Pan-Art Pedagogy. Theory & Practice Philology. Theory & Practice Manuscript

Archive of Scientific Articles

ISSUE:    Philology. Theory & Practice. 2025. Volume 18. Issue 7
COLLECTION:    Theory of Language

All issues

License Agreement on scientific materials use.

Language representations of the promotion strategy: metadiscourse markers in academic articles on linguistics

Ruonan Zhao
Saint Petersburg State University
Submitted: July 23, 2025
Abstract. The article is devoted to the study of metadiscourse markers as a tool for implementing the promotion strategy in Russian-language academic linguistic discourse. The aim of the work is to identify the features of the application and role of metadiscourse markers based on articles published in the leading Russian journal “Acta Linguistica Petropolitana”. The theoretical basis of the study was K. Hyland’s metadiscourse model, which views an academic text as a space for interaction between the author and the reader. The scientific novelty lies in the fact that a comprehensive analysis of the means of implementing the promotion strategy in the corpus of the specified linguistic journal is carried out for the first time, which makes it possible to identify trends characteristic of modern Russian academic rhetoric. By employing quantitative analysis, metadiscourse markers were classified and the most frequent linguistic means used by authors to attract the attention of readers, position the novelty and significance of their work, and present the results convincingly were identified. It has been proven that metadiscourse markers are an integral component of the promotion strategy, contributing to effective scientific communication.
Key words and phrases:
стратегия продвижения
метадискурсивные маркеры
академический дискурс
риторика научной статьи
научная коммуникация
promotion strategy
metadiscourse markers
academic discourse
rhetoric of a scientific article
scientific communication
Reader Open the whole article in PDF format. Free PDF-files viewer can be downloaded here.
References:
  1. Арутюнова Н. Д. Дискурс // Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1990.
  2. Богинская О. А. Интерактивный метадискурс как стратегия организации оценочного научного текста // Вестник Пермского национального исследовательского политехнического университета. Проблемы языкознания и педагогики. 2023а. № 2. https://doi.org/10.15593/2224-9389/2023.2.3
  3. Богинская О. А. Кодовые глоссы как метадискурсивные средства организации научного текста // Теория языка и межкультурная коммуникация. 2023b. № 2.
  4. Викторова Е. Ю. Хеджинг – стратегия в оценочном научном дискурсе: междисциплинарное исследование // Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 2: Языкознание. 2024. № 1.
  5. Жаркынбекова Ш. К., Байбатырова А. А. Выражение авторской позиции в научных статьях: метадискурсивные стратегии создания межличностных отношений // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Язык и литература. 2019. № 16 (2). https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2019.203
  6. Карасик В. И. Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс. М.: Гнозис, 2004.
  7. Красных В. В. «Свой» среди «чужих»: миф или реальность? М.: Гнозис, 2003.
  8. Щемелева И. Ю. Местоимения как средство передачи авторской позиции в английском и русском научных текстах // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Язык и литература. 2013. № 4.
  9. Aziz S., Riaz F.Interacting with the audience: metadiscourse markers in top ten impact factor journal article abstracts in applied linguistics // Journal of Applied Linguistics and TESOL (JALT). 2024. № 7 (4).
  10. Fairclough N. Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: the universities // Discourse & society. 1993. № 4 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002002
  11. Fraser V. J., Martin J. G. Marketing data: Has the rise of impact factor led to the fall of objective language in the scientific article? // Respiratory Research. 2009. № 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1465-9921-10-35
  12. Hunston S., Thompson G. Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
  13. Hyland K. Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. L.: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019.
  14. Hyland K. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse // Discourse studies. 2005. № 7 (2).
  15. Hyland K., Jiang F. K. ‟Our striking results demonstrate…”: persuasion and the growth of academic hype // Journal of Pragmatics. 2021. № 182.
  16. Lazarus C., Haneef R., Ravaud P., Boutron I. Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention // BMC medical research methodology. 2015. № 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x
  17. Lindeberg A. C. Promotion and politeness: conflicting scholarly rhetoric in three disciplines: doctoral dissertation. Vaasa, Finland: Åbo Akademis förlag-Åbo Akademi University Press, 2004.
  18. Millar N., Budgell B., Salager-Meyer F. Hype in reports of clinical research: the authors' perspectives // English for Specific Purposes. 2020. № 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.07.001
  19. Millar N., Salager-Meyer F., Budgell B. “It is important to reinforce the importance of…”: hype’in reports of randomized controlled trials // English for Specific Purposes. 2019. № 54.
  20. Nugrahani V. E., Bram B. Metadiscourse markers in scientific journal articles // Langkawi: Journal of The Association for Arabic and English. 2020. № 6 (1). https://doi.org/10.31332/lkw.v6i1.1528
  21. Prastikawati E. F., Adeoye M. A. Enhancing EFL Education: The Role of Metadiscourse in Language Assessment // Journal of Education Research and Evaluation. 2024. № 8 (3).
  22. Swales J. M. Genre analysis. L.: Cambridge university press, 1990.
  23. Thompson G.Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader // Applied Linguistics. 2001. № 22 (1).
  24. Vande Kopple W. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse // College Composition & Communication. 1985. № 36 (1).
  25. Yang J. Metadiscourse in the research abstracts of an interdisciplinary field: a case study of computational linguistics // Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2025. № 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04582-9
  26. Yılmaz S., İlerten, F. A corpus-based analysis of critical thinking through interactional metadiscourse in pre-service EFL teachers’ writing // Turkish Journal of Education. 2024. № 13 (3).
All issues


© 2006-2025 GRAMOTA Publishing