Thanks to the recent developments in the theory of academic discourse analysis, it is now increasingly accepted that negotiation of academic knowledge is intimately related to the social practices of academic communities. To underpin this position and to reveal some of the ways this is achieved, this article analyzes a relatively wide spectrum of academic texts (20 research articles, 20 handbook chapters, 20 scholarly textbook chapters, and 20 introductory textbook chapters) in applied linguistics. The authors show here the importance of establishing social relationships in academic arguments, suggest some of the ways this is achieved, and indicate how the social and institutional differences that underlie production and reception of different academic genres influence the ways metadiscourse is shaped in academic communication.
Adel, A. ( 2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2.
Alred, G.A., & Thelen, E.A. ( 1993). Are textbooks contributions to scholarship? College Composition and Communication, 44, 466-477.
3.
Bakhtin, M. ( 1986a). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
4.
Bakhtin, M. ( 1986b). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (ed. M. Holquist) . Austin: University of Texas Press .
5.
Ball, A. & Ellis, P. ( 2008). Identity and the writing of culturally and linguistically diverse students. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: history, society, school, individual, text (pp. 499-511). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Bazerman, C. ( 2001). Distanced and refined selves: Educational tensions in writing with the power of knowledge. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context (pp. 23-29). Birmingham , UK: University of Birmingham Press.
7.
Bourdieu, P. ( 1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson , Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Polity .
8.
Breivega, K.R., Dahl, T., & Flottum, K. ( 2002). Traces of self and others in research articles. A comparative study pilot study of English, French and Norwegian research articles in medicine, economics and linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 218- 239.
9.
Brent, D. ( 1994). Writing classes, writing genres, and writing textbooks . Textual Studies in Canada, 4, 5-15.
10.
Bunton, D. ( 1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD these. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56.
11.
Charles, M. ( 2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27, 492-518.
12.
Connors, R.J. ( 1986). Textbooks and the evolution of the discipline. College Composition and Communication, 37, 178-194.
13.
Crismore, A. ( 1983). Metadiscourse: What is it and how is it used in school and non-school social science texts. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
14.
Dahl, T. ( 2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
15.
Davies, A., & Elder, C. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell .
16.
de Oliveira, J.M. & Pagano, A.S. ( 2006). The research article and the science popularization article: a probabilistic functional grammar perspective on direct discourse representation . Discourse Studies, 8(5), 627-646.
17.
Everett, J. ( 2002). Organizational research and the praxelogy of Pierre Bourdieu . Organizational Research Methods, 5, 56-80.
18.
Fairclough, N. ( 1996). The technologization of discourse. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 71-83). London: Routledge.
19.
Fairclough, N. ( 2002a). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. In M. Toolan (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 23-49). London: Routledge .
20.
Fleck, L. ( 1979). The genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1935)
21.
Foucault, M. ( 1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London : Tavistock.
22.
Giddens, A. ( 1987). Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
23.
Halliday, M.A.K. ( 1994a). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London, Melbourne and Auckland: Arnold.
24.
Harwood, N. ( 2005a). "We do not seem to have a theory . . . The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap": Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26, 343-375.
25.
Harwood, N. ( 2005b). "Nowhere has anyone attempted . . . . In this article I aim to do just that": A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplinesJournal of Pragmatics , 37, 1207-1231.
26.
Henderson, W. ( 2001). Exemplification strategy in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context (pp. 150-168). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham Press.
27.
Hewings, A., & Hewings, M. ( 2001). Anticipatory "it" in academic writing: an indicator of disciplinary difference and developing disciplinary knowledge. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context (pp. 199-214). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham Press.
28.
Holmes, J. ( 1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21-44.
29.
Holmes, R. ( 1997). Genre analysis and social sciences: an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines . English for Specific Purposes, 16, 321-337.
30.
Hyland, K. ( 1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 239-256.
31.
Hyland, K. ( 1996a). Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum. System, 24, 477-490.
32.
Hyland, K. ( 1996b). Writing without conviction? Hedging in Science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433- 454.
33.
Hyland, K. ( 1998a). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge . Text, 18(3), 349-382.
34.
Hyland, K. ( 1999a). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks . English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
35.
Hyland, K. ( 1999b). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 341-367.
36.
Hyland, K. ( 2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. White Plains, NY: Longman .
37.
Hyland, K. ( 2001a). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
38.
Hyland, K. ( 2001b). Bringing in the reader. Addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication, 18, 549-574.
39.
Hyland, K. ( 2002a). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing . Applied Linguistics, 23, 215-239.
40.
Hyland, K. ( 2002b). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56, 351- 358.
41.
Hyland, K. ( 2002c). Genre: Language, context, and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 113-135.
42.
Hyland, K. ( 2002d). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text, 22, 529-557.
43.
Hyland, K. ( 2002e). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115-130). White Plains, NY: Longman.
44.
Hyland, K. ( 2004a). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
45.
Hyland, K. ( 2004b). Graduate gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgments. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 303-324.
46.
Hyland, K. ( 2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
47.
Hyland, K. ( 2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192.
48.
Hyland, K. ( 2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28, 266-285.
49.
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. ( 1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 183-206.
50.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. ( 2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156-177.
51.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. ( 2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123-139.
52.
Ivanic, R. ( 1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
53.
Kaplan, R.B. ( 2002). The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
54.
Knorr-Cetina, K. ( 1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
55.
Kramsch, C. ( 1995). The applied linguist and the foreign language teacher: Can they talk to each other? In G. Cook & B. Seidelhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 43-56). Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press.
56.
Kuhi, D. ( 2008). An analysis of the move structure of textbook prefaces . The Asian ESP Journal, 4(2), 64-80.
57.
Lautamatti, L. ( 1987). Observations on the development of the topic of simplified discourse. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages (pp. 87-114). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
58.
Mauranen, A. ( 1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
59.
McEnry, T. & Kifle, N.A. ( 2002). Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second language writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.) Academic Discourse (pp. 182-195). London, UK: Longman.
60.
Myers, G. ( 1992). Textbooks and sociology of scientific knowledge. English for specific Purposes, 11, 3-17.
61.
Myers, G. ( 2001). "In my opinion": The place of personal views in undergraduate essays. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context (pp. 63-78). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham Press.
62.
Myers, G.( 2003). Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries. Discourse Studies, 5, 265-279.
63.
Oswick, C., & Hanlon, G. ( 2009). Discourse, academic work, and journals as commodities: A response. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 135-141.
64.
Parkinson, J., & Adendroff, R. ( 2005). Science books for children as a preparation for textbook literacy. Discourse Studies, 7, 213-236.
65.
Putnam, L.L. ( 2009). Symbolic capital and academic fields: An alternative discourse on journal rankings. Management Communication Quarterly , 23, 127-134.
66.
Schmitt, N. ( 2002). An introduction to applied linguistics. New York: Arnold.
67.
Swales, J. ( 1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research setting . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
68.
Swales, J. ( 1995). The role of textbook in EAP writing research. English for Specific Purposes, 14, 3-18.
69.
Swales, J., Ahmed, U.K., Chang, Y., Chavez, D., Dressen, D.F., & Seymour, R. ( 1998). Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing . Applied Linguistics, 19, 97-121.
70.
ThueVold, E. ( 2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61-87.
71.
Trowler, P. ( 2001). Captured by the discourse? The socially constitutive power of new higher education discourse in the UK. Organization , 8, 183-201.
72.
VandeKopple, W. ( 1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
73.
VandeKopple, W. ( 2002). Metadiscourse, discourse and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 91-113). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
74.
Whitley, R. ( 2000). The intellectual and social organization of the science (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University press.
75.
Wilkins, D.A. ( 1999). Applied linguistics. In B. Spolsky (Ed.). Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics (pp. 6-17). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
76.
Ziman, J. ( 1984). An introduction to science studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
