eJournals Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 42/2

Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik
0171-5410
2941-0762
Narr Verlag Tübingen
Es handelt sich um einen Open-Access-Artikel der unter den Bedingungen der Lizenz CC by 4.0 veröffentlicht wurde.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The aim of this paper is to provide insights into the use of metadiscourse in English as a lingua franca (= ELF), in particular its communicative effectiveness in international student exchange. The goal is to demonstrate how and to what extent ELF speakers employ metadiscourse in polyadic speech events in order to secure mutual understanding. For my research, qualitative methods were deployed; i.e. informal spoken ELF conversations of exchange students who participated in an Erasmus exchange in the academic year 2015/16 at the University of Graz, Austria, were tape-recorded and transcribed. A selection of examples relevant for the explicit use of metadiscourse is presented. Furthermore, the paper focuses on the concept of other-orientation previously advocated by Mauranen (2012) and its role in metadiscourse. The analysis shows that regardless of the highly variable nature and heterogeneity of ELF, its speakers use metadiscourse as a clarity and precision strategy to resolve any potential communicative problems.
2017
422 Kettemann

Metadiscourse in ELF spoken discourse of Erasmus students in Austria

2017
Nikola Jokić
Metadiscourse in ELF spoken discourse of Erasmus students in Austria Nikola Jokić The aim of this paper is to provide insights into the use of metadiscourse in English as a lingua franca (= ELF), in particular its communicative effectiveness in international student exchange. The goal is to demonstrate how and to what extent ELF speakers employ metadiscourse in polyadic speech events in order to secure mutual understanding. For my research, qualitative methods were deployed; i.e. informal spoken ELF conversations of exchange students who participated in an Erasmus exchange in the academic year 2015/ 16 at the University of Graz, Austria, were tape-recorded and transcribed. A selection of examples relevant for the explicit use of metadiscourse is presented. Furthermore, the paper focuses on the concept of other-orientation previously advocated by Mauranen (2012) and its role in metadiscourse. The analysis shows that regardless of the highly variable nature and heterogeneity of ELF, its speakers use metadiscourse as a clarity and precision strategy to resolve any potential communicative problems. 1. Introduction The unique status of English among the world’s languages and its global reach are indisputable. Suffice it to say that English has firmly established its role as the main language of communication for international business, education, trade, transport and culture. Yet, what is so interesting about this unprecedented linguistic situation is that most communication in English is carried out between speakers of what Kachru (1985) labelled the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle, leading to the conclusion that “native speakers may feel the language belongs to them, but it will be those who speak English as a second or foreign language who will determine its world future” (Graddol 1997: 10). In higher education, English is often used for teaching and publishing. Graddol (2006: 76) observed that each year there are approximately 2-3 AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Band 42 (2017) · Heft 2 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen Nikola Jokić 212 million international students for more than a half of whom English is a language of instruction. It should therefore come as no surprise that there has been an upsurge of 40% in the number of second language users of English in the last 20 years (cf. Gnutzman/ Intemann 2008: 13, cit. in Smit 2010: 46). The European Commission has promoted several programmes such as Erasmus or Erasmus Mundus in order to encourage the internationalisation of higher education (cf. Doiz/ Lasagabaster/ Sierra, 2011: 346). By doing so, universities started to connect, creating an exponential growth in student and staff mobility. One significant consequence of this is that at the majority of university campuses around the globe, English is used as a vehicular language by non-native speakers of English to achieve communicative goals. In an Erasmus community, where English serves as a lingua franca, communication might be expected to be inconsistent, unpredictable and prone to misunderstandings as people do not share common accents, levels of competence, background knowledge, perspectives or attitudes. However, researchers who investigate ELF have found that despite the highly variable nature of ELF, communicative misunderstandings rarely occur in such interactions. This is mainly due to the effort ELF users put in so as to prevent such problems, seeking to ensure mutual understanding at all times. The present paper will explore the use of metadiscourse in international students’ English interactions and attempt to shed light on this phenomenon and on the question of how metadiscourse functions in these interactions. The paper will first introduce English as a lingua franca and will define and explain the term metadiscourse. Secondly, I will describe the methodology used in my study. Finally, I will systematically analyse the frequency of items used metadiscursively and reflects on other-orientation. 2. English as a lingua franca The concept of ELF was first used by the German scholars Hüllen (1982) and Knapp (1985, 1987) in the 1980s. As one author later stated, the interest at that time was “mainly conceptual in nature, stressing the importance of ELF as an objective for English language teaching and also postulating the necessity of empirical studies that could identify formal or functional aspects to be taken account of in teaching” (Knapp 2002: 218, cit. in Jenkins et al. 2011: 282). During the late 1980s and 1990s several linguists expressed their interest in this topic (cf., e.g., Haberland 1989, Firth 1996, Jenkins 1996a, 1996b, Firth/ Wagner 1997, Jenkins 1998, House 1999) without producing a more elaborate theoretical framework to explain the phenomenon. Many applied linguists and teaching professionals agree that the publica- Metadiscourse in ELF spoken discourse of Erasmus students in Austria 213 tion of two seminal works were essential in the development of the study of ELF. One is Jenkins’ (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language, which represents an empirical study of ELF pronunciation. She concluded that ELF communication contexts should not be measured against native English pronunciation (cf. Jenkins et al. 2011: 281-282). The second influential publication is Seidlhofer’s (2001) article dealing with the ‘conceptual gap’ and the notion of nativeness, which is deeply ingrained in people’s minds. She emphasizes that there is a lack of empirical evidence and that comprehensive and reliable descriptions are needed. As a consequence, she initiated the creation of the first ELF corpus, the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE), compiled under her supervision at the University of Vienna and available online since 2013. In 2008 the second major corpus appeared (though it is an ongoing project), compiled under the supervision of Mauranen at Tampere (now Helsinki) University, namely the corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings (ELFA). In addition to these two corpora, the Asian Corpus of English (ACE) was compiled in Hong Kong under the supervision of Andy Kirkpatrick (cf. Jenkins et al. 2011: 282). Since the publication of Jenkins’ and Seidlhofer’s research, many articles, journal issues and doctoral theses have been dedicated to the study of English as a lingua franca. Since 2008, annual ELF conferences have been held and as of 2011, the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca has dealt with challenges in this area of linguistics. However, despite the wealth of research into ELF, the practice remains largely shrouded in uncertainty and it has also created some controversial debates in the linguistic community. 2.1 Research on ELF pragmatics The field of pragmatics was the first to explore the contexts in which ELF occurs. Jenkins et al. (2011: 293) provide an overview of research examining different settings, suggesting that two are most prominent, viz. business-related telephone conversations (e.g. Firth 1996, Firth/ Wagner 1997, Haegeman 2002) and face-to-face conversations in an academic environment (e.g. House 1999, 2002, Knapp 2002, Meierkord 2002, Lesznyak 2002, Mauranen 2003, Watterson 2008). Mutual cooperation was the object of research in the early studies, stressing the importance of mutual understanding and undermining the notion of correctness by using strategies like ‘let it pass’ (cf. Firth 1996). Conversely, subsequent research focused more “on miscommunication and the negotiation and resolution of non-understanding” (Jenkins et al. 2011: 293). What further studies have shown is that in native speaker of English (= NSE) interaction, there is a higher possibility that mutual understanding is not achieved. Pitzl (2005) says that even when misun- Nikola Jokić 214 derstandings occur in ELF contexts, participants quickly resolve them by using a range of pragmatic strategies. As far as pragmatic strategies are concerned, the research often emphasizes repetition (Lichtkoppler 2007, Watterson 2008, Cogo 2009). Mauranen (2006) mentions clarification and self-repair, while Kaur (2009) highlights paraphrasing as one of the measures an ELF speaker tends to resort to when having difficulties with understanding (cf. Jenkins et al. 2011: 293). Penz (2007a, 2007b and 2011) deals with the use of metapragmatic comments and metacommunication and also reaches the conclusion that clarification is the tool-of-choice in securing understanding among ELF speakers. In the next chapter, I will introduce the concept of metadiscourse and its definitions. 3. Metadiscourse Over the course of the last 30 years, scholars interested in metadiscourse have repeatedly tried to define it. An extensive body of literature exists on metadiscourse and its uses in various cultures (cf. Bäcklund 1998), various branches of knowledge (cf. Hyland 2000, 2005) and in L1/ L2 English (cf. Ädel 2006). However, there is no consensus concerning a definition of the concept, which can be seen in the fact that two distinct research traditions that have emerged. One of them offers a broad definition and puts textual interaction at the center (interactive model), while the other offers a narrow definition of metadiscourse with a focus on reflexivity (reflexive model) (cf. Ädel/ Mauranen 2010: 2). Apart from these different conceptions, there also two distinct methodological approaches to the study of metadiscourse. The ‘thin’ approach is quantitatively-oriented and decontextualized, whereas the ‘thick’ approach uses qualitative methods and examines units in context. (cf. Ädel/ Mauranen 2010: 3). What is common to all these different perspectives is that they agree that metadiscourse represents ‘discourse about discourse’. As metadiscourse is common to language use crosslinguistically, it should come as no surprise that it is also a regular feature of ELF discourse. ELF speakers have different lingua-cultural backgrounds, which means that in a situation where English is used as a lingua franca, discourse participants need to adapt to unpredictable circumstances while also achieving comprehension. In order to overcome potential problems in communication, they very often use communicative strategies that rely on explicitness. As the term metadiscourse refers to the act of making aspects of the current interaction explicit, we can legitimately assume that ELF speakers generally - and the Erasmus students in the current study, more specifically - use explicit metadiscourse abundantly. Few articles have been published on the subject of metadiscourse in ELF. There have been comparisons of metadiscourse in academic speech Metadiscourse in ELF spoken discourse of Erasmus students in Austria 215 between native speakers of English and ELF speakers which show that it is widespread in both groups (cf. Mauranen 2005, 2007a 2007b). Moreover, Penz (2008 and 2011) concludes that metadiscourse is commonly used among intercultural participants. However, in the past the research generally placed emphasis on written monologic language (cf. Mauranen 2007b: 2) as opposed to spoken interaction. This paper draws primarily on the seminal work of Mauranen (2010), which laid the foundation for the study of metadiscourse. This paper will contribute to the field of metadiscourse research by analyzing spoken metadiscourse in ELF, not in an academic context, but rather in an uncontrolled, informal setting, thus filling a noticeable gap in ELF research. 4. Data and methodology The present data comprise approximately 10 hours of tape-recorded informal ELF conversations among exchange students who participated in an Erasmus exchange at the University of Graz in the academic year 2015/ 16. All students were non-native speakers of English with varying degrees of proficiency, ranging from a highly proficient speaker to a speaker with intermediate English skills. There were 9 sessions which included male and female speakers with different first-language backgrounds who also differed in age. To be more specific, 23 participants - 9 male and 14 female - from 10 different lingua-cultural backgrounds took part in this study. The participants came from mixed national backgrounds: Croatia (7), Spain (4), Portugal (4), Italy (2), Slovenia (1), the Czech Republic (1), Belgium (1), France (1), Greece (1) and Ukraine (1). The groups usually consisted of two participants plus the interviewer. However, there were two sessions which involved three participants (with two of them sharing first-language backgrounds) and one session in which five participants were involved in the discussion. While the participants were informed about the recording and its use for a prospective thesis, they did not receive any information about the specific aim of the research. The interviews were conducted in English and facilitated by the researcher. In order to engage participants in conversation, basic questions were asked concerning their Erasmus stay in Graz and their experiences. The researcher was there to facilitate conversation but tried to minimize his role. The examples of metadiscourse found in his speech were extracted. For the purpose of this analysis, all interactions were transcribed using VOICE transcription conventions. The corpus consists of approximately 80,000 words. A qualitatively-oriented methodological, i.e. a ‘thick’, approach was chosen. Instances of metadiscourse were identified by looking at the previous and following turns and by considering the discourse carefully. For Nikola Jokić 216 small items, the search-function in the corpus (in MS Word format) was used and then examples were either included for analysis if the context suggested they had a metadiscursive function or disregarded. By proceeding like this, I was able to gain a better understanding of metadiscourse and its functions. There will, however, also be a quantitative element as I will compare different functional categories with respect to their frequencies. Since the negotiation of meaning can be expected to occur in ELF discourse, my main research question in this study was to determine whether metadiscourse is applied as a way to establish meaning between speakers. Having seen the results Mauranen (2007b) obtained from her corpora, I tried to analyse informal polyadic speech events in order to determine the extent to which the participants use metadiscourse and in which situations. My research focuses on two types of metadiscourse, which will be compared throughout this paper: speaker-oriented and other-oriented metadiscourse. Speaker-oriented metadiscourse means that the speaker refers to something that he or she has said or is going to say. What I am interested in here are the words typically found in metadiscourse that would help the speaker achieve better understanding and comprehensibility with the listener. Other-orientation means that speakers refer to utterances not by themselves, but by their interlocutors. One of my goals was to discover whether this also applies to my data. A comparison of the two types should also be included as in her study of metadiscourse in ELF, Mauranen (2010: 24) concludes that metadiscourse is more commonly other-oriented than self-oriented. 5. Analysis In a conversation where a number of languages and cultures come into contact, a considerable amount of time is dedicated to metadiscursively framing speech acts, especially questions, with the help of certain trigger verbs or nouns. Speakers do this because they think that the lack of English native-speaker-status may generate some unexpected problems in communication. In her study, Mauranen (2007b) discusses this issue at length and focuses narrowly on two question-related items in her academic ELF corpus: the verb ask and the noun question. I thoroughly examined the occurrences of these question-related items in my own ELF corpus. Mauranen’s study has revealed that in the academic ELF corpus the most frequent speech-act-related item is the noun question followed by the verb ask. My corpus shows the reverse order. The noun question occurs 30 times. However, only in 16 examples does this word have a metadiscursive function. Examples from my corpus can be seen below: Metadiscourse in ELF spoken discourse of Erasmus students in Austria 217 S2: yeah yeah we are gonna that that is my next question (.)(.)(.)(.) so what are the aspects you don’t like S4: okay I had one question (.)(.)(.) okay so what do you miss most from your home country now at this point what do you miss most S3: yeah one question (.)(.)(.) do you find do you find that before you came here that you that you have the same pattern of habits for example that you are still doing things that you were doing in in Greece in France or in Belgium S2: okay but I had the question (.)(.)(.)that that came up during your discussion what did you did you mean by this term What becomes evident from these examples is that they all show an inclination to introduce the actual point of inquiry by using the word question. In other words, the participants prepare the floor by explicitly naming the speech act to follow. Furthermore, after saying the word in question they make a pause with a duration of no less than 3 seconds. My interpretation is that they do this in order to be explicit, hence securing understanding and signifying coherence with the rest of the discourse is of utmost importance to them. The predominant reason for doing so may stem from the fact that they come from different linguistic backgrounds. In my corpus, there are 72 instances of the verb ask, and 32 of these have a metadiscursive function. Some of the examples are shown below: S2: we had to ask every professor (.)(.)(.) “Can you please allow us to follow your course we are just Erasmus students we will be staying only for 4 months? ” S3: webpage so I sent her an email and asked her (.)(.)(.) “Could you please register me at uni-graz online so that […]? ” S4: or you feel bad when the waiter asks you (.)(.)(.) “Is everything ok do you want something else? ” and I’m like […] What is noteworthy about the metadiscursive use of ask is that in 90 per cent of the examples, participants use direct speech rather than indirect speech. The logic behind this is probably the addresser’s wish to manage comprehension by pausing and asking direct questions. The speaker may do this in order to improve understanding between participants. Further comparisons show that the most dominant pattern in the ELF academic corpus, viz. I would like to ask (you), does not occur in my corpus. The reason could be that the pattern in question is too formal for the rather informal contexts of ELF conversations I included. 5.2 Other-oriented metadiscourse Mauranen (2010) clearly shows that other-oriented metadiscourse appears in the ELF in formal academic settings. She examined the verb say and found the metadiscourse pattern you + BE + saying. She postulates Nikola Jokić 218 three main functions: clarification, interpretation and springboard (see below). For the purpose of comparability, I also chose say, which appears 182 times in my corpus, almost half of them (88) in the other-orientation function. I will now explain every other-oriented function and provide examples below. a. Clarification/ elucidation The speaker wants another participant to clarify and elucidate his or her words. S1: that could be said yes but were you saying that in time in Graz you haven’t found so many friends S3: correct me but are you saying that people should not take animals or babes at the university In these examples, the speaker checks whether he or she understood the context and invites the interlocutor to respond to it. In my data, this is always done through the use of a question. b. Interpretation The speaker gives an interpretation of the intended meaning of another participant’s words. S3: so you are saying that it is it is funny being the only exchange student and not speaking German S2: there is also interaction and I feel that as well here in my degree personally chemistry I think when I came here I thought it was much better because it’s a bigger university so you are saying that in Portugal things are different The utterances above demonstrate the way in which the speaker reveals his or her own view of the situation and expects a reaction from the other participant. c. Springboard The speaker rewords what another participant has said, and then uses this as a starting point for another topic in the discussion. S2: I cannot really comment because I didn’t attend attend any courses I just had 2 German courses here and I had to write my master thesis so I have no idea if what you are saying is true regarding the fact that they only speak in German in a class I mean I met the the guy one teacher from our department and he was really nice he helped me a lot with my master thesis so he was really nice but I don’t know about other teachers Metadiscourse in ELF spoken discourse of Erasmus students in Austria 219 S4: yeah me too part of what you are saying about safety is is true but I think the only reason I feel so safe is because I wasn’t born here so I am not sure how to react or what to say to someone who starts like talking to me in the middle of the night when I am walking home and in Croatia that happens as well but at least I can tell them something or like I know where to run or call the police or whatever here I don’t know any of these things so In these examples, the speaker does not expect a response from the interlocutor, which shows in the fact that there is no change of turn afterwards. The speaker refers to another participant’s utterance and goes on to talk about another related or unrelated topic. Figure 1: Percentages of the different functions of ask in the other-oriented perspective in the corpus of informal ELF communication among Erasmus students. As represented in the pie chart, clarification (32 instances) and interpretation (37 instances) were found to be dominant in informal verbal interactions among Erasmus students. The springboard function took the third place with 19 occurrences in the corpus and is the least prominent function. The reason for this is probably that speakers prefer the option of securing comprehension rather than securing the floor and continuing with a cycle of argument and counter-arguments. 6. Conclusion The research into ELF has become a fast-developing field since the publication of the first seminal works (Jenkins 2000, Seidlhofer 2001, Mauranen 2003). By setting out a coherent set of theoretical assumptions, researchers have tried to reconceptualise the non-native speaker as a legitimate user of English rather than as a failed native speaker. The Nikola Jokić 220 emergence of ELF corpora has made a significant contribution to the study of ELF. Furthermore, an increasing number of books, PhD dissertations, special issues of journals and conferences on ELF indicate how the field has grown at a quickening pace. While earlier research of ELF metadiscourse focused heavily on written corpora and English in an academic setting, current research is mainly concerned with spoken interaction among participants. The aim of this paper was to study metadiscourse in informal spoken interactions among Erasmus students in Austria. The analysis reveals that metadiscourse plays a pivotal role in ELF speakers’ attempt to achieve understanding. It strengthens comprehensibility by using explicitness strategies or by seeking clarity. The investigation of the question-related items question and ask show that speakers feel the need to prepare the floor before posing a question. It should also be noted that they do this by using pauses or in the case of ask by asking direct questions. My study also shows that other-oriented metadiscourse is of paramount importance in polyadic speech events since it secures comprehension by creating an argumentative discourse among speakers where they confirm, interpret or paraphrase other speakers’ meanings. Investigating ELF and metadiscourse is still challenging. One of these challenges is moving from the predominant focus on written monologic corpora towards spoken and interactive language. Extensive elaboration of the theoretical framework is needed in addition to finding ways to use the rich data of ELF corpora. References Ädel, Annelie (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam. John Benjamins Publishing. Ädel, Annelie/ Anna Mauranen (2010). “Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives.” Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2). 1-11. Archibald, Alasdair/ Alessia Cogo/ Jennifer Jenkins (eds.) (2011). Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle upon Tyne. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Bäcklund, Ingegerd (1998). Metatext in professional writing: a contrastive study of English, German, and Swedish. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Bausch, Karl-Richard/ Herbert Christ/ Werner Hullen/ Hans-Jürgen Krumm (eds.) (1985). Forschungsgegenstand Richtlinien. Tübingen: Narr. Bublitz, Wolfram/ Axel Hübler (eds.) (2007). Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam. John Benjamins. Cogo, Alessia (2009). “Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies.” In Mauranen/ Ranta (2009). 254-273. Cortese, Giuseppina/ Anna Duszak (eds.) (2005). Identity, community, discourse: English in intercultural settings. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. Doiz, Aintzane/ David Lasagabaster/ Juan Sierra (2011). “Internationalisation, multilingualism and English‐medium instruction.” World Englishes 30(3). 345- 359. Metadiscourse in ELF spoken discourse of Erasmus students in Austria 221 Firth, Alan (1996). “The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis.” Journal of Pragmatics 26(2). 237- 259. Firth, Alan/ Johannes Wagner (1997). “On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research.” The Modern Language Journal 81. 285- 300. Fløttum, Kjersti/ Trine Dahl/ Torodd Kinn (eds.) (2007). Language and discipline: perspectives on academic discourse. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press. Gnutzmann, Claus (1999). Teaching and learning English as a global language. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Gnutzmann, Claus/ Frauke Intemann (2008). “Introduction: The globalisation of English. Language, politics and the English language classroom.” In: Gnutzmann/ Intemann (2008a). 9-24. Gnutzmann, Claus/ Frauke Intemann (eds.) (2008a). The globalisation of English. Language, politics and the English language classroom. Tübingen: Narr. Graddol, David (1997). The future of English? : A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21 st century. British Council. Graddol, David (2006). English next. London: British Council. Haberland, Hartmut (1989). “Whose English, nobody’s business.” Journal of Pragmatics 13(6). 927-938. Haegeman, Patricia (2002). “Foreigner talk in lingua franca business telephone calls.” In: Knapp/ Meierkord (2002). 135-162. House, Juliane (1999). “Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility.” In: Gnutzmann (1999). 73-89. House, Juliane (2002). “Developing pragmatic competence in English as a Lingua Franca.” In: Knapp/ Meierkord (2002). 245-268. Hullen, Werner (1982). “Teaching a foreign language as ‘lingua franca’.” Grazer Linguistische Studien 16. 83-88. Hyland, Ken (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman. Hyland, Ken (2005). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum. Jenkins, Jennifer (1996a). “Changing pronunciation priorities for successful communication in international contexts.” Speak Out! Newsletter of the IATEFL Pronunciation Special Interest Group 17. 15-22. Jenkins, Jennifer (1996b). “Native speaker, non-native speaker and English as a Foreign Language: Time for a change.” IATEFL Newsletter 131. 10-11. Jenkins, Jennifer (1998). “Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an International Language? ” ELT Journal 52(2). 119-126. Jenkins, Jennifer (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: OUP. Jenkins, Jennifer/ Alessia Cogo/ Martin Dewey (2011). “Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca.” Cambridge Journals 44(3). 281- 315. Kachru, Bihari Braj (1985). “Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle.” In: Quirk/ Widdowson (1985). 11-30. Kaur, Jagdish (2009). “Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca.” In: Mauranen/ Ranta (2009). 107-123. Knapp, Karlfried (1985). “Englisch als internationale lingua franca und Richtlinien.” In: Bausch/ Christ/ Hullen/ Krumm. 84-90. Nikola Jokić 222 Knapp, Karlfried (1987). “English as an international lingua franca and the teaching of intercultural competence.” In: Lörsche/ Schulze (eds.) (2002). Perspectives on language in performance. Tübingen: Narr. 1022-1039. Knapp, Karlfried (2002). “The fading out of the non-native speaker. Native speaker dominance in linguafranca-situations.” In: Knapp/ Meierkord (2002). 217- 244. Knapp, Karlfried/ Christiane Meierkord (eds.) (2002). Lingua franca communication. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. Lesznyak, A. (2002). Untersuchung zu Besonderheiten der Kommunikation im Englischen als Lingua Franca. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation: University of Hamburg. Lichtkoppler, Julia (2007). “‘Male. Male.’ - ‘Male? ’ - ‘The sex is male.’ - The role of repetition in English as a lingua franca conversations.” Vienna English Working Papers 16(1). 39-65. Lörsche, Wolfgang/ Rainer Schulze (eds.) (2002). Perspectives on language in performance. Tübingen: Narr. Mauranen, Anna (2003). “The corpus of English as a lingua franca in academic settings.” TESOL Quarterly 37(3). 513-527. Mauranen, Anna (2005). “English as a Lingua Franca - an unknown language.” In: Cortese/ Duszak (2005). 269-293. Mauranen, Anna (2006). “Signalling and preventing misunderstanding in ELF communication.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177. 123- 150. Mauranen, Anna (2007a). “Hybrid voices: English as the lingua franca of academics.” In: Fløttum/ Dahl/ Kinn (2007). 244-259. Mauranen, Anna (2007b). “Discourse reflexivity and international speakers - How is it used in English as a lingua franca.” Jezik in slovstvo 52(3-4). 1-19. Mauranen, Anna (2010). “Discourse reflexivity - a discourse universal? The case of ELF.” Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2). 13-40. Mauranen, Anna (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: CUP. Mauranen, Anna/ Elina Ranta (eds.) (2009). English as a Lingua Franca. Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholar Publishing. Meierkord, Christiane (2002). “‘Language stripped bare’ or ‘linguistic masala’? Culture in lingua franca conversation.” In: Knapp/ Meierkord (2002). 109-133. Penz, Hermine (2007a). “Building common ground through metapragmatic comments in international project work.” In: Bublitz/ Hübler (2007). 263-292. Penz, Hermine (2007b). “English as a lingua franca in intercultural project work.” In: Hermine Penz (ed.) (2007). Language, Culture and Social Interaction: Linguistic Aspects of Communication across Cultures. Habilitationsschrift: University of Graz. 126-136. Penz, Hermine (2008). “‘What do we mean by that? ’ - ELF in intercultural project work.” ESSE conference. University of Aarhus, Denmark, August 2008. Penz, Hermine (2011). “‘What do we mean by that? ’ Metadiscourse in ELF Project Discussions.” In: Archibald/ Cogo/ Jenkins (2011). 185-201. Pitzl, Marie-Luise (2005). “Non-understanding in English as a lingua franca: Examples from a business context. 2005.” Vienna English Working Papers 14(2). 50-71. Quirk, Randolph/ Henry G. Widdowson (eds.) (1985). English in the world. Teaching and learning the language and literature. Cambridge: CUP. Metadiscourse in ELF spoken discourse of Erasmus students in Austria 223 Seidlhofer, Barbara (2001). “Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a Lingua Franca.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2). 133-158. Smit, Ute (2010). English as a lingua franca in higher education. A longitudinal study of classroom discourse. Berlin: Mouton. VOICE Project (2007). VOICE Transcription Conventions [2.1]. http: / / www.univie.ac.at/ voice/ voice.php? page=transcription_general_inform ati.on (15 July 2017). Watterson, Matthew (2008). “Repair of non-understanding in English in international communication.” World Englishes 27(3/ 4). 378-406. Nikola Jokić Department of English Studies Karl-Franzens-University Graz Austria