Introduction

As a researcher, a significant portion of my time is dedicated to the reading of scholarly articles, and I find myself consistently intrigued by various writing styles employed by scholars. I am particularly fascinated by how these individuals present their arguments and engage with their academic counterparts. For illustrative purposes, let us examine two quotations—one extracted from a 1980 Chinese research article (RA) in Applied Linguistics and the other from a 2001 English RA in Psychology. Both quotations, situated within the respective “Introduction” sections of the RAs, serve the common purpose of elucidating the studies’ objectives. However, they exhibit notably distinct characteristics. The 1980 quotation utilizes first-person pronouns, employing “I” and “my” to explicitly attribute ownership to the author regarding the work. Furthermore, it uses the term “personal” to ascribe the findings and contributions of the paper directly to the author. In contrast, the 2001 quotation adopts a more detached approach by avoiding any forms of self-mention. Instead, it employs a passive construction—specifically, “it is hoped that”, which serves as an introductory and impersonal means of expressing a desire or expectation. Another noteworthy discrepancy lies in the content following the word “hope”. In the 1980 quote, the author expresses the hope of receiving corrections from “my dear readers”, i.e., addressing his fellow scholars directly and fostering a sense of personal engagement. Conversely, the 2001 quote expresses the hope that the research “would provide a foundation for more thorough investigation”. This distinction in word choice contributes to the 1980 RA conveying a more personal, intimate, and modest style in academic communication, while the 2001 RA exhibits a more distant, objective, and depersonalized style. These deliberate linguistic choices that the authors use to interact with their readers, are recognized as metadiscourse.