Stance Markers in Academic Writing: Native Vs. Non-native (Iranian) Authorship in Hard and Soft Sciences Research Articles

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Department of English language, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

The meticulous examination of discourse analysis, particularly the scrutiny of language application in academic writing, carries significant weight in the realm of Applied Linguistics. A critical aspect of this exploration revolves around the deployment of stance markers, which function as linguistic tools for articulating the personal viewpoints and assessments of writers concerning the assertions they proffer. The primary objective of this study was to juxtapose the overall and categorical distribution of stance markers in academic research articles authored by native (English) and non-native (Iranian) academic writers across the spheres of soft and hard sciences. The analytical framework of Hyland (2005b) on interactional metadiscourse was utilized to delineate the specific taxonomy of stance markers employed in the academic research articles written by two groups of authors. The results of the research revealed significant differences in the overall and categorical distribution of stance markers between the two sets of datasets, highlighting the potential impacts of disciplinary and cultural variations on their usage. The study advocates for an enriched understanding and integration of the rhetorical norms inherent in academic genres, including the deployment of stance markers, to enhance the creation of educational materials and elevate the language proficiency of students in linguistic studies.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abdi, R. (2009). Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking: A comparison of Persian and English research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 52 (212), 1-15.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in Applied linguistics paper. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (1), 288-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019
Al-Zubeiry, H. (2019). Metadiscourse devices in English scientific research articles written by native and non- native speakers of English, International Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 46-61. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v11i1.14259
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600109
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/40250192
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, 1-7.
Bhowmik, S. K., Chaudhuri, A., Tweedie, G., Kim, M., & Liu, X. (2021). Culture and L2 writing: Student perceptions of factors affecting academic writing. Writing and Pedagogy, 12(2-3), 223–255. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.19538
Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3 (4), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10 (1), 39-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(20, 211-241.  
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspapers discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
Dobakhti, L. & Zohrabi, M. (2017). How do writers present their work in introduction? sections? Issues in Language Teaching (ILT), 6(2), 181-207.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
Deliery Moghadam, F. (2017). Persuasion in journalism: A study of metadiscourse in texts by native speakers of English and Iranian EFL writers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(6), 483-495. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0706.11
Dobakhti, L. (2013). Attitude markers in discussion sections of qualitative and quantitative research articles. International Journal of English and Education, 2(3), 39-53.
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2021). Engaging with the reader in research articles in English: Variation across disciplines and linguacultural backgrounds. English for Specific purposes, 63, 18-32.
Farzannia, S. & Farnia, M. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in introduction sections of 
Persian and English mining engineering articles. English for Specific Purposes, 49(17), 1-16.
Faghih, E., & Rahimpour, S. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in applied linguistic research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 92-107.
Farnia, M. & Gerami, S. (2021). Comparative study of interactional metadiscourse markers in the discussion section of soft and hard science research articles: hedges and boosters in focus. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures,13, (2), 263-280. https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.13.2.5
Ghafoori, N. & Oghbatalab, R. (2012). A comparative study of metadiscourse in academic writing: Male vs. female authors of research articles in applied linguistics. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5 (1), 87-113
Gholami, J., & Ilghami, R. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and Journal impact factor: Non-native writers vs. native writers. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44 (4), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20961
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 1-12.    
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. Harlow: Longman.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835853
Hind, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B.  Kaplan (Ed.), Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95198-07
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers' text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602848
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(97)000252
Hyland, K. (2001). 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. (2002). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text, 22 (4), 529-557.
https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2002.021
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(02)00124-8
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 (2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London continuum. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508097560
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2008). ‘Small bits of textual material’: A discourse analysis of Swales’ writing. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 143-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.005
Marandi, S. (2003). Metadiscourse in Persian and English master’s theses: A contrastive study. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v1n1p88
Mauranen, A. (2001). Description or explanation? Some methodological issues in contrastive
Rhetoric. In M. Hewings, (Ed.), Academic Writing in Context (pp. 43-54). Birmingham: 
University of Birmingham Press. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474211734.0009
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis. London continuum. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404508080706
Salek, M. & Yazdanimogaddam, M. (2014). A cross-cultural analysis of metadiscourse in ELT and theoretical linguistics research articles by native English vs. Iranian academic writers. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 2(1), 29-39.
Sengupta, S. (1999). Rhetorical consciousness raising in L2 reading classroom. Journal of Second Language writing, 8(3), 291-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80118-0
Seyri, H. & Rezaee, S. (2021). Disciplinary and cross-cultural variation of stance and engagement markers in soft and hard sciences research articles by native English and Iranian academic writers: A corpus-based analysis. ISELT Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching, 1(1), 1- 22. 
Sheldon, E. (2009). The relationship between first and second language rhetorical structure: Implications for writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 243-261.  
Swales, J. (2004). Research Genre: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524827
Swann, J. Dumert, A., Lillis, T., & Methrie, R. (2004). A discourse of sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: University Press.
Tan, T. X., Fan, X., Braunstein, L. B., & Lane-Holbert, M. (2022). Linguistic, cultural and substantive patterns in L2 writing: A qualitative illustration of Mislevy’s socio-cognitive perspective on assessment. Assessing Writing, 51, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100574
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20 (1), 83-102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(99)00029-0
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 https://doi.org/10.18172/cif.2434
Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2007). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive analysis of English and Persian research articles. The Asia ESP Journal, 3(2), 24-40.
Zohrabi, M. & Radkhah, S. (2019). A Comparative Analysis of Institutional Identities in Corpus of English and Persian News Interview. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 10 (1), 132-154.
Zhao, C. G. (2019). Writer background and voice construction in L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.004
 

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 29 June 2024
  • Revise Date: 11 November 2024
  • Accept Date: 09 January 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics