Metadiscursive Role of Author(s)’s Exclusive Pronouns in Pakistani Research Discourses

Exploiting author(s)’s exclusivity in academic and research discourses has been manifested with various viewpoints within the broader spectrum of formality versus informality, subjectivity versus objectivity, and self-display versus self-effacement. The interpersonal role of self-mentioning from metadiscursive perspective of text and reader orientedness has been neglected in this whole debate. The current study explores these metadiscursive functions of author(s)’s exclusive pronouns in 104 research articles published in Pakistani research journals from hard and soft fields in order to establish their metadiscursive role in research discourses especially. This role, furthermore, determines the extent of association/affinity of these pronouns with Hyland’s (2005) interactive and interactional categories of metadiscourse. There were 308 metadiscursive author(s)’s exclusive pronouns found performing 464 interpersonal functions of metadiscourse revealing multifunctional nature of these pronouns. Firstly, interactive affinity of author(s)’s exclusivity was found more than interactional association with frequency of 291 and 173 respectively. Secondly, among interactive roles, framing discourse (Frame Markers i.e., FM) through these pronouns is the most visible schematic pattern with the value of 48%. On the other hand, thirdly, Boosters i.e., BST, among interactional metadiscourse, in associative behavior with author(s)’s exclusive pronouns occur with highest rate i.e., 55%. Finally, author(s)’s exclusive pronouns were observed to be showing bi-covalent and tri-covalent metadiscursive bond suggesting multifunctional interpersonal role of author(s)’s exclusivity. In the light of these findings, we suggest an Associative Interpersonal Model of Author(s)’s Exclusivity (AIMAE) which is promising in exploring author(s)’s affinity with certain cognitive patterns of metadiscursive interaction.


Introduction
Employing author(s)'s exclusive pronouns in traditions of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in general and English for Research Purposes (ERP) in particular have been viewed as a mantra of to mention or not to mention self i.e. author(s)'s exclusivity.To mention advocates the employment of person pronouns especially author(s)'s exclusivity as imprints of identity (Tang & John, 1999), self-projection (Harwood, 2005), authority, voice, ownership of proposition (Hyland, 2002) and interpersonal relationship (Kuo, 1999).On the other hand, not to mention controverting previous argument considers it as marker of subjectivity (Paltridge & Starfield, 2007), informality (Hyland & Jiang, 2017), and to some extent face threatening (Abbas et al., 2017) as well.Despite these realizations, the use of author(s)'s exclusive pronouns has been increasing tremendously in academic writing (Hyland & Jiang, ibid) that needs to be investigated more from various perspectives of semantics, pragmatics and metadiscourse especially.
Admonishing the presence of authors in their texts even when it is neither informal nor face threatening seems the strategy of suppressing the voice, de-recognizing identity, and stopping the due promotion of the authors' professional persona.Metadiscourse, in this regard, may serve as reconcilable with both the notions of debating issue of employment of author(s)'s exclusivity in academic discourse in general and research discourse in particular.Several studies focusing on exploring semantic, pragmatic and discourse functions of author(s)'s exclusive pronouns have been conducted such as Abbas et al. (2017), Sela et al. (2012), Karahan (2013), and Shehzad (2007).However, very few studies have been made on examining this exclusivity from the perspective of metadiscourse.Ädel's (2006) conclusive work on use of personal metadiscourse offers framework of person pronouns in general.Moreover, the tripartite model of personal metadiscourse functions covering code, text and participant proposed by Ädel (ibid) has a limited application to students' writing only.Besides, Hyland's interpersonal framework (2005) of metadiscourse comprising self-mentioning as one of ten metadiscursive categories only which is too general and lacks the potential of unveiling metadiscourse functions of author(s)'s exclusive pronouns.However, this framework (Hyland, ibid) of interaction opens new avenues of exploring metadiscursive use of author(s)'s exclusivity.The current study attempts at exploring interactive and interactional role of this exclusivity which would provide a legitimate communicative framework of metadiscursive nature of author(s)'s exclusive pronouns.We believe, therefore, the proposed framework of Associative Interpersonal Model of Author (s)'s Exclusivity (AIMAE) would be a tangible model of discovering interpersonal role of author(s)'s exclusivity without any constraints of genre, register, culture and language.
In order to establish the need and occupy the niche for the current study, the following sections (1.1-1.3)provide an overview and review of the studies conducted on person pronouns in general and author(s)'s exclusive pronouns in particular

Person Pronouns in General
Investigation of person pronouns, generally, not only has been the centre of investigation in academic discourse, but their semantic and pragmatic meanings have also been explored in other discourses such as discourses of medicine (Skelton et al. 2002), consumerism (Sela et al., 2012;Escalas, 2007), media (Breeze, 2015;Vis et al., 2012), and law (Gibbons, 2014).Now, significant role of these pronouns at societal level in all of these discourses can be realized if we briefly overview the major focuses and the findings of these studies.
For example, Skelton et al. (2002) examined the social significance of first person pronouns I and we in care consultations between doctor and patients and found we attitude i.e., politeness within the realm of unequal power relationships of the interactants i.e., doctors and patients.In this study (ibid), the doctors were found using three types of we referring to doctor and patient; doctors only; and, doctor, patient and society.I and we were observed collocating with mental verbs and verbs of physical activities respectively indicating doctors' authoritative and suggestive mode of cognition simultaneously.This interaction mode subsequently affect the consultations positively i.e., we attitude and negatively i.e., de se attitude (Hinzen, 2015) both to varied extent.
Similarly, some other studies such as Sela et al. (2012) investigated the impact of we and you on the customers' attitudes and behaviors exploited in interpersonal marketing communication through discourses of marketing.Their (ibid) results suggest that these pronouns strongly effect the relationship between the customers and brands positively and/or negatively based on propositional truth conveyed with the help of these pronouns.And Escalas (2007) concludes that the advertisements having narrative self-referencing with the use of I and we based on personal experience of the user has more cognitive potential to persuade the customers; whereas, analytical self-referencing based on traditional models of persuasion with implicit I and we lacks to some extent this advantage of persuasion.
Regarding employment of pronouns in media discourse, Breeze (2015) observed that the writers of editorials seem to be using second person pronoun (you, your, yours) as epideictic through which they seek to strengthen the interactional bond with the reader and intend to develop sense of community based on shared goals and values.Moreover, relating the voice of press, Vis et al. (2012) finds that since 1950 to 2002 subjectivity embedded in person pronouns in the newspapers in Dutch context has been considerably increased, or in other words, we can infer that the Dutch press has become freer with the passage of time in expression of thoughts, beliefs and values.Lastly, repetition is preferred instead of using pronouns to maintain the coherence in the text.In fact, to maintain legal clarity in the draft the writers consider the pronoun a serious threat to readers' understanding of legalese (Gibbons, 2014).

Academic Discourse and Self-Mentioning
Mentioning self is generally considered orthodoxy of subjectivity and informality in academic discourse.Human being as topic lies at the peripheries of transportation of propositions made through academic discourse (Biber et al., 2007) indicating the marginal role of discourse producers in the realm of discourses.Nevertheless, the discourse producers are present in their discourses either overtly or covertly.Therefore, the force behind reinforcing the superficiality in orthodoxy of subjectivity and informality made Mauranen (1993) reactively negating the notion of orthodoxy by arguing that the presence of the writer is 'ridiculously obvious' in text and every text is naturally dialogic.
Informality in academic writing context either of first or second language has been considered mantra of language teaching experts (Leedham, 2015;Ädel, 2008).It is generally conceptualized as violation of certain constraints within the norms of manuscription put by the experts of writing through some systems of formality.Whereas, formal style is associated with detachment and accuracy in order to maintain objectivity and authenticity of text.Hyland & Jiang (2017) identified ten informal features of academic writing and placed first person pronouns at the first position in academic discourse indicating the order of emphasis in informality in writing.Several guidelines regarding this academic affair have been produced but naming the most cited ones such as Swales & Feak (2012, 2004), and Paltridge & Starfield (2007) are few of the exegeses on academic writing in general and academic writing for research in particular.However, from this mantra of informality another narrative based on semantic and pragmatic functions of informality in general and person pronouns in particular has been constructed as demonstrated in last part of the previous paragraph.
Asserting through construction and dissemination of identity by exploiting exclusive pronouns of first person is one of the significant discourse functions explored by the researchers in academic writings (Roux Rodríguez et al., 2011;Hyland, 2002;Tang & John, 1999).Hyland (ibid), in an effort of breaking the myth of impersonality in academic discourse, identified some plausible options for this kind of identity assertion which have the argumentative essence of negotiation between the writer and the reader.For example he (ibid) argues that conscious-raising awareness of the novice writers regarding these options through writing tasks based on experts' uses of exclusive first person pronouns in their writings can be done in order to develop their skills of self-mentioning in academic writing.Few of the options he (ibid) provides for identity creation through some discursive practices of author-pronouns are presentation of claim, presenting findings, linking themselves with their contribution and intrusion into the text for the readers' guidance.Similarly, Tang & John (1999) despite recognizing the convoluted nature of academic prose also provided some room to the writer for negotiation by employing authorial exclusivity in their writings.They (ibid) found that the students are expressive in negotiating with the readers through the exploitation of authorial exclusivity and placing themselves as representative of a group of people.
In addition to identity creation, the writers employ self-mentioning to exercise their expertise by making certain degree of claims and expressing their stance and attitudes towards propositions proffered by the writers in research discourse (Karahan, 2013;Shehzad, 2007;Clark & Ivanic, 1997).For instance, Abbas et al. (2017) found self-effacement as a dominant cognitive schema in research discourses of Social Sciences in Pakistan.The writers were found, in this study (Abbas et al., ibid), mainly explaining methodological procedures of their research works only through author(s)'s exclusive pronouns.Akin to these findings, Karahan (2013) observed strategies of depersonalization in research discourses produced by Turkish authors.On the contrary, Shehzad (2007) witnessed ample use of authorial exclusivity among computer scientists for their take on certain claims they make in their studies.Similarly, Martinez (2005) also found overuse of first person pronouns indicating higher degree of asserting claims by non-native English speakers in their research discourses of Biology.
Besides dissemination of knowledge through academic practices, academic genres particularly research articles and conference presentations are also utilized as tool of self-projection and self-promotion (Harwood 2005).This has become, we think, a certain need of the time when the knowledge industry is on its rise based on devaluing the previous knowledge and valuing the current knowledge-trends addressing the contemporary needs of the knowledge users.And we academicians as "colleague competitors" (Whitely, 2000, p. 25) being producers and consumers of knowledge produce in this cutting edge of competitive market of knowledge economy desire for some exchange and/or sign exchange values.Therefore, the role of author(s)'s exclusivity has become vital in supporting ostensibly to perform functions of self-promotion in addition to underscoring some discursive functions including research space creation, discourse organization, procedural outlining of research method, self-citations, presenting findings and suggesting/recommending future research.Harwood's (2005) groundbreaking work on the exploration of marketing elements in research articles of Hard Sciences and Social Sciences deserves an academic applaud.By exploiting metadiscursive concepts (Kopple 1985;Hyland, 2005;Ädel, 2006) into marketing discourse Harwood (ibid) concludes that the researchers establish gap (Swales, 1990) in the current market of knowledge and occupy the vacant space in that market effectively by presenting their earlier works, marking out difference through disputation, and establishing procedural soundness and uniqueness in their works.The author as cautiously making a statement Table 1 summarizes almost the whole discussion of about two decades set on author(s)'s exclusivity in an array of academic discourse.We can see from the table above that except Harwood (2005) almost all the researchers more or less have conceptualized this phenomenon of self-reference on similar lines of discourse semantics and pragmatics only ignoring the interpersonal essence of author(s)'s exclusive pronouns in the form of metadiscourse.

Metadiscourse and Self-Mentioning
Noticeably, metadiscourse is another domain in the realm of discourse studies without which this discussion of self-mentioning remains incomplete.Contrary to the Hyland's ( 2005) system of metadiscourse based on two planes of meanings i.e., text-internal and text-external planes, Ädel (2006) presents a tripartite system of metadiscourse focusing on code, text, and participant.And Hyland's (ibid) system of metadiscourse considers self-mentioning just from the perspective of the author(s)'s visibility as an interactional strategy only, and thus ignores the other ostensibly associative discourse functions related to the world of discourse and the interpreting world of readers' imagination.On the other hand, Ädel (ibid) circumstantiated personalization of metadiscourse with copious details of pragmatic functions of first person pronouns.However, in her (ibid) tripartite model of personal metadiscourse participant (writer and reader) oriented discourse functions of author(s)'s exclusivity seems little fuzzy.For example, it is not easy to demarcate pragmatic functions of anticipating reader reaction, aligning perspectives, imagining scenarios, hypothesizing about the reader and appealing to the reader.But the other two planes of personal metadiscourse-meanings based on code (verba dicendi), are text (focusing structure of text) are clearer.Comparing both the models for personal metadiscourse, Hyland's (ibid) interactional category of self-mentioning is generic and needs more specifications with regard to its metadiscursive role.On the other hand, Ädel's (ibid) tripartite model of personal metadiscourse is specific but it is based on student essays which may not effectively be applicable on the genre of research article.Therefore, the current study intends to discover specificity of personal metadiscourse i.e., self-mentioning with respect to interactive and interactional metadiscursive functions which were identified by Hyland (ibid).

Research Methodology
Sub-sections 2.1-2.3 below elaborate the methodological procedures including selection of disciplines, research journals and research articles; data collection and corpus development; and analyzing tool, analytical framework, and data analysis.

Selecting Disciplines, Research Journals, Research Articles
The research journals recognized by Higher Education Commission (HEC) Pakistan belonging to hard fields and soft fields (Becher, 1989) were selected to ensure representativeness of Pakistani research discourses.The disciplines of Education, English and History from Soft Sciences (social sciences and humanities) and Biology, Engineering and Medicine (natural sciences, engineering and health sciences) from Hard Sciences were chosen to ensure disciplinary spread of knowledge.
Higher Education Commission, Pakistan categorizes research journals published in Pakistan into four categories namely W, X, Y & Z.The research journals of W category are of highest quality and the journals of lowest quality belong to Z category.The quality of the journal is determined based on certain standing operating procedures set by HEC experts.For example, the journals of impact factor and having reviewers from advanced countries (Anglophone and European countries) are given the higher rank of W and X respectively.Whereas, the journals of Y and Z categories neither have impact factor nor reviewers from advanced countries.
A significant number of research journals of Hard Sciences published in Pakistan has been placed in the higher ranks of W and X; whereas, Social Sciences has very few journals in X category and Humanities have no journal in top two categories.Therefore, the research journals of only Y and Z categories were selected for this study to ensure coverage of data from both the fields of Hard Sciences and Soft Sciences.(See Appendix 1 as list of the journals selected).

Data Collection and Developing Corpus
As it can be seen from

Data Analysis/Mapping Metadiscourse and Using Corpus Tool for Analysis and Analytical Framework
The data was analyzed through a recently developed exclusive corpus tool for metadiscourse analysis named MetaPak (Abbas et al., 2017).Mapping of metadiscursive exclusive pronouns was done according to Hyland's ( 2005) system of metadiscourse.Hyland's (ibid) interactive and interactional categories of metadiscourse were used as main framework to discover associative nature of author (s)'s exclusivity with these categories.

Results and Discussion: Interpersonal Role of Author(s)'s Exclusivity
In this section we attempt to circumstantiate personalized metadiscourse through author(s)'s exclusivity within the metadiscursive planes of text internal and reader-orientation.As we have noticed from Table 1 that the researchers have identified more or less similar discourse functions of author(s)'s exclusive pronouns.These different discursive orientations of author(s)'s exclusivity in our opinion can also be categorized into text-internal and reader oriented metadiscursive functions.Hence, in this section we intend to bring this semantic and pragmatic constellation of discourse functions of pronoun exclusivity into one archetypal metadiscursive theoretical framework.For this purpose, Hyland's (2005)

Variation in Metadiscursive Pronoun-Exclusivity in Pakistani Research Discourses
Regarding general trend of variation in occurrence of metadiscursive author(s)'s exclusive pronouns, we can calculate form Figure 1 that there are only 308 occurrences of author-mentioning in the total corpus of 354146 words of research articles (RAs) of Hard Sciences and Soft Sciences.Noticeably, the writers of Hard Sciences employ more self-mentioning with the percentage of 62, whereas, the trend in Social Sciences was found relatively less i.e., 38%.Moreover, it is interesting to find the variation in broader fields of knowledge too.For example, in RAs of Hard Sciences it is the field of Medicine in which self-mentioning is preferred with 39%.And rest of occurrence is distributed between Biology and Engineering with 7% and 30% respectively.This variation of occurrence within Hard Sciences indicates that the authors of Medicine believe more in their visibility through their research discourses.Similarly, this variation is quite obvious in Soft Sciences also.For instance, from Figure 1 it can be calculated that the authors of RAs of Education and English mention themselves more in their research discourses with the respective percentage of 44 and 43 leaving 13% for History RAs only.This variation indicates disciplinary relativity based on lexico-grammatical similarities and differences.For example, with regard to the use of author-mentioning, the disciplines of Education and English appear to be closer to each other than the discipline of History.While comparing with findings of some other studies, the findings of the current study reveal similarities and differences with international authors regarding metadiscursive practices of author-mentioning.For example, contrary to the results of our study, Hyland (2002) witnessed more author-exclusivity in RAs of humanities and social sciences, and similar to the findings of the current study he (ibid) observed the greater use of first person plural cases of author-mentioning in research discourses.Similarly, Shehzad (2007) also reported more employment of plural cases of first person exclusive pronouns in introduction sections of RAs of computer sciences.Whereas, in another study, Hyland (2002) observed more use of first person singular than first person plural exclusive pronouns in the corpus of RAs of Hard Sciences and Soft Sciences.To conclude, all of these findings show demands of different communicative behaviors set by different fields of knowledge.In the current study, we observed disciplinary metadiscursive prototypicality also in general and archetypal personalization of author mentioning in research discourses in particular.

Metadiscursive Author(s)'s Exclusive Association
This can be calculated from Figure 2 that author(s)'s exclusivity show more association with interactive metadiscourse than interactional metadiscourse in Pakistani research discourses.This association of 308 metadiscursive author(s)'s exclusive pronouns with interactive and interactional metadiscourse was found 464 showing multiple metadiscursive functionalities of these pronouns.In this association, interactive metadiscourse was found 291 times, whereas, interactional markers occurred 173 times.This difference clearly demonstrates that the authors of research articles (RAs) in Pakistan employ exclusive pronouns more for textual features than interactional ones.In other words, the authors interact with their texts more than interacting with the readers explicitly through author(s)'s exclusive pronouns.Another interpretation may also be given to this difference that the authors take responsibility of guiding the readers through their discourses in more dialogic way, whereas, as for as stance and voice of the authors is concerned we witness relatively little dialogic-closure for interaction among the text-coders and text-decoders.

Occurrence of Associative Author(s)'s Exclusivity with Interactive Metadiscourse
Regarding associative nature of author(s)'s exclusive pronouns with text-internal features, it is evident from Figure 2 and Figure 3 that framing discourse (Frame Markers i.e., FM) through these pronouns is the most visible schematic pattern with 48% followed by Endophoric Markers i.e., EM (22%), Transitions i.e., T (11%), Evidentials i.e., EVD (10%) and Code Glosses i.e., CG (9%) respectively.Moreover, as can it can be seen in Figure 3 that in framing discourse through author(s)'s exclusive pronouns the writers find themselves relatively more comfortable with announcing goals with 59% followed by discourse sequencing (27%), labeling discourse stages (8%) and topic shifting (6%) respectively.These findings demonstrate that the writers consider the discourse act of announcing goals most important through their own explicit voicing.The other discourse act preferred after goal announcement was found referring to other parts of the same text through employment of Endophoric Markers (EM).From Figure 2 we witness that referring to other parts of the text through EM is the third most preferred interpersonal role played by the author(s)'s exclusivity in research discourses of Pakistan.
It is also interesting to note, firstly, from Figure 3 and Figure 4 that 121 occurrences of metadiscourse we perform 176 multiple metadiscursive functions including 113 textual and 63 interactional functions.Hence, it is concluded that exclusive we is employed considerably more for achieving interactive purposes than meeting interactional goals.Secondly, it is also noticeable from Figure 3 that 36 metadiscursive occurrences of first person singular pronoun perform surprisingly higher number of interactive functions i.e., 61 dominantly for framing discourse i.e., FM (announcing goals preferably) and reminding the readers by employing EM about propositions mentioned in other parts of the same text.
Figure 3. Associative author(s)'s exclusivity with interactive metadiscourse Thirdly, more prototypically, 39 metadiscursive occurrences of the writers in disguise of third person pronoun perform 46 multiple interactive functions with 28 interactive functions of discourse framing i.e., FM.Performance of more third person pronouns preferably for textual purposes verifies and reveals the local notion that the writers believe in self-effacement to achieve goal of maintaining objectivity in their research (Abbas et al. 2017).Finally, providing evidentiality (EVD), framing discourse acts (FM), and taking the readers into other parts of the text (EM) were found employed significantly through first person plural our.

Occurrence of Associative Author(s)'s Exclusivity with Interactional Metadiscourse
Along with performing interactive functions, author(s)'s exclusivity also demonstrates interactional behavior in Pakistani research discourses.Akin to the findings of Karhan ( 2013), Tang & John (1999) and Clark & Ivanic (1997) our study has also revealed certain associative reader-inclined orientations of the writer's exclusive pronouns.It can be evidenced from Figure 2 under 3.2 above that the writers of research articles (RAs) in Pakistan employ pronoun exclusivity for taking positions on proposition through exploiting Boosters (BST) mostly.It can be calculated from Figure 4 that BST in associative behavior with author (s)'s exclusive pronouns occur with higher rate i.e., 55% followed by Hedges i.e., HDG (20%), Attitude Markers i.e., AM (18%) and Engagement Markers i.e., EGM (6%) respectively of total interactional makers.These results clearly suggest that the association of stronger claims with author (s)'s exclusivity is the most dominant cognitive pattern of metadiscourse owned by the research discourse producers in Pakistan.Using Boosters with author(s)'s exclusivity and especially with first person pronouns, we think, doubles the boosting impact on the readers which may cause dialogic closure thus affecting the communicative goal of the writer negatively.Regarding interactional associative nature of author(s)'s exclusivity, it is significant to find from Figure 4 that it is first person pronouns which show considerably higher associative nature with interactional markers with the value of 91% of total interactional association.Among this value it is plural exclusive pronouns i.e., we and our which carry most interactional essence with the value of 66%.Interestingly, the authors in disguise of third person pronouns i.e., the author(s) and the researcher(s) perform considerably less interactional functions i.e., 15 only than interactive ones i.e., 46.These findings regarding associative nature of author(s)'s exclusivity clearly concede the fact that there are two schools of thought regarding their attitude towards using exclusive pronouns in research discourses.The one who prefer using first person pronouns they exploit these pronouns for making claims and showing attitude, whereas, the other group of the authors who believe in self-effacement (Abbas et al., 2017) by using third person pronouns for textual purposes only.

Associative Interpersonal Role of Author (s)'s Exclusivity
As it has been mentioned in 3.2 above that author(s)'s exclusivity of 308 metadiscursive writers' exclusive pronouns perform 464 associative/multiple functions of interactive and interactional metadiscourse in the corpus of research articles from Hard Sciences and Soft Sciences published in Pakistani research journals.It is important to note that these metadiscursive bonds of associative author(s)'s exclusivity were found more of interactive nature with the value of 291 out of 464.However, interactional markers were found 173 times in association with author(s)'s exclusive pronouns.In this part (3.5) we attempt to delineate this associative interpersonal role of author(s)'s exclusive pronouns with appropriate instantiation.Firstly, we will briefly analyze single metadiscursive associations of author(s)'s exclusive pronouns.Then, the multiple metadiscursive functionalities of these pronouns will be explicated.Finally, exclusive pronouns of first person (singular and plural) and the writers in disguise of third persons will be delineated with respect to metadiscursive associations.
First, almost all the interactive and interactional markers were found individually associated with author(s)'s exclusive pronouns.However, the most dominant interactive metadiscursive marker which showed strong association with these pronouns was found to be the markers of framing discourse.Out of four kinds of framing markers announcing goals (FAG) and frame marker of sequencing (FS) were more visible (See 1 and 2 below).

1)
In this paper, we designed and developed new object-based change detection rule sets, which are aimed at updating forest-cover maps by remote sensing.(FAG) Biology 2) I will firstly consider the average pre-test scores of both institutes.In the pre-test writing component, British institute secured a..

(FS) English
After Frame Markers the writers prefer using author(s)'s exclusive pronouns for guiding the readers into other parts of the same text (See 3 and 4 below).The writers refer to both anaphoric and cataphoric ways to remind the readers about previous propositions as in (3) and prepare the mind of the readers for next information to be dealt with as in (4).Regarding associative nature of author(s)'s exclusivity with Evidentials (EVD), the writers were found to be citing other studies while comparing their findings (5), and interestingly, few examples of self-citations were also found as in ( 6) in order to support the arguments.

(HDG) Medicine
Second, it was interesting to observe different combinations of interactive metadiscourse with author(s)'s exclusive pronouns indicating the pronouns' affinity for performing different textual acts simultaneously in a very limited co-text of one sentence only.For example, in (10) below we see two exclusive pronouns we and our referring to Endophoric markers (EM) and Code Glossing (CG).Similarly, in (11), ( 12), ( 13) and ( 14) we find various interactive affinities with author(s)'s exclusivity.These affinities of various interactive metadiscourse with author(s)'s exclusive pronouns reflect metadiscursive covalent relationship between author(s)'s exclusive pronouns and textual markers of metadiscourse.(Tabbasum, 2004;Mehmood, 2004;Majeed) (T+ BST+ EVD) English

Conclusion
To conclude, the concept of metadiscursive author(s)'s exclusivity that we have attempted to substantiate in this study has broader scope of application with some other analytical frameworks mentioned in Table 1 above.Additionally, for example, this kind of metadiscursive affinity for author(s)'s exclusivity can also be associated with some other models of academic rhetoric such as CARS model of Swales (1990).The examples ( 24) and ( 25) below are evident of the position that the author brings himself/herself in the light for making a careful claim through hedge (suggest) to fill out the gap in existing exegeses of knowledge on certain area.This also indicates writer's strategy of self-promotion as proposed by Harwood (2005).And From Hyland's ( 2005) system of metadiscourse, the same rhetorical strategy may also be considered as an announcement of goal implicitly i.e., FAG.But at the same time associative nature of author(s)'s exclusivity is also visible through the employment of hedging by using suggest.

25)
There is a gap in the existing body of IELTS literature which this study aims to fill from a South Asian context.(BST+FAG) English However, considering the whole discussion on the findings, in the end, here, we suggest an Associative Interpersonal Model of Author(s)'s Exclusivity (AIMAE) comprising of interactive and interactional exclusivity (see Figure 5 below).The model has potential to explore nature of author(s)'s affinity with certain cognitive patterns of interaction.To instantiate, the examples we have provided in Figure 5 below show single type of association of author(s)'s exclusivity with respect to interactive and interactional nature of metadiscourse.However, as we have mentioned above in the previous paragraph that this exclusivity exists in multifunctional association that we call bi-covalent and tri-covalent association/affinity.

Interactive Author(s)'s Exclusivity Examples Transitional-exclusivity
And I discuss; so, we find; Hence, according to me; Therefore, we investigated

Endophoric-exclusivity
As I mentioned in previous section; we discussed in chapter 2; In the section below, I compare; interpersonal model of metadiscourse was utilized for exploring associative interactive and interactional metadiscursive functions of author(s)'s exclusive pronouns in Pakistani research discourses.The first subsection (3.1) presents an overall variation in metadiscursive pronoun-exclusivity in Pakistani research discourses.The second one (3.2) provides an overall picture of metadiscursive author(s)'s exclusive association in Pakistani research discourses.The next two parts (3.3 & 3.4) quantify the findings on associative interactive and interactional role of author(s)'s exclusivity in Hard Sciences and Soft Sciences collectively in the context of Pakistan.The fifth part (3.5) delineates this associative interpersonal role of author's exclusive pronouns with appropriate instantiation.
Regarding employment of individual resources of author(s)'s exclusivity in Pakistani research discourses, self-mentioning in plural cases (we, our and us) is significantly quite dominant with the occurrence of 74%.Whereas, the first person singular pronoun (I) occurs 12% which is significantly preferred by the authors of English only indicating disciplinary norm of self-display.Another important finding regarding occurrence of the author(s) and the researcher(s) with the percentage of 13 reveals prototypical nature of employment of author(s)'s exclusivity in Pakistani research discourses of Soft Sciences especially.This occurrence of quasi first person in the disguise of third person pronouns is dominant only in the field of Education with the occurrence of 23 out of 30.The findings reveal two schools of thought regarding self-mentioning in the field of Hard Sciences and Soft Sciences each.In Soft Sciences, the authors of English RAs ostensibly believe in displaying themselves in their discourses explicitly, whereas, the discourse practitioners in the field of Education hide their identity in third person pronouns perhaps in an effort of following the conventional way of observing objectivity in their research.However, we find two groups of discourse practitioners regarding the utilization of exclusive first person plural pronouns.The authors of Medicine RAs situate themselves more in their discourses as compare to the situatedness done by the writers of Engineering and Biology.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Associative author(s)'s exclusivity with interactional metadiscourse admitted to our Intensive care.. (EM) Medicine 4) In the section below, I compare the individual categories of the classroom observation scheme of the two courses.Participant Organization The first category of.(EM )Education 2013 matches our results.According to their study motor and sensory block was seen to develop quickly.. (EVD Medicine6) I had mentioned before in another investigation that this assumption is erroneous.Languages receive influences from other languages they come.. (EVD) HistoryIn addition to interactive association of author(s)'s exclusive pronouns, Boosters (BST) and Attitude Markers (AM) as interactional connectives were also found in Pakistani research discourses (See 7 and 8 below).However, very few examples of Hedges (HDG) only were witnessed in association of author(s)'s exclusivity (See 9 below).7)This finding has a strong implication for our study.It means that goal commitment can lead to higher levels of well-being in the presence of positive environment.(BST)Education8) I believe that inquiry-based pedagogy include the entire element that make student-teachers observer, thinker and examiner of science phenomena.(AM) Education9) The differences in the results of our study and that of Sapkota et al may be due to differences in the sex distribution of the patients..

Table 1 .
An Overview of author(s)'s exclusivity in academic discourse Karahan (2013)The author as the sole conductor of research The author as the describer or recounter of research The author as expressing an opinion or feeling The author as talking about personal experiences:

Table 2 .
Table 2 below that 104 research articles (RAs) comprising the corpus of 354146 words of six different disciplines (Education, English, History, Biology, Engineering, Medicine) from the HEC recognized journals of Y and Z categories were selected.The publication time frame decided of these RAs was 2012 onward to have a synchronic view of metadiscourse in Pakistani research discourses.Total research articles (RAs) and size of corpus

as shown in Fig 1.
We examine this relationship in academics working in UK universities, where performance is significantly related to setting clear goals and (BST+AM) Education17) It is interesting to note that I did not find significant differences between the two institutes in terms of practicing the four components of the test.(AM+BST)EnglishItseemslittlehard to come up with exact cognitive reasons of this difference of affinity between author(s)'s exclusivity and interactional markers.However, it indicates ostensibly that while taking stance or showing attitude towards certain propositions the writers focus on one thing at a time.And on the other hand, during interacting with the readers through interactive metadiscourse the authors augment their position also in the same co-text of metadiscourse as explained in next paragraph.Finally, examples 18-23 below clearly reveal metadiscursive multifunctionality of author(s)'s exclusivity.It is quite interesting to find associations of the writers' exclusive pronouns with textual and interactional features of metadiscourse simultaneously in their immediate co-text.For instance, (18) and (19) show bi-covalent affinity of interactive (Frame Markers Label Stages i.e., FLS and Frame Markers Sequencing i.e., FS) and interactional markers each with exclusive pronoun we, while sentences 20-22 present another pattern of tri-covalent relationship of author(s)'s exclusivity comprising of two interactional and one textual markers.Moreover, slightly different, another tri-covalent association of author(s)'s exclusivity comprising of an interactional marker sandwiched between two interactive features as can be seen in (23) below.
exclusive pronouns were found with interactional metadiscourse.It was also intriguing to experience that in those few examples Attitude Markers (AM) were found in combination of Boosters (BST) and Hedges (HDG) in close interactional affinity with author(s)'s exclusivity.(See15-17below).15)Inthis study, we propose that energizing connections positively affects goal commitment, which is an important work attitude and essential for success performance.(AM+HDG)Education16)

18) In the present report we describe a rare case of
reactive thrombocytosis due to iron deficiency anemia leading to unilateral raynaud phenomenon in hand (FLS+BST) Medicine 19) Finally, the percentage of the three cases will be obtained and the basic vocabulary of English from which we will establish the basic vocabulary of Urdu language is.. (FS+BST) History20) As a matter of fact, the author of this paper is well aware of the generalizability issues raised in the methodology part.(BST+AM+EM)Engineering21)Theresearchers from regression analyses concluded, The research results reveal that there is statistically significant relationship between intrinsic motivational factors (FLS+BST+AM) Education22) More precisely, the researchers have identified two main registers operative in kiernan's translation: Anglicization and Christianization.(BST+HDG+CG)English23) Moreover, it seconds the hypothesis researched by the authors in Pakistan, who identified computers as beneficial pedagogical instrument for different subjects and English Code Glossing-exclusivity I would elaborate the concept; we provide examples; for instance, according to us; we call it; The stress is meant by the author here Evidential-exclusivity As I have discussed in another study; see my previous study; I had mentioned before in another investigation; However, in our previous research work; This finding has a strong implication for our study; I believe that; we propose.. which is an important work; It is interesting to note that I did not find; Hedging-exclusivity The differences of our study and that of Sapkota et al may be due to; In this research paper I suggest; Boosting-exclusivity I did not find significant differences; we will establish; As a matter of fact, the author of this paper is well aware; More precisely, the researchers have identified; Engagement Marking-exclusivity Let's see how; let's find Figure 5. Associative interpersonal model of author(s)'s exclusivity (AIMAE)