Stance markers in forestry research articles: Indicators of authoritative voice
Vol.17,No.1(2024)
Discourse and Interaction 1 2024
Zahra Nasirizadeh
Shamala Paramasivam
Stance markers, serving as the primary discursive category of interactional metadiscourse, function as a reliable measure for evaluating how authors of research articles authoritatively foreground their research within disciplinary communities. Stance research primarily focuses on how authors or speakers adjust the certainty level of their assertions, both epistemically and emotionally. This study examined the occurrences of stance markers in each rhetorical move within the Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion sections of forestry research articles. The corpus comprised 40 research articles randomly selected from five ISI journals in the forestry discipline. This study utilized Hyland’s (2005) model of academic interactions and Kanoksilapatham’s (2005) framework as analytical tools for identifying stance markers and the rhetorical structure of forestry research articles. The findings revealed differences in the distribution of these markers across the different sections and constituent rhetorical moves within the research articles. Overall, hedges and self-mentions emerged as the most prevalent stance markers in this study. Across sections, attitude markers and hedges predominated in the Introductions, while self-mentions and hedges were pervasively applied in the Methods sections. Boosters and attitude markers were common in the Results, and boosters along with self- mentions were notable in the Discussions. Finally, stance markers appear to play a fundamental role in shaping distinct argumentations across discourse communities, while effectively reflecting disciplinary voices.
metadiscourse; stance markers; research article; forestry
Zahra Nasirizadeh
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Zahra Nasirizadeh was born in Iran. She received her BA in English Literature and MA in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) in Iran. She started her PhD (English Studies) at Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). Her dissertation concerns English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and the genre of the research article.
Address: Zahra Nasirizadeh, Department of English, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Persiaran Universiti 1, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. [zara.upm@gmail.com]
Shamala Paramasivam
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Shamala Paramasivam (Corresponding author) is Associate Professor at the Department of English, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). Her specialisation lies in discourse analysis, English for Specific Purposes, technology and learning, language and culture, and TESOL. She actively researches and publishes in international journals on issues in educational and professional domains. She serves on the university’s board for research ethics.
Address: Shamala Paramasivan, Department of English, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Persiaran Universiti 1, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. [shamala@upm.edu.my]
Anthony, L. (2013) ‘A critical look at software tools in corpus linguistics.’ Linguistic Research 30(2), 141-161.
Azar, A. S., Hassaram, P., Mohd Farook, F. I. and Romli, N. H. (2022) ‘A comparative analysis of stance features in research article introductions: Malaysian and English authors.’ GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 22(2), 261-287. http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2202-14
Bahrami, L., Dowlatabadi, H. R., Yazdani, H. and Amerian, M. (2018) ‘Authorial stance in academic writing: Issues and implications for research in English language teaching.’ International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies 6(2), 69-80.
Bazerman, C. (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Biber, D. (2006) ‘Stance in spoken and written university registers.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(2), 97-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
Boginskaya, O. (2022) ‘Metadiscourse patterns in academic prose by non-native English writers: A cross-disciplinary perspective.’ Discourse and Interaction 15(2), 5-27. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2022-2-5
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. and Steffensen, M. S. (1993) ‘Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students.’ Written Communication 10, 39-71.
Englander, K. (2006) ‘Revision of scientific manuscripts by non-native English-speaking scientists in response to journal editors’ language critiques.’ Journal of Applied Linguistics 3(2), 129.
Estaji, M. and Vafaeimehr, R. (2015) ‘A comparative analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in the introduction and conclusion sections of mechanical and electrical engineering research papers.’ Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 3(1), 37-56.
Fleming, D. (1967) Attitude: The History of a Concept. Charles Warren Center for Studies in American History.
Flowerdew, J. (2001) ‘Attitudes of journal editors to non-native speaker contributions.’ TESOL Quarterly 35(1), 121-150. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587862
Ghahremani Mina, K. and Biria, R. (2017) ‘Exploring interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in discussion sections of social and medical science articles.’ International Journal of Research in English Education 2(4), 11-29. https://doi.org/10.29252/ijree.2.4.11
Habibie, P. and Hyland, K. (2019) Novice Writers and Scholarly Publication: Authors, Mentors, Gatekeepers. United Kingdom: Palgrave.
Harwood, N. (2005) ‘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.’ Applied Linguistics 26(3), 343-375. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami012
Horgan, J. (2015) Study reveals amazing surge in scientific hype. Scientific American. Online document. Retrieved 15 November, 2023 from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/study-reveals-amazing-surge-in-scientific-hype/
Hu, G. and Cao, F. (2015) ‘Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles.’ English for Specific Purposes 39, 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.002
Hyland, K. (1998) ‘Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge.’ Text-interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 18(3), 349-382.
Hyland, K. (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2012) ‘Individuality or conformity? Identity in personal and university academic homepages.’ Computers and Composition 29(4), 309-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.10.002
Hyland, K. (2023) ‘Academic publishing and the attention economy.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 64, 101253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101253
Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. K. (2017) ‘Is academic writing becoming more informal?’ English for Specific Purposes 45, 40-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001
Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. K. (2018) ‘In this paper we suggest: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse.’ English for Specific Purposes 51, 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001
Hyland, K. and Jiang, K. F. (2021) ‘Our striking results demonstrate …: Persuasion and the growth of academic hype.’ Journal of Pragmatics 182, 189-202.
Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. (2023) ‘Hyping the REF: Promotional elements in impact submissions.’ Higher Education 87(3), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01030-y
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2004) ‘Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal.’ Applied Linguistics 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Jiang, F. and Hyland, K. (2015) ‘‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing.’ Discourse Studies 17(5), 529-550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615590719
Johnson, R., Watkinson, A. and Mabe, M. (2018) The STM Report: An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Publishing. 5th ed. Netherlands: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005) ‘Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles.’ English for Specific Purposes 24(3), 269-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003
Khedri, M. (2014) A Cross-disciplinary Exploration of Metadiscourse in Experimental Research Articles. PhD thesis. Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Khedri, M. and Kritsis, K. (2018) ‘Metadiscourse in applied linguistics and chemistry research article introductions.’ Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics 9(2), 47-73. https://doi.org/10.22055/RALS.2018.13793
Khedri, M., Chan, S. H. and Helen, T. (2015) ‘Interpersonal-driven features in research article abstracts: Cross-disciplinary metadiscoursal perspective.’ Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities 23(2), 303-314.
Kuo, C.-H. (1999) ‘The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles.’ English for Specific Purposes 18(2), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00058-6
Kwan, B. S. (2017) ‘A cross-paradigm macro-structure analysis of research articles in Information Systems.’ English for Specific Purposes 45, 14-30.
Martín, P. and Pérez, I. K. L. (2014) ‘Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts.’ English for Specific Purposes 34, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.09.002
Mei, H. C., Tan, H., Imm, L. G. and Danarajan, S. S. V. (2020) ‘Texts with metadiscourse features are more engaging: A fact or a myth?’ 3L: Language, Linguistics and Literature. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 26(4), 58-73.
Muangsamai, P. (2018) ‘Analysis of moves, rhetorical patterns and linguistic features in New Scientist articles.’ Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 39(2), 236-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2018.03.006
Nasirizadeh, Z., Paramasivam, S., Nimehchisalem, V. and Omar, N. (2022) ‘Rhetorical structures and cyclical patterns in forestry research articles.’ GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 22(2), 288-311.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2015) Persuasion: Theory and Research. Los Angeles and London: Sage Publications.
Pho, P. (2013) Authorial Stance in Research Articles: Examples from Applied Linguistics and Educational Technology. United Kingdom: Palgrave.
Poole, R., Gnann, A. and Hahn-Powell, G. (2019) ‘Epistemic stance and the construction of knowledge in science writing: A diachronic corpus study.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 42, 100784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100784
Ryan, A. B. (2006) ‘Post-positivist approaches to research.’ In: Antonesa, M., Fallon, H., Ryan, A. B., Ryan, A., Walsh, T. and Borys, L. (eds) Researching and Writing Your Thesis: A Guide for Postgraduate Students. 12-28. Maynooth, Ireland: MACE, National University of Ireland.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994) ‘Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse.’ English for Specific Purposes 13(2), 149-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2
Scott, S. L. and Jones, C. W. (2017) ‘Superlative scientific writing.’ ACS Catalysis 7(3), 2218-2219. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.7b00566
Soylu, M., Soylu, A. and Das, R. (2023) ‘A new approach to recognizing the use of attitude markers by authors of academic journal articles.’ Expert Systems with Applications, 120538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120538
Swales, J. M. (1990) Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004) Research Genres: Exploration and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vande-Kopple, W. J. V. (1985) ‘Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse.’ College Composition and Communication 36(1), 82-93.
Wheatley, D. (2014) ‘Drama in research papers.’ European Science Editing 40(1), 14.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2024 Zahra, Shamala Paramasivam