Cover not available

Article published In: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

A study on the developmental features and stance construction of shell nouns by Chinese EFL learners

ORCiD logo with link | Ocean University of China
ORCiD logo with link | Ocean University of China
ORCiD logo with link | Ocean University of China
Published online: 2 June 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.24080.wei
Abstract
The unique semantic characteristics of shell nouns (SNs) endow them with a rich interpersonal function in academic discourse. However, little attention has been paid to the developing features of SNs and their lexico-grammatical patterns in Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. This study bridges these gaps by tracking the progression of 15 English postgraduate students in terms of their use of SNs in academic writing across three stages. Key findings reveal: (1) objective SNs remained the prevailing choice, but significant longitudinal increase was only observed in the use of ‘meta-text’ SNs; (2) stance expressions involved fewer object nouns, which highlighted the interactive and evaluative feature of academic papers; (3) the use of anaphoric shell-noun patterns increased, reflecting an emphasized author-centric stance formation; (4) learners had a preference for the use of objective premodifiers, revealing a divergent trend from SNs. Moreover, the study exposed features in learners’ stance construction, characterized by simplicity in use, limited interactivity, and imbalance in development.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Use of SNs in stance construction
    • 2.2Research on SNs
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Classification of SNs and their premodifiers
      • 3.1.1Classification of SNs
      • 3.1.2Classification of premodifiers of SNs
    • 3.2The dataset
    • 3.3Data collection
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Changes in use of SNs
      • 4.1.1Changes in use of lexico-grammatical patterns
      • 4.1.2Changes in use of high-frequency SNs
      • 4.1.3Changes in use of different categories of SNs
    • 4.2Changes in use of shell-noun premodifiers
      • 4.2.1Changes in use of high-frequency premodifiers
      • 4.2.2Changes in use of different categories of premodifiers
  • 5.Trends in stance construction
    • 5.1Trend one: Object SNs dominate across the three stages
    • 5.2Trend two: Students employ fewer ‘object’ nouns over time
    • 5.3Trend three: Author-centric stance is evolving
    • 5.4Trend four: Premodifiers mainly construct objective stance
  • 6.Features of stance construction by learners
    • 6.1Simplicity in use
    • 6.2Limited interactivity
    • 6.3Imbalance in development
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Declaration of contributions from generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process
  • References
References (50)
References
Aktas, R. N., & Cortes, V. (2008). Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 3–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baratta, A. M. (2010). Nominalization development across an undergraduate academic degree program. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 1017–1036. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching (6th ed.). Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charalles, M. (1999). Associative anaphora and its interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(3), 311–326. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charles, M. (2003). “This mystery…”: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 313–326. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun “that” pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 203–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, S., & Hu, Z. (2018). A comparative study of shell noun use in English and Chinese research articles of applied linguistics. Foreign Language Education, 001, 63–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiang, Y. (2012). Perfectionism and EFL writing anxiety in mathematics-and-science-gifted senior high school girls. English Teaching and Learning, 361, 53–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crosthwaite, P., & Jiang, K. (2017). Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A longitudinal learner corpus study. System, 691, 92–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dong, M., & Fang, A. C. (2021). Shell nouns as grammatical metaphor revealing disparate construals: Investigating the differences between British English and China English based on a comparable corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(3), 743–779. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fang, A. C., & Dong, M. (2021). Shell nouns as register-specific discourse devices. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 26(2), 219–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), 329–346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Revisiting metadiscourse: Conceptual and methodological issues concerning signalling nouns. Iberica, 291, 15–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J., & Forest, R. (2015). Signalling nouns in English: A corpus-based discourse approach. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Francis, G. (1986). Anaphoric nouns. English Language Research.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Labelling discourse: An aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 83–101). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gao, Y., Li, L., & Lü, J. (2001). Trends in research methods in applied linguistics: China and the West. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, B. (2010). On the use of demonstrative pronouns and determiners as cohesive devices: A focus on sentence-initial this/these in academic prose. Journal of Academic Purposes, 9(3), 167–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, B., & Cortes, V. (2011). Perception vs. evidence: An analysis of this and these in academic prose. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 31–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (2001). Cohesion in English. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hu, X., & Huang, Y. (2021). A comparative study on interpersonal functions of shell nouns in different moves of English abstracts of Chinese and English scientific papers. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, (03), 56–63.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Y., & Rose, K. (2018). You, our shareholders: Metadiscourse in CEO letters from Chinese and Western banks. Text & Talk, 38(2), 167–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2003). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Işık-Taş, E. E. (2018). Nominal stance construction in IELTS tests. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 341, 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivanic, R. (1991). Nouns in search of a context: A study of nouns with both open and close-system characteristics. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 29(3), 93–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiang, F. (2015). Nominal stance construction in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 201, 90–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2015). “The fact that”: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529–550. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Nouns and academic interactions: a neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, 391, 508–531. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). “The goal of this analysis …”: Changing patterns of metadiscursive nouns in disciplinary writing. Lingua, (252), 103017. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lancaster, Z. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 231, 16–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martı́nez, A. C. L. (2002). Empirical examination of EFL readers’ use of rhetorical information. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 81–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauranen, A., & Marina, B. (2003). Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 269–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ozkan, K., & Kirmizi, G. D. (2022). Nominal stance in cross-disciplinary academic writing of L1 and L2 speakers in noun+that constructions. Journal of Language and Education, 8(2), 80–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H. (1998). Constant and ephemeral hypostatization: Thing, problem and other shell nouns. In B. Caron (Ed.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists, CD-ROM. Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sukthanker, R., Poria, S., Cambria, E., & Thirunavukarasu, R. (2020). Anaphora and coreference resolution: A Review. Information Fusion, 591, 139–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tadros, A. (1994). Predictive categories in expository text. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 69–82). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Cornell University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Y., & Hu, G. (2023). Shell noun phrases in scientific writing: A diachronic corpus-based study on research articles in chemical engineering. English for Specific Purposes, 711, 178–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, E. O. (1982). Towards a contextual grammar of English. George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, Y., & Zhou, D. (2022). Understanding Chinese EFL learners’ anxiety in second language writing for the sustainable development of writing skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 131, 1010010. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, C. G. (2013). Measuring authorial voice strength in L2 argumentative writing: The development and validation of an analytic rubric. Language Testing, 30(2), 201–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behaviour and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue