Stance-taking is one aspect of academic-writing conventions that college students need to attend to in order to improve their scholarly writing. Stance includes the ways writers express their value judgments and attitudes to forward a proposition and be aligned with other authors in the field (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999; Du Bois, 2007). This study aims to describe the ways students establish their stance in their literary-analysis papers. While most researchers on stance-taking followed Hyland’s (2005, 2010) framework, it cannot be denied that nuances appear in the ever-evolving dynamics of writing as a social act from authors. While Hyland’s framework is heavily informed by a bulk of data involving advanced and published researchers only, the present study followed Aull and Lancaster’s (2014) framework as this is informed by rather inclusive research data from amateur to advanced writers. The researcher examined the stance-taking linguistic markers used in the literary-analysis papers through the following: expressing commitment (use of hedges and boosters), reformulating and exemplifying (use of code glosses), and expressing concession and contrast (use of adversative or contrast connectors). Nine recorded interviews and 58 literary-analysis papers written by college students from a Philippine state university served as research data. Findings revealed that students used more boosters to express commitment to their claims, which would increase their authorial presence in the essays. Most of the time, the students used code glosses, boosters, and adversative or contrast markers to evidentialize their claims and refer to other authors in order to align themselves and eventually reveal their position on the topic(s) they discuss. The students, however, have limited understanding of the functions of stance-taking as they reasoned that these are only used to sound more convincing and persuasive. The study recommends the explicit instruction of linguistic markers of stance and their functions so that students can expand their rhetorical options for academic writing.
Keywords: Academic writing, authorial presence, linguistic markers, metadiscourse, stance markersAnthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.1) [computer software]. Available from http:// www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
Aull, L.L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151- 183. doi: 10.1177/0741088314527055 Bacnotan, J.M.B., Imperio, R.V.A., & Viñas, L.B. (2008). Performance of ABE Sophomores in Paragraph Writing (Unpublished undergraduate thesis). Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Manila.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. England: Pearson Education.
Ҫandarli, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Marti, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 192-202. Chan, T.H. (2015). A corpus-based study of the expression of stance in dissertation acknowledgments. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 176-191.
Chang, P. (2016). EFL doctoral students’ conceptions of authorial stance in academic research writing: An exploratory study. RELC Journal, 47(2), 175-192.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Crosthwaite, P., & Jiang, K. (2017). Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A longitudinal learner corpus study. System, 69, 92-107.
Daban, R.S., Ebron, A.V., Grajales, R.J.T., Oraa, J.P., & Sanchez, A.P. (2013). Argumentative Writing Performance of the Third Year Bachelor of Arts in English Students Based on the Data Implications for the Enrichment of Writing Instruction (Unpublished undergraduate thesis). Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Manila.
Dawson, C. (2002). Practical research methods. Oxford: How To Books Ltd.
Du Bois, J.W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139-182). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Gales, T. (2011). Identifying interpersonal stance in threatening discourse: An appraisal analysis. Discourse Studies, 13(1), 27-46.
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139.
Gustilo, L. & Magno, C. (2012). Learners’ errors and their evaluation: The case of Filipino ESL writers. Philippine ESL Journal, 8, 96-113.
Hogue, A. (2008). First steps in academic writing (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.
Hyland, K. (1996). Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum. System, 24(4), 477-490.
Hyland, K. (1998a). Boosting, hedging, and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), 349-382. Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455.
Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197. doi: 10.1080/09658410008667145
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 266-285.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251-274.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004) Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Itakura, H. (2012). Hedging praise in English and Japanese book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 45, 131-148.
Jalilifar, A.R., & Shooshtari, Z.G. (2011). Metadiscourse awareness and ESAP comprehension. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), 53-74.
Khajavy, G.M., Assadpour, S.F., & Yousefi, A. (2012). A comparative analysis of interactive metadiscourse features in the discussion section of research articles written in English and Persian. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 147-159.
Khedri, M., Chan, S.H., & Tan, B.H. (2013). Cross-disciplinary and cross-linguistic perspectives on metadiscourse in academic writing. Southern African Linguistics & Applied Language Studies, 31(1), 129-138.
Kirkham, S. (2011). Personal style and epistemic stance in classroom discussion. Language and Literature, 20(3), 201-217.
Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines. Written Communication, 31(1), 27-57.
Lewin, B.A. (2005). Hedging: An exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 163-178.
Li, T., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 345-356.
Marín Arrese, J.I. (2015). Epistemicity and stance: A cross linguistic study of epistemic stance strategies in journalistic discourse in English and Spanish. Discourse Studies, 17(2), 210-225.
Maroko, G.M. (2013). Learning about author positioning in written academic discourse. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 47-60.
Martin, I.P. (2011). Representations of self in reflection essays of Philippine university students. Reflection on English Language Teaching, 10 (1), 55-66.
Masangya, E.M., & Lozada, L. (2009). An investigation on the relationship between the language exposures and errors in English essays of high school students. Philippine ESL Journal, 2, 31-50. Retrieved from http://www.philippine-esljournal.com/ Volume-2-em.php
McEntee-Atalianis, L.J. (2013). Stance and metaphor: Mapping changing representations of (organizational) identity. Discourse & Communication, 7(3), 319-340.
McNamara, D.S. (2013). The epistemic stance between the author and reader: A driving force in the cohesion of text and writing. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 579-595.
Mojica, L. (2005). Filipino authors’ way of showing detachment/commitment in their English academic papers. In D. Dayag, & J.S. Quakenbush (Eds.), Linguistics and language education in the Philippines and beyond: A festschrift in honor of Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista (pp. 511-525). Manila: Linguistics Society of the Philippines.
Murray, R., & Moore, S. (2006). The handbook of academic writing: A fresh approach. England: McGraw Hill Open University Press.
Myers, (1996). Strategic vagueness in academic writing. In E. Ventola, & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 3-18). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. O’Keeffe A., & McCarthy, M. (2010). Historical perspective: What are corpora and how have they evolved? In A. O’Keeffe, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 3-13). London/NewYork: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis. New York, NY: Continuum.
Parina, J.C.M, & De Leon, K. (2013). The significance of language exposure with writing self-efficacy and writing apprehension of Filipino ESL writers. Philippine ESL Journal, 10, 232-244.
Reid, J. (1993). The teaching of ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C.L., & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36-62.
VanderMey, R., Meyer, V., Van Rys, J., & Sebranek, P. (2012). The college writer: A guide to thinking, writing, and researching (4th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Vázquez, I., & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality - Epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 171-190. Weiβner, E. (2008). Sentence Connectors in English Academic Writing- An Empirical Comparison of Research Articles by German and Native English Writers (Unpublished master’s thesis). Technische Universitat Chemnitz, Chemnitz.
Zhang, M. (2016). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies, 18(2), 204-222.
Zhao, C.G. (2012). Measuring authorial voice strength in L2 argumentative writing: The development and validation of an analytic rubric. Language Testing, 30(2), 201-230.
Zhao, C.G., & Llosa, L. (2008). Voice in high-stakes L1 academic writing assessment: Implications for L2 writing instruction. Assessing Writing, 13, 153-170.