Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices

English for Specific Purposes

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 161-173

  McGrath, Lisa ^a   Kuteeva, Maria ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Academic writing; Corpus analysis; Discourse community; Engagement; Pure mathematics; Stance

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861790930     PISSN: 08894906     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abdollahzadeh E. Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics 2001, 43(1):288-297.
2. Ädel A. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English 2006, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
3. Afros E., Schryer C.F. Promotional (meta)discourse in research articles in language and literary studies. English for Specific Purposes 2009, 28(1):58-68.
4. Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc. [computer software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. <>. http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/.
5. Artemeva N., Fox J. The writing's on the board: The global and local in teaching undergraduate mathematics through chalk talk. Written Communication 2011, 28(4):345-379.
6. Becher T. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines 1989, SRHE/Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
7. Becher T., Trowler P. Academic tribes and territories 2001, SRHE/ Open Univeristy Press, Buckingham.
8. Biber D. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2006, 5(2):97-116.
9. Bondi M. A case in point: Signals of narrative development in business and economics. Academic discourse across dispilines (pp. 49-74) 2006, Peter Lang, Frankfurt. K. Hyland, M. Bondi (Eds.).
10. Burton L., Morgan C. Mathematicians writing. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 2000, 31(4):429-453.
11. Charles M. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 2006, 27(3):492-518.
12. Crismore A., Markkanen R., Steffensen M. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 1993, 10(1):39-71.
13. Elwes R. Mathematics 1001 2010, Quercus Publishing, London.
14. Harwood N. We do not seem to have a theory. The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 2005, 26(4):343-373.
15. Hu G., Cao F. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics 2011, 43(11):2795-2809.
16. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse 2000, Oxford University Press, Oxford. S. Hunston, G. Thompson (Eds.).
17. Hyland K. Boosters, hedges and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 1998, 18(3):349-382.
18. Hyland K. Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. Writing: Texts, processes and practices 1999, 99-121. Longman, London. C. Candlin, K. Hyland (Eds.).
19. Hyland K. Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing 2000, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
20. Hyland K. Specificity revisited: How far should we go now?. English for Specific Purposes 2002, 21(4):385-395.
21. Hyland K. Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 2004, 13(2):133-151.
22. Hyland K. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 2005, 7(2):173-192.
23. Hyland K. Metadiscourse 2005, Continuum, London.
24. Hyland K. Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. Academic discourse across disciplines 2006, 17-45. Peter Lang, Frankfurt. K. Hyland, M. Bondi (Eds.).
25. Hyland K., Tse P. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 2004, 25(2):156-177.
26. Kuo C. The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes 1999, 18(2):121-138.
27. MacDonald S.P. Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences 1994, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
28. Martin J.R. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse 2000, 142-175. Oxford University Press, Oxford. S. Hunston, G. Thompson (Eds.).
29. Martin J.R., White P.R.R. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English 2005, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
30. Mauranen A. Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A textlinguistics study 1993, Peter Lang, Frankfurt.
31. O'Halloran K. Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images 2005, Continuum, London.
32. Pimm D. Who is " we" ?. Mathematics Teaching 1984, 107:39-42.
33. Pimm, D. (2004). Discourse and mathematics education: An anniversary of sorts. ICME regular lecture. <> (Accessed 13.05.11). http://www.icme10.dk/proceedings/pages/regular_pdf/RL_David_Pimm.pdf.
34. Popper K. The logic of scientific discovery 1959, Routledge, London.
35. Prince E., Frader J., Bosk C. On hedging in physician-physician discourse. Linguistics and the profession (pp. 82-96) 1982, Ablex, Norwood, NJ. R. di Pietro (Ed.).
36. Rowland T. Hedges in mathematics talk. Education Studies in Mathematics 1995, 29:327-353.
37. Rowland T. Pronouns in mathematics talk: Power, vagueness and generalisation. For the Learning of Mathematics 1999, 19(2):19-26.
38. Shaw P. Relations between text and mathematics across disciplines. Academic discourse across disciplines 2006, 103-122. Peter Lang, Frankfurt. K. Hyland, M. Bondi (Eds.).
39. Silver M. The stance of stance. A critical look at ways stance is expressed and modeled in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2003, 2(4):359-374.
40. Swales J. Episodes in ESP: A source and reference book for the development of English for science and technology 1988, Prentice Hall, New York.
41. Swales J. Genre analysis: English in academic settings 1990, Cambridge University Press.
42. Swales J., Ahmed U., Chang Y., Chavez D., Dressen D., Seymour R. Consider this: The role of impertatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics 1998, 19(1):97-121.
43. Swales J., Feak C. Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills 2004, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 2nd ed.
44. Thompson G. Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 2001, 22(1):58-78.
45. Thompson G., Hunston S. Evaluation: An introduction. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse 2000, Oxford University Press, Oxford. S. Hunston, G. Thompson (Eds.).
46. Vande Kopple W. Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. Discourse studies in composition 2002, 91-113. Hampton Press, Cresshill, NJ. E. Barton, G. Stygall (Eds.).