In the introductory and conclusion paragraphs of authors Lewis

and Maslin’s “Defining the Anthropocene”, several linguistic and

stylistic features serve individualistically unique purposes to
strengthen the coherence of the authors’ main ideas. For
instance, in this phrase, “Several approaches have been put
forward to define when the Anthropocene began, including those
focusing on the impact of fire [42], pre-industrial farming
[43–45], sociometabolism [46], and industrial technologies
[1,39,40,41,47],.. ”, one can note that this indicates the state of
knowledge, especially from the part-phrase “Several approaches'',
which refers to previous external sources addressing on the same
topic as that of the authors of this article’s main argument. This is
done to establish the previous conclusions and consensus reached
by other researchers prior to the work of Lewis and Maslin.
Moreover, paying attention to the citation and summary practices,
the reporting expression “have been put forward” signifies a
synonymous meaning as that of ‘propose’, the language of which
insinuates to the audience that these previous works are mere
‘proposals’ when it comes to determining the geological events
that signify the advent of the Anthropocene era. More so, this
particular text in the quote “[1,39,40,41,47],” is a reference to a
citation made to the particular source(s) numerically addressed
towards the very end, rather than directly stating their names
and dates within parenthesis. The authors may have used such
citation practices to properly order the list of their cited sources
for the audience to refer to them swiftly.

Following the state of knowledge, the authors immediately

introduce the corresponding knowledge deficit in the very same
sentence as evidenced in this part-phrase “…but the relative
merits of the evidence for various starting dates have not been
systematically assessed against the requirements of a golden
spike.”. In this quotation, the specific words “...have not been
systematically assessed” is not only the very indication of the
exact aspect that is lacking in the previous works (state of
knowledge), but it also serves as yet another reporting
expression which, similar to that of in the state of knowledge,
uses passive voice to serve additional emphasis on the previous
works done by external researchers, rather than those
researchers themselves.

To give further context to their topic before stating their

argument, or even the state of knowledge for that matter, the
authors Lewis and Maslin have made certain generalizations such
as in the sentence “Generally, geologists have used temporally
distant changes in multiple stratigraphic records to delimit major
changes in the Earth system”, wherein they make the claim that
stratigraphic records served as boundary markers for a while in
the field of geology. This assessment is strengthened by the
implementation of the reporting expression “have used” where
the authors report on their sources being the ‘geologists’.
Furthermore, the word ‘generally’ also portrays itself as a limiting
expression, which gives the reading audience the impression that
this sentence is indeed nearly an opinionated sentence from the
authors, backed up by their sources being the ‘geologists’
themselves, thus securing their generalization.

Furthermore, the authors proceed to eventually introduce their

main argument as follows in the phrase “Below, we review the
major events in human history and pre-history and their impact
on stratigraphic records”, wherein they directly fill in the gap
exposed via the knowledge deficit by going in depth to the
specific historical records which will corroborate the age of the
anthropocene epoch. Moreover, this is achieved first by the
discursive first-person expression made in the part-phrase “we
review… '', which further serves the purpose to clarify the
authors’ stand on the matter. In light of this, the authors proceed
to give a structural outline of how their main argument will unfold
using the following phrases such as “We focus on'' and “We
proceed chronologically”, to give an insight to the readers as to
what they may expect next in the article. This is an example of
forecasting the new argument or point introduced by the authors
Lewis and Maslin. Finally, in some instances the authors
implement appositions in phrases such as “...yield markers
consistent with a GSSP (lake and marine sediments, glacier ice)”,
wherein the specific term ‘GSSP’, although already known as
‘golden spikes’ separately in the introduction, is redefined by the
authors as they give out specific examples of geological features
to provide a reiterated definition of the term GSSP under the
context of the sentence it is being used here as: geological
markers.

Moreover, most frequently in the conclusion paragraphs, the

authors cast speculation and uncertainty in regards to their own
results and arguments surrounding the topic of anthropocene.
This is primarily achieved by using modal expressions as stated in
the phrase “Ratification of an Anthropocene Epoch would require
a further decision to be made… ”, wherein the specific word
‘would’ leaves a conditional uncertainty to the conclusion of the
given topic, such that the authors intend to ensure to the reader
that despite their arguments, the matter is not yet closed on
which geological features would unanimously constitute the start
of the Anthropocene Epoch. Additionally, the authors insert
speculative and introspective comments such as “We therefore
suggest that if the Anthropocene is accepted as an epoch it
should directly follow the Pleistocene (Fig. 1c)...”, wherein the
part-phrase ‘we therefore suggest’ indicates that the authors
themselves are merely providing educated opinions which does
not necessarily fall under their main argument of analyzing
specific geological features. Rather, it serves as a comment that
the authors are making on potential future work that researchers
may take into consideration in context of going over their own
work first, thus making this an example of a knowledge-making
discursive feature. Adding to this, authors also have a tendency
of ‘watering down’ certain arguments with the use of limiting
expressions such as in the phrase “historic events such as the
Industrial Revolution [1–3,39,40], can probably be rejected”,
wherein the word ‘probably’ constraints the audience to register
once again the speculative uncertainty of the conclusions reached
by the two authors of this article. Lastly, the authors make a
self-reference to their own work in the part-phrase ““Our review
highlights… ”, to confirm to the reading audience the exact
takeaways from their article, as the word ‘highlights’ is a
self-reporting expression that the authors implement to bring the
readers’ attention in order to reinforce their main argument being
that primarily gas-related geological events must be prioritized to
count as a potential global spike, in context to finding the age of
the Anthropocene epoch.