Native and Non-Native Writers’ Use of Stance Adverbs in English Research Article Abstracts

Çakır, Hamide

doi:10.4236/ojml.2016.62008

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As shown in Table 1, the sub-corpus of Turkish L1 (Tcorp) writers had 71,581 words, the English L2 (TEcorp) texts had 122,161 words and the English L1 (Ecorp) texts had 102,361 words, making a total corpus of nearly 300,000 words. Considering the fact that since the emergence of the concept of genre there have been many studies (Akbas, 2012;Bruce, 2014;Cakir, 2016;Hu & Cao, 2015;Gillmore & Millar, 2018;Kafes, 2017;Karahan, 2013;Martı n, 2003;Samraj, 2002;Tanko, 2017;Tessuto, 2015) which have looked at the rhetorical organizations of scientiic writing in general or have focused on particular sections of genres (such as research article abstracts, introductions and results), there has been relatively less attention given to the exploration of the nature of discussion sections (Akbas, 2014a;Akbas & Hardman, 2017;Basturkmen, 2009;Hopkins & Dudley-Evans, 1998;Samraj, 2013) in dissertation/thesis writing. For this reason, only discussion sections were chosen to be examined in the present study.…”

Section: Corpus Of the Study And The Research Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening or Weakening Claims in Academic Knowledge Construction: A Comparative Study of Hedges and Boosters in Postgraduate Academic Writing

Akbaş¹,

Hardman²

2018

EDUC SCI-THEOR PRACT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From a cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspective, this paper reports on the indings of an exploratory study examining the features of the academic texts produced by three groups of postgraduates: native speakers of Turkish (TL1), English (EL1) and Turkish speakers of English (EL2). To this end, the study involves a microdiscourse analysis of a corpus of ninety discussion sections of dissertations to identify and classify the choices made by the authors for expressing commitment/detachment in presenting knowledge claims. The results indicated interesting similarities and differences across the groups in the ways in which writers qualiied their level of commitment to a higher level and detachment from the claims in their writing. In other words, this can be described as a cline from the highest to the lowest, even intentionally withholding their commitment. By looking at the hedging and boosting devices contributing to the interactive side of academic writing, the discourse constructed by Turkish L1 writers appeared to be slightly less interpersonal but highly authoritative overall. In contrast, the results suggested that the Turkish writers of English were similar to their English L1 counterparts in terms of building a signiicantly more cautious strategy for presenting knowledge claims and making use of relatively fewer boosting devices when presenting their claims. It is hoped that the implications of the indings can be useful for teaching of academic writing to postgraduates within the contexts of the study.

show abstract

Section: Corpus Of the Study And The Research Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening or Weakening Claims in Academic Knowledge Construction: A Comparative Study of Hedges and Boosters in Postgraduate Academic Writing

Akbaş¹,

Hardman²

2018

EDUC SCI-THEOR PRACT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it has been universally accepted, that communicating new knowledge in a genre (e.g., of the research article) meets the requirements of a disciplinary discourse and its readership is a complex task. This can be possibly achieved through the use of modality, first-person pronouns and attribution (Myers, 1989), or stance adverbs (Biber, 1988;Çakır, 2016). Other authors concentrate more on the persuasive function of metadiscourse (Mauranen, 1993;Hyland, 1998 and2005, p. 63-71;Hyland, 2017), analyzing the use of metadiscourse markers for rendering propositional meaning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Hedging in Research Articles on Applied Linguistics

Livytska¹

2019

Journal of Language and Cultural Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is devoted to the analysis of the use of hedging in a corpus of articles from applied linguistics, and in this sense, it is complementary to the previous research of academic persuasion in research articles (Hinkel, 1997; Hyland, 1996, 2004). This study examined the types and frequency of hedges employed by the authors of academic research articles (RAs) in the field of applied linguistics. A corpus consists of 20 research articles, randomly selected from the Open Access Journals on Educational linguistics (5 RAs), Psycholinguistics (5 RAs), Sociolinguistics (5 RAs) and Pragmatics (5 RAs) The data were manually coded according to Hyland’s taxonomy of hedges and hedging devices (Hyland, 1996) and then formatted to calculate the frequency and type of hedges in RAs on Applied Linguistics. Results of the study indicate that reader-oriented hedges constitute the main pragmatic type of hedges in RAs in the field of applied linguistics, recognizing the need for reader’s ratification of the author’s claims and politeness conventions of academic discourse per se. Combination of qualitative and quantitative methods applied to computer readable data proved that hedges in RAs on Applied Linguistics are topic dependent, showing differences in typology, frequency and distribution even within one discipline.

show abstract

“…Biber (2006), therefore, examines stance from a lexical-grammatical approach which focuses on three categories of evaluative language: modal and semi-modal verbs, stance adverbs, and complement clauses controlled by stance verbs, adjectives, or nouns. This classification is more comprehensive and specific in identifying stance features and has been adopted in several studies on stance in academic writing (Chan, 2015;Çakir, 2016).…”

Section: Stance In Academic Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A corpus-based study on Chinese and American students' rhetorical moves and stance features in dissertation abstracts

Liu

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dissertation is the most important research genre for graduate students as they step into the academic community. The abstract found at the beginning of the dissertation is an essential part of the dissertation, serving to “sell” the study and impress the readers. Learning to compose a well-organized abstract to promote one's research is therefore an important skill for novice writers when they step into the academic community in their discipline. By comparing 112 dissertation abstracts in material science by Chinese and American doctoral students, this study attempts to analyze not only the rhetorical moves of dissertation abstracts but also the lexical-grammatical features of stance in different abstract moves. The findings show that most of the abstracts include five moves, namely, Situating the research, Presenting the research, Describing the methodology, Summarizing the findings, and Discussing the research. However, fewer abstracts by Chinese students include all five moves. In addition, the choices of stance expressions by the two groups vary across the five abstract moves for different communication purposes. The results of this study have pedagogical implications for facilitating the development of academic writing skills for L2 writers.

show abstract

Native and Non-Native Writers’ Use of Stance Adverbs in English Research Article Abstracts

Cited by 14 publications

References 52 publications

Strengthening or Weakening Claims in Academic Knowledge Construction: A Comparative Study of Hedges and Boosters in Postgraduate Academic Writing

Strengthening or Weakening Claims in Academic Knowledge Construction: A Comparative Study of Hedges and Boosters in Postgraduate Academic Writing

The Use of Hedging in Research Articles on Applied Linguistics

A corpus-based study on Chinese and American students' rhetorical moves and stance features in dissertation abstracts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About