Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Second Language Studies
Vol. 9:1 (2026) ► pp.73–100

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Stance and engagement in digital oratory

A corpus-based approach to interactional metadiscourse between TED talks and L2 student persuasive speeches

 | The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, China
 | Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China
 | Hong Kong Shue Yan University, China
Published online: 6 November 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00058.hua
Abstract
This study adopts a corpus-assisted approach to examine differences in interactional metadiscourse (IM) between TED Talks and L2 student digital persuasive speeches. Two corpora were compiled for analysis: a TED corpus and a STU corpus comprising English speeches delivered by L2 students in a public speaking course at a Hong Kong university. Quantitative results revealed significant differences across all IM categories except hedges, with the TED corpus showing higher frequencies of self-mentions and boosters, and the STU corpus featuring more directives and audience pronouns. Qualitative analysis further indicated that L2 students employed a narrower range of IM forms, often overusing or underusing specific types, resulting in less persuasive stance and weaker emotional appeal. The rhetorical divergences between the two genres offer valuable insights for L2 public speaking pedagogy, highlighting the importance of explicit instruction in stance and engagement through the effective use of IM in digital oratory.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.TED talks vs. student persuasive speeches
  • 3.Interactional metadiscourse (IM) in academic spoken discourse
  • 4.Methods
    • 4.1Corpora
    • 4.2Analytic framework
    • 4.3Analytic procedures
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Overview of interactional metadiscourse (IM)
    • 5.2Distinctive patterns of interactional metadiscourse (IM)
      • Hedges
      • Boosters
      • Attitude markers
      • Self-mention
      • Audience pronouns
      • Directives
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (60)
References
Ädel, A. (2023). Adopting a ‘move’ rather than a ‘marker’ approach to metadiscourse: A taxonomy for spoken student presentations. English for Specific Purposes, 691, 4–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, C. (2016). TED Talks: The official TED guide to public speaking: Tips and tricks for giving unforgettable speeches and presentations. Hachette UK.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.; V. W. McGee, Trans.). University of Texas Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for academic purposes, 5(2), 97–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caliendo, G., & Compagnone, A. (2014). Expressing epistemic stance in university lectures and ted talks: a contrastive corpus-based analysis. Lingue e Linguaggi, 111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calsamiglia, H., & van Dijk, T. A. (2004). Popularization discourse and knowledge about the genome. Discourse & Society, 15(4), 369–389. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chou, I., Li, W., & Liu, K. (2023). Representation of interactional metadiscourse in translated and native English: A corpus-assisted study. PloS one, 18(7), Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crosthwaite, P., Boynton, S., & Cole III, S. (2017). Exploring rater conceptions of academic stance and engagement during group tutorial discussion assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 281, 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duwila, S. & Probowati, Y. (2020). Personal metadiscourse features on TED Talks by British speakers. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 5461, 520–526.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallo, C. (2014). Talk like TED: the 9 public speaking secrets of the world’s top minds. Pan Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gotti, M. (2014). Reformulation and recontextualization in popularization discourse. Ibérica, 271, 15–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 145–160). Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. (1995). The use of modal verbs as a reflection of cultural values. TESOL quarterly, 29(2), 325–343. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum, London, UKGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going?. Journal of pragmatics, 1131, 16–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., Wang, W., & Jiang, F. K. (2022). Metadiscourse across languages and genres: An overview. Lingua, 2651. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Zou, H. (2021). “I believe the findings are fascinating”: Stance in three-minute theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 501, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. & Zou, H. (2022). Pithy persuasion: Engagement in 3 Minute Thesis presentations, Applied Linguistics, 43(1), 21–44,
Jiang, J., & Lim, F. V. (2022). Popularizing science: Analyzing presenters’ multimodal orchestration in a TED talk. Ibérica, (44), 179–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johns, A. M. (Ed.). (2002). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jovic, M., Kurtishi, I., & AlAfnan, M. (2023). The persuasive power of hedges: Insights from TED Talks. World Journal of English Language, 13(5). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karia, A. (2013). How to deliver a great TED Talk: Presentation secrets of the world’s best speakers. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuswoyo, H., & Siregar, R. A. (2019). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers as persuasive strategies in oral business presentation. Lingua Cultura, 13(4), 297–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., & Bier, A. (2025). An examination of the use of spoken interactional metadiscourse markers in EMI lectures from different disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 791, 137–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lind, S. J. (2012). Teaching digital oratory: Public speaking 2.0. Communication Teacher, 26(3), 163–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, K., Yin, H., & Cheung, A. K. (2024). Interactional metadiscourse in translated and non-translated medical research article abstracts: a corpus-assisted study. Perspectives, 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lucas, S., & Stob, P. (2020). The art of public speaking. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacKrill, K., Silvester, C., Pennebaker, J. W., & Petrie, K. J. (2021). What makes an idea worth spreading? Language markers of popularity in TED Talks by academics and other speakers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72(8), 1028–1038. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mak, B. (2011). An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners. System, 39(2), 202–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations. Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2017). The popularisation of science via TED talks. International Journal of Language Studies, 111.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pierini, F. (2019). The popularization of specialized knowledge through TED Talks: The case of positive psychology. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(4), 15–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polo, F. J. F. (2018). Functions of “you” in conference presentations. English for Specific Purposes, 491, 14–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Powers, J. (2016). Public Speaking: The Lively Art. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Qiu, X., & Jiang, F. K. (2021). Stance and engagement in 3MT presentations: How students communicate disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 511, 100976. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rose, D., & Martin, J. N. (2012). Learning to write/reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossette-Crake, F. (2020). ‘The new oratory’: Public speaking practice in the digital, neoliberal age. Discourse Studies, 22(5), 571–589. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Digital oratory as discursive practice. Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, M. (2020). WordSmith Tools version 8, Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scotto di Carlo, G. (2014a). The role of proximity in online popularizations: The case of TED Talks. Discourse Studies, 16(5), 591–606. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014b). Ethos in TED talks: the role of credibility in popularised texts. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS-Linguistics and Literature, 12(2), 81–91.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Stance in TED Talks: Strategic use of subjective adjectives in online popularization. Iberica, 291, 201–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Patterns of clusivity in TED Talks. Iberica, (35), 119–144. [URL]
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (2019). Cultures and persons: Characterizing national and other types of cultural difference can also aid our understanding and prediction of individual variability. Frontiers in Psychology, 101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge university press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, W., & Csomay, E. (2024). Constructing proximity in popularization discourse: Evidence from lexical bundles in TED Talks. English for Specific Purposes, 731, 95–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wingrove, P. & Crosthwaite, P. (2022). Multi-dimensional exploratory factor analysis of TED Talks. Register Studies, 4(1), 91–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC journal, 37(3), 308–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, S., & Li, Z. (2024). How semantic prosody is acquired in novel word learning: Evidence from the “Double-Date Tree” effect. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(5), 531–541. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xiao, Y. (2017). Chinese ELF learners’ acquisition of modal verbs: A corpus-based study. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(6), 164–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, W. (2014). Stance and engagement: A corpus-based analysis of academic spoken discourse across science domains. LSP Journal-Language for special purposes, professional communication, knowledge management and cognition, 5(1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, X. (2018). A Corpus-Based Study of Modal Verbs in Chinese Learners’ Academic Writing. English Language Teaching, 11(2), 122–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zareva, A. (2011). ‘And so that was it’: Linking adverbials in student academic presentations. RELC Journal, 42(1), 5–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue