Journals / KutBilim Sosyal Bilimler ve Sanat Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2

AN ANALYSIS OF “STANCE DEVICES” IN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ARTICLES BY NATIVE AND TURKISH WRITERS

Pages
77–96
Publication Date
2022-12-27
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The outcomes also showed that writer stance seemed to be closely related with the discourse community, text types of that community, the global and local features, cultural/educational background of the writer, English language proficiency level of the writer, and the writer's personality and/or style.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:It is a well-known fact that research articles cannot be considered as an objective description of an investigation, in fact, they should be persuasive because the writers are required to change the minds of other members in the scientific field.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Therefore, the present study showed an attempt to shed some light on stance device employment by examining stance devices defined in Hyland’s (2005) framework.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The outcomes also showed that writer stance seemed to be closely related with the discourse community, text types of that community, the global and local features, cultural/educational background of the writer, English language proficiency level of the writer, and the writer's personality and/or style.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:stance devices · abstracts · social science research articles

Abstract

It is a well-known fact that research articles cannot be considered as an objective description of an investigation, in fact, they should be persuasive because the writers are required to change the minds of other members in the scientific field. Thus, academic writers use stance devices to be able to build a persuasive argument, to reflect ideational content and to form authorial self, specifically while writing effective abstracts. Therefore, the present study showed an attempt to shed some light on stance device employment by examining stance devices defined in Hyland’s (2005) framework. The data for this study were 60 research articles in the journal, Social Behavior and Personality, an internationally published refereed journal. 30 articles published by native English-speaking academic writers (NW) and 30 articles by non-native English- speaking academic writers (Turkish academic writers, NNW) supplied the data. The texts were converted to an electronic corpus of 7196 words and searched for the stance devices in the 60 articles of the study by the corpus analysis tool AntConc (Anthony, 2011) by using the move model suggested by Swales (1990). The findings of the study revealed that there were both differences and similarities between the use of stance devices by native and non-native English- speaking academic writers. The outcomes also showed that writer stance seemed to be closely related with the discourse community, text types of that community, the global and local features, cultural/educational background of the writer, English language proficiency level of the writer, and the writer's personality and/or style.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÜNER, S., SUBAŞI, G. (2022). AN ANALYSIS OF “STANCE DEVICES” IN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ARTICLES BY NATIVE AND TURKISH WRITERS. KutBilim Sosyal Bilimler ve Sanat Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2, 77–96. https://ajindex.com/articles/873688

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Ağçam, R. (2015a). Author stance in doctoral dissertations of native and non-native speakers of English: A corpus-based study on epistemic adverbs. Revista de Lengues para Fines Especificos, 21(2), 98-113.
  2. Ağçam, R. (2015b). A corpus-based study on attitudinal stance in native and nonnative academic writing. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 2 (8), 123-129.
  3. Alghazo, S., Salem, M.N.A., Alrashdan, I. & Rabab’ah, G. (2021). Grammatical devices of stance in written academic English. Heliyon, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08463.
  4. Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc (Version 3.2.4). Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html.
  5. Bahrami, L., Dowlatabadi, H.R.,Yazdani, H. & Amerian, M. (2018). Authorial stance in academic writing: issues and implications for research in English language teaching. International English Language & Translation Studies, 6 (2), 69-80.
  6. Barton, E. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55, 745-769.
  7. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Biber, D. (2004). Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5:1, 107-136.
  9. Biber, D. & E. Finegan (1988).
  10. Adverbial stance types in English, Discourse Processes 11, 1-34.
  11. Bonn, S.V. and Swales, J.M. (2007) English and French journal abstracts in the language sciences: Three exploratory studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6, 93-108.
  12. Chang, P., & Schleppegrell, M. (2016). Explicit learning of authorial stance-taking by L2 doctoral students. Journal of Writing Research, 8(1), 49-80.
  13. Chen, Z. (2012). Expression of Epistemic stance in EFL Chinese university students’ writing. English Language Teaching, 5 (10), 173- 179. Clyne, M. (1991). The sociocultural dimension: The dilemma of the German-speaking scholar. In Schroder, H. (ed.) Subject-oriented texts (Research in text theory 16), 49-68. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter. Conrad, S. & D. Biber (2000). Adverbial making of stance in speech and writing. In S.Hunston and G. Tompson (eds.) Evaluation in text, 56-73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. Crismore, A. & W. J. Vande Kopple (1997). Hedges and readers: effects on attitudes and learning. In Markkanen, R., and Schroder, H. (eds.), Hedging and discourse, approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 83 114. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Cro