Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections

Cheng, Fei-Wen; Unsworth, Len

doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.001

Cited by 52 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Available experiences are basically within free writing based tasks and surface-level knowledge transmitting without evaluative lens and knowledge transforming (Kang, 2005). In addition to the inadequate linguistic skills, students' lack of confidence to master a second language appropriately also leads students to avoid knowledge transforming with an evaluative stance (Cheng & Unsworth, 2016;Loi et al, 2016).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

İkincil Dilde Akademik Yazarların Açımlama Süreçlerinin İncelenmesi

Yağız¹

2020

KAÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paraphrasing is an essential component of academic writing to transform knowledge and avoid plagiarism. This study aimed to determine the misconception phenomena regarding paraphrase, L2 writers' background knowledge, and paraphrasing strategies through a writing task. A paraphrase task in English was conducted to 105 L2 writers and the paraphrased texts were analyzed to see the strengths and weaknesses of these products. Reflection notes were the other data collection tools. Results showed that L2 writers perceive paraphrasing as replacing some of the words by their synonyms with little syntactical modifications. Some of the participants suggested adding some personal views when paraphrasing.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

İkincil Dilde Akademik Yazarların Açımlama Süreçlerinin İncelenmesi

Yağız¹

2020

KAÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, there has been a growing interest in examining the authorial and evaluative stance in professional texts (e.g. Chang and Schleppegrell 2011;Cheng and Unsworth 2016;Loi et al 2016) and in student writings (e.g. Hood 2004;Mei 2007;Wharton 2012;Xie 2016).…”

Section: Studies On Research Articles In Different Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some researchers (Alotaibi 20015;; Al-Mudhaffari, Hussin, and HoAbdullah 2020) have focused on the use of evaluative stance from the lens of metadiscourse framework. Studies that have used the Appraisal system to investigate stance-taking in RAs have focused on the introduction (Hood 2004;Chang and Schleppegrell 2011) the discussion (Cheng and Unsworth 2016) and the conclusion (Loi et al 2016). In Chang and Schleppegrell's (2011) study, the Engagement strategies were distributed based on the function of the organizational and rhetorical moves.…”

Section: Studies On Research Articles In Different Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…She found that published writers used more linguistic resources of Appreciation to evaluate findings while student writers used more resources of Affect and Judgment; thus, student writers developed a more personalized expression of evaluation compared to expert writers. The RA discussion section was found to be crucial in the study by Cheng and Unsworth (2016), who explored how writers justify the value of their research among opposing claims. They found that writers rely on the contractive options more than the expanding options, and this can be attributed to the fact that the contractive option "asserts the value of the writer's finding and confronts any contrary position directed towards this finding" (Cheng and Unsworth 2016: 49).…”

Section: Studies On Research Articles In Different Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Taking Authorial Stance in Arabic Research Articles Introductions

Alotaibi¹

2020

IJAES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the linguistic resources employed by Arab academic researchers to realize the interpersonal values when introducing their research topics. It also investigates how the linguistic resources interact with the rhetorical move functions to formulate the features of effective authorial stance. Specifically, the study focuses on how the interplay of engagement resources and rhetorical move functions persuasively serves the overall argumentative writing expected in academic context. To this end, the study draws on the engagement system by Martin and White (2005) and the move structure in the CARS model by Swales (1990). The data consisted of 20 Arabic RA introductions drawn from two established journals in the field of education. The results showed an evident relation between the meanings conceived in rhetorical moves and authorial stances. The authorial stances were highly interpersonal and dialogic as most of propositions displayed linguistic features pertaining to heterogloss. Furthermore, writers tended to take assertive stance when reporting previous research findings by drawing heavily on Proclaim options, but when creating research gaps, they relied on Disclaim options. When theorizing for their studies, they, however, seemed to claim sharing views with readers through notable employment of Attribute resources. These results may raise writers' awareness of the relationship between authorial stance-taking and rhetorical move purposes, and how that is crucial for the formulation of persuasive argument endeavored in academic writing.

show abstract

“…He further argues that this can be achieved by writers via pursuing interactive relationships with readers, evaluating their own topics, and positioning them with other alternative viewpoints. Lack or difficulty of taking an evaluative stance among novice writers is also acknowledged by some researchers (Chang & Schleppegrell 2011;Cheng & Unsworth 2016;Hood 2004;Loi, Lim & Wharton 2016;Mei 2007). While some of these researchers (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Alotaibi

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections

Cited by 52 publications

References 25 publications

İkincil Dilde Akademik Yazarların Açımlama Süreçlerinin İncelenmesi

İkincil Dilde Akademik Yazarların Açımlama Süreçlerinin İncelenmesi

Taking Authorial Stance in Arabic Research Articles Introductions

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About