Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of research articles and book reviews

Abstract

The aim of this comparative study is to investigate the deployment of interactional metadiscoursefeatures in two different academic genres. For this purpose, a small, specialized corpus of 48 researcharticles and book reviews from seven different disciplines were collected. The conclusion sections of thetexts written by non-native speakers of English were investigated to find out how interactionalmetadiscourse features were used. Drawing on previous metadiscourse frameworks, hedges, boosters,attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers were identified in both sub-corpora. The resultsindicated significant differences across the groups on how writers constructed their authorial stance withinteractional metadiscourse markers. Findings revealed that by using a rich number and variety ofattitude markers, book reviewers were more evaluative in their conclusions. On the contrary, higher useof hedges in research articles allowed the authors sound more cautious in their commitment to thepropositions. This study offers a detailed account of interactional metadiscourse in these two genres andillustrates how interpersonal function of language is accomplished for particular purposes in differentacademic texts.