Stance markers in English academic writing in applied linguistics: A corpus-based comparison between Korean graduate students' master's theses and published journal articles

Abstract

Based on the widely accepted view that acknowledges the interactive function of written language, the concept of metadiscourse has been investigated in terms of its pragmatic role to express the writer's communicative intent in a proposition. In this regard, previous studies indicated that the role of metadiscourse in the domain of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) writing is one of the foremost ways to successful writing. Stance, as a category of metadiscourse, involves more writer-oriented dimension in which writers express a textual voice to convey their judgments and commitments to potential readers (Hyland, 2005b). The ultimate goal of academic writing is to persuade readers of their arguments, for which effective employment of stance markers in a text is crucial. Despite the relatively rich previous literature on stance markers in different terms, however, these existing studies primarily focused on non-native undergraduate student writings and only revealed quantitative differences. Further, according to genre analysis, it has been acknowledged that each IMRD section of research articles demands different kinds of rhetoric (Swales, 1990). However, there has been not many studies that focused on stance resources employed in different sections of research articles thoroughly. Based on this research gap, the present study investigates stance resources in EAP writing, by comparing masters theses written by Korean graduate students and published research articles. Focusing on the specific discipline of applied linguistics, the current study first compares the frequency and range of stance resources in four sub-categories: hedge, booster, attitude marker, and self-mention. This study then investigates any difference of frequencies depending on different sections of research articles. As for qualitative analysis, individual instances of stance resources are carefully examined within their extended context to find any meaningful variations of rhetorical functions. The findings showed that Korean novice writers employ significantly fewer stance resources compared to expert writers. In terms of sub-categories, expert writers employed significantly more hedges and self-mentions whereas boosters were more heavily employed by Korean novice writers. Attitude markers presented no significant difference. When it comes to comparison across different sections, Korean novice writers used stance resources more frequently in Introduction and Result section and expert writers in Discussion section. Qualitative analysis revealed more meaningful findings. First, Korean novice writers showed some inappropriate combinations of hedges and boosters in Result section and also a limited range of collocational patterns compared to expert writers. It did not contribute to the writers attempts to make an effective appeal to members since it fails to balance between objectivity and subjectivity of arguments. Further, in terms of self-mentions, expert writers not only referred to themselves in a text more frequently, but realized a unique rhetorical function in Method section to newly introduce and rationalize their methodology. It is worth discussing since Korean novice writers tended to employ self-mentions only to explain the general procedure in a chronological order with no attempt to emphasize their originality of the method. These findings provide some pedagogical implications for Korean EAP writing. The present study first suggests the importance of genre knowledge of research articles to be aware of various rhetorical dynamics required for each section. Also, Korean novice writers should take more confidential status as an academic researcher to effectively address and emphasize their academic contributions. In this way, they can enhance the persuasiveness of their argumentation with more tactful strategies in employing stance resources.