Abstract

Despite the existing extensive research on stance markers such as hedges, boosters, and self-mention in academic writing, few studies, however, examined the co-occurrence of these stance markers to help authors project their identities in writing. In this study, we examine how self-mention with boosters and hedges are used by writers of different groups to manifest authorial presence and what functions they realize in research writing. Two self-compiled corpora were constructed to compare the discursive practice between Chinese PhD students and journal article writers from four disciplines in hard applied and hard pure science. In general, student writers use fewer self-mention with boosters but more self-mention with hedges than expert writers. An examination of the rhetorical functions of these devices shows that both expert and student writers employ most self-mention with boosters for presenting research findings, but students are more inclined to invest self-mention with boosters than expert writers when describing research procedures or elaborating arguments. Meanwhile, self-mention with hedges are mostly used for elaborating arguments, but compared with expert writers, students seem to overly obscure their presence in this function.

Highlights

  • Successful academic writing, at least in part, lies in the writer’s ability to invest disciplinarily recognized identity to present his or her claims and findings in a way that readers feel plausible and suasive (Hyland, 2001; Lancaster, 2016; Tang & John, 1999)

  • We address the following questions and take into account disciplinary and professional status in the interpretation of our findings: Research Question 1 (RQ1): What are the similarities and differences in hedges and boosters used with self-mention between science PhD students and expert writers across hard pure and applied disciplines? Research Question 2 (RQ2): To what extent do PhD students differ from professional writers when using hedges and boosters with self-mention in terms of discourse functions? Research Question 3 (RQ3): What are the differences, if any, in the lexical forms of hedges and boosters with selfmention used by PhD students and professional writers?

  • This study has investigated the use of hedges and boosters with self-presence we and our in research papers, exploring their rhetorical functions and lexical collocations in the writing in four disciplines produced by Chinese PhD students and expert writers

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Successful academic writing, at least in part, lies in the writer’s ability to invest disciplinarily recognized identity to present his or her claims and findings in a way that readers feel plausible and suasive (Hyland, 2001; Lancaster, 2016; Tang & John, 1999). The most visible and prominent presence of authorial identity is the first-person pronoun as it is perceived as “a significant means of promoting a competent scholarly identity and gaining acceptance for one’s idea” This study aims to bridge this gap in metadiscourse research by comparing how self-mention we and its determiner our with hedges and boosters are used by Chinese PhD students and expert writers across four scientific disciplines, exploring how writer groups distinguish from each other in constructing authorial identity and in promoting the plausibility and value of the writers’ contribution (Hyland, 2015). The findings could shed light on how the authorial presence is practiced in both novice and expert writers’ research writing, as the genre-specific practice of stance taking, the construction of authorial identity, is of pedagogical importance because nonnative

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call