INTERPERSONAL METADISCOURSE MARKERS IN

(1)

INTERPERSONAL METADISCOURSE MARKERS IN LET IT COME, LET IT GO! STORYTELLING PERFORMANCE BY JAN BLAKE

(A Thesis)

By

Lisa Yoviana Fitri 14111181

ENGLISH LITERATURE STUDY PROGRAM FACULTY OF ARTS AND EDUCATION UNIVERSITAS TEKNOKRAT INDONESIA

BANDARLAMPUNG 2018

(2)

ii

(3)

(4)

iii

(5)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Alhamdulillahi bi ni’matihi tatimmusholihat,

Praise to Allah Subhanahu Wata’ala, the Most Merciful, the Most Beneficent, the Lord of the Universe, finally I could accomplish this thesis. The accomplishment of this thesis could not be achieved without the contribution of some great persons. Therefore, I would like to give my sincere gratitude to:

1. Dr. H.M. Nasrullah Yusuf, S.E., M.B.A., Rector of Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia.

2. Akhyar Rido, M.A., Ph.D. Dean of Faculty of Arts and Education of Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia.

3. Suprayogi, S.S., M.Hum. Head of English Literature of the Faculty of Arts and Education of Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia and also as my great advisor. Thank you so much for your guidance, kindness, and patience during the advisory.

4. Ingatan Gulo, S.S., M.Hum. as my examiner. Thanks for giving advantageous suggestion and approving my thesis.

BandarLampung, 17 November, 2018 The Writer

Lisa Yoviana Fitri 14111181

(6)

vi

MOTTO

Verily, along with every hardship is relief

(Al-quran 94:6)

Who is serious, he will succeed

(Arabic Proverb)

When I find my ways are so hard,

I just believe Allah only want me to struggle harder.

(Lisa Yoviana Fitri)

(7)

DEDICATION

From the deepest of my heart, I dedicate this thesis to

My beloved families, especially for my mother Asnawati who had taught me everything (I wish you saw this ), and for my beloved father, Firman, for

my only one sister, Esy Fitria, and for those who have give the meaning in my life and , beloved Muhammad Kevin Gibraldi, Fahri Febrian Saputra, Rafi Khafid Fadhillah.. I also dedicate to my best friend Rita Novika who always

there for me and all of my friends in RS. YMC who always helped me. I am

gratitude to dedicate my humble effort for all the beloved one.

(8)

vii

(9)

ABSTRACT

Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in Let It Come, Let It Go! Storytelling Performance by Jan Blake

Lisa YovianaFitri 14111181

In this study, the writer discusses about the types and function of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in storytelling performance by Jan Blake. The writer use Hyland’s theory of metadiscourse (2005). In the theory, Hyland (2005) categorizes interpersonal metadiscourse markers into interactional metadiscourse m a r k e r s and interactive metadiscourse markers.

This research is conducted with descriptive qualitative method. In collecting the data, the writer watched the video from the official website of YouTube, identified potential data, and highlighting the phrase, word or sentence that can be included as the data. By analyzing the interactional and interactive metadiscourse resources in Jan Blake performance, the interpersonal metadiscourse markers of the storytelling are revealed.

As the result of this research, the writer finds out that in the interactive metadiscourse, the most markers that occur in the performance of the Jan Blake is transition markers. Meanwhile in the interactional metadiscourse, the most markers that occur is self-mention. In which, every marker has function to guide the audience through the story. Furthermore, by using interpersonal metadiscourse markers Jan Blake can effectively express her story, support her arguments, and build relationship with the audiences by involving them to the story.

Keywords: Discourse Markers, Interpersonal Metadiscourse, Interactive Metadiscourse, Interactional Metadiscourse

(10)

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER PAGE

DECLARATION OF FREE PLAGIARISM ... i

APPROVAL PAGE ... ii

VALIDATION PAGE ... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... iv

MOTTO ... vi

DEDICATION ... vii

ABSTRACT ... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of Research ... 1

1.2 Research Question ... 3

1.3 Objective of Research ... 3

1.4 Uses of Research ... 4

1.4.1 Theoretical Uses ... 4

1.4.2 Practical Uses ... 4

1.5 Scope of Research ... 4

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Previous Study ... 5

2.2 Metadiscourse ... 8

2.3 Metadiscourse Markers ... 11

(11)

2.4 Classification of Interpersonal Metadiscourse ... 12

2.4.1 Interactional Resources ... 12

2.4.1.1 Hedges ... 13

2.4.1.2 Boosters ... 14

2.4.1.3 Attitude Markers ... 15

2.4.1.4 Self Mentions ... 15

2.4.1.5 Engagement Markers ... 16

2.4.2 Interactive Resources ... 17

2.4.2.1 Transition Markers ... 18

2.4.2.2 Frame Markers ... 19

2.4.2.3 Endophoric Markers ... 19

2.4.2.4 Evidentials ... 20

2.4.2.5 Code Glosses ... 20

CHAPTER THREE: METHOD OF RESEARCH 3.1 Research Design ... 22

3.2 Data and Data Source ... 22

3.3 Data Collecting Technique ... 23

3.4 Data Analyzing Technique ... 23

CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS 4.1 Interactive Metadiscourse ... 25

4.1.1 Transitions ... 25

4.1.2 Frame Markers ... 28

(12)

xi

4.1.3 Endophoric Markers ... 27

4.1.4 Code-Glosses ... 28

4.2 Interactional Metadiscourse ... 30

4.2.1 Hedges ... 30

4.2.2 Boosters ... 32

4.2.3 Attitude Markers ... 33

4.2.4 Engagement Markers ... 31

4.2.5 Self-Mention ... 34

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION ... 38 REFERENCES

APPENDICES

(13)

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study

Spoken language is basically a language that is delivered orally and directly from the speakers to the hearers or audience. One example of the forms of spoken language is a face to face conversation with society like public speaking. In public speaking itself, there are several examples, such as debate, political speech or even story telling. Serrat (2008: 156) states that, “Storytelling is the vivid description of ideas, beliefs, personal experiences, and life-lessons through stories or narratives that evoke powerful emotions and insights”.

Thus, based on the definition, it can be said that storytelling is an act of telling a story with moral lesson and covered by emotional sensation so that the listeners can feel and imagine the condition and situation when the storyteller conveys a story. Generally, the use of storytelling is to deliver true or fiction stories containing life lessons, also to give the motivation to others. It also became the effective strategic to educate people and convey the message (Serrat, 2008). In addition, as the reference to those functions, the writer believes that to be a good story teller is not easy thing. Since, commonly a storytelling delivered in informal situation where something unexpected could happen, unlike debate or speeches that are usually have been arranged structurally. Consequently, besides mastering in content of the story, a story teller has to be able to build a good interaction and connection with audience through body language and well arrange sentences.

Before performing a storytelling, commonly every storyteller will practice for several times in order to avoid unwanted words produced in front of the audience.

(14)

UniversitasTeknokrat Indonesia

Although they have done their practice for hundred times, still, the writer believes that they will carefully choose the words that can be easily understand by the audience. That is why in this research, the writer is interested to address issues such as the type and function of every word that is related to interpersonal metadiscourse uttered by storyteller.

Metadiscourse is representing a writer's or speaker's attempts to guide a receiver's perception of a text.According to Hyland (2015), metadiscourse is the interpersonal resources used to organize discourse or the writer’s stance toward either its content or the reader. It is always looking at language use based on the fact that, as we speak or write, we monitor the possible responses of the others, making decision about the kind of effects we are having on our listeners or readers, and adjusting our language to best achieve our purpose.

Generally, metadiscourse is most concentrated on describing written genres than the spoken one. Despite, most interest in the uses and function of metadiscourse focus on written language, and role of spoken language has not attracted much attention for people, but there are kinds of phenomena in spoken language that can be found, whereas can also be an interesting object to study it, such as: talk, political debates, interview, etc. Therefore, the writer wants to investigate metadiscourse in one of the Jan Blake storytelling performances in TEDx.

Jan Blake is one of Europian's leading storytellers who have been performing around the world. Further, the writer chooses Jan Blake than any other storyteller since she has been performing worldwide for over 25 years. She is also specializing in stories from Africa, the Caribbean and Arabia and she has a well-

(15)

14

earned reputation for dynamic and generous storytelling. In accordance, this research focuses on investigating the interpersonalmetadiscourse that is used by Jan Blake in one of her performance in TEDx.

1.2 Research Questions

Based on the background of research, the writer formulates the research problem into:

1. What are interpersonal metadiscourse markers used by Jan Blake in her story telling performance?

2. What are the functions of interpersonal metadiscourse markers used by Jan Blake in her storytelling performance?

1.3 The Objectives of Research

Regarding to the research questions above, this research aims are:

1. To find out the types of interactional metadiscourse markers used by Jan Blake in her storytelling performance.

2. To find out the function of interactional metadiscourse markers used by Jan Blake in her story telling performance.

(16)

1.4 The Uses of Research

1.4.1 Theoretical Use

Theoretically, the writer hopes this research is able to give contributions, additional knowledge and apply the theory about metadiscourse markers in storytelling performance, especially the types and function of interpersonal metadiscourse markers.

1.4.2 Practical Use

Practically, this research is able to gives the readers a new knowledge about the markers that usually use in story telling performance. In addition, the writes want to share the knowledge in making a good storytelling and a good performing in front of the audience.

1.5 The Scope of the Research.

In this analysis, the writer focuses on interpersonal metadiscourse markers used by the prominent storyteller, Jan Blake in her storytelling entitled Let it come, Let it go!( a story about Camel Driver). In doing the analysis, the writer applies the

theory of Hyland about metadiscourse.

(17)

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Previous Study

There are some researches related to this topic which also discussed metadiscourse markers. Metadiscourse research has largely concentrated on describing written genres, analysis of spoken data are increasingly common (Hyland, 2015). Despite, language to analyze, few researchers also has analyzed metadiscourse in spoken language. There are some journals and thesis related to this topic is reviewed.

Study Objective Methods Findings

Zareifard and Alinezhad (2014)

To identify the similarities and differences of interactional

metadiscourse by male and female candidates in the defense

seminars of Persian speakers.

Qualitative and quantitative method

Statistically

significant difference in the use of

interactional metadiscourse markers by male and female candidates

Hashemi and Golparvar (2012).

To investigate and calculate

metadiscourse markers used in Persian news reports.

Quantitative method to measure the frequency of metadiscourse markers

The quantitative analysis illustrated the importance of metadiscourse markers in Persian news reports.

Sari (2014) To find out the types and explain the function of interpersonal

metadiscourse markers used in Michele Obama’s speech.

Descriptive qualitative method

It shows that there are two categories of interpersonal

metadiscourse markers used in Michelle Obama’s Speech; those are interactive and interactional metadiscourse

(18)

Zareifard and Alinezhad (2014) conducted an analysis using Metadiscourse approach in analyzing their research entitled A Study of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers and Gender in the Defense Seminars of Persian Speakers.

The focus of this study is to identify the similarities and differences of interactional metadiscourse by male and female candidates in thesis defenses. The data were analyzed by using Hyland and Tse (2004) and presented in both qualitative and quantitative data. The data include eighteen thesis defenses of nine males and nine females in humanities and social sciences. As the result of the analysis, they found out that the higher educational system in Iran as a make- gendered organization cannot easily be accepted the description of university as a male-gendered organization as it is stated for traditional university like many other old institutions, does not seem to be so relevant for the present community of practice in Iran.

The similar previous research that also applies the approach of Metadiscourse Markers is from Hashemi and Golparvar (2012) with their research entitled Exploring Metadiscourse Markers in Persian News Reports. This paper aims to investigate metadiscourse markers used in Persian news reports. This research was taken from 5 Persian news agencies by selecting 20 news reports as the sample.

The analysis used Kopple’s theory (1985) and presented in quantitative data to measure the frequency of metadiscourse markers in news articles which uttered by the newscaster in Persian. The result of analysis shows that metadiscourse markers are quite frequent in Persian news reports suggesting their importance in this genre. Moreover, this study revealed that there are more instances of textual metadiscourse markers in comparison with interpersonal metadiscourse markers.

(19)

7

Afterwards, this research endeavor demonstrated that text connectives, narrators and commentary markers are more abundant than other kinds of metadiscourse.

The last previous research that conducts a metadiscourse markers approach is the research from Sari (2014) with her research entitled Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers Used in Michelle Obama Speech. This research aims to find out the types and explain the function of interpersonal metadiscourse markers used in Michele Obama’s speech. The study tried to find how the metadiscourse markers show in Michele Obama’s speech and tried to explain how the metadiscourse markers used. This research, the writer use qualitative method and classified the metadiscourse markers into two, interactional and interactive, were adapted and refined by Hyland (2004; 2005). The result shows that there are two categories of interpersonal metadiscourse markers used in Michelle Obama’s Speech; those are interactive and interactional metadiscourse. Kinds of interactive metadiscourse found in Michelle Obama’s Speech are transitional, frame marker and evidential.

Transitional became the highest percentage, because transitional is conjunction that functions to relate one sentence with other sentences. Meanwhile, in the interactional category, self-mention is the dominant, because when Michelle Obama speaks about her opinion, she gives statement to audience who became author for the audience.

Compared to those previous researches, this research is quite similar to them, since this research also discusses metadiscourse markers in spoken language. In focusing in type and function, this current research is similar to Sari (2014) and where the analysis of researcher uses the same theory of Hyland (2004) and also find out the type and function of metadiscourse markers. The gap that the

(20)

researcher finds is the object of the research and the researcher is focuses on both types in metadiscourse. Here, the researcher analyzes interpersonalmetadiscourse markers in Jan Blake storytelling performance as the object of analysis and using qualitative method.

2.2 Metadiscourse

The term metadiscourse was coined by Harris(1959) to offer a way of understanding language in use, representing a writer's or speaker's attempts to guide a receiver's perception of a text (Hyland, 2005). The concept has been further developed by writers such as Williams (1981), Kopple (1985) and Crismore (1989), they collect various forms of text commentary to show how writers and speakers intrude into their unfolding text to influence their interlocutor's reception ofit (Thompson, 2001: 57).

Crismore et al (1994:25) has defined metadiscourse as “discoursing about spoken or written discourse”. She has added that metadiscourse provides readers or listeners with direction rather than information. She has also made a distinction between primary and secondary level discourse.

Primary level discourse is concerned with information or propositional content, but secondary level discourse, i.e., metadiscourse, provides a discourse about the primary level discourse. Expressions like definitely, undoubtedly, first, in the previous chapter, and according to be examples of metadiscourse. Crismore (1994:30) also mentioned that “metadiscourse facilitates the reconstruction of the writer’s writing plan by readers”. It also helps readers create and affirm

(21)

9

expectations about the text (Crismore in Hashemi and Seyyed, 2012). Crismore et al. (1993) then revised and reorganize Kopple's categories. They kept the two major categories of textual and interpersonal, but collapsed, separated, and reorganized the subcategories. The textual metadiscourse was further divided into two categories of “textual” and “interpretive” markers in an attempt to separate organizational and evaluative functions. Textual markers consist of those features that help organize the discourse, and interpretive markers are those features used to help readers to better interpret and understand the writer’s meaning and writing strategies (Crismore et al., 1993).

In addition, according to Hyland (2015: 181),

Metadiscourse is the interpersonal resources used to organize discourse or the writer’s stance toward either its content or the reader. It is always looking at language use based on the fact that, as we speak or write, we monitor the possible responses of the others, making decision about the kind of effects we are having on our listeners or readers, and adjusting our language to best achieve our purpose. The study of metadiscourse therefore reminds us that statements don’t just have an orientation to the world outside the text, but simultaneously orientate to the reader’s understanding of that world through the text itself.

In other words, language is not simply used to convey information about something but also to present the information in ways which both engage and make sense to others, also make the language whether spoken or written more effective.

(22)

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework, adopted from Hyland (2004,2005)

Metadiscourse can be analyzed in written and spoken. Hyland (2004, 2005) distinguish model of metadiscourse into two, interactive and interactional resources as the figure 1. It has been classified based on functional approach which regards metadiscourse of the ways writer refer to the text, the writer or the reader (Hyland, 2005: 48). The model recognizes that metadiscourse is comprised of the two dimensions of interaction:

1. The interactive dimension. This concerns the writer's awareness of a participating audience and the ways he or she seeks to accommodate its probable knowledge, interests, rhetorical expectations and processing abilities. The writer's purpose here is to shape and constrain a text to meet the needs of particular readers, setting out arguments so that they will recover the writer's

(23)

11

preferred interpretations and goals. The use of resources in this category therefore addresses ways of organizing discourse, rather than experience ,and reveals the extent to which the text is constructed with the readers' needs in mind.

2. The interactional dimension. This concerns the ways writers conduct interaction by intruding and commenting on their message. The writer's goal here is to make his or her views explicit and to involve readers by allowing them to respond to the unfolding text. This is the writer's expression of a textual 'voice', or community-recognized personality, and includes the ways he or she conveys judgements and overtly aligns him-or herself with readers.

Metadiscourse here is essentially evaluative and engaging, expressing solidarity, anticipating objections and responding to an imagined dialogue with others. It reveals the extent to which the writer works to jointly construct the text with readers.

2.3 Metadiscourse Markers

“Metadiscourse is a widely used term in current discourse analysis and language education, referring to an interesting and relatively new, approach to conceptualizing interactions between text producers and their text between text producers and users” (Hyland, 2005: 1). Thus, it can be said that the term of metadiscourse is related to how text is produced and have different concept, depend on the producers and the readers in understanding the text itself.

Further Hyland and Tse (2004: 160) offered a more potent interpersonal view of metadiscourse: Metadiscourse is recognized as an important means of facilitating

(24)

communication, supporting a writers' position and building a relationship with an audience. Accordingly, they give up the Hallidayan textual and interpersonal levels of discourse and take up Thompson’s (2001) explanation of interactive and interactional resources being as two inter-related modes of interaction. In line with this view of metadiscourse, scholars' discourse choices through the text are developed out of the relationship between the author(s) and their peers within a particular discourse community (Hyland and Tse, 2004: 164).

Therefore, both interactive metadiscourse features (sought to organize the material with regard to the readers’ needs and expectations) and interactional metadiscourse features (intended to depict the scholars as authors and to unite writer and reader together) are a reply to the interpersonal element of writing (Hyland, 2005: 53).

2.4 Classification of Interpersonal Metadiscourse

According to Hyland (2005: 47), classification of metadiscourse is based on a functional approach which regards metadiscourse as the ways writers refer to the text, the writer or the reader. In accordance, it divided into two main categories, they are interactive and interactional resources.

2.4.1 Interactional Resources

Interactional Resource Involve The Reader in The Text

Types Functions Examples

Hedges Withhold writer’s full commitment to proposition and open dialogue,

Might/perhaps/possible/ab out

Boosters Emphasize force or the writer’s certainty in

In fact/definitely/it is clear that

(25)

13

proposition or close dialogue Attitude markers Express the writer’s attitude to

proposition

Unfortunately/I agree/surprisingly Engagement

markers

Explicitly refer to or build relationship with the reader

Consider/note that/you can see that

Self-mention Explicit reference to author(s) I/we/my/our Table 2.1 A Model of Metadiscourse (Hyland, 2005:49)

These features involve readers and open opportunities for them to contribute to the discourse by alerting them to the author's perspective towards both propositional information and readers themselves. But these resources are not only the means by which writers express their views, but are also how they engage with the socially determined positions of others. There are five sub-categories:

2.4.1.1 Hedges

Hedges are devices such as possible, might and perhaps, which indicate the writer's decision to recognize alternative voices and viewpoints and so withhold complete commitment to a proposition. Hedges emphasize the subjectivity of a position by allowing information to be presented as an opinion rather than a fact and therefore open that position to negotiation. The use of hedges enablesthe writers to express a perspective on theirstatements, to present unproven claims with cautionand to enter to a dialogue with their audience, whilethe use of boosters helps him/her to close down alternativesand to show a high degree of certainty (Hyland,2005).

Example:

(26)

And for me, this is personal because my story would not be possible without this city. (Sari, 2014: 6)

In sentence 19, there are interactional dimension that are hedges. Hedges in the sentence above have function as information to give an opinion rather than fact.

Here, the sentence above is served as an opinion rather than a fact by the usage of would not and possible. This shows the speaker prudence in statement. She allows for audience own judgment.

2.4.1.2 Boosters

Boosters imply certainty and emphasize the force of proposition, expressing full Holmes (1982) and Meyer (1997) view the term‘boosters’ as those lexical items by means of whichthe writer can show strong confidence for a claim.These definitions are supported by Hyland (1998a)who views boosters as a tool which serves to strengthenthe claim to show the writer’s commitment. Hepointed out that boosters can be used as a means orcommitment to the truth value of proposition. The function of boosters is to increase the force of assertions, medium to create interpersonal solidarity with readers.

Hyland (1998b) argues that boosters serve to strengthen propositions and show the writer’s commitment to his or her statements. He points out that although such assertion of the writer’s conviction can be seen as leaving little room for the reader’s own interpretations, boosters also offer writers a medium to engage with their readers and create interpersonal solidarity.

Example:

Excerpt 13

It is certainly a pleasure to be here with all of you today.

(27)

15

(Sentence 1)

I want to start by thanking Rahm for that very kind introduction and that very powerful statement of what our kids in this city need, and also for his outstanding leadership here in this city. (Sari, 2014: 6)

The excerpt 13 the word certainly is booster that is used to strengthen an argument by suggesting the audience to draw the same conclusions as the speaker.

Michelle Obama gives the argument that she felt pleased today to give a speech and she has special someone who motives her.

2.4.1.3 Attitude markers

Attitude markers express writer’s attitude to propositional content, conveying surprise, obligation, agreement, and importance. Thus, attitude markers indicate the writer’s affective. Attitude markers are realized in deontic verbs (should, have to), attitudinal adverbs, adjectival constructions, and cognitive/mental verbs.

Instead of commenting on the status of information, its probable relevance, reliability or truth, attitude markers convey surprise, agreement, importance, obligation, frustration, and so on. While attitude is expressed by the use of subordination, comparatives, progressive particles, punctuation, text location, and so on, it is most explicitly signalled metadiscoursally by attitude verbs (e.g. agree, prefer), sentence adverbs (unfortunately, hopefully) and adjectives (appropriate, logical, remarkable).

Example:

1. “Fortunately, all of the scales had acceptable amount" (Male Candidates/

Mc)

(28)

2. "Unfortunately, the level of health is very low among agers in Iran"

(Female Candidates / Fc)

In these two examples the MC and the FC have used attitude adverbs (Fortunately, Unfortunately) to signal assumptions of shared attitudes and values.

Sometimes, the candidates have used intensifiers to convey their attitudes.(Zareifard and Alinezhad, 2014:235)

2.4.1.4 Self mentions

Self-mentions refers to the degree of explicit author presence in the text measured by the frequency of first-person pronouns and possessive adjectives (/, me, mine, exclusive we, our, ours). Self-mentions suggest the extent of author presence in terms of first-person pronouns and possessives. It reflects the degree of author presence in terms of the incidence of first person pronouns and possessives (Hyland, 2004)

Example:

Excerpt 45

We are so very proud of you. (Sentence 5)

The word“we” in excerpt above isself mentions. In excerpt 45, the word “I” as a self-mention that used to explicit reference to author. The word “We” indicates that the speaker Michelle Obama and the audience.(Sari, 2014: 8)

2.4.1.5 Engagement markers

Hyland (2005) sees the use of engagement markers as a text characteristic which is considered as writers' recognition of their potential readers, that is when writing, writers should really feel the presence of their readers, pull them along

(29)

17

with their arguments, focus their attention, regard them as discourse participants and finally lead them to the right interpretations.

Thus, Engagement Markers are devices that explicitly address readers, either to focus their attention or include them as discourse participants. It explicitly addresses readers, either by selectively focusing their attention or by including them as participants in the text through second-person pronouns, imperatives, question forms and asides.

Example:

Excerpt 57

And as business leaders, you all know that this city’s young people are your future workers, your future customers. (Sentence 109)

Engagement markers found in the excerpt 57. The word are you and your. It indicates listener’s participation. The use of second person is a face-to-face way to create friendly relations and shorten the distance between the speaker and listeners. It is easier to have a conversation with audience and express speaker’s emotions.(Sari, 2014: 9)

2.4.2 Interactive Resources

Interactive Resources Help to Guide The Reader Through The Text

Types Functions Examples

Transitions Express relations between main clauses

In addition/but/thus/and Frame Markers Refer to discourse acts,

sequences or stages

Finally/to conclude/my purpose is

Endophoric markers Refers to information in other parts of the texts

Noted above/see Fig/in section 2

(30)

Evidentials Refer to information from other texts

According to X/Z states

Code Glosses Elaborate proportional

meanings (give explanation to the thing that has been said)

Namely/e.g/such as/ in other words

Table 1.2 A Model of Metadiscourse (Hyland, 2005:49)

Interactive Resources concerns the writer'sawareness of a participating audience and the ways heorshe seeks to accommodate its probable knowledge, interests,rhetorical expectations and processing abilities (Hyland, 2005: 49). The use of resources in this category therefore addresses waysof organizing discourse, rather than experience, and revealsthe extent to which the text is constructed with the readers'needs in mind (Hyland, 2005: 49).Thus, based on the explanation, it can be said that Interactive Resource relates to the writer organizing the text so the message can be delivered clearly. Further, there are 5 subcategories in interactive metadiscourse:

2.4.2.1 Transition markers

Transition markers relate to conjunctions and adverbial phrases that can help reader comprehend the relation between clause or sentence. For example: and, moreover, but, on the other hand, consequently, anyway, in any case, of course) Hyland (2005:50)

Example:

Hong Kong's export and entrepot trade performance is expected to improve, buoyed by economic improvement in most western industrial countries. On the other hand, in view of the high inflation and overheated economy in China,

(31)

19

macro-economic restraint policies are likely to continue in1995. (Wing Lung Bank, 1994).

Hyland (2005:77) According to Hyland 2005, these sentences use transition markers that function as comparison, its marked by “on the other had”. What the writer wants to point out is “Export and entrepot trade in Hong Kong are expected to be increased but problems such as inflation, overheated economy in China and macro-economic rules make it difficult for improving because it may continue in 1995.

2.4.2.2 Frame Markers

Frame markers used for arranging argument of text so, the readers can know where the idea goes. For example: first, at the same time, in sum, by way of introduction, I argue, here, my purpose is.

Example:

This chapter focuses on organizational matters rather than on personal factors

that affect strategic decisions .

Hyland (2005:51) This sentence reveals the discourse goal of the writer. In this case, the writer just focuses in organizational that have effects in the decision. It marks with the frame markers “this chapter focuses’’ which exist in interactional metadiscourse category.

2.4.2.3 Endophoric Markers

(32)

Endophoric markers help writer to support his idea by telling the previous discussion in text. The example can be found in (see Figure 2, refer to the next section, as noted above). Hyland (2005:51).

Example:

As we saw in Chapter 9, the discovery of the New World gave a powerful impetus to the first requirement: the great flow of gold and silver led to the emergence of a money economy in Western Europe.

Hyland (2005:104) According to Hyland 2005 this sentence makes the writer idea is supported, because the writer referring to the “Chapter 9” discussion in order to link to the next discussion.

2.4.2.4 Evidential Markers

Evidentials refers to writer way in referring to the source that responsible in the statement which written by writer. The example of evidentials are according to X, Z states. Hyland (2005:51)

Example:

Greedy computer hackers using open-source Linux machines could steal more than their fair share of bandwidth from WI-FI hotspots, Swiss computer scientists have warned.(New Scientist, June 2004)

Hyland (2005:96) In this sentence the writer used “Swiss computer scientists” to make the writing reliable. So, what the writer has already written can be trusted by the reader because the writer use source as his description in writing.

(33)

21

2.3.1.5 Code Glosses

Code glosses are important for writer in telling additional information by rephrasing and elaborating the idea. It is also give additional explanation of what is being explained, for example: namely; e.g.; such as; in other words.

Hyland (2005:52) Example:

The group is continuing to develop its three major housing estates, namely Laguna City, South Horizons, and Kings-wood Villas, according to plan. (Cheung Hong Holdings, 1994)

Hyland (2005:76) In this sentence the writer uses the word “namely” to give additional information clearly about varieties of house.

(34)

CHAPTER THREE METHOD OF RESEARCH

3.1 Research Design

This research is designed to find out and comprehend metadiscourse study especially for interpersonalmetadiscourse markers. This research is conducted by using qualitative method since to describe the result mostly the writer used the form of the text.Perry (2011) stated that, any study is done in a real-life setting, involving intensive holistic data collection through the observation at a very close personal level without the influence of prior theory and contains mostly of verbal analysis, could be classified as a qualitative study. This research used qualitative method which aims to find out the type and function of interactional metadiscourse markers in Jan Blake storytelling performance.

3.2 Data and Data Source

“Data is information that has been translated into a form that is more convenient to move or process” (Kothari, 2004: 2). Commonly data were drawn from specific source which provide information that can be processed (Perry, 2011).

Meanwhile, “data source can be defined as a person, book, apiece of written work and document that provides information” (Perry, 2011: 131).

3.2.1 Data

The data is in the form of text that is transcribed from the storytelling video of Jan Blake entitled Let It Come, Let It Go!.

(35)

23

3.2.2 Data Source

The data source of this research was taken from video of storytelling performance by Jan Blake in TEDx. The writer chosea storytelling entitled Let it come, Let it go!as the discussion of the analysis. The video is taken from www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MgpAG2sobk which this video has achieved the most likes and about a quarter millionviewers. The video has published in June 11, 2014.

3.3 Data Collecting Technique

In collecting the data, library research method is used by the writer. Here are some following steps in collecting the data:

1. The writer watch the video repeatedly andtranscribe the video.

2. After that, the writer read the transcription repeatedly and highlighting the important words that is related to interactional metadiscourse.

3.4 Data Analyzing Technique

Data analyzing is the process of searching and arranging data that can be from observation, documentation, note taking and etc. In analyzing the data, there are several steps as follows:

1. Classifying all the data based on the interpersonalmetadiscourse markers.

2. Analyzing the data by seeing the context of the markers used by the speaker and interpreting them with Hyland's theory of interpersonalmetadiscourse.

3. Evaluating all of the analysis and make sure the research questions has been answered.

4. Drawing conclusion.

(36)

Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia

CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS

This chapter analyses metadiscourse by Jan Blake in her storytelling performance entitled Let it come, Let it go!(a story about Camel Driver). The writer focuses on interpersonal metadiscourse markers. Here, Jan Blake is the only subject who is doing the communication which further initialized as (JB).

Further the writer classifies the types of interpersonal metadiscourse that are uttered by the speaker. Then the writer analyze them based on Hyland Theory (2005), to explain the function of each marker in both interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers to answer the research questions.

Furthermore, there are two differences of context (situation) when the speaker uses both metadiscourse markers. The first situation is when the speaker brings her topic discussion as the present time and second is when the speaker brings herself and audience into her story. In accordance, the detail of the analysis can be seen from the following data:

Speaker

Interactive Metadiscourse Markers Transitions Frame

Markers

Endophoric

Markers Evidentials Code Glosses

JB 127 6 2 - 3

Speaker

Interactional Metadiscourse Markers Hedges Booster Attitude

Markers

Engagement Markers

Self- Mention

JB 3 4 2 4 187

Table 4.1 The Distribution of Metadiscourse Markers in Jan Blake Performmance

(37)

26

4.1 Interactive Metadiscourse

4.1.1 Transition Markers

Based on the finding, the writer notices that the speaker uttered transition marker to link the perspective or idea by using conjunction to conclude her idea, connecting and add the information, giving contradiction and comparing evidence. The examples are discussed below. Here, the writer includes the example from the appendices:

Time Utterances

00:25 – 00:33 I know I look young, but I'm actually a lot older than I look and when I became a storyteller, the time that I became a storyteller…

Table 4.1 Transitions Markers in JB Performance

Table 4.1 shows that the speaker is using two different transition markers. In this situation, the speaker is not entering the story yet, but she still introduced herself and explains what she is going to do for next several minutes. In this point, the two transition markers that are being used by the speaker can be seen from the word “but” and “and”.

First, the word “but” in the datum expresses relation between the main clauses but in giving contradiction form. The contradiction is when the speaker says how she looks. The key point of the contradiction is can be seen from the clause “I know I look young” then the speaker says something about “I'm actually a lot older than I look” that is shown as if although human she look young, but in contradiction actually she is old.

(38)

Then, the word “and” in the datum also express that there is relation between the main clauses, but different from the function of transition “but”, this transition is used to give additional information. Here, the speaker added “when I became a storyteller” as the additional information to explain her first journey to become a storyteller.

Also, the speaker found another data that is similar to transition markers above but in this case, the transition markers are mentioned when the speaker delivers the story to the audience.

08’28” – 08’38”

Then he took his knife, and he cut the rope that tied the first camel to the second camel, and he tried to lead the caravan away, but he had been seen.

Table 4.2 Transition Markers 2 in JB Performance

As it described from the datum 2 above, the speaker uttered other transitions that are similar to the previous datum. Here, the transition markers still in the word

“but” and “and”. However, the context of the transition markers is quite different. The first transition marker of “and” from the datum is indicated as continuous event from the main character’s acts from first into another one.

Hence, it makes the speaker directly explains that after the main character took his knife, he cut the rope that tied the first camel to the second one and after that he tried to get away.

However, the next transition marker shows a contradiction of what he is going to do next. The word “but” in the datum 2 indicates that the speaker tells the audience that there is something that makes the main character cannot do his final

(39)

28

act that is running away from that place by saying “he had been seen”. Thus, the sentence that contains with this transition marker is telling that the main character should be able to escape from that place. Unfortunately, he cannot since he has been seen by an eyewitness.

4.1.2 Frame Markers

Frame markers have function to organize the speaker’s idea and to make a clear presentation or arguments. The speaker produces frame markers to remind the readers by using sequence, topic shifting, and summarizing idea. In this metadiscourse markers, the writer found the word “so”, “then”, “now”, “the end” which have function to summarize the speaker’s idea.

00’13”-00’20” So, I'm just going to give you a bit of background, and then I'm going to tell you a story if that's acceptable to you.

04:30 – 04:37 When I began, all I wanted was the £20 an hour. Now what I want to do is embrace everybody, give everybody permission just to be a flawed human being, but with possibilities, with potential and with hope.

Table 4.3 Datum Frame Markers in JB Performance

Based on the datum 3 above, it can be seen that the metadiscourse markers that uttered by the speaker is frame markers. The first column shows the words “so”, and “then” as the frame markers. Word “so” indicates the first time she open the talk and also has the function to explain the purpose why she is standing in front of the audience. Further, the word “then” has function to refer to the sequences or discourse acts in order to make clear arguments. Then, in second column shows

(40)

the frame marker “when I began”, “now”, is being used in the story by the speaker to describe the situation faced by the main character. Here, the word

“now” also shows the next sequence and explanation from the previous scene.

The writer finds out that the speaker wants to frame the audience perception what she want to do next.

4.1.3 Endophoric Markers

Jan Blake used endophoric markers “I mentioned earlier” to refer the information to other part of the text that make audience easily connect into other materials that has been discussed by her in previous sentences of storytelling. The datum is:

04’59”-05’55” So with that in mind, I'd like to share with you one of the stories that I heard from the woman I mentioned earlier, Eno Sourcie.

Table 4.4 Endophoric Markers in JB Performance

In these markers, Jan Blake want to refer the information in other part of her storytelling where she has mentioned Eno Sourcie in the beginning of her speak (01’49”) and she mentioned it again at 04’55”.

4.1.4 Code Glosses

In this type of interactive metadiscourse markers, the writer finds out that the code glosses used by the speaker in order to elaborate ideas or proportional meaning. In

(41)

30

this case, the writer finds this metadiscourse markers before the speaker enters the story that is going to tell to the audience.

02’41”-02’59” As I developed as a human being, as I read more stories, as I heard more stories, as I immersed myself in more stories, as I grew up, as I became a mother, I was able to tell stories with a bit more gravitas

Table 4.5 Code-Glosses in JB Performance

Based on the table above, it can be seen that the word from the datum above that is indicated as code glosses is the word “as I”. In this case, the function of code glosses from the word “as I” is to help the speaker to elaborate ideas. Further, the ideas that the speaker want to elaborate is the idea of how she can be a good storytelling from the first time she starts as a storyteller until she gets the today’s achievement. She intentionally gives the explanation what effort that she has done.

4.2 Interactional Metadiscourse

4.2.1 Hedges

Hedges indicate the speaker's decision to recognize alternative voices and viewpoints and so withhold complete commitment to a proposition. In this research, the writer found the use of hedges as follow:

03:47 – 03:49 The stories that I tell are a reflection of who we are, who we could be, who we maybe shouldn't be.

Table 4.6 Hedges in JB Performance

(42)

As it describes from the table above, the word that is indicated as hedges in this datum is the word “maybe”. The situational when the speaker uttered this metadiscourse markers is before she tells the story to the audience. In this case hedges is used to describe possibility and uncertainty. In addition, it also lets the audience to make their own assumptions. The speaker points out that the stories that she commonly tells to the reader is reflection of who we are or what kind of lesson from the story that can be taken. Moreover, the writer also found other hedges that is uttered by the speaker while she is telling the story to the audience.

12’01” – 12’12”

“But if one of these good people gathered here is willing to take your place for three days and three nights and you return within the allotted time, then you may go.”

Table 4.7 Hedges in JB Performance (2)

The datum on the table shows that the interactional metadiscourse markers that exists in the utterance is hedges from the word “may”. Here, its function also to shows possibility of the act that might be happened. Just like the previous explanation, this is produced when the speaker is in the middle of telling the story to the audience. In this point, the speaker tells the audience that the main character is in the trouble and he may go to somewhere place that he desires only if there is a person who willing to help him to take his place for three days and three nights.

The writer also assumes that the function of possibility to strengthen with the word “if” from the beginning of the utterance.

4.2.2 Boosters

(43)

32

In this type of interactional metadiscourse markers, booster allows the speaker to express their certainty in what they say. The datum can be seen from the table as follow:

00’25” – 00’29” I know I look young, but I'm actually a lot older than I look.

Table 4.8 Boosters in JB Performance

In this part of presentation, Jan Blake used word “actually” to affirm his argumentation and convincing the listener that she is older than her appearance. With this word, she tries to force the audience to have same idea with her.

4.2.3 Attitude Markers

The next interactional metadiscourse markers found in Jan Blake performance is attitude markers. Attitude markers express speaker's affective values - their attitudes and perception towards the propositional content and/or readers rather than commitment to the truth-value. Further, the datum of this attitude marker can be seen from the table as follow:

00’06”-00’09” Good morning, everybody. (Audience) Good morning. Ah, you are alive. Good morning. (Audience) Good morning.

Table 4.9 Attitude Markers in JB Performance

Based on the table above, the words “ah, you are alive”, can be noticed that the speaker (JB) tries to tell audience about her surprise that their (audience) are alive, because they are very silent in the beginning of storytelling.

(44)

4.2.4 Engagement markers

Engagement markers are devices that explicitly address readers, either to focus their attention or include them as discourse participants. In other words engagement markers have function to build relationship with audience, and also to focus the reader as participants. The datum in Jan Blake performance as follow:

04’50”-04’52” Does that make sense to you?

Table 4.10 Engagement Markers in JB Performance

The question above is the highlight and the function is as engagement markers.

Since, at the beginning of the first story, Jan Blake uses a question to attract audience’s attention and emerge their curiosity and she successfully involves audience into the discourse. Jan Blake tries to bring the audience’s attention to come into her story world and has effective communication with them.

4.2.5 Self-Mention

The self-mention refers to the speakers themselves, where in order to make an argument or statement they are using first person pronouns and possessive adjective. In the case of pronouns and possessive adjective, the writer found out the self-mention of I, we, our and my. However, although the function of each word are quite same, where the function is to reference the person, the writer notices that each of the self-mention refers to the different person since the speaker is storyteller, so that makes the self-mention is in the different context,

(45)

34

depend on the situation of the utterance (whether the self-mention refers to the storyteller or the character from the story).

00’13” – 00’16” So, I'm Just going to give you a bit of background…

Table 4.11 Self-mention Markers in JB Performance

Based on the table above, the datum shows that the speaker tries to tell the audience about herself, could be about her identity or about a bit of her background. The speaker introduced herself by using self-mention marker. The word that is used for this metadiscourse is “I” and in this case, the function of self-mention is to reference the speaker. Since the word “I” here is being used before the speaker (JB) starts telling the story, it makes that the self-mention refers to the speaker (JB) herself.

Further, the writer also found another self-mention markers, it is “we” that used by Jan Blake to show that between she and the audience have the same position.

05’35” – 05’38” We're all wrestling with those things all the time, are we not?

Table 4.12 Self-mention Markers in JB Performance (2)

Based on the datum above, it can be seen from the utterance that this time, the self-mention that is uttered by the speaker (JB) is using the word “we”. In this point, the speaker tries to convince audience that both she and the audience are having the similarity that both of them are wrestling with things such as love, passion, betrayal, death, loss, fear and other aspects of life.

(46)

As it describes from the datum, the writer also assumes that the self-mention from the word “we” is referring to the speaker and the audience or “we” in this case also could be referred to the speaker and all people around the world. The speaker (JB) refers to herself and others in order to declare that both of them are similarly facing the same aspects of life. Thus, in this datum, the function of self-mention is to express the presence of the speaker and the audience.

10’22” – 10’29” "No! We don't want his blood money. We don't want his blood money, we want his blood.

Table 4.123Self-mention Markers in JB Performance (3)

The datum from the table above shows that the self-mention that is uttered by the speaker is still in the word of “we”. However, the uses of self-mention “we” is quite different from the previous analysis. In this datum, the speaker is uttered the self-mention while she is telling the audience about the story. In other word, the utterance in this datum is a part of the speaker’s story where in this utterance, the speaker delivers the audience that when the Camel Driver is about to bargain for his life by using gold that he brings, the sons of the murdered father do not want to accept it and prefer to kill the camel driver instead.

Therefore, in this datum, the self-mention from the word “we” is not referred to the speaker (JB) and the audience anymore, but more prefer to the sons of the murdered father. Hence, the function of this self-mention is to describe the characters who are involved in that part of the scene.

(47)

36

13’42” – 13’:51”

The old man, he had his hands bound, and he was taken down to the dungeons and the people, they walked away shaking their heads and saying "We'll never see that man again."

In this datum, it can be noticed from the table that the interactional metadiscourse marker that exist in this utterance is self-mention. The situation of this datum is when the speaker is telling the story to the audience of Camel Driver who is allowed to come back to his hometown and promise to come back to that place to condemn his punishment. However, most of man in that place thought that I will be the last time they will see the camel driver.

Thus, the utterance in this datum shows that the word that is being used as the self-mention is “we”. Different from the previous datum, in this case, the word

“we” is not indicating the between the Camel Driver or the sons of the murdered father anymore, but the self-mention is referring to the people of that place (could be including the judge himself). In accordance, the function of this self-mention is quite similar from the previous analysis, which describes the characters who are involved in this scene.

17’54” – 18’02” "Let's go to the house. We'll drink pomegranate wine, we'll eat food, we'll weigh the gold and we'll talk about life."

As it described from the datum above, the table shows that the interactional metadiscourse marker that is uttered by the speaker is self-mention. In this datum, the situation of the utterance happens when the speaker is telling the story to the

(48)

audience where in this part of the storyline, is the end of the story. The speaker tells the audience that when Camel Driver able to come back to the first place where he accidentally killed a man, he explains everything to the judge why he must return home. Further, when the judge also knows the reason of why the old man is willing to help the Camel Driver, the judge is decided to spare the Camel Driver’s life and make peace for both sons of the murdered father and the residents of that place.

Further, the word that is used in this self-mention is “we” where hereafter the self-mention in this datum is referring into two possible things. First, the word

“we” refers to the Camel Driver, the judge and the sons of the murdered father or second, refers to both Camel Driver and all of people in that place. Either way, the writer assumes that the function of this self-mention is also quite similar from the previous datum, that is to described the characters who are involved in the scene.

10’02” – 10’08”

I didn't mean to do it. He killed my camel, it was a reflex action. I threw the stone, I killed him, but look," and he showed the gold.

Based on the datum above, it can be noticed that the interactional metadiscourse marker that is uttered by the speaker is categorized as self-mention. In this case, the utterance is about the scene of the story that is being told by the speaker (JB).

The scene is telling about the Camel Driver who accidentally killed a man because that man killed one of his best camel. Here, the word that is being analyzed by the writer as the form of self-mention is the word “my”.

(49)

38

The pronoun “my” in this datum is referring into two things. First is the Camel Driver (as subject) and second is the camel (as the object that is owned by the subject). Thus, it makes the function of the self-mention in this datum is to express the existence both the character (subject) and the things that he owned (object) which told by the speaker (JB) as the storyteller.

09’19” – 09’24” "Never again will we harvest our peaches and take them to market with our father, because of you."

The datum from the table shows that the interactional metadiscourse marker that is uttered by the speaker is known as self-mention. The utterance from the speaker is also from the part of the storyline told by the speaker. Here, the speaker tells the audience that in this scene, after the Camel Driver accidentally killed the man, the sons from the dead man demand his life since they claim that because of Camel Driver, they are no longer able to feel the togetherness as a whole family.

Further, in this datum, the writer finds out that the word that is being used as self- mention after the word “we”, is “our”. The word “our” in this datum is quite similar from the previous datum that the word is “my” which shows a pronoun of ownership. In accordance, the self-mention in this datum refers the object that is owned by subject. As the example, the words “our peaches” mean that the peaches that is owned by the sons and the father who died because of Camel Driver and the words “our father” that refers to the father of the two sons in the story. Therefore, the function of the self-mention in this datum is to express the existence of the subject and object as the form of pronoun of ownership.

(50)

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION

In this chapter, the writer draws a conclusion based on the analysis from the previous chapter. The conclusion figures out how the writer answers the research question and give explanation in a general way. In order to easier the writer, the data has been performed into the table as follow:

Speaker

Interactive Metadiscourse Markers

Transitions Frame Markers

Endophoric

Markers Evidentials Code Glosses

JB 127 6 2 - 3

Speaker

Interactional Metadiscourse Markers Hedges Booster Attitude

Markers

Engagement Markers

Self- Mention

JB 3 4 2 4 187

Table 5.1 The Distribution of Metadiscourse Markers in Jan Blake Performmance This study is to find out how interpersonal metadiscourse markers help Jan Blake as the storytelling builds interpersonal relationship with her audiences. Based on the table above, it can be seen there are two interpersonal metadiscourse markers appear. In general, the most metadiscourse markers use are self-mention, followed by transitions, hedges, engagement markers, boosters, frame markers, endophoric, and the last attitude markers and, code-glosses, while for evidential markers does not appear since in this story Jan Blake did not refer to the text from the other source.