Exploring patterns of lexical variation in the use of epistemic stance markers in written L2 English across task types and levels of proficiency

References

1. Aijmer, K.
   (2011) Well I’m not sure I think… The use of well by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(2), 231–254. 10.1075/ijcl.16.2.04aij
   https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.2.04aij [Google Scholar]
2. Anthony, L.
   (2020) Antconc (3.5.9) [Computer software]. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
   [Google Scholar]
3. Aull, L., & Lancaster, Z.
   (2014) Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151–183. 10.1177/0741088314527055
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055 [Google Scholar]
4. Bartley, L., & Hidalgo-Tenorio, E.
   (2016) “Well, I think that my argument is…,” or modality in a learner corpus of English. Revista Espanola de Linguistica Aplicada, 29(1), 1–29. 10.1075/resla.29.1.01bar
   https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.29.1.01bar [Google Scholar]
5. Biber, D.
   (2006) Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116. 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar]
6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G. N., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
   (2021) Grammar of Spoken and Written English. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.232
   https://doi.org/10.1075/z.232 [Google Scholar]
7. Chen, Y. H., & Baker, P.
   (2016) Investigating criterial discourse features across second language development: Lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 849–880.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Council of Europe
   Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Council of Europe
   Council of Europe (2020) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment – Companion Volume. Council of Europe Publishing.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Crosthwaite, P., & Jiang, K.
    (2017) Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A longitudinal learner corpus study. System, 691, 92–107. 10.1016/j.system.2017.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.06.010 [Google Scholar]
11. Desagulier, G.
    (2020) Multivariate exploratory approaches. InM. Paquot & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp.435–469). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑46216‑1_19
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46216-1_19 [Google Scholar]
12. Deshors, S. C.
    (2017) Structuring subjectivity in Asian Englishes: Multivariate approaches to mental predicates across genres and functional uses. English Text Construction, 10(1), 132–164. 10.1075/etc.10.1.07des
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.10.1.07des [Google Scholar]
13. Fordyce, K.
    (2014) The differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on EFL learners’ use of epistemic stance. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 6–28. 10.1093/applin/ams076
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams076 [Google Scholar]
14. Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Boyd, E.
    (2017) Epistemic Stance in Spoken L2 English: The Effect of Task and Speaker Style. Applied Linguistics, 38(5), 613–637. 10.1093/applin/amv055
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv055 [Google Scholar]
15. Glynn, D.
    (2014) Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. InD. Glynn, J. A. Robinson, & T. Colleman (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.443–485). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.17gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.17gly [Google Scholar]
16. Gray, B., & Biber, D.
    (2014) Stance markers. InK. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp.219–248). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012 [Google Scholar]
17. Hasselgård, H.
    (2015) Lexicogrammatical features of adverbs in advanced learner English. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 166(1), 163–189. 10.1075/itl.166.1.05has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.166.1.05has [Google Scholar]
18. Hasselgren, A.
    (1994) Lexical Teddy Bears and advanced learners: A study into to the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 237–260. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.1994.tb00065.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1994.tb00065.x [Google Scholar]
19. Hinkel, E.
    (2009) The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(4), 667–683. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.029
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.029 [Google Scholar]
20. Hunston, S.
    (2007) Using a corpus to investigate stance quantitatively and qualitatively. InR. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp.27–48). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.03hun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.03hun [Google Scholar]
21. Hyland, K.
    (2005) Metadiscourse. Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Hyland, K., & Milton, J.
    (1997) Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183–205. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(97)90033‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3 [Google Scholar]
23. Kärkkäinen, E.
    (1992) Modality as a strategy in interaction: Epistemic modality in the language of native and non-native speakers of English. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 31, 197–216.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Kärkkäinen, E.
    (2003) Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of Its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.115
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115 [Google Scholar]
25. Kärkkäinen, E.
    (2006) Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text and Talk, 26(6), 699–731. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.029 [Google Scholar]
26. Larsson, T.
    (2017a) A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes, 481, 57–70. 10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001 [Google Scholar]
27. Larsson, T.
    (2017b) The importance of, it is important that or importantly?. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(1), 57–84. 10.1075/ijcl.22.1.03lar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.1.03lar [Google Scholar]
28. Larsson, T.
    (2019) Grammatical stance marking across registers. Register Studies, 1(2), 243–268.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Larsson, T., Egbert, J., & Biber, D.
    (2022) On the status of statistical reporting versus linguistic description in corpus linguistics: A ten-year perspective. Corpora, 17(1), 137–157. 10.3366/cor.2022.0238
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2022.0238 [Google Scholar]
30. Larsson, T., & Kaatari, H.
    (2019) Extraposition in learner and expert writing: Exploring (in)formality and the impact of register. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5(1), 33–62.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Larsson, T., Paquot, M., & Biber, D.
    (2021) On the importance of register in learner writing: A multi-dimensional approach. InE. Seoane & D. Biber (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to register variation (pp.235–258). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.103.09lar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.103.09lar [Google Scholar]
32. Levshina, N.
    (2015) How to do Linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
33. Finnish National Agency for Education
    Finnish National Agency for Education (2023) National Certificates for Language Proficiency (YKI). Oph.fi. www.oph.fi/en/national-certificates-language-proficiency-yki
    [Google Scholar]
34. Nenadić, O., & Greenacre, M.
    (2007) Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(3), 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Pérez-Paredes, P., & Bueno-Alastuey, M. C.
    (2019) A corpus-driven analysis of certainty stance adverbs: Obviously, really and actually in spoken native and learner English. Journal of Pragmatics, 1401, 22–32. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.016 [Google Scholar]
36. Pérez-Paredes, P., & Díez-Bedmar, M. B.
    (2019) Certainty adverbs in spoken learner language: The role of tasks and proficiency. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5(2), 257–279. 10.1075/ijlcr.17019.per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.17019.per [Google Scholar]
37. Pyykönen, M.
    (2023) Epistemic stance in written L2 English: The role of task type, L2 proficiency, and authorial style. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 3(1), 100040. 10.1016/j.acorp.2022.100040
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2022.100040 [Google Scholar]
38. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org
    [Google Scholar]
39. Rizomilioti, V.
    (2006) Exploring epistemic modality in academic discourse using corpora. InE. A. Macià, A. S. Cervera, & C. R. Rueda (Eds.), Information technology in Languages for Specific Purposes. Issues and prospects (pp.53–71). 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑28624‑2_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-28624-2_4 [Google Scholar]
40. Salsbury, T., & Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    (2000) Oppositional talk and the acquisition of modality in L2 English. InB. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and Cognitive Factors in Second Language Acquisition: Selected Proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum (pp.57–76). Cascadilla.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M.
    (2008) Tasks in Second Language Learning. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230596429
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230596429 [Google Scholar]
42. Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & McClair, A.
    (2013) Formulaic sequences and EAP writing development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(3), 214–225. 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.05.002 [Google Scholar]
43. Thompson, G., & Hunston, S.
    (2001) Evaluation: An introduction. InS. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.1–27). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Wisniewski, K.
    (2017) Empirical learner language and the levels of the Common European Framework of Reference. Language Learning, 67(S1), 232–253. 10.1111/lang.12223
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12223 [Google Scholar]
45. Yoon, H.-J.
    (2017) Textual voice elements and voice strength in EFL argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 321, 72–84. 10.1016/j.asw.2017.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.02.002 [Google Scholar]
46. Yoon, H.-J.
    (2020) Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: Effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse. Reading and Writing, 341, 705–725. 10.1007/s11145‑020‑10085‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10085-7 [Google Scholar]
47. Zhang, G. Q., & Sabet, P. G. P.
    (2016) Elastic “I think”: Stretching over L1 and L2. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 334–353. 10.1093/applin/amu020
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu020 [Google Scholar]