1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
  4. Volume 22, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Stance and voice are two crucial elements of social interactions in academic writing. However, their conceptual constructs are elusive and their linguistic realisation is not fully explored. A relatively overlooked feature is the “noun + ” structure, where a stance head noun takes a nominal complement clause (as in ). This construction allows a writer to express authorial stance towards complement content and attribute a voice to that stance through pre-modification. This paper examines this construction in a corpus of 60 journal articles across six disciplines extracted from the BNC corpus. Developing an expressive classification of stance nouns and the possible voice categorisation, this study shows that the structure is not only widely used to project stance and voice, but that it displays considerable variation in the way that it is used to build knowledge across different disciplines.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.22.1.04jia
2017-07-21
2024-12-01

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.22.1.04jia
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aktas, R. N. , & Cortes, V.
    (2008) Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anthony, L.
    (2014) AntConc (Version 3.4.3w) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakhtin, M. M.
    (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bazerman, C.
    (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press Madison.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Becher, T. , & Trowler, P.
    (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D. , & Finegan, E.
    (1989) Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. , & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman Grammar of Written and Spoken English. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Burgess, A. , & Ivanič, R.
    (2010) Writing and being written: Issues of identity across timescales. Written Communication, 27(2), 228–255. doi: 10.1177/0741088310363447
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088310363447 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chafe, W. , & Nichols, J.
    (1986) Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Orwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Channell, J.
    (1994) Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Charles, M.
    (2006) The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 492–518. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml021
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml021 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2007) Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun “that” pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 203–218. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Coxhead, A.
    (2000) A new academic word list. Tesol Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. doi: 10.2307/3587951
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dryer, M. S.
    (1996) Focus, pragmatic presupposition, and activated propositions. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(4), 475–523. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00059‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00059-3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fløttum, K. , Dahl, T. , & Kinn, T.
    (2006) Academic Voices: Across Languages and Disciplines. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.148
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.148 [Google Scholar]
  16. Flowerdew, J.
    (2003) Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 329–346. doi: 10.1016/S0889‑4906(02)00017‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00017-0 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2010) Use of signalling nouns across L1 and L2 writer corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(1), 36–55. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.15.1.02flo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.1.02flo [Google Scholar]
  18. Francis, G.
    (1986) Anaphoric Nouns. Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gilbert, G. N. , & Mulkay, M.
    (1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics (pp.41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Guinda, C. S. , & Hyland, K.
    (2012) Introduction: A context-sensitive approach to stance and voice. In K. Hyland & C. Guinda , Sancho (Eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp.1–11). London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137030825.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825.0006 [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1993a) The analysis of scientific texts in English and Chinese. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power (pp.137–146). London: Falmer Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (1993b) The construction of knowledge and value in the grammar of scientific discourse: Charles Darwin’s The Origin of the Species . In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power (pp.95–116). London: Falmer Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Halliday, M. A. K. , & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Halliday, M. A. K. , & Martin, J. R.
    (1993) Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Halliday, M. A. K. , & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
    (2014) Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hinkel, E.
    (2004) Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical Techiniques in Vocabulary & Grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hudson, R.
    (2013) The struggle with voice in scientific writing. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(12), 1580–1580. doi: 10.1021/ed400243b
     https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400243b [Google Scholar]
  29. Hunston, S.
    (2000) Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp.176–207). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hyland, K.
    (2001) Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226. doi: 10.1016/S0889‑4906(00)00012‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2002) Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00035‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2004) Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. doi: 10.3998/mpub.6719
     https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.6719 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2005a) Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (2005b) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2008) Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction, 1(1), 5–22. doi: 10.1075/etc.1.1.03hyl
     https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.1.1.03hyl [Google Scholar]
  36. (2012) Disciplinary Identities: Individuality and Community in Academic Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hyland, K. , & Guinda, C. S.
    (2012) Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137030825
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hyland, K. , & Tse, P.
    (2005) Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12(1), 39–63. doi: 10.1075/fol.12.1.03hyl
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.12.1.03hyl [Google Scholar]
  39. Ivanič, R.
    (1991) Nouns in search of a context: A study of nouns with both open-and closed-system characteristics. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 29(2), 93–114. doi: 10.1515/iral.1991.29.2.93
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1991.29.2.93 [Google Scholar]
  40. (1998) Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/swll.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ivanič, R. , & Camps, D.
    (2001) I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1), 3–33. doi: 10.1016/S1060‑3743(01)00034‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00034-0 [Google Scholar]
  42. Jiang, K. F. , & Hyland, K.
    (2015) ‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529–550. doi: 10.1177/1461445615590719
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615590719 [Google Scholar]
  43. MAXQDAplus
    MAXQDAplus (2012) (Version 11) [Computer software]. Berlin: VERBI GmbH.
  44. Matsuda, P. K. , & Tardy, C. M.
    (2007) Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 235–249. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  45. McEnery, T. , & Hardie, A.
    (2011) Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511981395
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511981395 [Google Scholar]
  46. Nesi, H. , & Moreton, E.
    (2012) EFL/ESL writers and the use of shell nouns. In R. Tang (Ed.), Academic Writing in a Second or Foreign Language (pp.126–145). London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Parkinson, J.
    (2013) Representing own and other voices in social science research articles. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(2), 199–228. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.18.2.02par
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.2.02par [Google Scholar]
  48. Petrić, B.
    (2010) Students’ conceptions of voice in academic writing. In R. Lorés-Sanz , P. Mur-Dueñas & E. Lafuente-Millán (Eds.), Constructing Interpersonality: Multiple Perspectives on Written Academic Genres (pp.324–336). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Prelli, L. J.
    (1989) A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Ramanathan, V. , & Atkinson, D.
    (1999) Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45–75. doi: 10.1016/S1060‑3743(99)80112‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80112-X [Google Scholar]
  51. Schmid, H. -J.
    (2000) English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110808704
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sinclair, J. M.
    (1986) Fictional worlds. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Talking about Text (pp.43–60). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Swales, J. M.
    (2004) Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524827
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827 [Google Scholar]
  54. Tadros, A.
    (1993) The pragmatics of text averral and attribution in academic texts. In M. Hoey (Ed.), Data, Description, Discourse (pp.98–114). London: HarperCollins.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Tardy, C. M. , & Matsuda, P. K.
    (2009) The construction of author voice by editorial board members. Written Communication, 26(1), 32–52. doi: 10.1177/0741088308327269
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308327269 [Google Scholar]
  56. Thompson, G. , & Hunston, S.
    (2000) Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp.1–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Thompson, G. , & Ye, Y. Y.
    (1991) Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365–382. doi: 10.1093/applin/12.4.365
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/12.4.365 [Google Scholar]
  58. Winter, E. O.
    (1982) Towards a Contextual Grammar of English: The Clause and its Place in the Definition of Sentence. London: George Allen & Unwin.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.22.1.04jia
Loading
Stance and voice in academic writing
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22, 85 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.1.04jia
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.22.1.04jia
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.22.1.04jia
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): academic writing; argument; stance; voice; “noun + that” construction

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error