The construction of authorial voice in writing research articles: A corpus-based study from an APPRAISAL theory perspective
Abstract
This study explores voice from an APPRAISAL theory perspective. It aims to investigate how published research writers deploy ATTITUDE and GRADUATION resources to review existing literature in the field. The study is based on a corpus of literature reviews (LRs) from 204 research articles (RAs) in computer networks and communications (CNC) and second language writing (SLW). Findings show that 1) writers demonstrate a strong preference to express their attitude through APPRECIATION rather than AFFECT and JUDGEMENT resources; 2) more FORCE than FOCUS resources are used to upgrade attitudinal meanings realized through ATTITUDE resources or to evoke APPRECIATION; and 3) one-way ANOVA and post hoc tests have detected significant differences in the use of AFFECT and JUDGEMENT resources and in two sub-categories of FORCE and FOCUS resources. The study contributes to new knowledge by relating ATTITUDE and GRADUATION resources to the construction of voice in the disciplines of CNC and SLW.
Downloads
References
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22.
Cao, F. & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.
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, 140-151.
Cheung, Y. L. & Low, T. H. (2017). Pre-university students’ voice construction in argumentative essays. RELC Journal, 1-16. doi: https: 10.1177/0033688217716508
Cho, S. (2004). Challenges of entering discourse communities through publishing in English: Perspectives of Nonnative-Speaking Doctoral Students in the United States of America. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 3(1), 47-72.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denning, P. J. (2005). Is Computer Science Science? Communication of the ACM, 48(4), 27-31.
Elbow, P. (1994). Introduction: About voice and writing. In P. Elbow (Ed.), Landmark Essays on Voice and Writing (pp. 11-47). Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press.
Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127-150.
Flowerdew, J. & Wang S. H. (2016). Author's editor revision to manuscripts published in international journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 39-52.
Gil-Salom, L. & Soler-Monreal, C. (2014). Writers’ positioning in literature reviews in English and Spanish Computing doctoral theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 23-39.
Guinda, C. S. & Hyland, K. (2012). Introduction: A context-sensitive approach to stance and voice. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 1-11). United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gray, B. (2015). Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hood, S. (2004). Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing: A focus on the introductions to research reports. In L. Ravelli & R. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualised frameworks (pp. 22-44). London: Continuum.
Hood, S. (2006). The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 37-49.
Hood, S. & Martin, J. R. (2005). Invoking attitude: The play of graduation in appraising discourse. In J. Webster, C. Matthiessen & R. Hasan (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language (pp. 740-764). London: Equinox.
Humphrey, S. & Hao, J. (2013). Deconstructing written genres in Undergraduate Biology. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 7, 29-53.
Hyland, K. (1999a). Academic Attribution: Citation and the Construction of Disciplinary Knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341-367.
Hyland, K. (1999b). Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices (pp. 99-121). London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction, 1(1), 5-22.
Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary Identities: Individuality and community in academic discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ivanič, R. & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 3-33.
Kwan, B. S. C., Chan, H. & Lam, C. (2012). Evaluating prior scholarship in literature reviews of research articles: A comparative study of practices in two research paradigms. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 188-201.
Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines. Written Communication, 31(1), 25-57.
Lee, S. K. (2015). Evaluative stances in persuasive essays by undergraduate students: focusing on APPRECIATION resources. Text & Talk, 35(1), 49-76.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Matsuda, P. K. & Tardy, C. M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript reviews. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 235-249.
McGrath, L. & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161-173.
Miller, R. T., Mitchell, T. D. & Pessoa, S. (2014). Valued voices - Students' use of Engagement in argumentative history writing. Linguistics and Education, 28, 107-120.
O'Donnell, M. (2011). UAM Corpus Tool (Version 3.2). Retrieved from http://www.wagsoft.com/CorpusTool/download.html
Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introduction in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 25-38.
Ramanathan, V. & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45-75.
Norbert, S. (2010). An Introduction to Applied Linguistics (2nd Ed.). Abingdon: Hodder Education.
Schimitt, N. & Celce-Murcia M. (2010). An Overview of Applied Linguistics. In N. Schmitt (Eds.), An Introduction to Applied Linguistics (pp. 1-15). London: Hodder Education.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, G. & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorical stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 250-263.
Wu, S. M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 254-271.
Zhang, W. Y. & Cheung, Y. L. (2017). Understanding ENGAGEMENT resources in constructing voice in research articles in the fields of computer networks and communications and second language writing. The Asian ESP Journal, 13(2), 72-99.
The works published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publications Services at the University of Murcia (the publisher) retains the property rights (copyright) of published works, and encourages and enables the reuse of the same under the license specified in item 2.
2. The works are published in the electronic edition of the magazine under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike 4.0.
3.Conditions of self-archiving. Authors are encouraged to disseminate pre-print (draft papers prior to being assessed) and/or post-print versions (those reviewed and accepted for publication) of their papers before publication, because it encourages distribution earlier and thus leads to a possible increase in citations and circulation among the academic community.
RoMEO color: green
