Document Type : Research Paper


English Department, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran


Mounting attention has recently been paid to authorial stance in academic writing due to its important role in the interpersonal aspect of writing, encompassing the ways in which authors establish connections, convey attitudes, and engage with an audience. This study was an attempt to explore how native and non-native authors of Applied Linguistics deploy linguistic features to project their authorial stance. To this end, a corpus of 100 research articles authored by native and non-native researchers was collected from journals in the field of ELT. Hyland's Interpersonal Model of Metadiscourse (2005) was employed to differentiate the features produced and figure out how authors navigate the complexities of expressing their meaning while considering the ELT community expectations, and SPSS was used to analyze the data. Based on the results, the proportion of interactive resources was found to surpass that of interactional resources in both native and non-native writings, with transitions being the leading feature, followed by evidentials; and regarding the interactional resources, boosters, and hedges were the most dominant features employed by native and non-native authors, respectively. Overall, no tendency was found towards textuality through which authors consider the target audience (engagement markers), signal their confidence through the portrayal of authors' feelings (attitude markers), and take credit for their findings (self-mentions) throughout the whole corpus, particularly non-native writings. It seems that writing courses offered in non-native contexts require improvements to meet the standards of academic writing. Therefore, the study has important implications for both non-native and novice researchers and course designers.


Main Subjects

Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3 (1), 1-16.
AbdelWahab, A. F. (2020). Using interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers to develop EFL first-year special Diploma Students' Academic Writing Skills. Journal of Faculty of Education Assiut University, 32 (2), 1-35.
Ahmadi, P., Gholami, J., Abdi, R., & Mohammadnia, Zh. (2021). Metadiscourse markers in the abstract section of applied linguistics research articles: Celebrity vs. non-celebrity authors. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 9 (37), 151-165.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288-297.
Alotaibi, H. S. (2019). An exploration of authorial stance in SSCI-ranked journals versus non-SSCI-ranked journals. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 25(3), 65-78.
Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2020). Stance as style: Toward a framework for analyzing academic language. In P. Butler, B. Ray & S. M. Vanguri (Eds.), Style and the future of composition studies (pp. 98-113). Utah State University Press.
Çakır, H. (2016). Native and non-native writers' use of stance adverbs in English research article abstracts. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics6, 85-96. 
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.
Chang, p., & Schleppegrell, M. (2016). Explicit learning of authorial stance-taking by L2 doctoral students. Journal of Writing Research 8(1), 49-80.
Correa, D., & Echeverri, S. (2017). Using a systemic functional genre-based approach to promote a situated view of academic writing among EFL pre-service teachers. How, 24(1), 44-62.
Deng, L., & He, P. (2023). We may conclude that: A corpus-based study of stance-taking in conclusion sections of RAs across cultures and disciplines. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1-11.
Deng, L., Gao, X., & Bagheri, F. (2021). Exploring the interactive and interactional metadiscourse in doctoral dissertation writing: A diachronic study. Scientometrics, 126(8), 7223–7250.
Du Bois, John W. (2007). The stance triangle. In Engebretson, Robert (Ed.). Stance-taking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139-182). John Benjamins.
El-Dakhs, D.A.S., Yahya, N., & Pawlak, M. (2022). Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7(44), 1-21.
Englebretson, R. (2007). Stance-taking in discourse: An introduction. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stance-taking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 1-25). John Benjamins.
Farahanyniya, M., & Nourzadeh, S. (2023). Authorial and gender identity in published research articles and students' academic writing in applied linguistics. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 15(1), 117-140.
Farrokhi, F. Zohrabi, M. & Gholizadeh, A. (2023). A sociocognitive account of willingness to communicate from the perspective of complex dynamic systems theory. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 36, 35-54. 
Getkham, K. (2016). Authorial stance in Thai students' doctoral dissertation. English Language Teaching, 9(3), 80-95.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809.
Hyland, K. & Sancho Guinda, C. (2012). Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21, 385-395.
Hyland, K. (2002b). Genre: Language, context, and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 113–135.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, VII (2), 173–91.
Hyland, K. (2018). The essential Hyland: Studies in Applied Linguistics. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hyland, K., Wang, W., & Jiang, F. (2022). Metadiscourse across languages and genres: An overview. Lingua, 265.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping Doctoral Students Write: Pedagogies for Supervision. Oxon: Routledge.
Martin-Martin, P. (2008). The mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 133-152.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatic of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Lingitics, 10, 1-35.
Neff, J., Dafouz, E., Herrere, H., Martines, F., & Rica, J. P. (2003). Contrasting learner corpora: The use of modal and reporting verbs in the expression of writer stance. In S. Granger & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based researchNew applications, new challenges (pp. 211-230)Belgium: Rodopi.
Nguyen, T. T. L. (2018). Rhetorical structures and linguistic features of English abstracts in Thai Rajabhat University journals. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 24(4), 71-84.
Sahebkehir, F. & Vosoughi, M. (2020). A metadiscourse analysis over interactive vs interactional resources within English academic articles in Arts and Humanities. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 8(1), 225-245.
Shafique, H., Shahbaz, M., & Hafeez, M. R., (2019). Metadiscourse in research writing: A study of native English and Pakistani research articles. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(4), 376-385.
Stotesbury, H. (2003). Who is speaking in research articles? I/we, impersonal agents or previous authors in citations? In M. Koskela & N. Pilke (Eds.), AFinLA Yearbook (pp. 259-274). The. Finnish Association for Applied Linguistics Publications.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis׃ English for Specific Purposes in Academic and Research Setting. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, J., & Zeng, L. (2021). Disciplinary recognized self-presence: Self-mention used with hedges and boosters in PhD students' research writing. Sage Open, 11(2), 1-13.
Zali, M. M., Mohamad, R., Setia, R., Baniamin, R. M. R., & Razlan, R. M. (2021). Comparisons of interactive and interactional metadiscourse among undergraduates. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(4), 21-30.
Zhai, M. (2021). Collaborative writing in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom: Learners' perceptions and motivations. Journal of Second Language Writing, 53.
Zhang, L., & Zhang, L.J. (2021a). Development and validation of the questionnaire on EFL students' perceptions of authorial stance in academic writing. Applied Linguistics Review, 12, 1–33.
Zhang, L., & Zhang, L. J. (2021b). Fostering stance-taking as a sustainable goal in developing EFL students' academic writing skills: exploring the effects of explicit instruction on academic writing skills and stance deployment. Sustainability, 13(8), 1-20.
Zhang, L. (2023). Authorial stance in citations: Variation by writer expertise and research article part-genres. English for Specific Purposes, 70, 131-147.
Zhang, L., Zhang. L. J., & Xu, T. (2023). Effects of teacher explicit instruction in stance-taking on students' perceptions of stance and on their academic writing beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1-15.
Zohrabi, M. & Bimesl, L. (2022). Exploring EFL teachers' perceptions of strategies for promoting learners' willingness to communicate in online classes. Applied Research on English Language, 11(1), 89-110.