Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 114e124

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and

research articles*
Tomoyuki Kawase*, 1, 2
Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, VIC. 3125, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Previous studies have indicated that the introductions of PhD theses and research articles
Received 9 July 2014 are similar in their rhetorical features. In contrast, it has been suggested that meta-
Received in revised form 19 August 2015 discourse as a rhetorical device is constructed in a different manner in these texts. How-
Accepted 24 August 2015
ever, very few studies have sought to empirically validate this assumption. This paper
Available online 7 September 2015
investigates how research writers construct metadiscourse in the introductions of their
PhD theses and subsequently published research articles. The analysis shows that the
Keywords:
majority of the writers make greater use of metadiscourse in their article introductions.
Genre analysis
Rhetoric
The most significant changes include greater use of phrases referring to previous research,
Metadiscourse less reference to other parts of the text, and still less use of phrases signalling authorial
Doctoral thesis or dissertation presence. Close examination reveals that these variations derive from genre-specific fea-
Research article tures, including that writers of PhD thesis introductions present previews of the subse-
Introduction quent chapters. This paper closes by arguing that the variations can also be ascribed to the
nature of the PhD thesis as an educational genre and that of research articles as a pro-
fessional genre in which writers need to survive severe competition to get their manu-
scripts published.
© 2015 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Previous studies of academic writing have often indicated that the introductions of PhD theses and research articles (RAs)
are similar in their rhetorical features (e.g., Bunton, 1998, 2002; Feak, Swales, & Irwin, 2011; Paltridge & Starfield, 2007;
Samraj, 2008; Swales, 2004). Swales (2004), for instance, wrote that the overall structure of the introduction of PhD the-
ses “in broad outline is comparable to that of research articles” (p. 117). Samraj (2008) noted that “[s]tudies of introductions in
research articles and PhD theses have made it clear that a crucial rhetorical function of introductions is to justify the study
being reported” (p. 56). However, it has been suggested that writers of these introductions are dissimilar in terms of how they
construct the rhetorical device of metadiscourse or “self-reflective linguistic expressions referring to the evolving texts, to the
writer, and to the imagined reader of that text” (Hyland, 2004, p. 133; see also Adel, € 2006; Crismore, 1989; Crismore,
Markkanen, & Steffensen, 1993; Mauranen, 1993). Swales (1990) claimed that “the key differentiating aspect of

*
The handling of the editorial process for this paper was completed by Professor Hamp-Lyons.
* Current address: 59 Tono Inuigaito, Joyo, Kyoto, Japan.
E-mail address: tkawjpbon@gmail.com.
1
This is where the actual work was done; it is not the author's current affiliation.
2
Tomoyuki Kawase is a researcher for whom English is a foreign language. He completed his PhD studies at Deakin University in Australia. His thesis
explores Japanese researchers' development of academic literacy in English. His research interests also include the roles of rhetoric in knowledge
construction.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.006
1475-1585/© 2015 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 T. Kawase / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 114e124 115

dissertation writing [from article writing] is a much greater use of metadiscourse” (P. 188). Bunton (1998) analysed 13 PhD
theses and presented findings to explicitly support Swales' claim. Paltridge and Starfield (2007, p. 89) attributed thesis
writers' greater use of metadiscourse to “much lengthier” text characteristic of the thesis genre. Swales (1990) drew the same
conclusion by saying that “[m]etadiscourse goes with extensive textual territory” (p. 189). Studies examining more specific
usage of metadiscourse in PhD theses and RAs also tend to indicate variations derived from genre-related factors. Koutsantoni
(2006), for instance, argued that research writers change how to use metadiscourse items to control the strength of their
claims according to their relationship with the intended audience of the genre (e.g., thesis examiners and journal reviewers)
(cf. Shaw, 2000).
It should be noted that none of the conclusions drawn in the above studies are about the metadiscourse use in the in-
troductions alone. Moreover, to my knowledge, no study has empirically sought to examine assumptions regarding how and
why metadiscourse is constructed differently in the introductions of PhD theses and RAs based on the comparative analysis of
both texts.
This paper explores how eight writers construct metadiscourse in the introductions of their PhD theses and RAs that they
later produced based on the theses. By doing this, it examines the assumption that variations in the use of metadiscourse in
these texts can be attributed to the nature of the genre. The findings will provide useful insights, especially for early career
researchers aspiring to publish RAs based on their theses.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Definitions of metadiscourse

Previous studies have often classified metadiscourse in relation to the three communicative functions of language
€
identified by Hallidayan systemic functional grammar (e.g., Halliday, 1994), as has been pointed out (e.g., Adel, 2006; Hyland,
2005). They are explained by Hyland (2005, p. 26) in the following terms:

 The Ideational function: the use of language to represent experience and ideas
 The Interpersonal function: the use of language to encode interaction, allowing us to engage with others, to take on roles
and to express and understand evaluations and feelings
 The Textual function: the use of language to organize the text itself, coherently relating what is said to the world and to
readers.

It appears that the majority of metadiscourse theorists (e.g., Crismore et al., 1993; Hyland, 2000; Hyland & Tse, 2004;
Vande Kopple, 1985, 2002) have adopted the notion that metadiscourse does not serve an ideational function (i.e., to
€
construct propositional content) but textual and interpersonal functions. In contrast, studies like Adel (2006) and Mauranen
(1993) consider that metadiscourse contains (meta)textual items alone, questioning the notion that metadiscourse consists
solely of non-propositional items.
We should note that separate analyses of metadiscourse items with single functions could lead to miss the possible in-
teractions between them (cf. Crismore et al., 1993; Hyland & Tse, 2004; Vande Kopple, 2002). This point is suggested, for
example, by Hyland as follows:
In other words, while metadiscourse theorists tend to see textual, interpersonal and propositional (ideational) ele-
ments of the texts as discrete and separable, Halliday reminds us that texts have to be seen more holistically. Discourse
is a process in which writers are simultaneously creating propositional content, interpersonal engagement and the flow
of text as they write. (Hyland, 2005, p. 27)
Nevertheless, previous studies suggesting thesis writers' greater use of metadiscourse in the introductions (e.g., Bunton,
1998; Paltridge & Starfield, 2007; Swales, 2004) tend to assume that metadiscourse contains only metatextual items. Swales
(2004) wrote that “I prefer the term metatext” (p. 121) when commenting on his earlier claim of thesis writers' “greater use of
metadiscourse” (Swales, 1990, p. 188). Bunton (1998) did not examine interpersonal items in his metadiscourse analysis;
thereby noting that “choice of the term ‘metatext’ rather than metadiscourse seems particularly apt” (p. 219). Paltridge and
Starfield (2007) used metadiscourse and metatext interchangeably, which can be seen from their definition that “meta-
discourse (also referred to as metatext) refers to discourse about discourse” (p. 89).
Therefore, this paper addresses a need to examine whether and why research writers make greater use of metadiscourse
in their PhD thesis introductions than in their RA introductions based on the definition that metadiscourse consists of both
metatextual and interpersonal items.

2.2. Data selection

The corpus analysed in this paper consists of the introductions of PhD theses and RAs by the same authors. They are a part
of the data analysed in my previous study (Kawase, 2011) that investigated Japanese researchers' development of academic
literacy in English. The theses were selected from those successfully completed at Anglophone (i.e., Australian) universities.
116 T. Kawase / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 114e124

Only RAs published in international journals were chosen. Despite the selection of non-native English-speaking (NNES)
writers' texts, this design will allow this paper to explore potential features of the thesis and RA genres shaped by the in-
ternational academic community where English is used by multicultural populations as the dominant language (cf. Bunton,
1998, 2002).
Following the observation by Connor and Moreno (2005) that selecting comparative texts for analysis is a “vital
component in contrastive rhetoric research” (p. 153), the present research selected RAs constructed based on a part or the
whole of the theses to ensure comparability of the content as a key determiner of the rhetorical features (e.g., Peacock, 2002;
Vassileva, 2000). It turned out that the selected RAs are the authors' initial major publications. This feature of the data will
allow the analysis of how writers at a similar stage of their career trajectories and thus at a similar stage of their academic
literacy development construct metadiscourse in response to genre expectations. The similarity of the subject matter be-
tween theses and RAs by each author and their near-simultaneous production can be seen in Table 1 (see the Appendix for
theses and RAs from which data were selected).
Above theses and RAs were constructed in the applied linguistics discipline. The authors of these texts are language
specialists considered to be more familiar than researchers in other disciplines with the nature of these research genres (e.g.,
linguistic and rhetorical features). Hence, this design will provide more opportunities for the present analysis to identify
features of metadiscourse that can be ascribed to the genre; if such features exist.
The introductions of the selected texts were identified based on the following criteria. Since the overall structure of the
selected RAs basically corresponds to Introduction-Methodology-Results-Discussion (I-M-R-D) structure (e.g., Bazerman,
1988; Swales, 1990), the opening section(s) before the Methods section was identified as the introduction. In selecting
PhD thesis introductions, this paper adopted the notion that the entire opening chapter before the Literature Review chapter
constitutes the introduction in the case of PhD theses (e.g., Bunton, 1998; Kwan, 2006).

2.3. Analysis

This paper employs Hyland (2005) model as an established framework for the analysis of metatextual and interpersonal
items of metadiscourse in academic writing (e.g., Bruce, 2009; Hyland, 2010; Zarei & Mansoori, 2011). One of the innovations
€
of Hyland's model seems to be that it classifies citation as a part of metadiscourse (cf. Adel, 2006; Mauranen, 1993). According
to Hyland, this is a necessary move especially for the analysis of metadiscourse in research writings because:
For readers of research papers, claims are inseparable from their originators and a great deal of explicit intertextuality is
required from authors to show who first made the claim and how it relates to the current argument. More than this,
however, citations are also crucial to gaining approval of new claims by providing persuasive support for arguments
and demonstrating the novelty of assertions. (Hyland, 2005, p. 106)
The importance of citation for the texts analysed in this study is thus strongly suggested, given that one of the main
rhetorical functions of the introduction of research theses or articles is to justify the research by showing how it is to extend
previous research or fill gaps in previous literature (e.g., Paltridge & Starfield, 2007; Samraj, 2008; Swales, 1990; Swales &
Feak, 2012).

Table 1
Titles of theses and research articles from which data were selected.

Authora Text Title (year of completion/publication)

Nakane (A1) Thesis Silence in Japanese-Australian classroom interaction: Perception and performance (2003)
Article Silence and politeness in intercultural communication in university seminars (2006)
Ohashi (A2) Thesis Giving, receiving and thanking in Japanese: A cross-cultural pragmatic investigation (2001)
Article Japanese culture specific face and politeness orientation: A pragmatic investigation of yoroshiku onegaishimasu (2003)
Iwashita (A3) Thesis The role of task-based conversation in the acquisition of Japanese grammar and vocabulary (1999)
Article The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnativeenonnative interaction in Japanese as a
foreign language (2001)
Takeuchi Thesis Raising children bilingually through the ‘one parent-one language’ approach: A case study of Japanese mothers in the Australian
(A4) context (2005)
Article The Japanese language development of children through the ‘one parent-one language’ approach in Melbourne (2006)
Tsukada (A5) Thesis An acoustic phonetic analysis of Japanese-accented English (1999)
Article Cross-language perception of word-final stops by multilingual listeners: Preliminary results on the effect of listeners' first language
(L1) backgrounds (2007)
Hashimoto Thesis Power and control: Cultural assumptions in Japanese policies on the teaching of Japanese (1997)
(A6) Article ‘Internationalisation’ is ‘Japanisation’: Japan's foreign language education and national identity (2000)
Machida Thesis A case study of interlanguage: Japanese language acquisition by English speakers (1996)
(A7) Article Japanese text comprehension by Chinese and non-Chinese background learners (2001)
Hasada (A8) Thesis An exploratory study of expression of emotions in Japanese: Towards a semantic interpretation (2000)
Article ‘Body part’ terms and emotion in Japanese (2002)
a
The above authors are referred to below as A1eA8: She and her are used as generic pronouns to refer to these authors.
 T. Kawase / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 114e124 117

In Hyland's model, metatextual items are referred to as “interactive metadiscourse,” while interpersonal items are cat-
egorised as “interactional metadiscourse.” Interactive items (see Table 2) are used to “organise propositional information in
ways that a projected target audience is likely to find coherent and convincing” (Hyland, 2005, p. 50).
Interactional items (see Table 3) are used to show “the author's perspective towards both propositional information and
readers themselves” (Hyland, 2005, p. 52).
After identifying metadiscourse items based on the above taxonomy, the analysis examines these items from quantitative
and qualitative perspectives. The quantitative analyses examine the total number of metadiscourse items employed in each
text and the number of occurrences of interactive/interpersonal items as well as individual metadiscourse items. The qual-
itative analyses examine how metadiscourse items are used for different purposes and effects to consider possible reasons for
the variations.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Quantitative approach

The analysis shows that six out of the eight writers make greater use of metadiscourse in their RA introductions than in
their thesis introductions; see Fig. 1 summarising the total number of metadiscourse items used in these texts:
The analysis of interactive resources (Fig. 2) shows that six writers make greater use of metatextual items in their RAs.
These results are inconsistent with the assumption that thesis writers make greater use of metadiscourse in general and
metatextual items in particular (e.g., Bunton, 1998; Paltridge & Starfield, 2007; Swales, 1990, 2004). The analysis of inter-
actional items shows that four writers use more interpersonal items in their RAs; see Fig. 3:
It is thus revealed that among the six authors who made greater total use of metadiscourse in their RA introductions, the
majority (i.e., A1, A2, A3, and A7) used both interactive and interpersonal items more in the introductions. This finding is
novel, considering that previous studies tend to focus on metatextual items alone when discussing differences in the overall
quantity of metadiscourse in PhD theses and RAs (cf. Swales, 2004).
The analysis of individual items shows that among the changes made by the majority of the writers are greater use of
evidentials, code glosses, and hedges in RAs. Items such as transition markers, endophoric markers, attitude markers, and
self-mention, in contrast, tend to be used less in RAs. In other words, the authors who made greater (or lesser) total use of
metatextual or interpersonal resources does not make greater (or lesser) use of all subtypes; see Fig. 4 and Fig. 5:
It can be thus said that differences in overall quantity of metatextual or interpersonal items cannot be explained in a
reductive fashion; such as that the overall greater use of metatextual items suggests the writers' greater efforts to explicitly
guide readers through text (cf. Bunton, 1998). Seen in this light, greater (or lesser) total use of metadiscourse cannot be
accounted for in such a fashion, either, provided especially that most of the above mentioned changes in the use of individual
items are also observed in the introductions by A6 and A8 making less overall use of metadiscourse in their RA introductions.
The following sections take a closer look at how metadiscourse items are used in specific contexts to further discuss the
implications of the changes.

3.2. Qualitative approach

3.2.1. Interactive resources: endophoric markers, evidentials, code glosses, and transition markers
The analysis shows that although all authors except A6 use endophoric markers to present chapter previews in their thesis
introductions, none of them do so in their RA introductions. Such markers can be seen in the final paragraph of A2's thesis
introduction, to give an example; see Ex. 1, where endophoric markers are underlined:
Ex. 1 Chapter 1 has provided a general overview of the study. In Chapter 2, theoretical issues which are significant to the
study are discussed. Several controversial issues that remain unsolved are highlighted. The theoretical discussion in-
cludes pragmatics (2.1), speech act theory (2.2), conversation analysis (2.3), the cooperative principle (2.4), indirect
speech acts (2.5) and politeness theory (2.6). In Chapter 3, merits and demerits of data elicitation methods such as DCTs
and role plays are discussed. This is followed by Study 1 and Study 2. Japanese native speakers' common linguistic
expressions, sensitivity to social debt, and sequential patterns (such as ‘thanking e denial’) are identified for further
investigation. In Chapter 4, Study 3 investigates multiple speech act (requesting, thanking and declining) realisations in
a series of latter writing tasks. Letters of different first language backgrounds (Chinese and English) and achievement

Table 2
Interactive metadiscourse defined by Hyland (2005).

Metadiscourse Functions Examples

Transitions Express semantic relation between main clauses or sentences In addition/but/and
Frame markers Refer to discourse acts, sequences or text stages Finally/my purpose is to
Endophoric markers Refer to information in other part of the text Noted above/in Section2
Evidentials Refer to sources of information from other texts According to X/(Y, 1990)
Code glosses Help readers grasp meanings of ideational material Namely/e.g./such as/In other words
118 T. Kawase / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 114e124

Table 3
Interactional metadiscourse defined by Hyland (2005).

Metadiscourse Functions Examples

Hedges Withhold commitment to a proposition and open dialogue Might/perhaps/possible/about
Boosters Emphasise certainty or close dialogue In fact/definitely/it is clear that
Attitude markers Express writer's attitude to proposition Unfortunately/surprisingly
Engagement markers Explicitly build relationship with the reader by addressing to the reader Consider/note that/you can see that
Self-mention Explicit reference to author(s) I/We/my/our

levels (high and low) are involved, as well as Japanese native speakers. Native speaker judgement on learners' letter
writing tasks is used to examine this data. This reveals the native speaker's cultural values and what is perceived as
polite behaviour. In Chapter 5, Study 4 investigates Japanese native speakers' speech act realisations of thanking in
naturally occurring telephone conversations. Chapter 6 discusses the outcomes of these studies in the light of the
theoretical framework presented in Chapter 2, and also discusses the implications and limitations of the research
outcome. (A2's thesis, sentences 121e133)
Considering that presenting chapter summaries has been often indicated as a mandatory element of PhD thesis in-
troductions (e.g., Bunton, 1998; Paltridge & Starfield, 2007), greater use of endophoric markers for this reason can be
attributed to the genre.
The present analysis identifies that the majority of the authors (i.e., A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6), in contrast, use evidentials
less in their thesis introductions. Close analysis reveals that this feature arises because these authors do not always give
comprehensive reports of the literature when they refer to previous research in their thesis introductions. Such citation
practice, for instance, can be seen in the following excerpt from A1's thesis introduction (Ex. 2, an underlined item is
evidential):
Ex. 2 As discussed in Chapter 2, the existing literature tends to rely on personal observations and anecdotal accounts
from colleagues or students to account for Asian students' silence (Liu 2000). (A1's thesis, sentence 31)
As is noticeable, the above evidential does not represent a part of “the existing literature” but is used merely to support her
comment on the methodological trend. It can be also inferred from an endophoric expression (“As discussed in Chapter 2”)
that A1 was allowed not to give comprehensive reports of the literature until the Literature Review chapter (e.g., Kwan, 2006).
Such deferral can be considered an acceptable feature in the PhD thesis genre; otherwise, texts like the opening paragraph of
A3's thesis introduction (see Ex. 3 below), for example, would not have been possible:
Ex. 3 In communicative language teaching, a widely held belief is that the more opportunities learners have for
communication with native speakers or with non-native speakers of high proficiency, the more competent learners
will become in the foreign language. Thus, many foreign language educators make efforts to create opportunities for
learners to use the target language, for example, by inviting native speakers into the classroom: pairing up foreign
language learners with volunteer or paid partners who are native speakers of that language; organising ‘tandem’
exchanges and including a study abroad program as a part of the curriculum. A question which arises is whether
increasing these opportunities for learners, especially beginners to converse with native speakers is really helpful for
language learning. Although there are theoretical grounds for believing that interactions with native speakers create
conditions that are facilitative for second language acquisition, there is a need to investigate this empirically, both
cross-sectionally and longitudinally with real learners conversing with native speaking partners, using a variety of
topics and tasks. The present study investigates the role of conversation in the acquisition of Japanese grammar and
vocabulary. It examines the effect of task-based conversation in both the short- and long-term. (A3's thesis, sentences
1e6)
A3 does not employ a single citation to support her statements in this paragraph, although some of them (e.g., a comment
on the “theoretical grounds”) would clearly require evidential support. The assumption that this feature is genre-specific can
be further supported by the finding that A3 uses evidentials in the opening paragraph of her RA introduction (see Ex. 4 below,
evidentials are underlined), which is strikingly similar in content.
Ex. 4 In communicative language classrooms, group work using communication tasks has been widely implemented,
and learners spend a great deal of time practising the target language with other learners. Long and Porter (1985) claim
that group work enhances opportunities for students to use the target language, and to interact with one another. One
aspect of conversational interaction, known as negotiation of meaning, has been claimed to be facilitative in language
learning (e.g. Long, 1980, 1983; Pica, 1987, 1994a, 1994b). Empirical studies have demonstrated that learners have more
opportunity to talk and negotiate meaning in group work than in the teacher-fronted classroom (e.g. Long, 1981; Pica
and Doughty, 1985; Doughty and Pica, 1986). (A3's RA, sentences 1e4)
As can be seen, A3 establishes within the paragraph that the topic of language learners' benefits from conversational
interaction is an acknowledged one in the field.
 T. Kawase / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 114e124 119

190 187.8 181.0

180
170 154.5
160
150
140
130 120.7
120 105.4 106.5 107.4 106.2
110 100.0
100 83.0 82.4 86.6 81.5 90.2 Thesis
90 71.4
80 63.2 RA
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8

Fig. 1. Number of metadiscourse items per 100 sentences (normalised).

140 134.7
130 123.6
120
110
100
90 79.0 75.9 77.6 77.0
80 74.2 69.9 66.7
72.5
70 62.4 65.9 Thesis
56.5 51.6
60 RA
50 41.3 37.0
40
30
20
10
0
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8

Fig. 2. Number of interactive items per 100 sentences (normalised).

140 139.7
130
120
110
100
90
80
70 Thesis
60 53.0 50.0
44.840.7 44.4 RA
50
40 31.2 30.9 29.2
30 21.0
16.5 19.8 17.6
20 13.2 9.0
10 0.8
0
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8

Fig. 3. Number of interactional items per 100 sentences (normalised).

The analysis suggests that greater use of code glosses in RA introductions, too, may derive from genre-related factors. Close
examination reveals that the authors using this item more in RAs (i.e., A1, A2, A3, A5, and A6) tend to use it for describing
methodological information (see Ex. 5, code glosses are underlined).
Ex. 5 In this paper, I examine through one policy text, entitled Japanese Government Policies in Education, Science and
Culture 1994; New Directions in School Education: Fostering Strength for Life (JGPESC), with some supplementary
reference to other years' policies. JGPESC is a report, which has been published by the Ministry of Education, Science
and Culture (Monbushou, MESC) annually since 1959, and has a specific subtitle for each year. The JGPESC is located as
the final version of the policies produced in that year. The JGPESC is, therefore, the endorsed public position of the
MESC. The structure of the JGPESC does not vary a great deal except in the inclusion of the special feature for each year.
The 1994 document has been chosen because it specifically features school education. The 1994 document also has the
first complete translation in English. This document is referred to as a White Paper which informs ‘the public about all
aspects of educational administration over the past year’ (MESC, 1995, p. xiii). The Japanese original title is Wagakuni no
120 T. Kawase / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 114e124

70.0

60.0

50.0

TR
40.0
FM
30.0 END
EV
20.0
CG

10.0

0.0

Fig. 4. Occurrences of interactive items per 100 sentences (normalised). This figure illustrates increase or decrease in the use of Transition markers (TR), Frame
markers (FM), Endophoric markers (END), Evidentials (EV), and Code glosses (CG) between Theses (TH) and RAs.

30.0

25.0

20.0
HG

15.0 EM
SM
B
10.0
AM

5.0

0.0

Fig. 5. Occurrences of interactional items per 100 sentences (normalised). This figure illustrates increase or decrease in the use of Hedges (HG), Attitude markers
(AM), Self-mention (SM), and Engagement markers (EM) between Theses (TH) and RAs. Please note that the value for SM in A6's thesis is 111.6.

bunkyou shisaku, literally ‘cultural and educational policies for our (own) country’, and is couched in a very formal style
of Japanese. (A6's RA, sentences 58e66)
Type of code glosses seen above (i.e., those used for data description) is also found in the introductions by other four
writers. However, such rhetorical practice is an essential element of the Methods section (e.g., Swales, 2004; Swales & Feak,
2012). We should note that, of the I-M-R-D structure of RAs, the Methods section is “the narrowest part” (Swales & Feak, 2012,
p. 285) and thus that the writers are least expected to “over-explain” (p. 295). Despite this, RA authors in the field of language
studies and teaching usually construct the Methods section that is more elaborate than, for example, those in hard sciences
(Swales, 2004). Hence, the language researchers whose works were analysed in this paper might choose to include meth-
odological information in the introductions so that they can downsize the Methods section. While this seems to be an un-
derlying reason for the greater use of code glosses in RA introductions, such an effort is not necessary for thesis authors. This is
because, according to Paltridge and Starfield (2007, p. 114), the “lengthier Methodology components of research theses as
 T. Kawase / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 114e124 121

opposed to the more terse research article” are meant for doctoral students to demonstrate their ability to make “argument
and justification for the chosen approach.”
Unlike in the case of the interactive items discussed above, the analysis did not identify textual evidence to account for
why the majority of the writers (i.e., A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6) use transition markers (transitions) less in their RA introductions.
Nevertheless, it is suggested that this result, at least, cannot be explained in skill-deficit terms, although greater use of
transitions itself has been often regarded as an indicator of writers' better skills in English academic writing (e.g., Hyland,
2004). The present analysis has examined metadiscourse in PhD theses and subsequently published RAs produced by the
same authors within a short interval. Therefore, it is unlikely that variations in the use of metadiscourse between these texts
are due to the difference in the level of the authors' skills. Seen in this light, the following genre-specific features seem to be
more relevant. RAs assume “tacit understanding between ‘expert’ writers and readers and thus tend to be less explicit in their
exposition than we might expect in dissertations” (Swales, 2004, p. 119). In contrast, authors of PhD theses, who are only
“seeking to enter a community of scholars” (Paltridge & Starfield, 2007, p. 82), would “prefer to exercise a more transparent
communicative style on the grounds that it is safer” (Adel, € 2006, p. 153). Moreover, in “extended texts such as theses,
metadiscourse plays an important role in that it helps provide an overarching organizational scaffold for the thesis” (Paltridge
& Starfield, 2007, p. 89).

3.2.2. Interactional resources: attitude markers, self-mention, and hedges

The analysis of interactional metadiscourse (cf. Fig. 5) shows that four writers (i.e., A3, A5, A6, and A8) use attitude markers
less in their thesis introductions and that six writers (i.e., A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, and A8) use self-mention less in their thesis
introductions. Close examination reveals that decrease in the use of these items is because while these writers use them to
comment on previous research in their theses, they use evidentials to do so in their RAs. Some examples will illustrate how
this shift may contribute to the tonal difference, followed by discussion of the implications of these changes.
The writers who used attitude markers more frequently in their thesis introductions tend to employ evaluative language
characteristic of this metadiscourse item to assert insufficient aspects or gaps in previous research. A resultant personal tone
can be found in the following examples (Ex. 6 and Ex. 7) (markers underlined):
Ex. 6 However, we are still far from being able to draw any firm conclusions about the role of negative evidence in L1
language acquisition. (A3's thesis, sentence 57)
Ex. 7 It is somewhat unrealistic and most regrettable that “foreign accent” was regarded by some researchers as a
stigma. (A5's thesis, sentence 9)
These writers, by contrast, use evidentials in their RA introductions to indicate insufficiencies in previous knowledge; see
Ex. 8 and Ex. 9 (evidentials underlined):
Ex. 8 To date, however, studies on modified output have only concerned the gender variables (Pica et al., 1989, 1991;
Pica, 1991) in NS-NNS interactions. (A3's RA, sentence 44)
Ex. 9 However, not all foreign speech sound contrasts are equally difficult to perceive and/or produce (e.g., voicing vs.
palate contrast in Hindi, Tees & Werker, 1994). (A5's RA, sentence 3)
As can be seen, these writers use evidentials to describe the status of research knowledge in a more detached manner
through other studies.
The difference in tone due to the shift from self-mention to evidentials is most clearly seen in A4's introductions, to give an
example, where she presents seemingly identical research (see Ex. 10 and Ex. 11; self-mention and evidentials are
underlined).
Ex. 10 At the moment, our knowledge of bilingual language development through the ‘one parent-one language’
approach is limited to young children. The period around when a child starts schooling in the majority language seems
to be a crucial point which can lead either to language maintenance or language shift. We need to know more about
what happens to the child at this time. (A4's thesis, sentences 9e11)
Ex. 11 Studies on the ‘one parent-one language’ approach reported varying outcomes (Amberg, 1987; Billings, 1990; Dӧ;
pke, 1992; Harding & Riley, 1986; Lanza, 1997; Leopold, 1939e1949; Noguchi, 1996; Ronjat, 1913; Sanders, 1982, 1988;
Taeschner, 1983; Yamamoto, 1995). The ‘one parent-one language’ approach is understood to be relatively effective in
promoting active bilingualism among young children. When children approach school age, input in the majority
language increases. This period seems to be a crucial point where some children continue to speak in the minority
language, whilst other children shift towards the majority language. However, not enough is known about the minority
language development among older children. (A4's RA, sentence 4e8)
In the thesis, A4 highlights her authorial presence by using we and our to assert the status of knowledge of the “one parent-
one language approach” as a part of those who represent the field. In contrast, in the RA, A4 achieves an impersonal tone by
using evidentials to describe the information about the approach as previous findings.
The present study interprets variations in the use of the above interactional resources by arguing that more personal
constructions in PhD thesis introductions are closely related to the following genre-specific features. According to Kamler and
122 T. Kawase / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 114e124

Thomson (2006), doctoral students would initially find it difficult to present an authoritative self in writing when assessing
previous studies; because of their increasing awareness that these studies are produced by more authoritative members in
the research field (see also Koutsantoni, 2006, 2007). As a result, some of these apprentices could turn to focus on taking notes
(e.g., literature summaries) and miss the gist of their own project in the process, which could lead to a delay in the progress of
thesis writing. Partly because of this, doctoral students are often advised by their supervisors that it is “the personal stamp,
the angle that students take on their research problem, that really makes their contribution to knowledge original” (Kamler &
Thomson, 2006, p. 73; see also Paltridge & Starfield, 2007). This seems to be why it is common for PhD thesis authors to refer
to their personal contexts (e.g., those related to their professional experiences) when they justify their research in their
introductions (e.g., McNabb, 2001). Accordingly, thesis authors' metadiscoursal manifestation of their authorial presence
when commenting on previous research, too, can be ascribed to this feature of PhD theses as a more educational genre
functioning as “a final examination in a long student career” (Johns & Swales, 2002, p. 16) conducted in an apprenticeship
environment (e.g., Paltridge & Starfield, 2007).
We should also note that according to previous research, using attitude markers and self-mention (we/our) to describe
insufficient aspects of previous knowledge could be an acceptable method in research genres. Although using attitude
markers to evaluate previous studies would create unintended antagonisms and thus is undesirable (e.g., Lewin, Fine, &
Young, 2001) especially in a “high-visibility” section like the introduction (Canagarajah, 2002, p. 179), this could be
deemed acceptable when used with hedges to redress such threatening effects (e.g., Myers, 1989). In fact, the writers whose
works were analysed in this paper used attitude markers along with hedges in their thesis introductions to describe gaps in
previous research (“still” and “any” in Ex. 6 and “somewhat” in Ex. 7). Moreover, as Hyland (2005) pointed out, it is a fairy
common practice, especially for researchers in the humanities disciplines, to indicate “recognized gaps in existing knowl-
edge” (p. 150) by using attitude markers. Likewise, using self-mention (we/our) to comment on previous research in the
introductions has been indicated as a conventional method in academic genres (e.g., Harwood, 2005; Kuo, 1999). According to
Swales (1990), the authors of the introductions of research papers could use we to present themselves “as co-members of the
unsuccessful group” (p. 156) when describing gaps in previous research. Myers (1989) also noted that writers can use we to
“include themselves in the criticism” (p. 7) to redress its potentially threatening effects.
The following question arises: Why did the writers stop using these items to comment on previous knowledge, provided
that this can be acceptable in RA introductions? We should note here that the RAs analysed in this paper were produced by
the authors as prospective newcomers in the academic publishing community (cf. Koutsantoni, 2007). At this stage of their
career, they might have become heartily aware that their “relationship to a more authoritative community of scholars” was
still “uncertain or in formation” (Kamler & Thomson, 2006, p. 60; see also Johns & Swales, 2002; Paltridge & Starfield, 2007;
Swales, 2004). Moreover, they must have faced the reality that they need to survive “the fierce academic competition to get
their papers published” (Paltridge & Starfield, 2007, P. 82; see also Casanave & Vandrick, 2003). In fact, it is not rare for such
novices to have their article manuscripts rejected, even though these manuscripts usually go through extensive revising and
editing before and after being submitted to the targeted journals (e.g., Burrough-Boenisch, 2003; Curry & Lillis, 2004;
Flowerdew, 2000; Li & Flowerdew, 2007). Kubota (2003), for instance, described a possible consequence of this in the
following terms:
In the process of revising the paper, however, I increasingly felt as though I was writing my paper on behalf of the
reviewer. … My occupation to have the paper accepted compelled me to comply with every single suggestion given by
the reviewer. … I eventually felt that much of the content and language did not really belong to me; I felt I had lost the
ownership of my ideas and words. (p. 63)
The shift from attitude markers and self-mention (we/our) to evidentials, hence, appears to be a result of the writers'
efforts to construct metadiscourse based on the deeper awareness of their dependent position in the academic publishing
enterprise. They might seek to avoid any potentially risky elements for a better chance to get their papers published by
conforming to more standard methods of the RA genre constituting an “elaborate system of knowledge production” (Myers,
1989, p. 25) where authors are generally expected to be experts with an impersonal stance (e.g., Bazerman, 1988). Further-
more, this decision seems to derive from their understanding of a genre convention that the “[i]ntroduction is extremely
important in positioning the writer as having something to say that is worth publishing” (Paltridge & Starfield, 2007, P. 82).
The analysis also shows that the above mentioned preference of evidentials in RA introductions may lead to greater use of
hedges. As has been suggested (e.g., Lewin et al., 2001; Swales, 1990), writers of RA introductions would use hedges most
when commenting about or from previous research referred to through evidentials. The present analysis, in fact, identifies
that the combined use of these items is recurrently employed in the RA introductions by four writers (i.e., A1, A2, A3, and A4)
who make greater use of both items in their RAs than in their theses (cf. Figs. 4 and 5). The combination is shown in Ex. 8
presented earlier (“To date” is a hedge) and Ex. 12 in the following with hedges and evidentials underlined:
Ex. 12 Considering that the Japanese are often described as attaching strong values to and making abundant use of
silence (e.g. Branlund, 1975; Loveday, 1982; La Forge, 1983; Lebra, 1987) and assuming that Australian culture tilts
towards American or British culture, Australian-Japanese intercultural communication may be expected to exhibit
positive and negative politeness as well as a talk-silence contrast. (A1's RA introduction, sentence 18)
As can be seen from the examples, writers of the introductions would use hedges along with evidentials to describe
previous knowledge in a less assertive manner so that they can “convey deference and respect for readers' views” (Hyland,
 T. Kawase / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 114e124 123

2005, p. 68) to involve them in the process of contextualising the study (e.g., Lewin et al., 2001; McNabb, 2001). Therefore,
provided that greater use of evidentials in RAs is a genre-derived feature, a resultant greater hedging can also be ascribed to
the genre.

4. Concluding remarks

It is inherently difficult to infer the production processes from the textual product alone. Absence of interviews with the
authors of the selected texts can thus be indicated as one of the limitations of the present research. Considering also the size
and scope of the research, any conclusions drawn from the findings will require further exploration. However, the present
research suggests that the claim that research writers make greater use of metadiscourse as well as metatext in PhD theses
than in RAs may not be applicable with regard to the introductions. Moreover, variations in the use of metadiscourse in PhD
thesis introductions and RA introductions may derive from features specific to the PhD thesis genre or the RA genre. Note-
worthy findings were also that changes in the use of some interactive and interactional items can be due to similar reasons
(e.g., related to how research writers construct their authorial presence in their theses or RAs) and that increased use of an
interactive item may be an underlying factor of greater use of a relevant interactional item. These findings suggest that the
construction of interactive items and interactional items can be closely related. Furthermore, some of the writers did not use
specific items in RAs in the way they did in their theses, even if their use was not discordant with the conventions of research
writing. This might shed further light on complex rhetorical manoeuvres expected in the research genres.
Currently, novice and/or NNES researchers are often advised of greater use of metadiscourse in their academic writing
(e.g., Bunton, 1998; Paltridge & Starfield, 2007). Nevertheless, as shown in this paper, greater or less use of metadiscourse
items with particular functions can be a result of writers' rhetorical strategies adopted in response to the nature of the section
of the targeted genre. Therefore, it would be useful for novices, especially NNES writers from rhetorical traditions in which
metadiscoursal guidance of the reader is not a conventional feature, to learn not only the rhetorical functions of meta-
discourse items but also how they should be orchestrated to construct their desired rhetoric.

Appendix

Theses and research articles from which data were selected:

Hasada, R. (2000). An exploratory study of expression of emotions in Japanese: Towards a semantic interpretation (Unpub-
lished doctoral thesis). Australian National University, Australia.
Hasada, R. (2002). ‘Body part’ terms and emotion in Japanese. Pragmatics and Cognition, 10(1), 107e128.
Hashimoto, K. (1997). Power and control: cultural assumptions in Japanese policies on the teaching of English (Unpub-
lished doctoral thesis). La Trobe University, Australia.
Hashimoto, K. (2000). ‘Internationalisation’ is ‘Japanisation’: Japan's foreign language education and national identity.
Journal of Intercultural Studies, 21(1), 39e51.
Iwashita, N. (1999). The role of task-based conversation in the acquisition of Japanese grammar and vocabulary (Un-
published doctoral thesis). University of Melbourne, Australia.
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnativeenonnative
interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29, 267e287.
Machida, S. (1996). A case study of interlanguage: Japanese language acquisition by English speakers (Unpublished doctoral
thesis). University of Queensland, Australia.
Machida, S. (2001). Japanese text comprehension by Chinese and non-Chinese background learners. System, 29, 103e118.
Nakane, I. (2003). Silence in Japanese-Australian classroom interaction: Perception and performance (Doctoral thesis, Uni-
versity of Sydney, Australia). Retrieved from http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/568.
Nakane, I. (2006). Silence and politeness in intercultural communication in university seminars. Journal of Pragmatics,
38(11), 1811e1835.
Ohashi, J. (2001). Giving, receiving and thanking in Japanese: A cross-cultural pragmatic investigation (Unpublished doctoral
thesis). University of Melbourne, Australia.
Ohashi, J. (2003). Japanese culture specific face and politeness orientation: A pragmatic investigation of yoroshiku one-
gaishimasu. Multilingual Journal of Cross Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 22, 257e274.
Takeuchi, M. (2005). Raising children bilingually through the ‘one parent-one language’ approach: A case study of Japanese
mothers in the Australian contexts (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Monash University, Australia.
Takeuchi, M. (2006). The Japanese language development of children through the ‘one parent-one language’ approach in
Melbourne. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 27(4), 319e331.
Tsukada, K. (1999). An acoustic phonetic analysis of Japanese-accented English (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Macquarie
University, Australia.
Tsukada, K. (2007). Cross-language perception of word-final stops by multilingual listeners: preliminary results on the
effect of listeners' first language (L1) background. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing, 10(1), 1e13.
124 T. Kawase / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20 (2015) 114e124

References
€
Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bruce, I. (2009). Results sections in sociology and organic chemistry articles: a genre analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 28(2), 105e124.
Bunton, D. (1998). Linguistic and textual problems. Ph.D. and M.Phil. theses: An analysis of genre moves and metatext (Doctoral thesis. Hong Kong: University
of Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/39580.
Bunton, D. (2002). Genre moves in Ph.D. thesis introductions. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 57e75). Harlow: Longman.
Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 223e243.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbour, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Casanave, C. P., & Vandrick, S. (2003). Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Connor, U. M., & Moreno, A. I. (2005). Tertium comparationis: a vital component in contrastive rhetoric research. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G.
Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 153e164). Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang<x>.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. Written Communication, 10(1), 39e71.
Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly,
38(4), 663e688.
Feak, C. B., Swales, J., & Irwin, V. (2011). Online commentary to creating contexts: Writing introductions across genres. Retrieved from http://www.press.umich.
edu/script/press/elt/compsite/ETRW/9780472034567-commentary.pdf.
Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1),
127e150.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
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. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 343e375.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133e151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies., 9(2), 125e143.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156e177.
Johns, A. M., & Swales, J. M. (2002). Literacy and disciplinary practices: opening and closing perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1),
13e28.
Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. New York: Routledge.
Kawase, T. (2011). Japanese novice researchers' development of rhetorical control in academic English. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Australia: Deakin
University.
Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: advanced academic literacy and relations of power.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 19e36.
Koutsantoni, D. (2007). Developing academic literacies: Understanding disciplinary communities' culture and rhetoric. Oxford: Peter Lang<x>.
Kubota, R. (2003). Striving for original voice in publication?: a critical response. In C. P. Casanave, & S. Vandrick (Eds.), Writing for scholarly publication:
Behind the scenes in language education (pp. 61e72). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kuo, C. H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121e138.
Kwan, B. S. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 30e55.
Lewin, B. A., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research text. New York: Continuum.
Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J. (2007). Shaping Chinese novice scientists' manuscripts for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 100e117.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 3e22.
McNabb, R. (2001). Making the gesture: graduate student submissions and the expectation of journal referees. Composition Studies, 29(1), 9e26.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1e35.
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. London: Routledge.
Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479e497.
Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master's theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1),
55e67.
Shaw, P. (2000). Towards classifying the arguments in research genres. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Analysing professional genres (pp. 41e56). Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82e93.
Vande Kopple, W. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton, & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition
(pp. 91e113). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Vassileva, I. (2000). Who is the author?: A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French and Bulgarian academic discourse. Sankt
Augustin, Germany: Asgard Verlag.
Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English
Language Teaching, 4(1), 42e50.