get fit!’ — The use of imperatives in Australian English gym advertisements on Facebook.” Discourse, Context & Media 161: 12–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar