Interactional metadiscourse resources

The interactional dimension of metadiscourse was described in 2.2.3. This sort of metadiscourse creates and responds to the relationship between writers and readers, allowing writers to present themselves as credible insiders within the discipline. The subcategories of this dimension in the revised model include evidentials, hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers and self mentions.

Evidentials, as mentioned above, are citations which indicate the source of an idea.

Choosing citations appropriately can signal community membership or theoretical orientation (Latour 1987). It helps to establish the area and approach within which the writer is working (Hyland 2002a). In the current study the choice of citations from various types of sources has a demonstrable influence on the sort of credibility that is projected by the writers of the professional case reports on the one hand and the students on the other. The categorising of evidentials as an interactional device rather than an interactive one therefore seems to represents this sort of function more accurately.

Two categories used for comparing and explaining the use of evidentials are, firstly, the way the attribution is handled and then also the types of reporting verbs used. With regard to attribution, Swales (1990) distinguishes between integral and non-integral citations. Integral citations are characterised by the use of the researcher’s name, followed by the date of publication in parentheses, as a syntactically functioning element of the sentence, shown in the constructed example provided in (27) below, while non-integral citations have the researcher’s name in parentheses with the date, as in (28), or refer to all the bibliographic information elsewhere by means of superscript numbers, as in (29):

(27) Simon (1971) shows that tuberculosis rheumatoid pleurisy is one cause of linear diaphragmatic calcification.

(28) Tuberculosis rheumatoid pleurisy is one cause of linear diaphragmatic calcification (Simon 1971).

(29) Tuberculosis rheumatoid pleurisy is one cause of linear diaphragmatic calcification.1

Another usage not mentioned by Swales but which occurs in the radiology case reports is the use of an integral citation together with a superscript number (see 4.6.1.3), for example:

(30) Simon1 _{cites tuberculosis rheumatoid pleurisy and haemothorax following trauma, as well as}

asbestos exposure, as possible causes of linear diaphragmatic calcification (LDCA).

The choice of an integral or non-integral citation can be functional. Thus an integral citation places focus on the author, the author’s work or the actual test which is cited and a non- integral citation takes the emphasis from these, focusing rather on the proposition (Thompson 2005).

Citations may be reporting, as in (27) and (30), or non-reporting, exemplified in (28) and (29) above. The use of reporting verbs allows writers to signal their level of commitment to the claims or findings they are reporting. In (30) the verb cite appears to signal less than full commitment to Simon’s finding. This is classified as a hedge, as discussed below, and contrasts with the use of show in (27), where the booster expresses certainty and commitment.

Hedges and boosters have been mentioned in the discussion on evidentials above. They

are epistemic devices used to indicate to the reader the degree of certainly or uncertainty the writer wishes to ascribe to a position, allowing the writer to handle knowledge claims so as to indicate the level of commitment to propositions while at the same time taking into account the views of the reader. Hedges mitigate propositions, indicating that the writer recognises the possibility that the reader may have alternative viewpoints; boosters, on the other hand, present the writer as authoritative and suggest solidarity and engagement with the reader (Clemen 1997; Hyland 1998a, 1998c; Meyer 1997; Myers 1989).

Boosters do not only take the form of verbs but are frequently adjectival or adverbial, as exemplified in the following:

(31) Close examination of the image will always show that the abnormality bears no relationship to the basic anatomy of the brain or cranium (IAEA).

(32) MR Angiography or Venography provides conclusive evidence of flow in the sinus rather than relying on flow-related enhancement effects in standard imaging (CVTH).

(33) They are invariably unilateral in distribution and common in males between the second and fourth decades (SPOL).

With regard to hedging in the metadiscourse analysis in Chapter 4, Hyland’s (1998c) categories of content- and reader-oriented hedges are used for comparison across the corpora. The first type, content-oriented hedges, “hedge the correspondence between what the writer says about the world and what the world is thought to be like” (Hyland 1998c:

162). If the hedges are primarily motivated by a need to convey propositions as accurately as possible, they are categorised as accuracy-oriented hedges, for example:

(34) Several patients are known to have died abruptly, possibly due to acute decompensation of chronic hydrocephalus (DGCE).

(35) Emergency laparotomy revealed a large pelvic soft tissue mass occupying most of the pelvic cavity (PHPE)

If the motivation is to limit personal commitment by the writer, it is referred to as a writer- oriented hedge, for example:

(36) It is hoped that the case described, together with the other causes mentioned, will serve to highlight the phenomenon of diffuse cerebral artefact (DCAR).

The second type, reader-oriented hedges, are concerned with the interpersonal relationship between writer and reader and with seeking acceptance of claims based on this relationship rather than on more objective grounds, for example:

(37) To our knowledge, complete thrombosis of the Vein of Galen Malformation following endovascular treatment with lack of any complications has not previously been reported in the South African literature (VGMA).

The lexicogrammatical features used in hedging are also in Chapter 4 compared across the categories established by Hyland (1998c), namely, lexical verbs, modal verbs and epistemic adjectives, adverbs and nouns.

Attitude markers have the role of expressing positive or negative attitudes to propositions

(Hyland 2005). These are affective rather than epistemic attitudes, the latter being signalled by evidentials. Although academic writing, and in particular scientific writing, is characterised by objectivity, this is not achieved by simply avoiding the marking of attitude, although the type of attitudinal lexis used tends to be evaluations of phenomena and so be directed towards an institutional rather than a personal framework (Hood 2004; Martin 2000a). Affective attitude is explicitly signalled by attitude verbs, exemplified in (38) below, sentence adverbs, such as in (39), and adjectives, such as in (40):

(38) It is hoped that the case described, together with the other causes mentioned, will serve to highlight the phenomenon of diffuse cerebral artefact (IAEA).

(39) Unfortunately, since paralysed and innervated muscles have been abnformal since before birth, relapse is common (SBI).

(40) Imaging is critical to the diagnosis of disorder, which can be made by non-ivasive modalities such as CT or MR (CVTH).

Attitude markers appeal to readers by claiming solidarity with them and also by suggesting a suitable response from them to the text (Hyland 2005).

Self mention refers, as the name suggests, to self-representation of the writer in the text.

While all discourse gives an impression of the writer, the choice whether to explicitly include author reference or not allows writers to promote a particular identity within their discourse communities (Hyland 2005). The most important means of self-representation in a text is by means of using the first person (Ivanič 1995), for example:

(41) We feel that the reason for this discrepancy is that at our centre we analyze the case during both dynamic and static phases (HTGL).

Self mention has an important role in research writing “in mediating the relationship between writers’ arguments and their discourse communities, allowing writers to create an identity as both disciplinary servant and persuasive originator” (Hyland 2001: 223).

Engagement markers are rhetorical devices that draw readers into texts as participants.

This happens either by addressing the readers directly or by positioning and guiding them towards taking on particular attitudes and interpretations through the use of questions, directives and references to shared knowledge (Hyland 2004d). Examples include the use of the inclusive first person pronoun and necessity modals, for example:

(42) Perhaps we should revise our interpretation of linear diaphragmatic calcification seen on the chest x-ray (DCAR).