The persuasive strategies in more and less prestigious linguistics journals: focus on research article abstracts

Figures & data

Table 1. Hyland’s (2005) taxonomy of metadiscourse.

Category	Function	Examples
Textual	Help to guide reader through the text	Resources
Logical connectives (Transitions)	Express relations between main clauses	and, but, in addition, however, thus
Frame markers	Refer to discourse acts, sequences or stages	My purpose is…, first, second, the findings are…, In conclusion
Endophoric markers	Refer to information in other parts of the text	mentioned above, as follows
Evidentials	Refer to information from other texts	according to…., X states that…
Code glosses	Elaborate propositional meanings	in other words, it means that…, such as…, eg for example
Interpersonal	Involve the reader in the text	Resources
Hedges	Withhold writer’s full commitment to statements	may, might, could, would, perhaps, some, possible
Boosters	Emphasize force or writer’s certainty	in fact, definitely
Attitude markers	Express writer’s attitude including significance, obligation to proposition	should, have to, agree, surprisingly
Self-mentions	Refer to author(s) explicitly	I, my, exclusive we, our
Engagement markers	Build relationship with reader explicitly	imperatives (eg Please note that…), You can see that…, inclusive We

Table 2. Use of persuasive appeals in more and less prestigious journals.

Appeal	More prestigious journals		Less prestigious journals
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Ethos	901	40%	712	31%
Logos	1186	54%	1426	61%
Pathos	118	6%	189	8%

Table 3. Use of Ethos strategies in more and less prestigious journals.

Appeal	Top-tier journals		Low-tier journals
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Showing involvement	227	25.2%	79	11.1%
Sharing personal views	6	0.7%	2	0.3%
Modulating claims	577	64%	533	74.9%
Reference to authority	7	0.8%	14	2.0%
Providing credentials	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
Claiming common grounds	12	1.3%	13	1.8%
Sense of community	1	0.1%	5	0.7%
Reference to expert knowledge	71	7.9%	66	9.3%

Table 4. Use of Logos strategies in more and less prestigious journals.

Appeal	Top-tier journals		Low-tier journals
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Logical reasoning	902	76.1%	991	69.5%
Statistics and facts	33	2.8%	91	6.4%
Experimental proof	149	12.6%	241	16.9%
Proof by exemplification	73	6.2%	88	6.2%
Providing evidence	29	2.4%	15	1.1%

Table 5. Use of Pathos strategies in more and less prestigious journals.

Appeal	Top-tier journals		Low-tier journals
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Evoking emotions	2	1.7%	14	7.4%
Expressive evaluation	98	83.1%	163	86.2%
Creating an atmosphere of collegiality	18	15.3%	12	6.3%

Table 6. T-test results comparing more and less prestigious journals.

	Top–tier	Low–tier	t	p
	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD
Ethos	0.036 ± 0.022	0.028 ± 0.019	3.675*	>.001*
Showing Involvement	0.009 ± 0.014	0.003 ± 0.008	5.177*	>.001*
Sharing Personal Views	0 ± 0.001	0 ± 0.001	1.429	.154
Modulating Commitment to Claims	0.023 ± 0.014	0.021 ± 0.014	1.295	.196
Reference to Authority	0 ± 0.002	0.001 ± 0.003	1.239	.216
Providing Credentials	0 ± 0	0 ± 0	–	–
Claiming Common Ground	0 ± 0.002	0.001 ± 0.002	0.198	.843
Sense of Community	0 ± 0.001	0 ± 0.001	1.422	.156
Reference to Expert Knowledge	0.003 ± 0.008	0.003 ± 0.007	0.274	.784
Logos	0.047 ± 0.022	0.057 ± 0.025	4.118*	>.001*
Logical Reasoning	0.036 ± 0.021	0.040 ± 0.021	1.685	.093
Reference to Statistics and Facts	0.001 ± 0.003	0.004 ± 0.006	4.905*	>.001*
Experimental Proof	0.006 ± 0.006	0.010 ± 0.007	5.892*	>.001*
Proof by Exemplification/testing	0.003 ± 0.004	0.004 ± 0.006	1.223	.222
Providing Evidence	0.0012 ± 0.003	0.0006 ± 0.002	2.138*	.033*
Pathos	0.005 ± 0.006	0.008 ± 0.009	3.564*	>.001*
Evoking Positive/Negative Emotions	0 ± 0.001	0.001 ± 0.002	2.903*	.004*
Expressive Evaluation	0.004 ± 0.006	0.007 ± 0.008	3.590*	>.001*
Creating an atmosphere of collegiality	0.001 ± 0.003	0 ± 0.003	0.833	.406

t: Student t-test; SD: Standard deviation.

p: p value for comparing between the studied groups.

*Statistically significant at p ≤ .05.

Table

Strategy	Definition	Examples/Linguistic Resources
Ethos
Showing involvement	Showing active participation in the text	self-mentions (eg I, we, our, us)
Sharing personal views	Expressing one’s opinions and thoughts	self-mentions (eg I, we, our, us); attitude markers (eg interestingly, unexpectedly)
Modulating commitment to claims	Exerting a modifying influence on the writer’s claims	hedges (eg kind of; a bit) and boosters (eg very; extremely)
Reference to authority/expertise		eg citations; text act directives (eg see, refer to, take a look at)
Providing credentials	Writers refer to their former publications to enhance the credibility of their arguments	self-citations
Claiming common grounds	Referring to areas that the writer and the reader share and/or mutually identify	reader reference (eg you, your); appeals to shared knowledge (eg we know, needless to say, obviously, of course)
Sense of community	A sense of community and alliance with the audience may be achieved by acknowledging the reader’s presence, building shared common ground, and proximity of values and goals	Self-mentions (eg I, we, our, us); appeals to shared knowledge
Reference to expert opinion	Writers refer to the opinions of some experts to enhance the credibility of their arguments	Citations; text act directives (eg see, refer to, take a look at)
Logos
Logical reasoning	Presenting premises that lead to the drawing of certain conclusions that are entailed by the premises or providing explanations/ causes for an action	Transition markers (eg however, furthermore); cognitive directives (eg imperatives; modals of obligation)
Reference to statistics and facts	Reference to data provided in the text, in other visual representations or outside the text	intratextual reference to data and visuals
Experimental proof	Reporting experimental results	The results showed; the findings of the experiment revealed
Proof by exemplification/testing	Reporting statistical tests and sample analysis	A T-test was conducted; The interviews were analyzed qualitatively
Providing evidence	Referring to facts and other evidence	Previous studies showed; Based on the literature survey
Pathos
Evoking positive/negative emotions	Triggering the readers’ emotions whether positively or negatively	reader reference (eg you, your); evaluative lexis (eg sustainable growth, good quality, novel, valuable)
Expressive evaluation	Expressing the author’s assessment of claims, facts and opinions mentioned in the text	evaluative lexis (eg sustainable growth, good quality, novel); attitude markers (eg valuable, significant, important)
Creating an atmosphere of collegiality	Highlighting the need for companionship and cooperation while sharing responsibility	reader reference (eg you, your); appeal to shared knowledge (eg we know, needless to say, obviously, of course); questions; asides (eg as you would agree)

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse; Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.

 Google Scholar