Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:25:44.554Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using a stance corpus to learn about effective authorial stance-taking: a textlinguistic approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2012

Peichin Chang
Peichin Chang
Affiliation:
National Taiwan Normal University, 162, HePing East Road, Section 1, Taipei, Taiwan (106) (email: peichinchang@ntnu.edu.tw)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Presenting a persuasive authorial stance is a major challenge for second language (L2) writers in writing academic research. Failure to present an effective authorial stance often results in poor evaluation, which compromises a writer's research potential. This study proposes a “textlinguistic” approach to advanced academic writing to complement a typical corpus approach that is oriented toward exploring lexico-grammatical patterns at the sentence level. A web-based stance corpus was developed which allowed the users to study both the linguistic realizations of stance at clause/sentence level and how stance meanings are made at the rhetorical move level. The assumptions the study tested included: (1) whether a textlinguistic approach assists L2 writers to polish their research argument particularly as a result of improved stance deployment, and (2) whether the web-based corpus tool affords a constructivist environment which prompts the learners to infer linguistic patterns to attain deeper understanding. Seven L2 doctoral students in the social sciences were recruited. The results indicate a positive relationship between writing performance and more accurate use of stance. However, the application of higher order cognitive skills (e.g., inferring and verifying) was infrequent in the corpus environment. Instead, the writers used more lower-level cognitive skills (e.g., making sense and exploring) to learn. The participants accessed the integrated “context examples” most frequently to guide their learning, followed by rhetorical “move examples” and clause-based “stance examples”. This suggests that the learning of stance is critically contingent on the surrounding contexts. Overall, the study reveals that effective authorial stance-taking plays a critical role in effective academic argument. To better assist L2 academic writers, incorporating more (con)textual examples in computer corpora tools is recommended.

Keywords

textlinguisticsadvanced academic writingauthorial stance-takingspecialized corpusrhetorical movesSystemic Functional Linguistics
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , 27 April 2012 , pp. 209 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barton, E. L. (1993) Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 5: 745–769.Google Scholar
Bernardini, S. (1998). Systematising serendipity; Proposals for large-corpora concordancing with language learners. Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective. Papers from the Third International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, 12–16.Google Scholar
Bernardini, S. (2002) Exploring new directions for discovery learning. In: Kettemann, B. and Marko, G. (eds.), Teaching and learning by doing corpus analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 165–182.Google Scholar
Bloch, J. (2009) The design of an online concordancing program for teaching about reporting verbs. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1): 59–78.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. (2009) Testing the limits of data-driving learning: language proficiency and training. ReCALL, 21(1): 37–54.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. (2010) Data-driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation. Language Learning, 60(3): 534–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, A. (2005) Integrating corpus consultation in language studies. Language learning and technology, 9(2): 111–125.Google Scholar
Chambers, A. (2007) Popularising corpus consultation by language learners and teachers. In: Hidalgo, E., Quereda, L. and Santana, J. (eds.), Corpora in the foreign language classroom. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 3–16.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, M. (2007) Reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches to graduate writing: Using a corpus to teach rhetorical functions. Journal of English for academic purposes, 6(4): 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. (1997) Is there any measurable learning from hands on concordancing? System, 25(3): 301–315.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (1998) Corpus linguistics techniques applied to textlinguistics. System, 26: 541–552.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (2004) The argument for using English specialized corpora. In: Connor, U. and Upton, T. A. (eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (2005) An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches to text analysis in EAP/ESP: countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies. English for specific purposes, 24: 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (2009) Applying corpus linguistics to pedagogy: A critical evaluation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3): 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner, C. A.Candlin, C. N. (2007) Corpus tools as an affordance to learning in professional legal education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6: 303–318.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.Martin, J. R. (1993) Writing science: Literary and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Hewings, A. (2004) Developing discipline-specific writing: an analysis of undergraduate geography essays. In: Ravelli, L. J. and Ellis, R. A. (eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks. NY: Continuum, 131–152.Google Scholar
Hood, S. (2004) Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing: a focus on the introductions to research reports. In: Ravelli, L. J. and Ellis, R. A. (eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks. NY: Continuum, 24–44.Google Scholar
Hood, S. (2006) The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5: 37–49.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (2002) Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998) Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3): 349–382.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2003) Second Language Writing. Cambridge: New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2004a) Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13: 133–151.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2004b) Disciplinary Discourses: social interactions in academic writing. Harlow, England: Longman.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005) Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2): 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2006) English for Academic Purposes: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, A. M., Bawarshi, A., Coe, R. M., Hyland, K., Paltridge, B., Reiff, M. J.Tardy, C. (2006) Crossing the boundaries of genre studies: Commentaries by experts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15: 234–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, T. (1991) Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials. ELR Journal, 4: 1–16.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C.Miceli, T. (2001) An evaluation of intermediate students’ approaches to corpus investigation. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3): 77–90.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C.Miceli, T. (2010) Corpus-Assisted Creative Writing: Introducing Intermediate Italian Learners to a Corpus as a Reference Resource. Language Learning and Technology, 14(1): 28–44.Google Scholar
Lee, S. H. (2008) An integrative framework for the analyses of argumentative/persuasive essays for an interpersonal perspective. Text & talk, 28(2): 239–270.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1997) Teaching and language corpora: a convergence. In: Wichmann, A., Fligelstone, S., McEnery, T. and Knowles, G. (eds.), Teaching and language corpora. London: Longman, 1–23.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R.White, P. R. R. (2005) The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, S. (1980) Teaching the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic dimensions of verbs. TESOL Quarterly, 14(1): 17–26.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, Í.Chambers, A. (2006) Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1): 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, Í. (2007) Enhancing a process-oriented approach to literacy and language learning: The role of corpus consultation literacy. ReCALL, 19(3): 269–286.Google Scholar
Samraj, B. (2002) Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21: 1–18.Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. (2004) Technical writing in a second language: the role of grammatical metaphor. In: Ravelli, L. J. and Ellis, R. A. (eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks. NY: Continuum, 173–189.Google Scholar
Sun, Y-C. (2003) Learning processes strategies and web-based concordancers: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5): 601–613.Google Scholar
Sun, Y-C.Wang, L-Y. (2003) Concordancers in the EFL classroom: cognitive approaches and collocation difficulty. CALL, 16(1): 83–94.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (2004) Research genres: explorations and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, R. W. (2001) Induction from self-selected concordances and self-correction. System, 29(1): 91–102.Google Scholar
Tribble, C. (1991) Concordancing and an EAP writing programme. CAELL Journal, 1(2): 10–15.Google Scholar
Turnbull, J.Burston, J. (1998) Towards independent concordance work for students: Lessons from a case study. ON-CALL, 12(2): 10–21.Google Scholar
Upton, T. A.Connor, U. (2001) Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes, 20: 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1998) Context, community and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4): 705–716.Google Scholar
Woodward-Kron, R. (2002) Critical analysis versus description? Examining the relationship in successful student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1: 121–143.Google Scholar
Wu, S. (2007) The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3): 254–271.Google Scholar