Cross-disciplinary variation in metadiscourse: A corpus-based analysis of Russian-authored research article abstracts

Abstract

The article deals with metadiscourse variation in academic texts across disciplinary boundaries. Its main focus is on the distribution of metadiscourse markers in Russian-authored academic prose in the field of applied linguistics and engineering. The study assumes that the distribution of metadiscourse devices is determined by disciplinary norms. The theoretical basis of the study is Hyland’s taxonomy of metadiscourse markers. With the aim of investigating metadiscourse in English-medium research article (RA) abstracts by Russian authors, the present study adopted a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. The results revealed that RA abstracts feature four types of metadiscourse markers whose distribution varies across two disciplines representing the humanities and hard sciences. The study also investigated the degree of familiarity of linguistics and engineering scholars from leading Russian universities with metadiscourse devices and their awareness of the need to use them in research articles. To achieve this goal, a survey was conducted to obtain data on knowledge of metadiscourse as a discursive strategy. The findings carry therefore pedagogical implications for academic writing course designers and instructors and can enhance non-native English writers’ knowledge of academic writing conventions in the discipline.

Stancetaking in English-Medium Research Article Abstracts: A Contrastive Analysis

“…As a product of social interaction, academic texts contain various stance features, which have been described as linguistic items used to increase persuasiveness of texts [10] or establish credibility [11,12]. The term stance was introduced by Biber and Finegan, who defined it as "the overt expression of an author's or speaker's attitudes, feelings, judgments, or commitment concerning the message" [13, p. 1].…”

A corpus-based approach to corporate communication research

“…While available research on the language and narratives of CSR reports is scarcer than that concerned with the more global spheres of marketing, business ethics or sustainability, it has been gaining traction to offer a number of valuable insights. Over the past two decades, some studies have looked into the composition of CSR reports to consider the use of narratives to communicate the firm's financial position (Yuthas et al 2002, Boginskaya 2022, outline the specific characteristics of CEO-authored sections of CSR reports influencing their ultimate narrative outcome (Nickerson & de Groot 2005), or single out the genres related to CSR reports as a standalone type of corporate documentation bearing its unique narrative traits (Kolk 2008, Yu & Bondi 2019. Generally, the related research tends to go by a textual analysis of CSR reports investigating, for example, metaphors used in communicating with investors to validate their needs (Livesey & Kearins 2002), or the specific language units helping bring certain arguments home to the stakeholders (Ellerup Nielsen & Thomsen 2007, Ivanova & Larina 2022.…”

The Effect of Rhetorical Styles on Metadiscourse Choices of Culturally Diverse Authors

“…Proceeding from previous studies of Asian and Slavic-authored academic writing (Belyakova, 2017;Boginskaya, 2022b;Čmejrková, 2007;Dawang, 2006;Dontcheva-Navratilova, 2013;Hyland & Tse, 2004;Gu, 2008;Kim & Lim, 2013;Lu, 2000;Mur-Dueñas & Šinkūnienė, 2016;Pisanski Peterlin, 2005;Vassileva, 2001;Walková, 2018), I assumed that research article (RA) abstracts written by Asian and Slavic authors would differ in terms of metadiscourse patterns such as boosters, hedges, attitude markers and self-mentions due to the influence of the rhetorical styles the writers had been exposed to. While Asian-authored writing would feature more indirect and vague claims and fewer personal statements, academic texts produced by Slavic writers would use more certainty devices and self-mentions in order to create an authorial presence predominantly with the use of the authorial we.…”