UC Davis

This quasi-experimental study examined readers’ perceptions of content-evaluative metadiscourse—linguistic and rhetorical signals that indicate an author’s willingness (or lack thereof) to “own” the claims discussed in a text. Specific elements investigated in the study included hedging and boosting (markers of doubt or certainty), attitude markers, and attributions. Fifty-three participants were randomly assigned one of two versions of an article about “technophobia,” the first expressing a concerned, “technophobic” stance and the second expressing an optimistic, tech-enthusiast stance. Analysis of participants’ written responses plus twenty-eight retrospective text-based interviews revealed the relative saliency of specific linguistic cues on participants’ own personal attitudes regarding the topic, and on their perceptions of the author’s stance. The results are analyzed in terms of pedagogical implications, with particular emphasis on practices of rhetorical reading.