An Exploration of Authorial Stance in SSCI-ranked Journals versus Non-SSCI-ranked Journals

Hmoud S. Alotaibi

Abstract


Taking an effective authorial stance has been the interest of researchers on academic writing for quite some time. It is agreed upon that the interpersonal aspect of writing is essential in setting up prosody and forcing persuasive argument expected in academic context. This paper is based on a hypothesis that effective and authorial stance is a major principal requirement for publishing in top-ranked journals. Hence, it investigates the linguistic resources employed by authors to realize authorial voices when introducing their research topics and how they relate them with the potential meanings of rhetorical moves to build up persuasive argument. To do this, the study drew on Martin and White's (2005) Appraisal system and Swales' (1990) genre analysis as the two main analytical frameworks for data analysis. The data consisted of sixty research articles (RAs) taken from journals in the linguistics field.  Half of the RAs were drawn from SSCI-ranked journals while the other half from other journals that do not have prestigious indexes. The results showed that the percentage of using Monoglossic resources (propositions that contain bare assertions where writer/speaker makes no reference to any alternative viewpoints) is higher in frequency in non-SSCI journals compared to SSCI-ranked journals. Overall, the introduction sections of the two groups of journals have shown a link between the use of evaluative language patterns and the potential meanings of rhetorical moves, which altogether may help project effective authorial stance.

 

Keywords:   Appraisal; engagement; move structure; writing for publication; indexing


Full Text:

PDF

References


Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Alotaibi, H. (2016). The research gap in the introductions of Arabic research articles. ESP Across Cultures, 13: 7-17.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). In M. Holquist (Ed.), Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press (V. W. McGee. Trans.).

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

Byrnes, H. (2010). The changing scene for publishing in applied linguistics journals: views from editors. The Modern language Journal, 94(4), 636–664.

Chang, P. & Schleppegrell, M. (2011). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 140-51.

Cheng, F-W, Unsworth, L. (2016). Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 43-57.

Hirano, E. (2009). Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 240–250.

Hood, S. (2004). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Sydney: Faculty of Education, University of Technology.

Hunston, S. & G. Thompson (eds.) (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.

Lee, L. (2014). Publish or perish: The myth and reality of academic

publishing. Language Teaching, 47, 250-261.

Loi, C-K, Lim, J. & Wharton, S. (2016). Expressing an evaluative stance in English and Malay research article conclusions: International publications versus local publications. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 1-

Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. N.Y. Palgrave Macmillan.

Mei, W.S. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low- undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 254-271.

Nguyen, T. T. L. (2018). Rhetorical Structures and Linguistic Features of English Abstracts in Thai Rajabhat University Journals. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 24(4), 71-84.

http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2404-06

Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1–17.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1999-2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/3L-2019-2503-05

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2247

ISSN : 0128-5157