A Linguistic Study of Persuasion and Negotiation in Research Articles of Islamic Studies: Issues and Challenges

Abstract

Examining the claim-making in research articles of Islamic studies published in Pakistan by Pakistani authors, in particular, has not got the attention of the linguists yet. The objective of the current study is to explore the nature of claims by examining Boosters (authoritative and assertive claims) and Hedges (softer and negotiable claims) made by the authors of Islamic studies research articles in the context of Pakistan. To examine the linguistic nature of these claims, mix methodology was used by utilizing the list of claim markers proposed under metadiscourse theory. The study found that the ratio between Boosters and Hedges employed by the authors of Islamic Studies is around 2:1 which is not aligned with international practice i.e. 3:1. The most noticeable academic writing expressions used for making stronger claims are modal verbs including should and must which is not a conventional practice in any discipline at the international level. Similarly, the authors preferred modal verbs including would, may, could and might in order to make their claims softer which in some cases is likely to restrict the meanings to be understood by the readers. The findings recommend, as an implication, developing a research writing curriculum for the postgraduate scholars of Islamic Studies in Pakistan.