An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish

Abstract

In the last few decades the interpersonal nature of academic communication has been stressed in English for Academic Purposes literature. Taking metadiscourse as the analytical framework, this paper focuses on the cross-cultural analysis of interpersonally driven features in research article writing in a single discipline, Business Management. It aims at analysing to what extent the different contexts (i.e. the US international and the Spanish national) influence the strategic use of metadiscourse features in this discipline. The analysis is based on a corpus of 24 research articles from this discipline: 12 of them written in English by scholars based at North-American institutions and published in international journals, and another 12 written in Spanish by Spanish scholars and published in national journals. Significant differences are reported on the overall frequency of metadiscourse features as well as on the particular incidence of some categories in the two sub-corpora. The particular linguistic/cultural contexts of publication seem to influence scholars’ rhetorical choices when writing their research articles. New knowledge appears to be interpersonally negotiated in different terms in research articles in the two cultural contexts within this disciplinary domain.

Full text

An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles
written in English and in Spanish
Pilar Mur-Duen
˜as *
Departamento de Filologı
´a Inglesa y Alemana, Facultad de Educacio
´n, Universidad Zaragoza, C/San Juan Bosco 7, 50.009 Zaragoza, Spain
1. Introduction
English has become a global lingua franca in many domains, and the academic one is no exception. All over Europe
academics are now required to master the use of English for teaching, research, and even administrative purposes at their
institutions. This is particularly evident in certain areas of knowledge, such as Business Management, in which the
professional activity of academics is largely determined by their English language competence, which ‘‘acts as a career
enabler or inhibitor’’ (Tietze, 2008:382).
The aim of this paper is to contrastively analyse research articles (RAs) in Business Management, written and published
within the discipline in two different cultural contexts – the US context, which is open to an international readership, and the
Spanish, national context – with a view to exploring rhetorical and discursive cross-cultural differences in the expression of
interpersonality. Revealing possible different rhetorical conventions favoured in international RAs in English and in national
RAs in Spanish may help to provide (Spanish) scholars with useful cues when it comes to successfully addressing the
international community. This analysis is seen as the first step towards the preparation of effective, discipline- and culture-
specific pedagogical materials. Furthermore, by analysing the pragmatic and discoursal conventions used by scholars in
transmitting disciplinary knowledge, a better understanding may be gained of the beliefs, values and assumptions shared
among members of this community in both contexts.
Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3068–3079
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 7 September 2010
Received in revised form 10 February 2011
Accepted 4 May 2011
Available online 14 June 2011
Keywords:
Academic discourse
Genre writing
English for Academic Purposes
Intercultural rhetoric
Interpersonality
Metadiscourse
ABSTRACT
In the last few decades the interpersonal nature of academic communication has been
stressed in English for Academic Purposes literature. Taking metadiscourse as the
analytical framework, this paper focuses on the cross-cultural analysis of interpersonally
driven features in research article writing in a single discipline, Business Management. It
aims at analysing to what extent the different contexts (i.e. the US international and the
Spanish national) influence the strategic use of metadiscourse features in this discipline.
The analysis is based on a corpus of 24 research articles from this discipline: 12 of them
written in English by scholars based at North-American institutions and published in
international journals, and another 12 written in Spanish by Spanish scholars and
published in national journals. Significant differences are reported on the overall
frequency of metadiscourse features as well as on the particular incidence of some
categories in the two sub-corpora. The particular linguistic/cultural contexts of
publication seem to influence scholars’ rhetorical choices when writing their research
articles. New knowledge appears to be interpersonally negotiated in different terms in
research articles in the two cultural contexts within this disciplinary domain.
ß2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
* Tel.: +34 976761310; fax: +34 976762071.
E-mail address: pmur@unizar.es.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Pragmatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
0378-2166/$ – see front matter ß2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002

Many intercultural rhetorical analyses have been carried out within English for Academic Purposes (EAP) over the last few
decades focusing on the contrast between English and another language in different academic genres: abstracts in English
and Spanish (e.g. Martı
´n Martı
´n, 2003, 2005; Martı
´n Martı
´n and Burgess, 2004; Lore
´s-Sanz, 2006, 2009a) and in English and
French (Swales and Van Bonn, 2007); book reviews in English and Spanish (e.g. Moreno and Sua
´rez, 2008, 2009; Sua
´rez and
Moreno, 2008; Lore
´s-Sanz, 2009b) and in English and Italian (Bondi, 2009); textbooks in English and Spanish (e.g. McCabe,
2004); and especially RAs, in English and Spanish (e.g. Salager-Meyer et al., 2003; Moreno, 2004; Mur-Duen
˜as, 2007a,b,
2010; Sheldon, 2009), in English and Finnish (e.g. Mauranen, 1993a), in English and Bulgarian (e.g. Vassileva, 1997, 1998,
2000, 2001), in English, French and Norwegian (Dahl, 2003, 2004) and in English and Italian (Molino, 2010). These studies
normally present results regarding one particular interpersonal feature of language: hedging (e.g. Vassileva, 1997, 2001;
Salager-Meyer et al., 2003), personal pronouns (e.g. Lore
´s-Sanz, 2006; Vassileva, 2000, 2001; Mur-Duen
˜as, 2007a; Sheldon,
2009), evaluative markers (e.g. Mur-Duen
˜as, 2010). This research has convincingly shown significant differences in the
expression of some interpersonal values in academic written texts in English and in other national languages. However, few
studies have taken a more comprehensive perspective allowing for a detailed description of the textual enactment of the
writer–reader relation in academic texts. This piece of research, then, aims at providing a comprehensive cross-cultural
analysis of features realizing the interaction between writers and readers in a corpus of Business Management RAs in English
and in Spanish takingmetadiscourse as the theoreticalframework. More specifically, the research questions to be addressed in
this article are: (1) what use do American-based scholars make of metadiscourse in RAs in their international context within a
particular disciplinary community? (2) what use do Spanish scholars make of metadiscourse in RAs in their national context
within the same disciplinary community? (3) to what extent does the rhetorically and discursively built writer–reader
relationship differ in the two contexts of publication? (4) how can potential differences in the interpersonal component of RAs
in the same disciplinary communitybut different context of publicationbe explained? The analysisreveals that within the same
discipline the context in which RAs are drafted and read affects the use of at least some rhetorical conventions and the
subsequent writer–reader relationship established through those conventions; not only the language but also the cultural
context seem to play an important role in determining the interpersonal component of RA writing. The results can have
important implications for scholars who are used to working in different cultural and linguistic contexts.
The framework of metadiscourse is taken to carry out the cross-cultural exploration of interpersonality in RAs in the given
discipline. Metadiscourse has been defined as ‘‘the cover term for the self-reflective expressions used to negotiate
interactional meanings in a text, assisting the writer (or speaker) to express a viewpoint and engage with readers as
members of a particular community’’ (Hyland, 2005:37). Metadiscourse features have traditionally been divided into textual
and interpersonal. However, Hyland (2004, 2005) and Hyland and Tse (2004:161) propose a stronger interpersonal view of
metadiscourse: ‘‘all metadiscourse is interpersonal in that it takes account of the reader’s knowledge, textual experiences,
and processing needs [...]’’. Accordingly, they abandon the Hallidayan distinction between the textual and the interpersonal
planes of discourse and adopt Thompson’s (2001) description of interactive and interactional resources as two inter-related
aspects of interaction. This new view of metadiscourse considers that all discourse choices that scholars make are a result of
the relationship built through the text between the author(s) and their peers within a particular discourse community. Thus,
both interactive metadiscourse features (intended to organise and shape the material in the light of the readers’ likely needs
and expectations) and interactional metadiscourse features (aimed at portraying the scholars as authors and at binding
writer and reader together) are a response to the interpersonal component of writing.
Previous analyses of metadiscourse were taken into consideration for this study (Vande Kopple, 1985; Crismore and
Farnsworth, 1990; Crismore et al., 1993; Mauranen, 1993a; Hyland, 1999, 2000, 2005; Bunton, 1999; Dafouz, 2003, 2008;
Dahl, 2003, 2004; Hyland and Tse, 2004); especially relevant for the analysis were the most recent accounts by Hyland
(2005) and Hyland and Tse (2004). Nevertheless, the previously reported taxonomies have been used as point of departure
but some adjustments to the framework were deemed necessary to carry out the cross-cultural (English-Spanish) analysis of
RAs from the discipline chosen. First, both discoursal (new features found in the corpus) and typographical (brackets, dashes,
etc.) markers which were not included in previous taxonomies were taken into consideration in the analysis and ascribed to
the relevant category according to their use. Also, some categories were re-defined in accordance with their relevance to this
genre or with a view to providing a suitable basis for comparison. Hence, each of these categories had to be clearly defined
before embarking on the cross-cultural analysis.
2. Corpus and methods
In order to carry out a cross-cultural analysis of the interpersonal component in English and Spanish academic Business
Management RA writing, a corpus was compiled. This pilot corpus was later incorporated into the SERAC (Spanish English
Research Article Corpus)
1
of the InterLAE (Interpersonalidad en el Lenguaje Acade
´mico Escrito; Interpersonality in Written
Academic Language) Research Group. It consists of 24 RAs published during 2003 and 2004 in international English-language
journals (79,306 words) and national journals in Spanish
2
(57,931 words) as indicated in Table 1.
1
For a full description of the SERAC see Pe
´rez-Llantada (2008) or contact the author.
2
Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), Strategic Management Journal (SMJ), Journal of Management (JM), Journal of International Management (JIM),
Alta Direccio
´n (AD), Direccio
´n y Organizacio
´n de Empresas (DyO), Revista Europea de Direccio
´n y Economı
´a de la Empresa (REDyEE) and Investigaciones
Europeas de Direccio
´n y Economı
´a de la Empresa (IE).
P. Mur-Duen
˜as / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3068–3079
3069

The authors of the RAs in English were based at a North-American university and the authors of the RAs in Spanish at a
Spanish university. Therefore, although not necessarily native speakers of one or the other language, the authors of the RAs
are acquainted with the respective American and Spanish academic conventions.
The interactive metadiscourse categories analysed are the following
3
:
-
Logical markers: items that make explicit the relationship between two independent discourse units (i.e. sentences,
paragraphs or (sub)sections). This category comprises additive, contrastive and consecutive markers.
-
Code glosses: which include reformulation and exemplification markers. Both discourse and typographical markers were
considered, as the latter tend to be very commonly used in Business Management to include explanations, conclusions or
examples.
-
Sequencers: elements which connect parts of the discourse in a linear, progressive manner and which structure arguments
into different chunks, parts or sections, thereby facilitating the readers’ decoding process.
-
Topicalisers: linguistic signals that writers include in the text to organise the discourse mainly with the specific aims of
introducing related topics, of changing the topic or of resuming a topic introduced earlier on.
-
Endophoric markers: anaphoric or cataphoric references to other parts of the RA. These markers can refer to previous or
subsequent text and also to visual elements.
-
Evidentials: indicators of the source of information. They comprise both references to textual information as originated in a
scholar’s or several scholars’ work (personal evidentials) and references to what may be thought by the writer to be
common, shared knowledge within the discipline (impersonal evidentials) (Lore
´s-Sanz, 2006).
The interactional metadiscourse categories analysed are the following:
-
Hedges: features which limit the writer’s full commitment to what is stated in a proposition and which may be the result of
certain pragmatic conventions in academic writing.
4
-
Boosters: features which highlight the writers’ certainty and conviction about a proposition and which may be the result of
certain pragmatic conventions in academic writing.
-
Attitude markers: items which show the writer’s affective evaluation of given parameters or entities.
-
Engagement markers: elements through which scholars bring the readers into the text, involving them in the negotiation of
academic knowledge. These include personal pronouns, question forms, directives and asides.
-
Self-mentions: explicit signals of the authorial persona of the scholar(s). They feature self-references and self-citations.
The frequency analyses of each of these categories were based on features extracted from the corpus following a mixed
corpus-driven and corpus-based methodology. First, the RAs were carefully read and scanned in search of potential
metadiscourse features. Once it was determined that a given feature qualified as metadiscursive, it was assigned to one of the
categories outlined above. Then, this feature was searched for electronically in the whole corpus using Wordsmith Tools (4.0)
(Scott, 2004) so that the total number of tokens (i.e. particular instances) of that particular feature were obtained. Once
retrieved, each token was carefully analysed in context to ensure that it actually functioned as a metadiscourse marker in the
text and could be incorporated into the counts.
5
A chi-square statistical analysis (Preacher, 2001) was performed to determine the significance of the differences found.
In the reporting of results in the next section statistical values are shown. The significance level was established
at <0.05.
Table 1
Description of the corpus.
English sub-corpus Spanish sub-corpus
No. of RAs 12 12
No. of journals from which RAs were taken 4 4
No. of RAs taken from each journal 3 3
Length of texts (range) 3641–9975 3303–8569
Average length of RA 6608 4827
Total number of tokens 79,306 57,931
3
The list of metadiscourse features found both in the RAs in English and in Spanish, classified into the different categories, can be found in Appendix A.
4
The cross-cultural analysis of both hedges and boosters was limited to those uses where it was clear that the degree of commitment was attributable to
the scholar(s); hedges and boosters accompanying citations were left out. This decision was taken for the sake of comparability, given the significantly
different number of evidentials in the two sub-corpora.
5
Throughout the quantitative and qualitative analysis some difficulties were encountered. First of all, it was not always easy to discern and qualify
certain features as metadiscursive. Also, despite the definitions provided for each category, the distinction between some of them was at times not
straightforward. When faced with unclear cases, the context and particular co-text were thoroughly analysed to determine the more prominent function of
the marker and parallel decisions were made regarding the two languages to ensure comparability.
P. Mur-Duen
˜as / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3068–3079
3070

3. Results
Metadiscourse features are overall significantly more commonly present in the international RAs in English than in the
RAs in Spanish (Table 2). Both the American-based and the Spanish scholars make more use of interactional than of
interactive metadiscourse features in their RAs, which is in line with Hyland’s (2005) and Hyland and Tse’s (2004) findings
regarding RAs in eight different disciplines. This result confirms that interaction in Business Management RAs both in the
North-American international and in the Spanish national context draws more heavily on features signalling the scholars’
position as authors and bringing the latter and readers together than on features that help structure the information in terms
of the authors’ judgements of readers’ needs and expectations.
Nevertheless, the English sub-corpus displays a statistically significant higher inclusion of both interactive, and
especially interactional, metadiscourse features than the Spanish sub-corpus. This implies that a stronger interaction
between the writer and the reader is established in the texts in English than in the texts in Spanish within this discipline.
Results suggest that American-based scholars more closely guide the readers through their arguments in their RAs
especially by means of logical markers and code glosses. In addition, American-based scholars more strongly emphasise
their role as authors and the role of readers as active participants in the negotiation of new scientific knowledge. These
important interactive roles are emphasised through a greater use of self-mentions and hedges in the English texts than in
the Spanish ones.
The results for each category will be comparatively described in turn.
3.1. Logical markers
The English sub-corpus presents an overall higher number of logical markers than the Spanish one (60.0 vs. 45.6 tokens
per 10,000 words). Furthermore, the use of the different sub-categories of logical markers (i.e. additive, contrastive and
consecutive) was also found to be significantly different in the two sub-corpora. English texts present a higher frequency of
contrastive and consecutive logical markers and a lower use of additive logical mark ers than the Spanish tex ts. This finding
involves notable divergences in the rhetorical unfolding of ideas (Mur-Duen
˜as, 2007b). It seems that the Business
Management RAs in English more commonly reflect a retrogressive argumentative style (Mauranen, 1993b) based on the
explicit signalling of contrasts and consequences, whereas a progressive style which favours the building of argumentation
based on addition seems to be favoured in the Spanish comparable texts.
3.2. Code glosses
Code glosses are significantly more frequent in the RAs in English than in those in Spanish (98.1 vs. 75.4 tokensper 10,000
words). Divergences also emerge in the comparison of the two sub-categories within them: exemplifying (examples 1a and
2), and reformulating (example 1b). The English RAs present notably more exemplification code glosses than the Spanish RAs
(31.8 vs. 8.3 tokens per 10,000 words). The varied readership of the international publications may call for various
clarifications designed to lead readers to the interpretations intended by the authors (example 1b), which would explain the
different frequency of these features in the two sub-corpora.
Table 2
Frequency of use of metadiscourse features in the two sub-corpora.
English sub-corpus Spanish sub-corpus
Raw number Per 10,000 words Raw number Per 10,000 words p-value
Interactive metadiscourse
Logical markers 476 60.0 264 45.6 0.003
Code glosses 778 98.1 437 75.4 0.000
Sequencers 73 9.2 41 7.1 0.176
Topicalisers 11 1.4 57 9.8 0.000
Endophoric markers 182 23.9 210 36.3 0.000
Evidentials 813 102.5 366 63.2 0.000
Total 2333 294.2 1375 237.4 0.000
Interactional metadiscourse
Hedges 1587 200.1 734 126.7 0.000
Boosters 509 64.2 418 72.2 0.075
Attitude markers 646 81.5 452 78.0 0.481
Engagement markers 115 14.5 107 18.5 0.071
Self-mentions 744 93.8 382 65.9 0.000
Total 3601 454.1 2093 361.3 0.000
Overall total 5.934 748.2 3.468 598.6 0.000
P. Mur-Duen
˜as / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3068–3079
3071

1 (a) However, quantity is important to many, if not most, service jobs. When service providers (e.g., cable TV
installers, bank tellers, department store clerks, etc.) spend too much time with some customers, other
customers are not receiving good service. (JM2)
6
(b) The literature on initial conditions among alliance partners (Das and Teng, 1997; Doz, 1996; Doz et al., 2000
and Gulati, 1998) highlights that partners from similar industry or business areas will lead firms to recognize
similar interests in collaborating. In other words, formation processes are influenced by the recognition of
similarities among partners, one of these similarities being similar product markets. (JIM2-I)
There might be another possible explanation for the higher number of exemplification markers in the RAs in English;
space may need to be left open for other items not mentioned in the text, but which could also be taken as illustrative by a
diverse, international audience, whose disciplinary understandings may to a large degree not be shared; this is especially the
case with bibliographical references:
(2) Paradoxically, evidence continues to accumulate that conventional contingency theories are not universally
adequate in explaining effective strategic courses pursued by organizations (e.g., Ashmos et al., 2000; Brown and
Eisenhardt, 1998, Hill 1988, Miller and Dess, 1993 and Murray 1988). An emerging view of organizations as
complex adaptive systems (e.g., Brown and Eisenhardt, 1977) holds that effectiveness may be enhanced when
internal organizational arrangements are designed to absorb complexity. (JM3)
3.3. Sequencers
Sequenced listings are used to a similar extent in the two sub-corpora.
(3) We emphasize three limitations of the present study. First, replication is needed. [...]. Second, Arthur et al. (2001)
pointed out the role of [...]. Third, our measure of customer service quality was comprised of only one item. (JM2-D)
The normalised frequency of these markers is similarly low in the two sub-corpora (9.2 vs. 7.1 tokens per 10,000 words).
In fact, sequencers are among the least common metadiscourse categories in the two sub-corpora, together with topicalisers,
engagement markers and endophoric markers.
3.4. Topicalisers
These, together with endophoric markers, are the only interactive metadiscourse categories which have been found to be
significantly more frequent in the RAs in Spanish than in the RAs in English. New or related topics are introduced into the
argumentation or resumed at a later point in the RAs by means of a sentence-initial topicaliser (example 4) to a greater
extent in the Spanish sub-corpus than in the English one.
(4) Respecto al conocimiento de las organizaciones de apoyo del sector de los azulejos, las personas que formaban
parte de las entrevistas en profundidad y de las dina
´micas de grupo, expresaron [...].
En cuanto al conocimiento de los servicios ofrecidos por estas organizaciones, e
´ste es bajo. [...]. (DyO1)
[With regard to the knowledge of supporting organizations from the tile sector, those respondents who took part in
in-depth interviews and focus groups, said that [...].
As far as the knowledge of the services offered by these organizations is concerned, it was low. [...].]
The greater use of these markers in the Spanish texts (9.8 vs. 1.4 tokens per 10,000 words) renders argumentation less
linear than in the English ones. In the former previously introduced arguments or ideas are more commonly resumed and
new or related arguments or ideas are more commonly introduced than in the latter. This finding could support the
hypothesis that texts written in languages favouring a ‘‘reader-responsible’’ style (Hinds, 1987) or ‘‘content-oriented’’
cultures (Clyne, 1987) tend to present more topicalisers as a result of their lengthier, more elaborate arguments. On the other
hand, texts written in languages or contexts in which a more ‘‘writer-responsible style’’ is favoured would present fewer of
these metadiscourse markers, as a result of the preferred linearity.
3.5. Endophoric markers
Endophoric markers are also more common in the Spanish RAs than in the English ones (36.3 vs. 23.9 tokens per 10,000
words). Their use may be a response to the need to direct the readers’ attention to a particular point which has already been
discussed (example 5a) or which will be discussed later (example 5b). In that sense, they seem to fulfil a similar function to
6
All the examples have been taken from the corpus. Information in brackets indicates the source of the example: the specific journal, the specific article
within this and the section of the RA in which it appeared (I = Introduction, M = Methods, R = Results, D = Discussion or conclusion).
P. Mur-Duen
˜as / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3068–3079
3072

topicalisers and it is thus not surprising that they constitute the only two categories of interactive metadiscourse which are
more common in the Spanish sub-corpus than in the English one.
(5) (a) As previously stated, hospitals face cost pressures from the lowering of reimbursement ceilings, but
they also have incentives to differentiate based on services, innovations, and technology. (JM3)
(b) Como se detallara
´en el apartado siguiente, la utilidad global se midio
´solicitando al consumidor el
precio ma
´ximo que estarı
´a dispuesto a pagar por la oferta. (REDyEE3)
[As will be outlined in the following section, the overall utility was measured by asking
consumers to state the highest price they would be willing to pay for the offer.]
3.6. Evidentials
Evidentials are among the most common metadiscourse features in the two sub-corpora. Nevertheless, they are
significantly more frequent in the English sub-corpus than in the Spanish one (102.5 vs. 63.2 tokens per 10,000 words). A
greater number of both ‘personal’ (example 6a) and ‘impersonal’ (example 6b) intertextual references (Lore
´s-Sanz, 2006) are
found in the English RAs than in the Spanish ones.
(6) (a) This definition of an entrant has also been supported by many other studies (Green et al, 1995; Lilien and
Yoon, 1990; Mitchell, 1991; Urban et al., 1986; Whitten, 1979). (SMJ2)
(b) Past research on exchange dynamics in organizations has primarily focused on exchanges between
employees and employers. (AMJ2)
As a result of the higher number of evidentials, a sounder contextualisation and justification of the research is established
in the RAs in English than those in Spanish. American-based scholars ground their research more firmly in the disciplinary
field than Spanish authors. As a result, readers of the English texts are more clearly geared towards the disciplinary
knowledge and understandings on which the authors base their research.
3.7. Hedges
As can be seen in Table 2, this is the category of metadiscourse most heavily used both in the English and in the Spanish
sub-corpus. It follows from this finding that expressing new knowledge tentatively is a crucial aspect of academic writing, at
least in the social science RAs under analysis. The acceptance or rejection of claims largely depends on the readers’
judgement of the validity and credibility of the research reported by the authors. Hedges play a significant role in persuading
readers of that validity, as they contribute to modulating the degree of certainty attached to the information conveyed, as can
be seen in examples 7a and 7b. The inclusion of hedges leaves space open for future refutations or contrary findings which
the indeterminate nature of academic knowledge may likely produce.
(7) (a) There could be several explanations for this finding. First, it is possible that instead of generating trust,
a prior experience between two firms was not successful. Second, companies that have had prior joint
ventures together may have exhausted what they need from the other, so that a future relationship
would not be productive. Finally, as science and technology advance in this industry, there may be
diminishing returns to partnering again with the same firm. (JIM2)
(b) Los resultados hallados sugieren que existe una influencia directa del control sobre el Burnout:
a mayor control, menor Burnout. (AD2)
[Results found suggest that there is direct influence of control over Burnout: the higher the control, the
lower the Burnout].
Especially in a soft discipline like Business Management, variables are endless and results are rather provisional as they
can be dependent on the data and/or measures used. As a result, there is a strong need to express findings and conclusions
tentatively so that peers, (and perhaps also professionals who may be interested in the implications of the research) are
convinced of the research reported. The statistically significant lower use of hedges in the Spanish RAs (126.7 vs. 200.1
tokens per 10,000 words) indicates that Spanish scholars in this discipline do not seem to acknowledge the provisional
nature of their results in their RAs to the same degree as their peers publishing internationally in English. In fact, it is in this
interactional category that the English and Spanish corpora present the greatest frequency difference.
3.8. Boosters
Boosters in the Spanish language RAs are used slightly more commonly than in the English language RAs (72.2 vs. 64.2
tokens per 10,000 words). This result may suggest that Spanish scholars make their claims in a slightly more assertive tone.
Moreover, this higher incidence of boosters when taken together with a lower incidence of hedges in the Spanish RAs might
P. Mur-Duen
˜as / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3068–3079
3073

suggest that the arguments and propositions are overall more forcefully stated than in the English RAs. At least two
explanations can be given for the seemingly more toned up language in the Spanish texts. First, the smaller, more
homogeneous readership of the Spanish RAs, who form a reduced disciplinary community working under similar
conditions and in which members tend to know each other and can easily learn about one another’s research, may allow for
less cautious statements. Second, the Spanish national culture in whichthe RAs are written and published generally favours
a less attenuated style. Similar conclusion are reached by Salager-Meyer et al. (2003) in their cross-cultural analysis of
academic conflict statements in English and in Spanish medical RAs, by Pe
´rez-Llantada (2010) in her intercultural analysis
of epistemic modality in biomedical RAs, and by Resinger (2010) in her cross-cultural analysis of positioning in water
ecology RAs.
3.9. Attitude markers
No statistically significant differences have been found in the inclusion of explicit judgements between the RAs in English
and in Spanish (Table 2). Further, the entities or aspects which are most often attitudinally evaluated are similar in the two
sub-corpora: external topic-related entities, own research, findings, previous research and future research (Mur-Duen
˜as,
2010). It seems that disciplinary values override possible cultural differences when it comes to the authors’ need to establish
their attitude towards certain parameters.
3.10. Engagement markers
A slightly higher number of engagement markers per 10,000 words is found in the Spanish sub-corpus than in the English
sub-corpus (18.5 vs. 14.5 tokens), especially as regards the inclusive person pronoun we. Through the use of this pronoun
authors can readily bring themselves together with their audiences as members of the discipline pursuing similar goals.
Spanish scholars, knowing they are addressing a small, fairly homogeneous readership working in a similar context, may be
more inclined to draw on their readers’ communal understandings through this metadiscourse device.
(8) En los u
´ltimos an
˜os hemos sido testigosde un creciente intere
´s por el tema de las empresasfamiliares por parte de los
acade
´micos pero tambie
´n de los empresarios, los profesionales e incluso los medios de comunicacio
´n, [...]. Este
creciente intere
´s no puede resultar sorprendente si tenemos en cuenta que [...]. (AD2-I)
[In the past few years we have witnessed a growing interest in the topic of family businesses not only by scholars
but also by business people, professionals and even the media, [...]. This growing interest cannot be surprising if we
take into account that [...].
3.11. Self-mentions
The number of self-mentions has been found to be significantly higher in the sub-corpus in English than in the Spanish
one (93.8 vs. 65.9 tokens per 10,000 words). Through these interactional features scholars may show an authorial persona,
establish their credentials and present themselves as original contributors, which may help them find a space in the
international sphere (Mur-Duen
˜as, 2007a).
(9) First, we studied a different set of behaviors, examining interpersonal workplace aggression rather than antisocial
behaviors. In doing so we examined the extent to which an overlapping but distinct set of behaviors functions [...].
Second, we assessed the influence of individual differences variables relevant to aggression. [...]. Third, we posited
an additional social or dyadic influence on individual employee aggression by [...]. (AMJ1)
It is clear in the example that the first person plural we pronouns (unlike the same pronoun in example 8) refer exclusively to
the multiple authors, as they are followed by actions they took in their research process.
The competitiveness that scholars seeking to publish an RA internationally in English face may account for the higher
number of self-mentions in the English sub-corpus. Also, other cultural and linguistic traditions prevailing in the two
contexts may at least partially explain the difference. Perhaps influenced by a culturally imbricated tendency to favour
involvement and in-groupness (Hickey, 2005), Spanish Business Management scholars may not be inclined to use self-
mentions in their RAs to the same extent as their American-based peers.
4. Discussion
The cross-cultural analysis of interpersonally driven features in RAs within a particular disciplinary community taking
the framework of metadiscourse has revealed significant differences in the way authors express their arguments, portray
themselves and their readers in the international American and national Spanish contexts, and how, as a result, different
interactions seem to be established between authors and their audiences in the two languages and contexts. It has been
found that American-based Business Management scholars overall tend to include more metadiscourse features in their RAs
than their Spanish peers. This result is in line with previous cross-cultural studies (e.g. Crismore et al., 1993; Markkanen
P. Mur-Duen
˜as / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3068–3079
3074

et al., 1993; Mauranen, 1993a; Valero Garce
´s, 1996; Dafouz, 2003, 2008), which indicate that the extent of use of
metadiscourse is conditioned by the broad socio-cultural context in which the texts are published and read.
Spanish Business Management RAs present fewer interactive metadiscourse markers, that is, explicit signals of the
relationship between ideas and the organisation and clarification of ideational material (especially logical markers and code
glosses) than the English RAs. Previous English-Spanish cross-cultural studies have already hinted at the tendency of Spanish
writers to provide their readers with a lower number of indicators of discourse organization and of the order of propositional
content in their texts than Anglo-Saxon authors (e.g. Valero Garce
´s, 1996; Ferna
´ndez Polo, 1999; Moreno, 2004). Further, the
scarcer numberof evidentials in the Spanish RAs thanin the international RAs in English leavesit to the local readers to infer to a
greater extent the communal disciplinary knowledge and grounds on which the authors base their research. As a consequence
of these differences in the use of interactive metadiscourse features, a divergent writer–reader relationship is established
through the text in the two broad cultural contexts. Following Hinds’ (1987) distinction between writer- and reader-
responsible styles, it seems that Spanish Business Management scholars tend to favour a reader-responsible style, leaving the
interpretationof content greatly to their readers. American-based scholars in the same discipline, on the other hand, appear to
favour a writer-responsible style. Accordingly, they more commonly make explicit the relationship between different parts of
the discourse and clarify meanings to a greater extent, ensuring that the text is read and interpreted as intended. These
rhetoricaldifferences indicatethat within the same disciplinarycommunity American-based and Spanishscholars persuasively
respond to their readers’ diverging needsand expectations in different ways,adjusting their texts to the prevailingconventions
in each context.
Spanish Business Management RAs also feature fewer interactional metadiscourse features than international RAs in
English. Much as in the case of interactive metadiscourse, the different frequency of interactional metadiscourse features –
particularly that of hedges and self-mentions – influences the type of writer–reader relationship built. Spanish Business
Management scholars seem to be less dialogic in their RAs, not emphasising to the same extent as their American-based
peers who are addressing an international audience the critical role of readers in the acceptance or rejection of the new
knowledge and their role as authors. American-based Business Management scholars publishing their RAs in English include
more hedges in a possible attempt to communicate new knowledge more tentatively, as they address a wider, presumably
more heterogeneous readership that will assess their research, whose interests, research aims and context may be unfamiliar
to the authors, and thus they may need to leave greater space open for refutation and debate. In addition, Anglo-Saxon
scholars in general have been reported to communicate academic knowledge more tentatively, promoting a more dialogic
style than scholars in other linguistic, cultural contexts (e.g. Ventola, 1997; Vassileva, 1997, 2001; Martı
´n Martı
´n, 2003,
2005; Salager-Meyer et al., 2003; Martı
´n Martı
´n and Burgess, 2004; McCabe, 2004). Similarly, it seems that the high degree of
competitiveness to get an RA published internationally in English within the discipline may lead American-based Business
Management scholars to make greater use of self-mentions in order to clearly establish their credentials and highlight their
specific contributions. It may also be the case that these rhetorical procedures have been established as conventions in
international English-medium publications in this and also perhaps in other fields, regardless of the authors’ national
culture. It would be interesting to test this hypothesis. In any case the findings suggest that the above rhetorical choices are
important for successfully finding a space in the American international publication context within this disciplinary field.
The differentencoding of knowledge and interpersonal relationshipsin the same genre within the same discipline across the
two linguistic, cultural contexts may lead us to view Business Management as a discipline withlikely disciplinarysub-sets. In
this respect, Business Management in a North-American international context may be seen as a rather ‘urban’ (Becher and
Trowler, 2001) disciplinary sub-set in which there is great competition, and which is rather close knit in terms of topics and
problems addressed. As a result, it may call for greater use of self-mentions to finda space, of evidentials to clearly demarcate
specific research issues, and of hedges to acknowledgethe provisional nature of the results found. BusinessManagement in the
Spanish national context,on the other hand, may be interpretedas a more ‘rural’ (Becherand Trowler, 2001) disciplinarysub-set
in which thereis not a great deal of competition,and which is ratherloose knit and problems andissues addressed are broaderor
more dispersed. As a result, not dense interpersonally driven metadiscourse is called for in this cultural/linguistic context.
There are some limitations to thisstudy which further research could tackle. The corpus was restricted to a small number of
RAs from a single disciplinary community. Therefore, the results cannot be extrapolated to the whole academic culture or to
other disciplinary fields but should be considered as limited to the RAs written within the specific Business Management
community and need to be taken with caution. Future research will help determine whether the rhetorical differences found in
this comparable corpus of RAs are relevant in this and other disciplinary areas, and in these two, or in other, socio-cultural
contexts. The combination of a corpus-driven and corpus-based methodology has allowed for a comprehensive analysis of
discourse features which enact the writer–reader relationship in the written text. However, this analysis was based just on
single lexico-grammaticalfeatures. An interesting avenuefor future research would be to explorethe phraseological realisation
of the metadiscoursal functional categories. This would also be a step furtherin the design of useful pedagogical EAP materials.
The analysis of the data has enabled us not only to investigate cross-cultural rhetorical and discursive differences in a given
academic genre, but also to get a deeper insight into the beliefs, values and assumptions in this disciplinary field in each of the
two contexts (i.e.international North Americanand national Spanish). Finally,future intercultural research could also look into
the extent to which a transfer process of rhetorical choices occurs when (Spanish) L2 scholars publish their RAs in English.
The results reported in this paper may be useful for (Spanish) Business Management scholars who out of necessity or
choice want to, at least partially, adjust their writing conventions to meet the prevailing expectations and persuasive
strategies in the new cultural context in order to facilitate the publication of their research in international American
P. Mur-Duen
˜as / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3068–3079
3075

journals. It does not follow from this that Spanish Business Management scholars should abandon their rhetorical writing
preferences in their native language, but they may need to adjust their rhetorical and discursive practices when addressing
an international readership in English to meet gatekeeper’s and readers’ expectations in the new broader cultural context.
Thus, L2 scholars may need to become bi-rhetorical or even multi-rhetorical if they want to publish research in other
national contexts. Consequently, future intercultural studies could explore the extent to which non-compliance with the
rhetorical interpersonally driven norms of the international community may hinder RA publication in specific disciplinary
domains. Such an analysis would also require a close look at the writing and publication process, which would call for an
‘‘ethnography as methodology’’ or ‘‘ethnography as deep theorizing’’ approach (Lillis, 2008). Textual, discoursal analyses
within EAP should ideally be complemented by ethnographic analyses, which may help us to learn more about the
interpersonal negotiation of new knowledge in academia.
Acknowledgements
This research has been carried out within the framework of the project entitled InterLAE (Interpersonalidad en el Lenguaje
Acade
´mico Escrito/Interpersonality in Written Academic Language), financially supported by local and national authorities
(Diputacio
´n General de Arago
´n, H21), and within the project ‘‘La integridad gene
´rica en la comunicacio
´n acade
´mica y
profesional: ana
´lisis de los ge
´neros y su correlacio
´n con las pra
´cticas discursivas y con la cultura disciplinar de distintas
comunidades profesionales’’ supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacio
´n(Project Reference FFI 2009-09792).
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr Rosa Lore
´s Sanz for her many insightful comments on previous versions of this
article.
Appendix A
1. Metadiscourse features in the English sub-corpus
Interactive metadiscourse categories
Logical markers (additive: in addition, further, moreover, similarly, additionally, likewise, also, and, furthermore;
contrastive: however, but, yet, rather, nevertheless, instead, alternatively, on the other hand, conversely, in contrast, by
contrast, though, needless to say, otherwise, still; consecutive: thus, therefore, consequently, then, as a result, hence, as such,
accordingly, for * reason, so)
Code glosses (reformulation markers: i.e., that is, specifically, in particular, in other words, namely, simply put, stated
differently, this means*, put differently, finally, overall, in summary, in sum, in conclusion, to conclude, in short, in closing, in
all, parentheses, colons and dashes; exemplification markers: e.g., such as, for example, for instance, example, such * as;
parentheses; colons; dashes)
Sequencers (first second... (third/ finally), first next (finally), to begin with next (finally), on the one hand on the
other hand)
Topicalisers (in terms of, with regard to, regarding, in regards to)
Endophoric markers (reviewing: hypothesis X, above, earlier, previously, previous, before, aforementioned, foregoing;
previewing: following, as follows, below, next, section; visual: table X, figure X).
Evidentials
Interactional metadiscourse categories
Hedges (may, would, can, might, could, appear to, seem, suggest, indicate, expect, predict, propose, consider, tend to,
believe, see, view, interpret, imply, argue, hypothesize, think, posit, point to, feel, anticipate, regard, theorize, assume,
speculate, want, relatively, typically, likely, potentially, often, perhaps, not necessarily, about, somewhat, usually, commonly,
quite, nearly, partially, just, almost, theoretically, probably, marginally, roughly, approximately, basically, maybe, normally,
ostensibly, partly, presumably, virtually, tentatively, sometimes, slightly, cautiously, likely, potential, possible, hypothesized,
common, unlikely, indicative, typical, apparent, feasible, presumed, probable, proposed, unclear, prone to, hypothesis,
likelihood, argument, possibility, view, idea, probability, attempt, assumption, prediction, notion, conceptualization,
perspective, tendency, implication, proposition, belief, expectation, feasibility, in general, in part, at least, to * our knowledge,
a priori, in theory, in broad terms, in our judgement, to some extent)
Boosters (determine, show, demonstrate, reveal, highlight, confirm, emphasize, conclude, hold, underscore, establish, assert,
prove, know, clearly, significantly, generally, largely, particularly, indeed, widely, highly, primarily, consistently, strongly,
actually, mostly,especially, extensively, entirely, essentially,dramatically, substantially,always, fully, considerable, clear,vast,
evident, substantial, evidence,fact, majority, assertion,conclusion, in fact, for the most part,of course, to a large extent, in effect)
P. Mur-Duen
˜as / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3068–3079
3076

Attitude markers (important, consistent, significant, critical, interesting, difficult, key, well + adjective, necessary, robust,
unique, valuable, complex, major, best, better, comprehensive, effective, main, useful, easier, problematic, relevant,
surprising, fine-grained, (the) first, good, reasonable, contrary to, broad, confident, desirable, generalizable, great, limited,
primary, serious, short of, suggestive, tremendous, true, worthwhile, acceptable, central,core, hard, inconsistent, in-depth,
influential, intriguing, meaningful, new, notable, promising, underdeveloped, valid, worth, adequate, crucial, dangerous,
embryonic, essential, exorbitant, fundamental, hopeful, inconclusive, marginal, missing, narrow, noteworthy, obvious,
opaque, paradoxical, poor, ripe, satisfactory, skewed, stricter, sufficient, underspecified, unexplored, unfortunate, vexing,
wise, support, extend, contribute, fail, deserve, ensure, expand, ignore, neglect, overemphasize, broaden, go (beyond), lack,
merit (attention), overlook, respond, support, importance, limitation, insight, contribution, complexity, value, paradox,
caution, consistency, hurdle, significance, validity, absence, credibility, dilemma, discovery, failure, key, shortcomings,
strengths, wealth, only, importantly, interestingly, usefully, unfortunately, surprisingly, reliably, paradoxically, critically,
conclusively, broadly)
Engagement markers (personal references: inclusive we,us,our,one,you, questions, imperatives: see,note that,cf.,
directives: should,need to,must)
Self-mentions (personal references: exclusive we,us,our; self-citations)
2. Metadiscourse features in the Spanish sub-corpus
Interactive metadiscourse categories
Logical markers (additive: adema
´s, por otro lado, por otra parte, por su parte, igualmente, asimismo, y, adicionalmente, a su
vez, de igual forma, de igual modo, ana
´logamente, incluso; contrastive: sin embargo, no obstante, por el contrario, pero, en
cambio, ahora bien, a pesar de ello, con todo, aun ası
´; consecutive: por tanto, ası
´, por * ello, ası
´pues, por lo tanto, pues, por
este motivo, por consiguiente, por esta razo
´n, entonces, en consecuencia)
Code glosses (reformulation markers: es decir, en concreto, esto es, concretamente, esto significa*, se trata de*, en otras
palabras, nos referimos a*, en todo caso, en cualquier caso, finalmente, por u
´ltimo en definitiva, para finalizar, en conclusio
´n,
resumiendo, en resumen, en sı
´ntesis, parentheses, colons and dashes; exemplification markers: como, por ejemplo, tales
como, e.g., ej.; parentheses; colons; dashes)
Sequencers (primero/a (en primer lugar) segundo/a (en segundo lugar)... (por u
´ltimo/ finalmente), el/la primer/a (+N) el/
la segundo (+ N), por un lado por otra parte, en primer lugar a continuacio
´n, por un lado la segunda)
Topicalisers (en cuanto a, (con) respecto a, por lo que se refiere a, en relacio
´n a/con, relacionado con, por lo que respecta a)
Endophoric markers (reviewing: anterior/es, hipo
´tesis X, anteriormente, previo, previamente, apartado, anterioridad;
previewing: siguiente(s), apartado, adelante, como sigue, seguidamente, epı
´grafe, a continuacio
´n; visual: tabla X, figura X,
gra
´fico X, cuadro X)
Evidentials
Interactional metadiscourse categories
Hedges (poder, conditional morpheme (*rı
´a), parecer, caber, soler, observar, considerar, plantear, pensar, apreciar, indicar,
pretender, entender, tratar de, sugerir, intentar, suponer, tender a, deducir, esperar, creer, implicar, interpretar, querer,
estimar, prever, asumir, predecir, apuntar, bastante, casi, aproximadamente, posiblemente, normalmente, quiza
´(s),
probablemente, frecuentemente, habitualmente, tal vez, previsiblemente, ligeramente, aparentemente, apenas, posible,
planteado, propuesto, probable, pretendido, aproximado, indicado, hipo
´tesis, probabilidad, posibilidad, tendencia, idea,
planteamiento, visio
´n, interpretacio
´n, intento, propuesta, observaciones, concepcio
´n, percepcio
´n, argumentos, en general, en
parte, en principio, en cierta medida, en cierta forma, hasta cierto punto, a priori, en te
´rminos generales)
Boosters (mostrar, determinar, destacar, comprobar, confirmar, corroborar, demostrar, afirmar, poner de manifiesto,
constatar, verificar, resaltar, revelar, concluir, evidenciar, enfatizar, subrayar, saber, remarcar, probar, arrojar,
fundamentalmente, significativamente, especialmente, principalmente, ampliamente, generalmente, efectivamente,
siempre, sustancialmente, claramente, obviamente, realmente, indudablemente, netamente, predominantemente,
profusamente, claro, evidente, cierto, demostrada, amplio, considerable, inequı
´voco, hecho, determinacio
´n, evidencia,
mayorı
´a, argumentos, muestra, afirmacio
´n, verdad, de hecho, en * mayorı
´a, en efecto, sin duda, sin lugar a dudas, en gran
parte, en gran medida, en buena medida, de manera sustancial, de manera significativa, de un modo amplio)
P. Mur-Duen
˜as / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3068–3079
3077

Attitude markers (principal, importante, relevante, gran, necesario, bueno, adecuado, va
´lido, escaso, amplio, lo
´gico,
conveniente, fundamental, fiable, clave, especial, fuerte, interesante, apropiado, ba
´sico, coherente, difı
´cil, fa
´cil, grandes,
imprescindible, mejor, pobre, significativo, so
´lido, u
´til, aceptable, congruente, curioso, decisivo, esencial, esperanzador,
excesiva, exhaustivo, influyente, nuevo, positivo, preciso, satisfactorios, acertada, central, clave, concluyente, confuso,
deseable, desfasado, excelente, indispensable, irremediable, nefastas, (el) primer, problema
´tico, prudente, radical, razonable,
replicado, riguroso, robusto, sencillo, singular, sorprendente, suficiente, vital, convenir, aportar, garantizar, contribuir, ir
(ma
´s alla
´), limitar, ignorar, subsanar, importancia, limitacio
´n, problema, fiabilidad, aportacio
´n, intere
´s, dificultad, validez,
carencia, complejidad, relevancia, falta, problema
´tica, utilidad, conveniencia, disparidad, diversidad, esencia, escasez,
obsta
´culo, trascendencia, verdad, so
´lo, u
´nicamente, excesivamente, mejor, meramente, negativamente, solamente,
suficientemente, adecuadamente, debidamente, fielmente, parado
´jicamente, rotundamente)
Engagement markers (personal references: inclusive *mos,nos,nuestr*, uno, vosotro(s),usted(es),vuestro*, su, suy*,
questions, imperatives: ver, directives: deber, haber que)
Self-mentions (personal references: exclusive *mos,nos,nuestr*; self-citations)
References
Becher, Tony, Trowler, Paul, 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Inquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Societies for Research in Higher
Education/Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Bondi, Marina, 2009. Historians at work: reporting frameworks in English and Italian book review articles. In: Hyland, K., Diani, G. (Eds.), Academic
Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke, pp. 179–196.
Bunton, Davis, 1999. The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes 18, S41–S56.
Clyne, Michael, 1987. Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts. Journal of Pragmatics 11, 211–247.
Crismore, Avon, Farnsworth, Raija, 1990. Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In: Nash, W. (Ed.), The Writing Scholar. Studies in
Academic Discourse. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp. 118–136.
Crismore, Avon, Markkanen, Raija, Steffensen, Margaret S., 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish
University students. Written Communication 10 (1), 39–71.
Dafouz, Milne Emma, 2003. Metadiscourse revisited: a contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad
Complutense 11, 29–52.
Dafouz, Milne Emma, 2008. The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: a
cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (1), 95–113.
Dahl, Trine, 2003. Metadiscourse in research articles. In: Fl
ø
ttum, K., Rastier, R. (Eds.), Academic Discourse: Multidisciplinary Approaches. Novus Press,
Oslo, pp. 120–138.
Dahl, Trine, 2004. Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics 36, 1807–1825.
Ferna
´ndez Polo, Francisco Javier, 1999. Traduccio
´n y reto
´rica contrastiva: A propo
´sito de la traduccio
´n de textos de divulgacio
´n cientı
´fica del ingle
´sal
espan
˜ol. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad, Santiago de Compostela.
Hickey, Leo, 2005. Politeness in Spa thanks but no ‘thanks’. In: sHickey, L., Stewart, M. (Eds.), Politeness in Europe. Multilingual Matters, Clevendon, pp.
317–330.
Hinds, John, 1987. Reader versus writer responsibility: a new typology. In: Connor, U., Kaplan, Robert, B. (Eds.), Writing across Languages: Analyses of L2
Texts. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp. 141–152.
Hyland, Ken, 1999. Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In: Candlin, C.N., Hyland, K. (Eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices.
Longman, London, pp. 99–121.
Hyland, Ken, 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Longman, London.
Hyland, Ken, 2004. Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2), 133–151.
Hyland, Ken, 2005. Metadiscourse. Continuum, London.
Hyland, Ken, Tse, Polly, 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25 (2), 156–177.
Lillis, Theresa, 2008. Ethnography as method, methodology and ‘deep theorising’: closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research.
Written Communication 25 (3), 353–388.
Lore
´s-Sanz, Rosa, 2006. I will argue that: first person pronouns as metadiscoursal devices in research article abstracts in English and Spanish. ESP Across
Cultures 3, 23–40.
Lore
´s-Sanz, Rosa, 2009a. Different worlds different audiences: a contrastive analysis of research article abstracts. In: Salmi, S., Drevin, F. (Eds.), Cross-
linguistic and Cross-cultural Perspectives on Academic Discourse. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 187–197.
Lore
´s-Sanz, Rosa, 2009b. (Non-) Critical voices in the reviewing of history discourse: a cross-cultural study of evaluation. In: Hyland, K., Diani, G. (Eds.),
Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke, pp. 143–160.
Markkanen, Raija, Steffensen, Margaret S., Crismore, Avon, 1993. Quantitative contrastive study of metadiscourse: problems in design and analysis of data.
Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 23, 137–151.
Martı
´n Martı
´n, Pedro, 2003. A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes
22, 25–43.
Martı
´n Martı
´n, Pedro, 2005. The Rhetoric of the Abstract in English and Spanish Scientific Discourse: A Cross-cultural Genre-analytic Approach. Peter Lang,
Bern.
Martı
´n Martı
´n, Pedro, Burgess, Sally, 2004. The rhetorical management of academic criticism in research article abstracts. Text 24 (2), 171–195.
Mauranen, Anna, 1993a. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Finnish–English Economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 12, 3–22.
Mauranen, Anna, 1993b. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Peter Lang, Frankfurt.
McCabe, Anne, 2004. Mood and modality in Spanish and English history textbooks: the construction of authority. Text 24 (1), 1–29.
Molino, Alessandra, 2010. Personal and impersonal authorial references: a contrastive study of English and Italian linguistics research articles. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes 9 (2), 86–101.
Moreno, Ana I., 2004. Retrospective labelling in premise-conclusion metatext: an English–Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and
economics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (4), 321–339.
Moreno, Ana I., Sua
´rez, Lorena, 2008. A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes
7 (1), 15–26.
P. Mur-Duen
˜as / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3068–3079
3078

Moreno, Ana I., Sua
´rez, Lorena, 2009. Academic book reviews in English and Spanish: critical comments and rhetorical structure. In: Hyland, K., Diani, G.
(Eds.), Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke, pp. 161–178.
Mur-Duen
˜as, Pilar, 2007a. ‘I/we focus on...’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes 6 (2), 143–162.
Mur-Duen
˜as, Pilar, 2007b. Same genre, same discipline; however, there are differences: a cross-cultural analysis of logical markers in academic writing. ESP
across Cultures 4, 37–53.
Mur-Duen
˜as, Pilar, 2010. Attitude markers in business management research articles: a cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics 19, 50–72.
Pe
´rez-Llantada, Carmen, 2008. Humans vs. machines? A multiperspective model for ESP discourse analysis in intercultural rhetoric research. ESP Across
Cultures 5, 91–104.
Pe
´rez-Llantada, Carmen, 2010. The ‘dialects of change’ as a facet of globalisation: epistemic modality in academic writing. In: Ruiz-Garrido, M., Palmer-
Silveira, J.C., Fortanet-Go
´mez, I. (Eds.), English for Professional and Academic Purposes. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 25–41.
Preacher, K.J., 2001. Calculation for the Chi-square Test: An Interactive Calculation Tool for Chi-square Tests of Goodness of Fit and Independence.,
[Computer software]. Available fromhttp://www.quantpsy.org.
Resinger, Hildegard, 2010. Same science same stance? A cross-cultural view on academic positioning in research articles. In: Lore
´s-Sanz, R., Mur-
Duen
˜as, P., Lafuente-Milla
´n, E. (Eds.), Constructing Interpersonality: Multiple Perspectives on Written Academic Genres. Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, Newcastle.
Salager-Meyer, Franc¸oise, Alcaraz Ariza, Marı
´a Angeles, Zambrano, Nahirana, 2003. The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: intercultural differences in the
rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930–1995). English for Specific Purposes 22 (3), 223–247.
Scott, Mike, 2004. WordSmith Tools Version 4. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sheldon, Elena, 2009. From one I to another: discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for
Specific Purposes 28 (4), 251–265.
Sua
´rez, Lorena, Moreno, Ana I., 2008. The rhetorical structure of literary academic book reviews: an English-Spanish cross-linguistic approach. In: Connor,
U., Nagelhout, E., Rozycki, W. (Eds.), Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 147–168.
Swales, John, Van Bonn, Sarah, 2007. Similarities and differences in French and English EAP research article abstracts: the case of ASp. In: Fl
ø
ttum, K.
(Ed.), Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse. Cambridge Scholars Press, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 275–294.
Thompson, Geoff, 2001. Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22 (1), 58–78.
Tietze, Susanne, 2008. The work of management academics: an English language perspective. English for Specific Purposes 27, 371–386.
Valero Garce
´s, Carmen, 1996. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Spanish–English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 15 (4), 279–294.
Vande Kopple, William J., 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36, 63–94.
Vassileva, Irena, 1997. Hedging in English and Bulgarian academic writing. In: Duszak, A. (Ed.), Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse. Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 203–221.
Vassileva, Irena, 1998. Who am I/Who are we in academic writing? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8 (2), 163–190.
Vassileva, Irena, 2000. Who is the author? A Contrastive Analysis of Authorial Presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian Academic
Discourse. Asgard Verlag, Sankt Augustin.
Vassileva, Irena, 2001. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 20 (1), 83–102.
Ventola, Eija, 1997. Modalization: probability – an exploration into its role in academic writing. In: Duszak, A. (Ed.), Culture and Styles of Academic
Discourse. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 158–179.
Pilar Mur-Duen
˜as read her PhD thesis at the Universidad Zaragoza (Spain), where she is currently a lecturer. Her research interests focus on the analysis of written
academic discourse, and more specifically, on the intercultural analysis of interpersonality in research article writing. She is a member of the InterLAE research
group (www.interlae.com).
P. Mur-Duen
˜as / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3068–3079
3079