1887
Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1566-5852
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9854
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Published academic writing often seems to be an unchanging form of discourse with its frozen informality remaining stable over time. Recent work has shown, however, that these texts are highly interactive and dialogic as writers anticipate and take into account readers’ likely objections, background knowledge, rhetorical expectations and processing needs. In this paper, we explore one aspect of these interactions and how it has changed over the past fifty years. Focusing on what has been called interactive metadiscourse (Hyland 2005Hyland and Tse 2004), or the ways authors organise their material for particular readers, we analyze a corpus of 2.2 million words compiled from articles in the top journals in four disciplines to discover whether, and to what extent, interactive metadiscourse has changed in different disciplines since 1965. The results show a considerable increase in an orientation to the reader over this period, reflecting changes in both research and publication practices.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00039.hyl
2020-08-28
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdi, Reza
    2002 “Interpersonal Metadiscourse: An Indicator of Interaction and Identity”. Discourse Studies4 (2): 139–145. 10.1177/14614456020040020101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ädel, Annelie and Anna Mauranen
    2010 “Metadiscourse: Diverse and Divided Perspectives”. Nordic Journal of English Studies9 (2): 1–11. 10.35360/njes.215
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.215 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aijmer, Karin and Christoph Ruhlemann
    (eds) 2014Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anthony, Laurence
    2014 AntConc (Version 3.4.3 w). (Computer Software.) Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available online at: www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/
  5. Becher, Tony and Paul Trowler
    2001Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergs, Alexander and Laurel J. Brinton
    (eds) 2012English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cao, Feng and Guangwei Hu
    2014 “Interactive Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A Comparative Study of Paradigmatic and Disciplinary Influences”. Journal of Pragmatics66 (May): 15–31. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  9. Charles, Maggie
    2006 “The Construction of Stance in Reporting Clauses: A Cross-disciplinary Study of Theses”. Applied Linguistics27 (3): 492–518. 10.1093/applin/aml021
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml021 [Google Scholar]
  10. Estaji, Masoomeh and Roya Vafaeimehr
    2015 “A Comparative Analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in the Introduction and Conclusion Sections of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Research Papers”. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research3 (1): 37–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Evans, James A.
    2008 “Electronic Publications and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship”. Science321 (5887): 395–399. 10.1126/science.1150473
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150473 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gillaerts, Paul and Freek Van de Velde
    2010 “Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Article Abstracts”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes9 (2): 128–139. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hoey, Michael
    1983On the Surface of Discourse. London: George Allen and Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hyland, Ken
    1999 “Talking to Students: Metadiscourse in Introductory Textbooks”. English for Specific Purposes18 (1): 3–26. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(97)00025‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2005Metadiscourse. London: Continuum
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2007 “Applying a Gloss: Exemplifying and Reformulating in Academic Discourse”. Applied Linguistics28 (2): 266–285. 10.1093/applin/amm011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm011 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2017 “Metadiscourse: What is It and Where is It Going?” Journal of Pragmatics113 (May): 16–29. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hyland, Ken and Feng (Kevin) Jiang
    2017 “Is Academic Writing Becoming More Informal?” English for Specific Purposes45 (January): 40–51. 10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2019 “Points of Reference: Changing Patterns of Academic Citation”. Applied Linguistics40 (1): 64–85. 10.1093/applin/amx012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx012 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hyland, Ken and Polly Tse
    2004 “Metadiscourse in Scholastic Writing: A Reappraisal”. Applied Linguistics25 (2): 156–77. 10.1093/applin/25.2.156
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jiang, Feng (Kevin) and Ken Hyland
    2018 “Nouns and Academic Interactions: A Neglected Feature of Metadiscourse”. Applied Linguistics39 (4): 508–531.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jucker, Andreas and Irma Taavitsainen
    2014 “Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics: Intersections and Innovations”. InIrma Taavitsainen, Andreas H. Jucker and Jukka Tuominen (eds), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics, 3–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.243.03juc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.243.03juc [Google Scholar]
  23. Leech, Geoffrey
    2009 “Corpus Linguistics”. InKirsten Malmkjaer (ed.), The Routledge Linguistics Encyclopedia, 104–113. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lin, Hui and Brendan Luyt
    2012 “The Evolution of Scientific Journal Articles in the Periphery: A Case Study and Analysis of the Raffles Bulletin of Zoology from 1928 to 2008”. Journal of Information Science38 (5): 407–422. 10.1177/0165551512445158
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551512445158 [Google Scholar]
  25. Mauranen, Anna
    1993Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Moskowich, Isabel, Gonzalo Camiña Rioboo, Inés Lareo and Begoña Crespo
    (eds) 2016 “The Conditioned and the Unconditioned”: Late Modern English Texts on Philosophy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.198
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.198 [Google Scholar]
  27. Dueñas, Pilar Mur
    2007 “‘I/We Focus On…’: A Cross-cultural Analysis of Self-mentions in Business Management Research Articles”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes6 (2): 143–162. 10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mur Dueñas, Pilar
    2011 “An Intercultural Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Research Articles Written in English and in Spanish”. Journal of Pragmatics43 (12): 3068–3079. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  29. Noble, Wendy
    2010 “Understanding Metadiscoursal Use: Lessons from a “Local” Corpus of Learner Academic Writing”. Nordic Journal of Applied Linguistics9 (2): 145–169.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rubio, Milagros del Saz
    2011 “A Pragmatic Approach to the Macro-structure and Metadiscoursal Features of Research Article Introductions in the Field of Agricultural Sciences”. English for Specific Purposes30 (4): 258–271. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  31. Salas, Millaray D.
    2015 “Reflexive Metadiscourse in Research Articles in Spanish: Variation across Three Disciplines (Linguistics, Economics and Medicine)”. Journal of Pragmatics77 (February): 20–40. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  32. Taavitsainen, Irma, Andreas H. Jucker and Jukka Tuominen
    (eds) 2014Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.243
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.243 [Google Scholar]
  33. Thompson, Geoff
    2001 “Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader”. Applied Linguistics22 (1): 58–78. 10.1093/applin/22.1.58
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58 [Google Scholar]
  34. Trowler, Paul, Murray Saunders and Veronica Bamber
    2012Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203136935
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203136935 [Google Scholar]
  35. Tse, Polly and Ken Hyland
    2006 ““So What is the Problem this Book Addresses?”: Interactions in Academic Book Reviews”. Text and Talk26 (6): 767–790. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.031
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.031 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ware, Mark and Michael Mabe
    2015The STM Report: An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Publishing. Oxford, STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Xia, Jingfeng, Rebekah Lynette Myers and Sara Kay Wilhoite
    2010 “Multiple Open Access Availability and Citation Impact”. Journal of Information Science37 (1): 19–28.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00039.hyl
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00039.hyl
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): academic arguments , coherence , cohesion , diachronic change , metadiscourse and textual interaction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error