Okay, what we’re just going to do now is…: Discourse functions of wh-clefts in YouTube How-to Videos
Main Article Content
Abstract
Procedural knowledge is often transferred by spoken ‘how-to’ instructions delivered with simultaneous hands-on demonstration. As reflected by the popularity of YouTube instructional videos, such spoken texts have become a common way to learn how to learn a wide range of things. Surprisingly, there is a lack of research concerned with salient linguistic features and communicative functions associated with this type of discourse, referred to in the paper as procedural monologues. This study moves towards filling this gap by investigating discourse functions in procedural monologues associated with wh-clefts (e.g., What you want to do is use a screwdriver). This construction, considered as a highlighting device to mark relevant important points in spoken discourse, is frequently found in instructional videos. Extracted from a specialized corpus of 100 how-to-videos posted on YouTube, 130 wh-clefts were categorized by function to better understand how speakers shift between guiding listeners through the essential sequence of procedural steps and providing additional content to produce a coherent and cohesive text. With the underlying goal of supporting pedagogical approaches to prepare learners of English as a second or foreign language to produce communicatively dynamic procedural monologues, the study describes seven possible functions highlighted by wh-cleft utterances.
Article Details
References
Bevan, A. (2017). How to make victory rolls: gender, memory, and the counterarchive in YouTube pinup hair tutorials. Feminist Media Studies, 17(5), 755-773. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2017.1298645
Bhatia, A. (2018). Interdiscursive performance in digital professions: The case of YouTube tutorials. Journal of Pragmatics, 124, 106-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.11.001
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Vol. 2). Longman.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371-405. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic: A new typology of language (pp. 27-55). Academic Press.
Deroey, K. L.B. (2012). What they highlight is…: The discourse functions of basic wh-clefts in lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 112-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.002
Deroey, K. L. B. (2015). Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 51-72. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt029
Fontan, L., & Saint-Dizier, P. (2008). Analysing the explanation structure of procedural texts: Dealing with advice and warnings. In J. Bos (Ed.), Proceedings of Semantics in Text Processing (STEP): Research in Computational Semantics (pp. 115–127).
Halliday, M. A. K., (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of linguistics, 3(2), 199-244.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2006). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Jucker, A. H. (1997). The relevance of cleft constructions. Multilingua, 16(2-3), 187-198. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1997.16.2-3.187
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis. Routledge.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation: an introduction. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 1–27). Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143. https://doi.org/10.35360/NJES.220
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topics, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press.
Lee, S. A. (2016). Verb agreement in English wh-clefts: A corpus-based study. English Studies, 97(7), 779-806. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2016.1198141
Lynch, T. (1994). Training lectures for international studies. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 269-289). Cambridge University Press.
Pew Research Center. (2018). Many turn to YouTube for children’s content, news, how-to lessons. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/11/07/many-turn-to-youtube-for-childrens-content-news-how-to-lessons/
Prince, E. F. (1978). A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language, 54(4) 883-906. https://doi.org/10.2307/413238
Riboni, G. (2017). The Youtube makeup tutorial video: A preliminary linguistic analysis of the language of “makeup gurus”. Lingue e Linguaggi, 21, 189-205. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:55438998
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00080.x
Simpson, R. (2004). Stylistic features of academic speech: The role of formulaic expressions. In U. Conner & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics, (pp. 37-64). John Benjamins.
Swales, J. M. (2016). Configuring image and context: Writing ‘about’ pictures. English for Specific Purposes, 41, 22-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.08.003
Thompson, S. E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(1), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00036-X
Tolson, A. (2010). A new authenticity? Communicative practices on YouTube. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(4), 277-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2010.511834
Weinert, R., & Miller, J. (1996). Cleft constructions in spoken language. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(2), 173-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00079-4