Stance in Persian Medical Writing: A Comparative Analysis of Interactive Metadiscourse, Boosters, and Hedges Across Three Historical Periods of the Last Millennium

Abstract

The present study investigates the rhetorical stance of authors in Persian medical texts through the lens of boosters and hedges, two key metadiscourse markers that signify certainty and caution. By examining their distribution across three different periods in nine medical books from the last millennium, this research reveals the evolving patterns of medical writing in relation to authorial certainty and rhetorical strategies from the early, middle, and late periods of the millennium (4th–14th centuries). Persian, as a major member of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family, possesses a long and continuous history extending over more than 2,500 years. The present study highlights the intellectual transformation of Persian medical discourse from a monologic stance toward a more dialogic orientation, demonstrating that this transformation aligns with the epistemological humility and evidence-based argumentative style of modern science. The findings confirm that interactive metadiscourse markers are increasingly recognized as central mechanisms for establishing credibility and engaging readers. Furthermore, the results indicate that the evolution of Persian medical writing has involved not only linguistic innovation but also a conceptual shift in epistemological positioning. The growing use of hedges and boosters reflects an emerging awareness of disciplinary dialogue, authorial responsibility, and audience engagement.