Linguistic Markers of Stance in Early and Advanced Academic Writing: A Corpus-based Comparison

Written Communication

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 151-183

  Aull, Laura L ^a   Lancaster, Zak ^a  

^a WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

academic discourse; audience; corpus analysis; interpersonal; metadiscourse; reader positioning; student writing

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899458442     PISSN: 07410883     EISSN: 15528472     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0741088314527055     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Ädel A.Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English [electronic resource]. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins; 2006:.
2. Anthony L.Antconc (Version 3.2.4). Tokyo, Japan: Laurence Anthony, University of Waseda; 2011:.
3. Barton E.Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance.College English. 1993;55:745-769.
4. Barton E. L.Contrastive and non-contrastive connectives metadiscourse functions in argumentation.Written Communication. 1995;12 (2): 219-239.
5. Barton E.Discourse studies in composition. Barton E.Stygall G., ed. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press; 2002:19-42.
6. Beaufort A.College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. Logan: Utah State University Press; 2007:.
7. Biber D.Stance in spoken and written university registers.Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2006;5:97-116.
8. Biber D.,Finegan E.Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect.Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. 1989;9 (1): 93-124.
9. Biber D.,Johansson S.,Leech G.,Conrad S.,Finegan E.,Quirk R.Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1999:.
10. Bolton K.,Nelson G.,Hung J.A.A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE-HK).International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 2002;7:165-182.
11. Chafe W.,Nichols J.Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. New York, NY: Praeger; 1986:.
12. Cheng A.Individualized engagement with genre in academic literacy tasks.English for Specific Purposes. 2008;27 (4): 387-411.
13. Coffin C.The voices of history: Theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses.Text. 2002;22 (4): 503-528.
14. Cortes V.Using corpora to explore linguistic variation. Reppen R.Fitzmaurice S. M.Biber D., ed. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins; 2002:131-146.
15. Crompton P.Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems.English for Specific Purposes. 1997;16 (4): 271-287.
16. DaviesM. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Retrieved from: http://www.americancorpus.org.
17. Davies M.The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (19902008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights.International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 2009;14 (2): 159-190.
18. Dias P.Transitions: Writing in Academic and workplace settings. Dias P.Pare A., ed. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press; 2000:11-29.
19. Ebeling S. O.,Wickens P.Interpersonal themes and author stance in student writing.Language and Computers. 2012;74 (1): 23-40.
20. Ellis R.Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge.Applied Linguistics. 2006;27 (3): 431-463.
21. Gere A. R.,Aull L.,Green T.,Porter A.Assessing the validity of directed self-placement at a large university.Assessing Writing. 2010;15 (3): 154-176.
22. Gere A. R.,Aull L.,Perales M. D.,Escudero Z. L.,Vander Lei E.Local assessment: Using genre analysis to validate directed self-placement.College Composition and Communication. 2013;64 (4): 605-633.
23. Gray B.,Biber D.Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K.Sancho Guinda C., ed. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012:15-33.
24. Gross A.,Chesley P.Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K.Sancho Guinda C., ed. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012:85-100.
25. Halliday M. A. K.,Hasan R.Cohesion in English. London: Longman; 1976:.
26. Halliday M. A. K.An introduction to functional grammar. 1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London, UK: Edward Arnold.London, UK: Edward Arnold; 1994:.
27. Halliday M. A. K.,Matthiessenn C. M. I. M.An introduction to functional grammar. 2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.London: Arnold; 2004:.
28. Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Harré R.Van Langenhove L., ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell; 1999:.
29. Hewings A.Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks. Ravelli L. J.Ellis R. A., ed. Continuum; 2004:131-152.
30. Hinkel E.The use of modal verbs as a reflection of cultural values.TESOL Quarterly. 1995;29 (2): 325-343.
31. Hood S.Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing. Sydney, Australia: University of Technology, Sydney; 2004:.
32. Hunston S.,Thompson G.Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2001:.
33. HylandK. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5.
34. Hyland K.Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks. Ravelli L.Ellis R. A., ed. London, UK: Continuum; 2004:5-23.
35. Hyland K.Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London, UK: Continuum; 2005a:.
36. Hyland K.Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.Discourse Studies. 2005b;7 (2): 173-192.
37. Hyland K.Representing readers in writing. Student and expert practices.Linguistics and Education. 2005c;16:363-377.
38. Hyland K.Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse.Applied Linguistics. 2007;28 (2): 266-285.
39. Hyland K.Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K.Sancho Guinda C., ed. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012:134-150.
40. Hyland K.,Milton J.Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing.Journal of Second Language Writing. 1997;6 (2): 183-205.
41. Hyland K.,Milton J.Language analysis, description, and pedagogy. Berry R.Asker B.Hyland K.Lam M., ed. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Language Centre; 1999:147-161.
42. Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K.Sancho Guinda C., ed. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012:.
43. Hyland K.,Tse P.Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal.Applied Linguistics. 2004;25 (2): 156-177.
44. Izutsu M. N.Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations.Journal of Pragmatics. 2008;40 (4): 646-675.
45. LancasterZ. (2011). Interpersonal stance in L1 and L2 students' argumentative writing in economics: Implications for faculty development in WAC/WID programs. Across the Disciplines, 4(8). Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm.
46. Lancaster Z.Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines.Written Communication. 2014;31 (1): 27-57.
47. LiT.WhartonS. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 345-356. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004.
48. LockmanK.SwalesJ. (2010). Sentence connector frequencies in academic writing. Retrieved December27, 2011, from: http://micusp.elicorpora.info/teachers/micusp-kibbitzers/2-sentence.
49. Mao L. R.I conclude not: Toward a pragmatic account of metadiscourse.Rhetoric Review. 1993;11 (2): 265-289.
50. Martin J.,White P.The language of evaluation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005:.
51. North S.Disciplinary variation in the use of Theme in undergraduate essays.Applied Linguistics. 2005;26:431-452.
52. Piqué-Angordans J.,Posteguillo S.,Andreu-Besó J.-V.Epistemic and deontic modality: A linguistic indicator of disciplinary variation in academic English.LSP and Professional Communication. 2002;2 (2): 49-65.
53. Quirk R.,Greenbaum S.,Leech G.,Svartvik J.A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York, NY: Longman; 1985:.
54. Römer U.,O'Donnell M.From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): The design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper level Student Papers (MICUSP).Corpora. 2011;6:159-177.
55. Russell D.Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction. Petraglia J., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1995:51-78.
56. Salager-Myer F.,Alcaraz Ariza M. A.,Luzardo Briceno M.Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K.Sancho Guinda C., ed. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012:232-248.
57. Sancho Guinda C.Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K.Sancho Guinda C., ed. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012:166-183.
58. Sancho Guinda C.,Hyland K.Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K.Sancho Guinda C., ed. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012:1-14.
59. Schleppegrell M. J.Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks. Ravelli L. J.Ellis R. A., ed. Continuum; 2004:172-189.
60. Shaw P.Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse. London: Continuum; 2009:215-235.
61. 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.
62. Simpson P.Language, ideology and point of view. New York, NY: Routledge; 2003:.
63. Soliday M.Everyday genres: Writing assignments across the disciplines. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press; 2011:.
64. Tang R.Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse. Charles M.Pecorari D.Hunston S., ed. New York and London: Continuum; 2009:170-190.
65. Tardy C. M.Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press; 2009:.
66. Thompson G.,Thetela P.The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse.Text. 1995;15 (1): 103-127.
67. Thompson G.Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader.Applied Linguistics. 2001;22 (1): 58-78.
68. Vande Kopple W.Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse.College Composition and Communication. 1985;36:82-93.
69. Vande Kopple W.Discourse studies in composition. Barton E. L.Stygall G., ed. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press; 2002:91-114.
70. Wardle E."Mutt genres" and the goal of FYC: Can we help students write the genres of the university?.College Composition and Communication. 2009;60 (4): 765-789.
71. Wilder L.Rhetorical strategies and genre conventions in literary studies: Teaching and writing in the disciplines. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press; 2012:.
72. Wu S. M.The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays.Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2007;6:254-271.