1. The article argues for the development of a 'move' approach in metadiscourse studies, involving a more contextualized analysis of the discourse functions that speakers/writers use metadiscourse to perform.
2. A specific taxonomy is presented for metadiscursive functions, originally developed based on academic lectures and student essays but further developed as applied to spoken student presentations.
3. The study analyzes 13 presentations from an MA-level English-language online teaching context, mapping their key discourse functions and providing insights for researchers and practitioners in EAP teaching.
The article "Adopting a ‘move’ rather than a ‘marker’ approach to metadiscourse: A taxonomy for spoken student presentations" argues for the need to develop a 'move' approach in metadiscourse studies, which involves a more contextualized analysis of the discourse functions that speakers/writers use metadiscourse to perform. The article presents an overview of existing functional taxonomies for academic discourse and a specific taxonomy of metadiscursive functions. It also analyzes student presentations from an MA-level English-language online teaching context, focusing on the taxonomy for how metadiscourse is performed.
Overall, the article provides valuable insights into the importance of considering the contextualized use of metadiscourse in spoken student presentations. However, there are some potential biases and limitations in the article that should be noted.
Firstly, the article focuses solely on spoken student presentations and does not consider other forms of communication or genres. This limits the generalizability of the findings and raises questions about whether similar results would be found in other contexts.
Secondly, while the article presents a taxonomy of metadiscursive functions, it does not provide sufficient evidence or examples to support its claims. The qualitative focus of the study is on the taxonomy for how metadiscourse is performed, but there is little discussion or analysis of how this taxonomy was developed or validated.
Thirdly, there is a lack of exploration of counterarguments or alternative perspectives. The article presents its arguments as if they are uncontested and fails to acknowledge potential criticisms or limitations.
Finally, there is some promotional content in the article that may bias readers towards certain perspectives or approaches. For example, the authors cite their own work extensively and suggest that their approach represents a significant contribution to metadiscourse theory.
In conclusion, while this article provides valuable insights into the importance of considering contextualized use of metadiscourse in spoken student presentations, it has some potential biases and limitations that should be considered when interpreting its findings. Further research is needed to validate and extend these findings beyond this specific context.