Academic writing is generally characterised as “impersonal and objective” (Learning Development Centre n.d.b, p1). Therefore, the writer’s presence in the text, revealed explicitly by personal pronouns and the writer’s opinions and attitudes, is to be avoided. Also, as a kind of analytical exposition, as mentioned in Chapter 2, argumentative essays are expected to deal with facts rather than feelings and attitudes (Martin 1985). But at the same time, when responding to an essay prompt such as Do you agree?, students are required to state opinions, interpretations and evaluations as part of a demonstration of their critical thinking.
However, there are certain strategies that are both persuasive and objective in arguing a case. One, as mentioned in the previous section, is to turn feelings and attitudes into nominalisations. In this way, expressing opinion and attitude is buried in academic writing (Learning Develoment Centre n.d.b; Martin 1985). It is also found that the common preference of Attitude resources in academic writing is Appreciation (Lee 2006; Martin 2000), which is concerned with the evaluations of “objects, texts, artefacts, processes, material circumstances and states of affairs” (White 2008a, p11).
Another strategy of being both persuasive and objective is to evaluate the field of knowledge and the field of research activity differently. Hood (2005) studied 10 introductory sections of published research articles and unpublished honours dissertations, and identified academic research writing to be characteristically constructive of two different kinds of activity, or two fields: the field of the knowledge domain (KD) being investigated and the field of the research activity (RA) being conducted in relation to that domain. To be persuasive, academic writers in Hood’s study typically expressed attitude explicitly in the field of KD. However, to maintain objectivity, the writers avoided explicit attitude in evaluating other research in the RA field. Instead, they employed the resources of graduation to represent graded experiential meanings at an implicit level. For example, with the use of expressions that evoke attitude through the grading of experiential meanings, these writers presented the field of research “as something that is quantified in some way” (e.g. relatively little attention, many scholars); “located in time and space” (e.g. more recently, for at least 30 years); “representing a level of specificity and/or fulfilment”
48
(e.g. It seems that, Experts also suggested) (Hood 2005, p35). The sentence below illustrates this point:
RA: “It seems (implicit attitude through a resource of graduation) KD: that peer feedback is a useful (explicit attitude) alternative”.
To convince the reader, a proficient writer employs appraisal resources effectively. The precise nature of reader positioning, or the cline of dialogistic expansion and contraction, is determined by communicative objectives (e.g. to argue or to explain), the proposition’s role towards these communicative objectives, and the nature of the proposition itself (i.e. the degree to which it foregrounds evaluative versus experiential/informational meanings). For example, a presupposed proposition, presented as no longer at issue, tends to construe readership as sharing the same value position with the writer/speaker (Martin & White 2005, p101). On the other hand, to maximise the declaration effect in the claim move, closing alternatives or using bare assertion can be effective (Hyland 1990, p73).
The patterns of dialogic engagement can also vary according to the types of genre. For example, in recounts it is natural for the tone of voice to be monoglossic as the personal experience is treated as “evidentially and epistemically unproblematic” (White 2008b, p11). However, in expositions the writer tries to persuade the reader while realising alternative positions and anticipating resistance or scepticism. Therefore, the tone of voice is rhetorically more heteroglossic to engage the reader. White (2008b, p11) thus suggests linguistic analysts to observe both where and why more expansive dialogic option is used. Such investigation would possibly facilitate a systematic explanation of communicative changes in interpersonal style as students shift from the genre of recount to the genre of exposition (Martin & White 2005, p92).
Modality, or hedging, plays a significant role in persuasion. In Hyland’s (1996) study of metadiscourse in academic texts, modality is referred to as hedges, a kind of interpersonal metadiscourse functioning to withhold the writer’s full commitment to statements. While presenting claims, the writer is aware of the possibility of the reader’s objections. According to Hyland (1996, p436), the writer thus uses hedges to guide the reader regarding the levels of adequacy and acceptability to which he/she
49
commits in respect of the claims made. This reduces the risk of objections both on objective and subjective grounds. According to Hyland’s analysis of 26 science research articles, hedging is mainly used for three purposes:
First, to present claims with greater precision with respect to both the terms used to describe real-world phenomena and the degree of reliability the writer invests in the statement. Second, to signal reservations in the truth of a claim to limit the professional damage which might result from bald propositions. Third, to give deference and recognition to the reader and avoid unacceptable over-confidence. (Hyland 1996, p449)
The significant role of hedges in an effective argument presentation is also confirmed in Hyland’s later (1998) quantitative study of 28 leading research articles from four academic disciplines (Microbiology, Marketing, Astrophysics and Applied Linguistics), with the articles having an average length of 5,700 words. It was found that the most frequent interpersonal subcategory used in these disciplines was hedges. This finding is understandable because, as Hyland (1998) points out, in academic texts the writers need to distinguish fact from opinion, and “to evaluate their assertions in ways that are likely to be persuasive to their peers, presenting claims with both appropriate caution and deference to the views of their discourse community” (p445). In order to present claims in academic argumentation, judgements are expected to be made against possible refutation. Therefore, instead of presenting claims as well-established truths, hedges are used for the purpose of ratification.
It is assumed that less effective writers tend to use strong modality or even avoid modality. For example, an argumentative text written by a young student (Year 2) includes the use of strong modalities of both obligation (you shouldn’t drop rubbish) and probability (it will make birds, rats and mice come), “because the writer is unaware of the effectiveness of distancing herself from a point of view by using modalities of less obligation and probability. A less demonstrative stance in arguing often proves to be more successful” (Knapp & Watkins 1994, p126).
Another requirement in academic text is to include academic references. This allows projection as a source of evaluation, assigning the responsibility for attitudes and opinions to a report, data or academic experts. Regarding projection, Wu’s (2007)
50
extensive study of 2000-word argumentative essays written by non-native speakers of English sheds some lights on the different patterns employed by high- and low-rated writers. In this study, almost 150 essays were graded by two markers, and only essays scoring grades A, C and D were selected for the analysis. Then, 27 essays were analysed for contractive and expansive categories of engagement resources.
Using more delicate linguistic categories, the salient findings of Wu’s (2007) were that in opening dialogic space, the low-rated writers used projections that included modality without stating the source of attribution (e.g., It seems that…). In contrast, when the high-rated writers opened dialogic space by projection, they included the attributing source (e.g. Some linguists say that…). Even when they wanted to show alignment with a source which mostly supported their claims, the high-rated writers attributed the proposition to a source (e.g. Linguists agree that…). Concession, i.e. the “disclaim: counter” option in Wu’s study, is especially used by the high-rated writers in the inclusion of contradictory data to develop their points.