INTERACTIVE DISCOURSE IN KONESKI’S AND LUNT’S GRAMMARS: READER ENGAGEMENT
Abstract
In this study we compare at discourse level two grammars of the Macedonian language: one by Blaže Koneski (1952, 1967), written in Macedonian, and the other by Horace Lunt (1952), written in English. We focus on personal reference and how readers are introduced and guided through the material in the two texts. We examine the predicates (and pronouns) which imply collectivity (including the author and the audience) compared to those that convey the author’s voice and those that bring third persons into the discussion in order to determine their frequency, form and range of function in the two texts. The main aim is to examine how the authors engage the potential readers and interact with them. For the analysis, we use Hyland’s model for interaction in academic discourse (Hyland, 2005), which we adapt to the Macedonian language. The first observations suggest that Koneski’s text is more interactive than Lunt’s, which follows the tradition of more objective expression. Detailed analysis will tell us which features of the discourse are characteristic of the authors and how they reflect the practise of scholarly style at the time.
Keywords: academic writing; discourse analysis; interaction; inclusive we.
Downloads
References
Минова-Ѓуркова, Л. (2003). Стилистика. Скопје: Магор.
Митковска, Л. (во печат). Ставот на авторот и интерактивноста во граматиката на Блаже Конески. Во Зборник на трудови од серијата научни собири Филолошки читања: јазикот и стилот на Блаже Конески.
***
Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116.
Cvikić L., & Ordulj A. (2021). Writer visibility in L1 vs. L2 argumentative writing: Use of the first person personal pronouns in Croatian, Suvremena lingvistika, 47(91), 1–25.
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In Englebreston R. (Ed.), Stance taking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,139–182.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies, 7 (2), 173–192.Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. London: Continuum.
Lunt, H. (1952). A Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language. Skopje: Macedonian State Press.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Myers, G. (1989). The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles. Applied Linguistics, 10 (1), 1–35.
Oteíza, T. (2017). The appraisal framework and discourse analysis. In Bartlett, T. & O’Grady G. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge, 457–472.
Vassileva, I. (1998). Who am I/who are we in academic writing? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8 (2), 163–190.
Vassileva, I. (2014). Bulgarian ‘we’ and audience involvement in academic writing. In T. S. Pavlidou (Ed.), Constructing collectivity: ‘We’ across languages and contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 287–308.
Vladimirou, D. (2014). Author positioning and audience addressivity by means of ‘we’ in Greek academic discourse. In T. S. Pavlidou (Ed.), Constructing collectivity: ‘We’ across languages and contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 265–286.
White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of Intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259–84.
