A Review of Research on Authorial Stance in Academic Discourse

Feifei Qu; Gengsheng Xiao; Xin Chen

doi:10.54097/ajmss.v2i2.7669

Authors

Feifei Qu
Gengsheng Xiao
Xin Chen

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/ajmss.v2i2.7669

Keywords:

Authorial stance, Factors, Review, Academic writing

Abstract

The past decades have witnessed a mounting research attention on the authorial stance in academic discourse. Examining the use of stance features has become a key focus to explore the interactive and persuasive nature of academic writing. This review article aims to sort out the research development of authorial stance to figure out the important factors in stance making, which has some academic reference value for future research on how EFL writers project themselves in academic writing.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdi, R. Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity[J]. Discourse Studies, 2002, 4(2): 139-145.

Abdollahzadeh, E. Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2011, 43(1): 288-297.

Basturkmen, H. A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in Dentistry and disciplinary variation[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2012, 11(2): 134-144.

Biber, D. Stance in spoken and written university registers[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2006, 5(2): 97-116.

Crosthwaite, P., & Jiang, K. Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A longitudinal learner corpus study[J]. System, 2017, 69: 92-107.

Çandarlı, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Martı, L. Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2015, 20: 192-202.

Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2010, 9(2): 128-139.

Harwood, N. “We do not seem to have a theory…the theory I present here attempts to fill this gap”: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing[J]. Applied Linguistics, 2005, (3): 343-375.

Hinkle, E. The use of modal verbs as a reflection of cultural values[J]. Tesol Quarterly, 1995, 29(2): 325-343.

Hinkle, E. Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1997, 27(3): 361-386.

Hinkle, E. Second Language Writers’s Text: Linguistic and Rhetorical Features[M]. Routledge, 2002.

Hu, G., & Cao, F. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2011, 43(11): 2795-2809.

Hu, G., & Cao, F. Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles[J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2015, 39: 12-25.

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

Hyland, K. Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2002, 34(8): 1091-1112.

Hyland, K. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing[M]. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Hyland, K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Writing in Interaction[M]. London: Continuum, 2005a.

Hyland, K. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse[J]. Discourse Studies, 2005b, 7(2): 173-192.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (Kevin). Change of Attitude? A Diachronic Study of Stance[J]. Written Communication, 2016, 33(3): 251-274.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (Kevin). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse[J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2018, 51: 18-30.

Hyland, K. & Tse, P. Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts[J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2005, 24(2): 0-139.

Ivanic, R. Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998.

Lancaster, Z. Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2016, 23: 16-30.

Li, T. , & Wharton, S. Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: a cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2012, 11(4): 345-356.

Lindeberg, A. Promotion and Politeness: Conflicting Scholarly Rhetoric in Three Disciplines[M]. Abo, Finland: Abo Akademi University Press, 2004.

Loi, C. K., & Lim, J. M. H. Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introduction[J]. Discourse Studies, 2013, 23(3): 280-302.

Pishghadam, R. & Kermanshahi, P. Writers’ stance-taking in EFL articles: A case of Persian, English and EFL speakers[J]. Iranian EFL Journal, 2012, 8(5): 9-22.

Salager-Meyer, F. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse[J]. English for Specific Purposes, 1994, 13(2): 149-170.

Vassileva, I. Who am I/who are we in academic writing?[J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1998, 8(2): 163-185.

Vassileva, I. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing[J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2001, 20(1): 83-102.

Vold, E. T. Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study[J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2006, 16 (1): 61-87.