‘Who will employ them? ’Questions as engagement strategies in Nigerian job portals online
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4314/gjl.v4i1.17Keywords:
questions, engagement strategy, job portal, Nigeria, unemploymentAbstract
This study investigates the use of questions for engagement by writers in discussions in online job portals. Based on a mini corpus of 40 postings together with their comments consisting of 139,104 words extracted from Naijahotjobs and Nairaland job portal discussions, the study addresses the functional use of questions in the presentation of writer's stance, the possible variation of questions with the topics being discussed, the rhetorical functions of questions and the use of question clusters in discussions. The analysis shows that two major kinds of questions were frequently used for engagement – wh- and yes-no questions. This represents two levels of complexity in interrogation – open-ended and closed-ended levels. It also reveals that the two most prominent groups in the discussions (motivational writers and graduate job seekers) used questions differently for engagement purposes. Motivational writers who typically assumed the position of experts used questions to engage the cognition of readers and sometimes to threaten their face, while graduate job seekers tended to ask information-seeking and confirmation questions based on issues agitating their minds about their unemployment situation. In addition, graduate job seekers asked what I refer to as ‘protest questions’, which focus on social issues connected with unemployment. This study therefore shows that beyond networking and getting relevant information about how to secure employment and advance in a career, job portals have provided a space for interrogating, confronting and guiding job seekers on the social problem of unemployment in Nigeria.
References
Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A., 2002. Evaluation in English-medium medical book reviews. International Journal of English Studies 2.1: 137-153.
Alemi, M. and E. Isavi, 2012. Evaluation of interactional metadiscourse in EFL textbooks. Advances in Asian Social Science 2.1: 422-430.
Arrese, J. I. N and B. S. Perucha, 2006. Evaluation and engagement in journalistic commentary and news reportage. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 19: 225-248.
Berry, M., 1981. Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery, eds., Studies in Discourse Analysis pp. 120-145. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Biber, D. and E. Finegan, 1989. Styles of stance in English: lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text and Talk 9.1: 93–124.
Blanchette, J., 2007. Questions in online learning environment. International Journal of E-learning and Distance Education 16.2: 37-57.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bull, P., 1994. On identifying questions, replies, and non-replies in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13.2: 115-131.
Dahl, T., 2004. Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics 36.10: 1807-1825.
Dueñas, P. M., 2007. ‘I/we focus on…’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6.2: 143–162.
Eggins, Susan, 1994: An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers.
du Preez, Madely, 2014. Examining the concepts, issues and implications of internet trolling. Online Information Review 38.3: 457-458.
Gago, P. C. and S. B. Silveira, 2006. Question-answer sequences in conciliation hearings and interviews with political candidates. Estudios de Sociolingüistica: Linguas, Sociedades e Culturas, 7.1 83-100.
Gillaerts, P., 2010. Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9.2: 128–139.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold, London.
Harres, A., 1998. ‘But basically you're feeling well, are you?’: tag questions in medical consultations. Health Communication 10.2: 111-123.
Harwood, N., 2005. ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted … In this article I aim to do just that’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics 37.8: 1207–1231.
Hewings, A. and C. Coffin, 2007. Writing in multi-party computer conferences and single authored assignments: exploring the role of writer as thinker. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6.2: 126-142.
Hewings, Ann, 2012. Stance and voice in academic discourse across channels. In K. Hyland and G. C. Sancho, eds., Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres pp. 187–201. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hunston, S. and G. Thompson, eds., 2000. Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, Ken, 2011. Disciplines and discourses: social interactions in the construction of knowledge. In D. Starke-Meyerring, Anthony Paré, N. Artemeva, M. Horne and L. Yousoubova, eds., Writing in Knowledge Societies pp. 193-214. West Lafayette, IN, U.S.A.: Parlor Press and the WAC Clearinghouse.
_____, 2005a. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7.2: 173-192.
_____, 2005b. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London and New York: Continuum.
_____, 2004. Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 133–151.
_____, 2003. Dissertation acknowledgments: the anatomy of a Cinderella genre. Written Communication 20: 242-268.
¬¬¬¬_____, 2002a. Directives: Argument and Engagement in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics 23.2: 215-239.
_____, 2002b. What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text 22.4: 529-557.
_____, 2001a. Bringing in the reader: Addressee feature in academic writing. Written Communication 18.4: 549-574.
_____, 2001b. Humble servants of the discipline? Self mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20.3: 207-226.
_____, 1999. Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles, in C. Candlin & K. Hyland, eds., Writing Texts: Process and Practices pp. 98-121. London: Longman.
_____, 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland , K. and C. S. Guinda, eds., 2010. Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hyland, K. and P. Tse, 2010. Claiming a territory: relative clauses in journal descriptions. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1880–1889.
_____, 2005. Evaluative that constructions signaling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language 12.1: 39–63.
_____, 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25.2: 156-177.
Kärkkäinen, Elsie, 2003. Epistemic stance in English conversation: a description of its interactional. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Krapivkina, O. A., 2014. Pronominal choice in academic discourse. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 20.7: 833-843.
Macken-Horarik, M., 2003. Appraisal and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text 23.2: 285–312.
Martin, J. R., 2000. Beyond exchange: appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson, eds., Evaluation in Text pp. 142–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Muilenburg, L. and Z. L. Berge, 2000. A framework for designing questions for online learning. DEOSNEWS 10.2. Retrieved June 6, 2014 from http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/muilenburg.html
Myers, G., 2010. Stance-taking and public discussion in blogs. Critical Discourse Studies 7.4: 263-275.
Ochonma, V., 2011. Nigeria’s Unemployment Challenge. The Tide, February 16, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.thetidenewsonline.com/2011/02/16/nigeria%E2%80%99s-unemployment-challenge/
Putman, S. M., K. Ford and S. Tancock, 2012. Redefining online discussions: using participant stances to promote collaboration and cognitive engagement. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 24.2: 151-167.
Raymond, G., 2003. Grammar and social organization: yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68.6: 939-967.
Rothery, J. and M. Stenglin, 2000. Interpreting literature: the role of appraisal. In L. Unsworth, ed., Researching Language in Schools and Communities: Functional Linguistic Perspectives pp. 222-224. London: Cassell.
Salager-Meyer, F., 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13.2: 149-171.
Smart, J. B. and J. C. Marshall, 2013. interactions between classroom discourse, teacher questioning, and student cognitive engagement in middle school science. Journal of Science Teacher Education 24.2: 249-267.
Strivers, T. and J. Heritage, 2008. Breaking the sequential mold: answering ‘more than the question’ during comprehensive history taking, Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 21: 151-185.
Swales, J., U. Ahmad, Y.-Y. Chang, D. Chavez, D. Dressen, and R. Seymour, 1998. Consider this: the role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics 19.1: 92-121.
Swales, J. and C. Feak, 1994. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essentials Tasks and Skills. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Taiwo, R., 2014. Impoliteness in asynchronous online discussion forum: A case study of trolling in Nairaland.com. In I. Chiluwa, P. Ifukor, and R. Taiwo, eds., Pragmatics of Nigerian English in Digital Discourse pp. 67-76. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
Thompson, G., 2001. Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22.1: 58-78.
Toumi, N., 2009. A model for the investigation of reflexive metadiscourse in research articles. Language Studies Working Paper 1: 64-73.
van Dijk, T., 2006. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society 17.2: 359-383.
Waugh, M., 1996. Group interaction and student questioning patterns in an instructional telecommunication course for teachers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 15: 325-382.
Webber, P., 1994. The function of questions in different medical English genres. English for Specific Purposes 13: 257-268.
Alemi, M. and E. Isavi, 2012. Evaluation of interactional metadiscourse in EFL textbooks. Advances in Asian Social Science 2.1: 422-430.
Arrese, J. I. N and B. S. Perucha, 2006. Evaluation and engagement in journalistic commentary and news reportage. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 19: 225-248.
Berry, M., 1981. Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery, eds., Studies in Discourse Analysis pp. 120-145. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Biber, D. and E. Finegan, 1989. Styles of stance in English: lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text and Talk 9.1: 93–124.
Blanchette, J., 2007. Questions in online learning environment. International Journal of E-learning and Distance Education 16.2: 37-57.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bull, P., 1994. On identifying questions, replies, and non-replies in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13.2: 115-131.
Dahl, T., 2004. Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics 36.10: 1807-1825.
Dueñas, P. M., 2007. ‘I/we focus on…’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6.2: 143–162.
Eggins, Susan, 1994: An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers.
du Preez, Madely, 2014. Examining the concepts, issues and implications of internet trolling. Online Information Review 38.3: 457-458.
Gago, P. C. and S. B. Silveira, 2006. Question-answer sequences in conciliation hearings and interviews with political candidates. Estudios de Sociolingüistica: Linguas, Sociedades e Culturas, 7.1 83-100.
Gillaerts, P., 2010. Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9.2: 128–139.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold, London.
Harres, A., 1998. ‘But basically you're feeling well, are you?’: tag questions in medical consultations. Health Communication 10.2: 111-123.
Harwood, N., 2005. ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted … In this article I aim to do just that’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics 37.8: 1207–1231.
Hewings, A. and C. Coffin, 2007. Writing in multi-party computer conferences and single authored assignments: exploring the role of writer as thinker. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6.2: 126-142.
Hewings, Ann, 2012. Stance and voice in academic discourse across channels. In K. Hyland and G. C. Sancho, eds., Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres pp. 187–201. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hunston, S. and G. Thompson, eds., 2000. Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, Ken, 2011. Disciplines and discourses: social interactions in the construction of knowledge. In D. Starke-Meyerring, Anthony Paré, N. Artemeva, M. Horne and L. Yousoubova, eds., Writing in Knowledge Societies pp. 193-214. West Lafayette, IN, U.S.A.: Parlor Press and the WAC Clearinghouse.
_____, 2005a. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7.2: 173-192.
_____, 2005b. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London and New York: Continuum.
_____, 2004. Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 133–151.
_____, 2003. Dissertation acknowledgments: the anatomy of a Cinderella genre. Written Communication 20: 242-268.
¬¬¬¬_____, 2002a. Directives: Argument and Engagement in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics 23.2: 215-239.
_____, 2002b. What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text 22.4: 529-557.
_____, 2001a. Bringing in the reader: Addressee feature in academic writing. Written Communication 18.4: 549-574.
_____, 2001b. Humble servants of the discipline? Self mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20.3: 207-226.
_____, 1999. Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles, in C. Candlin & K. Hyland, eds., Writing Texts: Process and Practices pp. 98-121. London: Longman.
_____, 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland , K. and C. S. Guinda, eds., 2010. Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hyland, K. and P. Tse, 2010. Claiming a territory: relative clauses in journal descriptions. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1880–1889.
_____, 2005. Evaluative that constructions signaling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language 12.1: 39–63.
_____, 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25.2: 156-177.
Kärkkäinen, Elsie, 2003. Epistemic stance in English conversation: a description of its interactional. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Krapivkina, O. A., 2014. Pronominal choice in academic discourse. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 20.7: 833-843.
Macken-Horarik, M., 2003. Appraisal and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text 23.2: 285–312.
Martin, J. R., 2000. Beyond exchange: appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson, eds., Evaluation in Text pp. 142–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Muilenburg, L. and Z. L. Berge, 2000. A framework for designing questions for online learning. DEOSNEWS 10.2. Retrieved June 6, 2014 from http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/muilenburg.html
Myers, G., 2010. Stance-taking and public discussion in blogs. Critical Discourse Studies 7.4: 263-275.
Ochonma, V., 2011. Nigeria’s Unemployment Challenge. The Tide, February 16, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.thetidenewsonline.com/2011/02/16/nigeria%E2%80%99s-unemployment-challenge/
Putman, S. M., K. Ford and S. Tancock, 2012. Redefining online discussions: using participant stances to promote collaboration and cognitive engagement. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 24.2: 151-167.
Raymond, G., 2003. Grammar and social organization: yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68.6: 939-967.
Rothery, J. and M. Stenglin, 2000. Interpreting literature: the role of appraisal. In L. Unsworth, ed., Researching Language in Schools and Communities: Functional Linguistic Perspectives pp. 222-224. London: Cassell.
Salager-Meyer, F., 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13.2: 149-171.
Smart, J. B. and J. C. Marshall, 2013. interactions between classroom discourse, teacher questioning, and student cognitive engagement in middle school science. Journal of Science Teacher Education 24.2: 249-267.
Strivers, T. and J. Heritage, 2008. Breaking the sequential mold: answering ‘more than the question’ during comprehensive history taking, Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 21: 151-185.
Swales, J., U. Ahmad, Y.-Y. Chang, D. Chavez, D. Dressen, and R. Seymour, 1998. Consider this: the role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics 19.1: 92-121.
Swales, J. and C. Feak, 1994. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essentials Tasks and Skills. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Taiwo, R., 2014. Impoliteness in asynchronous online discussion forum: A case study of trolling in Nairaland.com. In I. Chiluwa, P. Ifukor, and R. Taiwo, eds., Pragmatics of Nigerian English in Digital Discourse pp. 67-76. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
Thompson, G., 2001. Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22.1: 58-78.
Toumi, N., 2009. A model for the investigation of reflexive metadiscourse in research articles. Language Studies Working Paper 1: 64-73.
van Dijk, T., 2006. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society 17.2: 359-383.
Waugh, M., 1996. Group interaction and student questioning patterns in an instructional telecommunication course for teachers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 15: 325-382.
Webber, P., 1994. The function of questions in different medical English genres. English for Specific Purposes 13: 257-268.
Downloads
Published
07/01/2015
How to Cite
Taiwo, R. (2015). ‘Who will employ them? ’Questions as engagement strategies in Nigerian job portals online. Ghana Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.4314/gjl.v4i1.17
Issue
Section
Articles
License
The Ghana Journal of Linguistics is published by the Linguistics Association of Ghana, P. O. Box LG 61, Legon, Accra, Ghana.
LAG Email: linguisticsgh@gmail.com. Website: http://www.laghana.org
GJL Email: gjl@laghana.org Website: http://www.laghana.org/gjl
© Linguistics Association of Ghana and individual authors, 2023.
