语言学论文哪里有？本研究对高校英语教师课堂互动元话语的使用进行了系统分析，并从人际关系管理视角探究影响教师互动元话语使用的因素和人际关系管理功能。互动元话语在教师话语中普遍存在，其中以介入标记语为主，教师通过互动元话语的使用以期构建和谐师生关系。
Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Research Background
With the re-thinking of the traditional politeness principle and face theory in the field of pragmatics, scholars have gradually realized that there are many imperfections in the earlier studies on face and linguistic politeness, and the interpersonal dimension of face and politeness has been ignored. Based on this, scholars have adjusted the paradigm of politeness and face research, and analyzed face and politeness research under the framework of interpersonal relations. Interpersonal pragmatics came into being. Interpersonal pragmatics refers to the study of the interpersonal dimension of communication and interaction from the perspective of pragmatics (Haugh et al., 2013), and it has an interdisciplinary nature. The research scope of it includes the study of interpersonal relationship and interpersonal attitude. The former focuses on the constantly adjusting interpersonal relations in the process of communication, while the latter involves interpersonal emotions and evaluations. Interpersonal pragmatics breaks away from the traditional static research from the perspective of face and politeness, and advocates a bi-directional and dynamic constructive relationship between language use and interpersonal relationship.
Chapter Three Theoretical Framework
3.1 Components of Rapport Management Theory
According to Spencer-Oatey (2008), languages serve a double function: the transfer of information, and the management of social relations. The theory focuses on the latter and calls it rapport management. Beyond merely managing face, rapport management encompasses a wider range of considerations, including the handling of social power and interaction goals. Concretely speaking, Spencer-Oatey (2008) viewed face as the positive social value which can be effectively advocated for oneself through the opinions of others in a specific communication, which is related to personal/ relational/ social value. In addition, the social rights and obligations management is seen as the basic social entitlements asserted for oneself in communication with others, in relation to social expectations. Communicative goals refer to the specific purpose of interaction. In the interaction, people constantly evaluate the strengthening, weakening or rebuilding of the relationship between each other. This dynamic evaluation is rooted in the relationship between the three core elements of the rapport management model. Figure3.1 shows the bases of rapport.
Chapter Five Results and Discussion
5.1 Overall Distribution of Interactional Metadiscourse
First, the interpersonal model of metadiscourse provides a dynamic view that speakers unconsciously monitor their own output by predicting the impact on listeners (Hyland, 2017). Therefore, metadiscourse embodies teachers’ conscious efforts to manage the classroom and teach knowledge. The interactional metadiscourse in classroom setting is an effective way to implement classroom interaction. In contrast to interactive resources, interactional metadiscourse offers insights into the author’s perspective on both the propositional content and the intended discourse reader, according to Hu and Cao (2015). It provides a more nuanced representation of the complex interplay between the speaker and the listener. Based on the interpersonal metadiscourse model of Hyland (2005a), this study identifies all interactional metadiscourse items in the teacher talk corpus. Finally, the UAM Corpus Tool is used to generate the results, including the raw frequency and the proportion of different subcategories. To make the data more accurate, the researchers calculated the normalized frequency of each metadiscourse item to make the results more intuitive and comparable. The normalized frequency is calculated as follows:
Raw frequency ÷Tokens×1000=Normalized frequency
5.2 Category Analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse
The interactional dimension focuses on the way the speaker interacts. the goal is “make his or her views explicit and to involve readers by allowing them to respond to the unfolding text” (Hyland, 2005a: 49). It reveals the extent to which the two sides have co-construct the text. Although interactional metadiscourse does not add propositional content to the text, it helps the author state, interpret and evaluate the propositional content and leads the reader to accept the author’s point of view (Jiang & Hyland, 2020). The interactional metadiscourse mainly includes five subcategories, namely boosters (10.47%), attitude markers (5.57%), self-mentions (8.02%), hedges (6.70%), self-mentions (10.47%), and engagement markers (69.24%). What follows is a discussion of how each subcategory functions.
5.2.1 Hedges
Hedges are one of the important means in the teaching process. Hedges emphasize the subjectivity of the teacher’s stance, presenting information in the form of opinions, which reflects the teacher’s cautious attitude towards the content provided and highlights the “negotiability.” Although hedges account for only a small proportion in the teacher talk corpus (6.7%), existing research results all demonstrate that teachers are aware of using this type of marker. In specific contexts, hedges can reflect modesty and politeness, reducing the power distance between the interlocutors (Lee & Subtirelu, 2015). In the teacher talk corpus, hedges mainly appear in the form of modal verbs (may, might, should, would), adverbs of degree (usually, maybe, just, a little) and verbs (seem, suppose, think).
Chapter Six Conclusion
6.2. Implication of the Study
This study analyzed how college English teachers use interactional metadiscourse in class and the influencing factors, proposing these ways to optimize classroom interaction and teacher-student relationship management:
Heightening metapragmatic awareness: Since interactional metadiscourse is common and key to teacher-student relationship construction, teachers should promote their metapragmatic awareness. Using various metadiscourse like high - frequency engagement markers (e.g., “you”, “we”, “let’s”) can better organize discourse, promote interaction, achieve teaching goals, and build rapport relationships. This enhances students’ sense of belonging and participation.
Balancing authority and face: Building a rapport relationship requires teachers to balance authority and face. They need to minimize face-threatening to students while maintaining an authoritative identity. When unavoidable face-threatening acts occur, teachers can use hedges and attitude markers to reduce the face-threatening degree from direct instructions or evaluations, and preserving their authority simultaneously.
Personalizing teaching styles: The study shows significant differences among teachers in using interactional metadiscourse. This shows that teachers should adjust metadiscourse strategies according to their teaching styles and classroom needs for the best teaching results.
reference(omitted)
