Smoothing the rough edges
Towards a typology of disclaimers in research articles
Disclaimers are generally defined as devices employed to ward off and defeat doubts and negative typifications which may result from intended conduct (Hewitt & Stokes 1975). In academic prose, writers also take advantage of disclaimers to remove any probable infelicities that could occur as a result of their research or language choices in an attempt to promote the precision and persuasive power of their text. In order to develop a clearer understanding of disclaiming in research articles (RAs), a sample of 120 RAs was selected to identify and discuss different types of disclaimers. The qualitative analysis of the corpus led to introduce six disjunctive types of disclaimers employed by writers of RAs: overt vs. covert, excluder vs. includer, internal vs. external, antecedent vs. subsequent, warning vs. clarification, and local vs. global. Each has been discussed with reference to authentic examples from various journals. Furthermore, a list of formal varieties is developed along with an opinion of what they typically target and where they tend to occur. The paper concludes with a definition of disclaimers in RAs.
Keywords: Academic writing, Propositions, Metadiscourse, Disclaimers, Quality
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 01 September 2012
(2002) Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies 4.2: 139–145. BoP
(2009) The distribution and nature of metadiscourse markers in English and Persian research articles. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Isfahan: Isfahan University.
Abdi, Reza, Manoochehr T. Rizi, and Mansoor Tavakoli
(2010) The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1669–1679. BoP
Bell, Robert, Christopher J. Zahn, and Robert Hopper
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
(1988) Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 11: 1–34. BoP
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
(2008) Contributing to the academic conversation: A study of new knowledge claims in economics and linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1184–1201. BoP
Dodge, Tonya, and Annette Kaufman
El-Alayli, Amani, Christoffer J. Myers, Tamara L. Petersen, and Amy L. Lystad
Erickson, Bonnie, E. Allan Lind, Bruce C. Johnson, and William M. O’Barr
Guinda, Carmen S.
Hewitt, John P., and Randal Stokes
(1975) Disclaimers. American Sociological Review 40: 1–11. BoP
(1998) Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 437–455. BoP
(2005) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7.2: 173–192. BoP
Hyland, Ken, and Polly Tse
(2004) Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25.2: 156–177. BoP
Jurinski, James John
Overstreet, Maryann, and George Yule
(2001) Formulaic disclaimers. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 45–60. BoP
(2002) The language of likelihood in genetic counseling discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 21.1: 7–31. BoP
Vande Kopple, William J.
Wicks, John Leblanc, Ron Warren, Ignatius Fosu, and Robert Wicks
Williams, Ian A.
Cited by 2 other publications
McKeown, Jamie & Hans J. Ladegaard
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.