在談話中，說話者可藉由謹言慎行策略緩和命題內容的強度，而在學術論文中，此策略卻可因此鞏固作者的論點。在學術論文論證中，作者常將所提論點之訊息，歸因於某一特定來源，來緩和論證強度。本文研究中文學術論文中的歸因策略如何表現不同作者的立場，同時並討論領域之間的作者風格的差異。本文所研究領域包括純人文科學，社會科學，及自然科學。分析結果顯示，純人文科學論文作者最常使用較含主觀性的描述來支持其論證，其次為社會科學論文作者。換言之，人文科學作者的歸因策略，較常直接以文字清楚反應個人觀點，或將讀者及一般大眾觀點引入，來參與某一論證。反之，自然科學論文反應作者較客觀的立場及作者與論證較疏離的態度。簡言之，純人文科學論文的歸因策略，包含較多口語對話中的特質。此風格可能起因於純人文科學論證內容的本質；亦即，許多該領域的論證內容含較多概念性的陳述或文化、思想的省思，其命題內容的真值也因此較難以科學方式來驗證，並含有較強的不確定性。為了支持自己的論點，作者因而轉向以個人、讀者或大眾觀點來支持其論證，語氣也因此帶有較多主觀色彩。

Hedges can be used to show a speaker’s less than full commitment to the truth of a proposition in spoken discourse or to strengthen an author’s argument in academic discourse. Attribution hedges are hedges used by writers to qualify their claims by relating their arguments to a given source of information. This paper explores authorial stance in attribution hedges in Chinese academic discourse and their disciplinary variation. The disciplines investigated include the pure humanities, the social sciences and the hard sciences. The results show that writers in the pure humanities and social sciences use more attribution hedges in their writing. Furthermore, these writers reveal a greater tendency to use subjective accounts when they seek support for their claims, with social sciences writers reflecting a lesser degree of subjectivity. Specifically, writing in the pure humanities is characterized by hedges which display more individuality and which involve readers in the argument. Hard sciences writers, by contrast, reflect an objective stance with attribution hedges that imply the authors detachment from the argument. In short, pure humanities writing reveals a rhetorical style that is closer to interactively oriented spoken register. The incorporation of more informal elements may arise from the uncertain nature of findings in the pure humanities, where claims or propositions are mainly based on subjective evaluation or interpretation of data.