Cover not available
Part of
Engagement in Professional Genres
Edited by Carmen Sancho Guinda
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 301] 2019
► pp. 1–26

Chapter 1
Networking engagement in professional practices

Towards an integrative view

| Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain

In this chapter I revisit the concept of metadiscursive engagement, track its major courses of research up to date, and discuss the interpersonal and discursive assumptions it entails. In light of these assumptions, I draw connections among the different contributions to this volume, present a networked picture of engagement resulting from their different understandings, and finally pinpoint challenges and emerging issues. The global and open vision of engagement offered here not only intends to bring together the three major theoretical frameworks resorted to in this volume (i.e. the Appraisal System, the Hylandian Metadiscourse Model and Multimodality), but also to suggest relating them with the idea of ‘distance’ between sender and addressee, explored by both the Appraisal System itself and the pragmatic theories of Proximisation and Politeness.

Keywords: engagement, interpersonality, metadiscourse, stancetaking, professional discourses, genre
Article outline
  • 1.Overview: Framing research on professional engagement
    • 1.1Meaning-making resources and theoretical eclecticism
  • 2.Issues arising: Research directions and challenges
    • 2.1Interpersonal assumptions
    • 2.2Discursive assumptions
  • 3.Broadening the notion: Engagement envisaged as (di)stance
  • 4.Closing reflections
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 April 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.301.01san
References
Ädel, Annelie
2006 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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): 69–97.Google Scholar
Ädel, Annelie, and Anna Mauranen
2010 “Metadiscourse: Diverse and Divided Perspective.” Nordic Journal of English Studies 9 (2): 1–40.Google Scholar
Artemeva, Natasha, and Aviva Freedman
eds. 2006 Rhetorical Genre Studies and Beyond. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Inkshed Publications.Google Scholar
Aull, Laura L., Dineth Bandarage, and Meredith R. Miller
2017 “Generality in Student and Expert Epistemic Stance: A Corpus Analysis of First-Year, Upper Level, and Published Academic Writing.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 26: 29–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich
1981 The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Translated by Caryl Emerson, and Michael Holquist. Ed. by Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bamford, Julia, and Marina Bondi
eds. 2006 Managing Interaction in Professional Discourse: Intercultural and Interdiscoursal Perspectives. Rome: Officina Edizioni.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K.
1993 Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1994 “Generic Integrity in Professional Discourse.” In Text and Talk in Professional Contexts, ed. by Britt-Louise Gunnarsson, Per Linell, and Bengt Nordberg, 61–76. Uppsala, Sweden: ASLA, Skriftserie 6.Google Scholar
1995 “Genre Mixing in Professional Communication: The case of ‘private intentions’ v. ‘socially recognised purposes’.” In Explorations in English for Professional Communication, ed. by Paul Bruthiaux, Tim Boswood, and Bertha Du-Babcock, 1–19. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
1997 “Genre-mixing in Academic Introductions.” English for Specific Purposes 16 (3): 181–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Bethany Gray
2016 Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breeze, Ruth
2012 Rethinking Academic Writinf Pedagogy for the European University. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Cap, Piotr
2013 Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan
2014 “Political Style.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Stylistics, ed. by Peter Stockwell and Sara Whiteley, 536–557. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cockcroft, Robert, Susan Cockcroft, Craig Hamilton, and Laura Hidalgo Downing
2014 [1995] Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John
2007 “The Stance Triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, Ernest, Lizzie Miller, and Matthew Connell
2006 “On Creative Engagement.” Visual Communication 5 (3): 307–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg, Jan
2012 “Specialized Communication and Culture, Practice, Competence, and Knowledge: Implications and Derived Insights.” In Applied Linguistics Today: Research and Perspectives. Angewandte Linguistik heute: Forschung und Perspektiven, ed. by Leonard Pon, Vladimir Karabalic, and Sanja Cimer, 109–130. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1993 “Critical Discourse Analysis and the Marketization of Public Discourse: The Universities. Discourse and Society 4 (2): 133–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gambetti, Rossella, and Guendalina Graffigna
2010 “The Concept of Engagement: A Systematic Analysis of the Ongoing Marketing Debate.” International Journal of Market Research 52 (6): 801–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio
2008 Investigating Specialized Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Green, Andrew
2007 “Are Viewers ‘engaged’ with advertising? Does It Matter?” WARC Media FAQs, March 2007. [URL] Last accessed June 2015.
Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise
2009 Professional Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Harré, Rom, and van Langenhove, Luk
1999 Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of Intentional Action. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hairston, Maxine, and Michael Keene
2003 [1981] Successful Writing. 5th edn. New York/London: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Heath, Robert
2007 “How Do We Predict Advertising Attention and Engagement?” University of Bath School of Management Working Paper Series. Paper 09.Google Scholar
Heylighen, Francis, and Jean-Marc Dewaele
1999 Formality of Language: Definition, Measurement and Behavioral Determinants. Internal Report. Center “Leo Apostel” , Free University of Brussels. [URL]
Hinds, John
1987 “Reader versus Writer Responsibility: A New Typology.” In Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text, ed. by Ulla Connor and Robert B. Kaplan, 141–152. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
2001 “Bringing in the Reader: Addressee Features in Academic Articles.” Written Communication 18: 549–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004a [2000] Disciplinary Discourse: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
2004b “Disciplinary Interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 133–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005a Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2005b “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 7: 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008a “Different Strokes for Different Folks: Disciplinary Variation in Academic Writing.” In Language and Discipline perspectives on Academic Discourse, ed. by Kjersti Fløttum, 89–108. Newcsatle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
2008b “Constraint versus Creativity: Identity and Disciplinarity in Academic Writing.” In Commonality and Individuality in Academic Discourse, ed. by Maurizio Gotti, 25–52. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2009a Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2009b “Corpus Informed Discourse Analysis: The Case of Academic Engagement.” In Academic Writing. At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse, ed. by Maggie Charles, Diane Pecorari, and Susan Hunston, 110–128. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2010 “Constructing Proximity: Relating to Readers in Popular and Professional Science.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 116–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011a “Projecting an Academic Identity in Some reflective Genres.” Ibérica 21 (Spring): 9–30.Google Scholar
2011b “Disciplines and Discourses: Social Interactions in the Construction of Knowledge. In Writing in the Knowledge Society, ed. by Doreen Starke-Meyerring, Anthony Paré, Natasha Artemeva, Miriam Horne, and Larissa Yousoubova, 193–214. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor PressGoogle Scholar
2012 “Undergraduate Understandings: Stance and Voice in Final Year Reports.” In Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres, ed. by Ken Hyland and Carmen Sancho Guinda, 134–150. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Dialogue, Community and Persuasion in Research Writing.” In Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres, ed. by Luz Gil-Salom and Carmen Soler-Monreal, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Metadiscourse: What Is It and Where Is It Going?”. Journal of Pragmatics 113: 16–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 The Essential Hyland. Studies in Applied Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken, and Polly Tse
2004 “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal.” Applied Linguistics 25 (2): 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken, and Feng (Kevin) Jiang
2016 “’We Must Conclude that’…: A Diachronic Study of Academic Engagement.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24: 29–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Is Academic Writing Becoming More Informal?” English for Specific Purposes 40–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra
2009 Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Rodney
2014 “Advertising Culture.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Stylistics, ed. by Peter Stockwell and Sara Whiteley, 520–535. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kastberg, Peter
2007 “Knowledge Communication: “The Emergence of a Third Order Discipline.” In Kommunikation in Bewegung: Multimedialer und Multilingualer Wissenstransfer in der Experten-Laien-Kommunikation, ed. by Claudia Villiger, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 7–24. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karin D.
1981 The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen
2006 [1996] Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd ed. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lane, Janet, and Lange, Ellen
1999 Writing Clearly. An Editing Guide. 2nd edn. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger
1991 Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
2014 The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenzoni, Irene, Sophie Nicholson-Cole, and Lorraine Whitmarsh
2007 “Barriers Perceived to Engaging with Climate Change among the UK Public and Their Policy Implications.” Global Environmental Change 17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Machin, David
2007 Introduction to Multimodal Analysis. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Martin, James R., and Peter R. R. White
2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna
1993 Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2010 “Discourse Reflexivity - A Discourse Universal? The Case of ELF” Nordic Journal of English Studies 9 (2): 13–40.Google Scholar
Molino, Alessandra
2010 “Personal and Impersonal Authorial References: A Contrastive Study of English and Italian in Linguistics Research Articles.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 86–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, Sigrid
2004 Analyzing Multimodal Interaction. A Methodological Framework. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Toole, Michael
1994 The Language of Displayed Art. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, Carmen
2010 “The Discourse Functions of Metadiscourse in Published Academic Writing: Issues of Culture and Language.” Nordic Journal of English Studies 9 (2): 41–68.Google Scholar
2012 Scientific Discourse and the Rhetoric of Globalization: The Impact of Culture and Language. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven
2014 The Sense of Style. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Ross-Larson, Bruce
1999 Stunning Sentences. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Sales, Hazel E.
2006 Professional Communication in Engineering. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sancho Guinda, Carmen
2012a “Flexibility Features in Patent Writing.” Ibérica 24: 185–210.Google Scholar
2012b “Proximal Positioning in Students’ Graph Commentaries.” In Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres, ed. by Ken Hyland and Carmen Sancho Guinda, 166–183. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Engagement in NTSB Decisions on Aviation Case Appeals.” In Interpersonality in Legal Genres, ed. by Ruth Breeze, Maurizio Gotti, and Carmen Sancho Guinda, 181–211. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “Genres on the Move: Currency and Erosion of the Genre Moves Construct.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19: 73–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Semiotic Shortcuts: The Graphical Abstract Strategies of Engineering Students.” Hermes 55: 61–90. [URL]
2017 “Transmitting Authority in Risk Communication: An Exploration of US Air-Accident Dockets Online.” InPower, Persuasion and Manipulation in Specialised Genres, ed. by María Ángeles Orts, Ruth Breeze, and Maurizio Gotti, 211–336. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sancho Guinda, Carmen, and Ken Hyland
2012 “Introduction: A Context-Sensitive Approach to Stance and Voice.” In Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres, ed. by Ken Hyland and Carmen Sancho Guinda, 1–11. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Paul
1993 Language, Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strunk, William Jr., and E. B. White
1972 [1959] The Elements of Style. 4th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
Swales, John M.
2004 Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M., and Christine B. Feak
1994 Academic Writing for Graduate Students. A Course for Non-native Speakers of English. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Sword, Helen
2012 Stylish Academic Writing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tichy, Henrietta J.
(With Silvia Fourdrinier). 1988 Effective Writing for Engineers, Managers, Scientists. 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff
2014 “Affect and Emotion, Target-Value Mismatches and Russian Dolls.” In Evaluation in Context, ed. by Geoff Thompson and Laura Alba-Juez, 47–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trimble, John R.
2000 [1975] Writing with Style. Conversations on the Art of Writing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Turk, Christopher, and John Kirkman
1996 [1982] Effective Writing. Improving Scientific, Technical and Business Communication. London: E & FN Spon.Google Scholar
Vassileva, Irena
2001 “Commitment and Detachment in English and Bulgarian Academic Writing.” English for Specific Purposes 20 (1): 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wallwork, Adrian
2014a Presentations, Demos, and Training Sessions. New York/Heidelberg/Dordrecht/London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b User Guides, Manuals and Technical Writing. New York/Heidelberg/Dordrecht/London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 English for Writing Research Papers. 2nd edn. New York/Heidelberg/Dordrecht/London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Alex
2006 “Advertising Engagement: A Driver of Message Involvement in on Message Effects.” Journal of Advertising Research 46 (4): 355–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, Etienne
1998 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco
2014 “Interactions with Readers through Online Specialised Genres. Specificity or Adaptability?” In Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres, ed. by Luz Gil Salom and Carmen Soler-Monreal, 189–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinsser, William
2006 [1976] On Writing Well. New York: Collins.Google Scholar
Zwickle, Adam, and Robyn S. Wilson
2014 “Construing Risk Implications for Risk Communication.” In Effective Risk Communication, ed. by Joseph Árvai and Louie Rivers, III, 190–203. New York/London: Routledge-Earthscan.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Alwohaibi, Hala Abdulrahman & Hesham Suleiman Alyousef
2023. An Investigation of Engagement Resources in the World Cup 2022 Newspaper Articles in the Arab World Media. Journal of Contemporary Language Research 2:2 ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo
Sancho Guinda, Carmen
2023. ¿Idiolectos o tecnolectos? Resquicios de impronta personal en la descripción de procedimientos técnicos. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 93 ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Sánchez-Jiménez, David & Paulina Meza
2022. Posicionamiento y dialogicidad en la escritura académica y profesional. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 90 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 september 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.