Abstract:
This article focuses on the means for expressing an authorial stance in academic discourse.
Specifically, twenty Russian language-based research articles from Kazakhstan journals are
analyzed to reveal the most frequent ways of taking an authorial stance. Both quantitative
and qualitative analyses are used to highlight patterns of authorial positioning. The results
suggest that the most typical ways of showing such a stance are evaluation, certainty, and uncertainty. Uncertainty markers are found to be the most pervasive, whereas the least frequent
of the three are certainty devices. These findings show that authors tend to express a cautious
stance to propositions and addressees, more than a categorical voice. Uncertainty meanings
include possibility and evidentiality of propositions, whereas certainty is mainly represented
by evidence-based and commonly accepted knowledge devices that provide credibility for research. Evaluation features the meanings of importance and necessity, which characterize the
authors as researchers seeking problematic issues to investigate. Moreover, the cognitive and
positive attitude to the propositional content and readers prevails over emotional and negative
evaluations. The use of the identified metadiscourse markers is a powerful rhetorical strategy
for highlighting the authorial stance and enhancing credibility and validity of the research.
We hope our findings will assist novice writers to understand how metadiscourse markers can
help them achieve greater visibility in the text to emphasize their contribution.
