Closeness and distance through the agentive authorial voice
Construing credibility in promotional discourse
Abstract
Credibility is a function associated with promotional genres and persuasion, and a powerful marketing concept (Eisend, 2006; Ming, 2006) which provides trustworthiness about the quality of products or services offered by hotels (Suau-Jiménez, 2012a, 2019). It is partly attained through the hotel’s self-mentioning in websites. When this self-mentioning is agentive with action verbs, the main instantiation is the pronoun we, projecting closeness and assertiveness. However, this self-representation is also construed with depersonalized realizations like the hotel’s proper name, other nominalizations or even pronouns like it and they, which provide attenuating aspects and create a sense of distance. The current corpus-based study of 112 hotel websites hypothesizes that this attenuation may diminish closeness of the authorial voice (Brown & Levinson, 1987), thus displaying authority, following disciplinary and generic constraints. Results suggest that discursive closeness and distance, intertwined with personalized and depersonalized self-representations of the authorial voice, may aid to improve credibility.
Downloads
References
Albelda, M. (2013). La atenuación: tipos y estrategias. In J.R. Gómez (Ed.), El español de Valencia. Estudio sociolingüístico (pp. 315-343). Frankfurt Am Main: Verlag Peter Lang.
Albelda, M. (2016). Sobre la incidencia de la imagen en la atenuación pragmática. RILI (Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana), 27(1), 19-32.
Albelda, M. (2018). La variación genérico-discursiva de la atenuación como resultado de la variación de la imagen. Spanish in Context, 15(2), 348-370.
Albelda, M. & Mihatsch, W. (Eds.) (2017). Introducción. Atenuación e intensificación en diferentes géneros discursivos. Madrid-Frankfurt Am Main: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.
Atar, C. (2017). Recipient design in students’speaking and writing: some practical suggestions. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(8), 108-120.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press (Original work published 1979).
Briz, A. (2007). Para un análisis semántico, pragmático y sociopragmático de la cortesía atenuadora en España y América. Lingüística Española Actual XIX, 1-38.
Briz, A. (2011). El español coloquial en la conversación. Madrid: Ariel Lingüística.
Briz, A. (2012a). La (no) atenuación y la (des)cortesía, lo lingüístico y lo social: ¿son pareja?. In J. Escamilla & G. Henry (Eds.), Miradas multidisciplinares a los fenómenos de cortesía y descortesía en el mundo hispánico (pp.33-75). Barranquilla: Universidad del Atlántico.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: some universals of language usage. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press.
Cherry, Roger D. (1998). Ethos versus persona: self-representation in written discourse. Written Communication, 5(3), 251-276.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dressen-Hammouda, D. (2014). Measuring the voice of disciplinarity in scientific writing: A longitudinal exploration of experienced writers in geology. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 14–25.
Eisend, M. (2006). Source Credibility Dimensions in Marketing Communication – A Generalized Solution. Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing, 10, 2-21.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: the case of hedging. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch & S. Schneider (Eds.), New Approaches to Hedging (pp.15-34) Bingley: Emerald.
Haverkate, H. (1992). Deictic categories as mitigating devices. Pragmatics, 2(4), 505-522.
Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30-52.
Herrando-Rodrigo, I. (2014). A contribution to the study of writers’ self-representation: visible researchers, invisible writers, or how to make medical electronic popularizations trustworthy. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Zaragoza, Spain.
Herrando-Rodrigo, I. (2019). Raising awareness around writers' voice in academic discourse: An analysis of writers' (in)visibility. Brno Studies in English, 45(2), 53-76.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices. Interactions in research writing. English Text Contruction, 1(1), 5-22.
Hyland, K. (2015). Genre, discipline and identity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 32–43.
Ivorra-Pérez, F.M. (2014). Cultural Values and their Correlation with Interactional Metadiscourse Strategies in Spanish and Business Websites. Atlantis, 36(2), 73-95.
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing an identity: the discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kaplan, N. (2004). Nuevos desarrollos en el estudio de la evaluación en el lenguaje: la teoría de la valoración. Boletín de Lingüística (Universidad Central de Venezuela), 22, 52-78.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2005). Politeness in France: How to buy bread politely. In L. Hickey & M. Stewart (Eds.), Politeness in Europe (pp. 29-44). Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.
Mapelli, G. (2008). Las marcas del metadiscurso interpersonal de la sección ‘turismo’ de los sitios web de los ayuntamientos. In M.V. Calvi, G. Mapelli & J. Santos (Eds.), Lingue, culture, economía: comunicazione e pratiche discorsive (pp.173-190). Milano: Franco Angeli.
Martin, J.R. & P.R.R. White. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Matsuda, P. & C. Tardy. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 235–249.
Matsuda, P. & C. Tardy. (2008). Continuing the conversation on voice in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 100–105.
Ming, Ch. (2006). New Media and Sales Promotion Discourse: Implications on Social Strategy of Credibility Enhancement and Persuasion. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association. Dresden, Germany, June 19-23.
Nelson, N. & M. Castelló. (2012). Academic writing and authorial voice. In C. Donahue & M. Castelló (Eds.), University Writing: Selves and Texts in Academic Societies (pp. 33-51). London: Brill.
Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, & G. Jefferson. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 697-735.
Sbisà. M. (2001). Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1791-1814.
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden and D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and socials structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (pp. 44-70). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Schneider, S. (2013). Atenuación léxica y sintáctica. Oralia, 16, 335-356.
Schneider, S. (2017). Las dimensiones de la intensificación y de la atenuación. In M. Albelda & W. Mihatsch (Eds.), Atenuación e intensificación en diferentes géneros discursivos (pp. 23-42). Madrid, Iberoamericana/Vervuert.
Stock, I. & N. Eik-Nes. (2016). Voice features in academic texts – A review of empirical studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 89–99.
Suau-Jiménez, F. (2012a). Páginas web institucionales de promoción turística: el uso metadiscursivo interpersonal en inglés y español. In J. Sanmartín Sáez (Ed.), Discurso Turístico e Internet (pp. 125-154). Madrid: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.
Suau-Jiménez, F. (2016). What can the discursive construction of stance and engagement voices in traveler forums and tourism promotional websites bring to a cultural, cross-generic and disciplinary view of interpersonality? Ibérica, 31, 199-220.
Suau-Jiménez, F. (2019). How hotel websites may discursively adjust to customer preferences using online criticism. Ibérica, 38, 203-226.
Suau-Jiménez, F.; Lorés-Sanz, R.; Mapelli, G. & Herrando-Rodrigo, I. (2021 -forthcoming). La interpersonalidad discursiva como alternativa al metadiscurso interpersonal. Onomázein, 54.
White, P. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of the intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 2594-2598.
Zhang, W., & Cheung, Y. L. (2018). The construction of authorial voice in writing research articles: A corpus-based study from an APPRAISAL theory perspective. International Journal of English Studies, 18(2), 53-75.
The works published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publications Services at the University of Murcia (the publisher) retains the property rights (copyright) of published works, and encourages and enables the reuse of the same under the license specified in item 2.
2. The works are published in the electronic edition of the magazine under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike 4.0.
3.Conditions of self-archiving. Authors are encouraged to disseminate pre-print (draft papers prior to being assessed) and/or post-print versions (those reviewed and accepted for publication) of their papers before publication, because it encourages distribution earlier and thus leads to a possible increase in citations and circulation among the academic community.
RoMEO color: green
