A Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis of Stance Strategies in Native and Nonnative Speakers’ English Academic Writings: Introduction and Discussion Sections in Focus

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.

[1]  Caroline Coffin,et al.  The Voices of History: theorising the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses , 2002 .

[2]  Ellen L. Barton,et al.  Evidentials, Argumentation, and Epistemological Stance , 1993, College English.

[3]  J. Milton,et al.  Qualification and Certainty in L1 and L2 Students' Writing , 1997 .

[4]  K. Hyland,et al.  “I would like to thank my supervisor”. Acknowledgements in graduate dissertations , 2004 .

[5]  J. Holmes.  Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech , 1990 .

[6]  T. V. Dijk,et al.  Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach , 1998 .

[7]  Nicholas Groom.  Phraseology and Epistemology in Academic Book Reviews: A Corpus-Driven Analysis of Two Humanities Disciplines , 2009 .

[8]  N. Rashidi,et al.  A CONTRASTIVE STUDY OF METADISCOURSE MARKERS IN RESEARCH ARTICLE ABSTRACTS ACROSS DISCIPLINES , 2012 .

[9]  K. Hyland,et al.  HUMBLE SERVANTS OF THE DISCIPLINE? SELF-MENTION IN RESEARCH ARTICLES , 2001 .

[10]  John M. Swales,et al.  Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings , 1993 .

[11]  J. Holmes.  MODIFYING ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE , 1984 .

[12]  Polly Tse,et al.  Discipline and Gender: Constructing Rhetorical Identity in Book Reviews , 2009 .

[13]  G. Diani.  Reporting and Evaluation in English Book Review Articles: A Cross-Disciplinary Study , 2009 .

[14]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing , 2002, J. Documentation.

[15]  Wen-hsien Yang.  A genre analysis of PhD dissertation acknowledgements across disciplinary variations , 2012 .

[16]  Ken Hyland,et al.  Options of identity in academic writing , 2002 .

[17]  Ken Hyland,et al.  Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse , 2005 .

[18]  K. Hyland,et al.  Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge , 1998 .

[19]  Greg Myers,et al.  The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles , 1989 .

[20]  Ann Hewings,et al.  Developing discipline-specific writing: an analysis of undergraduate geography essays , 2004 .

[21]  Fran,et al.  I Think That Perhaps You Should : A Study of Hedges in Written Scientific , 2017 .

[22]  Françoise Salager-Meyer,et al.  Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse , 1994 .

[23]  A Cross-Cultural Genre Study on Hedging Devices in Discussion Section of Applied linguistics Research Articles , 2007 .

[24]  S. Hunston,et al.  Evaluation in Text , 2006 .

[25]  Jeannett Martin,et al.  The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English , 2005 .

[26]  Angelika Fruehauf,et al.  Evaluation In Text Authorial Stance And The Construction Of Discourse , 2016 .

[27]  Sarah North,et al.  Disciplinary Variation in the Use of Theme in Undergraduate Essays , 2005 .

[28]  Michael Halliday,et al.  An Introduction to Functional Grammar , 1985 .

[29]  Reader Engagement in English and Persian Applied Linguistics Articles. , 2011 .

[30]  Ken Hyland.  A convincing argument: corpus analysis and academic persuasion , 2005 .

[31]  R. Abdi.  Interpersonal metadiscourse: an indicator of interaction and identity , 2002 .

[32]  Ken Hyland.  Different strokes for different folks: Disciplinary variation in academic writing , 2008 .

[33]  K. Hyland,et al.  As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation , 2008 .

[34]  S. Blagojević.  Metadiscourse in Academic Prose : a Contrastive Study of Academic Articles Written in English by English and Norwegian Native Speakers , 2010 .