SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Litera / 2026 / Cilt: 36 Sayı: 1

Author-Reader-Interaction in Academic Texts: A Descriptive Linguistic Analysis

Autor-Leser-Interaktion in wissenschaftlichen Texten: Eine deskriptive linguistische Analyse

Barış Konukman(İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi)0000-0002-1530-1661
Journal
Litera
Pages
122–137
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The aim of this article is to examine the linguistic forms and structures that indicate interaction between the author and the reader in academic texts, using a selected German corpus consisting of six literary studies articles in the field of German language and literature, and applying selected linguistic criteria.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The importance of language as a fundamental medium for communicating scientific findings is indisputable, since the knowledge gained through scientific activities is ultimately shared with the discussion community by means of linguistic texts.
📊
Key Findings & Data:As several linguistic studies conducted over the past 40 years or so have shown, which deal with stylistic devices in scientific texts, it is well known that the author of a scientific text reveals himself through certain linguistic preferences for the use of language in the text and, not least, uses linguistic devices that also imply the presence of the text recipient, thereby giving the scientific text a dialogical and interactional character.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The aim of this article is to examine the linguistic forms and structures that indicate interaction between the author and the reader in academic texts, using a selected German corpus consisting of six literary studies articles in the field of German language and literature, and applying selected linguistic criteria.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sprachliche Interaktion · Wissenschaftlicher Stil · Wissenschaftliches Schreiben

Abstract

The importance of language as a fundamental medium for communicating scientific findings is indisputable, since the knowledge gained through scientific activities is ultimately shared with the discussion community by means of linguistic texts. When we talk about science as an activity, terms such as objectivity, detachment, clarity, relevance, and the like immediately come to mind—and not without good reason. In this regard, it is certainly a common expectation that scientific findings should be obtained through the most detached and objective investigation and analysis of the subject matter at hand. Accordingly, the prevailing view is that scientific texts should be as objective, clear, and precise as possible in their use of language and, to this end, should use anonymized forms and structures. However, this leads to the somewhat questionable assumption that the author of a scientific text must remain completely hidden in the text. As several linguistic studies conducted over the past 40 years or so have shown, which deal with stylistic devices in scientific texts, it is well known that the author of a scientific text reveals himself through certain linguistic preferences for the use of language in the text and, not least, uses linguistic devices that also imply the presence of the text recipient, thereby giving the scientific text a dialogical and interactional character. The aim of this article is to examine the linguistic forms and structures that indicate interaction between the author and the reader in academic texts, using a selected German corpus consisting of six literary studies articles in the field of German language and literature, and applying selected linguistic criteria.

🔖

Cite This Article

Konukman, B. (2026). Author-Reader-Interaction in Academic Texts: A Descriptive Linguistic Analysis. Litera, Cilt: 36 Sayı: 1, 122–137. https://doi.org/10.26650/LITERA2026-1814981

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (59)

  1. Adamzik, K. (2016[2]). Textlinguistik. Grundlagen, Kontroversen, Perspektiven. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter. google scholar
  2. Atasoy, İ. (2016). Wissenschaftstexte im Vergleich: Eine kontrastive Analyse deutscher und tü rkischer Fachtexte im Bereich der Medienwissenschaft. Lingwistyka Stosowana, 18(3), 13-23. google scholar
  3. Auer, Peter. (1999). Sprachliche Interaktion: Eine Einführung anhand von 22 Klassikern. Tübingen: Niemeyer. google scholar
  4. Auer, P. & Baßler, H. (Hg.) (2007). Reden und Schreiben in der Wissenschaft. Frankfurt, New York: Campus. google scholar
  5. Auer, P. & Baßler, H. (2007). Der Stil der Wissenschaft. In Auer, P. & Baßler, H. (Hg.), Reden und Schreiben in der Wissenschaft, (9-29), Frankfurt, New York: Campus. google scholar
  6. Boginskaya, O. (2024). Evaluative Stancetaking in English-Medium Academic Prose: A Study of Research Article Abstracts by Russian and Chinese L2 Writers. Journal of Language and Education, 10(3), 40-52. google scholar
  7. Breitkopf, A. (2006). Wissenschaftsstile im Vergleich: Subjektivitä t in deutschen und russischen Zeitschriftenartikeln der Soziologie. Freiburg i. Br.: Rombach. google scholar
  8. Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  9. Chen, Qi. (2017). Textkommentierung und Selbstdarstellung in deutschen und chinesischen sprachwissenschaftlichen Artikeln. Jahrbuch für Internationale Germanistik, 130. 391-410. google scholar
  10. Crismore, A. & Farnsworth, R. (1990), 'Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse', in W. Nash, (ed.) The Writing Scholar. (118-136) Newbury Park, CA: Sage. google scholar
  11. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. & Steffensen, M.S. (1993). Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71. google scholar
  12. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A Marker of National Culture or of Academic Discipline. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825. google scholar
  13. Escalona, S. L. (2025). Hedges and Boosters in College Essays: A Study of Linguistic Modulation in Student Writing. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 10(1), 007–017. google scholar
  14. Guziurová, T. (2014). The Expression of the Writer’s Attitude in Undergraduate Textbooks and Research Articles. Ostrava Journal of English Philology, 6(2). 81-94. google scholar
  15. Graefen, G. (1997). Der wissenschaftliche Artikel: Textart und Textorganisation. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. google scholar
  16. Graefen, G. & Thielmann, W. (2007). Der wissenschaftliche Artikel. In Auer, P. & Baßler, H. (Hg.), Reden und Schreiben in der Wissenschaft, (67-97), Frankfurt, New York: Campus. google scholar
  17. Greule, A. & Reimann, S. (2015). Basiswissen Textgrammatik. Tü bingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag. google scholar
  18. Gü ç lü, R. (2024). Hedging and boosting in Turkish MA theses’ conclusions. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 20(1),17-54. google scholar
  19. Hampp, R. (2022): Hedging. Zum kommunikativen Verstä ndnis zwischen schreibenden Wissenschaftler*innen und rezipierenden Student*innen. zisch: zeitschrift fü r interdisziplinä re schreibforschung, 6, 81-96. google scholar
  20. Hyland, Ken (1998a) Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 437–455. google scholar
  21. Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, Hedging and the Negotiation of Academic Knowledge. Text & Talk, 18, 349-382. google scholar
  22. Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 529-574. google scholar
  23. Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics.,34, 1091-1112. google scholar
  24. Hyland, K. (2002b). Directives: Argument and Engagement in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics, 23, 215-239. google scholar
  25. Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum. google scholar
  26. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies. 7 (2): 173-191. google scholar
  27. Hyland, K. (2016). Writing with attitude: Conveying a stance in academic texts. In Eli Hinkel (ed.) Teaching grammar to speakers of other languages. (246-265). New York: Routledge. google scholar
  28. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29. google scholar
  29. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156-177. google scholar
  30. Hyland, K. & Jiang, F. (2024). Metadiscourse: the evolution of an approach to texts. Text & Talk, 44(3), 411-433. google scholar
  31. Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 345-365. google scholar
  32. Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. google scholar
  33. Jančaříková, Renata. (2023). Attitude Markers in L2 Learners' Academic Writing: A Case Study of Master's Theses by Czech Students Compared to L1 Students' Writings. Brno Studies in English, 49, 5-31. google scholar
  34. Grabe, William and Robert B. Kaplan, 1997: "On the Writing of Science and the Science ofWriting: Hedging in Science Text and Elsewhere". In Markkanen, R. & Schrö der, H. (eds.),Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts (151-167). Berlin: de Gruyter. google scholar
  35. Konukman, B. (2023). Writer Stance in Academic Texts: A Linguistic Study of Selected Academic Texts in Issues 1-5 of the Journal SDSL. In Turkish-German Relations in Literary History From the Fifteenth Through the Twenty-First Century (77-103), İstanbul: Istanbul University Press. google scholar
  36. Kuo, C. H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121-138. google scholar
  37. Luukka, M. R. & Markkanen, R. (1997). Impersonalization as a Form of Hedging. In Markkanen, R. & Schröder, H.(eds.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, (168-187), Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. google scholar
  38. Malinowski, B. and Thielmann, W. (2015). Wissenschaftssprache in Literatur und Wissenschaft. In A. Heydenreich and K. Mecke (eds) Quarks and Letters: Naturwissenschaften in der Literatur und Kultur der Gegenwart. (85-116), Berlin: De Gruyter. google scholar
  39. Mifdal, M., & Lewis, M. (2023). Revisiting the use of hedges and boosters in scientific research articles in Morocco: Caution that does not exclude conviction. Cultures of Science, 6(1), 113-130. google scholar
  40. Mur Dueñas, Pilar. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20, 50-72. google scholar
  41. Thielmann, W. (2017). Genuin wissenschaftssprachliche Strukturen. Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 44(5), 546-569. google scholar
  42. Thielmann, W. (2024). Schriftliche und mündliche Wissenschaftskommunikation im Kontext von Deutsch als Fach- und Fremdsprache. In M. Szurawitzki & P. Wolf-Farré (Ed.), Handbuch Deutsch als Fach- und Fremdsprache: Ein aktuelles Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (S. 441-462). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. google scholar
  43. Triyoko, H., Wijana, I., & Baryadi, I. (2021). Hedges and Boosters in Indonesian Scientific Articles. Register Journal, 14(1), 65-82. google scholar
  44. Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and google scholar
  45. Communication, 36 (1), 82-93. google scholar
  46. Vázquez, Ignacio & Giner, Diana. (2009). Writing with Conviction: The Use of Boosters in Modelling Persuasion. Academic Discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22, 219-237. google scholar
  47. Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83–102. google scholar
  48. Korpusverzeichnis google scholar
  49. [ZfiG/1] Schlicht, C. (2022). Wem gehört die Krise?. Europa und die Flüchtlingsfrage im Spiegel zeitgenössischer deutschsprachiger Literatur (Schimmelpfennig, Jelinek, Kuhligk). Zeitschrift für interkulturelle Germanistik, 13(1), 97-110. google scholar
  50. [ZfiG/2] Rössler, R. (2023). Mittelmeer und material turn. Zeitschrift für interkulturelle Germanistik,14(2), 99-114. google scholar
  51. [ZfiG/3] Sennefelder, A. K. (2024). Punchlines platzieren oder Zirkel ziehen. Zur konträren Verhandlung von Identität in Bernadine Evaristos Girl, Woman, Other und Jackie Thomaes Brüder. Zeitschrift für interkulturelle Germanistik 15, 47-66. google scholar
  52. [JfiG/1]Dätsch, C. (2022). Literarische Interventionen?: Der Chamisso-Preis und die Transformation der Gegenwartsliteratur, Jahrbuch für Internationale Germanistik, 54 (3), 165-183. google scholar
  53. [JfiG/2] Eming, J. (2023). (Keine) Liebe am entlegensten Ort der Welt: Gottfrieds von Straßburg Tristan und Raoul Schrotts Tristan da Cunha, Jahrbuch für Internationale Germanistik, 55 (3), 215-232. google scholar
  54. [JfiG/3] von Schilling, E. (2024). Ökologie, Phantastik und Geschlecht in Olga Tokarczuks Empusion – vor dem Hintergrund von Thomas Manns Zauberberg, Jahrbuch für Internationale Germanistik, 56 (3), 219-230. google scholar
  55. Internetquellen google scholar
  56. Ich, man, wir? – Möglichkeiten der Selbstreferenz. (29.10.2025). In: https://www.vwl.uni-mannheim.de/media/Fakultaeten/vwl/Dokumente/Leitfaden_Selbstreferenz.pdf google scholar
  57. Stimmen von Autor*innen – Positionierung in wissenschaftlichen Texten. (29.10.2025). In: https://www.uni-paderborn.de/fileadmin/kompetenzzentrum-schreiben/pdf-Dateien/Positionierung.pdf google scholar Parenthesen/Einschübe. (29.10.2025). In: https://grammis.ids-mannheim.de/systematische-grammatik/921 google scholar
  58. Pluralis Majestatis, Pluralis Modestiae und „Krankenschwesternplural„ (29.10.2025). In: https://www.duden.de/sprachwissen/sprachratgeber/Pluralis-Majestatis-Pluralis-Modestiae-und-Krankenschwesternplural google scholar
  59. Gü ç lü, R. (2024). Hedging and boosting in Turkish MA theses’ conclusions. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 20(1),17-54. google scholar