ENGLISH FOR

SPECIFIC
English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23 PURPOSES
www.elsevier.com/locate/esp

Interpersonal engagement in academic

spoken discourse: a functional account
of dissertation defenses
Leonardo Recski
Universidade Federal De Santa Catarina Trindade, Campus Universit
ario,
CCE ‘‘B’’ – Sala 307 88.040-900 Florian
opolis, SC, Brazil

Abstract

Whereas former research on academic discourse has paid a great deal of attention to writing
and its hedging strategies, this paper aims to show that a complementary and equally im-
portant feature of academic spoken discourse is the use of modal certainty. An examination of
modal selections in two American Dissertation Defenses additionally reveals that the choices
are purposeful and can be related to the speakersÕ role in the discourse, their commitment to
propositions and their aims in such discourse events. On a more speculative level this paper
aims to demonstrate that interpersonal meanings structure texts just as much as ideational
ones and that modalities contribute to coherence in important ways. Finally, it is argued that a
productive analysis of modality in the discourse of dissertation defenses should be based on
the view that modal selections in a strict sense are closely related to other choices indicating the
speakersÕ stance in relation to propositions.
Ó 2004 The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Dissertation defense; Academic spoken discourse; Commitment; Decommitment; Interpersonal

functions

1. Introduction

The last two decades of research on academic writing have demonstrated that
written academic genres are not purely objective, impersonal, and informational as
had once been believed. In fact, different studies (Butler, 1990; Crompton, 1997,
1998; Curnick, 2000; Holmes, 1988; Hyland, 1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1998;

E-mail address: lrecski@hotmail.com (L. Recski).

0889-4906/$30.00 Ó 2004 The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.esp.2003.07.001
6 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23

Myers, 1985, 1989; Salager-Meyer, 1994, 2000; Skelton, 1988, 1997; Swales, 1990,
among others) have shown that writers also need to present their claims cautiously,
accurately, and modestly in order to meet the discourse communityÕs expectations
and to gain acceptance for their proposition, and that one of the means to achieve
such goal is by hedging.
Although there is no doubt that hedging is a crucial aspect of the linguistic be-
havior of academic genres, in this paper I want to focus on a complementary and
equally important tactic which is the use of various devices for conveying commit-
ment regarding oneÕs propositions on the spoken discourse of Dissertation Defenses
(DDs). The reason for such a choice is three-fold. Firstly, advances in corpus lin-
guistics and the development of conversation analysis and discourse analysis have
yielded the tools which make such investigation possible and fruitful. Secondly,
whereas research on the characteristics and structures of written dissertations has
received considerable attention (Bunton, 1999; Dong, 1996; Dudley-Evans, 1999;
Edminster & Moxley, 2002; Hewings, 1993; Hopkins & Dudley-Evans, 1988; Pal-
tridge, 1997, 2002; Richards, 1988; Thompson, 1998), research into the actual char-
acteristics of DDs is limited to a small number of studies (Burling, 1997; Grimshaw,
1989; Grimshaw & Burke, 1994; Hartley, 2000; Swales, in press). Thirdly, by pro-
viding an overall picture of the modal choices found in the discourse of two PhD
candidates, this study offers further information on how this specific genre is shaped.

2. Aims of this paper

The first aim of this paper is to show that levels of modal certainty 1 are indeed an
important feature of the discourse of PhD candidates, and that they work together
with ÔdecommitmentÕ 2 to maintain the studentÕs face (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
In the second place this paper aims to demonstrate that interpersonal meanings
structure a discourse just as much as ideational ones. 3 The reason for such aim is to
demonstrate that if we wish to account for the global meaning of a text or genre it is
necessary to consider ideational as well as interpersonal choices, and hence to look at
how modal selections co-operate with other selections from the ideational compo-
nent. According to Halliday (1994, 179) the three meaning components (ideational,
interpersonal, textual) ‘‘are not represented in the form of separate whole structures,
but rather as partial contributions to a single structural line’’. Thus, it can be argued
that in an oral genre such as the DD, interpersonal meanings (especially expressions
of (de)commitment) habitually spread themselves through the clauses functioning

1
The concept of modal certainty will be developed in more detail in Section 4.
2
The term decommitment is mine and it is used here to mean the candidatesÕ detachment from
propositions, analogous to ÔhedgingÕ.
3
The terms ÔideationalÕ and ÔinterpersonalÕ are HallidayÕs and refer to the reflective function (language
for the understanding of the environment and the representation of experience) and the active function
(language for acting on others in the environment and as an interactive event involving the speaker and the
audience) of language respectively (see Halliday, 1994, p. xiii).
 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23 7

rather as a means to announce the tonality and force of the propositions that are
being made as well as to foreground the attitudinally salient information and
background ideational content.
The third aim of this paper is to give a functional explanation of modal selections
in DDs. I hope to show that candidatesÕ expression of (lack of) commitment to the
truth value of propositions is not only a reflection of knowledge, but also of their
points of view and of their role in the discourse.

3. Data underlying the analysis

Examples in this paper will be taken from the transcripts of two DDs, one on
Fossil Plants (Biological and Health Sciences Division; recorded in 01/21/2001; 57
min; 9.895 tokens), and the other on Social Psychology (Social Sciences and Edu-
cation Division; recorded in 05/20/1998; 76 min; 12.612 tokens) which are part of the
Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) (Simpson, Briggs, Ovens,
& Swales, 2002). The candidate on the Fossil Plants defense was an American female
(age 24–30) and the candidate on the Social Psychology defense was a Korean male
(age 24–30). Extracts from these transcripts will be referred to as [FP, 1998] for the
defense on fossil plants, and [SP, 2001] for the defense on social psychology. Because
of their length, the DDs cannot be reproduced here in full but I hope that the ex-
tracts quoted will suffice to convey the tone and tenor of the texts.

4. Contextualizing dissertation defenses

What are DDs? The answer to this question may be a very broad one depending
on the perspective of the participants involved. For example, for an outsider who
decides to watch a DD, it may seem like a battle for power or even a battle involving
extremely technical words; for the candidate, whose prestige as well as success or
failure are at stake, it can either be a rite de passage (Swales, 1990, 187) to become a
member of the targeted discourse community, or a pre-requisite to leave the uni-
versity world and enter another one; from the institutionÕs perspective, a requirement
imposed on all of those who wish to obtain the title of PhD in whatever discipline;
and from the committeeÕs perspective it may be not only the time to appraise if the
student is apt to become a member of an elite of post-graduates, but also to display
their academic capacity. Obviously, these are just some of the vantage points that
each of the participants involved in the process could have in relation to what
constitutes a DD.
It is also important to point out that DDs may differ in terms of ceremonial
procedures, levels of formality and length in different geographical contexts. Ac-
cording to Swales (in press), the British ÔvivasÕ are held in a small closed room with
both an external as well as an internal member, who is not the candidateÕs advisor,
conducting the ceremonial. A senior scholar from the candidateÕs institution may
also be present acting as a chair and being there to try to make sure the interaction
8 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23

goes on in a ÔharmonicÕ pace. In this social practice, Swales (in press) suggests that
‘‘the external member has a great deal of power’’ in that he/she may refer the written
work for submission or even claim that it does not qualify for a PhD degree. For this
reason, Swales (in press) argues that the selection of the appropriate outside member
is a ‘‘key issue for supervisor and candidate’’.
In Scandinavia, the characteristics of dissertation defenses differ greatly from
those under British and American traditions as Swales (in press) observes:
the examination is conducted in a large room, with as many as 50 people pres-
ent, with a senior university official such as a dean presiding, everybody decid-
edly dressed up, the examiners in full academic regalia, the chair, examiners
and candidate proceeding in and out of the room in a fixed order, and some
of the ceremonial in Latin. The seating arrangements may resemble that of a
court, and the external examiner is often called ‘‘the opponent’’.
In Norway, PhD defenses are referred to as ‘‘disputas’’, and as Swales citing
Burling (1997) comments, the candidate is asked to give two formal lectures on the
day anteceding the defense, one of them with a topic chosen by the committee and
the other involving a topic of the candidateÕs own choice. Swales notes that the
ceremonial lasts the whole day. First the candidate gives a short summary of the
dissertation and then is questioned by a first committee member in the morning.
More specific questions are then asked by a second committee member in the af-
ternoon, and, towards the end of the day, there is an elegant meal to round off the
event.
According to Fortanet (personal communication March, 2003), Spanish defenses
are normally held in medium-sized rooms with usually 10–20 participants, including
the candidateÕs supporters. She comments that the DD ‘‘has to be in deposit for one
month’’ and that access is granted to any member of the academic community. 4 The
defense itself takes about two hours, the candidate having from 30 to 45 min to
present her/his work and the committee members being allotted from 10 to 15 min to
present their questions and/or comments. Questions and/or comments follow a strict
order from the youngest to the eldest except for the President of the ceremony, who
always speaks at the end.
Surprisingly, in South Africa there are no PhD defenses. The reason for this,
according to Diana Kilpert 5 (personal communication March, 2003), is largely
because South African universities do not possess the financial means to bring
overseas experts to conduct the ‘‘ceremonies’’, especially with the unfavorable Rand
exchange rate.

4
Fortanet mentions that the academic community learns about this ÔdepositÕ through signs that are
placed in boards scattered throughout the candidateÕs department, but adds that the date and time of the
defense is not made public. Inmaculada Fortanet is a senior faculty member at Universitat Jaume I in
Castellon – Spain.
5
Diana Kilpert is a senior faculty member in the Department of English Language and Linguistics at
Rhodes University, Grahamnstown – South Africa.
 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23 9

The brief overview of ritualistic practices offered above attempts to show that
distinct geographical context may display a different collection of semiotic and dis-
cursive practices that will add different flavors and contours to the genre. In this
paper though, I shall concentrate on how the genre is factored specifically within the
American context. I now turn the discussion to how DDs are structured.
The structure of a Sociology Defense recorded in 1975 has been thoroughly ex-
amined in Grimshaw (1989) and Grimshaw, Feld, and Jenness (1994) and summa-
rized and rearranged by Swales (in press) who used another three contemporary US

Part A: Preliminaries
Greetings
↓
(Personal Introductions)
↓
Outline of procedures by the chair; brief narrative
statement by the candidate; summary of the dissertation

Part B: The Defense Proper

(Chair summarizes agreed procedures)

↓
Candidate attempts a presentation (usually about an hour)
↓
(Rounds of questions by the members)
↓
“Free” questioning by the members
↓
(Questions or comments invited from candidate and/or audience)

Part C: In Camera Session*

Committee sends candidate (and others) out of the room

to evaluate dissertation and the oral defense; usually a
written pass with some written revisions required

Part D: Closing Segment

Candidates (and others) return

↓
Results indicated with congratulations to the candidate
↓
(Discussion of what more needs to be done)
↓
Necessary book-keeping; signing forms, etc
↓
Leave-takings (party arrangements, photos, etc)
Fig. 1. Structure of US Dissertation Defenses (Grimshaw et al., 1994; Swales, in press).
The term In
Camera is used here after Grimshaw (1989) and represents the segment that follows the argumentative part
of the defense. This segment is largely used to evaluate the candidateÕs oral presentation and it usually lasts
a short time. Both candidate and audience are asked to leave the room where the defense is being held
during this segment.
10 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23

defenses to provide a modified outline of the structure of the genre (within the
American context). The resultant provisional structure of US DDs may be seen in
Fig. 1 (elements in parenthesis are optional).
Differently from Grimshaw et al.Õs (1994) structure, Swales (in press) adds to the
Preliminaries an early In Camera session, noting that this is a common practice, at
least at the University of Michigan, and that it helps to ‘‘form a natural boundary
between the Preliminaries and the Defense Proper’’. Swales then builds into the
structure the idea of ÔroundsÕ and highlights the importance of paying special at-
tention to the longest segment – that of the Defense Proper.
One important facet of language is that it always takes place in a context. We do
not merely acquire a parcel of vocalic signals or act as if we were walking grammars
or dictionaries. We know language in the sense that we know how to use it; we know
how to interact with other people, to opt for language that is adequate to the situ-
ational context we find ourselves in. Malinowski (1935) coined the term context of
situation, a notion which was to play a large part in FirthÕs (1957) thinking and, later,
in HallidayÕs (1973, 1978). MalinowskiÕs claim was that in order to understand an
utterance, we need to know not only the literal meanings of the words, but also all
the complex of social detail in which the utterance occurs. For systemic linguists, the
situational context of any discourse type may be described by means of three con-
textual variables: field (what is going on), tenor (who is taking part) and mode (the
rhetorical channel chosen). According to Halliday (1978, 62) ‘‘collectively they serve
to predict the text’’. Given that we know the situational context where DDs occur, it
is reasonable to assume that we can anticipate a great deal about the language that
will transpire there if we know more about the field, tenor and mode of the genre.
Thus, field, tenor and mode allows us to perceive the systematic relationship between
language and its environment, which, in turn, can help us interpret any discoursal
situation as a semiotic structure. Table 1 displays a tentative contextual configura-
tion in terms of field tenor and mode for the two American DDs I analyze.

Table 1
Tentative contextual configuration of the MICASE Dissertation Defenses
Field: institutionalized tertiary academic ceremony: scientific, technical jargon interspersed with
everyday language; timed; staged: preliminaries, defense proper, in camera segment, closing segment
[candidate] description of the investigation of a relevant scientific matter; convincing examiners of
aptness for award of degree; [examiners] assessment of candidateÕs qualification; negotiation of own
views in order to arrive at a consensus; [institution] rite de passage required to obtain a PhD degree.
Tenor: a member of the academic community (PhD candidate) presents to audience (committee
members, colleagues, professors, friends, family) the result(s) of a scientific investigation defending
his work and points of views with assumed dexterity; unequal power between candidate and
examiners: examiners are already members of an academic elite; social distance nonmaximal; both
candidate and committee members have a great amount of shared knowledge.
Mode: Spoken (impromptu); public act; text is a summary of the whole activity and its outcomes;
lecture: persuasive, with rational argumentation; interactive: turn-taking between examiners and
candidate after candidateÕs presentation of submitted work; typical use of over-head projectors and
presentation software (non-linguistic semiotics); role of language constitutive.
 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23 11

In this section, I have attempted to provide a brief account of the context where
DDs occur with special emphasis on the American ceremonial. The American DDs
are restricted to a particular discourse community meeting at one time and place in
a particular setting (Ann Arbor – University of Michigan). The overall commu-
nicative purpose of such texts can be said to be to report on a finished product.
Clearly, however, we cannot frame the discourse community of DDs as determi-
nate, static, autonomous, and predictable, since different countries and different
academic fields (e.g., Humanities, Arts, Exact Sciences, etc.) may have their own
rhetorical modes and traditions, and these may affect the way DDs are conducted.
Nevertheless, since the primary aim of this paper was not to provide a full account
of DDs as a genre, but rather to focus on the interpersonal choices of commitment
and decommitment employed by PhD candidates, I hope that the description of
register variables provided above, though superficial, will be sufficient to provide
the reader with a reasonable notion of the context, participants and language used
in DDs.

5. Analytical procedures

The textual analysis in this section was carried out using the linguistic software
Systemic Coder 4.62 (OÕDonnell, 2002). The Systemic Coder allows the user to mark
boundaries between text segments, to create a coding scheme, to assign features to
text segments, to select out those codings which contain certain features, and to
retrieve descriptive statistics about the corpus, or to split the corpus into two or more
sets and compare them statistically. I now turn to the discussion of modal certainty
in the corpus.

5.1. The confident candidate

Let us consider the following extract, in which a member of the examining board
confronts the candidate with a direct question (EB ¼ examining board member; and
E ¼ candidate):
(1) EB: was global temperature during the period of uplift that youÕre looking
at, more or less constant so that you can attribute, changes in temperature to
changes in elevation?
E: thatÕs an interesting question actually um and a very good one. uh, the esti-
mates, at the equator in those regions in the neotropics, people have suggested
that temperature may have changed in that region globally, from the Miocene to
today but probably no more than three degrees Celsius. And so, there probably
is a component of that, in the in the estimates IÕm seeing, um the changes in
global temperature. But what I, I will say two things one is the magnitude of
the change IÕm seeing is much greater than global change, and over a
much shorter time period. So that, what I think it is really the change in
12 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23

temperature is primarily due to uplift in that area not necessarily the global
change in (rate) Greg [FP, 1998].
The question put to the candidate is a very direct and clear one. In response, the
candidate starts the answer by praising its quality and subsequently saving her face
and detaching herself from the propositions by hedging (people have suggested,
probably), by using epistemic modality (temperature may have changed), and by using
the vague noun estimates. On the other hand, towards the end of the answer (. . . but
what I, I will. . .) the candidate starts to voice her belief or conviction in relation to
truth of the proposition. Notice that from this point on she makes use of exponents
of Ômodal certaintyÕ which convey her strong degree of commitment to the propo-
sition. These features occur after the initial hedges. We note, for example, the use of
the emphatic metalinguistic comment I will say two things, or ‘‘textual metaphors’’ as
Martin (1992, 483) terms them, which refer explicitly to the ongoing negotiation. We
can also notice the use of evaluative adjectives (greater, shorter) intensified by the
adverb much, and the use of adverbs such as really, primarily, and necessarily. The
final stretch of this particular extract is therefore a good illustration of ÔcertaintyÕ and
ÔcommitmentÕ and hence of modal certainty.
I use the term Ômodal certaintyÕ for a semantic notion which can be expressed
in various ways. It refers to the fact that speakers aim to convey a high degree of
commitment to the validity of their propositions. Halliday (1970, 198) claims that
through modality ‘‘the speaker associates with the thesis an indication of its
status and validity in his own judgment; he intrudes, and takes up a position’’ in
relation to propositions. Therefore, according to Halliday, these modal devices
belong to the interpersonal function of language (Halliday, 1970, 198). The
meanings in the interpersonal system are typically graded: they have values lying
on a scale from ÔhighÕ through ÔmedianÕ to ÔlowÕ. Depending on the choices from
these possible values, oneÕs tone will be neutral, expressing lack of commitment
(median value), tentative, expressing weak commitment (low value), or assertive,
expressing strong commitment (high value). In the latter case we have, in Hall-
idayÕs terms, ÔovertoneÕ (Halliday, 1970, 191) or according to Quirk, Greenbaum,
Leech, and Svartvik (1985) ÔboostersÕ and ÔmaximizersÕ. These tones can be ex-
pressed at different ranks through different systems. The following survey is based
on Halliday (1970, 190):
at clause rank: through mood and modality
at group rank:
in the verbal group: through person
in the nominal group: through attitude
in the adverbial group: through comment
at word rank: through lexical register
I hope to show that in the DDs in hand, choices from the different systems are
consistently geared towards expressing ÔovertoneÕ, and it is in that sense that they all
contribute to conveying strong commitment to the validity of the propositions, and
hence to the expression of modal certainty. Below follows a list of the most im-
 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23 13

portant interpersonal choices of ÔovertonesÕ in the DDs, namely: modal auxiliary

verbs, modal adverbs, lexical verbs, conditional clauses, nouns, evaluative adjectives,
degree words, quantifiers and metalinguistic comments.

5.2. Modal auxiliary verbs

The most common auxiliaries in the DDs are will, would, can, and should. In the
contexts in which they occur these modals express the candidateÕs certainty that
something will or should be the case:
(2) E: . . . there is no specification, under which you will behave honestly, or dis-
honestly [SP, 2001]
(3) E: . . . you can do one of two things: one is you can use leaf morphology
of your plants to determine temperature. and the way you do that is, basically
by looking at the, characteristic of the leaves that you have in your flora [FP,
1998]
(4) E: . . . because lapse rates can change where you are in the world, a better
estimation of the elevation in this area would be, using a lapse rate from, uh
sites in, the neotropics [FP, 1998]
(5) E: My general point was that, to do science successfully, in a culture, requires a
particular way of thinking style, where, uh, possessing and expressing oneÕs con-
viction, through debate I should be personally, freely allowed.
Modal auxiliaries from (2) to (5) clearly express confident prediction. Neverthe-
less, there are numerous instances where modal verbs are used to express tenta-
tiveness and weak commitment as in the following examples:
(6) E: . . . at some point, we might be able to have a really robust picture of what
is going on in this area [FP, 1998].
(7) E: . . . it could just be, changes_differences in rainfall, seasonally in those ar-
eas and and things like that [FP, 1998].
Altogether, modal auxiliary verbs were employed by the candidates 67% of the
time (59 occurrences) to express strong commitment to the truth of the proposition,
and 33% of the time to express neutral or weak commitment (29 occurrences).

5.3. Modal adverbs

The modal adverbs employed by the candidates are exactly, indeed, actually,
obviously, basically, primarily, accurately, strictly, and necessarily. Again, these ex-
press a high value with regard to probability:
(8) E: . . . not every leaf obviously has every character um, but there are 31 dif-
ferent ones that people have looked at to compose different predictive equa-
tions for temperature [FP, 1998].
14 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23

(9) E: . . . in chapter I, I provided a literature review indicating that Koreans

and other A – East Asians as well are indeed, more interactionist so they have
more interactionist beliefs of self, and behavior [SP, 2001].
(10) E: . . . the whole area of northern South America, was basically lowland
tropical rainforest and thatÕs what is says even though itÕs hard to see [FP,
1998].
The function of obviously is to appeal to an assumed consensus, while the prime
functions of the disjunct indeed is to express ‘‘the comment that what is being said is
true’’ (Quirk et al., 1985, 583). By using basically in extract 10, the candidate con-
fidently indicates what is the most important geological aspect of the area she is
describing.
There are also many instances in the text where modal adverbs are used to
express low commitment, but this does not weaken the force of the argument,
instead they are strategically used to display the candidateÕs awareness of disci-
plinary conformity and acknowledge the flexibility required by most academic
fields:
(11) E: . . . Povey et al. have suggested that you only need 15, in order to have,
suitable error estimates, 15 species in your locality but um, today IÕd say the
consensus is probably 20 [FP, 1998].
Overall, modal adverbs were used 51% of the time to express low commitment
to the propositions or to negatively de-emphasize other peopleÕs propositions,
and were used 49% of the time to express high values (strong commitment) in
relation to the candidateÕs point of view. Some examples of modal adverbs used
to convey low commitment to propositions can be seen from examples (12) to
(14):
(12) E: . . . well I I th- no I think itÕs fairly clear Western thinking is better if you
gonna do science but that doesnÕt mean, that itÕs better, in general [SP, 2001].
(13) E: . . . because the plants that were in place, were adapted to warmer envi-
ronments and then slowly are changing through time, possibly the elevation
hasnÕt changed enough, uh during that period. . . [FP, 1998].
(14) E: . . . I- I think actually that they probably are um, mostly reflective
of, ta- actual temperature change and I_ and part of the reason is one,
theyÕre in similar environments that you would expect the types of species
to be in.

5.4. Lexical verbs

There are 95 instances of lexical verbs with a modal meaning in the candi-
datesÕ speech. Seventy-eight of these (82%) express tentativeness or weak com-
mitment. The hedge or Ôgrammatical metaphor of modalityÕ (Halliday, 1985,
1994) I think alone, accounted for 40 instances in the texts under scrutiny. The
 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23 15

other verbs are: I tried, it seems, tend to, I hope, I expect, the closest thing I have
thought, I inferred that, I figured that, I felt that, and I guess. On the other hand,
there were only 17 instances (18%) where the candidates used lexical verbs to
express strong commitment. This, in turn, indicates that lexical verbs are more
frequently used to convey tentativeness in relation to the propositions than
confident commitment. Three examples of lexical verbs used to convey strong
commitment follow:
(15) E: . . . and we know that, during the early Miocene this whole area was
tropical lowland tropical forest in a couple of ways [FP, 1998].
(16) E: . . . so what I did do was take all of my cha- leaf character data and the
climate data that I had, and I, decided that I was going to calculate, a multiple
linear regression equation because one character didnÕt work [FP, 1998].
(17) E: . . . the study shows that, Americans are more concerned with internal
consistency (sic) consistency than Koreans, and that predicts their um, subjec-
tive well-being [SP, 2001].

5.5. Conditional clauses

Modal certainty may also be expressed by conditional clauses:

(18) E: okay hereÕs my, answer um, if you have an interaction theory;
then; you don’t see a contradiction as a contradiction. So you would not be
surprised by a surprising and contradicting event [SP, 2001].
(19) E: . . . if you want to look at; the relationship between climate and
leaves_ and leaf morphology_ um, you wanna look at specific areas. And right
now, there are many different equations that have been, put forward in the
literature to determine temperature [FP, 1998].
Altogether, conditional clauses were employed 80% of the time (20 occur-
rences) to convey modal certainty, and 20% of the time (5 occurrences) for non-
committal propositions. Extract (19) illustrates how the claim ‘‘there are specific
areas you should look at to establish a relationship between climate and leaf
morphology’’ is made non-negotiable by presenting it almost as an imperative
(you wanna).

5.6. Nouns

Modality may also be expressed by nouns such as possibility, presumption,

chance, likelihood, assumption, idea, suggestion, supposition, etc. (Halliday, 1970,
198). In the DDs all of the nouns employed by the candidates (6 occurrences)
with modal meaning have median–low values. Consider the following
examples:
16 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23

(20) E: So just to sort of um, give you an idea of why that might be,
this is a really busy graph but I want you to concentrate on these blue Xs. . .
[FP, 1998].
(21) E: . . . but nobody actually look at the direct relationship, between being
surprised and, other consequent behaviors. So, uh, well youÕre right, I mean,
I just took that, assumption, in my dissertation [SP, 2001].

5.7. Evaluative adjectives

At the rank of the nominal group, epithets can be used to express positive or
negative evaluation. In the DDs in hand, adjectives with a positive meaning are again
to be situated at the high end of the scale of values: they express a high degree of
some quality. Examples are:
(22) E: well it turns out thereÕs a really really good correlation between eleva-
tion and mean annual temperature in the neotropics uh once you get out of the
neotropics [FP, 1998].
(23) E: um we see this quite a lot and yeah well thereÕs just this enormous
main effect in this society i mean more than any other industrial society
[SP, 2001].
Other examples include:
(24) greater hindsight bias; more desirable; clear answer; better correlated,
better job; significant error; great thing; real high; IÕm confident, more
accurate, extensive deposits, etc. [FP, 1998] and [SP, 2001].
These adjectives implicitly express grading. It appears that the candidates in their
search for high values also find it necessary to increase the force of a word such as
good, which, though positive, has a neutral tone. Strengthening is achieved by
comparative adjectives, and boosters (greater, better, more desirable, really, ex-
tremely).

5.8. Degree words

Quantities may be graded by means of words which express degrees on a

scale of high, median and low values. Examples are really, quite, very, com-
pletely, etc. The choices of degree words in the dissertation consistently con-
tribute to the overall meaning of strong commitment (although some weakening
words such as a bit, a little, are used). The word very occurs 27 times in
combination with gradable adjectives, to meet the candidateÕs purpose of
convincing:
(25) E: . . . so when the target person, who was a very religious person, did not
help the, victim, Koreans showed, greater hindsight bias [SP, 2001].
 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23 17

Other instances of degree words are:

(26) really nasty; quite consistent; quite impolite; really robust picture; pretty
good job; fairly good job; pretty quick; nowhere near etc. [FP, 1998] and
[SP, 2001].

5.9. Quantifiers

Quantifiers can be specific or general. When general they can be thought of as

occupying positions on a scale of values of ÔmoreÕ and ÔlessÕ (Quirk et al., 1985).
Powell (1985, 31) calls words such as most, many, and few ‘‘vague quantifying ex-
pressions’’ and believes that the function of the context is ‘‘to make the meaning
precise’’ in relation to these words. At the top of the scale are all (which occurs 42
times), many (24 occurrences), some (19 occurrences), no (14 occurrences), a couple of
(9 occurrences), and a lot of/lots of (7 occurrences):
(27) all plant fossils; all the data, all the multiple linear regression equations,
etc.; many people, many plant and animal fossils, many different equations,
etc.; some criteria, some of the different characters, some of the sites, etc.; no
success, no connection, etc.; a couple of the other basins, a couple of coal lay-
ers, a couple of ways, etc.; a lot of other reasons, lots of toothed leaves,
a lot of components, etc. [FP, 1998] and [SP, 2001].
Lower on the scale are most, none, any, whole, about, part of, several, each of, very
few, and only:
(28) several types of deposits, each of the floras, only twelve species, a
whole issue, most of those, about six degrees, part of the reason, very few data,
etc.
The candidatesÕ choices of quantifiers such as many or very few may depend on his or
her expectations or on the effect he or she wishes to have on the examining board: the
selections link up with approval/disapproval, desirability/undesirability. In the DDs,
several times many was used to quantify positive things from the candidatesÕ point of
view, and very few was used to quantify negative things. Both, however, express strong
commitment: they are emphasizers. Consider the examples:
(29) E: . . . there are several types of deposits that are located throughout the
basin there are many, um sequences that indicate um syneruptive, um, deposi-
tion, such as this, which is, basically, ashfall [FP, 1998].
(30) E: . . . but in northern South America thereÕs very few data that is collected
so, the first question I asked was, which published regression equation should I
use, in order to determine the paleol- paleotemperature of nabon Basin? [FP,
1998]
On the other hand, such words as some, a couple of express weak commitment: they
are downtoners. It appears that downgrading (some, a couple of) occurs in the DDs to
18 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23

quantify something undesirable whose existence cannot be entirely denied: such

words can be used in cases where the candidate wants to minimize negative things:
(31) E: . . . and, what we ended up with is an equation that, you can see, um for
at least the low temperature sites, does a fairly good job, of, estimating, temper-
ature of some of the sites and not others [FP, 1998].
(32) E: . . . and here again, there are a couple of equations that do a pretty good
job at least at the, low temperature low_at the high temperature sites, but not at
the low [FP, 1998].
It may be clear from extracts (27) and (28) that the selection of overtone or un-
dertone is functional: in (27) the candidate wants to emphasize an important aspect
of her proposition (sequences that indicate syneruptive depositions), in (28) the can-
didate wants to emphasize a negative aspect of previous research (very few data
collected). Contrarily, in (29) and (30) the candidate wants to de-emphasize, or play
down the importance of certain aspects of her research (estimate the temperature of
some sites but not others, a couple of equations that do a good job at high temperatures
but not at low temperatures).

5.10. Metalinguistic comments

Metalinguistic comments refer explicitly to the ongoing negotiation. Martin

(1992, 483) sees them as textual metaphors, because their function is to ‘‘orchestrate
dialogue rather than report on it’’. In the DDs we are discussing, however, candi-
dates make metalinguistic comments to give some emphasis to their statements: these
comments have a modal function in the sense that they amplify again the meaning of
the commitment. There are nine such expressions used by the candidates in the
dissertations. For example:
(33) what IÕll say with this is; this is not to say that; I will say that; I can tell you
that, etc. [FP, 1998] and [SP, 2001].
Finally, it is obvious that a discussion of interpersonal meanings in a spoken text
must take intonation into account. Unfortunately, at the time of writing this paper I
did not have access to the recordings of the two dissertations being analyzed, but I
do acknowledge that the present rendering is an incomplete picture of interpersonal
meanings and that it would gain tremendously if instances of strong and weak
commitment could be checked against patterns of intonation.

6. Discussion of the results

The analysis of interpersonal meanings in the DDs has shown that, next to the
strategy of tentativeness or low commitment, candidates also make use of strategies
to emphasize their own certainty. This latter strategy is at least as important as the
former one, in fact, it is closely linked to it. When candidates avoid giving direct
 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23 19

answers to difficult, and at times face-threatening questions, they nevertheless try to

have relatively long turns, in which they wish to reinforce their own points of view.
In the DDs discussed above we find many items expressing strong commitment
towards the candidatesÕ main propositions, together with an accumulation of items
expressing a negative attitude towards aspects that go against their propositions.
Secondly, the devices examined occur in combination with one another. Their
effect is therefore cumulative. In this way a Ômacro-modalityÕ is created which unfolds
in various ways in the individual clauses. The macro-modality in the DDs discussed
above is Ôstrong commitment to the validity of the propositionÕ, and this meaning is
amplified by being selected several times.
Thirdly, the meaning of modal certainty has been shown to be realized by se-
lections from systems within the interpersonal component of language. If we restrict
the study of modality to the occurrence of modal auxiliary verbs we obtain an in-
complete picture. For this reason, modality must be examined in combination with
other choices expressing the speakerÕs intrusion upon the proposition. What links
these systems is that they all express attitude, which is why they are gradable (low–
median–high commitment). In the DDs discussed above the selection with regard to
scales appear to be very consistent and functional.

7. Merging the two pictures: the decommitted vs. the committed candidate

After the analysis and discussion above one question emerges: when do candi-
dates hedge and when do they express their opinions confidently? It appears from the
corpus that broadly speaking the strategies link up with the candidatesÕ arguments as
reflected in evaluative propositions. This means that when direct or face-threatening
questions confront the candidates with arguments and evidence of various types they
will tend to be non-committal, playing down the importance of the argument. This
strategy is typically used turn-initially. After the hedging, candidates switch to
statements emphasizing their own points of view, and in these we find strong com-
mitment. In other words, the so-called hedging many times occurs when arguments
are not entirely to be ignored or rejected. The selection of low commitment is a
rescue device and is found in those portions of the discourse which deal with topics
which are not favored by the candidates. The selection of strong commitment items,
on the other hand, is found in those portions of the discourse which deal with topics
favored and actually brought up by the candidates. The relative frequency of cer-
tainty and uncertainty may vary from one DD to another, depending on a number of
factors, such as the degree of insistence by a member of the examining board, the
nature of the issue being discussed, and of course the speaking style of the candidate,
but the functional explanation of the two strategies holds in all cases. One extract
may help clarify this:
(34) EB: Jonathan Kingdom in his book Island Africa suggested that, in the
Miocene, there were times when [. . .] so IÕm a little unclear of how his story
works and how it fits, with the conclusions you have [E: um, (you mean that)]
20 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23

in other words, is it possible, that heÕs wrong about how you get these species
from one top to another?
E: well it it, it’s possible I I I donÕt, um, I wouldn’t say that it’s_he’s wrong
though necessarily. i think, at high elevations in the Andes, what youÕre seeing
is a period of, of uplift and so plants that were, that were present before the
period of uplift, um may have evolved in place and actually Kroonenberg and
his colleagues have, have suggested that, um, elevations in the Andes were too
high, by the time the land bridge, um, was established between North and
South America, to say that all of the high-elevation, species came in from other
areas that were at high elevations. And that and that, basically the um, the
plants that were in place had to have started to modify, based on their environ-
ment by then. And so I I think, there also during glacial periods, there there it
has been suggested that, temperatures were decreased at lower elevations, in the
mountains and so I- if that is the case, you know, [EB: you would be able to get
there] um, you would be able to go from, mountaintop to mountaintop during
those periods. but that was sort of they think restricted to periods during the
Quaternary when there was glacials and (saline sea) got less. but the elevations
were pretty high i mean in Colombia by the, late Miocene you see elevations
that are, high enough that anything coming in over the land bridge or coming
in from, southern South America where the elevations, became higher earlier
[FP, 1998].
The beginning of the turn is characterized by downgrading (in italics). The
candidateÕs answer starts with well, thus announcing that the answer may not be
a simple ÔyesÕ or ÔnoÕ: ÔJonathan KingdomÕs theoryÕ is not totally discarded (it’s
possible; I wouldn’t say that he’s wrong), but contested on several grounds. The
candidate then starts to voice her own view of the issue being discussed (I think)
but does not strongly commit herself to the proposition (plants may have evolved).
Next, the candidate talks about what is suggested in the literature, but still
downgrading remains the strategy (Kroonember . . . have suggested that; had to
have started; it has been suggested that; if this is the case; sort of they think). Once
the scene of uncertainty has been set, that is, the literature on this specific issue is
not clear according to her, we can notice a switch to strong commitment intro-
duced by the second but towards the end of the answer (underlined). Thus, once
again we can see confidence features appear: pretty high, high enough, anything,
you see.

8. Conclusion

An examination of interpersonal meanings in the discourse of candidates in

transcriptions of two DDs from The University of Michigan has shown that selec-
tions are functional and consistent with the aims of the speakers at any point during
the DD. It can be claimed that the Ômacro-modalityÕ in the speech of the two
 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23 21

candidates in the DDs analyzed was typically Ôconfident certaintyÕ, since the
speakersÕ purpose was to convey an image of reliability and knowledgeability. As a
result, this meaning was selected over and over again. On the other hand, the
committee members aimed at challenging the candidate by presenting their facts or
opinions which might be ÔnegativeÕ from the candidateÕs point of view. In those
portions of the discourse, where the candidate deals with these ÔargumentsÕ, the
modality appears to be Ôlow degree of commitmentÕ.
In sum, we can say that the following functions of modal expressions have ap-
peared from the material examined in the paper:
1. (a) A high degree of commitment to the truth value of a proposition reflects the
candidateÕs aim to convince others of the truth of a debatable point of view.
2. (b) Modal choices are linked to the candidateÕs engagement with the proposition
and also to their degree of knowledge. When the candidateÕs attitude towards the
state of affairs expressed in the proposition is positive, strong commitment will ac-
company the ideational choices; when the attitude is negative, weak commitment
will aim to play down the importance, relevance, etc. of the ÔunwelcomeÕ
argument.
3. (c) Modal choices are linked to the candidateÕs role in the discourse. When they
are confronted with face-threatening questions which they have to deal with,
hedging and uncertainty features reflect a position of ÔdefendantÕ.
The above functions of modality have emerged from an investigation of modality
in a broad sense of the term, in combination with other interpersonal selections, in
the context of the discourse as a whole and in relation to extralinguistic factors
creating the genre. Further studies of modality from a functional perspective are
called for, in particular to gain a better insight into the way in which speakers in
various types of contexts express their commitment or lack of it to the truth value of
their propositions, into their motivations for selecting particular ways of committing,
and into the relationship between modality and variables such as the purpose of the
discourse, the role of the speakers in the interaction, and the identity of the speakers.
In addition, research on modality should throw further light on the function of the
interpersonal aspects of language in the structuring of texts and the creation of
genres.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my appreciation to Professor John Swales (University of

Michigan), to my advisor Dr. Viviane Maria Heberle (Universidade Federal de
Santa Catarina) and to my doctoral colleagues Osvanilson Veloso and Hamilton
Wielewicki for their pertinent comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Thanks
also to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and to Inmaculada
Fortanet and Diana Kilpert for sharing with me some interesting facts about dis-
sertation defenses in their countries. Any misinterpretations that remain are entirely
my own.
22 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23

References

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Burling, R. (1997). The Norwegian disputas. Antropolognytt, 2, 8–21.
Butler, C. (1990). Qualifications in science: modal meanings in scientific texts. In W. Nash (Ed.), The
writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18,
41–56.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems. English for Specific
Purposes, 16, 271–287.
Crompton, P. (1998). Identifying hedges: definitions or divinations. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 303–
313.
Curnick, L. (2000). The use and distribution of hedges in scientific discourse: using modals and models.
The ESPecialist, 21, 01–28.
Dong, Y. R. (1996). Learning to use citations for knowledge transformation: non-native doctoral studentsÕ
dissertation writing in science. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 428–457.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1999). The dissertation: a case of neglect? In P. Thompson (Ed.), Issues in EAP writing
research and instructions (pp. 28–36). University of Reading, CALS.
Edminster, J., & Moxley, J. (2002). Graduate education and the evolving genre of electronic theses and
dissertations. Computers and Composition, 19, 84–104.
Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.
Grimshaw, A. D. (1989). Collegial discourse: Professional conversation among peers. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Grimshaw, A. D., & Burke, P. (1994). WhatÕs going on here: Complementary studies of professional talk.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Grimshaw, A. D., Feld, S., & Jenness, D. (1994). The multiple analysis project: background, history,
problems, data. In A. D. Grimshaw & P. Burke (Eds.), What going on here? Complementary studies of
professional talk (pp. 3–57). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Functional diversity in language, as seen from a consideration of modality and
mood in English. Foundations of Language, 6, 327–351.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning.
London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (second ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Hartley, J. (2000). Nineteen ways to have a viva. Psypag Quarterly Newsletter, 35, 22–28.
Hewings, M. (1993). The end! How to conclude a dissertation. In G. M. Blue (Ed.), Language, learning and
success: Studying through English (pp. 105–112). London: Modern English Publications.
Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9, 21–44.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles
and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113–121.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13,
239–256.
Hyland, K. (1996a). Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum. System, 24, 477–490.
Hyland, K. (1996b). Writing without conviction. Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics,
17, 433–453.
Hyland, K. (1996c). Talking to the academy: forms of hedging in science research articles. Written
Communication, 13(2), 251–281.
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging, and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18, 349–382.
Malinowski, B. (1935). Coral gardens and their magic: A study of the methods of tilling the soil and of
agricultural rites in the Trobriand Islands. The Language of Magic and Gardening (vol. 2). London:
Allen and Unwin.
Martin, J. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
 L. Recski / English for Specific Purposes 24 (2005) 5–23 23

Myers, G. (1985). Texts as knowledge claims: the social construction of two biology articles. Social Studies
of Science, 10, 1–35.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–35.
OÕDonnell, M. (2002). Systemic coder 4.62 – A text markup tool.
Paltridge, B. (1997). Thesis and dissertation writing: preparing ESL students for research. English for
Specific Purposes, 16, 61–70.
Paltridge, B. (2002). Thesis and dissertation writing: an examination of published advice and actual
practice. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 125–143.
Powell, M. (1985). Purposive vagueness: an evaluation dimension of vague quantifying expressions.
Journal of Linguistics, 21, 31–50.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English
language. London: Longman.
Richards, R. T. (1988). Thesis/dissertation writing for ESL students: an ESP course design. English for
Specific Purposes, 7, 171–180.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written
discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 149–170.
Salager-Meyer, F. (2000). Imprecision and vagueness (hedging) in todayÕs medical discourse: Courtesy,
coyness, or necessity? The ESPecialis, 14(1), 01–13.
Simpson, R., Briggs, S., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. (2002). The Michigan Corpus of academic spoken English.
Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 41, 37–43.
Skelton, J. (1997). The representation of truth in academic medical writing. Applied Linguistics, 18, 121–
140.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Swales, J. (in press). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Thompson, P. (1998). Examining PhD theses in a corpus (pp. 177–182). TALC, Oxford.