Cover not available

Article published In: Register Studies
Vol. 1:2 (2019) ► pp.243–268

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

Grammatical stance marking across registers

Revisiting the formal-informal dichotomy

 | Uppsala University | Université catholique de Louvain
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 25 September 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18009.lar
Abstract
There are sets of grammatical stance markers that are morphologically and semantically related, but that differ with regard to their syntactic realization (e.g., importantly, it is important that and the importance of). Little attention has, however, been paid to how these pattern across registers. This study examines eleven such sets across five registers in apprentice and expert production to investigate which register(s) the apprentice writers’ use is closest to and what that can tell us about their adherence to academic norms. The results show that there is a cline from the a priori more formal registers to the less formal registers for the stance markers investigated. When the apprentice writers’ usage was mapped onto this cline, it became clear that their usage diverged slightly from that of the academic experts, thus indicating a lack of register awareness. Yet, very little evidence was found to support previous claims of the ‘spoken-like’ nature of learner writing.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Data and method
    • 3.1The corpus data
    • 3.2Method
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Distribution across registers
    • 4.2Distribution across the expert and apprentice writing
      • 4.2.1A frequency overview
      • 4.2.2Hedges
      • 4.2.3Boosters
      • 4.2.4Attitude markers
    • 4.3Concluding discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (47)
References
(2008). Involvement features in writing: Do time and interaction trump register awareness? In G. Gilquin, S. Papp, & M. B. Díez-Bedmar (Eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research (pp. 35–53). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altenberg, B., & Tapper, M. (1998). The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 80–93). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
British Academic Written English (BAWE). Corpus compiled at the Universities of Warwick, Reading and Oxford Brookes in 2004–2007. [URL]
Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006a). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Zhang, M. (2018). Lexis and grammar as complementary discourse systems for expressing stance and evaluation. In M. Gómez González & J. L. Mackenzie (Eds.), The construction of discourse as verbal interaction (pp. 201–226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Zhang, M. (2018). Expressing evaluation without grammatical stance: Informational persuasion on the web. Corpora, 13(1), 97–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burnard, L. (2007). Reference guide for the British National Corpus (XML edition). <[URL]>
Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 310–331. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning teaching assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 Million Words, 1990-present. <[URL]>
Fox, J., & Hong, J. (2009). Effect displays in R for multinomial and proportional-odds logit models: Extensions to the effects package. Journal of Statistical Software, 32(1), 1–24. <[URL]>
Glynn, D. (2014). Correspondence analysis: An exploratory technique for identifying usage patterns. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods in cognitive semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 443–485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 15–33). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 257–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasselgård, H. (2015). Lexicogrammatical features of adverbs in advanced learner English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 166(1), 163–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herriman, J., & Boström Aronsson, M. (2009). Themes in Swedish advanced learners’ writing in English. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and language teaching (pp. 101–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). ’It is interesting to note that…’: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 367–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 151, 29–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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
Kaatari, H. (2017). Adjectives complemented by that- and to-clauses: Exploring semantico-syntactic relationships and genre variation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larsson, T. (2014). Introducing the Advanced Learner English Corpus (ALEC): A new learner corpus. Poster presented at the 2014 LOT Winter School, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20 January, 2014.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). The introductory it pattern: Variability explored in learner and expert writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 221, 64–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017b). A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes, 481, 57–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Is there a correlation between form and function? A syntactic and functional investigation of the introductory it pattern in student writing. ICAME Journal, 42(1), 13–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larsson, T. & Kaatari, H. (2019). Extraposition in learner and expert writing: Exploring (in)formality and the impact of register. International Journal of Learner Corpus Linguistics, 5(1), 33–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Le, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2008). FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, D. (2001). Genres, registers, text-types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology, 5(3), 37–72.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Ann Arbor: The Regents of the University of Michigan. Corpus compiled at the University of Michigan in 2009. [URL]
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paquot, M., Hasselgård, H., & Oksefjell Ebeling, S. (2013). Writer/reader visibility in learner writing across genres: A comparison of the French and Norwegian components of the ICLE and VESPA learner corpora. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty years of learner corpus research: Looking back, moving ahead (pp. 377–388). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petch-Tyson, S. (1998). Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 107–118). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <[URL]>
Smith, E. L. (1986). Achieving impact through the interpersonal component. In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional approaches to writing (pp. 108–119). London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York, NY: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Metslang, Helle, Külli Habicht, Tiit Hennoste, Kirsi Laanesoo-Kalk, Külli Prillop, Andriela Rääbis & Carl Eric Simmul
2024. (Inter)subjectivity in Estonian registers. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 3:2 ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo
Varga, Mónika
2024. A bizonyosság és bizonytalanság jelölőiről 16–18. századi regiszterekben. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 11:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Paquot, Magali, Tove Larsson, Hilde Hasselgård, Signe O. Ebeling, Damien De Meyere, Larry Valentin, Natalia J. Laso, Isabel Verdaguer & Sanne van Vuuren
2022. The Varieties of English for Specific Purposes dAtabase (VESPA): Towards a multi-L1 and multi-register learner corpus of disciplinary writing. Research in Corpus Linguistics 10:2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Larsson, Tove, Magali Paquot & Douglas Biber
2021. On the importance of register in learner writing. In Corpus-based approaches to register variation [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 103], ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue