Copyright©2019 P-ISSN: 1978-8118 E-ISSN: 2460-710X 297 Lingua Cultura, 13(4), November 2019, 297-304 DOI: 10.21512/lc.v13i4.5882 INTERPERSONAL METADISCOURSE MARKERS AS PERSUASIVE STRATEGIES IN ORAL BUSINESS PRESENTATION Heri Kuswoyo1; Rani Andini Siregar2 1,2Sastra Inggris, Sastra dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia Jl. Zainal Abidin, Pagaralam No.9 -11, Bandar Lampung, Lampung 35141, Indonesia 1hery@teknokrat.ac.id; 2raniandinisiregar@gmail.com Received: 17th October 2019/Revised: 28th October 2019/Accepted: 11th November 2019 How to Cite: Kuswoyo, H., & Siregar, R. A. (2019). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers as persuasive strategies in oral business presentation. Lingua Cultura, 13(4), 297-304. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v13i4.5882 ABSTRACT This research was conducted to examine the use of interpersonal metadiscourse markers (IMDMs) in Steve Jobs’ oral business presentation using Hyland’s model. It further aimed to investigate the interpersonal metadiscourse categories and subcategories applied and most predominantly occurring in the type of oral business presentation. A descriptive qualitative method was employed in this research. One and a half-hour of Steve Jobs’ keynotes at annual Macworld tradeshow on January 9th, 2007 were collected and analyzed. The results reveal that interactional subcategory; engagement markers are mostly used by Steve Jobs. Meanwhile, in interactive subcategory transition markers are dominantly used. It indicates that by using interpersonal metadiscourse markers, Steve Jobs expresses his idea, supports his argument, and convinces the audiences by establishing a relationship with them. This research also argues that metadiscourse theory facilitates an involvement between the speaker and the listener and provides a way for mutual comprehension. Thus, the findings have a pivotal implication on how IMDMs might improve the field related to communication skills in professional life or business. Keywords: interpersonal metadiscourse markers (IMDMs), interactive metadiscourse, interactional metadiscourse, oral business presentation INTRODUCTION In a business context, presentation skill is a crucial thing to be developed (Coughter, 2012; Patil, 2005; Nikitina, 2011; Jolles, 2017). However, most people nowadays start to neglect and overlook the importance of this kind of skill. In some cases, more people are good at managing the business, have years of experience, and have impressive business ideas, but they fail to communicate with the target audience (Wagner, 2013). Thus, it could block their effectiveness. Presentation skill is not merely presenting idea with loud voice, proper body language, good eye contact to build interaction with audience, but also speaking performance that distributes across multiple modalities speech content, intonation, and well- structure language in order to make audience understand easily the presentation (Grez, Valcke, & Roozen, 2009). Metadiscourse markers (MDMs) is one of the manifest tools that can be applied in these skills. Metadiscourse markers offer a way of understanding language in use, representing a writer’s or speaker’s attempts to guide a receiver’s perception of a text (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Alyousef, 2015; Bal-Gezegin, 2016; Bu, 2014; Zhang, 2016). They are grounded in Halliday’s (1973) theory of macro-meta functions of language. Aluthman (2018) has argued that writers and speakers refer to a variety of language resources used to organize the content of discourse in a coherence way that is acceptable by the readership. Metadiscourse markers have further defined as the ways in which writers and speakers interact through their use of language with readers and listeners (Hyland, 2005; Jiang & Hyland, 2016; Hyland, 2017). Metadiscourse markers are considered as forms that make textual and interpersonal relations. According to Halliday in Tajeddin and Alemi (2012) that the interpersonal function concerns the relationship between addresser and addressee, that is, the role of the speaker and the role assigned to the hearer. Interpersonal metadiscourse markers are classified by Hyland (2005) into two types; interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers. The interactive metadiscourse markers concern the writer’s or speaker’s awareness of a participating audience and the ways he or she seeks to accommodate its probable knowledge, interests, rhetorical expectations, and processing abilities. Further, Qin & Uccelli (2019) have added that those markers guide the readers or listeners through the discourse structure of the texts by explicitly signaling relationships between ideas, 298 LINGUA CULTURA, Vol. 13 No. 4, November 2019, 297-304 clauses, and paragraphs. On the other hand, interactional metadiscourse concerns the ways writer’s or speaker’s conduct interaction by intruding and commenting on their message. The goal is to make his or her views explicit and to involve readers by allowing them to respond to the unfolding text. Studying metadiscourse markers (MDMs) is extended by several researchers. The studies focus on persuasive writings or speech produced in a number of different contexts such as academic research articles (Ozdemir & Longo, 2014; Massaabi, 2014; Kawase, 2015; Haruna et al., 2018; Davoodi, 2016; Duruk, 2017; Ahour & Maleki, 2014; Zareifard & Alinezhad, 2014; Jiang & Hyland, 2016; Mina & Biria, 2017), speeches (Wong & Yap, 2015; Malmström, 2016; Esmer, 2017; Gholami & Ilghami, 2016; Gordon & Luke, 2016; Mahmoodian & Simin, 2017; Sukma, 2017), media discourse (Sukma & Sujatna, 2014; Dafouz-Milne, 2008), business discourse (Ho, 2018; Fu, 2012), and translation (Gholami, Tajalli, & Shokrpour, 2014). Studies in academic research articles, Ozdemir and Longo (2014), have employed a corpus study that investigates cultural variation in the use of metadiscourse between Turkish and USA postgraduate student’s abstract in MA thesis written in English. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data shows that there are some cultural differences in the amounts and types of metadiscourse. In line with Kosasih (2018), the findings also indicate that abstract plays an important role in research articles. In the Tunisian EFL Geography context, Massaabi (2014) has found that FL university teachers of Geography are aware of metadiscourse when reading field- related research articles. The findings also reveal important implications on how metadiscourse might improve field related RA comprehension in English. In another research, Kawase (2015) has examined how research writers construct metadiscourse in the introductions of their Ph.D. thesis and subsequently published research articles. The findings of the analysis show that most writers make greater use of metadiscourse in their article introductions. In contrast, Haruna et al. (2018), in their research, the findings show that many of the students are not exposed to the elements of metadiscourse markers; thus, they write academic essays the way they speak. Duruk (2017) has an in-depth analysis that explores the use of interpersonal metadiscourse markers used by Turkish writers in the written register and the way Turkish writers use metadiscourse, namely in MA dissertations from one major academic field; English Language Teaching (ELT). The results confirm that, to some degree, ‘hedges’, ‘emphatics’, and ‘attitude markers’ are all used by Turkish writers, however, ‘attitude markers’ are found to be referred most frequently. On the other hand, with respect to the use of personal markers, differences are found among the writers. Meanwhile, the analysis of the dissertation sections shows common results. Ahour and Maleki (2014) have attempted to unveil the effect of metadiscourse instruction on the improvement of the speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners. The findings indicate that the speaking ability of Iranian EFL students significantly improves after they are given metadiscourse instruction by the teacher. Further research, Zareifard and Alinezhad (2014) have observed metadiscourse markers that are realized by male and female speakers in defense seminar. The findings report that the differences between male and female in using metadiscourse markers are explored. The results further show that female candidates use more self-mention than male candidates do. Meanwhile, the subcategory is used by female candidates because it is more important to show the professional identity of being a researcher. In contrast, female candidates have used hedges more than male candidates. By using hedges (content motivated and speaker-motivated), they try to avoid bare assertion in academic discourse. Based on the result, it does not affect the quality of the use of interactional metadiscourse markers. Nevertheless, few studies have investigated MDMs in speeches. Yipei (2013) has investigated the interactional and interactive metadiscourse resources of Hyland’s theory in Steve Jobs’ Stanford speech. The results reveal that the interpersonal and textual meaning of the speech is clearly elaborated. The findings also indicate that Steve Jobs successfully puts his ideas to the audiences and supports his position by elaborating various metadiscourse resources. Moreover, he could build a good relationship with the audience and achieve his mutual communication. Having a descriptive survey design, Esmer (2017) has analyzed the use of IMDMs in Turkish election’s rally speeches that are delivered by two political leaders who pursue a different ideology of nationalism, and also the role of the metadiscourse markers in the reflection of the scope and nature of political parties’ nationalist ideologies. The results indicate that although both party leaders use similar interpersonal metadiscourse markers in their election rally speeches, the metadiscourse markers have different functions due to their ideological viewpoints. Sukma (2017) has studied features of interpersonal metadiscourse in Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign speeches. The findings of this research reveal that all interpersonal metadiscourse markers are used by Barack Obama in his campaign speeches to build an emotional bond with his audiences as his persuasive strategy. MDMs are also studied by researchers in media discourse. Research by Sukma and Sujatna (2014) have examined IMDMs categories and subcategories applied and most predominantly occurring in the type of newspaper article. Using 11 selected articles of an Indonesian newspaper as the data, the results reveal that interpersonal metadiscourse categories (hedges, certainty markers, attributors, attitude markers, and commentaries), and subcategories (epistemic verbs, probability adverbs, deontic verbs, attitudinal adverbs, attitudinal adjectives, cognitive verbs, rhetorical questions, inclusive expressions, personalizations, and asides) are used in Indonesian opinion articles. The results have also found that attitude markers and two subcategories, which are deontic and epistemic verbs, are most frequently present in the texts. By developing Crismore, Markkanen, and Steffensen’s (1993) categorization, Dafouz-Milne (2008) has proposed a classification system of interpersonal metadiscourse for persuasive writings, especially journalistic texts. The findings suggest that both textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers present in English and Spanish newspaper columns, but that there are variations as to the distribution and composition of such markers, specifically in the case of certain textual categories (i.e., logical markers and code glosses). Some studies have also discussed MDMs in the business discourse; for example, Ho (2018), and Fu (2012). Ho (2018) has investigated the way professionals use metadiscourse in an attempt to achieve persuasion through workplace emails. The results show that email offers professionals a convenient channel to persuade colleagues 299Interpersonal Metadiscourse.... (Heri Kuswoyo; Rani Andini Siregar) to comply with the request by appealing to rationally, credibility, and emotions. The results also suggest that persuasive attempts made via email differ from those made via other channels in terms of the pattern of use of metadiscourse. There may be a preferred pattern of use of persuasive strategies in different moves of the workplace request email genre. Similar to Ho (2018), Fu (2012) has investigated the ways in which the writer interacts with the reader via interactional metadiscourse in job postings. The results yield some points; the occurrences of stance markers and engagement markers are close in frequency. Within the genre, two sub-corpora of job postings (one is oriented to college students, and the other is not) have demonstrated remarkable differences in terms of interactional metadiscourse use. Moreover, a distinction is made between macro-interactional metadiscourse and micro-interactional metadiscourse, which is useful in evaluating the interactional of the text. Another research by Gholami, Tajalli, and Shokrpour (2014) has conducted to compare and contrast the metadiscourse markers in English medical texts and their Persian. The results suggest that there is a significant difference in the amount and types of metadiscourse markers in English medical texts and their Persian translation. What distinguishes this research from previous studies conducted on metadiscourse is the subject. Whereas in research by Sukma (2017), and Esmer (2017), Steve Jobs’ speech and political speeches are examined. Meanwhile, this research tries to investigate Steve Jobs’ business oral presentation. Steve Jobs’ keynote at the Macworld Expo in 2007 was his best presentation ever. Everything that he has learned about connecting with audiences come together to create truly magnificent moments (Gallo, 2017). Besides, Niebuhr, Thumm, and Michalsky (2018) have added that Steve Jobs is well known as a charismatic speaker. Thus, the writers select him as the research object. Meanwhile, other previous studies have discussed in this research are in different genres. As explained, various contexts, such as academic research articles, speeches, business discourse, are investigated. The contrasts in the findings related to metadiscourse practices in previous studies and the limited studies on business oral presentation motivate the writers in the present research to; (1) investigate the types of interpersonal metadiscourse markers used in Steve Job business presentation, employing the Hyland’s (2005) theory; (2) examine the functions of interpersonal metadiscourse markers used in Steve Job business presentation, employing the Hyland’s (2005) theory; (3) identify the most predominantly occurring in the type of Steve Jobs’ oral business presentation. METHODS This research adopts the interpersonal metadiscourse by Hyland (2005) as the framework of theory to answer the research questions. In conducting the research, the present research uses a descriptive qualitative method to analyze the types and functions of interpersonal metadiscourse in Steve Jobs’ oral business presentation and supported the analysis by the technique of quantifying the findings. The descriptive qualitative produces some descriptive words, either written or spoken, about behavior and observable (Saddhono & Kasim, 2016). The method used is also to identify the most predominantly occurring in the type of Steve Jobs’ oral business presentation. This kind of approach expects to devote much interpretation to the context and situation, which is intended to investigate the types and functions of interpersonal metadiscourse in Steve Jobs’ oral business presentation (Stake, 2010). The data source of this research is a manuscript of Steve Jobs’ business presentation and contains 29 pages taken from the official website All about Steve Job. It is accessed from https://allaboutstevejobs.com/. One and a half hour keynotes have been delivered by Steve Jobs in front of audiences such as investors, developers, and customers, who have successfully left his audience awed, inspire, and widely exciting. The data of this research forms in words, phrases, clauses, and sentences that can be categorized as interpersonal metadiscourse markers. To collect the data, this research conducts some steps, such as; (1) watching and identifying the video in order to understand the idea and context of the presentation. (2) Identifying the potential data in the form of markers that are classified into types of metadiscourse. (3) Identifying each data in the transcript in order to find markers that can be categorized as interactive and interactional metadiscourse in Steve Jobs’s keynotes using Hyland’s (2005) theory. (4) Classifying the data based on each type of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the form of a table. It is presented in Table 1. Table 1 Classifying Data Sample Type of Metadiscourse Time Utterances Interactive Resource 0:05:18 “The iPod, in addition to being the world’s best MP3 player, has become the world’s most popular video player, and by a large margin.” After the data are collected, this research does some steps for analyzing the data. They are, first is differentiating each type or each marker. Second is interpreting based on the interactive and interactional function of each marker and explaining descriptively in the form of sentences. The third is specifying the collected data by dividing it into the subcategory of interpersonal metadiscourse markers (IMDMs). It is noted that the same markers with the same function are not considered as the data. Therefore, in this step, several unqualified data are deleted. Moreover, the last is evaluating and drawing the conclusion. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The findings address the types and functions of interpersonal metadiscourse markers (IMDMs) used in Steve Jobs’ oral presentation based on the metadiscourse theory proposed by Hyland (2005). This research only focuses on interactive and interactional markers. The excerpts put in this section are only as of the sample of analysis. The findings are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3. The interactive resource reflects the textual function of metadiscourse. It is assumed that whether the presentation can raise interest or not, depends on the construction of the text that can guide the listener. The findings prove that Steve Jobs uses interactive resources to make the listeners interested and to make the text more coherent. 300 LINGUA CULTURA, Vol. 13 No. 4, November 2019, 297-304 Table 2 Interactive Metadiscourse Markers in Steve Job Business Presentation Category Number of Terms Percentage of total inter- active meta- discourse Percent- age of total interpersonal metadis- course Transition Markers 11 45,8 14,1 Frame Markers 7 29,1 8,9 Endhoporic Markers 1 4,1 1,2 Evidential 3 12,5 3,8 Code Glosses 1 4,1 1,2 Total 24 100 29,2 Transition marker, such as ‘in addition’, is categorized as a subcategory of interactive markers because its function is to indicate the relation of one sentence to another. Transition markers have sufficient rule to create a clear transition into another idea because it links each sentence that make them as well organized structure language. The example of it can be seen in Excerpt 1. Excerpt 1 “The iPod, in addition to being the world’s best MP3 player, has become the world’s most popular video player, and by a large margin. The iPod Nano is the world’s most popular MP3 player, by a wide margin.” [0:05:18] Steve Jobs uses the marker ‘in addition’ as a bridge of the previous sentence in introducing the new product of iPod. The marker also functions as the additional information on what tools does the iPod has in its new product. Besides, he uses that marker as the additional information in which an MP3 player in the iPod is the best and popular video player with a very different margin that is wider than another product. The transition marker of ‘so’ is used by Steve Jobs to draw a conclusion. The data shows that the iPhone has an important tool that makes it different from other products. Based on the context, the product is completed by an iPod, phone, and internet devices. Both previous studies do not find nor in Michele Obama Speech or Steve Job speech. Further, the finding shows that transition markers not only link ideas but also to conclude the argument that is encountered. It can be seen in Excerpt 2. Excerpt 2 “So, three things: a widescreen iPod with touch controls; a revolutionary mobile phone; and a breakthrough Internet communications device. An iPod, a phone, and an Internet communicator.” [0:29:01] Excerpt 2 shows that the transition marker ‘so’ draws the conclusion regarding the three important features in the iPhone. It also works as the reinforcement that iPod, a phone, and an Internet communicator become reasons that make the audience interesting to use an iPhone. This marker also helps the speaker to emphasize that iPhone is the pioneering product that creates touchscreen phones with the internet communication device. Therefore, the transition marker in Excerpt 2 is to conclude the argument that has been encountered by the speaker about the new devices on the iPhone. Based on Excerpt 3, transition marker ‘so’ also functions as a comparison. It can be seen in the excerpt 3, “So that’s dramatically better than any of these smartphones.” The Excerpt 3 explains that the comparison between the iPhone and other products are discussed. Excerpt 3 “A lot of these smartphones have pretty low battery lives. We’ve managed to get five hours battery, and that’s for talk time, video or browsing, five hours of battery life and 16 hours of audio playback. So that’s dramatically better than any of these smartphones. There is a tremendous amount of high technology in the iPhone.” Frame marker is used as the sequence of the talk. In Excerpt 4, ‘the first’ marker functions as a sequence part of the text that indicates text boundaries. By using frame markers, Steve Job could directly tell what topics are going to be explained by him. Excerpt 4 “So, the first thing I’d like to do is give you an update about our music business. As you know, we’ve got the.. the iPod, the best music player in the world.” “We’ve got the iPod Nanos, brand new models, colors are back. We’ve got the amazing new iPod Shuffle. The iPod, in addition to being the world’s best MP3 player, has become the world’s most popular video players, and by large margin.” [0:05:01] At the beginning of the presentation, Steve Job uses frame markers ‘the first’ to sequence each part of the discussion. He clearly expresses the topic that will be explained by him. He is capable of making an outline of his talk and direct audiences to an understanding by using frame markers in his presentation. In the first discussion, he uses frame marker to inform the audience that iPod becomes the best music player in the world, and he has added that not only the best MP3 player but also the most popular iPod in the world. The use of ‘the first’ makes a good impression in the beginning. On making clear presentations to audiences, Steve Job uses frame markers to sequence each part of his presentation. The markers ‘so’ in this sentence aims to conclude the entire discussion. Meanwhile, the marker ‘so’ in transition marker functions to draw a conclusion in one topic. Therefore, in this research is found different functions and types from the same markers. It can be seen in Excerpt 5. Excerpt 5 “So, today, we’ve added to the Mac and the iPod. We’ve added Apple TV and now iPhone. And you know the Mac is the only one that you think as a computer.” [1:43:10] Based on Excerpt 5, Steve Job uses frame marker ‘so’ to remind the audiences to relate the previous achievements that Apple had. Steve Jobs intentionally concludes this part 301Interpersonal Metadiscourse.... (Heri Kuswoyo; Rani Andini Siregar) by showing products that have been launched by Apple. Frame markers could help him to emphasize his argument that Apple has created the best product in which Mac becomes the best computer in the whole industry. Steve Job uses endophoric markers ‘as I said’ to refer the information to other parts of the text that make the audience easily connect to other materials that have been discussed in the previous discussion. In Excerpt 6, the endhoporic marker is used to retell the audiences about the previous discussion; about iPod, which is the best music player. On the other hand, ‘as I said’ refers to the other data in the text. So, this marker not only helps Steve Jobs to remind the audiences about the previous topic but also to help him developing and adding more explanation about music player on iPod. Excerpt 6 “Now, as I said, we had a very strong lineup of music players for this holiday season. We always have stiff competition. That’s just part of this business.” [00:09:21] Next, Steve Jobs uses evidential markers, ‘this is our data’ to show proof about their achievement from iTunes. These markers function as additional data and information that is taken from other sources. Based on Excerpt 7, Steve Jobs uses this marker to show his or their success in selling over 600 million song bases in 10 months. The evidential marker here also uses to rebut untrusted article that has said iTunes sales had slowed dramatically. Therefore, the evidential marker function is to support and to proof his statement by giving additional data from other text. Excerpt 7 “I don’t know what data they’re looking at, but uh this is our data, and what we see is iTunes sales were really up this past year. Uh, It took us over three years to get to a billion songs.” [0:06:12] In excerpt 8, Steve Jobs uses code glosses ‘as an example’ as additional information about what is being explained. The marker ‘as an example’ gives the clarity that leads the audiences to an understanding. From Excerpt 8, Steve Jobs tries to give an example of how to make double phone calls and to open an email at the same time. He uses the marker ‘as an example’ to assist the audience to catch the point. He intentionally gives a demo ‘as an example’ to clarify his previous explanation. This interactive way is done by the speaker to make a clearer point that can be understood well by audiences and to create interesting presentations. Excerpt 8 “As an example here, I’ve got Eddie Q and I’ve been carrying on a conversation with Eddie, and I just tap this, and here’s the conversation I’ve been carrying on right here, right. And if there’s a new message it will tell me.” [0:57:22] Interactional metadiscourse involves the audience to the speaker’s discourse. It deals with interpersonal activity. Whether the presentation’s success or not, it depends on how the speaker builds interaction between him and his audiences. The findings show that in delivering the presentation, Steve Jobs successfully raises the audience’s attention and builds interpersonal relations. It can be seen clearly in Table 3. Table 3 Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Steve Job Business Presentation Category Number of Terms Percentage of total interac- tive meta- discourse resources Percentage of total in- terpersonal metadis- course Hedges 2 3,7 2,5 Booster 7 12,9 8,9 Attitude Markers 6 11,1 7,6 Self-Mention 23 42,5 29,4 Engagement Markers 16 29,6 20.5 Total 54 100 68,9 In this part, Steve Jobs uses hedges to give the only assumption that shows his lack of confidence. Meanwhile, the markers indicate his viewpoints rather than fact in his presentation. From the usage of interactional markers in Excerpt 9, ‘I think’ aims to show the speaker’s opinion. This marker functions as an escape way for him to avoid confessing the ongoing information. In the first four months, Apple has success selling over 1,3 million movies. It is a great achievement, but certainly, their expectation will be more selling than it was. Even though the markers ‘I think’ can show the speaker’s uncertainty, it could help to support the speaker’s arguments. Excerpt 9 “And I am really pleased to announce that in the first four months of selling movies, we have sold 1.3 million movies on iTunes, which I think has exceeded all of our expectations.” [0:08:11] In this part, the booster ‘It’s pretty cool’ emphasizes the speaker’s certainty of what they have said. It strengthens the speaker’s argument by directing the audience into the same conclusion as the speaker has. This marker plays an essential role in supporting the speaker’s argument in convincing the audience. It can be seen in Excerpt 10. Excerpt 10 “It’s pretty cool. Show it to you in a minute. So three advance sensors built-in. This is the size of it. It fits beautifully in the palm of your hand.” [0:40:22] In this part of the presentation, Steve Jobs uses the phrase ‘It’s pretty cool’ to affirm his argumentation and to convince the listener that this device is truly awesome when the screen switch from the portrait to landscape. Then, the markers ‘it fits beautifully in the palm of your hand’ functions as pragmatic utterances that could create an idea to the audience about how suitable the size of the iPhone for people to carry on. By using interpersonal markers, Steve jobs can express his certainty of goodness from his new product. In this part, the attitude marker ‘Thank you very much’ is used as showing gratitude feeling of Steve Job who 302 LINGUA CULTURA, Vol. 13 No. 4, November 2019, 297-304 has been helped by his fellows in creating such an incredible device. The marker indicates speaker’s attitude and value of honoring people who have given contribution to iPhone. It can be seen in Excerpt 11. Excerpt 11 “But we didn’t do this alone. We did this with the help of a lotta folks. Our new colleagues at Intel really helped us. Thank you very much.” [0:01:57] The phrase ‘Thank you very much’ shows that his value as a modest speaker. He does not forget to involve and to thankful to every people who have to help him for the achievement of his company has got. From the previous statement, he has said that he plans to make an iPhone in 12 months, but with help from his colleges at Intel, they make it only in 7 months. So, with these markers, Steve Job could show his respect to people who have contributed to creating the iPhone by thanking them and involve them in the presentation. In welcoming the audiences, Steve Job uses interpersonal metadiscourse markers, which is a subcategory of interactional markers self-mention ‘We’ to show that he and his audiences are in the same position. For the very first time, Steve Jobs opens his presentation by thanking the audiences for their coming to his keynote. Then, Steve Jobs uses marker ‘We’ to mention that he and his audiences together make a new history. By stating ‘We’ in his presentation, he could easily gain the audience’s attention as if the audiences also have a contribution to making pioneering products and create a history with Steve Jobs. It can be seen in Excerpt 12. Excerpt 12 “Thank You for coming. We’re gonna make some history today. So, welcome to Macworld.” [0:00:50] Self- mention ‘I’ is used by Steve Jobs to add new information and to prove the originality of it. Self- mention also provides an overt structure for their discourse. This marker helps to promote both speaker stance and his stance. By using self- mention ‘I’ in this part, Steve Jobs wants to reflect his waiting about two a half years for launching the pioneering product. A revolutionary product, the iPhone, has changed everything, changes not only Apple but also changes the whole computer industry. So, self- mention ‘I’ refer to Steve Jobs, who has waited to launch the revolutionary product. It can be seen in Excerpt 13. Excerpt 13 “This is a day I’ve been looking forward to for two- and-a-half years.” [0:26:28] The using of self-mention ‘We’ in this part is to explicitly refer to the author and his team. He uses different self-mention with the previous excerpt because, in this part, ‘We’ refers to Steve Jobs and his team in Intel. Meanwhile, ‘We’ in the previous excerpt refers to Steve Jobs and his audiences. The marker ‘We’ in Excerpt 14 shows that Steve Jobs and his team have succeeded in creating the best product unceasingly. From 1984, 2001, until 2007, Steve Jobs and his team have successfully change the whole computer industry and as the best revolutionary product in the world. Steve Job mentions ‘We’ to show the presence of people behind the scene on creating an iPhone. Excerpt 14 “In 1984, we introduced the Macintosh. It didn’t just change Apple, it changed the whole computer industry. In 2001, we introduced the first iPod, and it didn’t just change the way we all listen to music, it changed the entire music industry. Well, today, we’re introducing three revolutionary products of this class.” [0:27:12] In this part, Steve Jobs has engaged the audience’s attention by inviting them to see the next thing he is going to present. Engagement marker ‘let’s take a look’ aims to engage the audience by using direct engagement. Excerpt 15 “Let’s take a look at the side. It’s really thin. It’s thinner than any smartphone out there, at 11,6 millimeters. Thinner than the Q, thinner than the BlackJack, thinner than all of them. It’s really nice.” It is obvious that the marker ‘let’s’ in Excerpt 15 refers to audiences and the speaker himself. This engagement is a proper way to involve audiences attractively because it is intentionally to attract audiences. Steve Jobs invites the audience to see the smartphone closely together with him. By doing this, Steve Jobs can attract the audience’s attention and engagement marker as the conveyor, which leads to the speaker’s arguments. In this part, Steve Jobs uses an engagement marker, “look what happens!” to invite participation from the audiences. He invites the audience to give their focus on what Steve Jobs is going to show. Excerpt 16 “Now, let me show you something else.I just take my unit here, and I turn it landscape mode, oh, look what happens! I’m in cover flow.” [0:43:16] Excerpt 16 is quite different from excerpt 15. Steve Jobs uses interjection in excerpt 16, “Look what happens!” to invite the audience to see a magic tool from iPhone. The pioneering phone with a landscape screen can easily grasp audience intention to his presentation. The marker “look what happens!” reflects his enthusiasm for showing other apps on the iPhone. The markers indirectly help Steve Jobs to influence the listener to be enthusiast as well to his presentation. The results show that Steve Jobs uses some interpersonal metadiscourse markers in order to make a good presentation. Besides, the findings have also found that interactional markers such as transitional and engagement markers are dominantly used by him. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, this research reveals how Steve Jobs uses interpersonal metadiscourse markers as the persuasive strategies in his oral business presentation. Thus, this section contains a general view of current research. It covers the conclusion derived from the result of the analysis. The conclusion figures out how the writers answer the research questions and give an explanation in a general way. The research shows how interpersonal metadiscourse markers help Steve Jobs to build interpersonal relationships 303Interpersonal Metadiscourse.... (Heri Kuswoyo; Rani Andini Siregar) with his audiences. After analyzing the whole data, the present researchers conclude that there are 78 interpersonal metadiscourse markers used by Steve Jobs that consist of interactive and interactional metadiscourses. Transition markers become the highest percentage of 29,1%, among other markers in interactional metadiscourse. Steve Jobs has successfully created a well-organized presentation using transition markers to make a clear transition in every single part of his presentation. Moreover, the use of frame markers, endophoric markers, evidential, and code glosses are to make a coherent presentation. Table 2 shows that self-mention is dominantly used by Steve Jobs. This marker becomes the highest percentage among interactive and interactional markers because self- mention helps the speaker to prove the originality of his arguments and showing his presence in the presentation. He frequently mentions ‘We’ that refers to him and his team to show their identity that have created an incredible product. Then, in other parts, Steve Jobs mentions ‘We’ that refers to him and his audiences as the way to explicitly involve the audiences into the presentation. Furthermore, the engagement marker is also frequently used by Steve Jobs in order to attract the audience’s attention to his presentation. While booster, hedges, and attitude markers are used to support his statements or idea. In conclusion, the use of interpersonal metadiscourse markers (IMDMs) has several functions, such as to strengthen, affirm, clarify, build interaction, and make the speaker’s arguments clearer. The inappropriate use of interpersonal metadiscourse markers (IMDMs) could affect the ambiguity of propositional content. Thus, this shows that interpersonal metadiscourse affects the quality of the speaker in presenting their idea. The results of this research can be used in professional life or in business to improve the field related to communication skills. Besides, the present researchers suggest that future studies explore the use of interpersonal metadiscourse markers by selecting other topics of speeches or by conducting contrastive studies to compare Indonesian speakers’ markers choice with other different cultural groups of speakers. However, due to the limitation of the data size used in this research, future research may also expand the corpus size. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was supported by the Faculty of Arts & Education Grant at Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia, Lampung. We express our gratitude to Akhyar Rido, Ph.D. for his valuable insights and support in this work. Special thanks are given to the anonymous reviewers who reviewed this article, thus, this article could be published in this reputable journal. REFERENCES Ahour, T., & Maleki, S. E. (2014). The effect of metadiscourse instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ speaking ability. English Language Teaching, 7(10), 69-75. https:// doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n10p69. Aluthman, E. S. (2018). A cross-disciplinary investigation of textual metadiscourse markers in academic writing. International Journal of Linguistics, 10(2), 19-38. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v10i2.12916 Alyousef, H. S. (2015). An investigation of metadiscourse features in international postgraduate business students’ texts: The use of interactive and interactional markers in tertiary multimodal finance texts. SAGE Open, 5(4), 1-10. https://doi. org/10.1177/2158244015610796. Bal-Gezegin, B. (2016). A corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse in academic book reviews. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 713–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.097. Bu, J. (2014). Towards a pragmatic analysis of metadiscourse in academic lectures: From relevance to adaptation. Discourse Studies, 16(4), 449–472. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461445613519019. Coughter, P. (2012). The art of the pitch: Persuasion and presentation skills that win business (1st Ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish University students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71. https://doi.or g/10.1177/0741088393010001002. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2007.10.003. Davoodi, K. (2016). On the use of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in conclusion section of language testing articles. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(4), 211-216. Duruk, E. (2017). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in a written register used by Turkish writers. International Journal of Management and Applied Science, 3(8), 87-94. Esmer, E. (2017). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in Turkish election rally speeches delivered by pro- Turkish and pro- Kurdish leaders. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 367–384. https://doi. org/10.30958/ajss.4-4-2. Fu, X. (2012). The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies, 14(4), 399–417. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1461445612450373. Gallo, C. (2017). The presentation secrets of Steve Jobs: How to be insanely great in front of any audience. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gholami, M., Tajalli, G., & Shokrpour, N. (2014). An investigation of metadiscourse markers in English medical texts and their Persian translation based on Hyland’s model. European Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 1-41. Gholami, J., & Ilghami, R. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and journal impact factor: Non-native writers vs. native writers. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44(4), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20961. Gordon, C., & Luke, M. (2016). Metadiscourse in group supervision: How school counselors-in-training construct their transitional professional identities. 304 LINGUA CULTURA, Vol. 13 No. 4, November 2019, 297-304 Discourse Studies, 18(1), 25–43. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461445615613180. Grez, L. D., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2009). The impact of goal orientation, self-reflection, and personal characteristics on the acquisition of oral presentation skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(3), 293–306. Haruna, H. H., Ibrahim, B., Haruna, M., Ibrahim, B., & Yunus, K. (2018). Metadiscourse in students’ academic writing: Case study of Umaru Musa Yar’adua University and Al-Qalam University Katsina. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(7), 83-92. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n7p83. Ho, V. (2018). Using metadiscourse in making persuasive attempts through workplace request emails. Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2018.06.015. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London; New York: Continuum. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007. Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2016). Nouns and academic interactions: A neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 508-531. https://doi. org/10.1093/applin/amw023. Jolles, R. L. (2017). How to run seminars and workshops. New Jersey: Wiley. Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114–124. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.006. Kosasih, F. R. (2018). A genre analysis of thesis abtracts at a State University in Banten. Lingua Cultura, 12(1), 9-14. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v12i1.1963. Mahmoodian, H., & Simin, S. (2017). Comparative study of metadiscourse markers employed in defense sessions of TEFL and Persian literature graduate students. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 7(2), 65-78. https://doi. org/10.5861/ijrsll.2017.1793. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2014) Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th Ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. Malmström, H. (2016). Engaging the congregation: The place of metadiscourse in contemporary preaching. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 561–582. https://doi. org/10.1093/applin/amu052. Massaabi, A. (2014). Metadiscourse and reading research articles (RA) in English by Tunisian Geography faculty. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1110–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2014.03.523. Mina, K. G., & Biria, R. (2017). Exploring interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in discussion sections of social and medical science articles. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(4), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.29252/ ijree.2.4.11. Niebuhr, O., Thumm, J., & Michalsky, J. (2018). Shapes and timing in charismatic speech: Evidence from sounds and melodies. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody. Berlin, German. pp 582-586. doi: 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-118. Nikitina, A. (2011). Successful public speaking. London: Bookboon. Ozdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59–63. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011. Patil, Z. N. (2005). Oral presentation skills for prospective business executives. The Asian ESP Journal, 1(3). Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2018.10.004. Saddhono, K., & Kasim, F. (2016). The form and function of local language in directive speech act at a university in Central Sulawesi. Lingua Cultura, 10(1), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v10i1.848. Sukma, B. P., & Sujatna, E. T. S. (2014). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in opinion articles: A study of texts written by Indonesian writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(2), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac. ijalel.v.3n.2p.16. Sukma, B. P. (2017). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers as persuasive strategies in Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign speeches. Aksara, 29(2), 283-292. https:// doi.org/10.29255/aksara.v29i2.82.283-292. Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: Guilford Press. Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (2012). L2 learners’ use of metadiscourse markers in online discussion forums. Issues in Language Teaching, 1(1), 93-121. Wagner, E. T. (2013). Five reasons 8 out of 10 businesses fail. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ ericwagner/2013/09/12/five-reasons-8-out-of-10- businesses-fail/#5a434a986978 Wong, S. M. C., & Yap, F. H. (2015). “Did Obama care create new jobs?” An analysis of Mitt Romney’s use of rhetorical questions in the 2012 US presidential election campaign. Text & Talk, An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 35(5), 643-668. https://doi.org/10.1515/ text-2015-0018. Yipei, N. (2013). Investigating the interpersonal and textual meaning of Steve Jobs’ Stanford speech in terms Hyland’s metadiscourse theory. International Journal of Journal and Linguistics, 1(4), 90-96. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20130104.12. Zareifard, R., & Alinezhad, B. (2014). A study of interactional metadiscourse markers and gender in the defense seminars of Persian speakers. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(1), 231-238. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2014.v4n1p231. Zhang, M. (2016). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies, 18(2), 204–222. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461445615623907.