In:Intercultural Perspectives on Research Writing
Edited by Pilar Mur-Dueñas and Jolanta Šinkūnienė
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 18] 2018
► pp. 195–216
Chapter 9Epistemic stance and authorial presence in scientific research writing
Hedges, boosters and self-mentions across disciplines and writer groups
Published online: 6 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18.09wan
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18.09wan
Abstract
In this study, we investigate hedges, boosters and self-mentions as main expressions of epistemic positioning and how
much they are projected by explicit authorial presence in the research writings by Chinese PhD students and expert
writers across four science disciplines. Results show that PhD science students used considerably more hedges,
boosters and self-mentions than journal article writers. They exhibit an obvious preference for certain epistemic
resources and an avoidance to hedge or boost their/others’ claims in their academic writings. The results are
discussed with regard to different cultures, disciplines and writer groups, and pedagogical implications on L2
research writing instructions are also raised at the end of the chapter.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Epistemic stance and authorial identity
- 3.Corpus and methods
- 4.Overall distributions of hedges, boosters and self-mentions
- 5.Disciplinary variations
- 6.Variation across IMRC divisions
- 6.1Hedges
- 6.2Boosters
- 6.3Self-mentions
- 7.Discussion
- 8.Pedagogical implication
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (51)
Anthony, L. (2015). AntConc 3.5.0. [URL]
Becher, T. (1994). The
significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher
education, 19(2), 151–161.
Biber, D. (2006). University
language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written
registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman
grammar of written and spoken
English. Harlow: Longman.
Biglan, A. (1973). The
characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of
Applied
Psychology, 57(3), 195–203.
Bodde, B. (1991). Chinese
thought, society and science: The intellectual and social background of science and technology in pre-modern
China. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Çandarli 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.
Chafe, W., & Nichols, J. (Eds.) (1986). Evidentiality:
The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chan, T. H. T. (2015). A
corpus-based study of the expression of stance in dissertation
acknowledgements. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 20, 176–191.
Cobb, T. (2003). Analyzing
late interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European
studies. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues
Vivantes, 59(3), 393–424.
Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural
rhetoric in second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Crosthwaite, P., Cheung, L., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Writing
with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research
reports. English for Specific
Purposes, 46, 107–123.
Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using
computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal
of Second Language
Writing, 9(2), 123–145.
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current
conceptions of stance. Stance and voice in written academic
genres. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harré, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning
theory: Moral contexts of intentional
action. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2001). Evaluation
in text: Authorial stance and the construction of
discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing
without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied
Linguistics, 17(4), 433–454.
(1998). Boosting,
hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text-Interdisciplinary
Journal for the Study of
Discourse, 18(3), 349–382.
(1999). Disciplinary
discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing:
Texts, processes and
practices (pp. 99–121). London: Longman.
(2001). Humble
servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for
Specific
Purposes, 20(3), 207–226.
(2002). Authority
and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of
Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112.
(2005b). Stance
and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse
Studies, 7, 173–192.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change
of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written
Communication, 33(3), 251–274.
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification
and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 6(2), 183–205.
Jiang, F. (2015). Nominal
stance construction in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of English for
Academic
Purposes, 20, 90–102.
Kong, K. C. (2006). Linguistic
resources as evaluators in English and Chinese research
articles. Multilingua, 25, 183–216.
Kuo, C. H. (1999). The
use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal
articles. English for Specific
Purposes, 18(2), 121–138.
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges:
A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago Linguistic
Society
Papers, 8, 183–228.
Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring
valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the
disciplines. Written
Communication, 31(1), 27–57.
(2016). Expressing
stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general
qualities. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 23, 16–30.
Lee, D. Y. W., & Chen, S. X. (2009). Making
a bigger deal of the smaller words: Function words and other key items in research writing by Chinese
learners. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 18(3), 149–165.
Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse
in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in
engineering. System, 46, 39–54.
Leedham, M., & Fernandez-Parra, M. (2017). Recounting
and reflecting: The use of first person pronouns in Chinese, Greek and British students’ assignments in
engineering. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 26, 66–77.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The
language of evaluation: Appraisal in
English. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive
ESP rhetoric: Meta-text in Finnish-English economics texts. English for
Specific
Purposes, 12, 3–22.
McEnery, T., & Kifle, N. A. (2002). Epistemic
modality in argumentative essays of second-language
writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic
discourse (pp.182–195). London: Longman.
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An
intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in
Spanish. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43, 3068–3079.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A
contemporary grammar of the English
language. London: Longman.
Shen, F. (1989). The
classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning English
composition. College Composition and
Communication, 40(4), 459–466.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre
analysis: English in academic and research
settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, G., & Chen, T. (1991). Linguistic,
cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific
texts. Applied
Linguistics, 12, 319–336.
Takimoto, M. (2015). Assertions
and lexical invisibility in EFL learners’ academic essays. Journal of
Pragmatics, 89, 85–99.
Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The
‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person
pronoun. English for Specific
Purposes, 18, 23–39.
Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation:
An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation
in text: Authorial stance and the construction of
discourse (pp. 1–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning
considered within a cultural context: Confucian and Socratic
approaches. American
Psychologist, 57(2), 89–99.
Cited by (18)
Cited by 18 other publications
Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa
2025. Teaching persuasion in Spanish for academic purposes. In Applying Corpora in Teaching and Learning Romance Languages [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 122], ► pp. 66 ff.
Gerrard, Daniel
Katip, Pratheep & Chanika Gampper
Muhammed Parviz & Qiusi Zhang
Yang, Yanfang & Xuan Guo
Dong, Youneng, Jingjing Wang & Feng (Kevin) Jiang
Lu, Sitong & Feng (Kevin) Jiang
Xie, Jianping, Jingwen Xie & Gavin Bui
Yuan, Wen, Yue Jin & Yingli Yang
Abbasi Montazeri, Ebtesam, Alireza Jalilifar & Jorge Arus Hita
AKMAN, Ezgi & Pınar KARAHAN
Jadoulle, Pauline
2023. L1 novice writing as a missing piece in the Learner Corpus Research puzzle. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 9:2 ► pp. 180 ff.
Connor, Ulla M., Xuemei Tan, Yu Zhang & Matthew Hume
Sánchez-Jiménez, David & Paulina Meza
Álvarez Álvarez, Manuela & Alba Naroa Romero González
Wang, Jingjing & Liangjing Zeng
Shchemeleva, Irina
2020. Discipline and methodological paradigm. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 1:2 ► pp. 92 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
