Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
English Language Department, Faculty of Humanities, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
Abstract
Recent research has shown that academic writing is not ‘author-evacuated’ but, rather, carries a representation of the writers’ identity. One way through which writers project their identity in academic writing is stance-taking toward propositions advanced in the text. Appropriate stance-taking has proved to be challenging for novice writers of Research Articles (RAs), especially those writing in a foreign language. To contribute to the literature on stance-taking, the present study compared the move-based use of evaluative resources in the introduction section of L1 (written by native English speakers) and L2 (written by Iranian, non-native writers) English RAs in the discipline of Applied Linguistics. To this end, 100 English Research Article Introductions (RAIs), 50 by L1 writers and 50 by L2 writers, were investigated as the corpus of the study. Categories of analysis were taken from Appraisal framework (Martine & White, 2005) and CARS model (Swales, 2004). The results revealed that the two groups of texts were not substantially different in the overall use of appraisal resources in the whole body of RAIs. However, more detailed analyses of the specific categories of appraisal in each of the rhetorical moves demonstrated that in some cases, especially in moves 1 and 3, L1 and L2 writers made different choices when taking a stance. The findings of this study can serve as a valuable source providing a practical and comprehensive understanding of the use of evaluative resources in RAIs for EAP researchers, teachers, and other professionals involved in the teaching of academic writing.
Keywords
Abdi, J., & Sadeghi, K. (2018). Promotion through claiming centrality in L1 and L2 English research article introductions. International Journal of English Studies, 18(1), 53-70. doi:10.6018/ijes/2018/1/297381
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288-297.
Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/scl.24
Arrese, J. I. M., & Perucha, B. (2006). Evaluation and engagement in journalistic commentary and news reportage. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 19, 225-248. doi:10.14198/raei.2006.19.13
Barrass, R. (2002). Scientists must write: A guide to better writing for scientists, engineers and students (2nd ed.). NY: Routledge.
Berkenkotter, C. (1991). Paradigm debates, turf wars, and the conduct of sociocognitive inquiry in composition. College Composition and Communication, 42(2), 151-169. doi:10.2307/358196
Bhatia, V. K. (1999). Integrating products, processes and participants in professional writing. In Candlin, C. N., & Hyland, K. (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes, and practices (pp. 21-39). London: Longman.
Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 55(2), 97-116. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
Chang, P. & Schleppegrell, M. (2011). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 140-151. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.005
Charles, M. (2007). Reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches to graduate writing: using a corpus to teach rhetorical functions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 289-302. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.009
Cobb, T. (2003). Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European studies. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 59(3), 393-424. doi:10.3138/cmlr.59.3.393
Coffin, C. (2002). The voices of history: Theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses. Text, 22(4), 503-528. doi:10.1515/text.2002.020
Cortes, V. (2013). The purpose of this study is to: connecting lexical bundles to moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 33-43. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.002
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (p. 139182). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins. doi:10.1075/pbns.164.07du
Engelbreston, R. (Ed.). (2007). Stancetaking in discourse. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins. doi:10.1075/pbns.164.02eng
Geng, Y. & Wharton, S. (2016). Evaluative language in discussion sections of doctoral theses: Similarities and differences between L1 Chinese and L1 English writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22(2), 80-91. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.001
Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 123-145. doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(00)00019-9
Halliday, M. A. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London, UK: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London, UK: Arnold.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Adverbial markers and tone in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1049-1068. doi:10.1016/s0378-2166(02)00133-9
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary & grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hood, S. (2004). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing (Unpublished PhD thesis). Sydney: Faculty of Education, University of Technology .
Hood, S. (2006). The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 37-49.
Hood, S. (2011). Writing discipline: comparing inscriptions of knowledge and knowers in academic writing. In F. Christie, & K. Maton, Disciplinarity: Systemic functional and sociological perspectives (pp. 106-128). London: Continuum.
Hood, S., & Forey, G. (2005). Introducing a conference paper: Getting interpersonal with your audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(4), 291306. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.003
Hunston, S., & Thomson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 183-205. doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(97)90033-3
Hyland, K. (2002). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56, 351-358. doi:10.1093/elt/56.4.351
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. doi:10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K., & Guinda, C. S. (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jaffe, A. (Ed.). (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Jalilfar, A., & Moazzen, M. (2014). Attitudinal language in research article discussions: A contrastive study of ISI and Non-ISI Journals. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 1, 1-30.
Jalilfar, A., Hayati, A., & Mashhadi, A. (2012). Evaluative Strategies in Iranian and International Research Article Introductions: Assessment of Academic Writing. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 81-109.
Jiang, F. (2015). Nominal stance construction in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20(3), 90-102. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2015.07.002
Johnstone, B. (2009). Stance, style, and the linguistic individual. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 29-52). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.003.0002
Khedri, M. & Kritsis, K. (2018). Metadiscourse in applied linguistics and chemistry research article introductions. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 47-74.
Lachowicz, D. (1981). On the use of passive voice for objectivity, author responsibility, and hedging in EST. Science of Science, 2, 105-115.
Lan, X. Y. (2011). Evaluation strategies in English academic book reviews: An attitude analysis from the appraisal theory perspective. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal, 2, 13-20.
Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines. Written Communication, 31(1), 27-57. doi:10.1177/0741088313515170
Liu, X. (2013). Evaluation in Chinese university EFL students' argumentative writing: An appraisal study. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 40-53.
Loi, C. K., Lim, J. M., & Wharton, S. (2016). Expressing an evaluative stance in English and Malay research article conclusions: International publications versus local publications. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21(1), 1-16. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.004
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English . NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mei, W., & Allison, D. (2003). Exploring appraisal in claims of student writers in argumentative essays. Prospect, 18(3), 7191.
Ngo, T., & Unsworth, L. (2015). Reworking the appraisal framework in ESL research: refining attitude resources. Functional Linguist, 2(1), 1-24.
Page, R. E. (2003). An analysis of appraisal in childbirth narratives with special consideration of gender and storytelling style. Text, 23(2), 211-237. doi:10.1515/text.2003.009
Painter, C. (2003). Developing attitude: An ontogenetic perspective on Appraisal. Text, 23(2), 183-209. doi:10.1515/text.2003.008
Pascual, M., & Unger, L. (2010). Appraisal in research genres: An analysis of grant proposals by Argentinean researchers. Revista Signos, 43(73), 261-280.
Pho, P. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: a study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10, 231-250. doi:10.1177/1461445607087010
Soepriatmadji, L., & Vidhiasi, D. M. (28-41). Appraisal system recognized in the Jacarta Post's editorial "The Asean Cage" on July 20th, 2011. Dinamika Bahasadan Budaya, 7(1), 2012.
Soler-Monreal, C., & Gil-Salom, L. (2011). A cross-language study on citaiton practice in Ph.D. theses. International Journal of English Studies, 11(2), 53-75. doi:10.6018/ijes/2011/2/149641
Soliday, M. (2011). Everyday genres: Writing assignments across the disciplines. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. . (2000). English in today's research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor: MI: University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills: a course for nonnative speakers of English. Ann Arbor: Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Tavassoli, F., Jalilfar, A., & White, P. R. (2019). British newspapers’ stance towards the Syrian refugee crisis: An appraisal model study. Discourse & Society, 30(1), 64-84.
Thomas, D. P., Thomas, A. A., & Moltow, D. T. (2015). Evaluative stance in high achieving Year 3 persuasive texts. Linguistics and Education, 30(2), 26-41. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2015.03.003
Wang, W. (2008). Intertextual aspects of Chinese newspaper commentaries on the events of 9/11. Discourse Studies, 10(3), 361-380. doi:10.1177/1461445608089916
Wang, Z. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and application. Foreign Language Education, 5, 31-36.
White, P. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259-284. doi:10.1515/text.2003.011
Wu, S. M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high-and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 254-271. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.006
Xie, J. (2016). Direct or indirect? Critical or uncritical? Evaluation in Chinese English-major MA thesis literature reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23(3), 1-15. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.001
Zobel, J. (2004). Writing for computer science. NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-85729-422-7
', './data/jtls/coversheet/cover_en.jpg'))