Creating the Authorial Self in Academic Texts: Evidence From the Expert's Style of Writing




academic prose, authorial self, stance expressions, corpus analysis, Ken Hyland


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.

Author Biography

Tatiana Szczygłowska, University of Bielsko-Biala, Poland

Tatiana Szczygłowska holds a PhD in Linguistics. She is currently Assistant Professor at the Institute of Neophilology, University of Bielsko-Biala, Poland. Her main research interests lie in linguistics and translation with special focus on academic discourse and corpus linguistics. She has also conducted studies in the area of students' attitudes to target language culture and pronunciation.


Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 288-297.

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.

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).

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.

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.

Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93-124.

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).

Clark, R., & IvaniÄ, 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.

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.

Dueñas, P. M. (2013). Hyland, Ken. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 2846-2849). Blackwell Publishing.

Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Kinn, T. (2006). Academic voices: Across languages and disciplines. John Benjamins.

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.

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.

Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing. Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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.

Hyland, K. (1998a). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349-382.

Hyland, K. (1998b). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.

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.

Hyland, K. (2001a). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226.

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.

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.

Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543-562.

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.

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.

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.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251-274.

Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2015). '˜The fact that': Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529-550.

Leech, G., & Svatrvik, J. (2002). A Communicative Grammar of English (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Ling Lin, K. (2020). Perspectives on the introductory phase of empirical research articles. A study of rhetorical structure and citation use. Springer.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.

Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text, 9, 7-25.

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.

Peacock, M. (2006). A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles. Corpora, 1(1), 61-84.

Pho, P. D. (2013). Authorial Stance in research articles. Examples from applied linguistics and educational technology. Palgrave Macmillan.

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.

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.

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).

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.




How to Cite

Szczygłowska, T. (2020). Creating the Authorial Self in Academic Texts: Evidence From the Expert’s Style of Writing. English Studies at NBU, 6(1), 69–94.