The Argumentative Function of Metalinguistic Markers in Scientific Discourse: A Study of Definition and Reformulation

Abstract

This study examines the argumentative function of metalinguistic markers in scientific texts, focusing specifically on definition and reformulation. Based on the observation that metalanguage transcends its mere clarification function, the research analyses how these markers contribute to the construction of scientific argumentation. The study draws on a corpus of four articles published in the journal Paradigmes, using a methodology combining linguistic and rhetorical analysis. Quantitative results reveal a predominance of definitions over reformulations, while qualitative analysis highlights their strategic role in argumentative orientation. Definition, beyond its descriptive function, allows concepts to be presented in a way that supports the author's argumentation. Similarly, reformulation, introduced by connectors such as c'est-à-dire (that is) and autrement dit (in other words), serves not only to clarify but also to nuance, specify, and strengthen persuasion. This research contributes to a better understanding of argumentative strategies in scientific discourse and emphasizes the importance of metalanguage as a rhetorical tool. Although limited by the size of the corpus, the study opens perspectives for future research on other metalinguistic markers and their variation according to disciplines and communication contexts.