ATTITUDES: AUTHORIAL STANCE IN THE REVIEW GENRE OF TAIWANESE MA GRADUATES

Cheng-hua Hsiao

DOI Number
https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP1902171H
First page
171
Last page
183

Abstract


Evaluation is a central linguistic feature that expresses a writer’s critical stance and plays a prominent role in academic discourse. By using Martin and White’s (2005) appraisal framework, particularly regarding attitude, this study conducted a textual analysis of literature review chapters in master’s theses written by Taiwanese graduates. Attitude can be regarded as a manner of behavior caused by feelings and opinions. The review genre was selected for study because that is where the writer’s position toward the status of knowledge is displayed. Furthermore, studies have explored various types of linguistic features, and the data sources were mainly journal articles. Few studies have yet studied the review genre in master’s theses in applied linguistics written by master’s students. The results of the study will render additional understanding of advanced EFL Taiwanese learners’ evaluation in the literature review genre and offer advice for instructors in academic writing.

Keywords

Evaluative language, literature review, English for academic purposes

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bazerman, C (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university register. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-116.

Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11, 1-34.

Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical

marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93-124

Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in english conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Charle, M. (2003). ‘This mystery...’: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 313-326.

Chatterjee, M. (Ed.). (2008). Textual engagement of a different kind? Bridging Discourse: ASFLA 2007 Online Proceedings. Australia: Australian Systemic Functional Linguistics Association, pp. 1-15.

Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 271-287.

Dressen, D. (2003). Geologists’ implicit persuasive strategies and the construction of evaluative evidence. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 273-290.

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, 367-383.

Hood, S. (2004). Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing: A focus on the introductions to research reports. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analyzing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 24-44). London: Continuum.

Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. Basinstoke, Hampshire/New Yourk: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Hsiao, C. H., & Yu, H. Y. (2012). Knowledge presentation in thesis writing- Examining move use in reviewing literature. English Teaching & Learning, 36, 1-47.

Hsiao, C. H., & Yu, H. Y. (2015). Move distribution and move configuration of literature reviews at four levels. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 7, 51-85.

Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organisation in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 191-218). London: Routledge.

Hunston, S. (2004). Counting the uncountable: Problems of identifying evaluation in a text and in a corpus. In A. Partington, J. Morley, & L. Haarman (Eds.), Corpora and discourse (pp. 157-188). Bern: Peter Lang.

Hunston, S., & Sinclair, J. M. (2000). A local grammar of evaluation. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 75-101). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (1996a). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433-454.

Hyland, K. (1996b). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13, 251-281.

Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in science research articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.

Hyland K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts: Processes and Practices (pp. 99-121). London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9, 179-197.

Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles.

Written Communication, 18, 549–574.

Hyland, K. (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.

Hyland, K. (2002a). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115-130). London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2002b). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.

Hyland, K. (2004a). Graduates’ gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 303-324.

Hyland, K. (2004b). Engagement and disciplinarity: The other side of evaluation. In G. D. L. Camiciotti & E. T. Bonelli (Eds.), Academic discourse: New insights into evaluation (pp. 13-30). Bern: Peter Lang.

Hyland, K. (2005a). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-191.

Hyland, K. (2005b). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (Eds.). (2009). Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings. Palgrave Macmillan: UK.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156-177.

Kuo, C. H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific

journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121-138.

Kwan, B. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 13-28.

Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in thedisciplines. Written Communication, 31, 27-57.

Lancaster, Z. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 16-30.

Lewin, B. A. (2005). Hedging: An exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 163-178.

Lowe, J. B., Baker, C. F., & Fillmore, C. J. (1997). A frame semantic approach to semantic annotation. Proceedings of the SIGLEX Workshop “Tagging Text with Lexical Semantic”. Washington. DC, pp. 18-24.

MacDonald, S. P. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London/New Yourk: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1-35.

Myers, G. (1996). Strategic vagueness in academic writing. In V. Eija & A. Mauranen (Eds.)., Academic writing, intercultural and textual issues (pp. 3-17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text, 9, 7-25.

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 140-170.

Stotesbury , H. (2003). Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, (4), Pages 327-341.

.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Markham, M. (1999) Through the Looking Glass: Reflective Teaching Through a Lacanian Lens. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(1), 55-76.

Tadros, A. (1989). Predictive categories in university textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 8, 17-32.

Thetela, P. (1997). Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 101-118.

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.

Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12, 365-382.

Tucker, P. (2003). Evaluation in the art-historical research article. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 291-312.

Wiebe, J., Brucey, R., Bell, M., Martinz, M., & Wilson, T. (2001). A corpus study of evaluative and speculative language. Proceedings of the Second SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue. Vol. 16. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1-10.

Wu, S. M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 354-251.

Xie, J. (2016). Direct or indirect? Critical or uncritical? Evaluation in Chinese English-major MA thesis literature reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 1-15.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP1902171H

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



ISSN 2334-9182 (Print)

ISSN 2334-9212 (Online)



Publisher:

University of Niš

Univerzitetski trg 2, 18000 Niš, Serbia
Phone:    +381 18 257 095
Telefax:  +381 18 257 950


© 2013 by University of Niš, Serbia