STANCE IN ACADEMIC WRITING

Hüseyin Kafes

Abstract


This corpus-based study investigated authorial stance in research articles; how non-native (Turks) and (Spaniards) and native English speaker academic writers (American) expressed their stance in the research article (RA), published in a refereed international journal. The data for this study originated from 45 research articles, published in Social Behavior and Personality between 1993 and 2007. All of the modal verbs and their functions in the Conclusion section of the corpus were identified by Wordsmith Tools, a computer program; statistical analysis was done using Varbrul, a multivariate analysis program. The analyses of the data indicated the existence of both qualitative and quantitative similarities and differences among the groups. The findings demonstrated that both native and non-native English speaking academic writers are well aware of the conventions of their global and local discourse communities.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

Keywords


stance, academic writing, discourse community

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ağçam, R. (2015). Author stance in academic writing: a corpus-based study on epistemic verbs. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, vol. 3, no, 1, 9-20.

Barton, E. (1993. Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55, 745-69.

Behnam, B., Naeimi, A., & Darvishzade, A. (2012). A comparative genre analysis of hedging expressions in research articles: Is fuzziness forever wicked? English Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 20-38.

Biber, D. (2004). Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5:1, 107-136.

Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-116.

Biber, D. & E. Finegan (1988). Adverbial stance types in English, Discourse Processes 11, 1-34.

Biber, D. & E. Finegan (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect, Text, 9, 93-124. Special issue on the pragmatics of affect, edited by Elinor Ochs.

Biber, D. S. Johansson. Leech, S. Conrad, & E. Finegan, (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English, Pearson Education Ltd.

Chafe, W. 1986. ‘Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing’, in W. Chafe and J. Nichols (eds) Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex (Advances in Discourse Processes XX), 261–72.

Chang, P. (2010). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: In¬ductive

learning for second language writers using a stance corpus (Unpub¬lished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Deep Blue Dissertation and Theses database. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/77860

Charles, M. (2007). Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun that pattern in stance constructions. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 203-218.

Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.

Coffin, C. (2002). The voices of history: Theorizing the interpersonal semantics of

historical discourses. Text, 22(4), 503-528.

Conrad, S. & D. Biber (2000). Adverbial making of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston and G. Tompson (eds.) Evaluation in text, 56-73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Çakır, H. (2016). Native and non-native writers’ use of stance adverbs in English research articles. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6, 85-96.

Doyuran, Z. (2009). Conciliation of knowledge through hedging in Turkish scientific articles. Hacattepe University Journal of Faculty of Letters, 26, 1, June, 85-99.

Ekoç, A. (2010). Analyzing Turkish MA students' use of lexıcal hedging strategies in theses abstracts. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13, (2010-1), 49-62.

Farrokhi, F., & Emami, S. (2008). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: Native vs. non-native research articles in applied linguistics and engineering. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 62-98.

Feak, C. B. (2008) Culture shock? Genre shock? Paper presented at the British association of lecturers in English for academic purposes. University of Read¬ing, Whiteknights, UK.

Francis, G. (1986). Anaphoric nouns. Discourse analysis monofigures No. 11.University of Birmingham: English Language Research.

Francis, G. (1994). Labeling discourse: An aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In M. Coulthard (ed.) Advances in written text analysis, 83-101, London: Routledge.

Holmes, J. (1983). Speaking English with the appropriate degree of conviction. In C. Brumfit (ed.), Learning and teaching languages for communication: Applied linguistics perspectives, 100-121. London: British Association of Applied Linguistics.

Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9 (1),

-44.

Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7: 113-136.

Hoye, L. (1997). Adverbs and modality in English. London: Longman.

Hunston, S. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In M. Ghadessy (ed.), Register analysis: theory and practice, 57-73 London: Pinter.

Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis. London:

Routledge.

Hunston, S. & G. Francis (1999). Pattern grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hunston, S. & G. Thompson (eds.) (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (1988). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Hyland, K. (1995). The author in the text: Hedging scientific writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and language teaching, 18, 33-42.

Hyland, K. (1998). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books, English for Specific Purposes, 18, 3-26.

Hyland, H. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin and K. Hyland (eds.) Writing: Texts: processes And practices, 99-121. London: Longman Group.

Hyland, H. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20 (3), 207-226.

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing, Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A modal of interaction in academic Discourse, Discourse Studies, 7 (2), 173-193.

Hyland, K. & Milton, J. (1997). Qualifications and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205.

Ivanic, R. (1991). Nouns in search of a context: A study of nouns with both open and Closed System characteristics. International Review of Applied Linguistics in

Language Teaching, XXIX (2), 93-114.

Keck, C. M. & D. Biber (2004). Modal use in spoken and written university registers: A Corpus Based study. In Fachinetti, R & Palmer, F. (eds.) English modality in perspective. Genre analysis and contrastive studies, 3-25. Germany: Peter

Lang GmbH.

Kafes, H. (2009). Authorial stance in academic English: native and non-native academic

speaker writers’ use of stance devices (modal verbs) in research articles. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University, Turkey.

Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. H. (2015). Hedging in academic writing-A pedagogically motivated qualitative study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 600-607.

Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 (1), 19-36.

Labov, W. (1984). Intensity. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, form, and use in context:

Linguistic Applications, Washington DC: Georgetown University Press,43-70.

Lancaster, Z. (2011). Interpersonal stance in L1 and L2 students’ argumenta¬tive writing in economics: Implications for faculty development in WAC/ WID programs. Across the Disciplines, 8(4). Retrieved from http://wac.colo-state.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm

Lancaster, Z. (2012). Stance and reader positioning in upper-level student writing in political theory and economics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Univer¬sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Markkanen, R. & Schroder, H. (1997). Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H. (eds.) In Markkanen, R. and

Schröder, H. (eds.). Hedging and discourse. Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts,3-18. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Meta-text in Finnish-English economic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.

Mauranen, A. (1997). Hedging in language revisers‟ Hands. In Markkanen, R. And Schröder, H. (eds.) In Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H. (eds.). Hedging and discourse. Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts,115-133. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 161–173.

Meyer, P. G. (1997). Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: Strengthening the argument by weakening the Claim. In Markkanen, R. And Schröder, H. (eds.)

Hedging and discourse. Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic Phenomenon in academic texts, 21-41. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Nwogu, K. (1991). Structure of science popularization: a genre-analysis approach to the schema of popularized medical texts. English for Specific Purposes, 10, 111-123.

Ochs, E. (1989). The Pragmatics of Affect (Ed.). Text, Special Issue, 9(1).

Precht, K. (2000). Patterns of stance in English, PhD. Thesis, Northern Arizona University.

Recski, L. (2005). Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: a functional account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes, 24 (1), 5-23.

Rezzano, N. S. (2004). Modality and modal responsibility in research articles in English. In Fachinetti, R & Palmer, F. (eds.) English modality in perspective. Genre

analysis and contrastive studies, 101-118. . Germany: Peter Lang GmbH.

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function of in medical English written discourse, English for Specific Purposes, 13 (2), 149-170.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). Technical writing in a second language: The role of grammatical metaphor. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analyzing aca¬demic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 172-189). New York/London: Continuum.

Soliday, M. (2004). Reading student writing with Anthropologists: Stance and judgment in college writing. College Composition and Communication, 56(1), 72-93.

Swales, J.M. (1987). English as tyrannosaurus rex. World Englishes, 16, 373-382.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis, English in academic and research settings.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres. Exploration and applications. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Sword, H. (2012). Stylish academic writing. Harvard University Press. Cambridge,

Massachusetts & London, England.

Takimoto, M. (2015). A corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95-105.

Tang, R. & John, S. (1999). The „I‟ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student. Academic Writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific

Purposes, 18, 2339.

Tardy, C. (2009). Building Genre Knowledge. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

Taşpınar, H. K. (2017). Epistemic modality in academic writing: A discipline-based analysis. The Literacy Trek, 3, 1, 47-65.

Uysal, H. H. (2014). A cross-cultural study of indirectness and hedging in conference proposals of English NS and NNs scholars. In A. Łyda and K. Warchał (eds.), Occupying Niches: Interculturality, cross-culturality and aculturality in academic research, Second Language Learning and Teaching, Springer International Publishing Switzerland, 179-195,

Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular and specialist research articles on medicine. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (2),177-20.

Winter, E.O. (1982). Towards a contextual grammar of English: The clause and its place in the definition of sentence. London: Allen & Unwin.

Wordsmith Tools. (1996). http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/

Wu, S. M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated under-graduate Geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 254-271.

Yağız and Demir (2014). Expressing claim: hedges in English language learners’ writing. Journal of Teaching and Education, 4, 1, 263-269.

Yearley, S. (1981). Textual persuasion: The role of social accounting in the construction of scientific arguments. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 409-435

Yüksel, H. G. and Kavanoz, S. (2015). Expressing claim: hedges in English language learners’ writing. Journal of Teaching and Education, 4 (1), 263-269.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Hüseyin Kafes

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2018. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.


This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).