Generic Variations and Metadiscourse Use in The Writing of Applied Linguists: A Comparative Study and Preliminary Framework

387259 WCX
Written Communication
Generic Variations 28(1) 97–141

© 2011 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
and Metadiscourse sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0741088310387259
Use in the Writing http://wcx.sagepub.com
of Applied Linguists:
A Comparative Study
and Preliminary
Framework
Davud Kuhi1 and Biook Behnam1
Abstract
Thanks to the recent developments in the theory of academic discourse anal-
ysis, it is now increasingly accepted that negotiation of academic knowledge
is intimately related to the social practices of academic communities. To
underpin this position and to reveal some of the ways this is achieved, this
article analyzes a relatively wide spectrum of academic texts (20 research
articles, 20 handbook chapters, 20 scholarly textbook chapters, and 20 intro-
ductory textbook chapters) in applied linguistics. The authors show here
the importance of establishing social relationships in academic arguments,
suggest some of the ways this is achieved, and indicate how the social and
institutional differences that underlie production and reception of different
academic genres influence the ways metadiscourse is shaped in academic
communication.
Keywords
academic writing, interaction, genre, discipline, intertexuality, author voice,
research article, textbooks
1
Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, Iran
Corresponding Author:
Davud Kuhi, English Department, Islamic Azad University, Maraghe Branch, Shahid Derakhshi
Blvd., Maraghe, Iran
E-mail: davudkuhi@yahoo.com
98 Written Communication 28(1)
Introduction
The awareness that success of academic communication is partly accomplished
through strategic manipulation of interpersonal and rhetorical elements has
stimulated a fresh wave of studies exploring the interactive, interpersonal,
evaluative, persuasive, and rhetorical dimensions of academic discourse. Many
of these studies can be clustered under the uniting umbrella of metadiscourse—
an intuitively attractive concept as it seems to offer a principled way of col
lecting under one heading the diverse range of linguistic devices writers use
to explicitly organize texts, engage readers, signal their own presence, and
signal their attitudes to their material and their audience. The concept of meta
discourse brings to the fore qualities of academic written communication,
such as nontopical linguistic material that may be irrelevant to topic develop
ment but key to understanding discourse as a whole (Lautamatti, 1987); lin
guistic material that does not add propositional information but signals the
presence of an author (VandeKopple, 1985); author’s intrusion into the discourse
to direct rather than inform (Crismore, 1983); and nonreferential aspects of
discourse that help to organize prose as a coherent text and convey a writer’s
personality, his or her awareness of readers, and his or her stance toward the
message (Hyland, 1998a).
Studies that have developed a cross-cultural perspective (e.g., Adel, 2006;
Breivega, Dahl, & Flottum, 2002; Dahl, 2004; Mauranen, 1993; McEnry &
Kifle, 2002; ThueVold, 2006) have revealed that metadiscourse is not uni
form across languages; studies that have looked at metadiscourse form
cross-disciplinary point of view (e.g., Charles, 2006; Harwood, 2005a;
Hewings & Hewings, 2001; Swales et al., 1998) have shown how metadis
course use is sensitive to the ways texts are written, used and responded by
individuals acting as members of academic discourse communities; and stud
ies that have adopted communicative purpose (Swales, 1990) as the major
focus—genre-based studies of metadiscourse—have also contributed to
awareness of how different communicative purposes and different audiences
can influence the use of metadiscourse.
Different academic genres have been investigated both individually and in
comparison with other genres. While due to its significance in the life of acad
emy, the research article (RA) has been studied more extensively (e.g., Hyland,
1996a, 1996b, 2002d, 2007), other academic genres like textbooks (e.g.,
Hyland, 1994), dissertations (e.g., Bunton, 1999), and undergraduate essays
(e.g., Myers, 2001) have also been investigated. Other studies have compared
two or more academic genres: Hyland’s (1999a) study of research articles and
textbooks; Hyland’s (2002a) study of textbooks, research articles, and student
Kuhi and Behnam 99
reports; de Oliveira and Pagano’s (2006) study of research articles and science
popularization articles; Hyland’s (2004b) investigation of master’s and PhD
dissertations; Hyland’s (2002b) investigation of expert and non/less expert
writers; and Hyland and Tse’s (2005) investigation of research articles and
dissertations.
While such comparative genre-based studies have contributed a great deal
to understanding how metadiscourse use might vary with generic fluctua
tions, there has been a tendency to look at the variations in those genres that
represent an overt contrast in terms of the communicative purpose(s) they
serve and stand at the extreme ends of continuums without considering the
nature of variations in intermediate genres—those that might have mixed
communicative purposes. The main objective of the present study, hence,
was to investigate how metadiscourse use varies in a spectrum of academic
genres that can better reflect target audience differences inside a single disci
pline and then to provide a contextual framework of the factors that are thought
to be responsible for the possible variations.
To design a corpus with such features—which seems to have been neglected
in previous genre-based studies—we used some key studies about the role of
texts in the wider social system of academic communication (specifically
Myers, 1992; Fleck, 1935/1979). A fuller account is provided in Corpus
and Procedures section.
Corpus and Procedures

The present study focused on a written text corpus of approximately 483,706
words, consisting of 4 subcorpora: 20 research articles (approximately 137,647
words), 20 handbook chapters (116,433 words), 20 scholarly textbook chap
ters (143,629 words), and 20 introductory textbook chapters (85,997 words).
The disciplinary scope of the corpus was limited to applied linguistics as
defined by Wilkins (1999) and as outlined in handbook chapters of applied
linguistics (e.g., Davies & Elder, 2004; Kaplan, 2002; Schmitt, 2002). The
logic for the spectral division of academic texts into the four corpora came
from Fleck (1935/1979) and Myers’ (1992) discussions on the social struc
ture of academic knowledge and the role of texts in the knowledge accredita
tion process that, following Fleck and Myers, we define as follows: Scientific/
academic knowledge has a developmental process that is originated in the
first place by empirical research that then becomes a well-established fact
shared and respected communally in the discourse community.
This process starts with the journal article—which “bears the imprint of
[the] personal and provisional” (Fleck, 1935/1979, p. 118)—and is further
carried on by the handbook and ends in the textbook—which contains only

accredited knowledge. We made a further division in the textbook level by
dividing it into scholarly and introductory textbooks—a division that has
somehow been neglected in other comparative genre studies. In assigning text
books to either category, we drew on our study on the move structure of text
book prefaces (Kuhi, 2008) that provides helpful information on the target
audience and purpose of this academic genre. Where the textbooks were add
ressed to undergraduate students, novice members, preservice teachers, and
similar categories, they were conventionally categorized as introductory, and
where they were produced for postgraduate students, researchers, and similar
audiences, they were assigned to scholarly division. Moreover, in assigning
any text to handbook category, we remained loyal to Fleck’s concept of
Vademecum. These were books including individual contributions whose
aim was establishing a mosaic-like picture of the field. These are not simply
the outcome of compilation of various journal contributions; rather, they are
individual contributions that are usually ordered by the editors of such collec
tions so that the final outcome can depict a comprehensive view and scope of
a specific field for the researchers and students.
Following the established tradition of selection and sampling in other meta
discourse studies—informant nomination—(e.g., Harwood, 2005a, 2005b;
Hyland, 1999a, 2001a, 2002a, 2002b, 2002e, 2007), for each corpus, a mini
mum of 10 university lecturers in applied linguistics issues were asked to
nominate some sources (though the researchers themselves are insiders to the
discipline with long experience of teaching applied linguistic issues). This
was also accompanied by checking the syllabi used by some university lec
turers. The samples were then randomly selected from the nominated sources,
scanned and converted into MSWord format to facilitate accurate word
counts (see Appendix for full bibliographical information of the texts).
Due to its relative theoretical and practical advantages, an extended version
of Hyland’s (2005a & 2005b) model of metadiscourse was adopted for the
analysis of the corpora. (See Figure 1).
Hyland’s model can be distinguished from other models of metadiscourse
classifications (e.g., Adel, 2006; Crismore, 1983; VandeKopple, 1985, 2002)
by its suggestion that all metadiscourse is interpersonal; that is, metadiscourse
takes into account readers’ knowledge, textual experiences, and processing
needs and that it provides writers with an armory of rhetorical appeals to
achieve this (Hyland & Tse, 2004). So-called textual devices organize texts
as propositions by relating statements about the world and as metadiscourse by
relating statements to readers; they do not function independently of these two
functions. Hyland, and Hyland and Tse believe that there are serious difficulties
Kuhi and Behnam 101
Interpersonal Metadiscourse
Interactive Interactional
Transitions Stance Engagement
Frame markers Hedges Reader pronouns
Endophoric markers Boosters Directives
Evidentials Attitude markers Questions
Code glosses Self mentions Appeals to shared

knowledge
Personal asides
Figure 1. An extended version of Hyland’s model of metadiscourse

(Hyland 2005a, 2005b).
in identifying two single, discrete functions of metadiscourse because textual

resources do not constitute a neatly separable set that can be clearly distin
guished from either propositional or interpersonal aspects. Unlike proposi
tional and interpersonal meanings, which orient to extralinguistic phenomena,
the textual function is intrinsic to language and exists to construe both propo
sitional and interpersonal aspects into a linear and coherent whole. Textual
elements, in other words, have an enabling role (Halliday, 1994a), facilitating
the creation of discourse by allowing writers to generate texts that make
sense within their contexts. What is commonly referred to as textual metadis
course in the literature, according to Hyland, is more usefully seen as an ele
ment of the writer’s interpersonal decisions to highlight certain relations in
the text to accommodate readers’ understanding and guide them toward the
writer’s preferred interpretations. Hence, as the model illustrates, the tradi
tional dichotomy of textual versus interpersonal metadiscourse has been
replaced by interactive versus interactional metadiscourse. Interactive resources
allow the writer to manage information flow to explicitly establish his or her
preferred interpretations. These resources organize discourse to anticipate
readers’ knowledge and reflect the writer’s assessment of what needs to be
made explicit to constrain and guide what can be recovered from the text.
Interactional resources focus on participants of the interaction and seek to
display the writer’s persona and a tenor consistent with the norms of the dis
ciplinary community. Metadiscourse here concerns the writer’s efforts to con
trol the level of personality in a text and establish a suitable relationship to
his or her data, arguments, and audience, marking the degree of intimacy, the
expression of attitude, the communication of commitments, and the extent of
reader involvement (Hyland, 2004a, p. 138).
In the analysis, we were guided by the following principles:
• A list of potentially productive search items was compiled based on

previous research on metadiscourse features (e.g., Holmes, 1988,
1997; Hyland, 2002a, 2005a; Hyland & Milton, 1997; McEnry &
Kifle, 2002); however, the analysis did not suffice with predetermined
search items per se; rather, other possible realizations frequently occ
urring in the analyzed texts themselves were taken into account. A
good example of such realizations was frequently seen in handbook
chapters in which we encountered the use of directive marker as in
the following extract:
Does learners’ performance on grammatical sentences differ signifi

cantly from their performance on ungrammatical sentences (cf. Grimshaw
& Rosen, 1990, for related comments on L1 acquisition)? (Handbook
chapter [HB] 20)
This directive marker has not been listed in the search items mentioned
above, but since it functions as a metadiscourse item, it was considered in the
analysis procedure.
• Metadiscourse was seen as a relative concept in that text items only

function as metadiscourse in relation to another part of the text:
Instead of regarding it as a strictly linguistic phenomenon, we con
sidered it as a rhetorical and pragmatic one. In the following exam
ple, for instance, there is a textual signal of an interrogative sentence
that can potentially be labeled metadiscoursally as questions:
This study addressed the following research questions:
1. Does writing new words in sentences affect L2 lexical acquisition?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is “yes,” does sentence writing decrease
L2 lexical acquisition?
3. If the answer to Question 1 is “yes,” are the effects of sentence writ
ing both short term and long term? (Research article [RA] 1)
Kuhi and Behnam 103
Carrying the linguistic signals of an interrogative, however, does not guar

antee the assignment of these questions to a metadiscourse device because
pragmatically they are not functioning as metadiscoursal questions. To do so,
a question must act as a strategy of dialogic involvement, inviting engage
ment; bringing the interlocutors into an arena where they could be led into
the writer’s viewpoint; and arousing interest and encouraging the reader to
explore an unresolved issue with the writer as an equal, a conversational
partner, sharing his or her curiosity and following where the argument leads.
Metadiscoursal questions are expected to be mainly rhetorical: presenting an
opinion as an interrogative so the reader appears to be the judge but actually
expecting no answer. This kind of rhetorical positioning of readers was per
haps most obvious when the writer posed a question only to reply immediately,
simultaneously initiating and closing the dialogue, as is clear in the following
example:
Finally, when TE uses these gestures—or doesn’t—is perhaps the most

intriguing question and one that this study cannot answer. Is it possible, or likely,
that gestures and other nonverbal behaviors are more apt to be used in focus-
on-meaning teaching, rather than in focus-on-form lessons? In each example in
this article, TE used nonverbal behavior to help convey the meaning of words
that came up in form-focused practice. Would he or she use these same gestures,
or different ones, or no gestures at all, when the material he or she is discussing
is strictly form-focused? My impressionistic answer, based on a very cursory
viewing of other segments of the classroom discourse is that . . . (RA 12)
• In assigning metadiscourse function to textual items, internal and

external relations (Hyland, 2005a) were distinguished assuming that
many so-called textual items can realize either interpersonal or prop
ositional purposes depending on their context. The dividing bound
ary was that an internal relation connected events in the account,
whereas an external relation referred to those situations themselves,
connecting activities in the world outside the text. Following Hyland
(2005a), only internal relations were assigned to metadiscourse. The
internal versus external nature of metadiscourse elements can be
clarified by comparing the following examples from the corpus:
Although this exploratory study did not examine instructional factors,

the findings nonetheless lead to several general recommendations.
First, instructors who design courses around FL literacy texts should
not assume. . . . Second, students’ level of comprehension may vary
across texts in both the L1 and L2. (RA 8)
The teacher greets the class and distributes a handout. . . . Then he asks
the students to look at the first sentence. . . . Next, the teacher asks the
students to turn to the other side of the handout. . . . The teacher next
announces that the students will be playing a game. . . . Next the
teacher has the students divide into groups of three. For the final activ
ity of the class, the students are told. . . . (Introductory textbook chap
ters [IntroT] 9)
As is clear, the connectors in the second example connect activities in the

world outside the text and hence cannot be labeled as metadiscourse devices,
whereas the ones in the first example clearly organize the pieces of arguments
that are internal to the discourse and can be distinguished as interpersonal
resources.
• Throughout the analysis procedure, we were aware of the fact that

one linguistic realization can fulfill more than a single function; hence,
textual indices of metadiscourse were assigned to the category that
was pragmatically interpreted to be more dominant. The following
example highlights the difficulty of assigning a textual item into a
specific metadiscourse category:
To start on a personal note, this chapter is my first opportunity to bring

together two strands of my working life that have so far been quite sep
arate (Hudson, 2002a): building models of language structure (Hudson,
1976, 1984, 1990, 2007), and building bridges between academic lin
guistics and school teaching (Hudson, 2004; Hudson & Walmsley,
2005). (HB 5)
While the surface structure seems straightforward and suggests categori

zation as an evidential, the way the italicized items have been contextualized
also encourages us to consider them as an intelligent use of self-mentions
to promote the status of the writer of the text. In almost all cases, such
multifunctionality—which is an inherent quality of any utterance—existed,
and we had to judge about the dominance of one of these functions.
• Following the dominant tradition of metadiscourse studies (e.g.,

Bunton, 1999; Charles, 2006; Harwood, 2005b; Hyland, 2002e), abs
tracts, footnotes, endnotes, acknowledgments, bibliographies, appen
dices, charts, tables, captions, and figures were excluded from both
word count and analysis.
Kuhi and Behnam 105
• Due to pragmatic, internal, and multifunctional nature of metadiscourse

items, the whole analysis was carried out manually. This was done by
one of the researchers, and the findings were double-checked by the
second researcher. Cases of disagreement were rare but were dis
cussed until a common decision was made.
An Overview of Quantitative Analysis

Quantitative analysis of the four corpora clearly revealed that academic writ
ers were concerned with establishing an appropriate writer–reader relation
ship in their texts. Of course, this heavy use of metadiscourse was to some
extent predictable due to the fact that in the well-established dichotomy of
soft versus hard sciences, those disciplines that fall in the category of soft
sciences have a stronger tendency to utilize interpersonal resources (see, for
example, Harwood, 2005a & 2005b; Swales et al., 1998). However, different
rhetorical atmospheres dominating production and reception of academic
texts influenced writers’ choices in establishing such relations. In fact, social
and institutional factors that constitute the context of academic communica
tion necessitated different manners of manipulating interpersonal resources
that inevitably resulted in considerable variations in the frequency and distri
bution of these devices. Tables 1, 2 and 3 give an overall view of these varia
tions in the four corpora analyzed: While Table 1 presents a frequency-based
(per 1,000 words) view of these variations, Table 2 depicts the priorities of
the writers inside each category of metadiscourse, and Table 3 shows an over
all ranking of the devices in each corpus.
The sharpest variations were found between the most prestigious academic
genre—research article—and the representative of a marginal academic genre—
introductory textbook. While the overall view of the findings clearly reveals
that there is a heavier presence of metadiscourse elements in introductory
textbooks—probably suggesting that the rhetorical atmosphere dominating it
is more demanding and complex than what might be expected—the varia
tions were also seen in categories and subcategories. The interactive category
represented one area of variation: While textbook writers tended to manipulate
a higher frequency of comprehension facilitators (transitions, code glosses,
frame markers, and endophoric markers), manifest intertextuality through the
use of evidentials was the major interactive concern of research article writ
ers (9.7 per 1,000 words). Variation was also found in interactional features:
While the total frequency of these features in introductory textbooks was 40.4
per 1,000 words, research articles showed a frequency of 23.5 per 1,000 words.
The interesting point was that the higher frequency of interactional features
Table 1. Metadiscourse Frequencies in Four Corpora (per 1,000 words)
Research Scholarly Introductory

article Handbook textbook chapter textbook chapter
Interactive
Transition 9.3 13.6 15.4 11.1
Frame markers 3.2 3.3 4.9 10.5
Endophoric marker 1.8 0.9 2 2.1
Evidential 9.7 16.7 8.3 1.6
Code gloss 8.2 9.5 8.3 10.3
Total 32.0 44 38.9 35.6
Interactional
Stance
Hedge 11.4 12.3 11.6 10.2
Booster 3.2 4.2 3.8 2.8
Attitude marker 2.8 3.6 3.9 4.5
Self-mention 3.2 1.7 2.6 1.9
Total 1 20.6 21.8 21.9 19.4
Engagement
Reader pronoun 0.8 1.1 3.2 14.5
Directives 1.2 2 1.7 4.6
Questions 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.3
Appeal to shared 0 0.1 0.1 0.1
knowledge
Personal aside 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5
Total 2 2.9 4.4 6.3 21
Total 1 and 2 23.5 26.2 28.2 40.4
Grand total 55.7 70.2 67.1 76
in introductory textbooks owed much to the higher frequency of engagement

markers such as reader pronouns (14.5 per 1,000 words) and directives
(4.5 per 1,000 words) rather than stance markers. Among stance markers,
however, more variation was seen in the frequencies of self-mentions (3.2 per
1,000 words in research articles vs. 1.9 per 1,000 words in introductory text
books) and attitude markers (2.8 per 1,000 words in research articles vs.
4.5 words in introductory textbooks).
Variation between research articles and introductory textbooks was also
found in the ways writers prioritized some metadiscourse elements. As Tables 2
and 3 indicate, there were differences in the ranking of resources both inside
the categories and in overall metadiscourse. For instance, while in research
article corpus hedges (20.5% of overall metadiscourse, the first priority),

Table 2. Category-Based Ranked Metadiscourse
Research article Handbook Scholarly textbook chapter Introductory textbook chapter
Evidential 30.1 Evidential 37.9 Transition 39.6 Transition 31.2

Transition 28.9 Transition 30.9 Code gloss 21.3 Frame marker 29.5
Code gloss 25.5 Code gloss 21.6 Evidential 21.3 Code gloss 28.9
Frame marker 9.9 Frame marker 7.5 Frame marker 12.6 Endophoric marker 5.9
Endophoric marker 5.6 Endophoric marker 2 Endophoric marker 5.1 Evidential 4.5
Interactional
Hedge 48.5 Hedge 46.9 Hedge 41.1 Reader pronoun 35.9
Booster 13.6 Booster 16 Attitude marker 13.8 Hedge 25.2
Self-mention 13.6 Attitude marker 13.7 Booster 13.5 Directive 11.4
Attitude marker 11.9 Directive 7.6 Reader pronoun 11.3 Attitude marker 11.1
Directive 5.1 Self-mention 6.5 Self-mention 9.2 Booster 6.9
Reader pronoun 3.4 Reader pronoun 4.2 Directive 6 Self-mention 4.7
Personal aside 2.5 Personal aside 3 Personal aside 2.5 Question 3.2
Question 1.3 Question 1.5 Question 2.1 Personal aside 1.2
Appeal 0 Appeal 0.4 Appeal 0.3 Appeal 0 .2
Stance
Hedge 55.3 Hedge 56.4 Hedge 53 Hedge 52.6
Booster 15.5 Booster 19.3 Attitude marker 17.8 Attitude marker 23.2
Self-mention 15.5 Attitude marker 16.5 Booster 17.3 Booster 14.4
Attitude marker 13.6 Self-mention 7.8 Self-mention 11.9 Self-mention 9.8
Engagement
Directive 41.4 Directive 45.4 Reader pronoun 50.8 Reader pronoun 69
Reader pronoun 27.6 Reader pronoun 25 Directive 27 Directive 21.9
Personal aside 20.7 Personal aside 18.2 Personal aside 11.1 Question 6.2
Appeal 0 Appeal 2.3 Appeal 1.6 Appeal 0.5
107
Table 3. Overall Ranked Metadiscourse
Scholarly Introductory
Research article Handbook textbook chapter textbook chapter
Hedge 20.5 Evidential 23.8 Transition 22.9 Reader pronoun
19.1
Evidential 17.4 Transition 19.4 Hedge 17.3 Transition 14.6
Transition 16.7 Hedge 17.5 Code gloss 12.4 Frame marker
13.8
Code gloss 14.7 Code gloss 13.5 Evidential 12.4 Code gloss 13.6
Frame marker 5.7 Booster 6 Frame marker 7.3 Hedge 13.4
Booster 5.7 Attitude marker Attitude marker Directive 6
5.1 5.8
Self-mention 5.7 Frame marker Booster 5.7 Attitude marker
4.6 5.9
Attitude marker 5 Directive 2.8 Reader pronoun Booster 3.7
4.8
Endophoric Self-mention 2.4 Self-mention 3.9 Endophoric
marker 3.2 marker 2.8
Directive 2.1 Reader pronoun Endophoric Self-mention 2.5
1.6 marker 3
Reader pronoun Endophoric Directive 2.5 Evidential 2.1
1.4 marker 1.3
Personal aside 1.1 Personal aside Personal aside 1 Question 1.7
1.1
Appeal 0 Appeal 0.1 Appeal 0.1 Appeal 0.1
evidentials (17.4% of overall metadiscourse, the second priority), and self-

mentions were among the top priorities, in introductory textbooks top posi
tions in the ranking of overall metadiscourse belonged to elements like reader
pronouns (19.1% of overall metadiscourse, the first priority), transitions
(14.6% of overall metadiscourse), and directives. The differences were also
obvious in lower positions of the overall metadiscourse ranking: While res
earch articles located directives and reader pronouns closer to the bottom, in
introductory textbooks evidentials and self-mentions approximated the lower
positions (see Table 3.).
The other two corpora (handbook chapters and scholarly textbook chapters),
however, seemed to be more hybrid in their use of metadiscourse resources.
In some cases, these two corpora revealed some similarities, for example, in
Kuhi and Behnam 109
Table 4. Comprehension Facilitators (per 1,000 Words)

Article Handbook textbook chapter textbook chapter
Transition 9.3 13.6 15.4 11.1
Frame marker 3.2 3.3 4.9 10.5
Endophoric 1.8 0.9 2 2.1
marker
Code gloss 8.2 9.5 8.3 10.3
Total 22.5 27.3 30.6 34
the total frequency of overall metadiscourse (70.2 and 67.1 per 1,000 words
respectively), in the total frequency of interactional features (26.2 and 28.2
per 1,000 words respectively), and in the total frequency of stance markers
(21.8 and 21.9 respectively). Similarities were also found in the ranking of
some resources: In both corpora evidentials, transitions and hedges were
among the top priorities of overall metadiscourse ranking (though not neces
sarily in the same order), and in both corpora, hedges were the top priority of
interactional category ranking.
However, what contributed to the hybrid nature of metadiscourse in the
handbook chapters and scholarly textbook chapters was the fact that in some
cases these two corpora revealed characteristics that are expected to be
inherent qualities of prestigious academic genres, and, in some cases, they
reflected the inherent features of marginal academic genres. For example,
as Tables 1,2 and 3 show, scholarly textbooks shared a lot with introductory
textbooks in prioritizing comprehension facilitators (transitions, code glosses,
endophoric markers, and frame markers), and they reflected a similar tendency
with prestigious academic genres in upgrading the status of evidentials and
hedges. Similarly, the high frequency of transitions (13.6 per 1,000 words)
and code glosses (9.5 per 1,000 words) in handbook corpus reflected an
introductory textbook quality, whereas considerably high frequency of evi
dentials (12.3 per 1,000 words) and hedges (12.3 per 1,000 words) in this
corpus was a quality we usually encounter in prestigious academic genres
such as research articles. These hybrid features, of course, reflect some unique
qualities of scholarly textbooks and handbooks in terms of their institu
tional roles and their target audience—a topic that will be dealt with later in
this article.
The findings were also interesting in that they revealed some genre-specific
features of metadiscourse resources: While introductory textbooks had the
highest frequency and ranking of reader pronouns among the four corpora
(14.5 per 1,000 words and 19.1% of all metadiscourse resources—first in
overall metadiscourse ranking), the highest frequency of self-mentions was
found in research articles (2.8 per 1,000 words and 5.7% of all metadiscourse
resources), and the highest frequency of evidentials was found in handbooks
(13.6 per 1,000 words and 23.8% of all metadiscourse resources—first in
overall metadiscourse ranking).
In some aspects of metadiscourse use, however, considerably similar ten
dencies were found: In all four corpora, personal asides, questions, and appeals
to shared knowledge were the least employed metadiscourse elements. This
can be seen in Table 1—which indicates the frequency of occurrence of these
items—and in Tables 2 and 3, which depict the ranking of these items inside
categories and overall metadiscourse.
A Functional Analysis of the Findings

The success of our attempt to explore how metadiscourse use varies across the
spectrum we have designed depends not merely on a quantitative analysis like
the one provided above; rather, there is a need to discuss these findings from a
functional perspective as well. To do so, we have divided the resources included
in the model (see Figure 1) into four major functions and tried to reveal a pat
terned variation of metadiscourse use among the four corpora of the study.
Metadiscourse Resources and Interpretative Guidance

Among the interactive resources of the model, transitions, frame markers, endo
phoric markers, and code glosses are thought to have guiding and facilitating
functions. Here, such organizational features of interaction were manipulated
to enhance the writer’s accommodation of readers’ probable knowledge, inter
ests, rhetorical expectations, and processing abilities, in order to shape the
text to meet the needs of particular readers, setting out arguments so that they
would recover the writer’s preferred interpretations and goals. The resources
met these goals in a number of ways:
a. they signaled addition, comparison, causative relations, and contrast:
(1) Anyone who has ever listened to recordings of natural conversation

cannot help but be struck by the fact that so much is in the form of what
grammarians call incomplete sentences. Moreover, even in informal writ
ing (notes to friends, to oneself, casual letters, and in lecture notes), the
same incomplete sentences occur. (Scholarly textbook chapters [SchT] 20)
Kuhi and Behnam 111
b. They sequenced parts of the text, labeled text stages, announced dis
course goals, and indicated topic shifts:
(2) To begin with, Hypothesis 1 and 2 predicted that pair interaction

would provide NNSs with more opportunities for MO resulting from
other-initiations and self-initiations. . . . (RA 16)
c. They helped the writers refer to other parts of the same text (e.g.,
sections, illustrations, arguments, etc):
(3) For a sample of self-assessment questionnaire for e-mail writing, see

the “Strategy Inventory” e-mail address (listed on page 113). (IntroT 17)
d. They reformulated (i.e., restated an idea to widen the sense in

which the writer intended to be understood and restricted the
meaning of what had been said) and exemplified (i.e., offered an
instance of a general category, related the unfamiliar to the more
tangible, and made available for readers an image with a looser
kind of association):
(4) The most important interactions take place within a child’s Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD), that is, slightly ahead of learner’s inde
pendent ability (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). (HB 18)
The four corpora used these devices in different ways. While introductory
text chapters used these devices, most frequently, RAs had the lowest frequency
of them.
Metadiscourse and Intertextuality

The other component of interactive metadiscourse—evidentials—was mainly
used to refer to a community-based literature and provide some support for
arguments. This was aimed at helping the readers distinguish who is respon
sible for a position in the argument:
(5) It is not only language that is a network: Cognitive psychologists

agree that the same is true of general long-term memory (Reisberg,
1997, p. 257). (HB 5)
The use of evidentials underline the fact that in academic writing, the mes
sage presented is embedded in earlier messages; thus, evidentials mediate the
Table 5. Evidentials (per 1,000 Words)
Evidentials 9.7 16.7 8.3 1.6
relationship between a writer’s argument and his or her discourse community.

While handbooks had the highest frequency of these devices, introductory
textbook chapters had the lowest frequency. (See Table 5.)
Metadiscourse and Expression of Writers’ Textual Voice

Through the use of stance markers, writers are thought to express a textual voice
or community-recognized personality. This category includes hedges, boosters,
attitude markers, and self-mentions. These features were used to refer to the
ways writers presented themselves, conveyed their judgments, and intruded to
stamp their personal authority onto their argument or, conversely, stepped back
and disguised their involvement. These devices functioned in a number of ways:
a. They mitigated the relationship between what a writer said about the
world and what the world is thought to be like, reflected a writer’s
desire to anticipate the possible negative consequences of being
proved wrong, and contributed to developing a relationship with
readers by addressing the need for deference and cooperation in
gaining the ratification of claims:
(6) Nevertheless, we feel that this preliminary study was worth report
ing as it demonstrated the possibility that syntax can be more signifi
cant than vocabulary in predicting performance. . . . (RA 17)
b. They were used by the writers to close down alternatives in the

argument, that is, allowed the writers head off conflicting views and
express their certainty in what they proposed:
(7) However, I was always aware that truth and utility are hard to sepa
rate: Ultimately, the most useful approach to solving a problem must,
surely, be one based on a true understanding of the problem. . . . (HB 5)
c. They indicated writers’ affective and emotional, rather than epistemic,

attitude to the suggested propositions:
Kuhi and Behnam 113
(8) Besides candy not being good for children’s teeth and contributing to
obesity—a problem that unfortunately is becoming more pronounced in
many parts of the world—giving candy as a reward teaches young learners
that sugar and sweets can be used as a way to reward oneself. (IntroT 12)
d. They showed that writers cannot avoid projecting an impression of

themselves and how they stand in relation to their arguments, their
community, and their readers:
(9) I personally first met the idea that language is nothing but a net
work in the work of Lamb (Lamb, 1966, 1998), and I now think of it
as the main claim of WG (Hudson, 1984, p. 1, 2000, 2007). I also think
it is a particularly important idea for L2 researchers, as I shall explain
below. (HB 5)
Analysis of the four corpora revealed that all writers were almost equally
concerned with these functions, as shown in Table 6.
Metadiscourse and Readers’ Engagement

Through engagement markers (reader pronouns, directives, questions, appeals
to shared knowledge, and personal asides), writers attempt to relate to their
readers with respect to positions advanced in the text. In this way, writers
acknowledge their readers, recognizing the presence of their audience, pull
ing them along with their arguments, focusing their attention, acknowledging
their uncertainties, including them as discourse participants, and guiding them
to interpretations.
Through the use of such devices writers did a number of things:
a. They explicitly brought the readers into the discourse and acknowl
edged the presence of the readers in the text:
(10) Once you and your colleagues have decided on the assessment
criteria and the type of scale to use, you will want to put the system into
practice. How can you implement the system? What follows is a list of
suggested ways of carrying out systematic observation and recording
the results. However, you should adopt these methods to your own
particular situation and where necessary think of other ways of system
atically observing and recording your findings that may be more suited
to your needs. (IntroT 7)
Table 6. Stance Markers (per 1000 Words)
Hedge 11.4 12.3 11.6 10.2
Booster 3.2 4.2 3.8 2.8
Attitude marker 2.8 3.6 3.9 4.5
Self-mention 3.2 1.7 2.6 1.9
Total 20.6 21.8 21.9 19.4
b. They instructed the readers to perform an action or see things in a

way determined by the writer (by guiding the readers through the
discussion, steering them to another part of the text or to another
text, instructing the readers how to carry out a task or a research or
to perform some action in the real world, and guiding the readers
through a line of reasoning or getting them to understand a point in
a certain way):
(11) Carry out a comparative analysis of the two text in terms of the
accuracy, complexity, and fluency of the learners’ productions. To do
this, you should:
1. Prepare the text for analysis by . . .
2. Calculate the following . . .
3. Select and calculate measures of accuracy, complexity, and fluency.

You should choose two measures of each. Compare the results of your
analyses with another person’s to establish interrater reliability. (SchT 6)
c. They aroused interest and encouraged the reader to explore an unre

solved issue with the writer as an equal, a conversationalist partner,
sharing his or her curiosity and following where the argument leads:
(12) Van Patten’s study was concerned with input-processing, but simi
lar problems have been shown to exist in the case of output-processing
(see, for example, Ellis, 1987). Why is it that L2 learners have this
problem? The answer has been sought in theories of information pro
cessing. . . . (SchT 6)
Kuhi and Behnam 115
Table 7. Engagement Markers (per 1,000 Words)

article Handbook textbook chapter textbook chapter
Reader pronoun 0.8 1.1 3.2 14.5
Directive 1.2 2 1.7 4.6
Questions 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.3
Appeals to shared 0 0.1 0.1 0.1
knowledge
Personal aside 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5
Total 2.9 4.4 6.3 21
d. They tried to position readers within apparently naturalized bound

aries of disciplinary understandings, invited the readers to recognize
something as familiar or accepted, and called them to identify with
the writers’ views:
(13) I think you can easily agree that teaching is both an art and a sci
ence, that some innate ability complements learned teaching skills, and
that with all of our best-laid lesson plans, there still remains an intangible
aura surrounding acts of learning. (IntroT 1)
e. They addressed the readers directly by briefly interrupting the argu

ment to offer a comment on what had been said and initializing a
brief dialogue that was largely interpersonal:
(14) In simple terms, English conversation can be described as an activ

ity in which, for the most part, two or more people take turns at speak
ing. Typically, only one person speaks at a time, and there tends to be an
avoidance of silence between speaking turns. (This is not true in all
situations or societies.) (IntroT 20)
As Table 7 clearly illustrates, the data analysis findings show that intro
ductory textbook chapters had the highest frequency of these devices, whereas
the lowest frequency was found in RAs:
The functional analysis provided above can now be summarized in the
form of four major propositions that are designed to reflect the variation of
metadiscourse use among the four corpora of the continuum we have designed
for the purpose of the present study:
1. Where comprehensibility of the content mattered, a heavier presence

of comprehension facilitators was seen in two textbook corpora:
IntroT SchT HB RA
High Low
2. Where intertextuality requirements mattered, a heavier presence of

evidentials was seen in handbooks:
HB RA SchT IntroT
High Low
3. Where writers’ stance mattered, an almost similar tendency was

observed among the four corpora:
SchT HB RA IntroT
High Low
4. Where readers’ engagement mattered, introductory textbooks reflected

a stronger tendency to use relevant elements:
IntroT SchT HB RA
High Low
A Contextual Framework of Metadiscourse

Use in the Designed Spectrum
Crismore (1983) coined the term “metadiscourse continuum” with the aim of
describing the variation of metadiscourse in texts. She assumed that the amount
of metadiscourse varies across genres, for example, with respect to linguistic
signals of interaction between the writer and imagined reader. Although not
empirically tested, this could give a rough indication that metadiscourse can
vary across genres. The present research was an attempt to show that the use
of metadiscourse can be considered as one of the many ways in which genres
vary, and variations of different academic genres in terms of metadiscourse
use should be considered seriously since it can help show us how language
choices reflect the different purposes of writers, the different assumptions
they make about their audiences, and the different kinds of interactions they
create with their readers. These insights cannot be achieved with numbers
alone. The following interpretive, conceptual interpretation is based on the
assumption that understanding these variations is possible only through
Kuhi and Behnam 117
Readers’
Knowledge Base
Accreditation Power Relations
Readers’
Creation of METADISCOURSE Attitudinal
Symbolic Capital
Vulnerability
Marketing Needs Otherness
Creation of
identity
Figure 2. Academic metadiscourse in a contextual framework.
exploring what these texts do in the social, institutional structure of the aca
demic discipline. In fact, the framework and our discussion of it rest on the
assumption that the ways academic discourse and its features are shaped are
intimately linked to the communicative goals, epistemological assumptions,
audiences, funding resources, and knowledge-making practices of academic
communities. Understanding the factors that shape the use of metadiscourse
in the academic genre spectrum necessitates relocating interpersonal dimen
sion of these genres in the wider context from which they have emerged
since this dimension is expected to reflect the roles that different academic
genres play in the social structure of academic life. Our preliminary contex
tual framework (Figure 2) should be seen as a partial picture of the realities of
using metadiscourse in academic communication.
Metadiscourse and the Process of

Accreditation of Academic Knowledge
The findings of the present study lend support to the view that one factor that
can be influential in the use of metadiscourse is the role academic texts play
in what Ziman (1984) calls the “accreditation process” of academic knowledge.
In this process, whose elaboration owes much to the work of Fleck (1935/1979)
and Myers (1992), journal article—the departure point of publishing what
“bears the imprint of personal and provisional” (Fleck, 1935/1979)—is the
arena for conflicting claims (not yet established facts) where metadiscourse
(probably through a relatively heavier use of hedging and intertextuality
devices; see Table 5 and Table 6) is used to galvanize support, express col
legiality, resolve difficulties, and avoid disputation. Such attempts reflect a
writer’s desire to anticipate the possible negative consequences of being proved
wrong by limiting commitment to claims and enable writers to refer to spe
culative possibilities while alluding to personal doubt, thereby avoiding per
sonal responsibility for statement and limiting the damage that may result from
categorical commitments.
Next in the hierarchy stands the Vademecum (handbook)—a more com
prehensive version of the knowledge in the journals and a mosaic-like collec
tion of individual contributions, not simply the outcome of compilation of
various journal contributions—which gives a particular order to the scattered
bits (considerably higher frequency of manifest intertextuality; see Tables 2, 3,
and 5). These devices whose use abounds in handbook chapters are used to
refer to a community-based literature, help the readers distinguish who is res
ponsible for a position in the argument, and show that the message presented
is always embedded in earlier messages.
The process continues into and in fact ends in the textbook in the tertiary
literature of academy where knowledge becomes accredited with fewer knowl
edge claims and more factual information left unattributed and where there is
a strong tendency toward “arranging currently accepted knowledge into a
coherent whole” (mainly through heavier use of text organizers and compre
hension facilitators such as transitions, code glosses, frame markers, endo
phoric markers; see Table 1 and Table 4) “rather than seeking agreement for
new claims” (Myers, 1992, p. 2). This contributes to the learners’ view of the
field as an unproblematic and well-established set of axioms and procedures
that have evolved from a single line of development (relatively lower status
of intertextuality markers; see Tables 2, 3, and 5). The following are exam
ples from the textbooks in which claims were left unattributed:
(15). Many volumes of research and practical advice have been written
on the subject of classroom discipline. If all of your students were. . . .
(IntroT 1)
(16). Most of the research that is cited in scholarly books and articles
on reading development and comprehension has been carried out in
Kuhi and Behnam 119
first-language context with individuals who are learning to read their

first language. (IntroT 14)
To conclude this section, the function of texts has always been essentially
conservative in academy: Textbooks, which change with glacial slowness,
provide stability amid the shifting winds of theoretical argument, serve as
sources for the proven truths needed for students’ basic training, whereas
advanced scholarship extends the theoretical envelope, usually in journal
articles (Connors, 1986).
Metadiscourse and Readers’ Processing Abilities

Every academic text is written to be both understood and accepted, and while
neither goal is ever completely assured, writers who can successfully predict
something of what their readers will know of their subject and expect of its
presentation are more likely to be successful. Writers monitor their unfolding
discourse to address reader expectations and identify where readers will need
help in interpreting points, where greater elaboration or specificity is required,
where clarification or examples are needed, and so on—an objective achieved
by using interactive metadiscourse elements that facilitate comprehension
(e.g., code glosses, frame markers, logical connectors, and endophoric markers).
Our analysis also showed a relatively heavier presence of such elements in
both textbook corpora (see Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4).
These small acts of propositional embellishments indicate textbook writers’
awareness of their readers processing abilities and knowledge base. The rela
tively higher frequency of such resources in introductory textbooks helps the
reader of this genre “. . . sort out the new knowledge from the old, access the
certainty of statements, and infer cohesive links between knowledge” (Myers,
1992, p. 13). In other words, through these devices the novice member is
exposed to currently accepted knowledge and intellectual content is arranged
into a coherent whole and is made accessible and salient for easier under
standing (Hyland, 1999a; Myers, 1992).
Metadiscourse and Power Relationships in Academic Life

The findings of the present research also lend support to the view that writers
of research articles are (or at least they have to demonstrate that they are) less
powerful than the elite section of the academic community (see Parkinson &
Adendroff’s, 2005). Hence, in order to gain the authority of factual status for
their propositions, they must reveal deference not only to the audience of the
researchers in the immediate field but also to the wider audience of the aca
demic community. Considerable interest of these writers to using metadis
course resources like hedging (see Tables 2, 3, and 6 for the relatively higher
ranking of these devices)—as an indication of their deference to the wider
academic community (Swales et al., 1998)—and evidentials—as an indication
of the deference of the writer to the authority upon which the writer draws—in
research articles is the projection of an insider ethos which involves address
ing readers as if they were knowledgeable in the general area, familiar with the
discipline’s forms of argument and ways of establishing truth, and possessing
similar authority and influence.
However, in textbook discourse (where we found relatively lower appeal
to evidentials and hedging and remarkably heavier use of directives and read
ers pronouns; see Tables 2, 3, and 7) the cacophony of the past texts is reduced
to a single voice of authority that reminds us of the authoritative, nonargu
mentative, and nonegalitarian representation of knowledge in the classroom
(Brent, 1994), confirming Bazerman’s (2001, p. 24) eloquent expression that
“. . . disciplines are not games for beginners”—who seek wisdom in the
writer’s words and enact in their assignment. Textual manifestations of such
assumptions are indicated in cases like the following:
(17) However, you have to be careful to never embarrass or shame the

child who is misbehaving. (IntroT 12)
(18) It is essential to consider the objectives of a course; a course lead

ing to a written grammar exam will have very different timetables from
a general English course. (IntroT 16)
These uses carry connotations of unequal power, claiming greater author

ity for the writer by requiring readers to act or see things in a way determined
by the writer. Here, the writer’s ethos is so powerful that argument as such is
barely necessary, which might be seen as an appropriate explanation for the
relatively lower frequency of hedging devices in total metadiscourse ranking
in introductory textbook corpus of the present investigation. The emerging
outcome, hence, will be an “undialogized” discourse (Bakhtin, 1986b) privi
leged in its absolute definition of reality. After all, the doctrinal knowledge of
a filed does more than define allegiance to a body of truths and practices; it
also, by raising issues of heresy, controls topics of discourse and so defines
who might speak with credibility and who has public authority (Foucault, 1972).
Here, the expert restricts novice’s access to prestigious and egalitarian discourse,
and this is perhaps an inevitable consequence of social life. In any community,
Kuhi and Behnam 121
access to privileged discourse is controlled by conditions of membership, and

without this distinction between expert and nonexpert, and insider and outsider,
there would be little hope of describing social structure at all (Giddens, 1987).
The power relationship shaped in such manners also influences the writer’s
practice of and sensitivity to face-saving. Based on the evidence provided by
our investigation, we can claim that the writers of prestigious academic genres
may be more sensitive, and hence take care of their audience’s face, whereas
in those genres with less egalitarian relationship between writer and reader,
writers might commit face-threatening acts. Writers of prestigious academic
genres tend to avoid direct and exclusive addressing of their audience, and
when the need for addressing arises, the readers are brought in with nonthreat
ening inclusive addressee forms. In Harwood’s (2005a) words, this helps the
writer construct a chummy and intimate tone, forming a bond between the writer
and reader. Comparison of the following to extracts might reveal the point here:
(19) As we can see, such comments often add more to the writer–reader
relationship than to the propositional development of the discourse.
(RA 9)
(20) However, you should adopt these methods to your own particular
situation and, where necessary, think of other ways of systematically
observing and recording your findings that may be more suited to your
needs. (IntroT 7)
In fact, instead of establishing a nonegalitarian atmosphere, in prestigious

academic genres we encounter a dialogism that is a manifestation of positive
politeness and communality.
Metadiscourse and Symbolic Capital

One area of metadiscourse on which all the four corpora of this investigation
showed a similar tendency was when the writers tried to express a textual
voice and community-recognized personality through stance markers (see
Table 1 and Table 6). This shows that self-promotion and academic recogni
tion is an inherent quality of all academic writers—regardless of the genre
they are producing—though it may be overtly manifested in the form of self-
mentions that were remarkably frequent in the most prestigious genre of
academy—research article (see Tables 1, 2, and also 6 for especially higher
status of self-mentions in this corpus). Cases like the following were rela
tively common in the research articles:
(21) In this article, we propose a new, empirically grounded construct

of language learning motivation, which is then submitted to SEM so
that we can evaluate the extent to which it is compatible with our data
by computing goodness-of-fit measures. (RA 5)
(22) Although we are aware of recent attacks on the concept of atti

tudes as being “afunctional and decontextual” (Potter & Wetherall, 1987,
p. 54), we still believe it to be a useful instrument for the task we have
proposed: . . . (RA 6)
Whitley (2000, p. 25) clearly refers to this aspiration when he says today’s
academics are less occupied with the philanthropic advancement of knowl
edge and more with the aim of “. . . convincing fellow researchers of the
importance and significance of the results and enhancing [their] own reputa
tions.” In fact, one way reputations are won is by persuading the relevant audi
ence of the importance of one’s work and so affecting their own priorities and
procedures.” These aspirations are manifested in attempts like the following:
(23) Our study confirmed that Robert Gardener’s original concept of

integrativeness is a central factor in the L2 motivation construct. . . .
(RA 5)
In the essentially conflictual and competitive atmosphere of academy in

which science has become part of a promotional and consumer culture (Harwood,
2005b), this can be seen as an investment strategy directed at maximization
of social authority and recognition (Knorr-Cetina, 1981). Such attempts were
also clear in cases like the following:
(24) To start on a personal note, this chapter is my first opportunity to

bring together two strands of my working life that have so far been
quite separate (Hudson, 2002a): building models of language structure
(Hudson, 1976, 1984, 1990, 2007), and building bridges between aca
demic linguistics and school teaching (Hudson, 2004; Hudson & Walmsley,
2005). (HB 5)
(25) For instance, as we have argued elsewhere (Yang, 1996, 1998,

2000a), the sex differences cross-culturally documented in color-cod
ing cannot be fully explained by individual life experiences or by a
unidimensional language proficiency theory. (RA 20)
Kuhi and Behnam 123
The relatively higher status of boosters in prestigious academic genres of

our spectrum—research articles and handbook chapters—was also an indica
tion of the desires of those producing these genres to establish a stronger image
of their “self” among their readers (see Tables 2, 3, and 6). The following exam
ple from the corpora illustrate the point:
(26) To summarize, we have shown that morphosyntactic feedback

was seldom perceived as being about morphosyntax and was generally
provided in the form of recasts. (RA 14)
These devices were used to close down alternatives in the arguments, head
off conflicting views, and express the writers’ certainty in what they proposed.
Their use in academic discourse suggests that writers recognize potentially
diverse positions and choose to narrow this diversity rather than enlarge it,
confronting alternatives with a single, confident voice. According to Hyland
(2000), these devices allow writers to express conviction and assert a propo
sition with confidence, representing a strong claim about a state of affairs.
However, any attempt to establish a strong identity while writing to an elite
community should also be balanced intricately with other metadiscourse res
ources in a way that does not become face threatening. This was textually
manifested in cases like the following:
(27) We believe that the findings of this study, if corroborated by fur

ther research, could have important implications for language planning
and pedagogy. (RA 6)
(28) One of the most important areas of application for colligations and
collostructions would obviously be the investigation of grammatical
proficiency. . . . (HB 4)
These examples can be seen as indicators that the writer wants to be viewed
as an important player in the field and that he or she should be taken seri
ously. Constructing such a solid disciplinary identity increases the likelihood
that the writer’s work will be read and perhaps accepted. In modern academy,
the academic writer’s desire for promotion can be studied from an institutional
perspective of producing symbolic capital (see Bourdieu, 1991; Everett, 2002;
Fairclough, 2002a ; Putnam, 2009) —whose notion places a premium on non
material resources that move beyond economic wealth. Thoughtful manipulation
of metadiscourse resources like stance markers in text creates a credibility
that allows the writer intrude into the text with an authorial authority that is
needed for securing acceptance for academic arguments, constructing an
intelligent and engaging self firmly established in the norms of the discipline,
and reflecting an appropriate degree of confidence that is needed for produc
ing symbolic capital in academy, marketing the research, underscoring its
novelty, and showing that the work deserves to be taken seriously.
Metadiscourse and Establishing Writer’s Identity

The use of metadiscourse in academic writing can also be investigated from
the view point of writer’s identity. Writing is an act of identity in which people
align themselves with socioculturally shaped possibilities for selfhood, playing
their part in reproducing or challenging dominant practices and discourses,
and the values, beliefs, and interests they embody (Ball & Ellis, 2008). Drawing
on the classification proposed by Ivanic (1998), here we suggest that at least
some aspects of the self of academic writers can be developed by the appro
priate and purposeful manipulation of metadiscourse resources in the text.
Ivanic’s classification divides self into four major types:
• Autobiographical self: the particular identity brought by the writing

based on their life histories
• Discoursal self: what writers convey about themselves or the impres
sion that is made through one’s writing
• Self as author: how a writer establishes authority in witting
• Possibilities for selfhood: those identities that are available within
the sociocultural context of the writing
The uses of stance markers were equally present in the four corpora in this
investigation (see Table 1 and Table 6). Their function is reflecting writer’s
voice and protecting his or her academic face and suggests attempts on writers’
part to develop their discoursal self and self as author. Hence, they can be
seen as strategic attempts to establish and maintain the identity of the writer
who is writing to an elite community of critics. However, in marginal genres
(like introductory textbooks) that are not expected to be received by an elite
audience, establishment, and development of self as author—which (on the
basis of Ivanic’s proposal) guarantees writer’s authority in writing—can be
achieved by a heavier use of authority-securing elements like imperatives
and exclusive reader pronouns (see examples below).
Kuhi and Behnam 125
(29) Once you and your colleagues have decided on the assessment
criteria and the type of scale to use, you will want to put the system into
practice. How can you implement the system? What follows is a list of
suggested ways of carrying out systematic observation and recording
the results. However, you should adopt these methods to your own
particular situation and where necessary think of other ways of system
atically observing and recording your findings that may be more suited
to your needs. (IntroT 7)
(30) It is essential to consider the objectives of a course; a course lead

ing to a written grammar exam will have very different timetables from
a general English course. (IntroT 16)
Although these devices seek to engage and position readers, they can also
carry connotations of unequal power, claiming greater authority for the writer
by requiring readers to act or see things in a way determined by the writer. As
Hyland (2001b) argues, this tactic is not without its risks since it can violate
the conventional fiction of democratic peer relationships (especially in intro
ductory textbook chapters where the most frequent occurrence was seen). As
a result, in more prestigious genres, like research articles, directives tended to
be textual and intertextual pointers—a less threatening role than those that
are cognitive and explicitly tell readers how to interpret an argument. In addi
tion, their possible imposition was also further reduced by the fact that they
were often marked off from the main text by their placement in brackets:
(31) Second, most of the studies on MO cited earlier involved NS–

NNS interactions that are rare in the wider world of L2 learning and,
therefore, of less interest for pedagogical practice (but see McDonough,
2004). (RA 16)
Metadiscourse and Marketing Needs

Whereas the use of metadiscourse devices such as stance markers in res
earch articles mainly contributes to and is shaped by the desire for develop
ment of symbolic capital for both the individual writer and the academy he
or she represents, its use in market-driven texts like introductory textbooks
might contribute to the development of economic capital. In an attempt to
outline the motivations behind producing introductory university textbooks,
Swales (1995, p. 8) argues that marketing plays a crucial role in that it “. . . .

responds to a perceived gap in the market, either as an individual initiative or
as a commercial work (and doubtless to profit from filling that gap).” We
believe that the formulation of metadiscourse in textbook genre (especially
the introductory textbooks) stems from one major shift in the social restruc
turing that has taken place in the advanced economies—especially in the
Anglo-American world where majority of textbooks in applied linguistic
issues are produced. This shift, as Oswick and Hanlon (2009) argue, has
dramatically changed the nature of professionalism and has increasingly made
professionals more commercially driven and less willing or able to defend a
notion of professionalism that is more socially oriented or driven by needs
rather than ability to pay. Oswick and Hanlon call this the crisis of profession
alism that—in their view—means that when professions have been unwill
ing or unable to commercialize, they have been downgraded and subjected
to greater managerial control. In fact, textbook writers are under constant pre
ssure of funding resources, publishers, and other academic and nonacademic
institutions to create economic capital, and this inevitably urges them to adopt
a market-driven discourse.
This discourse requires purposeful manipulation of interpersonal resources
by which the market-driven dialogue can be appropriately established for
the successful “commodification of knowledge” (Trowler, 2001). Relatively
higher frequency and status of attitude markers (see Table 3 and Table 6) in
two textbook corpora of this investigation might be a clear indication of the
above-mentioned motivations. However, it seems that only promoting self
and establishing emotional bonds cannot guarantee the success of market-
driven discourse. Only when leaving a positive impression of self is accom
panied with an overwhelmingly heavier use of engagement devices (especially
in introductory textbooks) does the efficacy of market-based dialogue reach
its peak. Devices such as reader pronoun, questions, directives, and personal
asides and appeals to shared knowledge (which were relatively more fre
quent in introductory textbook corpus; see Table 1 and Table 7) can—among
other functions—enhance development of a consumer-oriented discourse and
grant an equal share to the audience in academic communication (see exam
ples below).
ence, that some innate ability complements learned teaching skills, and
that with all of our best-laid lesson plans, there still remains an intan
gible aura surrounding acts of learning. (IntroT 1)
Kuhi and Behnam 127
(33) Besides candy not being good for children’s teeth and contributing
to obesity—a problem that unfortunately is becoming more pronoun
ced in many parts of the world—giving candy as a reward teaches young
learners that sugar and sweets can be used as a way to reward oneself.
(IntroT 12)
(34) Teachers saw not only possible inequity in such tests but a disparity
between the content and tasks of the tests and what they were teaching
in their classes. Were those tests accurate measures of achievement and
success in the specified domains? Were those efficient, well-researched
instruments based on carefully framed, comprehensive, validated stan-
dards of achievement? For the most part they were not. (IntroT 2)
In fact, attempts like the ones quoted previously demonstrate that in text
book production world, where there is a competition for visibility and funds
(Kramsch, 1995), self-promotion is accompanied with audience promotion,
elevating the status of the reader-consumer to an active participant role.
In applied linguistics, as in other disciplines, attracting research funding, con
sultancy contracts, and students is a highly competitive business, and this kind
of competition invariably brings marketing norms closer to university discourses
(this can be considered an appropriate justification for the similar tendency of
academic writers—regardless of the genre they produce—for manipulating self-
promoting stance markers (see Table 1, and Table 2 and Table 6).
Metadiscourse and Different Senses of Otherness

Manifestation of other voices—more technically called “intertextuality”
(Bakhtin, 1986a)—as an inherent quality of academic discourse differs in
fundamental ways from one academic genre to another. In more prestigious
academic genres (e.g., research article and handbook), otherness has an exp
licit manifestation (see Table 2 and Table 5 for the relatively higher ranking
of evidentials in research articles and handbook chapters) in the form of
evidentials and citations that weave the writer’s claims into other texts to
persuade the elite audience that what is claimed should not be seen as being
produced by an isolated writer, that one who is writing is a discourse com
munity not an individual:
(35) Under the “continuity approach,” the whole phrase structure

characterizes child grammars from the beginning, but features may be
temporarily underspecified. It is this underspecification that generates

optionality (Hymes, 1996; Wexler, 1994) (HB 14)
The emerging plural voice aligns the writer with a particular discourse
community, constructs a delicate process of negotiation, situates the research
in a larger narrative, and demonstrates that the propositions are invariably a
response to previous statements and are themselves available to further state
ments by others and that the arguments are meant to be accepted in a persua
sive epistemological and social framework (Hyland, 1999b). However, while
the textual manifestation of those genres addressing novice/student might
suggest that such genres do not utilize or do not even need intertextuality to
be persuasive, and the only voice heard is the authoritative and unattributed
discourse of the writer, we argue here that this authoritative and seemingly
single voice is by itself a manifestation of a different type of otherness. Drawing
on Fairclough’s (2002a, 1996) distinction between manifest intertextuality—
in which other texts are explicitly present in the text— and discursive
intertextuality (or interdiscursivity) —in which configurations of discourse
conventions go into text production by borrowing generic or rhetorical
conventions—we argue that what is heard in pedagogical genres reflects an
otherness that is the very manifestation of the authoritative representation of
knowledge by teachers in the classroom (Brent, 1994): a systematic teacherly
approach (enhanced by the use of metadiscourse elements that facilitate com
prehension, and directives) based on understanding of what is required peda
gogically to convince the novice readers of the effectiveness of an argument
(Henderson, 2001).
(32) Readers are referred to the discussion of this point in Chapter 3.

(SchT 6)
(33) Readers are strongly advised to consult this article before under
taking an analysis of spoken learner language. (SchT 6)
Metadiscourse and Readers’ Attitudinal Vulnerability

The evidence provided by our investigation also confirms the point that some
metadiscourse elements are purposefully, consciously, and thoughtfully manip
ulated to help the writers push the readers to a shared point of view without
necessarily providing logical reasoning. Appeals to shared knowledge and
attitude markers as the evaluative elements of metadiscourse are indications
Kuhi and Behnam 129
of strategic investment of academic writers on the emotions and attitudes in per

suading their readers. The following are some indications of such aspirations:
(34) We already know that the way in which we speak (or write) con
veys a lot of socially important information because speakers use their
linguistic choices in order to locate themselves socially in a multidi
mensional space, as an “act of identity.” (SchT 8)
(35) Interestingly, recasts were mostly provided in response to morpho

syntactic errors (75% of recasts were in response to morphosyntactic
problems, 11% to lexical problems, and 14% to phonological problems).
(RA 14)
ence, that some innate ability complements learned teaching skills. . . .
(IntroT 1)
Such usages provide an atmosphere in the process of discourse that brings

both the writer and reader out of the logical network of thinking and binds them
strongly together through a different network with a feeling-based nature. The
emergent atmosphere is an attitudinal rather than a critical one. This strategy
especially becomes more effective when the audience possesses a limited
critical capacity and this limitation reinforces his or her emotional and attitu
dinal vulnerability (relatively stronger tendency for using attitude markers
and appeals in both textbook corpora; see Table 1 and Table 7).
Hybrid Nature of Metadiscourse in Some Academic Genres

Some academic texts (more specifically scholarly textbooks and handbooks
in our investigation) displayed complex (and maybe in the first impression
confusing) qualities in how their writers used metadiscourse resources. Some
of their metadiscoursal features remind us of those we often encounter in
prestigious academic genres like research articles, whereas some of their meta
discoursal characteristics typify those we usually find in marginal instruc
tional genres like introductory textbooks. Now the question is why academic
texts such as scholarly textbooks (and to some extent handbooks) represent
such “hybrid” shape of metadiscourse elements? Does this have something
to do with the multiple audiences and purposes of such texts? The answer can
be approached from a number of perspectives: First, scholarly textbooks and
handbooks are mainly used in postgraduate programs, so the main audience
of these has neither completely gotten rid of assumptions acquired in under

graduate education nor completely acquired the academic habits and capaci
ties of an elite community. It seems then that those academics involved in
producing textbooks and handbooks are aware of the discoursal capacities of
their audience who is in the process of a rhetorical metamorphosis: from
being addressed by a pedagogical, novice-friendly discourse to one that suits
the wisdom of an educated and elite academic community.
Second, such texts play an intermediary role in accreditation process.
Therefore, it is not unusual that they reflect some of the features of the dis
course in higher and lower levels of the process. These two are neither com
pletely “personal and provisional” nor totally “factual and accredited.” They
are hence expected to reflect some of the features’ of pure claim-generating
genres and some of the characteristics of pure fact-representing genres.
Third, postintroductory textbooks and handbooks can be more complex in
their origin and aspirations than what we expect. These, as Swales (1995)
argues, are “blurred” and “hybrid” in “. . . their efforts to cope with a complex
audience configuration, to represent a broad area of available knowledge, to
offer a vision, and to incorporate new findings emerging as a result of the
exigencies of textbook writing” (p. 15). Alred and Thelen (1993) then seem
to be right in arguing that while textbooks (in our view especially the post
introductory ones) are directly addressed to the student audience, they are
constructed for the professional audience. The fact that postintroductory text
books and handbooks include linguistic features that typify genres that are
more central and prestigious to disciplinary activities means that there is a
sort of duality in their discourse: one pedagogical and constructed to engage
with student/consumers and of course to guarantee the marketing prospects,
and another one professional addressed to colleagues (Hyland, 2002a).
Conclusion
Since disciplines reflect and represent the cultures within which they are
embedded, these social forces selectively facilitate and constrain the knowl
edge created, shaping the discourses of the academy. These discourses do not
function in isolation from the wider moral, political, and economic context but
are, on the contrary, very much part of that context. We, therefore, argue that the
textual realizations of interpersonality in academic writing—metadiscourse—
are intimately linked to the social and cultural forces that play constitutive
roles in the structure of academy. The contextual framework we have created
is an attempt to cluster together some of these forces.
Kuhi and Behnam 131
Approaching interpersonal dimension of academic writing from such a

social perspective, we argue that in this structure, the function of texts has
gone beyond the mere dissemination of academic knowledge, and texts have
become arenas where the multiple stakeholders of academic communication
struggle for being seen and heard.
In this struggle, the ultimate product—text—carries with itself implicit
and explicit traces of writers’ desires for promotion, identity, and power,
readers’ desires for an elevated position and easier processing of the content,
and publishers and academic institutions’ desire for promotion of symbolic
and economic capital.
We believe that the analysis of the genre continuum designed for the
purpose of this study reflects some of the contextual and institutional forces
underlying the production and reception of academic genres. The emerg
ing contextual outline is, in fact, expected to highlight the point that the
very selective use of interpersonal resources by academic writers means
metadiscourse does not operate in a vacuum. Writer–reader interaction is
a social practice in which communicative goals, interests, benefits, advan
tages, and desires of all stakeholders of academic communication play inf
luential roles. However, a more comprehensive picture should emerge in the
light of further investigation of wider ranges of genres and wider ranges of
disciplines.
Appendix
Bibliographical Information of Texts Used in the Analysis
I. Research articles
1. Barcroft, J. (2004). Effects of sentence writing in second language

lexical acquisition. Second language Research, 20(4), 303-334.
2. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2002). Investigating formulaic use and input
in future expressions. SSLA, 24, 189-198.
3. Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention.
Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 553-571.
4. Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses.
English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56.
5. Csizer, K., & Dornyei, Z. (2005). The internal structure of language
learning motivation and its relationship with language choice and
learning effort. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 20-33.
6. El-Dash, L., & Busnardo, J. (2001). Brazilian attitudes toward Eng

lish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 57-74.
7. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive
focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3),
407-432.
8. Fecteau, M. (1999). First- and second-language reading compre
hension of literary texts. The Modern Language Journal, 83(4),
475-493.
9. Hyland, K. (2007). Stance and engagement: A model of interac
tion in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
10. Johnson, L. (2002). My eyes have been opened: White teachers and
racial awareness. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 153-167.
11. Keshavarz, M., Atai, M., & Ahmadi, H. (2007). Content schemata,
linguistic specification, and EFL readers’ comprehension and
recall. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(1), 19-33.
12. Lazarton, A. (2004). Gesture and speech in the vocabulary expla
nation of one ESL teacher: A microanalytic inquiry. Language
Learning, 54(1), 70-117.
13. Lynch, T. (2001). Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route
to noticing. ELT Journal, 55(2), 124-132.
14. Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners
perceive interactional feedback? SSLA, 22, 471-497.
15. Murray, G. (1999). Autonomy and language learning in a simu
lated environment. System, 27, 295-308.
16. Shehadeh, A. (2004). Modified output during task-based pair
interaction and group interaction. Journal of Applied Linguistics,
1(3), 351-382.
17. Shiotsu, T., & Weir, C. (2007). The relative significance of
syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction
of reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing,
24(1), 99-128.
18. Smith, B. (2003). The use of communication strategies in com
puter-mediated communication. System, 31, 29-53.
19. Wu, S. M., & Allison, D. (2005). Evaluative expressions in ana
lytic arguments: Aspects of appraisal in assigned English language
essays. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 105-127.
20. Yang, Y. (2001). Sex and language proficiency level in color-
naming performance: An ESL/EFL perspective. International Jour-
nal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 238-256.
Kuhi and Behnam 133
II. Handbook chapters
1. Brindley, G.(2002). Issues in language assessment. In R. B. Kaplan

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 459-470).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2. Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acq
uisition. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive
linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216-235). London:
Routledge.
3. Goldberg, A., & Casenheiser, D. (2008). Construction learning
and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis
(Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language
acquisition (pp. 197-216) . London: Routledge.
4. Gries, S. (2008). Corpus-based methods in analyses of second lan
guage acquisition data. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Hand-
book of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition
(pp. 406-431) . London: Routledge.
5. Hudson, R. ( 2008). Word grammar, cognitive linguistics, and sec
ond language learning and teaching. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis
(Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language
acquisition (pp. 89-113). London: Routledge.
6. Lantolf, J. ( 2002). Sociocultural theory and second language
acquisition. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied
linguistics (pp. 104-114) . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7. Long, M., & Doughty, C. (2003). SLA and cognitive science.
In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second
language acquisition(pp. 866-870) . Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
8. McGroarty, M. (2002). Language uses in professional contexts. In
R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics.
(pp. 262-271) . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
9. Pica, T. (2008). Task-based teaching and learning. In B. Spolsky
& F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics
(pp. 525-538). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
10. Poole, D. (2002 ) . Discourse analysis and applied linguistics. In
R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics
(pp. 73- 85). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11. Rex, L., & Green, J. ( 2008 ). Classroom discourse and interaction.
In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational
linguistics (pp. 571-584) . Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
12. Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In

C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second lan-
guage acquisition (pp. 382- 408). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
13. Skehan, P. (2008). Interlanguage and language transfer. In B. Spolsky
& F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics
(pp. 411- 423). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
14. Sorace, A. (2003). Near-nativeness. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long
(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 130-152).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
15. Swain, M., & Suzuki, W. (2008). Interaction, output, and commu
nicative language learning. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The
handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 557-570). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
16. Talmy, L. (2008). Aspects of attention in language. In P. Robinson
& N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second
language acquisition (pp. 27-38). London: Routledge.
17. Van Lier, L. ( 2008). Ecological-semiotic perspectives on educa
tional linguistics. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook
of educational linguistics (pp. 596- 605). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
18. Watson-Gego, K., & Nielsen, S. (2003). Language socialization in
SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of sec-
ond language acquisition (pp. 155-177). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
19. Wesche, M., & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based,
and content-based language instruction. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 207- 228) . Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
20. White, L. (2003). On the nature of interlanguage representation:
Universal grammar in second language. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long
(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 19-42).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
III. Scholarly textbook chapters
1. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in prac-

tice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (9. Operationalization:
developing test tasks and blueprints)
2. Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse. London: Con
tinuum. (7. Applications of genre theory)
3. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press. (1. Introduction: linguistic form
and function)
Kuhi and Behnam 135
4. Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of language learner. London:

LEA. (2. Personality, temperament, and mood)
5. Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. (1998). Developments in Eng-
lish for specific purposes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press. (2. A historical perspective on ESP)
6. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press. (2. Learner errors and error analysis)
7. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (7. Analyzing accuracy,
complexity, and fluency)
8. Hudson, R. A. (1996). Sociolinguistics (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. (6. Linguistic and social inequality)
9. Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acqui-
sition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (7. The role of UG in an
explanation of SLA)
10. Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language
acquisition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. (1. Introduc
tion: the relationship of theory to practice)
11. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and
the genesis of second language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. (3. Mediation : theoretical framework)
12. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. White Plains, NY:
Longman. (5. The tact maxim)
13. Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theo-
ries. London: Arnold. (7. Sociocultural perspectives on second-
language learning)
14. Robinson, P. C. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner’s guide. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. (2. Needs analysis)
15. Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (1. Talking about language
teaching)
16. Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learn-
ing: A sociocultural approach. New York: Kluwer Academic Pub
lishers. (5. The self and language learner)
17. Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Explorations in applied linguistics 2. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press. (7. Reading and communication)
18. Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. (12. Taking account of the subject)
19. Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language
teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (8. The place
of tasks in language classrooms)
20. Yalden, J. (1987). Principles of course design for language teachers.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (4. Discourse analy
sis and course design)
IV. Introductory textbook chapters
1. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive

approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Longman. (13.
classroom management)
2. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and
classroom practices. White Plains, NY: Longman. (5. Standards-
based assessment)
3. Cunnigsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Newton,
MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. (8. Methodology)
4. Gebhard, J. G. (2006). Teaching English as a foreign or second
language (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press.
(4. Teaching language as communication among people)
5. Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. White Plains, NY: Longman.
(3. Writing in the language classroom)
6. Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. New York: Pearson
Longman. (8. Teaching writing)
7. Harris, M., & McCann, P. (!994). Assessment. Newton, MA:
Butterworth-Heinemann. (1. Informal assessment)
8. Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press. (1. Teaching and testing)
9. Larsen- Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in lan
guage teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
(9. Communicative language teaching)
10. Lewis, M., & Hill, J. (1985). Practical techniques for language
teaching. London: Commercial Color Press. (1. Basic principles 1.
Student and teacher)
11. Lindsay, C., & Knight, P. (2006). Learning and teaching English.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (5. Speaking)
12. Linse, C. T. (2005). Young learners. New York: McGraw-Hill. (9.
Key issues in teaching young learners)
13. McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and methods in
ELT. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. ( 1. The framework of materials and
methods)
14. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Florence,
KY: Heinle and Heinle. (9. Reading)
Kuhi and Behnam 137
15. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and meth-

ods in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press. (19. The post methods era)
16. Scrivener, J. (1994). Learning teaching. New York: Macmillan
Heinemann. (5. Planning).
17. Teeler, D., & Gray, P. (2000). How to use the internet in ELT.
White Plains, NY: Longman. (6. The internet as a coursebook)
18. Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. White Plains,
NY: Longman. (8. How to test vocabulary)
19. Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice to theory.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (13. Materials)
20. Yule, G. (2006). The study of language (3rd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (12. Discourse analysis)
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article.
References
Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Alred, G. A., & Thelen, E. A. (1993). Are textbooks contributions to scholarship?
College Composition and Communication, 44, 466-477.
Bakhtin, M. (1986a). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986b). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (ed. M. Holquist). Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Ball, A. & Ellis, P. (2008). Identity and the writing of culturally and linguistically
diverse students. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: his-
tory, society, school, individual, text (pp. 499-511). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bazerman, C. (2001). Distanced and refined selves: Educational tensions in writing
with the power of knowledge. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context
(pp. 23-29). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson,
Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Breivega, K. R., Dahl, T., & Flottum, K. (2002). Traces of self and others in research
articles. A comparative study pilot study of English, French and Norwegian
research articles in medicine, economics and linguistics. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 12, 218- 239.
Brent, D. (1994). Writing classes, writing genres, and writing textbooks. Textual Stud-
ies in Canada, 4, 5-15.
Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD these. English for Specific
Purposes, 18, 41-56.
Charles, M. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary
study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27, 492-518.
Connors, R. J. (1986). Textbooks and the evolution of the discipline. College Compo-
sition and Communication, 37, 178-194.
Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What is it and how is it used in school and non-
school social science texts. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national cul
ture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
Davies, A., & Elder, C. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
de Oliveira, J.M. & Pagano, A.S. (2006). The research article and the science popular
ization article: a probabilistic functional grammar perspective on direct discourse
representation. Discourse Studies, 8(5), 627-646.
Everett, J. (2002). Organizational research and the praxelogy of Pierre Bourdieu.
Organizational Research Methods, 5, 56-80.
Fairclough, N. (1996). The technologization of discourse. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard
& M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: readings in critical discourse analy-
sis (pp. 71-83). London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2002a). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within
discourse analysis. In M. Toolan (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis: Critical con-
cepts in linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 23-49). London: Routledge.
Fleck, L. (1979). The genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: Univer
sity of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1935)
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.
Giddens, A. (1987). Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994a). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London,
Melbourne and Auckland: Arnold.
Harwood, N. (2005a). “We do not seem to have a theory . . . The theory I present here
attempts to fill this gap”: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing.
Applied Linguistics, 26, 343-375.
Harwood, N. (2005b). “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, 1207-1231.
Kuhi and Behnam 139
Henderson, W. (2001). Exemplification strategy in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.

In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context (pp. 150-168). Birmingham,
UK: University of Birmingham Press.
Hewings, A., & Hewings, M. (2001). Anticipatory “it” in academic writing: an
indicator of disciplinary difference and developing disciplinary knowledge. In
M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context (pp. 199-214). Birmingham,
Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1),
21-44.
Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis and social sciences: an investigation of the struc
ture of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Spe-
cific Purposes, 16, 321-337.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for
Specific Purposes, 13, 239-256.
Hyland, K. (1996a). Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum. System, 24, 477-490.
Hyland, K. (1996b). Writing without conviction? Hedging in Science research arti
cles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433- 454.
Hyland, K. (1998a). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge.
Text, 18(3), 349-382.
Hyland, K. (1999a). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks.
English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
Hyland, K. (1999b). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplin
ary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 341-367.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing.
White Plains, NY: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001a). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research arti
cles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2001b). Bringing in the reader. Addressee features in academic writing.
Written Communication, 18, 549-574.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied
Linguistics, 23, 215-239.
Hyland, K. (2002b). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56, 351- 358.
Hyland, K. (2002c). Genre: Language, context, and literacy. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 22, 113-135.
Hyland, K. (2002d). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text, 22,
529-557.
Hyland, K. (2002e). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writ
ing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115-130). White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writ
ing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2004b). Graduate gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowl

edgments. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 303-324.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London:
Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic
discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic
discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28, 266-285.
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 183-206.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal.
Applied Linguistics, 25, 156-177.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that
in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123-139.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in
academic writing. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Kaplan, R. B. (2002). The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Elmsford, NY:
Pergamon.
Kramsch, C. (1995). The applied linguist and the foreign language teacher: Can they
talk to each other? In G. Cook & B. Seidelhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in
applied linguistics (pp. 43-56). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kuhi, D. (2008). An analysis of the move structure of textbook prefaces. The Asian
ESP Journal, 4(2), 64-80.
Lautamatti, L. (1987). Observations on the development of the topic of simplified
discourse. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages
(pp. 87-114). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Eco
nomic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
McEnry, T. & Kifle, N.A. (2002). Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of sec
ond language writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.) Academic Discourse (pp. 182-195).
London, UK: Longman.
Myers, G. (1992). Textbooks and sociology of scientific knowledge. English for spe-
cific Purposes, 11, 3-17.
Myers, G. (2001). “In my opinion”: The place of personal views in undergraduate
essays. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context (pp. 63-78). Birmingham,
Myers, G.(2003). Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the bound
aries. Discourse Studies, 5, 265-279.
Kuhi and Behnam 141
Oswick, C., & Hanlon, G. (2009). Discourse, academic work, and journals as com
modities: A response. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 135-141.
Parkinson, J., & Adendroff, R. (2005). Science books for children as a preparation for
textbook literacy. Discourse Studies, 7, 213-236.
Putnam, L. L. (2009). Symbolic capital and academic fields: An alternative discourse
on journal rankings. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 127-134.
Schmitt, N. (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics. New York: Arnold.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research setting.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (1995). The role of textbook in EAP writing research. English for Specific
Purposes, 14, 3-18.
Swales, J., Ahmed, U. K., Chang, Y., Chavez, D., Dressen, D. F., & Seymour, R.
(1998). Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Lin-
guistics, 19, 97-121.
ThueVold, E. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-
linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,
16(1), 61-87.
Trowler, P. (2001). Captured by the discourse? The socially constitutive power of
new higher education discourse in the UK. Organization, 8, 183-201.
VandeKopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College
Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
VandeKopple, W. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse and issues in composition and
rhetoric. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition
(pp. 91-113). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the science (2nd ed.).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University press.
Wilkins, D. A. (1999). Applied linguistics. In B. Spolsky (Ed.). Concise encyclopedia
of educational linguistics (pp. 6-17). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Ziman, J. (1984). An introduction to science studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Bios
Davud Kuhi, PhD in English Language Teaching, is a teacher of applied linguistics

issues in Islamic Azad University, Maraghe. His current research interests include
Academic Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis.
Biook Behnam is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics in Islamic Azad

University, Tabriz. His current research interests cover Discourse Analysis and
Translation Studies.

Generic Variations and Metadiscourse Use in The Writing of Applied Linguists: A Comparative Study and Preliminary Framework

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Generic Variations and Metadiscourse Use in The Writing of Applied Linguists: A Comparative Study and Preliminary Framework

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

387259 WCX

Generic Variations 28(1) 97­–141

Davud Kuhi1 and Biook Behnam1

Corpus and Procedures

carried on by the handbook and ends in the textbook—which contains only

Transitions Stance Engagement

Frame markers Hedges Reader pronouns

Endophoric markers Boosters Directives

Evidentials Attitude markers Questions

Code glosses Self mentions Appeals to shared

Figure 1. An extended version of Hyland’s model of metadiscourse

in identifying two single, discrete functions of metadiscourse because textual

• A list of potentially productive search items was compiled based on

Does learners’ performance on grammatical sentences differ signifi­

• Metadiscourse was seen as a relative concept in that text items only

This study addressed the following research questions:

1. Does writing new words in sentences affect L2 lexical acquisition?

Carrying the linguistic signals of an interrogative, however, does not guar­

Finally, when TE uses these gestures—or doesn’t—is perhaps the most

• In assigning metadiscourse function to textual items, internal and

Although this exploratory study did not examine instructional factors,

As is clear, the connectors in the second example connect activities in the

• Throughout the analysis procedure, we were aware of the fact that

To start on a personal note, this chapter is my first opportunity to bring

While the surface structure seems straightforward and suggests categori­

• Following the dominant tradition of metadiscourse studies (e.g.,

• Due to pragmatic, internal, and multifunctional nature of metadiscourse

An Overview of Quantitative Analysis

Table 1. Metadiscourse Frequencies in Four Corpora (per 1,000 words)

Research Scholarly Introductory

in introductory textbooks owed much to the higher frequency of engagement

Evidential 30.1 Evidential 37.9 Transition 39.6 Transition 31.2

Table 3. Overall Ranked Metadiscourse

evidentials (17.4% of overall metadiscourse, the second priority), and self-

Table 4. Comprehension Facilitators (per 1,000 Words)

Research Scholarly Introductory

A Functional Analysis of the Findings

Metadiscourse Resources and Interpretative Guidance

a. they signaled addition, comparison, causative relations, and contrast:

(1) Anyone who has ever listened to recordings of natural conversation

(2) To begin with, Hypothesis 1 and 2 predicted that pair interaction

(3) For a sample of self-assessment questionnaire for e-mail writing, see

d. They reformulated (i.e., restated an idea to widen the sense in

Metadiscourse and Intertextuality

(5) It is not only language that is a network: Cognitive psychologists

Table 5. Evidentials (per 1,000 Words)

relationship between a writer’s argument and his or her discourse community.

Metadiscourse and Expression of Writers’ Textual Voice

b. They were used by the writers to close down alternatives in the

c. They indicated writers’ affective and emotional, rather than epistemic,

d. They showed that writers cannot avoid projecting an impression of

Metadiscourse and Readers’ Engagement

Table 6. Stance Markers (per 1000 Words)

b. They instructed the readers to perform an action or see things in a

1. Prepare the text for analysis by . . .

2. Calculate the following . . .

3. Select and calculate measures of accuracy, complexity, and fluency.

c. They aroused interest and encouraged the reader to explore an unre­

Table 7. Engagement Markers (per 1,000 Words)

Research Scholarly Introductory

d. They tried to position readers within apparently naturalized bound­

e. They addressed the readers directly by briefly interrupting the argu­

(14) In simple terms, English conversation can be described as an activ­

Generic Variations 28(1) 97–141

Does learners’ performance on grammatical sentences differ signifi

Carrying the linguistic signals of an interrogative, however, does not guar

While the surface structure seems straightforward and suggests categori

c. They aroused interest and encouraged the reader to explore an unre

d. They tried to position readers within apparently naturalized bound

e. They addressed the readers directly by briefly interrupting the argu

(14) In simple terms, English conversation can be described as an activ

(18) It is essential to consider the objectives of a course; a course lead

These uses carry connotations of unequal power, claiming greater author

(22) Although we are aware of recent attacks on the concept of atti

(27) We believe that the findings of this study, if corroborated by fur

(30) It is essential to consider the objectives of a course; a course lead

of strategic investment of academic writers on the emotions and attitudes in per

(35) Interestingly, recasts were mostly provided in response to morpho

of these has neither completely gotten rid of assumptions acquired in under

6. El-Dash, L., & Busnardo, J. (2001). Brazilian attitudes toward Eng

Hyland, K. (2004b). Graduate gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowl