skip to main content


Vol.7, Issue 2, 2021, pp. 127-146 Full text

Crossmark logo

Web of Science: 000737013000001

Diana Yankova
Irena Vassileva

Affiliation: New Bulgarian University, Sofia, Bulgaria

Contributor roles
Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation: D.Y. (lead);
Supervision, Project Administration, Data Curation, Formal Analysis: I.V. (lead);
Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing: D.Y., I.V. (equal)

While marking importance and relevance in academic discourse has been a widely researched topic, markers of lesser significance have so far been understudied. The article therefore focuses on some of the discoursal means of expressing lesser importance in conference presentations. The corpus of the study comprises recordings of 20 presentations in English at international linguistics conferences by speakers of various cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The approach follows Deroey and Taverniers's (2012) study of lecture discourse, whereby depending on the way lesser importance is expressed the markers are grouped under five categories. Their methodology is checked against the data provided by the transcriptions of the conference recordings to ascertain the extent to which it is applicable to other spoken academic genres. The ultimate objective is to provide steppingstones for interpreting information and distinguishing between what is important and relevant and less so in conference presentations as well as for identifying presenters' motivation for employing this type of metadiscourse.

Keywords: metadiscourse, lesser relevance markers, conference presentations

Article history:
Submitted: 20 June 2020
Reviewed: 11 August 2020
Accepted: 30 November 2021
Published: 30 December 2021

Citation (APA):
Yankova, D. & Vassileva, I. (2021). Expressing Lesser Relevance in Academic Conference Presentations. English Studies at NBU, 7(2), 127-146.

Copyright © 2021 Diana Yankova and Irena Vassileva

This open access article is published and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. If you want to use the work commercially, you must first get the authors' permission.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at ...: Lexical Bundles in University Teaching and Textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25(3), 371-405.

Caffi, C. (1999). On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 31(7), 881-909.

Campagna, S. (2009). Projecting Visual Reasoning in Research Conference Presentations. In Gotti, Maurizio (Ed.), Commonality and Individuality in Academic Discourse. Peter Lang, (pp. 371-391).

Cassens J., Wegener R. (2018). Supporting Students Through Notifications About Importance in Academic Lectures. In Kameas A., Stathis K. (Eds.), Ambient Intelligence. AmI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11249. Springer, Cham.

Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German. Journal of Pragmatics (11)2, 211-241.

Deroey, K. & Taverniers, M. (2012). 'Ignore that 'cause it's totally irrelevant': Marking lesser relevance in lectures. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(14), 2085-2099.

Ede, L., Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience Addressed / Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy. College Composition and Communication 35(2), 155-171.

Formentelli, M. (2017). Taking Stance in English as a Lingua Franca: Managing Interpersonal Relations in Academic Lectures. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Fraser, B. (2009). Topic orientation markers. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5), 892-898.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.

Heino, A., Tervonnen, E., Tommola, J. (2002). Metadisourse in Academic Conference Presentations. In Ventola, E., Shalom, C., Thompson, S. (Eds.), The Language of Conferencing. Peter Lang, (pp. 127-146).

Hood, S. and Forey, G. (2005). Introducing a conference paper: Getting interpersonal with your audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (4)4, 291-306.

Huemer, B., Lejot, E. & Deroey, K. (2019). Academic writing across languages: multilingual and contrastive approaches in higher education. Böhlau.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going?. Journal of Pragmatics 113, 16-29.

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

Jucker, A. H., Smith, S.W., Lüdge, T. (2003). Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35(12), 1737-1769.

Lin, C. (2010). '. . . that's actually sort of you know trying to get consultants in. . .': functions and multifunctionality of modifiers in academic lectures. Journal of Pragmatics 42(5), 1173-1183.

Lunsford, A., & Ede, L. (1996). Representing Audience: 'Successful' Discourse and Disciplinary Critique. College Composition and Communication 47(2), 167-179.

Lunsford, A., and Ede, L. (2009). Among the Audience: On Audience in an Age of New Literacies. In Elizabeth Weiser, Brian Fehler, and Angela González (Eds.), Engaging Audience: Writing in an Age of New Literacies. NCTE. (pp. 42-69).

Mariotti, C. (2012). Genre Variation in Academic Spoken English: The Case of Lectures and Research Conference Presentations. In Maci, S. & Sala, M. (Eds.), Genre Variation in Academic Communication Emerging Disciplinary Trends. (pp. 63-84). CELSB: Bergamo.

Mauranen, A. (2001). Reflexive Academic Talk: Observations from MICASE. In Swales, J. M. & Simpson, R. (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics in North America. University of Michigan Press, (pp. 165-178).

Mauranen, A. (2004). "They're a little bit different". Observations on hedges in academic talk. In K. Aijmer, & A-B. Stenström (Eds.), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora, (pp. 173-198). John Benjamins.

Nesi, H. & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Lexical bundles and discourse signaling in academic lecturers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(3), 283-304.

Rowley-Jolivet, E. & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: context, argument and interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 15(1), 45-70.

Sperber, D., Wilson, D. (1991). Loose talk. In Davis, Steven (Ed.), Pragmatics. A Reader. Oxford University Press, (pp. 540-549).

Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.

Vassileva, I. (2005). Englisch und Deutsch als Sprachen internationaler Konferenzdiskussionen. In Eva van Leewen (Ed.), Sprachenlernen als Investition in die Zukunft. Wirkungskreise eines Sprachlernzetrums. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, (pp. 389-405).

Vassileva, I. (2006). Author-Audience Interaction. A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Asgard Verlag.

Vassileva, I. (2009). Argumentative strategies in conference discussion sessions. In Eija Suomela-Salmi, Fred Dervin (Eds.), Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Academic discourse. John Benjamins. (pp. 219-240).

Ventola, E. (1999). Semiotic Spanning at Conferences: Cohesion and Coherence in and across Conference Papers and their Discussions. In Bublitz, W., Lenk, U., Ventola, E. (Eds.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How to create it and how to describe it. John Benjamins. (pp. 101-123).

Ventola, E., Shalom, C., & Thompson, S. (Eds.) (2002). The language of conferencing. Peter Lang.

Zare, J. & Keivanloo-Shahrestanaki, Z. (2017). The language of English academic lectures: The case of field of study in highlighting importance. Lingua, 193, 36-50.


1. Reviewer's name: Undisclosed
Review Content: Undisclosed
Review Verified on Publons

2. Reviewer's name: Undisclosed
Review Content: Undisclosed
Review Verified on Publons

Handling Editor: Stan Bogdanov
Verified Editor Record on Publons

Article Metrics