TITLE: A LINGUISTIC STUDY OF PERSUASION AND NEGOTIATION IN RESEARCH ARTICLES OF ISLAMIC STUDIES: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Abstract

Examining the claim-making in research articles of Islamic studies
published in Pakistan by Pakistani authors, in particular, has not got the
attention of the linguists yet. The objective of the current study is to explore
the nature of claims by examining Boosters (authoritative and assertive
claims) and Hedges (softer and negotiable claims) made by the authors of
Islamic studies research articles in the context of Pakistan. To examine the
linguistic nature of these claims, mix methodology was used by utilizing the
list of claim markers proposed under metadiscourse theory. The study found
that the ratio between Boosters and Hedges employed by the authors of
Islamic Studies is around 2:1 which is not aligned with international
practice i.e. 3:1. The most noticeable academic writing expressions used for
making stronger claims are modal verbs including should and must which is
not a conventional practice in any discipline at the international level.
Similarly, the authors preferred modal verbs including would, may, could
and might in order to make their claims softer which in some cases is likely
to restrict the meanings to be understood by the readers. The findings
recommend, as an implication, developing a research writing curriculum for
the postgraduate scholars of Islamic Studies in Pakistan.