Framing argument for specialised knowledge: interactional metadiscourse markers in economics and law research articles


This chapter examines the patterns of interactional metadiscourse use in the disciplines of Economics and Law, and draws upon Hyland’s (2005a) analytical framework of metadiscourse markers along with other integrative frameworks in an approximately 160,000-word corpus of social science empirical research articles in these fields. Both distributional and functional analyses of metadiscourse resources show that there are similarities as well as differences between the two disciplines in terms of how writers structure their argumentative texts for their readers, and how they draw on their understandings of these resources to report the results of their original study to their readers. It is argued that metadiscursive use may be accounted for by the epistemologies behind the existing qualitative and quantitative methods of empirical research alongside a range of experiential, social and identity-shaping variables of the writers involved in this kind of argumentative genre. By contributing additional evidence to current published research, this study aims to provide a greater understanding of metadiscourse in the argumentative writing practices of the research article.

DOI Code: 10.1285/i22390359v42p123

Keywords: discourse and genre; argumentation; metadiscourse


Abdi R. 2002, Interpersonal Metadiscourse: An Indicator of Interaction and Identity, in “Discourse Studies” 4, pp. 139-145.

Abdi R. 2011, Metadiscourse Strategies in Research Articles: A Study of the Differences across Subsections, in “Journal of Teaching Language Skills” 3 [1], pp. 1-15.

Aguilar M. 2008, Metadiscourse in Academic Speech: A Relevance-theoretic Approach, Peter Lang, Bern.

Becher T. and Trowler P.R. 2001, Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines, The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, Buckingham.

Biber D. 2006, Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers, in “Journal of English for Academic Purposes” 5 [2], pp. 97-116.

Biber D., Johansson S., Leech G., Conrad S. and Finegan E. 1999, Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Pearson Education, Harlow.

Bondi M. 2010, Metadiscursive Practices in Introductions: Phraseology and Semantic Sequences across Genres, in “Nordic Journal of English Studies” 9 [2], pp. 99-123.

Coffin C., Curry M.J., Goodman S., Hewings A., Lillis T.M. and Swann J. 2003, Teaching Academic Writing: A Toolkit for Higher Education, Routledge, London.

Creswell J.W. 2009, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach, Sage, Los Angeles.

Dahl T. 2004, Textual Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A Marker of National Culture or of Academic Discipline? in “Journal of Pragmatics” 36, pp. 1807-1825.

Fu X. and Hyland K. 2014, Interaction in Two Journalistic Genres: A Study of Interactional Metadiscourse, in “English Text Construction” 7 [1], pp. 122-144.

Gillaerts P. and Van de Velde F. 2010, Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Article Abstracts, in “Journal of English for Academic Purposes” 9 [2], pp. 128-139.

Harwood N. 2005, ‘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, in “Applied Linguistics” 26 [3], pp. 343-375.

Hewings M. and Hewings A. 2002, ‘It is interesting to note that…’: A Comparative Study of Anticipatory ‘it’ in Student and Published Writing, in “English for Specific Purposes” 21, pp. 367-383.

Hyland K. 1998, Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse, in “Journal of Pragmatics” 30 [4], pp. 437-455.

Hyland K. 2002a, Activity and Evaluation: Reporting Practices in Academic Writing, in “Academic Discourse”, pp. 115-130.

Hyland K. 2002b, Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing, in “Journal of Pragmatics” 34 [8], pp. 1091-1112.

Hyland K. 2002c, Directives: Argument and Engagement in Academic Writing, in “Applied Linguistics” 23 [2], pp. 215-239.

Hyland K. 2005a, Metadiscourse, Continuum, London.

Hyland K. 2005b, Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse, in “Discourse Studies” 7 [2], pp. 173-192.

Hyland K. 2010, Metadiscourse: Mapping Interactions in Academic Writing, in “Nordic Journal of English Studies” 9 [2], pp. 125-143.

Hyland K. and Tse P. 2005, Hooking the Reader: A Corpus Study of Evaluative ‘that’ in Abstracts, in “English for Specific Purposes” 24, pp. 123-139.

Ivanič R. and Camps D. 2001, I am how I sound: Voice as Self-representation in L2 Writing, in “Journal of Second Language Writing” 10 [1-2], pp. 3-33.

Kaltenböck G. 2005, It-extraposition in English: A Functional View, in “International Journal of Corpus Linguistics” 10 [2], pp. 119-159.

Khadije Ghahremani M. and Reza B. 2017, Exploring Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Discussion Sections of Social and Medical Science Articles, in “International Journal of Research in English Education” 2 [4], pp. 11-29.

Khedri M. and Konstantinos K. 2018, Metadiscourse in Applied Linguistics and Chemistry Research Article Introductions, in “Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics” 9 [2], pp. 47-74.

Kuo C-H. 1999, The Use of Personal Pronouns: Role Relationships in Scientific Journal Articles, in “English for Specific Purposes” 18 [2], pp. 121-138.

Lee J. and Casal E. 2014, Metadiscourse in Results and Discussion Chapters: A Cross-linguistic Analysis of English and Spanish Thesis Writers in Engineering, in “System” 46, pp. 39-54.

Li T. and Wharton S. 2012, Metadiscourse Repertoire of L1 Mandarin Undergraduates Writing in English: A Cross-contextual, Cross-disciplinary Study, in “Journal of English for Academic Purposes” 11 [4], pp. 345-356.

Lorés-Sanz R. 2006, I will argue that: First Person Pronouns as Metadiscoursal Devices in Research Article Abstracts in English and Spanish, in “ESP Across Cultures” 3, pp. 23-40.

Matsuda P.K. 2001, Voice in Japanese Written Discourse: Implications for Second Language Writing, in “Journal of Second Language Writing” 10 [1-2], pp. 35-53.

Mur-Dueñas P. 2010, Attitude Markers in Business Management Research Articles: A Cross-cultural Corpus-driven Approach, in “International Journal of Applied Linguistics” 19, pp. 50-72.

Mur-Dueñas P. 2011, An Intercultural Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Research Articles Written in English and in Spanish, in “Journal of Pragmatics” 43 [12], pp. 3068-3079.

Peacock M. 2006, A Cross-disciplinary Comparison of Boosting in Research Articles, in “Corpora” 1, pp. 61-84.

Salas M.D. 2015, Reflexive Metadiscourse in Research Articles in Spanish: Variation across three Disciplines (Linguistics, Economics and Medicine), in “Journal of Pragmatics” 77, pp. 20-40.

Scott M. 2015, Word Smith Tools (version 6), Lexical Analysis Software, Stroud.

Swales J.M. 1990, Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tang R. and John S. 1999, The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring Writer Identity in Student Academic Writing through the First-person Pronoun, in “English for Specific Purposes” 18, pp. 23-39.

Tessuto G. 2012, Investigating English Legal Genres in Academic and Professional Contexts, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne.

Tessuto G. 2015a, Posted by...: Scholarly Legal Blogs as Part of Academic Discourse and Site for Stance and Engagement, in Scarpa F. and Engberg J. (eds.), Textus XXVIII [2], pp. 85-107.

Tessuto G. 2015b, Generic Structure and Rhetorical Moves in English-language Empirical Law Research Articles: Sites of Interdisciplinary and Interdiscursive Cross-over, in “English for Specific Purposes” 37, pp. 13-26.

Tessuto G. 2020a, Academic Medicine and Health Research Blog Posts as Interaction and Knowledge-making Resources, in Gotti M., Maci S. and Sala M. (eds.), Scholarly Pathways: Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Exchange in Academia, Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 233-254.

Tessuto G. 2020b, Accountability Practices in Research and Publication Ethics on the Web: Linguistic and Discursive Features, in Garzone G., Catenaccio P. and Archibald J. (eds.), Debating Evolutions in Science, Technology and Society: Ethical and Ideological Perspectives, “Lingue e Linguaggi” 34, pp. 231-255.

Toulmin S. E. 2003, The Uses of Argument (updated edition), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tse P. and Hyland K. 2006, Gender and Discipline: Exploring Metadiscourse Variation in Academic Book Reviews, in Hyland K. and Bondi M. (eds.), Academic Discourse Across Disciplines, Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 177-202.

van Eemeren F. H. and Garssen B. 2011, Exploiting the Room for Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Dealing with Audience Demand in the European Parliament, in van Eemeren F. H. and Garssen B. (eds.), Exploring Argumentative Contexts, John Benjamins, Amsterdam-Philadelphia.

Walton D.N., Reed C. and Macagno F. 2008, Argumentation Schemes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


The Economic Journal (Oxford Open)

Economic Policy (Oxford Open)

The Econometrics Journal (Oxford Open)

The British Journal of Criminology (Wiley)

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (Wiley)

Law & Society Review (Wiley)

Full Text: pdf


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia License.