Expressing an authorial stance in research articles: metadiscursive strategies for establishing interpersonal relations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2019.203Abstract
This article focuses on the means for expressing an authorial stance in academic discourse. Specifically, twenty Russian language-based research articles from Kazakhstan journals are analyzed to reveal the most frequent ways of taking an authorial stance. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses are used to highlight patterns of authorial positioning. The results suggest that the most typical ways of showing such a stance are evaluation, certainty, and uncertainty. Uncertainty markers are found to be the most pervasive, whereas the least frequent of the three are certainty devices. These findings show that authors tend to express a cautious stance to propositions and addressees, more than a categorical voice. Uncertainty meanings include possibility and evidentiality of propositions, whereas certainty is mainly represented by evidence-based and commonly accepted knowledge devices that provide credibility for re- search. Evaluation features the meanings of importance and necessity, which characterize the authors as researchers seeking problematic issues to investigate. Moreover, the cognitive and positive attitude to the propositional content and readers prevails over emotional and negative evaluations. The use of the identified metadiscourse markers is a powerful rhetorical strategy for highlighting the authorial stance and enhancing credibility and validity of the research. We hope our findings will assist novice writers to understand how metadiscourse markers can help them achieve greater visibility in the text to emphasize their contribution.
Keywords:
research article, authorial stance, metadiscourse, evaluation
Downloads
References
Литература
Арутюнова 1988 — Арутюнова Н. Д. Типы языковых значений: Оценка. Событие. Факт. М.: Наука, 1988. 341 с.
Баженова 2001 — Баженова Е. А. Научный текст в аспекте политекстуальности. Пермь: Изд-во Пермского университета, 2001. 269 с.
Бахтин 1979 — Бахтин М. М. Эстетика словесного творчества. М.: Искусство, 1979. 423 с.
Беляева, Чернявская 2016 — Беляева Л. Н., Чернявская В. Е. Доказательная лингвистика: метод в когнитивной парадигме.Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики.2016, 3: 77–84. https://doi.org/10.20916/1812-3228-2016-3-7
Вольф 1985 — Вольф Е. М. Функциональная семантика оценки. М.: Наука, 1985. 280 с.
Молодыченко 2015 — Молодыченко Е. Н. Аксиология дискурса консьюмеризма: о роли языковой оценки в жанре лайфстайл. Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2015, 6 (38): 55–66. https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645-38-5 .
Нефедов 2017 — Нефедов С. Т. Реcтриктивная аргументация: модальные слова сомнения и общезначимости (на материале немецкоязычных лингвистических статей). Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Язык и литература. 2017, 14 (4): 599–610.
Чернявская 2016 — Чернявская В. Е. Прошлое как текстовая реальность: методологические возможности лингвистического анализа исторического нарратива. Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2016, 3: 76–87. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/41/7.
Чернявская 2017 — Чернявская В. Е. Методологические возможности дискурсивного анализа в корпусной лингвистике. Вестник Томского государственного университета. 2017, 50: 135–148. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/50/9.
Чернявская 2018 — Чернявская В. Е. Дискурсивный анализ и корпусные методы: необходимое доказательное звено? Объяснительные возможности качественного и количественного подходов. Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. 2018, 2: 31–37. DOI: 10.20916/1812-3228-2018-2-31-37.
Adel 2006 — Adel A. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2006. 243 p.
Ahmad 1997 — Ahmad U. K. Research article introductions in Malay: rhetoric in an emerging research community. In: Culture and styles of academic discourse. Duszak A. (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997. P. 272–303.
Chan, Schleppegrell 2011 — Chan P., Schleppegrell M. Taking an effective stance in academic writing: making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2011, 10: 140–151.
Conrad, Biber 2000 — Conrad S., Biber D. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In: Evaluation in text. Hunston S., Thompson G. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. P. 57–73.
Crismore, Markkanen, Steffensen 1993 — Crismore A., Markkanen R., Steffensen M. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication. 1993, 10: 39–71.
Crosthwaite, Cheung, Jiang 2017 — Crosthwaite P., Cheung L., Jiang F. Writing with attitude: stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes. 2017, 46: 107–123.
Gray, Biber 2012 — Gray B., Biber D. Current conceptions of stance. In: Stance and voice in written genres. Hyland K., Guinda C. S. (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. P. 15–33.
Halliday 2004 — Halliday M. A. K. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder Arnold, 2004. 689 p.
Hood 2006 — Hood S. The persuasive power of prosodies: radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2006, 5: 37–49.
Hood 2010 — Hood S. Appraising Research: evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 225 p.
Hunston, Thompson 2000 — Hunston S., Thompson G. Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 225 p.
Hu, Cao 2015 — Hu G., Cao F. Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes. 2015, 39: 12–25.
Hyland 1998 — Hyland K. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text. 1998, 18 (3): 349–382.
Hyland 1999 — Hyland K. Disciplinary discourse: writer stance in research articles. In: Writing: texts, processes and practices. Candlin C. N., Hyland K. (eds.). London: Longman, 1999. P. 99–121.
Hyland 2002 — Hyland K. Directives: argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics. 2002, 23 (2): 215–239.
Hyland 2005 — Hyland K. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies. 2005, 7 (2): 173–192.
Hyland, Guinda 2012 — Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K., Guinda C. S. (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. 263 p.
Hyland, Jiang 2016 — Hyland K., Jiang F. Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication. 2016, 33: 251–274.
Hyland, Tse 2004 — Hyland K., Tse P. Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics. 2004, 25 (2): 156–177.
Kim, Lim 2013 — Kim L. Ch., Lim J. M.-H. Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies. 2013, 15 (2): 129–146.
Koutsantoni 2004 — Koutsantoni D. Attitude, certainty and allusions to common knowledge in scientific research articles. English for Academic Purposes. 2004, 3: 163–182.
Koutsantoni 2006 — Koutsantoni D. Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: advanced academic literacy and relations of power. English for Academic Purposes. 2006, 5: 19–36.
Lewin 2005 — Lewin B. A. Hedging: an exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts. English for Academic Purposes. 2005, 4: 163–178.
Martin, White 2005 — Martin J. R., White P. R. R. The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 278 p.
Myers 1989 — Myers G. The Pragmatics of Politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics. 1989, 10 (1): 1–35.
Tardy 2012 — Tardy Ch. M. Current conceptions of voice. In: Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K., Guinda C. S. (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. P. 34–48.
Thompson 2012 — Thompson P. Achieving a voice of authority in PhD theses. In: Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K., Guinda C. S. (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. P. 119–133.
Tse 2012 — Tse P. Stance in academic bios. In: Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K., Guinda C. S. (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. P. 69–84.
Vander Kopple 1985 — Vande Kopple W. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College composition and Communication. 1985, 36: 82–93.
References
Арутюнова 1988 — Arutiunova N. D. The types of linguistic meanings: Evaluation. Event. Fact. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1988. 341 p. (In Russian).
Баженова 2001 — Bazhenova E. A. A professional academic text in the aspect of multitextuality. Perm: Perm State University Press, 2001. 269 p. (In Russian)
Бахтин 1979 — Bakhtin M. M. The esthetics of speech creativity. Moscow: Iskusstvo Publ., 1979. 423 p. (In Russian)
Беляева, Чернявская 2016 — Beliaeva L. N., Cherniavskaia V. E. Evidence-based linguistics: methods in cognitive paradigm. Voprosy kognitivnoi lingvistiki. 2016, 3: 77–84. DOI: 10.20916/1812-3228-2016-3-7. (In Russian)
Вольф 1985 — Vol’f E. M. The functional semantics of evaluation. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1985. 280 p. (In Russian)
Молодыченко 2015 — Molodychenko E. N. Axiological Dimension in the Discourse of Consumerism: the Role of Evaluative Language in the lifestyle genre. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiia. 2015, 6 (38): 55–66. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/38/5. (In Russian)
Нефедов 2017 — Nefedov S. T. Restrictive argumentation: modal words of doubt and shared knowledge in academic linguistic writings. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Iazyk i literatura. 2017, 14 (4): 599–610. (In Russian)
Чернявская 2016 — Cherniavskaia V. E. Historical Past as a Textual Reality: a linguistic approach in historical narrative and its methodological implementation. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiia. 2016, 3: 76–87. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/41/7. (In Russian)
Чернявская 2017 — Cherniavskaia V. E. Towards methodological application of Discourse Analysis in Corpus-driven Linguistics. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiia. 2017, 50: 135–148. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/50/9. (In Russian)
Чернявская 2018 — Cherniavskaia V. E. Discourse analysis and corpus approaches: a missing evidencebased link? Towards qualitative and quantitative approaches. Voprosy kognitivnoi lingvistiki. 2018, 2: 31–37. DOI: 10.20916/1812-3228-2018-2-31-37. (In Russian)
Adel 2006 — Adel A. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2006. 243 p.
Ahmad 1997 — Ahmad U. K. Research article introductions in Malay: rhetoric in an emerging research community. In: Culture and styles of academic discourse. Duszak A. (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997. P. 272–303.
Chan, Schleppegrell 2011 — Chan P., Schleppegrell M. Taking an effective stance in academic writing: making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2011, 10: 140–151.
Conrad, Biber 2000 — Conrad S., Biber D. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In: Evaluation in text. Hunston S., Thompson G. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. P. 57–73.
Crismore, Markkanen, Steffensen 1993 — Crismore A., Markkanen R., Steffensen M. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication. 1993, 10: 39–71.
Crosthwaite, Cheung, Jiang 2017 — Crosthwaite P., Cheung L., Jiang F. Writing with attitude: stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes. 2017, 46: 107–123.
Gray, Biber 2012 — Gray B., Biber D. Current conceptions of stance. In: Stance and voice in written genres. Hyland K., Guinda C. S. (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. P. 15–33.
Halliday 2004 — Halliday M. A. K. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder Arnold, 2004. 689 p.
Hood 2006 — Hood S. The persuasive power of prosodies: radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2006, 5: 37–49.
Hood 2010 — Hood S. Appraising Research: evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 225 p.
Hunston, Thompson 2000 — Hunston S., Thompson G. Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 225 p.
Hu, Cao 2015 — Hu G., Cao F. Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes. 2015, 39: 12–25.
Hyland 1998 — Hyland K. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text. 1998, 18 (3): 349–382.
Hyland 1999 — Hyland K. Disciplinary discourse: writer stance in research articles. In: Writing: texts, processes and practices. Candlin C. N., Hyland K. (eds.). London: Longman, 1999. P. 99–121.
Hyland 2002 — Hyland K. Directives: argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics. 2002, 23 (2): 215–239.
Hyland 2005 — Hyland K. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies. 2005, 7 (2): 173–192.
Hyland, Guinda 2012 — Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K., Guinda C. S. (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. 263 p.
Hyland, Jiang 2016 — Hyland K., Jiang F. Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication. 2016, 33: 251–274.
Hyland, Tse 2004 — Hyland K., Tse P. Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics. 2004, 25 (2): 156–177.
Kim, Lim 2013 — Kim L. Ch., Lim J. M.-H. Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies. 2013, 15 (2): 129–146.
Koutsantoni 2004 — Koutsantoni D. Attitude, certainty and allusions to common knowledge in scientific research articles. English for Academic Purposes. 2004, 3: 163–182.
Koutsantoni 2006 — Koutsantoni D. Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: advanced academic literacy and relations of power. English for Academic Purposes. 2006, 5: 19–36.
Lewin 2005 — Lewin B. A. Hedging: an exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts. English for Academic Purposes. 2005, 4: 163–178.
Martin, White 2005 — Martin J. R., White P. R. R. The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 278 p.
Myers 1989 — Myers G. The Pragmatics of Politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics. 1989, 10 (1): 1–35.
Tardy 2012 — Tardy Ch. M. Current conceptions of voice. In: Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K., Guinda C. S. (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. P. 34–48.
Thompson 2012 — Thompson P. Achieving a voice of authority in PhD theses. In: Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K., Guinda C. S. (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. P. 119–133.
Tse 2012 — Tse P. Stance in academic bios. In: Stance and voice in written academic genres. Hyland K., Guinda C. S. (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. P. 69–84.
Vander Kopple 1985 — Vande Kopple W. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College composition and Communication. 1985, 36: 82–93.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Language and Literature" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.
