DISCOURSE PHENOMENA IN MEANING MAKING FOR GLOBAL COMMUNICATION

Md. Abdus Salam

Abstract


Global communication currently plays a crucial and highly significant role in both first language (L1) and foreign language (L2) learning situations. This occurs for various reasons, including international commerce, politics, higher education, immigration, and tourism. This article critically examines discourse phenomena in global communication, highlighting discourse metonymy, shifters, and textual metaphor as the discourse techniques used in metadiscourse to enhance communication and meaning creation in global contexts.Based on secondary and tertiary data, this study employs qualitative data analysis. Lev Vygotsky's 1962 interactional theory is used to comprehend communication theory. The purpose of this study is to answer the research question: How beneficial and acceptable are discourse phenomena in terms of meaning-making and global communication? The researcher finds that each of these discourse phenomena plays an important role in the meaning-making process, making communication clearer and more effective for L2 learners, whether at the vocabulary, clause, or sentence level in written texts or oral expression. As a result, the researcher recommends these discourse phenomena to students, teachers, linguists, and researchers for effective and appropriate global communication.


Keywords


Discourse phenomena, meaning-making, global communication, macro-linguistic aspects, illocutionary predicates in communication

Full Text:

PDF

References


Baker, M. (1992). In other words. London and New York: Routledge.

Beauvais, P. J. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 6(1), 11-30.

Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in ph. d theses. English for specific purposes, 18, S41-S56.

Cayley, R. (2017). Giving early feedback to doctoral writers in developing research writing. New York: Routledge.

Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. Routledge.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in english. London: Longman

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2001). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and theconstruction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Appliedlinguistics, 25(2), 156-177.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live by in Language and Culture. Chicago: Chicago Press.

Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in english. Evaluation in text, 142-175.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive esp rhetoric: Metatext in finnish-english economicstexts. English for specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22.

Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. In: Inhelder, B., Chipman, H.H., Zwingmann, C. (eds) Piaget and His School. Springer Study Edition.Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46323-5_2

Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta‐talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets indiscourse. Sociological inquiry, 50(3‐4), 199-236.

Thornbury, S., & Slade, D. (2006). Conversation: From Description to Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (2018). Lev Vygotsky. La psicología en la RevoluciónRusa. Colombia: Edicionesdesdeabajo.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.30743/ll.v8i1.8937

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Fakultas Sastra 
Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara (UISU), Medan
Jl. Sisingamangaraja Teladan Medan 20217
Telp. (061) 7869911, e-mail: language_literacy@sastra.uisu.ac.id