Our purpose in this research is to quantitatively analyse how the communication of managerial knowledge is realised in research articles written by experienced writers for publication and those produced by graduate students as a course grade requirement. Specifically, we look at the ways these writers construct their authorial identities (textually conveyed in ‘voice’). To do so, we combine Hyland’s (2008) interactional model of voice with the Author’s (xxxx) conceptualisation of ‘writer identity.’ The study results reveal important differences with regard to the expression of interaction in written discourse, with novices employing more interpersonal features to involve readers and experienced authors making linguistic choices to establish authority in their texts. We show that the use of interpersonal metadiscourse renders academic texts more accessible, reader engaging and interesting. This enables us to work towards the development of more effective writing instruction which is particularly relevant for English for Academic Purposes pedagogy. Keywords:  discourse analysis, management writing, writer identity, reader inclusion

No abstract

No abstract

The pressure to publish is not new for academics as it has always been necessary not only as a means for disseminating scholarly ideas and expanding existing research, but also as a way to advance our academic careers and meet employment requirements. However, there is a new aspect of this pressure which is different today: the promotion of a "winner-takes-all" system (Frank, & Cook, 2010), supported by mainstream journals' policies, in which "there are no benefits at

This short paper makes a tentative attempt to capture the most salient of persuasion strategies engaged in the construction of leadership in three different yet apparently interrelated domains of public life and public policy, political communication, management/business discourse, and academic communication. It explores the cognitive underpinnings, as well as linguistic realizations, of such concepts/phenomena/mechanisms as consistency-building, source-tagging, forced conceptualizations by metaphor, and discursive neutralization of the cheater detection module in the discourse addressee. A preliminary conclusion from the analysis of these mechanisms is that the three discourses under investigation reveal striking conceptual similarities with regard to the main strategies of credibility-building and enactment of leadership. At the same time, they reveal differences at the linguistic level, i.e. regarding the types of lexical choices applied to realize a given strategy.