The previous genre-based studies have emphasized the rhetorical organization of the discussion section in research articles or thesis writing. The present study extends this trend by exploring the argumentative structure and its link to stance-taking features in the discussion part-genre written by both expert and student writers. Two corpora were compiled, including discussion samples taken from published research articles and those chosen from Master’s theses in applied linguistics. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to identify any differences and similarities between the two groups of writers in terms of their organization of argumentative structure and the stance-taking manner. The results demonstrated that expert and student writers significantly differ in the manipulation of supporting evidence albeit their similar tendency to craft claim-evidence link. The significant differences were particularly found in the realization of interpretive arguments, with student writers employing more use of reason-result pattern whereas established writers presenting the higher occurrence of concessive clauses to reinforce the strength of arguments. Besides, the study also revealed that student writers tend to favor more numerical data while expert writers show greater preferences for generalized evidential and research evaluation to seek support for knowledge claims. Furthermore, the analysis of stance markers highlighted that stance-taking devices are inextricably interwoven with the claim-evidence link, with hedges and self-mentions predominantly serving for the interpretive evidence, attitude markers for both evidential and evaluative labels, and boosters for claim sets and factual evidence. Statistically significant differences between two corpora were also observed across the allocation of stance markers in relation to argumentative structures. The findings of the study have both theoretical and pedagogical implications for EAP writing instruction and learning needs.
| Published in | International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation (Volume 9, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijalt.20230901.11 |
| Page(s) | 1-11 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Argumentative Patterns, Stance Markers, Discussion Section, Corpus-Based Analysis
| [1] | Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing a corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31, 151-183. |
| [2] | Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and master dissertations in Language Teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8 (4), 241-251. |
| [3] | Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in Dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 134-144. |
| [4] | Basturkmen, H., & von Randow, J. (2014). Guiding the reader (or not) to re-create coherence: Observations on postgraduate student writing in an academic argumentative writing task. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 14-22. |
| [5] | Bruce, I. (2014). Expressing criticality in the literature review in research article introductions in applied linguistics and psychology. English for Specific Purposes, 36, 85-96. |
| [6] | Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in University essays in English literature and sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13-25. |
| [7] | Cotos, E., Huffman, S., & Link, S. (2015). Furthering and applying move/steps constructs: Technology-driven marshaling of Swalesian genre theory for EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 52-72. |
| [8] | Cotos, E., Link, S., & Huffman, S. (2016). Studying disciplinary corpora to teach the craft of discussion. Writing and Pedagogy, 8.1, 33-64. |
| [9] | Cooley, L. & Lewkowicz, J. (1995). The writing needs of graduate students at the University of Hong Kong: A project of report. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 121-123. |
| [10] | Crismore, A., & Abdollehzadeh, E. (2010). A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9 (2), 195-219. |
| [11] | Crombie, W. (1985). Process and relation in discourse and language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. |
| [12] | Crosthwaite, P., L. Cheung & F. K. Jiang. (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 107-123. |
| [13] | Dong, Y. R. (1998). Non-native graduates’ thesis/dissertation writing in science: Self-reports by students and their advisors from two U.S. institutions. English for Specific Purposes, 17 (4), 369-390. |
| [14] | Harwood, N. (2009). An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41 (3), 497-518. |
| [15] | Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. |
| [16] | Hinkel, E. (2003). Adverbial markers and tone of L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1049-1068. |
| [17] | Hirvela, A. (2017). Argumentation & second language writing: Are we missing the boat? Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 69-74. |
| [18] | Ho, V., & C. Li. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53-68. |
| [19] | Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context. The pragmatics of academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455. |
| [20] | Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20 (3), 341-367. |
| [21] | Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7 (2), 173-192. |
| [22] | Hyland, K. (2014). Academic written English. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. |
| [23] | Hyland, K. (2016). Writing with attitude: Conveying a stance in academic texts. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Teaching English grammar to speakers of other languages. New York: Routledge. |
| [24] | Hyland, K., & F. K. Jiang. (2019). Points of Reference: Changing Patterns of Academic Citation. Applied Linguistics, 40 (1), 64-85. |
| [25] | Hyon, S. (2017). Introducing genre and English for specific purposes. London: Routledge. |
| [26] | Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 269-292. |
| [27] | Kanoksilapatham, B. (2015). Distinguishing textual features characterizing structural variation in research articles across three engineering sub-discipline corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 74-86. |
| [28] | Kwan, B. S., 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, 188-201. |
| [29] | Liu, Y. & L. Buckingham. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 97-109. |
| [30] | Liu, X., & Furneaux, C. (2014). A multidimensional comparison of discourse organization in English and Chinese university students’ argumentative writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24, 74–96. |
| [31] | Lewin, B. A. (2010). Writing Readable Research: A Guide for Students of Social Sciences. London: Equinox. |
| [32] | Mansourizadeh, K., & U.K. Ahmad. (2011). Citation practices among non-native expert and novice scientific writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10 (3), 152-161. |
| [33] | MacDonald, S. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. SIU Press. |
| [34] | Parkinson, J. (2011). The Discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for Specific Purposes, 30 (3), 164-175. |
| [35] | Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30 (4), 479-497. |
| [36] | Pessoa, S., T. D. Mitchell, & R. T. Miller. (2017). Emergent arguments: A functional approach to analyzing student challenges with the argument genre. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 42-55. |
| [37] | Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university. System, 38, 444-456. |
| [38] | Sinclair, J. (2005). Corpus and text: Basic principles. In M. Wynne (Ed.), Developing linguistic corpora: A guide to good practice (pp. 1-16). Oxford: Oxbow Books. |
| [39] | Stapels, S., & Reppen, R. (2016). Understanding first-year L2 writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 17-35. |
| [40] | Stapleton, P., & Y. A. Wu. (2015). Assessing the quality of arguments in students’ persuasive writing: A case study analyzing the relationship between surface structure and substance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 12-23. |
| [41] | Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: CUP. |
| [42] | Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [43] | Thompson, P. (2005). Points of focus and position: Intertextual reference in PhD theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4 (4), 307-323. |
| [44] | Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [45] | Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37 (5), 360-363. |
| [46] | Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11 (2), 145-154. |
| [47] | Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 25, 183-209. |
| [48] | Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365-385. |
APA Style
Meiling Wang, Liming Deng. (2023). Modeling Claim - Evidence - Stance link in the Discussion Section of Research Genres: A Comparative Case Study of Expert and Student Writers in Applied Linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation, 9(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijalt.20230901.11
ACS Style
Meiling Wang; Liming Deng. Modeling Claim - Evidence - Stance link in the Discussion Section of Research Genres: A Comparative Case Study of Expert and Student Writers in Applied Linguistics. Int. J. Appl. Linguist. Transl. 2023, 9(1), 1-11. doi: 10.11648/j.ijalt.20230901.11
AMA Style
Meiling Wang, Liming Deng. Modeling Claim - Evidence - Stance link in the Discussion Section of Research Genres: A Comparative Case Study of Expert and Student Writers in Applied Linguistics. Int J Appl Linguist Transl. 2023;9(1):1-11. doi: 10.11648/j.ijalt.20230901.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijalt.20230901.11,
author = {Meiling Wang and Liming Deng},
title = {Modeling Claim - Evidence - Stance link in the Discussion Section of Research Genres: A Comparative Case Study of Expert and Student Writers in Applied Linguistics},
journal = {International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation},
volume = {9},
number = {1},
pages = {1-11},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijalt.20230901.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijalt.20230901.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijalt.20230901.11},
abstract = {The previous genre-based studies have emphasized the rhetorical organization of the discussion section in research articles or thesis writing. The present study extends this trend by exploring the argumentative structure and its link to stance-taking features in the discussion part-genre written by both expert and student writers. Two corpora were compiled, including discussion samples taken from published research articles and those chosen from Master’s theses in applied linguistics. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to identify any differences and similarities between the two groups of writers in terms of their organization of argumentative structure and the stance-taking manner. The results demonstrated that expert and student writers significantly differ in the manipulation of supporting evidence albeit their similar tendency to craft claim-evidence link. The significant differences were particularly found in the realization of interpretive arguments, with student writers employing more use of reason-result pattern whereas established writers presenting the higher occurrence of concessive clauses to reinforce the strength of arguments. Besides, the study also revealed that student writers tend to favor more numerical data while expert writers show greater preferences for generalized evidential and research evaluation to seek support for knowledge claims. Furthermore, the analysis of stance markers highlighted that stance-taking devices are inextricably interwoven with the claim-evidence link, with hedges and self-mentions predominantly serving for the interpretive evidence, attitude markers for both evidential and evaluative labels, and boosters for claim sets and factual evidence. Statistically significant differences between two corpora were also observed across the allocation of stance markers in relation to argumentative structures. The findings of the study have both theoretical and pedagogical implications for EAP writing instruction and learning needs.},
year = {2023}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Modeling Claim - Evidence - Stance link in the Discussion Section of Research Genres: A Comparative Case Study of Expert and Student Writers in Applied Linguistics AU - Meiling Wang AU - Liming Deng Y1 - 2023/02/04 PY - 2023 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijalt.20230901.11 DO - 10.11648/j.ijalt.20230901.11 T2 - International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation JF - International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation JO - International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation SP - 1 EP - 11 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2472-1271 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijalt.20230901.11 AB - The previous genre-based studies have emphasized the rhetorical organization of the discussion section in research articles or thesis writing. The present study extends this trend by exploring the argumentative structure and its link to stance-taking features in the discussion part-genre written by both expert and student writers. Two corpora were compiled, including discussion samples taken from published research articles and those chosen from Master’s theses in applied linguistics. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to identify any differences and similarities between the two groups of writers in terms of their organization of argumentative structure and the stance-taking manner. The results demonstrated that expert and student writers significantly differ in the manipulation of supporting evidence albeit their similar tendency to craft claim-evidence link. The significant differences were particularly found in the realization of interpretive arguments, with student writers employing more use of reason-result pattern whereas established writers presenting the higher occurrence of concessive clauses to reinforce the strength of arguments. Besides, the study also revealed that student writers tend to favor more numerical data while expert writers show greater preferences for generalized evidential and research evaluation to seek support for knowledge claims. Furthermore, the analysis of stance markers highlighted that stance-taking devices are inextricably interwoven with the claim-evidence link, with hedges and self-mentions predominantly serving for the interpretive evidence, attitude markers for both evidential and evaluative labels, and boosters for claim sets and factual evidence. Statistically significant differences between two corpora were also observed across the allocation of stance markers in relation to argumentative structures. The findings of the study have both theoretical and pedagogical implications for EAP writing instruction and learning needs. VL - 9 IS - 1 ER -
Email: