Tracing Metadiscursive Stance over Time and Across Disciplines: A Comparative Study of English Research Articles

Research in academic writing has revealed a strong tendency on the part of writers to interactively communicate their scientific findings with their readers. In doing so, the writers should take a position while arguing their propositions. This interaction as proposed by Hyland (2005b) takes places having two sides of stance and engagement. This study targeted the stance component of writer-reader interaction by integrating Hyland’s (2005b) and Hyland and Tse’s (2005a) frameworks to survey lexical and grammatical stance markers in the major subsections of English research articles in anthropology, education, horticulture, and zoology. The corpus included 240 English research articles published during two periods, namely, 1990 and 2010; 60 from each field, 30 articles from 1990 and 30 from 2010 yielding a total number of 1,270,021words. The findings suggested that stancetaking is a common feature of academic writing in the sampled disciplines regardless of the nature of the discipline. Also, hedges ranked first on the list of frequency count. Furthermore, there was a decreasing pattern in the use of stance markers highlighting a convergence among the scholars of the fields with respect to the totality of the facts established day by day. Then, some implications are drawn with plausible applicability in academic writing and EAP syllabus design.

[1]  K. Hyland,et al.  Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal , 2004 .

[2]  Francisco Martínez,et al.  Contrasting learner corpora: the use of modal and reporting verbs in the expression of writer stance , 2003 .

[3]  Charles Bazerman,et al.  Persuasion at a Distance. (Book Reviews: Shaping Written Knowledge. The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science.) , 1990 .

[4]  M. M. D. S. Rubio,et al.  A Pragmatic Approach to the Macro-Structure and Metadiscoursal Features of Research Article Introductions in the Field of Agricultural Sciences. , 2011 .

[5]  Mansoor Tavakoli,et al.  THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN DISCOURSE COMMUNITIES AND GENRES: A FRAMEWORK FOR THE USE OF METADISCOURSE , 2010 .

[6]  Agnes Pisanski Peterlin Text-organising metatext in research articles: an English–Slovene contrastive analysis , 2005 .

[7]  Tony Becher,et al.  Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines , 2001 .

[8]  E. Abdollahzadeh Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers , 2011 .

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

[10]  Ken Hyland,et al.  Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science , 2010 .

[11]  Ken Hyland,et al.  Evaluative 'that' constructions: signalling stance in research abstracts , 2005 .

[12]  Annelie Ädel,et al.  Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English , 2006 .

[13]  Ken Hyland,et al.  Teaching and researching writing (2nd ed.) , 2009 .

[14]  William E. Rivers,et al.  Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[15]  Avon Crismore Talking With Readers: Metadiscourse As Rhetorical Act , 1989 .

[16]  J. Swales Research Genres: Explorations and Applications , 2004 .

[17]  K. Hyland,et al.  Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing , 2005 .

[18]  B. Longo,et al.  Metadiscourse Use in Thesis Abstracts: A Cross-cultural Study , 2014 .

[19]  Guangwei Hu,et al.  Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- a , 2011 .

[20]  K. Hyland,et al.  Hooking the reader: a corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts , 2005 .

[21]  Seyed Foad Ebrahimi,et al.  An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines , 2013 .

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

[23]  Ken Hyland Introductory chapter: Dialogue, community and persuasion in research writing , 2014 .

[24]  Lisa McGrath,et al.  Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices , 2012 .

[25]  K. Hyland Patterns of engagement: dialogic features and L2 student writing , 2004 .

[26]  Freek Van de Velde,et al.  Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts , 2010 .

[27]  A. Biglan The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. , 1973 .

[28]  Ken Hyland,et al.  Interaction in two journalistic genres: a study of interactional metadiscourse , 2014 .

[29]  A. Gross,et al.  Hedging, Stance and Voice in Medical Research Articles , 2012 .

[30]  Charles Teddlie,et al.  A Continuation of the Paradigm Wars? Prevalence Rates of Methodological Approaches Across the Social/Behavioral Sciences , 2010 .

[31]  Ken Hyland,et al.  Teaching and Researching Writing , 2001 .

[32]  Alireza Jalilifar,et al.  Comparative Study of Nominalization in Applied Linguistics and Biology Books , 2014 .

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

[34]  Esmaeel Abdollahzadeh,et al.  Exploring the Relationship Between Modality and Readability Across Different Text Types , 2012 .

[35]  W. J. V. Kopple,et al.  Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse , 1985, College Composition & Communication.

[36]  R. Abdi METADISCOURSE STRATEGIES IN RESEARCH ARTICLES: A STUDY OF THE DIFFERENCES ACROSS SUBSECTIONS , 2011 .

[37]  Guangwei Hu,et al.  Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences , 2014 .

[38]  A. Jaffe Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives , 2009 .