Metadiscourse in interactive contexts An introduction Hermine Penz & Georg Marko The fact that human beings can talk about language in the same way as they can talk about other things is one of the features distinguishing human language from animal communication and has been termed reflexivity by Charles Hockett (1960). This phenomenon has been discussed by linguists under various names, all with the prefix meta, such as metalanguage, metadiscourse, meta-talk, or metacommunication. According to Mey (2001: 173), “a ‘metalanguage’ indicates a language that is about language, one level ‘up’ from the language itself, the ‘object language’ […]. A metalanguage indicates, comments on, examines, criticizes etc. what happens on the level of the object language.” The aim of this special issue of the Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik is to explore the functions and usages of one particular type of metalanguage, namely metadiscourse, by which we understand discourse about the ongoing discourse (cf. Mauranen 1993 and 2010). Metadiscourse is an essential feature of written and spoken and of monologic and dialogic texts and is not restricted to any particular type of discourse or genre. In this volume, we will focus on metadiscourse in interactive contexts, i.e. with two or more participants, as we assume that in their attempt to co-construct meanings and to secure mutual comprehension and at the same time to foreground certain perspectives on the world and on their identities, interlocutors will draw upon metadiscourse and will use it for purposes that differ from those relevant to written monologic texts. Metadiscourse may refer to any level and any aspect of discourse such as channel (e.g. acoustic problems in understanding), roles of speaker and listener, speaking rights and turn-taking, word meaning, sentence and utterance meaning, topic of talk, frames and text types, conversational maxims, textual elements, discourse organization, etc. (cf. Bublitz 2001: 1332). AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Band 42 (2017) · Heft 2 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen Hermine Penz & Georg Marko 186 Describing, organizing and commenting on the ongoing discourse often serve the purpose of achieving understanding and supporting acceptance. Therefore they are seen as the main functions of metadiscourse (cf. Techtmeier’s (2001: 1454) three basic functions of metacommunicative utterances). Metadiscourse can be applied prospectively and retrospectively in the process of negotiating and managing understanding (cf. Bublitz 2001: 1332). However, the use of metadiscourse has been found to vary substantially across different genres and different cultures (cf. Mauranen 1993, 2010, Hyland 2005, Ädel 2006, Penz 2011, Graf 2015). These differences are not surprising in view of findings that metadiscourse may provide some insights into underlying interactional and pragmatic norms of the language use of a community. This volume includes the written versions of six papers presented at a workshop called “Metadiscourse in spoken language” organized for the Annual Conference of Austrian Linguistics (ÖLT) 2016 at Karl-Franzens- University Graz (18-20 November 2016) by the two editors of this special issue. We have changed the title of this volume from in spoken language to in interactive contexts because the contributions to this workshop suggested to us that the interactive aspect was more central to the study of metadiscourse than the difference between writing and speaking per se. The six papers can informally be grouped into two - perhaps slightly heterogenous - groups. Pia Resnik’s and Nikola Jokić’s articles take a more language-acquisition/ learning-oriented or non-native-varietyoriented approach, investigating the special role that metadiscourse has for such situations of language use. Klaus Schneider’s, Georg Marko’s, Johannes Scherling’s and Hermine Penz’ articles take a pragmatic and/ or discourse analytical approach, focusing on the general and the specific social and political effects of metadiscourse (there are, of course, large areas of overlap). Pia Resnik’s paper examines the language of 24 one-on-one interviews with English-as-L2 users in order to find out how and to what extent they use metadiscourse in communication with other L2-speakers. Using descriptive and inferential statistical tools, she looks at the influence that different variables have on the frequency of metadiscourse use and the types employed. The most important factors seem to be a difference in L1 between interlocutors (in Resnik’s case, interviewer’s L1 = German, interviewee’s L1 = Mandarin Chinese; there is also a group where German is the L1 of both interviewer and interviewee) and the interviewees’ perceived competence in L1 and L2. Nikola Jokić’s article deals with metadiscourse as used by international students from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds when they are speaking English as a lingua franca with each other. He shows how extensively they draw upon different types of metadiscursive devices and how effectively they employ them to avoid communication problems before they actually occur. Metadiscourse in interactive contexts 187 The topic of Klaus Schneider’s contribution are metapragmatic expressions, more specifically meta-illocutionary expressions, i.e. words used to refer to different illocutionary acts, e.g. threat, invitation, or question. He examines their forms and functions qualitatively in examples from literary texts and quantitatively with the help of Google searches. Schneider defines four main functions of metapragmatic terms, viz. to perform a speech act, to report it, to comment on it and/ or to problematize it, all associated with particular formal realization patterns. The Google searches examine 12 meta-illocutionary nouns in the problematizing structure [BE + demonstrative pronoun + meta-illocutionary noun? ], e.g. Is this a threat? . Request, order, warning and other nouns with consequences for the addressee’s course of action occur frequently in this pattern, insult and apology are relatively rare in comparison, probably because they do not allow for a lot of interpretation and they have no immediate relevance for action. The past tense form of BE was and the distal demonstrative pronoun that were more common than present tense is and proximal this, probably because the distancing effects of the former better serve the confrontational nature of the problematizing function. Georg Marko’s paper outlines the theoretical framework for a study of definitions as metadiscursive devices and their social functions and effects in discussion forums on health. He argues that defining a lexical element implies that the speaker or writer knows its meaning, but that the other participants in the interaction do not, which creates a gap in knowledge (however real and however temporary) and thus a hierarchy and possible power imbalance between interlocutors. Marko describes various features of definitions that may enhance or mitigate this effect, such as whether they contain detailed information or just consist of an alternative term, whether they are by the speaker/ writer herself or coconstructed by other interlocutors, etc. In “Pragmatics of power,” Johannes Scherling takes a closer look at the functions of metadiscourse in political debates, analysing the Labour Party’s leadership debates in 2015 (when Jeremy Corbyn was a candidate) and 2016 (when Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of the Labour Party). Metadiscourse has mainly the function of organizing one’s own arguments and of positioning oneself in relation to other candidates in the debate. The frequent use of metadiscursive devices points to a debating style orienting towards one’s opponent, which could be seen as typical of a challenger, the infrequent use to a self-centred and confident debating style less concerned with others in a debate. Hermine Penz examines the functions and effects of metadiscourse in conflictual interaction in her contribution to this volume. Her analysis of small group discussions in the context of higher education shows that metadiscourse plays an important role in all phases of conflict, i.e. its initiation, development and resolution, and that metadiscourse primarily becomes manifest in naming different communicative acts and activities Hermine Penz & Georg Marko 188 and also parts of the discourse structure in the group discussions, thus explicitizing them and opening them up for comments and evaluation. These six articles do not only offer a practical or applied linguistic perspective on metadiscourse in interaction by presenting a wide range of different interactive texts and discourses, they also contribute to the theorization of metadiscourse in general by discussing its conceptual foundation, its distinctive features, and its structural-functional properties. This special issue of the Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik will therefore - hopefully - spark new ideas about what to investigate in metadiscourse as an interactive phenomenon and how to investigate it, thus stimulating further relevant and valuable research. References Ädel, Annelie (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Bublitz, Wofram (2001). “Formen der Verständnissicherung in Gesprächen.” In: Klaus Brinker/ Gerd Antos/ Wolfgang Heinemann/ Sven F. Sager (eds.) (2001). Text- und Gesprächslinguistik/ Linguistics of Text and Conversation. KSK 16.2. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. 1330-1340. Hockett, Charles F (1960). “The Origin of Speech.” Scientific American 203(3). 88- 96. Graf, Eva-Maria (2015). The Discourses of Executive Coaching. Linguistic Insights into Emotionally Intelligent Coaching. Habilitationsschrift: Universität Klagenfurt. Mauranen, Anna (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. Mauranen, Anna (2010). “Discourse Reflexivity - A Discourse Universal? The Case of ELF.” Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2). 13-40. Mey, Jacob L. (2001). Pragmatics. An Introduction. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell. Penz, Hermine (2011). “‘What do you mean by that? ’: Metadiscourse in ELF project discussions.” In: Archibald Alasdair/ Alessia Cogo/ Jennifer Jenkins (eds.) (2001). Latest Trends in ELF research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 185-201. Schiffrin, Deborah (1980). “Metatalk: Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse.” Sociolinguistic Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction 50. 199-236. Techtmeier, Bärbel (2001). “Form und Funktion von Metakommunikation im Gespräch.” In: Klaus Brinker/ Gerd Antos/ Wolfgang Heinemann/ Sven F. Sager (eds.) (2001). Text und Gesprächslinguistik/ Linguistics of Text and Conversation. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung/ An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Vol 2. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. 1449- 1463. Hermine Penz & Georg Marko Department of English Studies Karl-Franzens-University Graz Austria