Volume 2, Issue 4 (12-2017)
IJREE 2017, 2(4): 31-40 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shirzadi M, Akhgar F, Rooholamin A, Shafiee S. A Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis of Stance Strategies in Native and Nonnative Speakers’ English Academic Writings: Introduction and Discussion Sections in Focus. IJREE 2017; 2 (4)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-60-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-60-en.html
Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
Abstract: (8922 Views)
The present study was an attempt to illustrate the interaction between writers and readers. Conveying of the writers’ voice, stance, and interaction with reader was put forward within this paradigm. Being a good academic writer is highly related to the use of these strategies. Adopting a position and persuading readers of claims are very important. This study was aimed at showing the differences between Iranian and American M.A. EFL writers in using stance strategies (hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mentions) in Introduction and Discussion sections of academic papers. The corpora for this study were 40 articles (20 for American native and 20 for Iranian nonnative writers) from different journals such as Journal of Research Studies in Education, English language Teaching, System, TESOL Quarterly, and ELT. The significance and frequency of items were calculated using SPSS software version 22. Such statistical tools as frequency, percentage, and Chi-square were utilized to analyze the collected data. The findings showed that there was no statistically significant difference between native and nonnative writers in using stance strategies although native writers tended to use hedges, attitude markers, and self-mentions comparatively more than nonnatives, whereas nonnative writers used a greater number of boosters.
Keywords: attitude markers, boosters, hedges, self-mentions, stance strategies, native vs. nonnative writers
References
1. Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145. doi: 10.1177/14614456020040020101 [DOI:10.1177/14614456020040020101]
2. Ansarian, A. A., & Tarlani-Aliabdi, H. (2011). Reader engagement in English and Persian applied linguistics articles. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 154-164. doi: 10.5539/elt.v4n4p154 [DOI:10.5539/elt.v4n4p154]
3. M. Atai, M., & Sadr, L. (2008). A cross-cultural genre study on hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistic research articles. Journal Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran, 7(2), 42-57.
4. Barton, E. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55(7), 745-769. doi: 10.2307/378428 [DOI:10.2307/378428]
5. Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers. Studies about Linguistics, 5(1), 1-7. doi: 10.3726/978-3-0351-0901-6/7 [DOI:10.3726/978-3-0351-0901-6/7]
6. 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 [DOI:10.1515/text.2002.020]
7. Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial Marking of Stance in Speech and Writing, Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
8. Derewianka, B. (2007). Using appraisal theory to track interpersonal development in adolescent academic writing. In A. McCabe, M. O'Donnell, & R. Whittaker, R. (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp. 142-165). New York and London: Continuum.
9. Diani, G. (2009). Reporting and evaluation in English book review articles: A crossdisciplinary study. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 105-121). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. [DOI:10.1057/9780230244290_6]
10. Groom, N. (2009). Phraseology and epistemology in academic book reviews: A corpus-driven analysis of two humanities disciplines. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 122-142). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. [DOI:10.1057/9780230244290_8]
11. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
12. Hansen, C. (1994). Topic identification in lecture discourse. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening, Research perspectives (pp. 131-145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Hewings, A. (2004). Developing discipline-specific writing: An analysis of undergraduate geography essays. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 131-152): Continuum.
14. Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 345-365. [DOI:10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6]
15. Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language & Communication, 10(3), 185-205. [DOI:10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S]
16. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205. doi: 10.1016/s1060-3743(97)90033-3 [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3]
18. Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text & Talk, 18(3), 349-382. doi: [DOI:10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349]
19. Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourse: Writer stance in research article. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99-121). London: Longman.
20. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
21. Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the Reader: Addressee Features in Academic Writing. Written Communication, 18(4), 549–74. [DOI:10.1177/0741088301018004005]
22. Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–26. doi: 10.1016/s0889-4906(00)00012-0 [DOI:10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0]
23. Hyland, K. (2002). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4&1), 351-358. [DOI:10.1093/elt/56.4.351]
24. Hyland, K. (2004a). A convincing argument: Corpus analysis and academic persuasion. In U. Connor & Upton, T. A. (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 87-112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [DOI:10.1075/scl.16.05hyl]
25. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365 [DOI:10.1177/1461445605050365]
26. Hyland, K. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: Disciplinary variation in academic writing. In K. Flottum (Ed.), Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse (pp. 89–108). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
27. Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21. Doi:10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001]
28. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004a). I would like to thank my supervisor: Acknowledgements in graduate dissertations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 259-275. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2004.00062.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2004.00062.x]
29. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2009). Discipline and gender: Constructing rhetorical identity in book reviews. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 87-104). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. [DOI:10.1057/9780230244290]
30. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. [DOI:10.1057/9780230511910]
31. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35. [DOI:10.1093/applin/10.1.1]
32. North, S. (2005). Disciplinary variation in the use of theme in undergraduate essays. Applied Linguistics, 26(3&1), 431-452. [DOI:10.1093/applin/ami023]
33. Rashidi, N., & Alihosseini, F. (2012). A contrastive study of metadiscourse markers in research article abstracts across disciplines. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, 5(4), 17-23.
34. Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-70. [DOI:10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2]
35. Salager-Meyer, F. (1997). I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written scientific discourse. In T. Miller(Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications. Washington, D.C: United States Information Agency.
36. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: CUP. [PMCID]
37. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology. A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.
38. Yang, W. H. (2012). A genre analysis of PhD dissertation acknowledgements across disciplinary variations. LSP Journal, 3(2), 51-69. doi: 10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.5p.130 [DOI:10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.5p.130]
39. Yang, W. H. (2013a). Keyness in academic textbook blurbs: Lexical variations across disciplines. 2012 Proceedings of English Learning and Teaching (pp.63-72). Pingtung, Taiwan: National Pingtung University of Science and Technology.
40. Yang, W. H. (2013b). Two-folded messages behind CFP: A cross disciplinary examination. International Journal of Language Studies, 7(2), 83-108.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
