on the construction of knowledge in

The view that academic writing is persuasive is now widely accepted. Exactly how this is achieved, however, is more contentious, and raises a number of important issues, not least of which are those concerning the relationship between reality and accounts of it, the efficacy of logical induction, and the role of social communities in constructing knowledge. These topics have been debated for years in epistemology and the sociology of science, and in the past decade applied linguists have also entered the fray. Corpus linguists have been particularly active in emphasising the importance of rhetoric in academic persuasion, and, in this chapter, I bring my own small contribution to the discussion. In particular, I look at what differences in disciplinary discourses tell us about the ways academic knowledge is socially constructed, focusing on interpersonal features of language. I am interested in what this tells us about writers’ ideas of appropriate writer-reader relationships and how this, in turn, contributes to knowledge-making in the disciplines (Hyland & Bondi, 2006).

[1]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[2]  H. Maturana,et al.  A biological theory of relativistic colour coding in the primate retina. , 1968, Archivos de biologia y medicina experimentales.

[3]  Heinz von Foerster,et al.  On Constructing a Reality , 2015, Environmental Design Research.

[4]  J. Piaget La construction du réel chez l'enfant , 1973 .

[5]  M. Bakhtin,et al.  The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays , 1981 .

[6]  D. Schiffrin Meaning, form, and use in context : linguistic applications , 1984 .

[7]  Michael Halliday,et al.  An Introduction to Functional Grammar , 1985 .

[8]  Johanna Nichols,et al.  Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology , 1986 .

[9]  D. Biber,et al.  Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect , 1989 .

[10]  J. Lemke Textual Politics: Discourse And Social Dynamics , 1995 .

[11]  T. Kuhn The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. , 1996 .

[12]  K. Hyland,et al.  Hedging in scientific research articles , 1998 .

[13]  飯島 周 「会話の文法」に関する一考察 : Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written Englishの場合 , 1999 .

[14]  Chih-Hua Kuo,et al.  The Use of Personal Pronouns: Role Relationships in Scientific Journal Articles. , 1999 .

[15]  Tony Becher,et al.  Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines , 2001 .

[16]  K. Hyland,et al.  HUMBLE SERVANTS OF THE DISCIPLINE? SELF-MENTION IN RESEARCH ARTICLES , 2001 .

[17]  Ken Hyland English across genres: language variation in the discourse of economics , 2001 .

[18]  Ken Hyland,et al.  What do they mean? Questions in academic writing , 2002 .

[19]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing , 2002, J. Documentation.

[20]  Kate Cadman,et al.  Writing and Identity. The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing: Roz Ivanic. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1998. ISBN: 90 272 1798 X (Eur) /1-556 19-323-8 (US) , 2002 .

[21]  K. Hyland,et al.  Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing , 2002 .

[22]  Marina Bondi,et al.  Academic discourse across disciplines , 2006 .

[23]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[24]  S. Hunston,et al.  Evaluation in Text , 2006 .