Nominal Stance in Cross-disciplinary Academic Writing of L1 and L2 Speakers in Noun + that Constructions

Capa

Citar

Texto integral

Resumo

Background. Literature indicates that in academic writing, authors are expected to demonstrate a noticeable stance so that they can make their meaning clear. Therefore, differences between native and non-native writers along with cross-disciplinary academic writing assume great significance.

Purpose.The interactional, dialogic, and reflective nature of academic writing requires writers to utilize stance-establishing tools in their writing, the most prominent ones being stance nouns. In addition, the that-clause construction plays a vital role in conveying the author’s stance. Studies that compare L1 Turkish writers of English and L1 English writers regarding academic writing are rather scarce. As such, the present paper aims to analyze L1 Turkish writers of English and L1 English writers in eight disciplines from natural and social sciences in terms of the use of stance nouns in that-clause constructions.

Methods.The study employs Jiang and Hyland's (2016) functional classification model in exploring the nominal stance in cross-disciplinary writing of L1 Turkish writers of English and L1 English writers. To this end, journals with high impact in eight disciplines from social and natural sciences were scanned and a total of 320 articles were included in the corpus. The social sciences included in the present study cover applied linguistics, history, psychology, and sociology while the natural sciences cover medicine, engineering, astronomy, and biology. In total, a corpus of 2.232.164 words was formed.

Results and Implications.The study found significant differences not only in terms of natural and social sciences but also in terms of L1/L2 distinction. In addition, a secondary purpose of the study was to see whether writers in social and natural sciences differed in terms of empiricist and interpretive rationality. The results indicated that writers in social sciences tended to use more status and cognition nouns, indicating that they tend to be more interpretive. With significant differences between Turkish and English writers from a cross-disciplinary perspective, the present study offers important insights into how writers weave their stance in academic writing. Moreover, the present study also confirmed that writers in social sciences, whether L1 or L2, tend to use more stance nouns compared with writers in natural sciences.

Sobre autores

Ozkan Kirmizi

Karabuk University

Email: ozkankirmizi@gmail.com
ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3419-8257

Gulin Kirmizi

Baskent University

Email: gulindn@gmail.com
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-4675-1040

Bibliografia

  1. Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins.
  2. Akbas, E. & Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2018). Metadiscourse variations across academic genres: Rhetorical preferences in textual and interpersonal markers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 767-775. DOI:https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0001
  3. Akbas, E., & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge construction: A comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 831-859. DOI:https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0260
  4. Alinasab, M., Gholami, J., & Mohammadnia., Z. (2021). Genre-based revising strategies of graduate students in applied linguistics: Insights from term papers, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 49, 1-13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100941
  5. Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31, 151-183. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055
  6. Bal-Gezegin, B. & Baş, M. (2020). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A comparison of research articles and book reviews. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 45-62,. DOI:https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.710204
  7. Baratta, A. M. (2010). Nominalization development across an undergraduate academic degree program. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1017-1036. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.007
  8. Biber, D. & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2-20. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001
  9. Biber, D., Gray, B. & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483
  10. Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-116. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
  11. Cao, F.& Hu, G. (2014).Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007
  12. Chafe, W., & Nichols, J. (Eds.). (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Ablex.
  13. Charles, M. (2007). Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 203-218. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.004
  14. Cobb, T. (2003). Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 393-424.
  15. Çakır, H. (2016). Native and non-native writers' use of stance adverbs in English research article abstracts. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6, 85-96. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2016.62008
  16. Durrant, Philip (2017). Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation in university students' writing: Mapping the territories. Applied Linguistics, 38(2), 165-193. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv011
  17. Gabrielatos, C., & McEnery, T. (2005). Epistemic modality in MA dissertations. In P. A. Fuertes Olivera (Ed.), Lengua y sociedad: Investigaciones recientes en lingüística aplicada. Lingüística y Filología (vol. 61, pp. 311e331). Universidad de Valladolid.
  18. Gardner, S., & Han, C. (2018). Transitions of contrast in Chinese and English university student writing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 861-882. DOI:https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0067
  19. Gardner, S., Nesi, H., & Douglas, B. (2018). Discipline, level, genre: Integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 40(4), 646-674. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy005
  20. Gross, A. G., & Chesley, P. (2012). Hedging, stance and voice in medical research articles. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 85-100). Palgrave Macmillan.
  21. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.
  22. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Falmer Press.
  23. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
  24. Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001).Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1-2), 83-106. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00038-2
  25. Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
  26. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
  27. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12(1), 39-63. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.12.1.03hyl
  28. Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing.International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1-23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.8.2.49151
  29. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. Bloomsbury.
  30. Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic discourse. Cambridge University Press.
  31. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
  32. Hyland, K., & Guinda, C. S. (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. Palgrave Macmillan.
  33. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F.K. (2018). ‘We believe that … ': Changes in an academic stance marker. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38(2), 139-161. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2018.1400498
  34. Işık-Tas¸ E. E. (2018). Authorial identity in Turkish language and English language research articles in Sociology: The role of publication context in academic writers' discourse choices. English for Specific Purposes, 49(1), 26-38. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.10.003
  35. Ivanic, R. (1991). Nouns in search of a context: A study of nouns with both open-and closed-system characteristics.International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 29(2), 93-114.
  36. Jalali, H. (2017). Reflection of stance through it bundles in applied linguistics. Ampersand, 4, 30-39. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2017.06.001
  37. Jiang, F. K. (2015). Nominal stance construction in L1 and L2 students' writing, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 90-102. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.07.002
  38. Jiang, K. F., & Hyland, K. (2015). ‘The fact that': Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529-550. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615590719
  39. Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2016). Nouns and academic interactions: A neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 1-25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw023
  40. Jiang, F. K. (2017). Stance and voice in academic writing: The noun + that construction and disciplinary variation, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(1), 85-106. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.1.04jia
  41. Jiang, K. & Hyland, K. (2018). In this paper we suggest: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001
  42. Jin, H. (2015). A Corpus-based study on engagement in English academic writing. English Teaching, 70(2), 27-54. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.70.2.201506.27
  43. Khedri, M., Heng, C. S., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15, 1-13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613480588
  44. Kuhi, D., & Behnam, B. (2011). Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguists: A comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication, 28, 97-141. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088310387259
  45. Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines. Written Communication, 31(1), 27-57. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313515170
  46. Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016).Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21-34. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004
  47. Li, T., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 345-356. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004
  48. Liao, J. (2020). Metadiscourse, cohesion, and engagement in L2 written discourse. Languages, 5(25), 1-22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/languages5020025
  49. Loi, C. K., & Lim, J. M. H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15, 129-146. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612471476
  50. Lores-Sanz, R. (2011). The construction of the author's voice in academic writing: The interplay of cultural and disciplinary factors.Text & Talk, 31(2), 173-193. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2011.008
  51. Man, D. & Chau, M.H. (2019). Learning to evaluate through that-clauses: Evidence from a longitudinal learner corpus. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 37, 22-33. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.007
  52. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
  53. Mur Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068-3079. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
  54. Palmer, F. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press.
  55. Parkinson, J. (2013). Adopting academic values: Student use of that-complement clauses in academic writing. System, 41(2), 428-442. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.03.002
  56. Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Walter de Gruyter. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704
  57. Tang, R. (2012). Academic writing in a second or foreign language. Continuum.
  58. Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!'helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145-154. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001
  59. Yağız, O., & Demir, C. (2015). A comparative study of boosting in academic texts: A contrastive rhetoric.International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(4), 12-28. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v5n4p12
  60. Zhang, M. (2016). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies, 18(2), 204-222. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615623907

Arquivos suplementares

Arquivos suplementares
Ação
1. JATS XML
Baixar


Creative Commons License
Este artigo é disponível sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional.