Inphilosophy of language, metadiscourse is the discussion about a discussion, as opposed to a simple discussion about a given topic. The study of metadiscourse helps us recognize and understand how we situate our ideas within writing and speech.[1] This subject is especially prevalent in science writing, where it presents itself in many different forms such as hedges, boosters, and attitude markers. Metadiscourse contained within a written work can be any phrase that is included within a clause or sentence that goes beyond the subject itself, often to examine the purpose of the sentence or a response from the author, usually as an introductory adverbial clause. Metadiscourse often includes phrases such as "frankly," "after all," "on the other hand," "to our surprise," and so on.
Below are some examples of metadiscourse in writing, denoting:
Hedges are words and phrases that communicate caution to the claim being made within a sentence. Hedge words are removed from the actual subject and rather function as a marker of metadiscourse. These words and phrases ensure that an audience is aware of the writer's distance from the subject they are reporting on.[2] This technique allows writers to maintain the reliability of their work by establishing that their assertions are made to their best knowledge, but could potentially be rebutted.[3] Some examples of metadiscursive hedges are "could," "unlikely," "perhaps," "occasionally," "evidently," "generally," and "many."
In writing, a booster is a word or phrase that enhances a point the writer makes.[2] Boosters can be identified by examples such as "certainly," "absolutely," "obviously," "always," and "demonstrate."
Attitude markers appear when writers signal their feelings towards a subject with certain words or phrases.[2] This type of metadiscourse may show up in writing in the use of words like "unfortunately," "admirably," and "agree."
In science writing specifically, hedging allows writers to publish scientific information without it coming across as absolute or hypercritical in nature. Therefore, science writers use hedging to communicate knowledge in a way that avoids making non-expert audiences entirely confident in the text.[4] Hedging in science writing may look like this:
| Hedge | Example Sentence |
|---|---|
| May | Inhaling the gas produced by the experiment may cause hypoxia. |
| Appear | The data collected appears to support the hypothesis. |
| Possible | It is possible that the species will be extinct within the next decade. |
| Usually | The trial results usually remain consistent. |
| Tend | Scientists in this area of study tend to rely on clinical trials to conduct their research. |
| Probably | The symptoms were probably a result of the patient's exposure to cigarette smoke. |
In some cases, using hedges in science writing can disrupt the way scientific information is processed by the reader by making the statement seem slightly uncertain. This is purposeful and allows science writers to establish their distance from the topic of study, while still reporting the relevant findings of the experts.
Boosters appear in science writing to strengthen a statement that is being made. These words and phrases allow non-expert readers to grasp the certainty of a claim.[2]
| Booster | Example Sentence |
|---|---|
| Certainly | Early trials of the new gene therapy reveal certainly promising results. |
| Always | This chemical reaction will always result in combustion. |
| Demonstrate | These findings demonstrate the accuracy of the original hypothesis. |
In science writing, attitude marking is a valuable technique that is used to bring humanity into a body of text. To a non-expert audience, scientific information can seem dry and difficult to consume, and attitude marking allows readers to gauge the way they might feel inclined to react to the information they are taking in.
| Attitude Marker | Example Sentence |
|---|---|
| Unfortunately | The prognosis was, unfortunately, very poor for each of the research patients. |
| Agree | After conducting two separate studies, both the neuroscientists and psychiatrists agree on the diagnosis. |
 | This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
