STANCE AND CULTURE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ENGLISH AND PERSIAN AUTHORIAL STANCE IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH ARTICLES

Authors

  • Mohammad Reza Hashemi English Department, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran, Iran, Islamic Republic of https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9437-131X
  • Hosna Hosseini Tabaran Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran, Iran, Islamic Republic of

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.123284

Keywords:

Stance markers, Applied linguistics, Research articles, Discourse analysis

Abstract

This study tended to investigate the effect of culture, as depicted in language, on the use of stance in the applied linguistics research articles of two groups: native speakers of Persian, and native speakers of English. The two corpora comprising the discussion sections of forty research articles from reliable journals were compared for amounts and types of stance. In order to find the cultural differences between native Persian and English researchers, the subtypes of stance devices adapted from Hyland’s (2005b) model were used. Results showed that the groups used stance markers differently; more specifically, they employed hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mentions differently. Furthermore, culture affects stance features as the meta-discourse devices employed by the researchers in writing the research article genre. The findings have implications for EFL learners and novice non-native writers to know the conventions and patterns as thinking devices for effective writing in academic communities of articles.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Hosna Hosseini, Tabaran Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran


 

References

  1. Abdi, R., Rizi, M. T., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1669-1679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.001
  2. Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
    |
  3. Cooper, C. L. (1982). Culture's Consequences: International differences in work related values. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3(2), 202-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030030208
  4. Crismore, A. (1990). Metadiscourse and discourse processes: Interactions and issues. Discourse Processes, 13(2), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539009544753
    |
  5. Curran, M., & Stelluto, D. (2005). Opportunities for adult ESOL learners to revision and envision their social identities. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 781-785. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588539
  6. Faghih, E., & Rahimpour, S. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 92-107. https://scholarship.rice.edu/handle/1911/21850
  7. Flowerdew, L. (2001). The exploita. In M. Ghadessy, A. Henry & R. L. Roseberry (Eds.), Small corpus studies and ELT: Theory and practice (pp. 363-379). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.5
  8. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis theory and method. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203847886
  9. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
  10. Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of pragmatics, 27(3), 361-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00040-9
  11. Hosseini Fatemi, A., & Mirshojaee, S. B. (2012). Interactional Metadiscourse in English and Persian Research Articles; A Contrastive Rhetoric Study. Iranian EFL Journal, 8, 246-268. https://www.academia.edu/16790765/
  12. Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
  13. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO's letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500203
    |
  15. Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductorycoursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(97)00025-2
    |
  16. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic writing. London: Longman.
  17. Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(02)00035-8
  18. Hyland, K. (2002b). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT journal, 56(4), 351-358. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.4.351
    |
  19. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
    |
  20. Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
  21. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
  22. Hyland, K. (2008). ‘Small bits of textual material’: A discourse analysis of Swales’ writing. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 143-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.005
    |
  23. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.
  24. Hyland, K. (2010). Community and individuality: Performing identity in applied linguistics. Written Communication, 27(2), 159-188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309357846
    |
  25. Hyland, K. (2011). The presentation of self in scholarly life: Identity and marginalization in academic homepages. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 286-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.04.004
    |
  26. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
    |
  27. Jaffe, A. (2009). Stance: sociolinguistic perspectives. Oxford Oxford University Press.
  28. Jalilifar, A. R. (2007). Hedging as a pragmatic strategy: Variations across disciplines and culture. TELL, 1(3), 43-69. https://www.sid.ir/En/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=106285
  29. Jiajin, X., & Manying, L. (2008). Comparing Stance in Chinese EFL learners’ English and Chinese argumentative essays of a shared topic. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies, Hangzhou.
  30. Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  31. Keshavarz, M. H., Atai, M. R., & Barzegar, V. (2007). A contrastive study of generic organization of research article introductions written by Iranian and non-Iranian writers in applied linguistics. TELL, 1(2), 13-33.
  32. Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-i
    |
  33. Mirzapour, F., & Mahand, M. R. (2012). Hedges and boosters in native and non-native library and information and computer science research articles. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18(2), 119-128. http://journalarticle.ukm.my/5378/
  34. Pishghadam, R., & Norouz Kermanshahi, P. (2012). Writers’ stance-taking in EFL articles: A case of Persian, English and EFL speakers. The Hanian EFL Journal, 8(5), 10-22. .
  35. Vande Kopple, W. J. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composi. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 91-113). New York: Hampton Press.
  36. Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for specific purposes, 20(1), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(99)00029-0
    |
  37. Wang, Q. (2003). Infantile amnesia reconsidered: A cross-cultural analysis. Memory, 11(1), 65-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/741938173
    |
  38. White, P. (2003). Beyond Modality and Hedging: A Dialogic View of the Language of Intersubjective Stance. Text, 23(2), 2594-2598. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.011
  39. Woods, N. (2006). Describing discourse: A prac. London: Routledge.
  40. Yagiz, O., & Demir, C. (2015). A Comparative Study of Boosting in Academic Texts: A Contrastive Rhetoric. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(4), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v5n4p12
  41. Yazdani, S., Sharifi, S., & Elyassi, M. (2014). Interactional metadiscourse in English and Persian news articles about 9/11. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 428-434. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.2.428-434

Downloads

Published

2019-06-08

How to Cite

Hashemi, M. R., & Hosseini, H. (2019). STANCE AND CULTURE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ENGLISH AND PERSIAN AUTHORIAL STANCE IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH ARTICLES. Advanced Education, 6(12), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.123284

Issue

2019: Issue 12

Section

ARTICLES

License

Copyright (c) 2019 Mohammad Reza Hashemi, Hosna Hosseini

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).