A Comparative Analysis of Stance Features in Research Article Introductions: Malaysian and English Authors

Ali Sorayyaei Azar, Praemela Hassaram, Farah Imani Mohd Farook, Nur Hasyimah Romli

Abstract


The study of academic writing has gained considerable interest among academia. Good academic writing necessitates the writers’ language talents and their comprehension of accepted rhetorical components. Many researchers have explored non-native authors’ use of metadiscourse markers in academic discourses and how they differ from native speaker authors. However, limited attention has been given to Malaysian authors, precisely stance features in each rhetorical Move of research articles. This study intends to bridge the gap of comparative studies of native and non-native authors in understanding the usages of stance features within the rhetorical moves of research articles, focusing on the “Introduction” section. The present study compared the “Introduction” sections between six British and Australian authors’ research articles and six Malaysian authors’ research articles in applied linguistics. A mixed-method approach was used in this study. The data were firstly analysed qualitatively to identify the rhetorical moves in the “Introduction” section presented in the research article texts using Swales’ (2004) Creating a Research Space (CARS) model. Secondly, the frequency of stance features used in each move was investigated quantitatively using Hyland’s (2005) stance features taxonomy.  The findings revealed that the stance features mostly appeared in the first two Moves (Moves 1 & 2) of the “Introduction” section written by Malaysian authors. The most frequently occurred stance features were hedges, followed by boosters, and lastly attitude markers. There were no self-mentions in the non-native speakers’ (NNS) articles. The native speaker (NS) authors, whereas used more stance features in the three moves (Move 1, Move 2, & Move 3) of the “Introduction” section than Malaysian authors. The authorial identity in the NS authors’ articles was strategically constructed by the presence of self-mentions. As such, the results of this study have informed the pedagogical implications, and further research is needed.

 


Keywords


Metadiscourse; Stance Features; Genre Analysis; Rhetorical Moves; Introduction Section of Research Articles

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse studies, 4(2), 139-145.

Abdi, R. Tavangar Rizi, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse, Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1669-1679.

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288-297.

Abdulkareem, M. N. (2013). An investigation study of academic writing problems faced by Arab postgraduate students at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 3(9).

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (Vol. 24). John Benjamins Publishing.

Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1-11.

Ahmed, Mansour., Memon, S., & Soomro, A. F. (2016). An Investigation of the Use of Interactional metadiscourse markers: A cross-cultural study of British and Pakistani Engineering research articles. ARIEL-An International Research Journal of English Language and Literature, 27.

Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus (Vol. 10). John Benjamins Publishing.

Akinci, Secil, "A cross-disciplinary study of stance markers in research articles written by students and experts" (2016). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 15144.

Al Badi, I. A. H. (2015). Academic writing difficulties of ESL learners. The 2015 WEI international academic conference proceedings,

Alexandra Jaffe (2009) Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,. viii +261 pp

Al-zubeiry, Hameed. (2019). Metadiscourse Devices in English Scientific Research Articles Written by Native and Non- Native Speakers of English. International Journal of Linguistics.

Århus, H. (2005). Genre Analysis of System Description for Pallet Handling Machine. Retrieved on 21st of December, 2015 from pure.au.dk/portal-asb.../000144694-144694.pdf

Attarn, A. (2014). Study of metadiscourse in ESP articles: A comparison of English articles written by Iranian and English native speakers. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 5(1), 63-71.

Banks, D. (1994). Hedges and how to trim them. Applications and implications of current LSP research, 2, 587-592.

Baratta, A. M. (2009). Revealing stance through passive voice. Journal of pragmatics, 41(7), 1406-1421.

Becger, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151-161.

Bhatia, V.K., C.N. Candlin & M. Gotti (eds.) (2012). Arbitration Practice and Discourse: Issues, Challenges and Prospects. London: Ashgate Publishing

Biber, D. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9(1), 93-124.

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

Bondi, M. (2009). Historians at work: Reporting frameworks in English and Italian book review articles. In Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (Eds.), Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings (pp. 179–196). Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke.

Bunton, D. (2002). Generic moves in Ph. D. Introduction: chapters. Academic Discourse. London: Longman, 57-75.

Buysse, L. (2010). Discourse markers in the English of Flemish university students.

Çakır Sarı, Hamide. (2016). Native and Non-Native Writers’ Use of Stance Adverbs in English Research Article Abstracts*. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics. April. 85-96.

Can, C., & Yuvayapan, F. (2018). Stance-Taking through Metadiscourse in Doctoral Dissertations. Online Submission, 6(1), 128-142.

Casanave, C. P. (2003). Looking ahead to more sociopolitically-oriented case study research in L2 writing scholarship. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 85-102.

Chan, T. H.-T. (2015). A corpus-based study of the expression of stance in dissertation acknowledgements. Journal of English for academic purposes, 20, 176-191.

Chandrasegara, A. (2012). Empowering second-language writers through rhetorical move analysis. Future directions in applied linguistics: Local and Global Perspectives, 10-25.

Charles, 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(4), 313-326.

Charles, M. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 492-518.

Connor, U. & Moreno, A. (2005). Chapter 10. Tertium Comparationis: A Vital Component in Contrastive Rhetoric Research. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. Eggington, W. Grabe & V. Ramanathan (Ed.), Directions in Applied Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 153-164). Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual

Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598500-015

Cortes, V. (2013). The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for academic purposes, 12(1), 33-43.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written communication, 10(1), 39-71.

Dos Santos, M. B. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text & Talk, 16(4), 481-500.

Dudly‐Evans, T. (1997). Genre: how far can we, should we go? World Englishes, 16(3), 351-358.

Dumlao, R. P., & Wilang, J. D. (2019). Variations in the use of discourse markers by L1 and L2 English users. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 202-209.

El-Dakhs, D. A. S. (2020). Variation of metadiscourse in L2 writing: Focus on language proficiency and learning context. Ampersand, 7, 100069.

Farnia, M., & Barati, S. (2017). Writing introduction sections of research articles in applied linguistics: Cross-linguistic study of native and non-native writers. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 486-494.

Farnia, M., & Rahimi, S. (2017). Comparative generic analysis of introductions of English and Persian dentistry research articles. Research in English language pedagogy, 5(1), 27-40.

Flowerdew, J. (2013). 16 English for Research Publication Purposes. The handbook of English for specific purposes, 301.

Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for academic purposes, 9(2), 128-139.

Gledhill, C. (2011). The ‘lexicogrammar’approach to analysing phraseology and collocation in ESP texts. ASp. la revue du GERAS, 59, 5-23.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and written language. Oxford: OUP

Harris, Z. S. (2013). Papers in structural and transformational linguistics. Springer.

Hashemi, M. R. (2019). Expanding the scope of mixed methods research in applied linguistics. In The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 39-51). Routledge.

Hellermann, J., & Vergun, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 157-179.

Hinkel, E. (2003). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Routledge.

Hopkins, A. and A. Dudley-Evans (1988) A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes 7, 113-22.

Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809.

Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and Organization in a Sample of Written Academic Discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 191-218). London: Routledge

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

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without Conviction: Hedging in Science Research Articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433-454

Hyland, K. (1999) ‘Disciplinary Discourses: Writer Stance in Research Articles’, in C. Candlin and K. Hyland (eds) Writing: Texts: Processes and Practices, pp. 99–121. London: Longman

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112

Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary discourses, Michigan classics ed.: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2004b). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156

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

Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a Gloss: Exemplifying and Reformulating in Academic Discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 266–285.

Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29.

Hyland, K. (2018). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written communication, 33(3), 251-274.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.

Jakobson, R. (1980). The Framework of Language. Michigan: Michigan Studies in the Humanities.

Johns, A. M. (2008). Genre awareness for the novice academic student: An ongoing quest. Language Teaching, 41(2), 237-252.

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292.

Kay, H., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1998). Genre: What teachers think. ELT Journal, 52(4), 308-314

Kopple, W. J. V. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 82-93.

Kuhi, D., Yavari, M., & Sorayyaei Azar, A. (2012). Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles: A cross-sectional survey. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(11), 405-405.

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

Le, T. N. P., & Harrington, M. (2015). Phraseology used to comment on results in the Discussion section of applied linguistics quantitative research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 45-61.

Leech, G. (1994). Students' grammar - teachers' grammar - learners' grammar. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn & E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp.17-30). New York: Prentice Hall.

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

Li, Z., & Xu, J. (2020). Reflexive metadiscourse in Chinese and English sociology research article introductions and discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 159, 47-59.

Lo, Y. Y., Othman, J., & Lim, J. W. (2020). The use of metadiscourse in academic writing by Malaysian first-year ESL doctoral students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 271-282.

LuzÓn, M. J. (2005). Genre analysis in technical communication. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions, 48(3), 285-295.

Martın, P. M. (2003). A ́ genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), 25-43.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric.: A Textlinguistic Study. Peter Lang.

Mazidah, E. N. (2019). A Comparison of the Interactive Metadiscourse in the Abstracts of Articles Written by Indonesian And NES Scholars. Etnolingual, 3(1), 57-74.

Maznun, M. D. B., Monsefi, R., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2017). Undergraduate ESL students’ difficulties in writing the introduction for research reports. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(1), 9-16.

Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 86-101.

Moreno, A. I., & Swales, J. M. (2018). Strengthening move analysis methodology towards bridging the function-form gap. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 40-63.

Musa, A. (2014). Hedging in academic writing: A pragmatic analysis of English and Chemistry masters’ theses in a Ghanaian university. English for Specific Purposes, 42(15), 1-26.

Musa, A., Hussin, S., & Ho, I. A. (2019). Interaction in Academic L2 writing: An analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Strategies in Applied Linguistics Research Articles. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 25(3).

Nikula, T. (1993). The Use of Lexical Certainty Modifiers by Non-Native (Finnish) and Native Speakers of English.

O'keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Öztürk, Y., & Köse, G. D. (2021). “Well (er) You Know…”: Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native Spoken English. Corpus Pragmatics, 5(2), 223-242.

Park, S., & Oh, S.-Y. (2018). Korean EFL learners’ metadiscourse use as an index of L2 writing proficiency. The SNU Journal of Education Research, 27.

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2015). Genres in the forefront, languages in the background: The scope of genre analysis in language-related scenarios. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 10–2

Prommas, P., & Sinwongsuwat, K. (2013). A Comparative study of discourse connectors used in argumentative compositions of Thai EFL learners and English-native speakers. The TFLTA Journal, 4, 88-102.

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170

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

Sánchez, J. A. (2018). Applicability And Variation Of Swales' Cars Model To Applied Linguistics Article Abstracts.

Sankoff, G., Thibault, P., Nagy, N., Blondeau, H., Fonollosa, M.-O., & Gagnon, L. (1997). Variation in the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation. Language Variation And Change, 9(2), 191-217.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). Technical writing in a second language: The role of grammatical metaphor. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 172-189). Continuum.

Sepehri, M., Hajijalili, M., & Namaziandost, E. (2019). Hedges and boosters in medical and engineering research articles: A comparative corpus-based study. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(4), 215-225.

Shirzadi, M., Akhgar, F., Rooholamin, A., & Shafiee, S. (2017). A Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis of Stance Strategies in Native and Nonnative Speakers’ English Academic Writings: Introduction and Discussion Sections in Focus. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(4), 30-40.

Simin, S., & Tavangar, M. (2009). Metadiscourse knowledge and use in Iranian EFL writing. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(1), 230-255.

Somaye Afsari. (2016). A Functional Investigation of Self-mention in Soft Science Master Theses. TheJournal of Applied Linguistics

Sorahi, M., & Shabani, M. (2016). Metadiscourse in Persian and English Research Article Introductions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(6), 1175-1182.

Sorayyaei Azar, A., & Hashim, A. (2017). Analysing the macro organisational structure of the review article genre in applied linguistics. Issues in Language Studies, 6(1).

Sorayyaei Azar, A., & Hashim, A. (2019). The Impact of Attitude Markers on Enhancing Evaluation in the Review Article Genre. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 19(1).

Sorayyaei Azar, A., & Hashim, A. (2022). Analysing authorial identity construction in the review article genre in Applied Linguistics. Studies in English Language and Education, 9(1), 94-114.

Sorayyaei Azar, A., Yi, Y. P., & Azhar, N. A. A. (2020). Genre Analysis of Malaysian TESL Undergraduates’ Projects and TESL-Related Research Articles: A Comparative Study. Asian ESP Journal, 16(1), 69-136.

Susanti, Y., Suharsono, S., & Kurnia, F. D. (2017). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in the Introduction of Dissertations. Celt: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching & Literature, 17(2), 270-291.

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

Swales, J. M. (2002). Integrated and fragmented worlds: EAP materials and corpus linguistics. Academic Discourse, 150-164.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2009). Abstracts and the Writing of Abstracts (Vol. 2). University of Michigan Press ELT.

Swales, J., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic Writing For Graduate Students. Essential Tasks And Skills: A Course For Nonnative Speakers Of English.

Takimoto, Masahiro. (2015). A Corpus-Based Analysis Of Hedges And Boosters In English Academic Articles. Indonesian Journal Of Applied Linguistics.

Taylor, G., & Tingguang, C. (1991). Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied Linguistics, 12(3), 319-336.

Thomas, S. and T. Hawes (1994) Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes 13, 129-48.

Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 4, 365-382.

Toumi, N. (2009). A model for the investigation of reflexive metadiscourse in research articles. LANGUAGE, 1, 64-73.

Trillo, J. R. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 769-784.

Turkish writers and native writers of English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 260-268.

Uba, S. Y., & Baynham, M. (2018). Theoretical Framework of Stance: An Introduction of A New Analytical Category, Neutral Epistemic Stance. JELTL (Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics), 3(3), 217-228.

Uyman, E. (2017). An Investigation of the Similarities and Differences between English Literature and English Language Teaching Master’s Theses in Terms of Swales’ Cars Model. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 552-562.

Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication. 36, 82-93.

Walková, M. (2019). A three-dimensional model of personal self-mention in research papers. English for Specific Purposes, 53, 60-73

Wang, Y., & Chen, H. (2012). The stance study of evaluative that clauses in English abstracts of Chinese master theses. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(5), 11.

White, P.R.R. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of Intersubjective stance. Text 23(2), 259–84.

Williams, Joseph M. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Yagız, O., & Demir, C. (2014). Hedging strategies in academic discourse: A comparative analysis of Turkish writers and native writers of English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 260-268.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2202-14

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2131

ISSN : 1675-8021