AN ANALYSIS OF “STANCE DEVICES” IN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ARTICLES BY NATIVE AND TURKISH WRITERS

Abstract

It is a well-known fact that research articles cannot be considered as an objective description of an investigation, in fact, they should be persuasive because the writers are required to change the minds of other members in the scientific field. Thus, academic writers use stance devices to be able to build a persuasive argument, to reflect ideational content and to form authorial self, specifically while writing effective abstracts. Therefore, the present study showed an attempt to shed some light on stance device employment by examining stance devices defined in Hyland’s (2005) framework. The data for this study were 60 research articles in the journal, Social Behavior and Personality, an internationally published refereed journal. 30 articles published by native English-speaking academic writers (NW) and 30 articles by non-native English- speaking academic writers (Turkish academic writers, NNW) supplied the data. The texts were converted to an electronic corpus of 7196 words and searched for the stance devices in the 60 articles of the study by the corpus analysis tool AntConc (Anthony, 2011) by using the move model suggested by Swales (1990). The findings of the study revealed that there were both differences and similarities between the use of stance devices by native and non-native English- speaking academic writers. The outcomes also showed that writer stance seemed to be closely related with the discourse community, text types of that community, the global and local features, cultural/educational background of the writer, English language proficiency level of the writer, and the writer's personality and/or style.

Keywords

• stance devices
• abstracts
• social science research articles
• native and Turkish academic writers

Kaynakça

1. Ağçam, R. (2015a). Author stance in doctoral dissertations of native and non-native speakers of English: A corpus-based study on epistemic adverbs. Revista de Lengues para Fines Especificos, 21(2), 98-113.
2. Ağçam, R. (2015b). A corpus-based study on attitudinal stance in native and nonnative academic writing. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 2 (8), 123-129.
3. Alghazo, S., Salem, M.N.A., Alrashdan, I. & Rabab’ah, G. (2021). Grammatical devices of stance in written academic English. Heliyon, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08463.
4. Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc (Version 3.2.4). Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html.
5. Bahrami, L., Dowlatabadi, H.R.,Yazdani, H. & Amerian, M. (2018). Authorial stance in academic writing: issues and implications for research in English language teaching. International English Language & Translation Studies, 6 (2), 69-80.
6. Barton, E. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55, 745-769.
7. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Biber, D. (2004). Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5:1, 107-136.

9. Biber, D. & E. Finegan (1988). Adverbial stance types in English, Discourse Processes 11, 1-34.
10. Bonn, S.V. and Swales, J.M. (2007) English and French journal abstracts in the language sciences: Three exploratory studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6, 93-108.
11. Chang, P., & Schleppegrell, M. (2016). Explicit learning of authorial stance-taking by L2 doctoral students. Journal of Writing Research, 8(1), 49-80.
12. Chen, Z. (2012). Expression of Epistemic stance in EFL Chinese university students’ writing. English Language Teaching, 5 (10), 173- 179.
13. Clyne, M. (1991). The sociocultural dimension: The dilemma of the German-speaking scholar. In Schroder, H. (ed.) Subject-oriented texts (Research in text theory 16), 49-68. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter.
14. Conrad, S. & D. Biber (2000). Adverbial making of stance in speech and writing. In S.Hunston and G. Tompson (eds.) Evaluation in text, 56-73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Crismore, A. & W. J. Vande Kopple (1997). Hedges and readers: effects on attitudes and learning. In Markkanen, R., and Schroder, H. (eds.), Hedging and discourse, approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 83 114. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
16. Crosthwaite, P., & Jiang, K. (2017). Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance: A longitudinal learner corpus study. System, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.06.010.
17. 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.
18. Dedaic, M. N. (2004). If I may say, I would like to ask and let me repeat: Modality- construed mitigation markers in political communication. In Fachinetti, R & Palmer, F. (eds.) English modality in perspective. Genre analysis and contrastive studies, 45-66. Germany: Peter Lang GmbH.
19. Flottum, K., Jonasson, K. and Noren, C. (2006). ON -pronom a facettes. Akademisk Prosa 3: 87-100. Skrift er fra KIAP. Department of Romance studies, University of Bergen.
20. Getkham, K. (2016). Authorial stance in Thai students’ doctoral dissertation. English Language Teaching, 9 (3), 80-95.
21. Gillaerts, P., Velde, F.V. (2010) Interactional Meta discourse in Research Article Abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9, 128-139.
22. Graetz, N, 1985, Teaching EFL students to extract structural information from abstracts. In Ulign J. Mand Pugh A. K. (eds) Reading for Professional Purposes: Methods and Materials in Teaching Languages, Leuven: Acco, pp.123–135 (7) (PDF) Patterns in Scientific Abstracts.
23. Henderson, A. and Barr, R. (2010) Comparing indicators of authorial stance in psychology Students' writing and published research articles. Journal of Writing Research 2 (2), 245-264.
24. Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 361-386.
25. Hunston, S. & G.Thompson (eds.) (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic meta discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455.
27. Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters, and lexical Invisibility: Noticing modifiers In Academic texts. Language Awareness, 2 (4), 179-196.
28. Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing, Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.
29. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Meta discourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
31. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A modal of interaction in academic Discourse, Discourse Studies, 7 (2), 173-193.
32. Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in Abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24 (2005) 123-139.
33. Huo, G. and Cao, F. (2011) Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English and Chinese medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 2795-2809.
34. Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
35. Kafes, H. (2009) Authorial Stance in Academic English: Native and Non-native Academic Speaker Writers' Use of Stance Devices (Modal Verbs) In Research Articles (PhD Thesis) Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
36. Kafes, H. (2018). Stance in academic writing. European Journal of Education Studies, 4 (2), 1-16.
37. Keck, C. M. & D. Biber (2004). Modal use in spoken and written university registers: A Corpus Based study. In Fachinetti, R & Palmer, F. (eds.) English modality in perspective. Genre analysis and contrastive studies, 3-25. Germany: Peter Lang GmbH.
38. Khamkhien, A. (2014). Linguistic features of evaluative stance: findings from research article discussions. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (1), 54-69.
39. Lewin, B.A. (2005). Hedging: An exploratory study of authors' and readers' identification of 'Toning down' in scientific texts, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4,163-178.
40. Martin-Martin, P. (2003) A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes 22, 25-43.
41. Lorés, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: from rhetorical structure to thematic organization. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 280-302.
42. Martinez, I. A. (2001). Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity structure. English for Specific Purpose, 20, 227-247.
43. Martinez, I.A. (2005) Native and non-native writers' use of first-person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing 14, 174-190.
44. Min, S., Paek, J.J. & Kang, Y. (2019). Exploring the use of hedges and stance devices in relation to Korean EFL learners’ argumentative writing qualities. English Teaching, 74 (1), 3-23.
45. Mofian, F., Talati-Baghsiahi, A. & Yaramadzhezi, N. (2014). Modal auxiliaries as stance-taking devices in linguistics research articles: a functional contrastive analysis. Linguistik online, 91 (4/18), 59-77.
46. Pho, P.D. (2008) Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: a study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies Vol 10(2):231-250.
47. Rezzano, N. S. (2004). Modality and modal responsibility in research articles in English. In Fachinetti, R & Palmer, F. (eds.) English modality in perspective. Genre analysis and contrastive studies, 101-118. Germany: Peter Lang GmbH.
48. Salager-Meyer, F. (1992). A Text-type and move analysis study of verb tense and Modality distribution in medical English Abstracts, English for Specific Purposes, 11, 93-113.
49. Salager-Meyer, F. (1998). Language is not a physical object. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 295-302.
50. Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21 (1), 1-17.
51. Seyri, H.& Rezaei, 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, 1 (1), 1-22.
52. Shirzadi, M., Akhgar, F., Rooholamin, A. & Shafiee, S. (2017). A corpus-based contrastive analysis of stance strategies in native and nonnative speakers’ English academic writings: introduction and discussion sections in focus. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2 (4), 30-40.
53. Stotesbury, H. (2003) Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2, 327-341.
54. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis, English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. Swales, J. M. &Feak, C. B. (2000). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor: English in today's research world. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press.
56. Zhang, L. & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Fostering stance-taking as a sustainable goal in developing EFL students’ academic writing skills: exploring the effects of explicit instruction on academic writing skills and stance deployment. Sustainability, 13,4270, 1-20.
57. Widdowson, H. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58. Wishnoff, J. R. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies, 19 (1). 119-148.