Updated in version 3

Step 5—Annotatiting Supplementary moves in Engagement resource analysis

In order to fully account for the rhetorical moves that the writers employ, we will supplement the engagement resource analysis with additional set of supplementary tags. These tags are particularly informed by the notion of metadiscourse (e.g., Hyland, 2005), which attempts to capture writer’s “self-refletive expressions used to negotiate interactional meanings in a text” (Hyland, 2005, p. 37). Importantly, metadiscourse (Hyland, 2005) and engagement (Martin & White, 2005) shares some important conceptual underpinnings and considered complementary approaches to each other. These theoretical frameworks, particularly inspired by Systemic Functional Lingusitics (Halliday), underscores functions of language which relates to “maintainance of interpersonal relations” and “organization of discourse segments”. The supplementary tags defined below are ways to uncover the writer’s stragety to organize the discourse in their writings.

The supplementary tags are broadly categorized into two categories:

Reference to materials that are either internal or external to its own text
Logical connections / Text-organizing devices

These categories are described in turn below.

1. Reference to information internal or external to the writing

The first category aims to identify the elements of discourse which refers to any internal/external materials. For our purpose, these tags go hand-in-hand with engagement moves such as ATTRIBUTE and ENDORSE, allowing us to identify whether the writer makes explicit references to the “sources” of their argument.

Citations and Sources are two category that pertains to how EXTERNAL materials are referenced in the discourse.
ENDOPHORIC pertains to how the writer refers to the other part of its own writing.

Tag	Description	Examples
References to external sources
‖—Citations	Mentions to external source(s) in the text in forms of in-text or narrative citation.	`(Martin & White, 2005)`, `Ortega (2009)`,
‖—Sources	Mentions to external source(s) in the text in forms of nominal expression.	`The annual report by X`, `Numerous studies`
References text internally
‖—Endophoric markers	Refer to information in other parts of its own text	as noted `above`, see `Fig 1`, `in section 2`
Quoted	Segment of text with direct quotation (including the quotation marks, both single and double)	`"Stay hungry. Stay foolish."`

2. Logical connections / Text-organizing devices

The second broad category of our supplementary tags relates to logical connectors. Typical examples are moreover (Additive), on the other hand (Comparative), consequently (Justifying).

What are logical connectors?

According to Hyland: Logical connectors are: “conjunctions and adverbial phrases which help readers interpret pragmatic connections between steps in an argument.” (Hyland, 2005, p. 50).

They express logical connections that the writer of the sentence try to weave throughout the discourse. We will attend to connectors that signal the relationships between argumentative elements.

Unless otherwise noted, we will attend to connectors that attempt to connect two or more argumentative elements within the discourse and disregard connectors that express relations between real-world events. Often times, the distinction is explained as internal (within discourse) and external (out of discourse) conjunctive relations.

`Internal` vs `External` conjunctive relations

In our annotation project, we mainly focus on logical connectors and text-sequencing devices that the writer uses to link argumentative elements in the discourse (with some exceptions!). This is called internal conjunction as it is about internal relations within the immediate discourse.

`Internal` conjunctive relations

Internal conjunctive relations concern the sequencial unfolding of the text itself.

This is the main scope of our supplementary tags. The followings illustrate these conjunctive moves.

Examples of `internal` conjunctions

Crops accounted for a significant proportion of heavy metals dietary intake. The reasons are two fold (TEXT-SEQUENCE). Firstly (TEXT-SEQUENCE), crops are the bottom positions of many food chains and food webs. Secondly (TEXT-SEQUENCE), vegetables are one of the major dietary components of Hong Kong people.
To this point we have looked at clauses and their elements from the perspective of discourse. Grammarians, on the other hand (Comparative), look at elements of clauses from the perspective of the grammar.
The Act required that where the offence is a gross violation the application should be dealt with in a public hearing It is also (Additive) not true that … amnesty encourages impunity because amnesty is only given to those who plead guilty… Further (Additive), retributive justice.. .is not the only form of justice., .there is another kind of justice, restorative justice

The transition firstly and secondary, signal the argumentative elements in the discourse (writer’s act).

`External` conjunctive relations

External conjunctive relations concern relationships between the actual real-world events.

Examples of `external` conjunctions

Note that OOS stands for out of the scope
For the boric acid indicator, firstly (TEMPORAL; OOS), 5g of boric acid crystals was dissolved in 200ml of warm distilled water, secondly (TEMPORAL; OOS), 40ml of methyl red indicator [0.02% (w/v) in 60% ethanol] and 15ml of bromocresol green indicator [0.1% (w/v) in 60% ethanol] were added to the boric acid solution.
I answered the questions. Subsequently (TEMPORAL; OOS) I was told that I was lying.
Instead of resting at night (alternative choice made by him = not a COUNTER), he would wander from window to window.
Four, maybe five policemen viciously knocked me down, and (additive–external; OOS) they put me back on the chair and (additive-external; OOS) handcuffed my hands through the chair
An extremely short marriage to someone else failed all because I married to forget (will include in JUSTIFY).

These transitions signal the real-world processes. They do not logically connect ideas for argumentation.

2a. Logical connectors/ Transition phrases

Tags in this categories are those that the writer uses to cohesively link between their ideas and argumentative elements.
Here we are dealing with logical connections that were NOT the foci of ENGAGEMENT moves (e.g., COUNTER).

Logical connection we annotate	Description	Examples
Exemplifying	Signal illustrations/examples in the text (mostly `internal`).	`for example`, `to illustrate`, `e.g.`,
Expository	Signal elaboration/clarification in the subsequent part of the text (mostly `internal`).	`in other words`, `that is`, `i.e.`, `I mean`, `this means`
Additive–internal	Signal additional argumentative elements; Focus only on `internal` relations.	`additionally`, `moreover`, `besides`
Comparative-internal	Marks an argument as similar or different. This category has to be differentiated from `COUNTER` move.	`similarly`, `by contrast`, `conversely`
Justifying	Signal persuasion through justification or substantiation. For the reason of simplicity, we will include both external and internal relations.	`because of X`, `due to X`, `therefore`

Some category of logical connectors are subsumed under some engagement moves or other supplementary tags. These are summarized as follows:

Logical connection we omit	Reason for the omission	Examples
~~Concede~~	Already covered in `CONCUR`	`admittedly`
~~Adversative~~	Already covered in `PROCLAIM` (e.g., `PRONOUNCE`/`CONCUR`)	`in fact`, `actually`, `as a matter of fact`
~~Alternative~~	May be interpreted as `ENTERTAIN`	`alternatively`
~~Dismissive~~	May be interpreted as `PRONOUNCE/COUNTER`	`anyway`, `at any rate` (= all things considered, yet)
~~Time—internal~~	Already covered in `Text-sequencing` (because it’s ordering of argument)	`first`, `second`
~~Additive-external~~	Out of scope: They express A and B in the real-world.	`A and B`,
~~Temporal-external~~	Out of scope: They express `Ideational` meaning.	`today`, `on weekends`, I talked to you `previously`
~~Purpose/result~~	Out of scope: Many of them have `Ideational` meaning.	`in order to x`

2b. Text organizing devices

Text organizing devices includes “discourse signals” that “refers to discourse acts, sequencing, and text-stages” (or what Hyland’s called frame markers; Hyland, 2005)
The following tags are used when we interpret the writer’s intension is to let the reader know about the organization of its own text itself (independent from the content of the argument).
For the above two reasons, Text-organizing devices are internal expressions in principle.

Tag	Description	Examples
Goal-announcing	Signal the purpose/goals of the text itself	`my purpose is`, `Section 2 describes`, `the chapter/section focuses/proposes`, `we intend to`, `in this chapter`
Text-sequencing/staging	Signal sequences and stages of argumentative elements in the text	`First`, `Lastly`, `to start with`, `so far`, `overall`,
‖—Summative**	Signal summary/conclusion of a part of the text	`to conclude`, `in short`, `to sum up`, `The conclusion is`

Bibliographical References

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (Kevin). (2022). Metadiscourse choices in EAP: An intra-journal study of JEAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 60, 101165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101165
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 22.

Notes on theoretical framework

Goal-announcing and text-sequencing and staging are based on Frame markers in Hyland (2005).
Endophoric markers are based on Hyland (2005).
Citations and Sources are related to Evidentials in Hyland (2005), but they are distinct given that Evidential is covered in Engagement (or ATTRIBUTE).

Table of Content

The following is the table of content for the manual. The original deanonymized version of the manual has sidebars for annotators to navigate through the contents. This could not be implemented in this anonymized version for review.

Back to Home