In:Advancedness in Second Language Spanish: Definitions, challenges, and possibilities
Edited by Mandy R. Menke and Paul A. Malovrh
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 31] 2021
► pp. 245–272
Chapter 11Linguistic markers of stance in advanced second language Spanish
academic writing
Published online: 8 February 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.31.11men
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.31.11men
Abstract
Written academic texts allow for the observation
of advanced capacities as writers must negotiate identities in order
to position their claims within a disciplinary community. The
construct of stance focuses on how a writer stamps her/his personal
authority on a text. This chapter reports on how six Spanish studies
majors constructed stance in their writing, reporting on both the
interpersonal-epistemic elements and the linguistic devices used.
Participants employed all four stance elements, relying primarily on
a limited number of lexical items to do so. Findings suggest that
Spanish studies majors may need additional instruction to acquire
the valued ways of meaning in academic writing and highlight the
importance of considering diverse contexts of use when exploring
advanced language competencies.
Keywords: stance, L2 writing, advanced L2 Spanish, academic discourse
Article outline
- Previous research
- Stance
- Stance in academic writing
- Interactional stance elements in Spanish and English texts
- The current study
- Research context and corpus
- Data analysis
- Results
- Discussion and conclusions
Acknowledgements Notes References Appendix
References (74)
Alonso-Almeida, F. (2015). On
the mitigating function of modality and evidentiality.
Evidence from English and Spanish medical research
papers. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 12, 33–57.
Ausín, A., & Depiante, M. (2000). On
the syntax of parecer (to seem) with and without an
experiencer. In H. Campos, E. Herburger, A. Morales-Front, & T. J. Walsh (Eds.), Hispanic
linguistics at the turn of the millennium: Papers from the
3rd Hispanic Linguistics
Symposium (pp. 155–170). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
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.
Barton, E. (1993). Evidentials,
argumentation, and epistemological
stance. College
English, 55, 745–769.
Biber, D. (2006). Stance
in spoken and written university
registers. Journal of English
for Academic
Purposes, 5, 97–116.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles
of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of
evidentiality and
affect. Text, 9, 93–124.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman
grammar of spoken and written
English. Harlow: Longman.
Byrnes, H. (2012). Advanced language proficiency. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 506–520). New York, NY: Routledge.
(2009). Emergent
L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A
longitudinal study of grammatical
metaphor. Linguistics and
Education, 20, 50–66.
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H., & Norris, J. (2010). Realizing
advanced foreign language writing developing in collegiate
education: Curricular design, pedagogy,
assessment. Modern Language
Journal, 94(Supplement), 1–221.
Cameron, D. (2012). Epilogue. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance
and voice in written academic
genres (pp. 249–256). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Charles, M. (2006). The
construction of stance in reporting clauses: A
cross-disciplinary study of
theses. Applied
Linguistics, 27, 492–518.
(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, 313–326.
Coffin, C. (2002). The
voices of history: Theorizing the interpersonal semantics of
historical
discourses. Text, 22, 503–528.
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial
marking of stance in speech and
writing. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation
in text: Authorial stance and the construction of
discourse (pp. 56–73). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking
with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical
act. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Derewianka, B. (2007). Using
appraisal theory to track interpersonal development in
adolescent academic
writing. In A. McCabe, M. O’Donnell, & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances
in language and
education (pp. 142–165). London, UK: Continuum.
Douglas Fir
Group. (2016). A
transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual
world. The Modern Language
Journal, 16, 19–47.
Fields, G., & Matsuda, P. K. (2018). Advanced
rhetoric and socially situated
writing. In P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds.), The
handbook of advanced proficiency in second language
acquisition (pp. 527–546). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Flash, P., Breuch, L. K., VanNorman, M., & Kalbfleisch, E. (2008, February). Writing-Enriched
Curriculum. Paper presented
at 2008 Writing Research Across
Borders (WRAB)
Conference, Santa Barbara,
CA.
Francis, G. (1994). Labelling
discourse: An aspect of nominal-group lexical
cohesion. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances
in Written Text
Analysis (pp. 83–101). London, UK: Routledge.
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current
conceptions of stance. K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance
and voice in written academic
genres (pp. 15–33). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An
introduction to functional
grammar (2nd
ed). London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming
back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of
multilingual writers. Journal
of Second Language
Writing, 10, 83–106.
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation
and organization in a sample of written academic
discourse. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances
in written text
analysis (pp. 191–218). London, UK: Routledge.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation
in text. Authorial stance and the construction of
discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (2012). Undergraduate
understandings: Stance and voice in final year
reports. K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance
and voice in written academic
genres (pp. 134–150). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2005a). Representing
readers in writing: Student and expert
practices. Linguistics and
Education, 16, 363–377.
(2005b). Stance
and engagement: A model of interaction in academic
discourse. Discourse
Studies, 7, 173–192.
(2002). Authority
and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic
writing. Journal of
Pragmatics, 34, 251–274.
(1999). Disciplinary
discourses: Writer stance in research
articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing:
Texts, processes and
practices (pp. 99–121). London, UK: Longman.
(1998). Hedging
in scientific research
articles. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification
and certainty in L1 and L2 students’
writing. Journal of Second
Language
Writing, 6, 183–205.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse
in academic writing: A
reappraisal. Applied
Linguistics, 25, 156–177.
Klee, C., Soneson, D., & Melin, C. (2016). From
frameworks to oversight: Components to improving foreign
language program
efficiency. In J. Norris & N. Mills (Eds.), Innovation
and accountability in foreign language program
evaluation (pp. 131–153). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Koutsantoni, D. (2004). Attitude,
certainty, and allusions to common knowledge in scientific
research articles. Journal of
English for Academic
Purposes, 3, 163–182.
Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring
valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in
the disciplines. Written
Communication, 31, 27–57.
(2011). Interpersonal
Stance in L1 and L2 Students’ Argumentative Writing in
Economics: Implications for Faculty Development in WAC/WID
Programs. Across the
Disciplines, 8(4). Retrieved
from <[URL]> (9 July,
2020).
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory
life. The construction of scientific
facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
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.
Lee, J. J. & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactioons in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21–34. .
Leki, I. (2007). Undergraduates
in a second language. Challenges and complexities of
academic literacy
development. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond
exchange: APPRAISAL systems in
English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation
in text. Authorial stance and the construction of
discourse (pp. 142–175). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005). The
language of evaluation: Appraisal in
English. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice
in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second
language writers. Journal of
Second Language
Writing, 10, 35–53.
Menke, M. R., & Anderson, A. M. (2019). Student
and faculty perceptions of writing in a foreign language
studies major. Foreign
Language
Annals, 52, 388–412.
Moreno, A. I. (2004). Retrospective
labeling in premise-conclusion metatext: An English- Spanish
contrastive study of research articles on business and
economics. Journal of English
for Academic
Purposes, 3, 321–339.
Morton, J., & Storch, N. (2019). Developing
an authorial voice in PhD multilingual student writing: The
reader’s perspective. Journal
of Second Language
Writing, 43, 15–23.
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.
(2010). Attitude
markers in business management research articles: A cross-
cultural corpus-driven
approach. International
Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 19, 50–72.
(2007). ’I/we focus on...': A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 143–162.
(2003). Analysing
stance in American and Spanish Business Management RAs: The
case of sentence-initial ‘retrospective
labels.’ Journal of English
Studies, 4, 137–154.
Neff, J., Dafouz, E., Herrera, H., Martínez, F., Rica, J. P., Díez, M., Prieto, R., & Sancho, C. (2003). Contrasting
learner corpora: The use of modal and reporting verbs in the
expression of writer
stance. In S. Granger & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Extending
the scope of corpus-based research. New applications, new
challenges (pp. 211–230). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi.
North, S. (2005). Disciplinary
variation in the use of theme in undergraduate
essays. Applied
Linguistics, 26, 431–452.
Ortega, L., & Byrnes, H. (2008). The
longitudinal study of advanced L2
capacities. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2018). Systemic
functional linguistics and advanced second language
proficiency. In P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds.), The
handbook of advanced proficiency in second language
acquisition (pp. 9–29). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
(2011). Developmental
changes in the use of interactional resources: Persuading
the reader in FL book
reviews. Journal of Second
Language
Writing, 20, 243–256.
(2006). Constructing
coherent and cohesive textual worlds in advanced foreign
language learner
writing (Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A., & Zambrano, N. (2003). The
scimitar, the dagger and the glove: Intercultural
differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French,
and English medical discourse
(1930–1995). English for
Specific
Purposes, 22, 22–247.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). Technical
writing in a second language: The role of grammatical
metaphor. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analyzing
academic writing: Contextualized
frameworks (pp. 172–189). London, UK: Continuum.
Soliday, M. (2011). Everday
genres. Writing assignments across the
disciplines. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation
in research articles abstracts in the narrative and hard
sciences. Journal of English
for Academic
Purposes, 2, 327–341.
Suau-Jiménez, F. (2010). Metadiscursive
elements in the translation of scientific
texts. Linguistics Insights –
Studies in Language and
Communication, 86, 243–254.
Swales, J., & Burke, A. (2003). It’s
really fascinating work: Differences in evaluative
adjectives across academic
registers. In P. Leistyna & C. F. Meyer (Eds.), Corpus
analysis, language structure and language
use (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi.
Thetela, P. (1997). Evaluated
entities and parameters of value in academic research
articles. English for
Specific
Purposes, 16, 101–118.
Thompson, P. (2012). Achieving
a voice of authority in Ph.D.
theses. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance
and voice in written academic
genres (pp. 117–133). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
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. 27). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some
exploratory discourse on
metadiscourse. College
Composition and
Communication, 36, 82–93.
Vazquez Orta, I. (2010). A
contrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the
expression of epistemic stance in Business Management
research articles in English and
Spanish. Iberica, 19, 77–96.
White, P. (2003). Beyond
modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of
intersubjective stance. Text
&
Talk, 23, 259–284.
Wilder, L. (2012). Rhetorical
strategies and genre conventions in literary studies:
Teaching and writing in the
disciplines. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.