Creating the Authorial Self in Academic Texts: Evidence From the Expert’s Style of Writing
This paper reports on an analysis of stance expressions in a 439,490-word corpus of Ken Hyland’s academic prose, encompassing 64 single-authored texts from journals, edited collections and his own monographs. Using WordSmith Tools 6.0, the study aims to find out how this expert academic writer creates his authorial self through stance mechanisms. The results reveal that Hyland’s authorial participation in his discourse is mostly manifested through hedges, somewhat less definitely through boosters, but relatively infrequently by attitude markers and self-mention. The choice of the specific stance devices indicates a preference for detached objectivity when formulating empirically verifiable propositions and a shift towards subjectivity when referring to discourse acts and research methodology. These findings contribute to our understanding of stance-taking expertise in applied linguistics and may thus assist novice writers in the field in a more effective management of their own performance of self in academic prose.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 288-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019
Abdi, R., Tavangar Rizi, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1669-1679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.001
Akinci, S. (2016). A cross-disciplinary study of stance markers in research articles written by students and experts. (Master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, United States). https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6151&context=etd
Belladelli, A. (2009). The interpersonal function of going to in written American English. In A. Renouf & A. Kehoe (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: Refinements and reassessments (pp. 309–325). Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042025981_017
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93-124. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.19220.127.116.11
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Pearson Education Limited.
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261-272). Ablex.
Charles, M. (2004). The Construction of Stance: A corpus-based investigation of two contrasting disciplines. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom). https://www.academia.edu/31052804/THE_CONSTRUCTION_OF_STANCE_A_CORPUS-BASED_INVESTIGATION_OF_TWO_CONTRASTING_DISCIPLINES
Clark, R., & Ivanič, R. (1997). The politics of writing. London: Routledge.
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 56-73). Oxford University Press.
Crosthwaite, P., Cheung, L., & Jiang, F. (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 107-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.02.001
Dontcheva-Navrátilová, O. (2009). Evaluation in non-native writer’s academic discourse: Stance devices. In I. Hůlková (Ed.), Research in English language teacher education (pp. 33-42). Masarykova Univerzita.
Dueñas, P. M. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 50-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00228.x
Dueñas, P. M. (2013). Hyland, Ken. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 2846-2849). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0518
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Kinn, T. (2006). Academic voices: Across languages and disciplines. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.148
Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2004). Verbal stance in spoken academic discourse. In G. Del Lungo Camiciotti & E. Tognini Bonelli (Eds.), Academic discourse. New insights into evaluation (pp. 99-119). Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0784-5
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions on stance. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 15-33). London: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825.0008
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing. Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609427
Hoye, L. (1997). Adverbs and modality in English. Routledge.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text. Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(97)90033-3
Hyland, K. (1998a). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1918.104.22.1689
Hyland, K. (1998b). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54
Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99-121). Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315840390-6
Hyland, K. (2001a). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(00)00012-0
Hyland, K. (2001b). Activity and Evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115-113). Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.6719
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Prudence, precision, and politeness: hedges in academic writing. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis Lingüístics, X, 99-112.
Hyland, K. (2005c). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543-562. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444808005235
Hyland, K. (2009). Corpus informed discourse analysis: The case of academic engagement. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari & S. Hunston (Eds.), Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse (pp. 110-128). Continuum. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474211703.ch-006
Hyland, K. (2011). Disciplines and discourses: social interactions in the construction of knowledge. In D. Starke-Meyerring, A. Paré, N. Artemeva, M. Horne & L. Yousoubova (Eds.), Writing in the knowledge society (pp. 193-214). Parlor Press.
Hyland, K. (2015). Corpora and written academic English. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 292-308). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139764377.017
Hyland, K. (2019). Academic interaction: Where’s it all going? In K. Hyland & L.L.C. Wong (Eds.), Specialised English: New directions in ESP and EAP research and practice (pp. 92-106). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429492082-8
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399
Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2015). ‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529-550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615590719
Leech, G., & Svatrvik, J. (2002). A Communicative Grammar of English (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315836041
Ling Lin, K. (2020). Perspectives on the introductory phase of empirical research articles. A study of rhetorical structure and citation use. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9204-8
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text, 9, 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1922.214.171.124
Önder, N. (2012). Metadiscourse use of two prolific researchers in ESP: John Swales and Ken Hyland. In Z. Akşit & M. Çavuş (Eds.), Embracing Challenges: Proceedings of the 11th METU International ELT Convention (pp. 103-116). Middle East Technical University.
Paquot, M. (2010). Academic vocabulary in learner writing. From extraction to analysis. Continuum. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474211697
Peacock, M. (2006). A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles. Corpora, 1(1), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2006.1.1.61
Pho, P. D. (2013). Authorial Stance in research articles. Examples from applied linguistics and educational technology. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137032782
Rozumko, A. (2017). Adverbial markers of epistemic modality across disciplinary discourses: A contrastive study of research articles in six academic disciplines. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 52(1), 73-101. https://doi.org/10.1515/stap-2017-0004
Sanderson, T. (2008). Corpus, culture, discourse. Gunter Narr.
Scott, M. (2012). WordSmith Tools version 6. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A-M., & Aijmer, K. (2007). The semantic field of modal certainty. A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198928.fm
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Szczyrbak, M. (2014). Of course, indeed or clearly? The interactional potential of modal adverbs in legal genres. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 11(2), 90–102.
Yu, L. S. (2019). A cross-linguistic and cross-cultural study of stance markers in research articles in English and Korean. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai’i, Mãnoa, United States). https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/66274/Yu_hawii_0085A_10498.pdf
Wang, J., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). Epistemic stance and authorial presence in scientific research writing: Hedges, boosters and self-mentions across disciplines and writer groups. In P. Mur-Dueñas & J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Intercultural perspectives on research writing (pp. 195-216). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18.09wan
Copyright (c) 2020 Tatiana Szczygłowska
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All published articles in the ESNBU are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
In other words, under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license users are free to
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
Attribution (by) - All CC licenses require that others who use your work in any way must give you credit the way you request, but not in a way that suggests you endorse them or their use. If they want to use your work without giving you credit or for endorsement purposes, they must get your permission first.
NonCommercial (nc) - You let others copy, distribute, display, perform, and modify and use your work for any purpose other than commercially unless they get your permission first.
If the article is to be used for commercial purposes, we suggest authors be contacted by email.
If the law requires that the article be published in the public domain, authors will notify ESNBU at the time of submission, and in such cases the article shall be released under the Creative Commons 1 Public Domain Dedication waiver CC0 1.0 Universal.
Copyright for articles published in ESNBU are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. Authors retain full publishing rights and are encouraged to upload their work to institutional repositories, social academic networking sites, etc. ESNBU is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.
Occasionally ESNBU may co-publish articles jointly with other publishers, and different licensing conditions may then apply.