<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Dear Discourse
members,<BR><BR>A couple of months ago I asked the list whether anyone knew of
research<BR>focussed specifically on self-promotion in written or oral
discourse, from<BR>any theoretical perspective. I received a couple of responses
- some<BR>offering papers on small studies that had been done, some asking
for<BR>references that I may have come across on facework, and some
offering<BR>(appreciated) encouragement. Very little came to me in the way of
a<BR>suggested framework for analysis, however. So, I threw something
together<BR>myself and would like to share it with those who are
interested.<BR><BR>Below is the abstract of my thesis, "Writing Between the
Lines: Managing<BR>Impressions in Written Self-Appraisals." If you would like a
copy<BR>of the thesis, I would be happy to send one to
you.<BR><BR>Abstract:<BR><BR>Knowing how to promote oneself in written
self-promotional genres is a<BR>vital, yet neglected, component of non-native
speaker (NNS) communicative<BR>competence.<BR><BR>Focusing on the
self-appraisal, I explore some of the impression management<BR>(IM) tactics and
interpersonal metadiscourse (MD) markers used by writers to<BR>manage the
impressions they 'give off.' Of particular interest is the extent<BR>to which
(a) patterns of self-presentation, and (b) language background<BR>(NS/NNS)
contribute to the affective response of the reader.<BR><BR>The self-appraisals,
collected from 41 students taking a required<BR>undergraduate writing course,
were grouped according to the affective<BR>response of independent readers.
Patterns of IM and MD use were compared<BR>across positive- and negative-affect
groups, and across NSs and NNSs.<BR><BR>The findings reveal distinct differences
between affect groups in patterns<BR>of IM and MD use. Interestingly, NS/NNS
differences did not contribute to<BR>the affective response of the reader, thus
challenging the assumption that<BR>NS linguistic form is requisite to pragmatic
competence.<BR><BR><BR>Thank you,<BR>Jennifer (</FONT><A
href="mailto:jennifer.hrazdil@mail.mcgill.ca"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>jennifer.hrazdil@mail.mcgill.ca</FONT></A><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>)</FONT><BR><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>