Establishing rapport with the reader: engagement markers in the discussion section of a research article

Publishing in high-ranked journals has become an essential requirement. This fact leads to a ubiquitous demand for the academia to write well-organised research articles (RAs) as it becomes pivotal in ensuring their acceptance for publication [1; 2]. Traditional organisation of RAs according to the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) structure helps the scholars worldwide to present the results of their research in a consistent and persuasive manner. The IMRAD model proved to be applicable across disciplines [3; 4]. Following this structure makes it easier for the reader to understand the logic of the author’s presentation of the research results. What is more, the IMRAD structure allows the researchers to organise the move and step concepts [5; 6], which have had wide-reaching implications1 [7–9].

As it was stated by numerous scholars [10–12], a Discussion section appears to be the most important and the most demanding part of any RA. Considering its role in constructing and strengthening the principles of argument under consideration, and, therefore, presenting the importance of research results, the Discussion section helps the researchers to state their contributions to the field studied [13–15]. The Discussion section focuses on findings supported by arguments in previous studies [2; 11; 12], which requires the author of a new manuscript to have the skill to convince the reader of the significance of their own arguments, based on the results obtained during the research. Metadiscourse markers, when used skilfully, can significantly enhance the persuasiveness of argument presentation. The key success factors in this process are awareness of the conventions of the subject area and the authorʼs ability to use metadiscourse markers naturally. To ensure an effective Discussion section, the authors should realise its communicative function through its rhetorical structure based on using proper metadiscourse markers.

In other words, not only the scientific knowledge but also skilful use of rhetorical and language choices make academic texts persuasive by appealing to their ability to have a resonance for the shared beliefs, expectations and generally accepted rules of a specific discourse community [16]. The researchers are investigating the rhetorical patterns of the RA sections and trying to identify a list of words or expressions and to characterise the different rhetorical moves being part of the core organisation of the different sections of the RA [17]. The use of metadiscourse markers enhances the reader’s involvement in the author’s rhetoric making texts more persuasive [18–20]. Writing the Discussion section in RAs requires presenting, assessing and interpreting the results obtained and also justifying the worth of the scholarly contribution of the paper to scientific knowledge of the field [16].

Attention to both rhetorical actions and the means of accomplishing them structurally and linguistically should be paid. An appropriate relationship with the reader appears to be crucial for any research writing. The ability to create a text that establishes both solidarity and disciplinary affiliation, maintains the writer’s reputation in the community and helps prevent objections to his arguments [21]. The RA Discussion section appears to be quite difficult to compile as it is highly argumentative and interactive in nature [16; 22; 23]. To acknowledge the presence of the reader in the text, the writers can directly address the readers, focus their attention on some evidence or even treat them as discourse participants by using engagement markers [18].

The way metadiscourse features are involved in the text is constrained by disciplinespecific conventions2 [19; 24]. Dontcheva-Navratilova has found that RAs in the field of linguistic studies use significantly more engagement markers, especially proximity markers, while RAs in economics are likely to use more positioning features [20]. This can be explained by the more interpretative character of linguistics which always engages the readers into the dialogue and shares the author’s beliefs, values and perceptions. By contrast, economics employs methods of statistics and mathematics associated with the vast use of directives for positioning readers by instructing and focusing on the aspects relevant to the progress of the argument [20].

Although a great deal of research proves that culture can influence interpersonal phe-nomena3 [24], little attention has been paid to the use of the language of engagement in RAs written by authors employing English as a lingua franca (ELF) for their research. This paper illustrates how engagement markers contribute to the persuasiveness of the academic discourse in the RA Discussion sections in the field of English teaching and medicine written by Anglophone authors and authors that use ELF for communicating research.

Research questions:

• 1.    Is there disciplinary variation between language teaching and medicine RAs in the use of engagement markers to highlight likemindedness and ensure interaction with the reader?

• 2.    What are the reasons for the existing differences in the usage of engagement markers in language teaching and medicine RAs?

• 3.    To what extent is global academic communication in English able to reflect the conventions of the global academic English language? In other words, how significant is the difference in the use of metadiscourse markers for reader engagement in texts produced by Anglophone native English speakers and non-native English speakers who present the results of scientific research in academic English as a lingua franca?