This article describes a set of metadiscourse functions arising from the use of contrastive and non-contrastive connective expressions in academic argumentation. Moving away from descriptions of connectives solely in terms of textual relations, this study describes interpersonal metadiscourse functions of contrastive and non-contrastive connectives within the presentation of claims and counterclaims in argumentative essays. It is proposed that interpersonal uses of non-contrastive and contrastive connectives mitigate counterclaims and emphasize claims based on the assumed roles and responses of writers and readers in an academic discourse community.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Banner, J.
(1990, May 16). At 25, the Humanities Endowment faces new perils. Chronicle of Higher Education, A48.
2.
Barton, E.
(1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55, 745-769.
3.
Bazerman, C.
(1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4.
Bazerman, C.
(1994). Constructing experience. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
5.
Bazerman, C.
, & Paradis, J. (Eds.). (1991). Textual dynamics of the professions. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
6.
Beauvais, P.
(1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 6, 11-30.
7.
Biber, D.
, & Finegan, E. (1989a). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11, 1-34.
8.
Biber, D.
, & Finegan, E. (1989b). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9, 93-124.
9.
Brown, P.
, & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Chafe, W.
(1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe and J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261-272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
11.
Chait, R.
(1990, July 11). The pro-teaching movement should try economic pressures. Chronicle of Higher Education, A36.
12.
Crismore, A.
(1990). Metadiscourse and discourse processes: Interactions and issues. Discourse Processes, 13, 191-205.
13.
Crismore, A.
, & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 118-136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Crismore, A.
, Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. Written Communication, 8, 39-71.
15.
Crismore, A.
, & Vande Kopple, W. (1990). Rhetorical contexts and hedges. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 20, 49-59.
16.
Crothers, E.
(1972). Paragraph structure inference. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
17.
Damon, W.
(1990, April 25). Colleges must help foster a spirit of inquiry in the nation's schools. Chronicle of Higher Education, A48.
18.
DeMott, B.
(1991, February 27). Legally sanctioned special advantages are a way of life in the United States. Chronicle of Higher Education, A40.
19.
Feagin, J.
(1991, November 27). Blacks still face the malevolent reality of White racism. Chronicle of Higher Education, A44.
20.
Finn, C.
(1990, June 13). Why can't colleges convey our diverse culture's unifying themes?Chronicle of Higher Education, A40.
21.
Fishbein, L.
(1990, August 15). The field of American Studies is too parochial: It needs more cross-cultural perspectives. Chronicle of Higher Education, A36.
22.
Fox, B.
(1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Friedman, P.
(1990, October 31). We need to find new ways to help scientists avoid ethical problems without overly limiting research. Chronicle of Higher Education, A48.
24.
Gans, H.
(1992, January 8). Fighting the biases embedded in social concepts of the poor. Chronicle of Higher Education, A56.
25.
Givón, T.
(1982). Evidentiality and epistemic space. Studies in Language, 6, 23-49.
26.
Greenberg, D.
(1991, October 23). Information access: Our elitist system must be reformed. Chronicle of Higher Education, A48.
27.
Halliday, M.A.K.
, & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
28.
Harbrace College Handbook. 10th ed. (1986). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
29.
Herndl, C.
, Fennell, B., & Miller, C. (1991). Understanding failures in organizational discourse: The accident at Three Mile Island and the shuttle. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions (pp. 279-305). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
30.
Hinds, J.
(1979). Organizational patterns in discourse. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 135-157). New York: Academic Press.
31.
Hollander, P.
(1990, May 23). Communism's collapse won't faze the Marxists in academe. Chronicle of Higher Education, A44.
32.
Huckin, T.
(1992). Context-sensitive text analysis. In G. Kirsch & P. Sullivan (Eds.), Methods and methodology in composition research (pp. 84-104). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
33.
Hunston, S.
(1993). Professional conflict: Disagreement in academic discourse. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honor of John Sinclair (pp. 115-134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
34.
Levinson, S.
(1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Luukka, M.
(1992, August). Metadiscourse in academic texts. Paper presented at the Conference on Discourse and the Professions, Uppsala, Sweden.
36.
Lyons, J.
(1977). Semantics (Vols. 1-2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
The MLA's line by line: How to edit your own writing. (1985). New York: Modern Language Association.
38.
Mauranen, A.
(1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
39.
Maynard, S.
(1993). Discourse modality: Subjectivity, emotion and voice in the Japanese language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
40.
Nelson, J.
, Megill, A., & McCloskey, D. (Eds.). (1987). The rhetoric of the human sciences: Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
41.
Peck MacDonald, S.
(1987). Problem definition in academic writing. College English, 49, 315-331.
42.
Perelman, C.
, & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958)
43.
Pomerantz, A.
(1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Schiffrin, D.
(1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language and Society, 13, 311-335.
45.
Schiffrin, D.
(1985). Everyday argument: The organization of diversity in talk. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis: Vol. 3. Discourse and dialogue (pp. 35-46). New York: Academic Press.
46.
Schiffrin, D.
(1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Schiffrin, D.
(1990). The management of a co-operative self during argument: The role of options and stories. In A. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict Talk (pp. 241-259). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Simons, H.
(Ed.). (1989). Rhetoric in the human sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49.
Simons, H.
(Ed.). (1990). The rhetorical turn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50.
Swales, J.
(1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Toulmin, S.
(1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
Vande Kopple, W.
(1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
53.
Williams, J.
(1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
54.
Williams, J.
(1993). Problems and PROBLEMS: The rhetoric of introductions. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago.
