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.
References (33)
Abdi, Reza (2002) Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies 4.2: 139–145. BoP
Abdi, Reza (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 Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Isfahan: Isfahan University.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 421: 1669–1679. BoP
Bell, Robert, Christopher J. Zahn, and Robert Hopper (1984) Disclaiming: A test of two competing views. Communication Quarterly 321: 28–36.
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan (1988) Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 111: 1–34. BoP
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson (1978) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crismore, Avon (1989) Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
Dahl, Trine (2008) Contributing to the academic conversation: A study of new knowledge claims in economics and linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics 401: 1184–1201. BoP
Dodge, Tonya, and Annette Kaufman (2007) What makes consumers think dietary supplements are safe and effective? The role of disclaimers and FDA approval. Health Psychology 26.4: 513–517.
El-Alayli, Amani, Christoffer J. Myers, Tamara L. Petersen, and Amy L. Lystad (2008) “I don’t mean to sound arrogant, but …” The effects of using disclaimers on person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 341: 130–143.
Erickson, Bonnie, E. Allan Lind, Bruce C. Johnson, and William M. O’Barr (1978) Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 141: 266–279.
Guinda, Carmen S. (2003) Contractual role of modality as convergence strategy in technical research articles. RESLA 161: 219–233.
Hewitt, John P., and Randal Stokes (1975) Disclaimers. American Sociological Review 401: 1–11. BoP
Hyland, Ken (1998) Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 301: 437–455. BoP
Hyland, Ken (2005) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7.2: 173–192. BoP
Hyland, Ken (2007) Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics 28.2: 266–285.
Hyland, Ken (2010) Community and individuality: Performing identity in applied linguistics. Written Communication 27.2: 159–188.
Hyland, Ken, and Polly Tse (2004) Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25.2: 156–177. BoP
Jurinski, James John (2005) Disclaimers of real estate in estate planning. Real Estate Taxation 32.2: 87–93.
Kanoksilapatham, Budsaba (2005) Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes 241: 269–292.
Koutsantoni, Dimitra (2006) Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 51: 19–36.
Overstreet, Maryann, and George Yule (2001) Formulaic disclaimers. Journal of Pragmatics 331: 45–60. BoP
Salager-Meyer, Francoise (1994) Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13.2: 149–171.
Sarangi, Srikant (2002) The language of likelihood in genetic counseling discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 21.1: 7–31. BoP
Silver, Mark (2003) The stance of stance: A critical look at ways stance is expressed and modeled in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2.4: 359–374.
Vande Kopple, William J. (1985) Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 361: 82–93.
Varttala, Teppo (1999) Remarks on the communicative function of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine. Journal of English for Specific Purposes 18.2: 177–200.
Vassileva, Irena (2001) Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 201: 83–102.
Wicks, John Leblanc, Ron Warren, Ignatius Fosu, and Robert Wicks (2009) Dual-modality disclaimers, emotional appeals, and production techniques in food advertising airing during programs rated for children. Is there a good balance? Journal of Advertising 38.4: 93–105.
Williams, Ian A. (1999) Results sections of medical research articles: Analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes 181: 347–366.
Williams, Joseph M. (1981) Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.
Zarei, Golamreza, and Sara Mansoori (2007) Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive analysis of English and Persian research articles. The Asian ESP Journal 3.2: 24–40.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
McKeown, Jamie & Hans J. Ladegaard
2020.
Exploring dominance-linked reflexive metadiscourse in moderated group discussions.
Journal of Pragmatics 166
► pp. 15 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. 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.