By using genre analysis, this study investigates the way writers use interpersonal metadiscourse to partly reveal their identity and examines their selected mode of interaction in two major academic fields: the social sciences (SS) and natural sciences (NS). A total of 55 academic research articles from the SS and NS were selected as the corpus of this study. A comparison of the two disciplines was made, based on the use of interpersonal metadiscourse through `hedges', `emphatics' and `attitude markers'. The analysis showed that the SS writers employed interpersonal metadiscourse more frequently than the NS writers. One-to-one comparison further showed that they varied significantly in their use of hedges and attitude markers but there was little difference in their use of emphatics. However, the use of hedges and emphatics was significantly different within each discipline. A qualitative in-depth analysis revealed that the choice of validity markers was closely related to the type of article being studied.
Bazzerman, C. (1998) `Systems of Genres and the Enactment of Social Intentions', in A. Freedman and P. Medway (eds) Genre and the New Rhetoric . London: Taylor & Francis.
2.
Bernadette, L. (1994) `Current Research in Technical Communication: The Role of Metadiscourse in Persuasion', Journal of Technical Communication41(2): 348—55.
3.
Bhatia, V.K. (1993) Analyzing Genre: Language Use in a Professional Setting. New York: Longman.
4.
Brown, D. (1993) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
Bunton, D. (1999) `The Use of Higher Level Metatext in PhD Theses' , Journal of English For Specific Purposes18: S41—S56.
6.
Chambliss, M.J. and Garner, R. (1996) `Do Adults Change Their Minds after Reading Persuasive Text?', Journal of Written Communication13(3): 291—313.
7.
Cheng, X. and Steffensen, M.S. (1996) `Metadiscourse: A Technique for Improving Student Writing', Journal of Research in the Teaching of English30(2).
8.
Coe, R.M. (1998) `The Rhetoric of Genre in the Process Era — and Beyond', in A. Freedman and P. Medway (eds) Genre and the New Rhetoric . London: Taylor & Francis.
9.
Connor, U. (1996) Contrastive Rhetorics: A Cross-Cultural Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Crismore, A. (1990) `Metadiscourse and Discourse Process: Interactions and Issues', Journal of Discourse Procedures13(2): 191—205.
11.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. and Steffensen, M.S. (1993) `Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Text Written by American and Finnish University Students', Journal ofWritten Communication10(1): 39—71.
12.
Crompton, P. (1997) `Hedging in Academic Writing: Some Theoretical Problems', Journal of English For Specific Purposes15(4): 271—85.
13.
Crompton, P. (1998) `Identifying Hedges: Definition or Divination' , Journal of English for Specific Purposes17(3): 303—11.
14.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994) `Genre Analysis: An Approach to Text Analysis for ESP', in M. Coulthard (ed.) Advances in Written Text Analysis. Newbury: Routledge.
15.
Grabe, W. (1987) `Contrastive Rhetoric and Text Type Research', in U. Connor and R. B. Kaplan (eds) Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Texts. Redwood, CA: Addison-Wesley .
16.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as Social Semiotics. London: Edward Arnold.
17.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
18.
Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987) English for Specific Purposes: A Learning-Centred Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Hyland, K. (1996) `Talking to Academy: Forms of Hedging in Science Research Articles', Journal ofWritten Communication13(2): 251—82.
20.
Hyland, K. (1998) `Exploring Corporate Rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO's Letters', Journal of Business Communication35(2): 224—45.
21.
Hyland, K. (1999) `Talking to Students: Metadiscourse in Introductory Coursebooks', Journal of English for Specific Purposes18(1): 3—26.
22.
Kaplan, R.B. (1966) `Cultural Thought Pattern in Intercultural Communication' , Journal of Language Learning1(1): 1—20.
23.
Kaplan, R.B. (1987) `Cultural Thought Patterns Revisited', in U. Connor and R.B. Kaplan (eds) Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Texts . Redwood, CA: Addison-Wesley.
24.
Mauranen, A. (1993) Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
25.
Miller, C.R. (1998) `Rhetorical Community: The Cultural Basis of Genre ', in A. Freedman and P. Medway (eds) Genre and the New Rhetoric . London: Taylor & Francis.
26.
Paltridge, B. (1996) `Genre, Text Type, and the Language Learning Classroom' , ELT Journal50(13): 237—43.
27.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994) `Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse', Journal of English for Specific Purposes13: 149—79.
28.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1998) `Language Is Not a Physical Object', Journal of English for Specific Purposes17(3): 295—302.
29.
Swales, J. (1981) Aspects of Article Introductions. Birmingham: University of Aston, Language Studies Unit.
30.
Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis: English for Specific Purpose in Academic and Research Setting. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Vande Kopple, W. (1985) `Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse', College Composition and Communication36: 82—93.
32.
Van Dijk, T., Ting Toomy, S., Smitherman, G. and Troutman, D. (1997) `Discourse, Ethnicity, Culture, and Racism', in Teun A. van Dijk (ed), Discourse as Social Action. London: Sage.
33.
Varttala, T. (1999) `Remarks on the Communicative Function of Hedging in Popular Scientific and Specialist Research Articles on Medicine', Journal of English for Specific Purposes18(2): 177—200.
34.
Widdowson, H.G. (1998) `Communication and Community: The Pragmatics of ESP', Journal of English for Specific Purposes17(1): 3—11.
