1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Register Studies
  4. Volume 1, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

There are sets of grammatical stance markers that are morphologically and semantically related, but that differ with regard to their syntactic realization (e.g., , and ). Little attention has, however, been paid to how these pattern across registers. This study examines eleven such sets across five registers in apprentice and expert production to investigate which register(s) the apprentice writers’ use is closest to and what that can tell us about their adherence to academic norms. The results show that there is a cline from the more formal registers to the less formal registers for the stance markers investigated. When the apprentice writers’ usage was mapped onto this cline, it became clear that their usage diverged slightly from that of the academic experts, thus indicating a lack of register awareness. Yet, very little evidence was found to support previous claims of the ‘spoken-like’ nature of learner writing.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.18009.lar
2019-09-25
2023-09-27

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rs.18009.lar
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/rs.18009.lar.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/rs.18009.lar&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ädel, A.
    (2006) Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.24
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2008) Involvement features in writing: Do time and interaction trump register awareness?In G. Gilquin , S. Papp , & M. B. Díez-Bedmar (Eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research (pp.35–53). Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401206204_003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401206204_003 [Google Scholar]
  3. Altenberg, B. , & Tapper, M.
    (1998) The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp.80–93). London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, H.
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  5. British Academic Written English (BAWE)
    British Academic Written English (BAWE). Corpus compiled at the Universities of Warwick, Reading and Oxford Brookes in 2004–2007 www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/research/collect/bawe/
  6. Biber, D.
    (1995) Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519871
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519871 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2006a) 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]
  8. (2006b) University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, D. , & Conrad, S.
    (2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, D. , Egbert, J. , & Zhang, M.
    (2018) Lexis and grammar as complementary discourse systems for expressing stance and evaluation. In M. Gómez González & J. L. Mackenzie (Eds.), The construction of discourse as verbal interaction (pp.201–226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.296.08bib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296.08bib [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. , & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, D. , & Zhang, M.
    (2018) Expressing evaluation without grammatical stance: Informational persuasion on the web. Corpora, 13(1), 97–123. 10.3366/cor.2018.0137
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2018.0137 [Google Scholar]
  13. Burnard, L.
    (2007) Reference guide for the British National Corpus (XML edition). www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/docs/URG/
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Callies, M.
    (2013) Agentivity as a determinant of lexico-grammatical variation in L2 academic writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(3), 357–390. 10.1075/ijcl.18.3.05cal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.3.05cal [Google Scholar]
  15. Charles, M.
    (2006) Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 310–331. 10.1016/j.esp.2005.05.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  16. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning teaching assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Davies, M.
    (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 Million Words, 1990-present. corpus.byu.edu/coca/
  18. Fox, J. , & Hong, J.
    (2009) Effect displays in R for multinomial and proportional-odds logit models: Extensions to the effects package. Journal of Statistical Software, 32(1), 1–24. www.jstatsoft.org/v32/i01/
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Glynn, D.
    (2014) Correspondence analysis: An exploratory technique for identifying usage patterns. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods in cognitive semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.443–485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.17gly
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.17gly [Google Scholar]
  20. Gray, B. , & Biber, D.
    (2012) Current conceptions of stance. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp.15–33). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137030825_2
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_2 [Google Scholar]
  21. Groom, N.
    (2005) Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 257–277. 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1994) An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hasselgård, H.
    (2015) Lexicogrammatical features of adverbs in advanced learner English. 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]
  24. Herriman, J. , & Boström Aronsson, M.
    (2009) Themes in Swedish advanced learners’ writing in English. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and language teaching (pp.101–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.33.11her
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.33.11her [Google Scholar]
  25. Hewings, M. , & Hewings, A.
    (2002) ’It is interesting to note that…’: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 367–383. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(01)00016‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00016-3 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hinkel, E.
    (2005) Hedging, inflating and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15, 29–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hunston, S. , & Thompson, G.
    (Eds.) (2000) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hyland, K.
    (1996) Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251–281. 10.1177/0741088396013002004
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013002004 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2005) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. 10.1177/1461445605050365
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kaatari, H.
    (2017) Adjectives complemented by that- and to-clauses: Exploring semantico-syntactic relationships and genre variation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
  31. Larsson, T.
    (2014) Introducing the Advanced Learner English Corpus (ALEC): A new learner corpus. Poster presented at the2014 LOT Winter School, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20January 2014.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2016) The introductory it pattern: Variability explored in learner and expert writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 64–79. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2017a)  The importance of, it is important that or importantly? The use of morphologically related stance markers in learner and expert writing. 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]
  34. (2017b) A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes, 48, 57–70. 10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2018) Is there a correlation between form and function? A syntactic and functional investigation of the introductory it pattern in student writing. ICAME Journal, 42(1), 13–40. 10.1515/icame‑2018‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2018-0003 [Google Scholar]
  36. Larsson, T. & Kaatari, H.
    (2019) Extraposition in learner and expert writing: Exploring (in)formality and the impact of register. International Journal of Learner Corpus Linguistics, 5(1), 33–62. 10.1075/ijlcr.17014.lar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.17014.lar [Google Scholar]
  37. Le, S. , Josse, J. , & Husson, F.
    (2008) FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), 1–18. 10.18637/jss.v025.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lee, D.
    (2001) Genres, registers, text-types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology, 5(3), 37–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP)
    Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Ann Arbor: The Regents of the University of Michigan. Corpus compiled at the University of Michigan in 2009 micusp.elicorpora.info/about-micusp
  40. Martin, J. R. , & White, P. R. R.
    (2005) The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  41. Olohan, M.
    (2003) How frequent are the contractions? A study of contracted forms in the Translational English Corpus. International Journal on Translation Studies, 15(1), 59–89. 10.1075/target.15.1.04olo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15.1.04olo [Google Scholar]
  42. Paquot, M. , Hasselgård, H. , & Oksefjell Ebeling, S.
    (2013) Writer/reader visibility in learner writing across genres: A comparison of the French and Norwegian components of the ICLE and VESPA learner corpora. In S. Granger , G. Gilquin , & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty years of learner corpus research: Looking back, moving ahead (pp.377–388). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Petch-Tyson, S.
    (1998) Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp.107–118). London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Römer, U.
    (2009) The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 140–162. 10.1075/arcl.7.06rom
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.06rom [Google Scholar]
  46. Smith, E. L.
    (1986) Achieving impact through the interpersonal component. In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional approaches to writing (pp.108–119). London: Frances Pinter.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Wickham, H.
    (2009)  ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York, NY: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑98141‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rs.18009.lar
Loading
Grammatical stance marking across registers
Register Studies 1, 243 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18009.lar
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.18009.lar
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.18009.lar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): expert production; grammatical stance marking; learner writing; level of formality; registers

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