Search

The article presents the analysis of Russian self-mentions – elements of authorization comprising “the voice of the author” – in evaluative academic discourse. These are phrases containing fi rst person personal pronouns and possessive pronouns (я; мы; меня; мне; нам; нас; мой; наш). Self-mentions include two-member constructions (мы считаем; мы полагаем; как мы хорошо знаем; я уверен), one-member constructions (допускаю; заметим; согласимся), phrases with pronouns in oblique cases (нам кажется; у меня замечание; нам думается) and possessive pronouns (на наш взгляд; с моей точки зрения; по нашему мнению). The research is based on 64 offi cial review reports given by offi cial opponents and external reviewers to dissertations on linguistics, literary criticism, history, chemistry, physics and medical science. Self-mentions are regarded as part of the so-called pragmatic framework of communication formed by discourse markers – elements of the supplementary level of communication providing the setup of the discourse in the context of its logical arrangement, cohesion, consecution, composition and regulating the interaction between the author and the addressee. The research aims at the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the use of self-mentions in the speech genre of the dissertation review report and attempts to determine the factors infl uencing this use. Self-mentions used in evaluative academic discourse help create the eff ect of ecological, positive communication: they are viewed as hedges which subdue the critical stance of the report’s contents or as boosters which highlight the achievements of the reviewed research, create the atmosphere of closeness and solidarity with the addressee and on the whole enhance the persuasive eff ect within academic communication. Among the factors determining the use of self-mentions the author of the article singles out the academic sphere (discipline), the genre of academic discourse and gender. The research proves that self-mentions are more typical of reviews written by humanitarians than by natural scientists. It is also shown that we-self-mentions prevail over I-self-mentions and men use self-mentions more frequently than women.

Copyright of Adab Al-Kufa is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Although various studies have been done on authorial voice, none has focused on the possible differences among the articles published by different publishers. To shed light on this issue, this article sought to find the different levels of the use of stance-driven authorial voice in applied linguistics articles published by three international publishers. To this end, 248 applied linguistics articles published from 2000 to 2020 by three intentional publishers were selected through stratified random sampling. After trimming them, a corpus of 1.5 million words was achieved. Then, the normalized frequencies of Hyland's proposed list of stance markers were extracted using the LancsBox corpus analysis toolbox. The obtained data were analysed using the Kruskal–Wallis test in SPSS 26. The results showed that there are significant differences in the use of overall stance markers, attitude markers, and self-mention markers in the articles published by different publishers, while the results were not significant for hedges and boosters. Our findings can inform the research article writers, academic writing course instructors, and the publishing staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research article (RA) discussions require authors to underline new research findings through negotiating conflict, known as academic conflict (AC), with a specific strand of literature. However, AC has been either inadequately represented in particular disciplines, or left unnoticed across disciplines in academic writing research. This study follows a cross-disciplinary perspective to examine and compare AC negotiation in published medical and applied linguistics RA discussions based on Hunston's framework. A specialised corpus consisting of 60 RAs, 30 from each discipline, from prestigious journals was screened for AC frequency and recurrent features through manual rhetorical analysis. The findings revealed little variation in overall AC realisation across the two disciplines. In terms of AC components, medical RAs included frequent proposed claims and recurrent conflict resolution features, indicating authors' tendency to overuse self-interpretations in arguing against previous claims. By contrast, applied linguistics authors relied more on opposed claim components to discuss new findings and resolve research tensions. These findings help enrich our understanding of AC realisations across discipline RAs, which in turn might offer helpful insights into more proportionate academic writing practice and pedagogy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, the traditional perception of academic writing as impersonal prose conveying facts has given way to a view that sees it as an interactional process laden with cultural influence. Due to this shift, authorial voice has become a major research focus in applied linguistics studies. This study involved a corpus-based textual analysis of self-representation markers in research papers by Russian and Chinese authors in the field of engineering. Using Hyland's interactional metadiscourse model (2005) and Tang and John’s (1999) taxonomy of writer’s roles as the analysis frameworks, the study aimed to compare the features of authorial voice in English-medium research article (RA) abstracts by non-native writers from two different cultural backgrounds. To achieve this purpose, 98 RA abstracts were collected from four reputable Scopus-indexed engineering journals. The differences in the use of self-mention markers are explained in terms of the national and international academic writing traditions and the level of competitiveness among scholars influencing an authorial stance in English-medium academic prose. The study has important implications for novice non-native English academic writers who aspire to take their work to an international audience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Adab Al-Kufa is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The present study explored authorial presence in the abstracts across three purpose-built discipline-specific corpora of RAs in major but relatively less represented disciplines in corpus studies: Civil Engineering (CE), Political Sciences (PS) and Veterinary Medicine (VM). In particular, due to less attention having been paid to these fields, we examined explicit authorial references with a functional perspective in a corpus of abstracts totaling over one million words. To this end, we first conducted a preliminary search for explicit third-person plural author references in the corpora and manually analysed a total of over 6,000 instances to check if they were all markers signaling an authorial presence in the text. Following this, the second manual analyses concentrated on categorizing the rhetorical functions of self-mentions based on Xia's (2018) framework. The preliminary findings showed that the frequency of "we"-based authorial references in PS outweighed that in the other disciplines (PS: 722.13; CE: 636.81; VM: 481.30 per 100,000 words). Regarding the density of authorial references, we found that each discipline favored being more visible with divergent authorial roles in their abstracts. For example, PS were more rhetorically present in their abstracts by "proposing a theory or approach" whereas CE and VM authors used fewer self-mentions to mark their presence frequently with this rhetorical device. With respect to the functional analyses of the self-mentions of "we", all three disciplines displayed more low-stakes functions such as "recount experimental procedure and methodology". We focused on the significance of cross-disciplinary and functional analysis in the study in order to contribute to designing activities in EAP for each discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lexical bundles are recurrent multiword combinations and often function as discourse building blocks. Lexical bundles have been analysed in university students' writing to detect linguistic errors, measure writing competence, and investigate the divergence between L1 and L2 writing. Few studies, however, have focused on the high-stakes genre of PhD thesis and investigated the bundle productions of the same genre within the same level and discipline. This paper compares sentence initial lexical bundles in the corpora of English theses written by Chinese and New Zealand PhD students in the discipline of General and Applied Linguistics. Forty-six bundles from a Chinese corpus and forty-two bundles from a New Zealand corpus were generated. Among them, 94% of sentence initial bundles were identified as metadiscursive bundles. Chinese and New Zealand doctoral students showed considerably different preferences in their bundle selection. The paper examines the possible impact of these preferences and suggests there is a need to extend the metadiscourse knowledge of doctoral students in terms of lexical bundles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Self-mention refers to the presentation and mention of writers themselves in texts. As there has been limited research on whether authors have changed the ways they refer to themselves in their English research articles, we explored whether and to what extent self-mention and its three sub-categories have changed based on a corpus of 1200 research articles from 4 disciplines spanning the period from 1970 to 2019. The findings demonstrate that self-mention and its three sub-categories in academic writing have undergone changes over time and tend to be shaped by discipline. Writers in soft science use fewer self-mentions and first-person pronouns. They tend to present themselves in a subtle way by diverting their attention from first-person pronouns by increasing the percentages of third-person nouns and abstract subjects. Conversely, writers in hard science strive to present themselves more directly via using self-mention more frequently, especially first-person pronouns. Accordingly, the percentages of third-person nouns and abstract subjects in hard sciences are decreasing. This study provides a diachronic and cross-disciplinary overview of how self-mention has changed in English research articles throughout the 50 years and offers some pedagogical implications for self-mention in English academic writing and teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PhD examination is a unique type of assessment with examiners playing a key role in it. Despite extensive research on various modes of academic genre, research on the examiners’ language representing oral review genre is yet underrepresented. One important way to identify this genre is to unpack the metadiscursive features that constitute this type of academic discourse. Using a metadiscourse framework, developed by Hyland (2005), this study investigates the metadiscursive markers that constitute Iranian and International examiners’ language of PhD dissertation evaluation. The data include the transcriptions of Iranian and International examiners’ evaluative discourse in eight PhD dissertation defenses, taken place in Iran and the US (MICASE corpus), representing English for Academic Purposes. The results indicate that the examiners use a variety of interactional as well as interactive metadiscourse markers to convey the effective and appropriate evaluation of the PhD dissertations at hand. Further breakdown of the metadiscourse devices and the comparison of the two sets of data are provided. The results unpack an aspect of oral academic review as a specific genre with implications for both EAP-user examiners and PhD candidates to become aware of the discursive features of the examiners language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A considerable body of research has investigated the use of metadiscourse in academic writing in different languages, and it is assumed in the literature that the use of metadiscourse is language- and culture-specific. However, little research has investigated how Arab writers interact with their readers in Arabic research articles (RAs). Thus, following Hyland's (2005) models, this study explores the use of the interactional metadiscourse in the introductions of 94 Arabic RAs totalling 88,350 words published between 2013-2022. Findings showed that Arab writers tend to establish a relationship with readers and involve them as discourse participants through the use of the inclusive pronoun naḥnu ... 'we' and the rhetorical forms. Arab writers used both grammatical and lexical items to express their views with confidence with a high degree of commitment. They were found to use reader-accuracy markers to mitigate their arguments. They, however, appeared not to evaluate what is presented through their personal feelings, and this might be due to sociocultural reasons, which requires further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic writing in general and writing research articles in particular have long been considered a crucial mode of discourse, which is due to its challenging requirements for writers. Metadiscourse resources aid the reader in reading comprehension through coherence and cohesion. This study attempts to analyze research article discussion sections written by native authors regarding metadiscourse markers. To this end, 40 research article discussions by native writers from humanities were selected and analyzed. The purpose of the study is to discover the number and types of metadiscourse markers and rhetorical techniques used in composing these texts. The study continues on a qualitative research design, through text analysis, on the basis of Hyland's (2005) Metadiscourse Model. The findings indicated that the writers used the interactive metadiscourse markers twice as often as the interactional ones. This research could have a direct bearing on teaching writing and material design to enable EFL learners to use an optimal extent of these resources effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is very little research on the use of metadiscourse markers in abstracts across different disciplines (especially in a single study) in the research of undergraduates as novice researchers, and little qualitative research has been done on the topic in EFL and ESL contexts altogether. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the use of metadiscourse markers in EFL and ESL undergraduates' abstracts in social sciences across three disciplines (English Language and Communication, Mass Communication, and Psychology) in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts at UCSI University, a Malaysian private university. We adopt Hyland's (2005) interpersonal model which involves two main categories – interactive metadiscourse and interactional metadiscourse – to analyse all 62 abstracts collected from the 2016 Colloquium held at the faculty. The method used is qualitative to categorize the metadiscourse markers accordingly as well as counting their frequencies. The findings showed that the interactional metadiscourse markers were used nearly twice as often as the interactive discourse markers for the three disciplines, and the most used markers are boosters. The most used interactive metadiscourse markers are transitions, followed by frame markers, evidentials, code glosses, and endophoric markers. The findings can be used by ESL and EFL instructors when teaching students learning argumentative writing and research writing to use metadiscourse markers to make arguments and write proper critiques to reflect their stance and voice. This research adds some insights into this neglected genre of academic discourse at the undergraduate level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on supporting the development of the discipline-specific writing skills needed for careers in academia and industry. Topics include explore the authorial self-positioning being constructed in the finance industry workplace and the academic field of finance; and construction being oriented towards the anticipated audiences and serving the dual purposes of public self-promotion and workplace internal socialization.

Academic writing is social interaction between writer and reader, during which writers can employ discursive and non-discursive features to construct their identities. However, many student writers who are users of English as an additional language (EAL) may find it challenging to construct their identities in academic writing. Properly constructed identity in academic writing can help EAL student writers develop a stronger sense of self, exercise their agency, and negotiate the academic discourse. Therefore, this paper reviews empirical studies on EAL student writers' identity construction when they write in English to investigate the features of identities that EAL student writers construct in texts and the factors that influence their identity construction. The findings show that, compared with expert writers and native-English-speaking (NES) counterparts, EAL student writers tend to present a weak authorial identity. Furthermore, EAL student writers tend to be more engaged with texts than with readers and lack commitment to their claims. The identities that EAL student writers construct in academic writing are also interwoven with EAL students' English proficiency levels, educational experience, disciplinary conventions, genre affordances, and audience awareness. The findings of this literature review can help teachers and educators raise EAL students' identity awareness and facilitate students in strategically constructing writer identities in academic writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Hawlyat Al-Montada is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study presents a qualitative, comparative study of interactive metadiscourse in the academic writing of two groups of Native speakers of English and Native speakers of Arabic doctorate students working in the field of linguistics. It investigates the writers' capability to deploy the propositional discourse and interpretations in a coherent and convincing way appropriate to the projected readers' comprehensive abilities. A small-scale sample of 80 'discussion' and 'conclusion' chapters constitutes this corpus. This small-size corpus aligns with the contemporary trends in corpus-based work in the fields of English where smaller, more focused corpora, which have been set up for a specific research or pedagogical purpose, are much more likely to yield insights that are directly relevant to teaching and learning for specific purposes. Using Hyland's (2005) interpersonal model of metadiscourse, the discussion and conclusion chapters have been compared to examine the influence of intercultural and local institute academic culture contexts on the writers' use of interactive metadiscourse devices. The findings revealed a significant influence of the local institute culture on the Arab academic writing in most of the interactive subcategories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The most important aspect of scientific discourse is presentation of scientific results so that they can gain recognition by the international community. Scientific paper is successful only if the writer manages to guide a prospective reader through the complex maze of results and reveals enabling him, thus, to easily find and rightly interpret the presented data. This means that writers must present their stances cautiously, accurately and modestly to meet the expectations of their discourse community. To this end, they must be aware of the features of the discourse community they belong to and the dominating genre. This is even more important when they write in foreign language, since genres are often culturally bound and the rhetoric traditions and styles can significantly differ in various languages. The aim of this paper was to establish whether the papers written by Serbian authors contain metadiscourse markers as rhetorical elements used to improve interaction between writers and readers. To this end, ten papers from psychology of sport were analysed and all metadiscourse devices were identified. The findings show that the analysed texts contain all categories but the number of certain markers is negligible. More specifically, Serbian language offers linguistic resources of metadiscurse that can aid writers to better organize their arguments and interact with their readers but, except for transition markers and hedges, these resources are realized in a relatively small number of different elements. Such results indicate that introduction of advantages of all strategies aimed at achieving rhetorical aims could improve academic production quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]