Journal of English for Academic Purposes

4 (2005) 291306
www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

Introducing a conference paper: Getting

interpersonal with your audience
Susan Hooda,*, Gail Foreyb,1
a

Faculty of Education, University of Technology, Sydney, Broadway, Sydney 2007, Australia

The Department of English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

Abstract
One of the key means by which knowledge is disseminated in the academic discourse community
is the spoken presentation of papers at an academic conference. In contrast to the written research
article, the spoken presentation remains relatively under-researched from a linguistic perspective,
limiting the knowledge available for explicating this kind of discourse in academic language
programs. In this paper, we draw on a social semiotic theory of language (Systemic Functional
Linguistics) and of gesture, to frame a multi-layered exploration of interpersonal meaning in this
register that incorporates attention to generic staging, to expressions of attitude, and to the coexpression of attitudinal language and gesture. The data are a set of plenary presentations at an
academic conference, and the study aims to explore means by which the speakers construe a
relationship of solidarity with their audiences in the introductory or set-up stage of their talk.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Conference presentations; Evaluation; Gesture; Interpersonal meanings; Systemic Functional
Linguistics; English for academic purposes; Advanced academic literacy

1. Introduction
The context for a spoken academic conference presentation may range from an
invited plenary to a short parallel paper or workshop. In terms of audience, the forum
may vary from one that is large in size and mixed in expertise to a small group of
colleagues and fellow experts. The paper may also present research at various levels of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C61 2 9514 3972; fax: C61 2 9514 3939.
E-mail addresses: sue.hood@uts.edu.au (S. Hood), eggail@polyu.edu.hk (G. Forey).
1
Tel.: C852 2766 7577; fax: C852 2333 6569.

1475-1585/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.003

292

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

completion, from work in progress to post-publication dissemination, and the

presentation is likely to represent just one step on what Ventola (2002) refers to as
a semiotic spanning across a sequence of events. Across the varied contexts of
spoken conference presentations there are, nonetheless, a number of features that are
likely to be characteristic of the discourse. In most instances, for example, the oral
performance is strongly associated with the development of a parallel written text. As
such, a spoken conference presentation is likely to be a highly reflective text with
many features that correspond to written research writing. On the other hand, there is
an immediacy of audience in time and in place. This suggests a pressure in the other
direction, towards a more interactive text, as the writer shapes the message in ways
intended to connect with the immediate context.
In our research, we consider this latter characteristic of the discourse. We explore ways
in which speakers shape their talk to (inter)act interpersonally with their audience, to setup a relationship of solidarity. The data we analyse in this paper are plenary presentations,
and we focus on the initial stage, referred to as the set-up. Our assumption is that this initial
stage will represent a valuable site for exploring the discourse strategies speakers employ
to resolve inherent tensions and to construe a relationship of solidarity or rapport with their
audience. These inherent tensions exist, for example, around the status of the speaker as
relative expert in their field, and the fact that the success of the presentation rests largely on
audience approval and a positive judgement or appreciation of the speakers contribution.
From the point of view of the audience, there is a tension to be resolved in terms of the
extent to which they feel accommodated in the presentation, as part of the relevant
discourse community, off-set against the cost of attendance.
To date, the extensive and rapidly growing body of literature on the language of
research reporting has been overwhelmingly focused on reporting in a written form, for
example as research articles, theses, essays or proposals. Some of this research focuses
specifically on interpersonal meanings, on evaluative stance and on ways in which the
reader is taken account of in the written text (e.g., Hunston & Thompson, 2000; Hyland,
1998). Literature which addresses the spoken dimension of research as seminar or
conference presentations, is often in the form of pedagogic guides targeted primarily to
undergraduate or graduate students (e.g., Madden & Rohlck, 1997), or is focused on
business or professional settings (e.g., Kline, 2004). Valuable contributions to applied
linguistic research into the language of academic conference presentation include studies
by Thompson (1997) who compares interactive features found in research articles and
presentations, and Charles and Ventola (2002) who address connections within the
presentation between the spoken text and the visuals of the slide show. They discuss, for
example, how in referring to contextualising slides, the speakers evaluative language
functions to bring the speaker and the audience closer together as they share emotive
responses. The interpersonal aspect of conference presentations is also addressed in
Frobert-Adamo (2002) who points to the important function that humour plays in this kind
of interaction.
Also informing this study is a body of research within Systemic Functional Linguistic
(SFL) theory that considers interpersonal meaning across different kinds of texts, both
spoken and written (e.g., Eggins & Slade, 1997; Martin & Rose, 2003; White, 2003). The
theory enables us to explore the ways in which interpersonal meanings are encoded in

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

293

a whole range of grammatical and lexical choices, and most importantly how they pattern
and flow across texts. The notion of interpersonal meaning as one of the three
metafunctions of language (along with the ideational and the textual) also provides us with
a semiotic framework to explore meaning-making beyond language. Because SFL theory
models language as social semiotic (Halliday, 1978), that is, as a social meaning-making
system, it has provided a theoretical foundation for studies of other social semiotic
systems, notably those of visual image (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996), gesture and
positioning (e.g., Martinec, 2000, 2001), and space (Martin and Stenglin, 2005). The
common theoretical basis for modelling these different semiotics provides for integrated
multimodal discourse studies, where meaning is seen to be constructed both through
different semiotic systems, but also importantly in the interaction of these different
systems (e.g., van Leeuwen, 2005). In this study, we aim to incorporate a multimodal
analysis of interpersonal meanings by considering the role of gesture alongside that of
language (Kendon, 2004; Martinec, 2004). Whereas gesture is most typically used to refer
to movements of the hands and arms, we also incorporate analysis of both head and facial
movements, for example, nodding, and raising of eyebrows, that co-occur with speech
(Scollon, 1995).
Drawing on Kendon (2004) and Martinec (2004) we interpret gesture as intimately
connected to language, as a kind of embodied expression that is integral to the utterance. In
this sense, we could consider parallels to phonology on the expression plane of language
(Halliday, 1994). Phonology itself would clearly add a further dimension to research such
as we undertake here, but for reasons of space we have chosen to focus on the less well
explored resources of gesture.
While gesture can be studied from many perspectives, we are concerned in this
study with the co-occurrence of gestures with interpersonal choices in the language of
the speaker, and in particular with how they function in relation to expressions of
attitude. It is important to note that, as with the interpretation of interpersonal
meanings encoded in language, we acknowledge the possibility of varied reader
positions related to our social and cultural positioning. We also note that our focus is
on the construal of meanings through the discourse of the text, with reference to a
comprehensive theory of language and gesture as social semiotic. There is no attention
given in the design of this research to issues of evaluation of the effectiveness of any
of the presentations.

2. The study
Our research explores features of language and gesture in a set of five conference
plenary presentations in English at a language testing conference in Hong Kong in 1998.
The conference involved plenary papers only, presented by a group of invited speakers, all
experts within their field. The audience numbered approximately forty including the
presenters. As such it represented a relatively intimate conference setting.
The conference presentations were audio and videotaped, then transcribed and claused.
An initial analysis of generic structure identified a set-up stage in each presentation. The
boundary between the set-up stage and the main body of the presentation is signalled in all

294

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

cases by discourse markers such as well, OK, right, alright, and/or by lexis
signalling the shift, for example: lets get started, let me start then by., alright so
now, one of the first issues, as well as in marked shifts in aspects of gesture or
positioning. The set-up stage functions on the one hand to situate the talk in the immediate
context, and on the other to provide the point of departure for the presentation proper. In
this study, we focus on a more detailed analysis of this stage in each talk, and in particular
on interpersonal meanings in the discourse. Towards this end, we undertake a closer
analysis of sub-staging or phases within this stage of the genre, and an analysis of
expressions of attitude and how these expressions pattern across the discourse. Video data
were used to analyse and develop categorisations of facial, head and hand gestures, and
descriptions of gesture were aligned with the corresponding language on transcriptions of
the data.

3. Genre and interpersonal meaning

An analysis of the generic structuring of the texts reveals that while the set-up stage
itself is evident in all the presentations, there is considerable variation in how this stage is
realised across the different presentations. Table 1 provides a summary representation of
the length (with the number of words shown brackets) and identifiable sub-stages of each
set-up.
In terms of length, S3 is the shortest text at only 14 words. Yet, in this brief set-up we
can identify three components that include thanking the convenor, thanking the audience,
and signalling the transition to the talk proper: Thank you very much (convenors name)
/Thank you very much everybody/Lets get started. The longest text, S4s extended 695
word set-up, also includes thanks to the convenor and ends with a transition to the
presentation proper. However, in addition the speaker identifies the topic, contextualises
the presentation, previews the content and structure of the talk, and includes references to
the contribution of others who are present as well as a number of jokes. If we take a
metafunctional orientation to the identified stages we could argue that five of the six
speakers include at least one sub-stage which foregrounds ideational meanings (identify
topic, or contextualise research), one sub-stage which foregrounds textual meaning
(preview structure of presentation; signal transition to next stage) and one sub-stage which
foregrounds interpersonal meaning (introduce, greet/thank; refer to contribution of others;
joke). In this sense these set-up stages function in accordance with Martins (1992) notion
of Macro-theme, functioning as predictive of the presentation as a whole. Speaker S3,
noted above as having the shortest set-up stage, does not include any ideational
orientation, that is, he does not indicate the topic of the talk in this stage. This presentation
is also the only one in which the speaker read a paper. In this case, the paper proper begins
with a statement of the content focus. Examples of instantiations at each sub-stage are
included in Table 2.
An analysis of moves or sub-stages in the genre enables us to identify particular
phases of text in which interpersonal meaning is foregrounded, for example, in phases
of thanking or joking (see Eggins & Slade, 1997; Frobert-Adamo, 2002). However,
this does not take us far enough. We know that interpersonal meanings pattern

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

295

Table 1
Components of the set-up stage of the presentations
Components of the
set-up

Speaker
1a (447)

Introduce self as
presenter
Introduce
co-presenter
Thank convenor
Greet/thank
audience
Check technological
support
Refer to support
resources (e.g. handout)
Check composition of
audience
Discuss conference
location
Identify topic
Contextualise the
presentation
Preview the content/
structure of
presentation
Refer to contribution
of others (include
others present)
Joke/humour
Signal transition to
next stage

Speaker
1b (36)

x co-presenter
present
x

Speaker
2 (291)

Speaker
3 (14)

Speaker
4 (695)

Speaker
5 (233)

x co-presenter
not present
x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

prosodically in texts (Halliday, 1994; Martin, 1992). They spread across the discourse
rather than being confined to discrete generic stages, or specific grammatical or lexical
instantiations. So we expect to find interpersonally loaded language throughout the
talk. Of interest is the ways these meanings pattern in the text, and how they shift
from one phase of text to another.

4. Discourse semantics and interpersonal meaning

The next stage of analysis, then, is to consider interpersonal meaning from a discourse
semantic perspective, and here we make reference to Appraisal theory (Martin & Rose,
2003) as represented in Fig. 1.
The system of Engagement, referred to in Fig. 1, has to do with the space that is opened
up or closed down to other voices in the text-the degree to which a text is relatively
monoglossic or heteroglossic (after Bakhtin, 1935/1981; see White, 2003). The extent to

296

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

Table 2
Examples of each sub-stage of the introductory section
Sub-stage

Example text

Introduce co-presenter
Introduce self

Im co-presenting with xx,.. [S1a]

I havent got anyone to introduce me, but probably during your second day here
in this room, you got a general idea of who I am. For those of you who only came
today, Im xx. [S1a]
Id like to thank xx very much for inviting me back to Hong Kong [S4]
thank you very much everybody [S3]
Get myself wired here. Can you all hear me? [S5]
What Ive given you is in the form of a rather detailed handout. [S4]

Thank convenor
Greet/thank audience
Check technology
Refer to support resources
(e.g. handout)
Check composition of
audience
Discuss conference
location
Identify topic
Contextualise presentation
Preview content/structure
of presentation
Refer to contribution of
others (incl. Present)
Joke/humour

Signal transition to next

stage

If there is a reporter, could you declare yourself?. [S2]

I think there is such a tremendous potential in Hong Kong for . [S5]
The title of my talk is . [S4]
.something different, some new systems, some new set of benchmarks or
frameworks is being developed around the world almost on a daily basis . [S4]
and Ill talk a little bit at the end about the kinds of things that have come very
recently particularly around (xxx) and how that relates to this project [S1]
Id like to say that its huh very nice this morning to see xx in the audience. [S2]
.until relatively recently we didnt know very much about . [S4]
Okay, Im just giving myself a two-item criterion reference test. Can see paper,
but cannot see audience [laughter]. Can see audience, but cannot see paper
[laughter]. Ah, I have to make a high stakes decision here. (Im going) for option
A. Can see paper, but cannot see audience. Um, so youll excuse the blank stare
on my face. .[S4]
Right. Quickly into the background. [S2]

which speakers allow space for negotiation of meanings into their talk, even as monologic
text, construes the listener as having more or less potential to interact with the
presentation. Opening up heteroglossic space might be expected to encourage
the inclusion of the audience. Within Appraisal theory one resource for Engagement is
the projection of others words into the text, either in direct quotation or as in the following
cases, indirectly.
S4: .weve heard that from a lot of previous speakers.
S2: .xx mentioned earlier that their program is ..
However, such references to other speakers are unlikely to engage the audience as a
whole. More common in the data are ways of signalling degrees of openness to other
unspecified voices through uses of modality and counter-expectancy (Martin & Rose,
2003). In the following extracts, for example, the speakers construe propositions as in
negotiation with other voices through encoding modality as possibility or inclination
(underlined). In the same examples, counter-expectancy markers (boxed) also function to
imply the other countered voice (Martin & Rose, 2003).

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

297

Fig. 1. Model of Appraisal from Martin and Rose (2003).

S4:
what I want to do is to, if possible, .
So, basically what I want to do is to take you through
a series of ah if you like very
very tentative generalisations.
S2: and so Id
like to give you a quick background
S1b: I suppose one of the first issues.
Our focus from a discourse semantic perspective is with how these kinds of choices
pattern in the text, and as the examples above suggest, we find that within the set-up stage
these choices occur predominantly in phases of the text where the speaker is previewing or
transitioning to the content of their presentation. The speakers present their own
contribution as one position among others, and in the process they provide space for an
audience that may well include some whose views do not readily align with their own. (For
a much more extensive exploration of the Engagement dimension of Appraisal see White,
2003, and Martin & White, 2005).
The other key dimension to Appraisal theory (as represented in Fig. 1) is that of
Attitude. Martin and Rose (2003) suggest that expressions of attitude play a key role in
aligning people in relationships of solidarity. We focus particular attention, therefore, on
how and where attitude is expressed in the discourse. Attitude is analysed as representing
either Affectthe expression of feelings or emotions, Judgementthe valuing of peoples
character or behaviour, or Appreciationthe valuing of things, events, phenomenon. One
feature of this evaluative lexis is that it can be graded up or down in value. The grading of
evaluative meanings is referred to in Fig. 2 as Graduation (see Hood, 2004, and Hood &
Martin, 2005, for a detailed system of options in Graduation). In the following instances of
graded Appreciation, the explicit Attitude is in bold and the Graduation is in italics.

298

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

S1a: .areas that are certainly for me are quite interesting

S2: .Id be very interested in feedback
S4: .things .which are of great interest
An analysis of explicit Attitude in the data reveals that there is a strong attitudinal
orientation to the set-up stage of each presentation. Explicit Attitude is expressed as
Appreciation, as in
S4: . A very high-stakes form of assessment (Cvaluation)
S4: . this research is not going particularly well (Kvaluation)
S5: . the pre-eminent locus for research (Cvaluation)
as Affect, for example
S1a:
S2:
S3:
S4:
S5:

. I am pleased to be able to introduce. (Chappiness)

.it normally gets people amused (Chappiness)
.thank you very much (Chappiness)
.I also enjoy coming back to Hong Kong (Chappiness)
. I always wanted to sit in the Vice Chancellors chair. (Cdesire)

and as Judgement, as in
S2:
S2:
S4:
S4:

. sorry to be officious (Kcapacity)

. because we abuse each other (Kpropriety)
.the blank stare on my face (Kcapacity)
.I have to confess (Kpropriety)

Affect encodes feelings and emotions, and Judgement encodes the evaluation of people
and their behaviour. It can be argued that Attitude expressed as Affect or Judgement is,
therefore, in a sense more personal than Appreciation that is to do with the
institutionalisation of Affect in the realm of aesthetics, and the valuing of things.
Expressions of Affect or Judgement in the discourse therefore contribute to a more
personal stance on the part of the presenter.
A further step in an analysis of Appraisal is to consider patterns in the data in terms of
what is being appraised, and how. To this point, we have considered the explicit encoding
of evaluation in terms that carry an intrinsic positive or negative value (e.g. interesting C;
blank K). This explicit expression of value is referred to as inscribed Attitude. However,
we also need to consider the potential for language choices to imply an evaluative reading
even though there is no explicit inscription of value. In analysing the data in this study for
choices that flag an attitudinal reading, we draw on Hood (2004) who identifies the key
role played by resources of Graduation in this respect. As Hood identifies, when speakers
grade a meaning that is not in itself attitudinal, that is where they grade some objective
meaning of, for example, quantity or location, they give that meaning a subjective slant.
The listener is clued in to interpreting the meaning as evaluative in some respect, as
implying a value. So, for example, when presenter S4 refers to the fact that an awful lot of
things have been happening in a particular place, the grading up of quantity in an awful

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

299

lot encourages an interpretation that the location is significant in some way. A similar
evaluative interpretation is evoked when issues are described as common to all sorts of
educational systems (S4).
A detailed analysis of what is appraised and how it is appraised is presented in Table 3
for the set-up stage for S4. The categories of Appraised are in column 1. Column 2 lists the
instances of both explicit Attitude (bold) as well as instances where the grading of nonattitudinal meanings evokes an attitudinal interpretation (italics). Column 3 identifies the
instance as either inscribed (Ins) or evoked (Ev). The fourth column identifies the Attitude
as positive (C) or negative (K), as Affect (Aff), Appreciation (App) or Judgement (Jud)
and as subcategories of each (see Martin, 2000). In these data, subcategories include
Affect as happiness (hap) and desire (des); Appreciation as valuation (val), composition
(comp) or reaction (react); and Judgement as tenacity (ten), capacity (cap), veracity (ver),
or propriety (prop).
Table 3 reveals patterns in the distribution of different kinds of Attitude. Of note, for
example, is the strong preference for inscribed Affect and Judgement in the presenters
evaluations of himself or his audience. This is in sharp contrast to the dominance of
evoked Appreciation in reference to the presenters own paper, or to other research in the
field. The presenters own research is flagged as positive and other research most often as
negative (c.f. Hood, 2004 on Attitude in written research paper introductions). The
knowledge domain, that is the world that is being researched, is initially evaluated
indirectly, but this builds progressively in the discourse and culminates in a strengthening
of the negative Appreciation, in demands; new demands; increased demands, and
finally in negative Judgement in impose.
.What for example, teachers thought of them, how it changed teachers practices,
how administrators used the information which was yielded by these systems and
how people on a day to day basis were managing to handle the demands of
assessment, new demands, increased demands that such systems imposed on
them.
The evaluation of the knowledge domain functions to establish the presenters
contribution as worthwhile in that it is addressing a problematic field.
Resources for encoding Attitude function in different ways in different phases of the
discourse, establishing different kinds of interpersonal relationships between presenter
and audience. In some phases of the set-up, for example in thanking the audience,
expressions of Affect encourage a positive solidarity of a shared sense of well-being
(happiness). In previewing the presentation, positive Affect encourages a rapport of
positive anticipation (desire). In referring to the location of the conference, the
audience is strongly encouraged, we could say compelled, to align with the speakers
explicit positive Appreciation. In other phases of the discourse, the encouragement is
less explicit. In relation to the content of the talk, the audience is encouraged to align
both through an implied positive Appreciation of the presenters own contribution as
well as through some negative Appreciation of the contribution of others. The resources
of Attitude function not only to make interpersonal connections with the audience, but
sometimes overtly and sometimes subtly and implicitly to align the audience with the
speakers position.

300

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

Table 3
Analysis of Attitude for the set-up stage of S4
1 Appraised

Some instances of attitude (inscribed

attitude in bold evoked attitude in italics)

3 Inscribed (Ins)/
evoked (Ev)

4 kind of attitude

Audience

youll excuse
wish to
blank stare
that age
thank .very much
for 16 or 17 years
With interest
enjoy
a long standing interest
interest
confess
not .particularly well
started in 1981
a quarter of a page
a bit of interest about.2071
hoping
I want to
try to use
I want to
I want to
interested
particularly interesting
all kinds of innovations
something new
something big
an awful lot of things
great interest
all over the world
a lot of issues
common to all sorts of
not just here
high stakes
rather detailed
reasonably extensive
not completely up-to-date
something different

Ins
Ins
Ins
Ev
Ins
Ev
Ins
Ins
Ins (Ev)
Ins
Ins
Ins
Ev
Ev
Ins (Ev)
Ins
Ins
Ev
Ins
Ins
Ins
Ins
Ins
Ev
Ev
Ev
Ins
Ev
Ev
Ev
Ev
Ins
Ins
Ins
Ins
Ev

C Jud: prop
C Aff: des
K Jud: cap
K Jud: cap
C Aff: hap
C Jud: ten
C App: react
C Aff: hap
C App (CJud:ten)
C App: react
K Jud: prop
K Jud: cap
C Jud: ten
K Jud: cap
C App (Jud: ten)
C Aff: des
C Aff: des
KJud: cap
C Aff: des
C Aff: des
C App: react
C App: react
C App: val
C App: val
C App: val
C App: val
C App: react
C App:val
C App: val
C App: val
C App: val
C App: val
C App: comp
C App: comp
K App: comp
C App:val

some new
some new
around the world
new
all around the world
at the moment
innovations
day-to-day basis
managing to handle
demands of assessment
new demands

Ev
Ev
Ev
Ev
Ev
Ev
Ins
Ev
Ev
Ins
Ins

Self as presenter

Context of presentation
(Hong Kong)

Presentation process,
resources etc

Knowledge domain of
research

C App: val
C App: val
C App: val
C App: val
C App: val
C App: val
C App: val
C Jud: ten
C Jud: cap
K App: val
K App: val
(continued on next page)

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

301

Table 3 (continued)
1 Appraised

Presenters research

Other research(ers)/
contributions to field of
knowledge

Some instances of attitude (inscribed

attitude in bold evoked attitude in italics)

3 Inscribed (Ins)/
evoked (Ev)

4 kind of attitude

increased demands
impose
actual .reality
a series of.generalisations
a lot of themes
a lot of .issues
slightly different take
various sources
now emerging
various forms of
not .talked about a great deal
conventional
relatively recently
not know very much
a lot of.speakers

Ins
Ins
Ev
Ev
Ev
Ev
Ev
Ev
Ev
Ev
Ev
Ins
Ev
Ev
Ev

K App: val
K Jud: prop
C App:val
C App: val
C App: val
C App: val
C App:val
C App:val
CApp:val
C App: val
K App: val
K App: val
C App: val
K App: val
C App: val

A closer look at each category of Appraised in Table 3 can reveal more about the
presenters strategies for alignment. One interesting feature that emerges in the presenter
S4s evaluations of himself is the number of instances of positive Judgement as tenacity (e.g.
for 16 or 17 years) accompanied by instances of negative Judgement as capacity (e.g.
blank stare; not. well). Negative self-evaluations might at first seem somewhat out of
place in a talk by an expert in the field. The impact of this apparent disjunction of values in
the context is, however, to elicit laughter from the audience, as it is apparently interpreted as
self-deprecating humour (see Eggins & Slade, 1997 on humour and disjunctive meanings).
This text corresponds to our identification of a joke phase in the set-up. In this context, the
expertise of the speaker is not in dispute, and the disjunction functions to support solidarity
in shared humour. In a different context, for example where a presenter is discussing the
research that is the basis of the main body of their presentation, or where the presenter has
less acknowledged expertise, a quite different reaction might result.
A discourse semantic perspective on Attitude, allows us to account for the fact that
evaluative language can be encoded across multiple systems of lexicogrammar, as is
evident in the examples in Table 3. It also allows us to consider how different resources
interact with each other across the discourse, how they co-pattern in phases of the genre,
and how values are developed throughout the text. Such a perspective offers an important
alternative and complementary take on interpersonal meanings from the quantification
achieved in corpus studies.

5. Gesture and interpersonal meaning

To this point, we have considered an analysis of phases in the set-up stage of conference
paper presentations as well as the discourse semantic patterning of expressions of Attitude

302

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

across the stage. The next step in our analysis is to move beyond language to consider the
co-expression of interpersonal meanings in the semiotic of gesture.
The discussion in this section is based on an analysis of gesture as facial, head, and hand
movements that co-occur with speech, resulting in a comprehensive though not exhaustive
categorization of movements. Analyses reveal that the extent and nature of the gestures
used vary markedly from speaker to speaker. Speaker 5, for example, was seated behind a
desk and used minimal gesture. Others, such as Speaker 2, were standing away from
furniture and were highly animated, using a wide range of hand gestures with high
frequency. The variations suggest both individual and contextual variables in the extent of
use of gesture. However, our primary focus is on patterns in the co-occurrence of gesture
with language. Following Martinec (2001), we consider the role of gestures
metafunctionally, and in this paper the focus is on how gestures function interpersonally.
We map the gestures on to the corresponding clauses and wordings identified within
phases and stages of the text, in order to identify correspondences between gesture and
interpersonal resources of language. This is illustrated in an extract from S4 in Table 4.
Such an analysis enables an exploration of ways in which the two semiotic systems of
language and gesture relate in the construal of interpersonal meaning.
Analyses reveal several ways in which gesture functions interpersonally in relation to
language choices. There are instances where gestures function to signal stance in a phase
of discourse, before that stance is signalled linguistically. That is, the gestures encourage
the audience to interpret what is about to be said in a particular way. In Table 4, 10.1, the
speaker initiates an episode of humour through the use of gesture, with a subtle shift in
facial expressions. The speaker raises an eyebrow as he begins this phase of discourse. A
similar gesture accompanies the commencement of a second episode of humour in 13.2.
For this speaker, the eyebrow raise seems to function as a discourse marker, signalling
shifts in orientation from the serious to the humorous.
There are also instances where the speakers gestures and language are semantically
parallel. An expression of explicit positive Affect, such as thank is paralleled in a gesture
that embodies pleasure, typically a smile. The co-articulation in language and gesture can
be interpreted as a kind of amplification of the positive Affect. In Table 4, 14.2, a
downward turned mouth and dropped head amplify the negative Appreciation encoded in
not . particularly well, by embodying an additional meaning of negative Affect, of
disappointment.
There are many other instances where expressions of explicit Attitude are accentuated
by an accompanying gesture. There are also instances where the implication of attitude is
strengthened in this way. For example, in 10.1 the speakers utterance big is
accompanied by a quick updown nod of head, further encouraging the listener to
interpret this as evaluative. However, while we can argue that in the phase of text below,
the graded experiential meanings (underlined) encourage an evaluative interpretation, they
do not explain the audiences laughter:
And every time I come back here there is something new and something big that is
happening (laughter)
An explanation of the audience reaction can, however, be explained with reference to
the accompanying gestures. The raised eyebrow on every, the half smile embracing

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

303

Table 4
Analysis of gesture for S4
Extract (clauses
and clause
complexes)
8.1/8.1.1

8.2

9.1
9.2

10.1/10.1.1

11.1
11.2
12.1

12.2/12.2.1

12.3a
12.4
12.3a

13.1
13.2

Phase

Gestures (corresponding wording)

Hands

Ah, Id like to thank XX

very much for [[inviting
me back to Hong Kong]]
which is a place [[Ive
been visiting fairly frequently for the last sixteen, seventeen years]]
Ive always found
that its a particularly
interesting laboratory for
all kinds of curriculum
and assessment innovation
And every time [[I come
back here]] there is
something new and
something big [[that is
happening]] (laughter)
And eh I await with
interest each time
to see [[what it is going
to be]]
And this time there is an
awful lot of things going
on, I think,
which are of great interest to ah not only to
language testers but
anybody [[involved in
language curriculum
development all over the
world]]
because a lot of the
issues
hhsome of which I will be
talking about shortlyii
are common to all sorts
of education systems not
just here
I also enjoy coming back
to Hong Kong
because it allows me to
continue a long standing
interest of mine, a
research interest

Head and Face

Thanks

Discuss
location

Hands on hips

Hands in pockets

Discuss
location/
humour

Discuss
location

Gaze scans room slowly

right to left, right to left

Raises eyebrow (every);

little head shake (there
is); half smile (something new.happening);
nods head (big) full smile
(laughter)
Left barrel wave!4
Left barrel wave!2
Touches notes

Looks down once;

serious expression

Preview
content

Looks down once

Hands in pockets

Looks down at notes

Humour/
joke

Scans left to right

Quick head nod

(between to and continue) scans left to right
(continued on next page)

304

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

Table 4 (continued)
Extract (clauses
and clause
complexes)
13.3/13.3.1

14.1
14.2

15.1

16.1
16.2
16.3

Phase

Gestures (corresponding wording)

Hands

which is in [[analysing
the interaction patterns
between myself and
Hong Kong taxi drivers]]
(laughter)
I eh I have to confess
this eh this research is
not going particularly
well
I started in 1981
and I now have a quarter
of a page of data
(laughter)
But eh Im hoping
if I continue to come
back
then it might yield
something of a bit of
interest about the year
2071 (laughter .laughter)

Head and Face

Scans left to right;
slightest smile; eyebrow
raise (patterns); looks
down (drivers)

Touches notes (this

research)

Touches notes

Looks up; raises eyebrow (confess)

Expression of disappointment (not); looks
down (particularly)
Scan left to right
Smile (laughter)

Smile
Left barrel wave!2
(continue to come)
Touches notes

Smile (laughter) quick

head nod (2071)

new, and the nod to exaggerate big all function to signal playful, cynical surprise. The
speakers full smile in response to the audience laughter confirms their interpretation.
Speaker and audience commune in a shared response to the object of appraisal.
Interestingly, both the episodes of humour discussed above are immediately preceded
by a gaze that scans the audience back and forth (9.19.2, and 13.1). We could interpret
this kind of gesture as an embodiment of projection, as the speaker bodily constructs the
audience in its entirety as interlocutor for the forthcoming phases of discourse, phases that
culminate in audience participation in laughter. Gestures that function to construct all
members of the audience as interactants in this way have parallels in the resources of
Engagement discussed earlier. They function to establish inclusivity.
This account of some of the ways in which gesture functions in relation to language in
the construal of interpersonal meaning is necessarily very brief. It serves only to highlight
the importance of considering interpersonal meaning-making beyond language itself, and
alongside language. We have indicated, for example, some ways in which we can consider
the interpersonal function of gesture in relation to Appraisal, in the expression of Attitude,
Graduation and Engagement. However, more research is needed on the ways in which
gesture can expand the meaning potential of the speaker, interpersonally as well as
ideationally and textually.

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

305

6. Conclusion
In this study, we identify a number of rhetorical strategies that speakers draw on in the
set-up stage of conference presentations, as they aim to connect with and align their
audience in a shared face-to-face context for dissemination of academic knowledge. We
identify ways in which particular stages or phases of discourse foreground interpersonal
over ideational meanings, how resources of Appraisal can represent a speakers position as
more or less open to negotiation, and can encourage a sense of solidarity around shared
attitudes and values, and we consider how gesture can function, in tandem with language,
to encourage an alignment of the audience with the speaker. When these resources are
considered together we can begin to see the complex nature of the rhetorical strategies
employed by speakers in resolving tensions and in helping to construe a positive
relationship of solidarity with their audiences. The resources are rich and their
interrelationships are complex, considerably more complex than is presented in
prescriptive dos and donts in some pedagogic contexts. Yet, while we would argue
the value in advanced academic literacy programs of modelling and deconstructing the
discourse to see how connections between speaker and audience are intensified or
diminished, and how they change in nature from one phase to another as the talk unfolds,
we acknowledge the need for a great deal more exploration of how such insights can
inform teaching/training practices. We also acknowledge that in this paper we focus on
just the initial stage of a small selection of plenary presentations. More extensive research
is needed across a range of contexts and speaker expertise.

Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr Guenter Plum and Andrew Leung
who were members of the research team in early stages of this research. This paper reports
research funded by Grants no G-S997 and G.71.37.S804 from the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University.

References
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). In M. Holquist, C. Emerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays
Trans. Austin: University of Texas Press (Original work published in 1935).
Charles, C., & Ventola, E. (2002). A multi-semiotic genre: The conference slide show. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom,
& S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 169210). Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main.
Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.
Frobert-Adamo, M. (2002). Humour in oral presentation: Whats the joke? In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, &
S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 211226). Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning.
London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Introducing functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hood, S. (2004). Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing: A focus on the introductions to research
reports. In L. Ravelli, & R. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: contextualized frameworks (pp. 2244).
London: Continuum.

306

S. Hood, G. Forey / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 291306

Hood, S., & Martin, J. R. (2005). Invoking attitude: the play of graduation in appraising discourse. In R. Hasan,
C. Matthiessen & J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language. London: Equinox.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of
discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kline, J. A. (2004). Speaking effectively: Achieving excellence in presentations. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Kress, G., & van Leeuween, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
Madden, C. G., & Rohlck, T. N. (1997). Discussion and interaction in the academic community. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in english. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.),
Evaluation in text authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142175). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse. London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R., & Stenglin, M. (2005). Materialising reconciliation: Negotiating difference in a trans-colonial
exhibition. In T. Royce & W. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse.
Mahwah. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. London: Palgrave.
Martinec, R. (2000). Types of process in action. Semiotica, 130(3/4), 243268.
Martinec, R. (2001). Interpersonal resources in action. Semiotica, 135(1/4), 114117.
Martinec, R. (2004). Gestures that co-occur with speech as a systematic resource: the realization of experiential
meanings in indexes. Social Semiotics, 14(2), 193213.
Scollon, S. (1995). The faces of world English: Nonverbal contextualization cues in TV news broadcasts Paper
presented at the second international conference on world Englishes. Japan: Nagoya.
Thompson, S. (1997). Presenting research: A study of interaction in academic monologue. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Liverpool University, UK.
van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.
Ventola, E. (2002). Why and what kind of focus in conference presentations? In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, &
S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 1550). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance.
Text, 23(2), 259284.

Susan Hood is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at the University of Technology, Sydney. Her
research interests are in linguistics and education. Her Ph.D. is a study of evaluative stance in academic research
writing drawing on Systemic Functional Linguistics. She has taught and researched in EAP in Australia and in
Hong Kong.

Gail Forey is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Her
research interests are critical discourse analysis, English for specific purposes and systemic functional linguistics.
She has taught and researched in England, Japan and Hong Kong.