Stance in CELiST: A vindication of text - reading

  1. Isabel Moskowich
  2. Begoña Crespo
Journal:
Language Value

ISSN: 1989-7103

Year of publication: 2023

Volume: 16

Volume: 1

Pages: 1-22

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Language Value

Abstract

Stance in academic writing has been discussed extensively within the fields of discourse analysis andpragmatics (Alonso-Almeida, 2015; Hyland,2005; White, 2003). Thus, Hyland and Jiang (2016) identify certain linguistic elements that are said to be indexical of stance: hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mentions. While that model aims at a macroscopic analysis, the present study is a microscopic one, and compares two scientific texts written by a male and a female author to detect possible differences in the way that these authors present themselves or give their opinions in their writings. To this end, we have sought to apply Hyland and Jiang’s (2016) three-aspects modelbutusing Cesiri’s inventory (2012) as a starting point. We have applied this adapted model to two samples from the Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts (CELiST), one of the subcorpus of the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing. Both texts belong to the same genre, are dated at an almost identical time, and deal with similar subjects. The only difference is that one was written by a woman, Emily Gregory, and theother by a man, Alpheus Packard. Although these texts are part of an electronic corpus, on this occasion we will avoid the automatic analytical techniques of corpus linguistics asfaras possible. Rather, we will conduct a microscopic-level study by means of close reading, although some quantification of data will precede the qualitative analysis where this is useful. It is hoped that the qualitative focus presented in theanalysis might open up new paths in the study of stance.

Bibliographic References

  • Ädel, A. (2022). Writer and reader visibility in humanities research articles: Variationacross language, regional variety and discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 65,49-62.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.09.001
  • Ağçam, R. (2015). Author stance in doctoral dissertations of native and non-native speakers of English: A corpus-based studyon epistemic adverbs. Revista De Lenguas Para Fines Específicos, 21(2), 98-113.
  • Alonso Ameida, F. (2015). Introduction to stance language.Research in Corpus Linguistics,3,1-5.
  • Alonso-Almeida, F. (2017). Stancetaking in late modern English sicentific writing. Evidence from the Coruña corpus. Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València.
  • Álvarez-Gil, F. J. (2022). Stancedevices in tourism-related research articles: A corpus-based study. Peter Lang.https://doi.org/10.3726/b20000
  • Besnier, N. (1990). Language and affect. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19,419-451.
  • Cesiri, D. (2012).Investigating the development of ESP through historical corpora: the case of archaeology articles written in English during the Late Modern period (and beyond?). In J. Tyrkkö, M. Kilpiö, T. Nevalainen, M. Rissanen (Eds.),Outposts of Historical Corpus Linguistics:From the Helsinki Corpus to a Proliferation of Resources. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English,10, 1-21.
  • 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.
  • Crespo,B. (2021). Linguistic indicators of persuasion in female authors in the Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts.InI. Moskowich; I. Lareo& G. Camiña Rioboó (Eds.), "All families and genera": Exploring the Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts(pp. 148-167).John Benjamins.
  • Crosthwaite, P., Ningrum, S.,&Schweinberger, M. (2022). Research Trends in Corpus Linguistics: A Bibliometric Analysis of Two Decades of Scopus-Indexed Corpus Linguistics Research in Arts and Humanities. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21072.cro
  • Feng,J. (2020). Stance-taking in English and Chinese research article abstracts: A comparative study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 48,100878.
  • Grabe, W. (1984). Towards defining expository prose within a theory of text construction(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. In J. Webster (Ed.), Collected works of M. A. K. Halliday(Vol. 5). Continuum.
  • Hunston, S.,& Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text. OxfordUniversity Press.
  • Hyland, K.,& Jiang, F. (2016). Change of Attitude? A Diachronic Study of Stance. Written Communication, 33(3),251-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399
  • Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.
  • Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3)349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
  • Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. WritingTexts: Processes and Practices(pp.99-121).Routledge.
  • Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interactionin academic discourse. Discourse Studies,7(2),173-191.https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
  • Labov, W. (1984). Intensity. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications(pp. 43-70). Georgetown University Press.
  • Lakoff, R. T. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language in our lives. BasicBooks.
  • Martin,J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.),Evaluation in text(pp. 142-175). Oxford University Press.
  • Mele Marrero, M. (2011). Self-mentioning: Authority, authorship or self-promotion in 17thcenturyprefaces to manuals on obstetrics?Revista De Lenguas Para Fines Específicos, 17, 147-166.
  • Moskowich,I.,&Crespo, B. (2014). Stance is present in scientific writing, indeed. Evidence from the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing.Token: A Journal of English Linguistics, 3,91-114.
  • Moskowich,I.(2020). PersonalPronounsinCHETandCECheT:AuthorialpresenceandotherNuancesRevealed. StudiesaboutLanguages, 37,56-73.
  • Moskowich,I.,&Crespo, B.(forthcoming). “... but be sure you let it settle”: late Modern authors’ presence in English scientific texts.
  • Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text, 9,7-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
  • Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press.
  • Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G.,& Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
  • Rissanen, M. (1989). Three problems connected with the use of diachronic corpora. ICAME Journal, 13,16-19.https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2018-0002
  • White, P. (2003).‘Beyond Modality and Hedging: A Dialogic View of the Language of Intersubjective Stance’.Text,23(2),2594–2598. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.011
  • Yang, C. H. (2019). Stance andacademic writing in the disciplines: A comparative study of biology and history. English for Specific Purposes, 55, 95-108.
Data source: Dialnet