A Logogenetic Delve into Attitudinal Meanings in Native vs. Non-Native Discussion Section of Research Articles
DOR: 20.1001.1.23223898.2021.9.37.4.2

Subject Areas :

Mona Bahmani ¹ , Azizeh Chalak ² , Hossein Heidari Tabrizi ³

1 - Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 - Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
3 - Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

Received: 2020-11-07 Accepted : 2021-03-27 Published : 2021-10-01

Keywords: Attitude, academic writing, appreciation, Appraisal Theory, affect, Evaluative Language, Judgement, Logogenetic Approach,

Abstract :

Using evaluative language has been considered as the significant predictor of academic writing success in second and foreign language research. Such an importance paved the way for the current study to investigate the use of the APPRAISAL tool, namely ATTITUDE resources, in the research articles (RAs) written by native (N) and non-native (NN) writers, focusing on the discussion sections. A qualitative corpus selection resulted in choosing 30 RAs written by American writers and 30 authored by Iranian writers. Two coding schemes were used: one for discussion boundaries based on Kanoksilapatham’s (2005) discussion move structure, and the modified version of APPRAISAL theory (Xu, 2017) for identifying attitudinal resources. The corpus analysis revealed that academic writers preferred to use a great number of inscribed ATTITUDE resources, that is, APPRECIATION tools compared to JUDGMENT. There was also a significant difference between N and NN sub-corpora in using attitudinal resources, highlighting that the language of N RAs contained more authorial stance of ATTITUDE compared to NN sub-corpus. However, the use of idioms as evoked ATTITUDE was found to be frequently applied by NN authors. The findings of the study contributed to the significance of using evaluative language in academic writing through which the writers can make a dialogic interaction with readers and enhance their critical stance by involving them in the argument.

References:

Callaghan, M., & Rothery, J. (1988). Teaching factual writing: A genre-based approach. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.

Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261-273). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

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(3), 140-151.

Dehghan, M., & Chalak, A. (2016). Code glosses in academic writing: The comparison of Iranian and native authors. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 3(2), 21-29.

Dressen, D. (2003). Geologists’ implicit persuasive strategies and the construction of evaluative evidence. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 273-290.

Englander, K. (2006). Revision of scientific manuscripts by nonnative-English-speaking scientists in response to journal editors' language criticism of the language. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3,129-161.

Feak, C. B., & Swales, J. M. (2009). Telling a research story: Writing the literature review. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to non-native speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 121-150.

Geng, Y. (2015). Appraisal in discussion sections of doctoral theses in the discipline of ELT/Applied Linguistics at Warwick University: A corpus-based analysis (Doctoral dissertation).

Geng, Y., & Wharton, S. (2016). Evaluative language in discussion sections of doctoral theses: Similarities and differences between L1 Chinese and L1 English writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 80-91.

Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In K. Hyland, & C. SanchoGuinda, Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 15-33). London: Springer.

Halliday, M. A., & Matthiessen, C. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

Harwood, N. (2005). I hoped to counteract the memory problem, but I made no impact whatsoever: Discussing methods in computing science using “ ”. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 243-267.

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

Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hunston, S. (2011). Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language: London: Routledge.

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18, 549-574.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-92.

Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and researching writing (2nd ed.). London: Pearson.

Hyland, K., & Paltridge, B. (2011). The continuum companion to discourse analysis. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Ivanič, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of second language writing, 10(1-2), 3-33.

Jalilifar, A., &Hemmati, A. (2013). Construction of evaluative meanings by Kurdish-speaking learners of English: A comparison of high-and low-graded argumentative essays. Issues in Language Teaching, 2(2), 57-84.

Jalilifar, A., Hayati, A. M., & Mashhadi, A. (2012). Evaluative strategies in Iranian and international research article introductions: Assessment of academic writing. Research in Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 81-109.

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

Liu, X. (2013). Evaluation in Chinese university EFL students’ English argumentative writing: An appraisal study. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 40-53.

Liu, X., & Thompson, P. (2009). Attitude in students’ argumentative writing: A contrastive perspective. In L. J. O’Brien & D. S. Giannoni (Eds.), Language studies working papers (pp. 3-15). Reading, UK: University of Reading.

Lv, G. (2015). Appraisal patterns in Chinese EFL argumentative essays. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(4), 818-825.

Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In S. Hunston& G. Thompson, Evaluation in Text (pp. 142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.

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

Mauranen, A., & Bondi, M. (2003). Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 269-271.

Mei, W. S., & Allison, D. (2007). Evaluative expressions in analystical arguments: aspects of appraisal in assigned English language essays. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 2(1), 105-127.

Ngongo, M. (2017). Systemic analysis of text appraisal on students’ theses writing in English. Journal of scientific research and studies, 4(4), 67-72.

Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text, 9(1), 7-25.

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), 31-40.

Swales, J. &Lindemann, S. (2002). Teaching the literature review to international graduate students. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the Classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 105-119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tucker, M. (2003). Out with the old. Education Next, 3, 20–24.

Xu, X. (2017). An analysis of stance and voice in research articles across Chinese and British cultures, using the appraisal framework (Doctoral dissertation). Coventry University, England, UK.

Yuliana, D. & Gandana, I. S. S. (2017). Writers’ voice and engagement strategies in students’ analytical exposition texts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 613-620.