Cover not available
Part of
Advances in Corpus-based Research on Academic Writing: Effects of discipline, register, and writer expertise
Edited by Ute Römer-Barron, Viviana Cortes and Eric Friginal
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 95] 2020
► pp. 255–278

Stance in unpublished student writing

An exploratory study of modal verbs in MICUSP’s Physical Science papers

| Iowa State University
| National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology
This exploratory study investigates modal verbs as stance features in the Physical Sciences sub-corpus of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers (MICUSP). The study adopts Biber’s (2006) stance framework, including modal verbs in three categories: possibility, necessity, and prediction. Focusing on one feature within one sub-corpus afforded closer consideration of the units of analysis (discipline, level of study, nativeness, and register) that could contribute to variation in the use of modals as stance features. The findings show that possibility and prediction modals are the most common in the Physical Sciences sub-corpus. The study provides a description of student academic writing and considers future research directions and pedagogical implications of stance in Physical Science disciplines, student levels, nativeness, and registers.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Studies about stance
    • 2.1Stance in student writing
    • 2.2Modal verbs as stance markers in academic writing
  • 3.Methods and materials
    • 3.1Corpus
    • 3.2Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Possibility modals
    • 4.2Prediction modals
    • 4.3Necessity modals
    • 4.4Disciplinary variation
    • 4.5Student level
    • 4.6Nativeness
    • 4.7Registers
  • 5.Discussion and pedagogical implications
  • 6.Future directions
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 20 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.95.11bec
References (60)
References
Abdi, Reza. 2002. Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies 4(2): 139–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alsop, Sian & Nesi, Hilary. 2009. Issues in the development of the British Academic Written English (BAWE) corpus. Corpora 4(1): 71–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aull, Laura L., Bandarage, Dineth & Miller, Meredith. 2017. Generality in student and expert epistemic stance: A corpus analysis of first-year, upper-level, and published academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 26: 29–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aull, Laura L. & Lancaster, Zak. 2014. Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing a corpus-based comparison. Written Communication 31(2): 151–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barton, Ellen. 1993. Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English 55(7): 745–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berkenkotter, Carol & Huckin, Thomas N. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Berman, Robert. 1994. Learners’ transfer of writing skills between languages. TESL Canada Journal, 12(1): 29–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Using register-diversified corpora for general language studies. Computational Linguistics 19(2): 219–241.Google Scholar
. 2012. Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1): 9–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Doug & Conrad, Susan. 2009. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2006. University Language. A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Aspects of Language, 2nd edn. New York NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Bruce, Ian. 2009. Results sections in sociology and organic chemistry articles: A genre analysis. English for Specific Purposes 28(2): 105–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canseco, Grace & Byrd, Patricia. 1989. Writing required in graduate courses in business administration. TESOL Quarterly 23(2): 305–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Peichin. 2012. Using a stance corpus to learn about effective authorial stance-taking: A textlinguistic approach. ReCALL 24(2): 209–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charles, Maggie. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 2000. Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century? TESOL Quarterly 34(3): 548–560. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crosthwaite, Peter, Cheung, Lisa & Jiang, Feng K. 2017. Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes 46: 107–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bethany. 2015. Linguistic Variation in Research Articles. When Discipline Tells Only Part of the Story [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Gordon, Taylor, Carol, Bridgeman, Brent, Carson, Joan, Kroll, Barbara, & Kantor, Robert. 1996. A Study of Writing Tasks Assigned in Academic Degree Programs [Educational Testing Service Research Report 54]. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Hardy, Jack A. & Römer, Ute. 2013. Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora 8(2): 183–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, Eli. 2009. The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(4): 667–683.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, Daniel M. 1986. What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 20(3): 445–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoye, Leo. 1997. Adverbs and Modality in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 1993. Professional conflict: Disagreement in academic discourse. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 115–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1999. Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices, Christopher N. Candlin & Ken Hyland (eds), 99–121. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2002. Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In Academic Discourse, John Flowerdew (ed.), 115–130. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2004. Disciplinary Discourses. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2): 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johns, Ann. 2009. Tertiary undergraduate EAP: Problems and possibilities. In English for Specific Purposes in Theory and Practice, Diane Belcher (ed.), 41–59. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Johns, Tim. 1994. From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar, Terence Odlin (ed.), 293–313. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials. English Language Research Journal 4: 1–16.Google Scholar
Lancaster, Zak. 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). <[URL]>
Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 2003. A Communicative Grammar of English, 3rd edn. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2005. Meaning and the English Verb, 3rd edn. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 1997. Hedging and modality in language revisers’ hands. In Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon, Raija Markkanen & Hartmut Schroeder (eds), 115–133. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony, Xiao, Richard & Tono, Yukio. 2006. Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Millan, Enrique L. 2008. Epistemic and approximative meaning revisited: The use of hedges boosters and approximators when writing research in different disciplines. In English as an Additional Language in Research Publication and Communication, Sally Burgess & Pedro Martin-Martin (eds), 65–82. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Miller, Ryan T., Mitchell, Tomas D. & Pessoa, Silvia. 2016. Impact of source texts and prompts on students’ genre uptake. Journal of Second Language Writing 31: 11–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Greg. 1990. The rhetoric of irony in academic writing. Written Communication 7(4): 419–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesi, Hilary & Gardner, Sheena. 2012. Genres across the Disciplines: Student Writing in Higher Education. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Matthew B. & Römer, Ute. 2012. From student hard drive to web corpus (part 2): The annotation and online distribution of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora 7(1): 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, Matthew B., Römer, Ute & Nick C. Ellis. 2013. The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing: Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1): 83–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Römer, Ute. 2009. English in academia: Does nativeness matter? Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies 20(2): 89–100.Google Scholar
Römer, Ute & O’Donnell, Matthew B. 2011. From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): The design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora 6(2): 159–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Fancoise. 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13(2): 149–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samson, Sue. 2010. Information literacy learning outcomes and student success. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 36(3): 202–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soliday, Mary. 2011. Everyday Genres: Writing Assignments across the Disciplines. Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Street, Brian. 2009. “Hidden” features of academic paper writing. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 24(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Swales, John M. 2014. Variation in citational practice in a corpus of student biology papers from parenthetical plonking to intertextual storytelling. Written Communication 31(1): 118–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 2001. Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied linguistics 22(1): 58–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Paul & Tribble, Chris. 2001. Looking at citations: Using corpora in English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology 5(3): 91–105.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Ye, Yiyun. 1991. Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics 12(4): 365–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Sue. 2012. Epistemological and interpersonal stance in a data description task: Findings from a discipline-specific learner corpus. English for Specific Purposes 31(4): 261–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilder, Laura. 2012. Rhetorical Strategies and Genre Conventions in Literary Studies: Teaching and Writing in the Disciplines. Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Wingate, Ursula. 2012. ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(2): 145–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, Siew Mei. 2007. The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(3): 254–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, An, Zheng, Shu-yuan & Ge, Guang-chun. 2015. Epistemic modality in English-medium medical research articles: A systemic functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes 38:1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Hollmann, Willem B., Kazuko Fujimoto & Masahiro Kuroda
2024. Japanese EFL undergraduate students’ use of the epistemic modal verbs may, might, and could in academic writing. Language Learning in Higher Education 14:1 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. 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.