Post-Print Sawaki, T. (2014). On the function of stance-neutral … · 2016. 4. 21. · Sawaki, T. (2014). On the function of stance-neutral formulations: Apparent neutrality as a

Post-Print

Sawaki, T. (2014). On the function of stance-neutral formulations: Apparent neutrality

as a powerful stance constructing resource. JEAP, 16, 81–92.

This is a pre-copyedited (post-print) version of an article accepted for publication in

Journal of English for Academic Purposes 16 (2014) following peer review.

Sawaki, T. (2014). On the function of stance-neutral formulations: Apparent

neutrality as a powerful stance constructing resource. Journal of English for

Academic Purposes, 16, 81–92. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.10.001

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158514000630

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.10.001

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158514000630

Post-Print



On the function of stance-neutral formulations: Apparent neutrality as

a powerful stance-constructing resource.

Author: Tomoko Sawaki

Abstract

This study explores the function of expressing external viewpoints with stance-neutral

frames in academic writing. While a growing number of studies have established that

appropriately evaluating external viewpoints is vital in advanced academic writing, the

function of using stance-neutral formulations has long been unexplored despite the fact

that many external viewpoints in academic writing are introduced into the discourse

with a stance-neutral formulation. This study performs quantitative and qualitative

analyses on the introductory chapters of PhD theses in history to explore the functions

of these formulations. It finds that because of their absence of an evaluative stance,

external propositions expressed without a specific stance flexibly realize various kinds

of evaluative processes. Such processes involve taking into account the reader response

to a proposition since the blankness in stance plays a role in constructing a discourse

that gradually persuades the reader. This paper concludes that each of the neutrally

presented viewpoints in the successfully constructed text uniquely forms an important

strategic process of gradual value assignment and that stance-neutrality is not a

representation of the writer’s failure to clarify stance. This paper emphasizes the need to

implement the strategic use of stance-neutral formulations in pedagogic settings.

Post-Print



1. Introduction

The role that intertextual links play in constructing academic discourse has increasingly

received attention. Extensive research has established that, for an academic text to be

successful in its communication, it is crucial that the writer’s stance toward cited

information be made clear (Bazerman, 1988; Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Gilbert,

1976; Hyland, 1999, 2005; Hewings, Lillis & Vladimirou, 2010; Hood, 2006, 2010;

Petrić, 2007; Samraj, 2013). Developing the academic skill to interpret and evaluate

cited work is considered particularly important for students because positioning one’s

research in relation to previous literature allows the establishment of a research

justification for new study (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1993; Charles, 2006a; Dong, 1996;

Hunston, 1993; Tadros, 1989; Thomas & Hawes, 1994; Thompson & Ye, 1991). The

relationship between citation and stance taking has been explored mainly through the

use of reporting verbs (e.g., Hyland, 1999; Thompson & Ye, 1991). These studies

revealed disciplinary variations in stance taking and citation practices, indicating that

understanding the target discipline’s practices in taking a stance toward external

viewpoints is a key to successful academic writing (Charles, 2006a, 2006b; Hyland,

2002; Thomas & Hawes, 1994). They also recognized that for novice writers and

non-native speakers, learning to cite and evaluate previous literature appropriately is

Post-Print



particularly challenging due to the complexity of skillful stance manipulation (Abasi,

Akbari & Graves, 2006; Charles, 2006a, 2006b; Dong, 1996; Mansourizadeh & Ahmad,

2011; Petrić, 2007; Petrić & Harwood, 2013).

However, there is a gap in research concerning the writer’s1 stance taking

toward external viewpoints in the category of reporting verb use. For example, consider

a sentence like, “X concluded that….” When such a sentence is presented in isolation

from its context, it is unclear where the writer stands in relation to X’s conclusion. On

the other hand, in a statement such as “X demonstrated that…,” the writer’s positive

stance toward the proposition made by the author is clear, and in “X claimed that…,”

the writer’s detachment from it is suggested. Although it is expected that the writer’s

stance toward a neutrally presented external viewpoint may be on hold at the time of the

statement and will get clarified in other parts of the text (Martin & White, 2005), the

complexity causes analytical difficulty in identifying the writer’s stance since it cannot

be analyzed with lexicogrammatical approaches such as the ones that classify reporting

verbs.

While this issue has been left unexplored in EAP studies, the prevalence of

stance-neutral formulations in expressing external propositions in advanced academic

1 This study adopts the convention of referring to a person citing as the “writer” and a person cited

as the “author,” as established by Thompson and Ye (1991).

Post-Print



writing is not at all negligible. This is evident in Hyland’s (1999) cross-disciplinary

investigation of 80 research articles from leading journals in eight disciplines in which

'evaluation' categories for reporting verbs that classify the writer’s commitment to the

reported information are proposed (p. 350). The categories distinguish between factive

(words like “demonstrate” and “establish,” used to indicate acceptance); counter-factive

(words like “fail” and “exaggerate,” used to indicate disagreement); and non-factive

(words that give no clear signal) verbs. The non-factive category has four

sub-categories: positive (“advocate,” “argue,” etc.); neutral (“address,” “cite,” etc.);

tentative (“believe,” “suggest,” etc.); and critical (“attack,” “condemn,” etc.). The

non-factive categories do not identify the writer’s stance toward the reported

information, in that they contain no stance signaling on the part of the writer but only

describe the original author’s stance. Hence, the sub-categories for non-factive verbs

shift the entity to be analyzed from the writer to the reported author, leaving the writer’s

stance toward the proposition unanalyzed (cf. the neutral category in Thompson and

Ye’s [1991] taxonomy). The result of Hyland’s research showed that as many as 79.4

percent of the total reporting verbs used to refer to external propositions in the corpus

were non-factive, while only a small proportion of factive (19.0 percent) and

counter-factive (1.6 percent) verbs were used (p. 351). Given that Hyland’s corpus

Post-Print



comprised research articles from leading journals, it is improbable that the non-factive

instances are the result of the article writers failing to interpret the quoted information.

Little, however, is known about the function of non-evaluative expressions for

external propositions. Thompson & Ye (1991: 380) mention unsuccessful cases of

non-native speakers writing academic papers in which they introduce evaluation in a

crude way, describing that one of their “NNS [non-native speaker] students had evolved

a simple system: if he disagreed with the quoted author, he generally wrote ‘X

says/states ...’ (or a similar neutral reporting verb), sometimes going on to state

explicitly that the reported opinion was incorrect; if, on the other hand, he agreed with

the author, he wrote ‘X rightly says/states ....’” Although many non-native and novice

writers of academic texts struggle to develop appropriate stance-taking strategies, given

that it was quantitatively established that non-factive reporting verbs are dominant in

successful academic writing (Hyland, 1999), there must be successful cases as well,

which are expected to be playing an important role in academic text construction.

It has been recently reported that seemingly non-interpersonal elements, such

as conditional clauses in academic writing, are part of a stance-construction process that

builds a consensus between writer and reader (Warchał, 2010). A wide range of

apparently non-interpersonal elements in text, including neutrality in introducing an

Post-Print



external work, may also be a part of stance-building processes that has yet to be

revealed. In this study, on the premise that external sources play a crucial role in

constructing the research space (e.g., Feak & Swales, 2011), I hypothesize that external

propositions expressed using apparently stance-neutral formulations play a role in

introductory parts of academic writing, albeit a different role from the one played by the

use of value-laden formulations. I also draw on the recent observation that rhetorical

functions and citation functions tend to overlap (Martínez, 2008; Samraj, 2013). As

rhetorical functions in the introductions of academic writing straightforwardly realize a

research space (Swales, 1990), it can be further hypothesized that external propositions

expressed neutrally also relate to the realization of a research space by overlapping with

the rhetorical functions that justify research.

In this study, I quantitatively investigate this hypothesis by conducting a

distributional analysis of stance-neutral formulations across functional units that create

a research space. I then search for explanations of the results, by investigating how

external propositions that are expressed neutrally eventually get evaluated by the writer,

gain a specific position in the text, and contribute to the writer justifying his or her new

research.

As shown in the previous investigations of reporting verbs, micro- and

Post-Print



lexicogrammatical approaches inevitably fail to pursue the present objective. In this

study, I utilize systemic functional linguistics (SFL) approaches in order to conduct a

macro-dynamic analysis that does not rely on a specific type of lexicogrammar. SFL

was described as a text-oriented approach to academic discourse (Coffin & Donohue,

2012), which views “language as resource―choices among alternatives” (Halliday &

Matthiessen, 2004: 19). According to this view of SFL, a deployment of a stance-neutral

formulation can be considered to be the writer’s strategic choice made among

alternative value-laden formulations. In the analysis, this viewpoint enables me to seek

explanations as to why the choice of a stance-neutral formulation has been made and

how it serves as a meaning-making resource in relation to the other parts of the text.

Approaching an element in the text as a resource further enables me to consider that

“each part is interpreted as functional with respect to the whole” (Halliday, 1985: xiii).

A stance-neutral formulation is thereby analyzed in relation to the construction of the

larger purposeful units by associating it with different resources in different parts of the

text.

To be more specific, the approach I take in this paper is in line with SFL

research that considers evaluation to be a process that is built up in a discourse as the

text proceeds (Coffin, 2010; Coffin & O’Halloran, 2005; Macken-Horarik, 2003; Martin

Post-Print



& Rose, 2003). This paper shares a similar basis with the studies on “labelling discourse”

(Charles, 2003; Francis, 1994; Moreno, 2004; Sinclair, 1993; Tadros, 1994), in which

the status of a stretch of discourse is labeled not immediately but in a different part of

the text, where a piece of discourse not only contributes to a dynamic interpersonal

meaning-making process but also serves as a cohesive device (Hoey, 2001; Winter,

1982, 1992). As Tadros (1994) pointed out, citing another author requires the writer to

commit to the fulfillment of the prediction signaled to the reader—that is, bringing in an

external viewpoint obliges the writer to fully clarify his or her stance toward it. With

this view, well-written texts do not fail to assign the writer’s stance to viewpoints that

are brought into the text. Following a similar line of reasoning, this study is conducted

with the understanding that stance assignment to neutrally introduced viewpoints is

fulfilled elsewhere in the introduction.

The aim of this paper is to reveal, at least partly, the functions of prevailing

stance-neutral formulations, which have been unexplored in academic discourse studies.

The subsequent purpose is to suggest the pedagogical implications of the strategic use

of such formulations.

2. Material

Post-Print



The corpus of this study comprises 40 introductory chapters taken from history PhD

theses produced in the time period between 2000 and 2010 and submitted to eight

Australian universities (see Appendix A). The theses were randomly selected from the

National Library of Australia’s Trove service (http://trove.nla.gov.au/). The total size of

the dataset is 230,707 words. There are multiple reasons why the introductory chapters

of PhD history theses were chosen to serve as the research material. First, students’

writing is ideal for pedagogic purposes. Second, PhD theses were the preferred material

among students’ writing because the long, cumulative discourse of theses is ideal for the

observation of gradual value assignment to viewpoints (Bunton, 1999; Paltridge, 2002;

Petrić, 2007; Thompson, 2005). Further, the fact that PhD theses have already

undergone examination suggests that they represent fairly successful academic texts,

which makes them suitable material for the purpose of observing successful

stance-building strategies. Being taken from the history discipline additionally makes

these texts a fertile site for the present purposes because the discourse of history is

known to be particularly negotiative (e.g., Anderson & Day, 2005). The scope of the

research is limited to one discipline so that the corpus won’t encounter interference

produced by the inconsistency of disciplinary variations. Introductory chapters are

preferred for the present purposes because it is a chapter in which the careful

http://trove.nla.gov.au/

Post-Print



construction of intertextual links is required to successfully create a research space

(Feak & Swales, 2011; Swales, 1990).

3. Methodology

3.1. Identifying stance-neutral formulations: “acknowledge” resources

This study uses the category “acknowledge” to identify stance-neutral formulations that

introduce external viewpoints. “Acknowledge” is a category within the system of

engagement, which is an analytical framework for the writer/speaker’s stance toward

viewpoints introduced into the text. The system of engagement is a sub-system within

the appraisal system (Martin & White, 2005), which was developed in the SFL tradition

for the purpose of exploring the interpersonal nature of text construction. In this study,

the “acknowledge” category is used only for the purpose of identifying stance-neutral

resources and not as part of a systematic analysis; hence, the other categories within the

system are not considered. Providing a summary of the engagement system may

nonetheless be necessary for delineating the concept of “acknowledge” resources.

The system of engagement is based on Bakhtinian dialogism, which views

dialogic functions as forming the essential dynamic forces and movements that

construct a text (Bakhtin, 1981). As such, the system’s primary “heteroglossic”

Post-Print



categories are defined by a text’s dialogic “contraction” and “expansion.” “Contract”

resources close the dialogic space without allowing alternative viewpoints. For instance,

the “endorse” category, one of the sub-categories of “contract”, represents such a

formulation as “Their research shows that ... ,” with which the writer closes the dialogic

space by aligning with an external proposition, consequently not allowing alternative

viewpoints. “Expand” resources, on the other hand, open up the dialogic space for

alternative viewpoints. For instance, “distance”, one of the subcategories of “expand”, is

represented with a formulation such as “Their research claims that ... ”; by using such a

phrase, the writer dissociates from an external proposition, opening up a dialogic space

between the proposition and his or her own possible alternative viewpoint.

In Martin and White’s (2005) system of engagement, the “acknowledge”

category is placed under “expand” for the reason that it expresses external propositions,

opening up a dialogic space between the writer and the external proposition.

“Acknowledge” can be signaled with formulations that introduce external propositions

that the writer does not indicate his or her stance toward, such as, “According to X,

… ”; “In view of X, … ”; “X believes that …”; “X argues that … ”; “X concludes that

… ”; “X made the criticism that … ”; “In X’s account, … ”; “Many people believe that

… ”; “It is commonly believed that …”; “… is recognized as …”; “… can be seen as

Post-Print



…” ; and so forth.

It is important, however, that while specific formulations tend to signal specific

engagement functions, they don’t serve as a primary identification criterion (Martin &

White, 2005). Engagement resources orient dialogic dynamism, and as such,

“acknowledge” resources are identified by their specific dialogic feature; that is, they

are identified by the feature through which the speaker/writer introduces externally

sourced viewpoints toward which he or she does not, at least temporarily, indicate a

clear stance. This means that the same lexical features do not necessarily indicate a

specific engagement feature. For example, in “Hauer did not consider Jefferson’s

linguistic studies as a function of his nationalism” (Text 38: 23, underlining added),

consider is coded as acknowledge, whereas in “Part Two (Chapters 6, 7 and 8)

considers commercial law, and Part Three (Chapters 9, 10 and 11) considers criminal

law” (Text 16: 34, underlining added), the two instances of consider(s) are not identified

as “acknowledge”. This is because consider in the first example introduces a viewpoint,

while the latter two don’t,2 without creating a salient dialogic space or serving as a key

element for constructing a negotiative discourse.

Because “acknowledge” resources are defined in terms of the dialogic space

2 Halliday’s (1985) discussion of seeking a “quoted equivalent” is useful here to make such a

distinction.

Post-Print



the writer creates and not in terms of a specific type of lexicogrammar, such as reporting

verbs, coding these resources in the corpus enables the analysis to include neutrally

presented external propositions regardless of their different lexicogrammatical

realizations. Being autonomous from lexicogrammar further means that the analysis

does not rely on a preset unit of analysis (Martin & White, 2005) because, as presented,

engagement resources are defined in terms of dialogic dynamism. To be more specific,

the coding for this study presupposes that “acknowledge” resources are the points in the

discourse where dialogic movements occur. That is to say, every “acknowledge”

resource identified in this study is counted as a single instance regardless of whether it

consists of multiple words, phrases, or one word. This way, the study can compare the

distributions of “acknowledge” resources between different functional units by

calculating the ratio of “acknowledge” occurrences to the number of words that

constitute a particular type of unit. More detailed methods for coding and distributional

measurement will be presented in Section 3.3. Corpus processing.

Following the engagement-analytical practice that considers non-integral

citations as “monogloss” (non-heterogloss/bare assertion) (Martin and White, 2005;

White, 2012), I do not take into account non-integral citations and footnotes.

“Acknowledge” resources can also occur within direct quotes; however, direct quotes

Post-Print



are excluded from the analysis because coding their “acknowledge” resources would

complicate the analysis due to the difficulty of treating the dialogic position of the

original author’s deployment of these resources. Direct quotes excluded from the

analysis are also excluded from the word count of the distributional analysis so as to

ensure statistical accuracy.

3.2. Identifying functional units

I conduct the coding of functional units in order to examine the distributional

differences of “acknowledge” resources between the two units; the first unit that asserts

the importance of research is termed a “positive” unit, and the second unit that points

out problems with research is termed a “negative” unit. I do this in order to explore the

overlapping of “acknowledge” resources with functional units that construct research

spaces. These two units―which, in this study, are referred to as “functional units”―are

largely equivalent to the respective moves in the creating a research space (CARS)

model (Swales, 1990, 2004); namely, Move 1, “establishing territory,” and Move 2,

“establishing a niche.” I make a slight modification to the identification criteria of Move

1 and Move 2 in the CARS model in order to more comprehensively include

“acknowledge” resources occurring in research justification processes. Specifically, I

Post-Print



include some elements that are categorized as Move 3 in the CARS model in the

positive and negative units. For instance, the CARS model would classify a part of

discourse that asserts the importance of a particular method, approach, or other strategy,

as Move 3, “occupying a niche” (Swales, 1990; see also Samraj, 2002 for “cyclical

moves” and “sub-moves”), with the understanding that mentioning such aspects of

research is a part of previewing the writer’s new research. In this study, such an element

would be simply classified as a positive unit since it asserts the importance of a research

method that the thesis writer presents in a positive sense. Similarly, an element that

points out problems with a particular method would be classified as a negative unit.

These classifications also relate to the previous observation that a review of literature

occurs across moves (Samraj, 2002; Lewin, Fine & Young, 2001), whereas reviewing

literature in introductory sections of research articles was set as a rhetorical function of

Move 2 in Swales’s original CARS model (1990). Much of the review of literature that

occurs in all three moves in the original CARS model may indicate the presence of

external propositions that relate to the construction of various kinds of new research

justification (e.g., justification of the research method). This slight modification from

the CARS model’s identification criteria for Move 1 and Move 2, therefore, enables me

to comprehensively analyze external propositions that occur in the functional units that

Post-Print



relate to various types of new research justification in this study (see Sawaki, 2014a;

2014b, for more detailed discussion on such generic structure identification methods).

I conduct the coding of these functional units as one of the first stages of the

investigation looking for the basic features of “acknowledge” resources; namely, their

distributional feature in relation to the positive and negative functional units. This does

not assume, however, that a viewpoint introduced with an “acknowledge” resource in a

positive unit ultimately becomes aligned with the thesis writer, or that in a negative unit

disavowed by the thesis writer. While the quantitative investigation can provide the

patterns of occurrence of “acknowledge” resources, their exact functions in each of the

functional units needs to be investigated qualitatively. I do so, in this study, using the

SFL tradition of exploring a text by considering its elements as resources, highlighting

the text-constructive dynamism that occurs through interacting resources both within

and outside of the text. The research design of this study, hence, combines the

approaches of the Swalean and SFL traditions. As Coffin and Donohue (2012)

suggested, SFL approaches may complement non-SFL approaches to academic writing.

This study is thus one of the attempts that complement the approaches to stance in

academic writing research by providing methods of exploring the function of

stance-neutral formulations through using the SFL approach.

Post-Print



The following excerpt is an example of a positive unit that is taken from a

history thesis that uses the community history approach to look at the legal history of

Queensland and California:

The community history approach is a valuable tool for legal historians because

it allows a close analysis of social, political, cultural and economic

relationships and interactions. (Text 16: 14)

The writer of the excerpt claims the relevance of the community history approach,

which the writer deploys in his own thesis; hence, it is classified as a positive unit. On

the other hand, while a negative unit similarly justifies the value of research, it points

out problems that the thesis writer is going to solve. The following excerpt is an

example of a negative unit taken from a thesis about the role of Lieutenant General

Frank Berryman during World War II.

Not only has Berryman’s role been largely neglected, but the little study that has

been made of these battles lack a detailed analysis of his impact on operations

and often portray him in a negative light. (Text 12: 16–17)

The excerpt describes how Berryman has been forgotten and misunderstood, thus

creating a research space for the writer to investigate the lieutenant’s role in detail.

Hence, it is classified as a negative unit.

Drawing the boundaries of these units for this study is done rather liberally

without setting lexicogrammatical constraints. While many rhetorical structure studies

Post-Print



set the sentence as a unit of analysis for practical reasons (Crookes, 1986; Hopkins &

Dudley-Evans, 1988; Holmes, 1997; Samraj, 2002; Ozturk, 2007), there is a risk of

oversimplifying the complex relationships between rhetorical functions and

lexicogrammatical patterning (Bhatia, 1999; Hyland, 2002). In order to maintain the

accuracy of the distributional analysis, it is important for this study not to oversimplify

the boundaries of units. Hence, for example, the sentence

Despite the fact that Australian troops made up the majority of forces in this

operation and that it was a hard and bitterly fought campaign, [“positive”]

it received little publicity at the time, and even less publicity since. [“negative”]

(Text 12: 17)

is coded as containing two functional units for this study.

3.3. Corpus processing

I conducted the coding of “acknowledge” resources and functional units manually

because the analysis requires the researcher’s interpretive coding. The coding was

conducted using the UAM (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) Corpus Tool (O’Donnell,

2008). The UAM Corpus Tool is a suitable coding tool for the methodology of this

study because it can double code features (i.e., “acknowledge” resources and functional

Post-Print



units), which facilitates the calculation of the frequency of “acknowledge” resources

across the functional units. If the quantitative investigation reveals that they occur

significantly more frequently in one of the functional units, the result may indicate a

correlation between “acknowledge” resources and the functional unit. If the

investigation reveals otherwise—that is, if “acknowledge” resources are evenly

distributed between the two units—the finding may indicate that “acknowledge”

resources are not inherently associated with a specific function. In either case, the

quantitative results need to be investigated qualitatively so that the exact relationship

between “acknowledge” resources and the realization of the functional units can be

observed.

In the qualitative analysis, I seek to find the intention of the thesis writer using

“acknowledge” resources and its relation to the construction of research space in the

text with the understanding that the function of cited information is signaled in the other

parts of the text (e.g., Tadros, 1994). In fact, as Samraj (2013) pointed out, this is the

approach taken in search of the writer’s intention by the majority of citation studies

(Mansourizadeh & Ahmad, 2011; Petrić, 2007; Samraj, 2013) because, given that the

writer’s intention should manifest in the fairly successful academic text, interviewing

the writers is not always necessary.

Post-Print



4. Quantitative results

The size of positive and negative units explored for the distributional analysis of

“acknowledge” resources in the corpus turned out to be 79,309 words and 34,414 words,

respectively. “Acknowledge” resources occurred 1,418 times in positive units and 801

times in negative units. The mean figure of “acknowledge” resources per 1,000 words in

negative units is slightly higher (20.34) than in positive units (16.97). The range of

means in positive units is 108.89 and in negative units 65.42. The result of the

quantitative analysis is displayed in Table 1.

Post-Print



Positive units Negative units

N WN M N WN M

Text 1 13 334 38.92 23 1,319 17.44

Text 2 12 940 12.77 0 126 0.00

Text 3 24 1,112 21.58 17 1,025 16.59

Text 4 14 1,347 10.39 6 340 17.65

Text 5 7 63 111.11 7 107 65.42

Text 6 8 463 17.28 36 2,052 17.54

Text 7 6 1,038 5.78 1 110 9.09

Text 8 16 1,121 14.27 8 689 11.61

Text 9 1 451 2.22 39 1,464 26.64

Text 10 79 4,758 16.60 15 1,131 13.26

Text 11 31 1,480 20.95 20 416 48.08

Text 12 18 1,011 17.80 26 1,442 18.03

Text 13 87 5,466 15.92 12 321 37.38

Text 14 27 1,171 23.06 38 1,915 19.84

Text 15 17 532 31.95 20 618 32.36

Text 16 104 3,898 26.68 22 821 26.80

Text 17 48 5,018 9.57 2 47 42.55

Text 18 18 967 18.61 6 346 17.34

Text 19 82 4,275 19.18 61 3,584 17.02

Text 20 11 598 18.39 6 358 16.76

Text 21 15 1,397 10.74 26 934 27.84

Text 22 2 369 5.42 6 413 14.53

Text 23 21 2,169 9.68 17 1,082 15.71

Text 24 7 1,144 6.12 11 866 12.70

Text 25 60 2,948 20.35 8 263 30.42

Text 26 35 1,573 22.25 12 580 20.69

Text 27 65 3,210 20.25 7 785 8.92

Text 28 25 2,514 9.94 11 607 18.12

Text 29 97 2,437 39.80 29 789 36.76

Text 30 73 3,137 23.27 0 33 0.00

Text 31 91 6,724 13.53 27 1,241 21.76

Text 32 13 996 13.05 22 1,266 17.38

Text 33 44 5,585 7.88 7 194 36.08

Text 34 70 3,430 20.41 44 2,288 19.23

Post-Print



Text 35 14 1,415 9.89 17 1,331 12.77

Text 36 28 1,545 18.12 17 822 20.68

Text 37 7 225 31.11 3 48 62.50

Text 38 43 1,382 31.11 70 3,457 20.25

Text 39 7 400 17.50 12 562 21.35

Text 40 78 4,925 15.84 90 3,591 25.06

Total 1,418 83,568 16.97 801 39,383 20.34

Table 1. Frequencies of “acknowledge” resources

Table 1 shows that the distributions of “acknowledge” resources are not

uniform across the texts: the total density of “acknowledge” resources vary between the

texts; also, some of the texts contain much denser “acknowledge” resources in one

functional unit than in another. Thus, I statistically examined the result with a paired

t-test to find out if there is a significant difference in the distributions of “acknowledge”

resources between the two units. The result of the paired t-test showed that the

difference is not statistically significant (p-value = 0.88; SD = 15.02), as this p-value is

much higher than the conventionally set significance level (p-value < 0.05).

Based on the distributional variations of “acknowledge” resources across the

texts in Table 1 and their statistically even distribution between the two functional units

in the entire corpus, we can infer that “acknowledge” resources do not have an inherent

function in relation to the realization of a specific functional unit. “Acknowledge”

resources may play a role in realizing the functional units that construct a research

Post-Print



space; however, because they do not have an inherent function, the way they do it may

not be so straightforward as constructing a research space by simply overlapping their

functions with a specific functional unit in which they occur. Some additional complex

meaning-making processes must be operating with “acknowledge” resources, which is

investigated qualitatively in the next section.

5. Qualitative investigation

It needs to be noted that I did not find any of the “acknowledge” resources as failing to

assign the writer’s stance during the coding, although it is my interpretation. In the

qualitative analysis, I explore the writer’s intention of choosing an “acknowledge”

resource over value-laden alternatives. I further examine—as it has been shown in the

quantitative analysis that the external propositions introduced with an “acknowledge”

resource are not associated with a specific functional unit—how and if the choice to use

“acknowledge” relates to the construction of positive and negative units and the

construction of the research space. In order to analyze the maximum number of

instances from the corpus, the excerpts provided for this section are reduced to the

minimum length, with some of the parts deemed unimportant for the present analysis

omitted. The instances of “acknowledge” resources with their co-texts from the corpus

Post-Print



are provided in Appendix B. An additional qualitative analysis that could not be

included in the main body of the paper is provided in Appendix C.

5.1. Partial alignment and partial disalignment

Excerpt 1 is taken from the beginning of the introductory chapter of a thesis about the

history of black conservative intellectuals in modern America, which starts with a

proposition by Sowell, a renowned economist who is African American and

conservative.

1

Being a black conservative is perhaps not considered as bizarre as being a

transvestite, but it is certainly considered more strange than being a vegetarian

or a bird watcher.

So, in 1980, wrote Thomas Sowell, free-market economist and unofficial

godfather of the ‘black right,’ delivering a stinging rebuke to the liberal critics of

modern black conservatism. Although amusing, Sowell’s penchant for sarcasm

in this instance masks an interesting point. … the existence of powerful

conservative black spokespeople is indeed quite astonishing. … the obvious

question becomes: ‘what does it mean to be both ‘black’ and ‘conservative’ in

America?’ The inevitable corollary to that question is another—‘what do black

conservatives actually want to conserve?’ (Text 11: 1, underlining added)

Post-Print



The proposition by Sowell is introduced with the non-evaluative verb wrote. Then, by

assigning a positive value to the proposition by calling Sowell the “unofficial godfather

of the ‘black right’” and by evaluating the proposition as “delivering a stinging rebuke

and amusing,” the discourse gradually and rather subtly asserts the relevance of the

writer’s research topic and thereby makes this an “acknowledge” resource occurring in a

positive unit. The discourse then moves on to a negative unit where an issue is pointed

out: “Sowell’s penchant for sarcasm in this instance masks an interesting point.” This

assigns a partially negative value to the same proposition. The final words of the

sentence, “an interesting point,” are particularly strategic, because the point being

referred to, the history of black conservative intellectuals in modern America, is the

research topic for the writer. Interesting and as of yet unrevealed, the point that the

writer needs to uncover is maximized, successfully creating a research space. Choosing

to place this phrase in the final position of the sentence enables the discourse to segue

smoothly into the following positive unit, which states that “the existence of powerful

conservative black spokespeople is indeed quite astonishing.” By once again stressing

that Sowell’s proposition is indeed true, the writer further establishes the value of the

research topic. Finally, the writer leads the discourse to the goal, the research question,

of the paragraph: “‘what do black conservatives actually want to conserve?’”

Post-Print



Hence, the proposition that occurs in the positive unit does not simply

constitute the functional unit it is placed in but continues to actively construct the

following functional units by being evaluated differently. There is thus a rationale that

the proposition is introduced with an “acknowledge” resource at the start. The writer

partially aligns with and partially disaligns with the proposition, and so the proposition

has to be introduced neutrally and then parts of it aligned with and parts of it disaligned

with one by one. A concrete stance exhausts the flexibility of external voices. It is the

very neutrality of “acknowledge” resources that enables different values to be

repeatedly assigned to the same external proposition, through which a research space is

effectively and efficiently created.

5.2. A strategic gap creation with “acknowledge” resources

The deployment of “acknowledge” resources can be particularly useful when writers

want to disalign with an external proposition, which may be one reason why they were

slightly denser in negative units. One such instance is Excerpt 2, taken from a thesis

about the history of colonial domestic service analyzing male domestic servants from a

variety of ethnic groups, forming a negative unit. In the passage preceding the excerpt,

the writer points out that “masculinity in the home” requires more attention because

Post-Print



“the literature dealing with male domestic servants in the colonies and former colonies

is a field which is still emerging” (Text 8: 22).

2

Research which looks at the relationship between male servants and male

employers is even less developed than that dealing with male servitude. … In the

context of colonial India, Banerjee has concluded that in middle-class Bengali

households the relationship between the master and servant was exactly the same

as that between the mistress and servant. I am inclined to suggest that this field

of research is not developed to the extent that we can draw such conclusions

more broadly. (Text 8: 22–24, underlining added)

While the description of Banerjee’s conclusion is expressed with the “acknowledge”

resource, “has concluded that,” the writer’s disalignment with Banerjee’s conclusion is

constructed through the surrounding discourses. In fact, it is because of the deployment

of this seemingly stance-free reporting verb, “conclude,” that the writer’s negative

stance toward Banerjee’s conclusion is effectively created. The discourse preceding this

sentence points to the lack of research on “male domestic servants in the colonies and

former colonies,” and further points out, “Research which looks at the relationship

between male servants and male employers is even less developed.” By this point in the

discourse, the reader should be persuaded that there is little research in this area. Then,

Post-Print



Banerjee’s conclusion is thrown into the discourse, followed by the writer’s explicit

value assignment toward the conclusion: “this field of research is not developed to the

extent that we can draw such conclusions more broadly.” This successfully creates a

need for research for the writer who aims to show the different relationships formed by

male domestic servants from a variety of ethnic groups.

In Excerpt 2, it is the interaction between the verb in “has concluded that” and

the surrounding sentences that assigns the value to the proposition that creates the

research space. By choosing to use “conclude” in this context, the writer successfully

creates the oddness of Banerjee’s conclusion, which is reached without sufficient

research, in that “conclude” is a verb that is commonly used when adequate evidence is

gathered. Thus, this is a type of meaning other “acknowledge” formulations such as

“argue” or “hypothesize” cannot create. The oddness created is context dependent

because “conclude” does not always create this kind of negative stance in other contexts.

Further, resources that suggest the writer’s distancing from a proposition occurring in

the same context, such as “claim,” would fail to create this oddness despite being able to

successfully imply the writer’s possible negative stance toward the proposition, while it

may make it a little more offensive to the original author.

Compare this with the instance of “concluded that” in the Excerpt 3, which is

Post-Print



taken from the latter part of the introductory chapter of a thesis on Australian penal

history. In this excerpt, the writer introduces a conclusion of another history thesis. He

positively frames this reference for the purpose of asserting the relevance of his own

research.

3

John McGuire’s 2002 PhD thesis on the processes of penal change in

Queensland from 1859 to the 1930s puts flesh on the bones of Garton’s

observation. On the basis of his meticulous survey of the primary evidence—a

rarity in the Australian historiography—McGuire concluded that ‘penal

trajectories were determined by more than just the will to reform’. My thesis is

squarely based on this insight—that reform proceeds in response to a range of

conflicting pressures, some of which have little to do with penal policy. (Text

14: 29, underlining added)

Despite the apparent neutrality of a proposition expressed with “concluded that,” it is

clear from the surrounding text, which forms a positive unit, that the writer agrees with

the author’s viewpoint. Expressions such as “puts flesh on the bones of Garton’s

observation” and “his meticulous survey of the primary evidence” predict a positive

evaluation of it. Following these expressions comes “this insight,” again positively

labeling the neutrally introduced proposition (see Charles, 2003). All of these positive

Post-Print



signals that add characterization to the neutrally introduced proposition successfully

support the basis of the writer’s research that will be introduced. The oddness of

“concluded that” in the Banerjee excerpt is not present in the previous excerpt, marking

a sharp comparison between these two passages. Propositions introduced with the same

reporting verb can be assigned with completely different stances depending on the

surrounding texts.

5.3. “Acknowledge” resources as a process of reader persuasion

There are instances of neutrally expressed external propositions where the status goes

through a process of negotiation with the reader and as a result the writer distances

external propositions he or she originally expressed neutrally. The following instance is

taken from a thesis on the history of the Indies in which the writer takes the comparative

approach.

4

Advocates of transnational history have criticised the comparative approach for

the reason that it does not transcend the boundaries of nationalist historiography.

This is a valid criticism of comparisons.... This is not the fault of comparison

itself, but the purpose for which historians have used it. Done carefully,

comparative history can complement the aims of transnational history by

demonstrating shared influences and exchanges across national boundaries.

Post-Print



(Text 33: 17, underlining added)

Here, the writer introduces the argument against the comparative approach with an

“acknowledge” resource, “have criticised,” without clarifying her stance toward the

criticism. Then, the writer concurs with the criticism by saying, “This is a valid

criticism,” up to which point the writer has formed a negative unit in which the writer

introduces the negatives of the comparative approach the writer is going to use. Then,

the writer counters the negatives by shifting the problem: “This is not the fault of

comparison itself.” The writer thereby allows the comparative approach to escape from

the criticism by shifting the blame to “the purposes for which historians used it.” The

discourse is now ready to grant the validity of the comparative approach, which it does

by stating, “Done carefully, comparative history can complement the aims of

transnational history.” By this point, the writer has increased the value of the

comparative approach so that it is safe to make a strong positive statement about the

approach—suggesting that it can “demonstrat[e] shared exchanges across national

boundaries.”

Interestingly, the writer uses a gradual persuasive process starting with an

“acknowledge” resource. It can be assumed that the writer had the image in mind of a

Post-Print



potential reader—among the possible readers who may prefer diverse historical

approaches—who is an advocate of transnational history and is critical of the

comparative approach. With such an image in mind, it would not be wise to simply

rebuff the criticism. Instead, it is more strategic to persuade such a reader by first

acknowledging the existence of criticism in a neutral way. The writer’s strategy of

concurring at least partly with the criticism puts the writer in alignment with the reader,

which facilitates persuading the reader that the comparative approach can be useful if

deployed carefully.

This process also allows the writer to demonstrate her wide knowledge of the

current views on approaches to history research so that possible readers, including the

thesis examiner, might gain a credible, scholarly image of her. These observations I

have made confirm what Duszak (1997) and Lorés-Sanz (2011) emphasized― the

importance for an academic writer of being recognized as a credible academic who has

a specialist’s knowledge of the research community. This recognition allows him or her

to remain in a dialogue of partnership and eventually reach a consensus with readers

(Hunston, 2005; Warchał, 2010). Thus, the possible negative responses of the reader are

negotiated so that they become non-problematic, which enables the academic writer to

remain in a partnership with the readers with diversity of views existing in the discipline,

Post-Print



which further helps justifying the new research.

The writer’s choice of using the neutral frame for the external proposition at

the start even though the writer is eventually going to separate herself from it was

therefore made in order to establish an alignment with the imaginary reader who may

not accept the writer’s position without negotiation. Compare it with the following

instance taken from a thesis on the history of interracial marriage in Australia.

5

Although Rolls made the valuable point that ‘the majority of Chinese who

married in Australia married European women’, he still returned to the standard

claim that ‘many of them were Irish girls who could not read or write and who

otherwise faced bleak marriages with brutal European labourers’. Despite

growing evidence to the contrary, for the most part discussions of relationships

between white women and Chinese men continued to rely on the well-known

stereotypes, as Rolls did. (Text 10: 21, underlining added)

The writer introduces into the discourse the external viewpoint that many of the white

girls who married Chinese men did so due to their low social status by using the phrase

“he still returned to the standard claim that...,” immediately assigning a negative stance

to the proposition. Using an “acknowledge” resource in the same sentence, for example,

“he stated that many of them were Irish girls who could not read or write,” and then

Post-Print



denying or distancing the proposition elsewhere would be inefficient and unnecessary.

This is because the reader of the thesis is assumed to have little or no racial stereotypes,

and hence, negotiation with the reader is unnecessary.

The choice between neutral and evaluation-charged resources, therefore, also

has to do with the relation between writer’s the image of the reader and the stance he or

she intends to assign to an external proposition. When the writer assumes that the reader

will be in line with the stance toward an externally oriented proposition without

persuasion, he or she will choose to use an evaluation-charged resource to express that

position immediately; on the contrary, when the writer assumes that some of the readers

may disagree with the stance, he or she will engage in a step-by-step persuasion to

eventually persuade the reader to agree with stance.

6. Discussion

The finding from the quantitative analysis suggesting that “acknowledge” resources are

not specifically associated with positive or negative units can be partially explained by

the additional findings from the qualitative analysis that “acknowledge” resources

flexibly realize both positive and negative units. Propositions expressed using

“acknowledge” resources often did not only realize the unit where they occurred but

Post-Print



also realized the surrounding units, assigning different stances to the same proposition.

Thus, “acknowledge” resources, as Halliday (1981: 37) suggested concerning

interpersonal elements, “are not discrete elements that belong at some particular

juncture, but semantic features that inform continuous stretches of discourse.” This also

relates to what Halliday (1981) called the prosodic nature of interpersonal elements (see

also Firth 1957), suggesting that interpersonal meaning is made in the similar way

phonologic prosody makes meaning by contrasting between falling and rising tones (for

applications of such prosodic understanding, see Louw 1993; O’Halloran & Coffin;

Sinclair 1991; Stubbs 1995). This was clearly observed in Excerpts 2 and 3, whereby

the propositions framed with the same lexical item “concluded that…” were assigned

with different evaluations depending on the surrounding discourses.

This explanation supports this study’s finding that “acknowledge” resources

themselves are not associated with a specific stance or function in that they do not have

an inherent function but are built into the text. It also leads to the suggestion that by

informing continuous stretches of discourse, propositions expressed with “acknowledge”

resources can manifest themselves across different functional units, enabling the

realization of multiple functional units in text.

By manifesting themselves across different functional units, they also gain a

Post-Print



cohesive function that ties together different parts of discourse. This supports the view

that external propositions create cohesion in text (Bakhtin, 1981; Tadros, 1994); that is,

intertextual ties create intratextual ties through the interaction between interpersonal

elements and textual functions (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Martin & Rose, 2008;

Thompson & Zhou, 2000). The deployment of “acknowledge” resources for the purpose

of taking advantage of their cohesive function in creating ties between positive and

negative units, then, is a skilful academic strategy; by constructing an overarching tie

between these two units, the academic text can efficiently create a research space.

Notably, it has been observed that the choice between using “acknowledge”

and value-laden resources for a proposition relates to negotiating with the reader outside

of the text. As observed in Excerpts 4 and 5, the way an external proposition is

presented changes depending on the relationship between the external proposition, the

writer’s viewpoint and the writer’s imagined reader’s viewpoint. This relates to the

Bakhtinian understanding of discourse as being “responsive,” whereby the writer

regularly takes into account the reader’s response, actively sensing his or her “resistance

or support” (Bakhtin, 1981: 280) and allowing the anticipated response to construct the

text (Bakhtin, 1981; Hoey, 2001; Sacks, Schlegloff & Jefferson, 1974). Hoey (2001: 43)

compared the reader and writer to “dancers following each other’s steps” and

Post-Print



emphasized the importance of the writer’s taking “the trouble to anticipate what the

reader might be expecting.” Taking into account the reader’s reception was previously

emphasized as a crucial skill in constructing successful academic texts (Coffin &

O’Halloran, 2005; Hyland, 2010; Thompson, 2001; Warchał, 2010). Importantly, one

way of achieving this, as the present observations have affirmed, is by making a

strategic choice between the deployment of “acknowledge” or evaluation-charged

resources.

It needs to be emphasized that the successful deployment of “acknowledge”

resources requires disciplinary expertise. Successful anticipation of the reader’s

reactions to an external proposition, enabled by the writer’s accurate and current

knowledge of the discipline is a starting point for effectively guiding the reader to the

writer’s goal. As observed, when the goal of the writer is to deny an external proposition

he or she anticipates that the reader will also disagree with, the proposition can be

distanced at once without the need to persuade the reader. On the other hand, when the

writer aims to align with an external proposition that he or she expects the reader will

disagree with, a step-by-step negotiation needs to take place; in such a case, initially

expressing it with a neutral stance by using an “acknowledge” resource is useful.

Along with having disciplinary knowledge, it is equally important to

Post-Print



understand the high potential of external propositions in text construction. As I observed

in the analysis of Excerpt 1, just one external proposition that was originally expressed

with an “acknowledge” resource powerfully created the research space. Taking

advantage of the potential of “acknowledge” resources in constructing the text, therefore,

is one of the useful skills academic writers can achieve.

7. Conclusion

This study has identified in the successfully constructed texts that neutrally presented

viewpoints are not a representation of the writer’s failure to clarify a stance. Rather,

each of them uniquely forms an important strategic process of gradual value assignment.

Such viewpoints play a crucial role in constructing stance as well as research space by

dynamically interacting with other resources both inside and outside of the text. It has

also been identified that the interpersonal function of assigning a stance to a neutrally

presented proposition simultaneously has a textual function of tying together different

parts of the text, which further plays a role in constructing the text.

The findings of this study support Bakhtin’s (1981) insightful suggestion that

even seemingly “neutral” words and forms do not remain neutral in actual discourse,

and hence, the text’s external references, once incorporated into the new text, get

Post-Print



consumed into the text’s intention. Deploying an evaluation-charged formulation

cements a proposition with a concrete stance, consequently consuming or exhausting its

constructive possibility, whereas introducing a proposition neutrally enables the

proposition’s potential to be continuously manipulated to serve the text’s intention.

In order to take advantage of the high potential of neutrally expressed external

propositions, it becomes important for academic writers to choose the right external

sources and the kind of propositions that can be maximally consumed into the intention

of the new text. Academic writers also need to be aware that a singular stance to an

external proposition does not always apply. A skilled academic writer can make a

sophisticated judgment as to how to exploit an external proposition depending on the

possible relationship between the proposition, the writer’s intention, and the current

views in the discipline. A skilled writer is aware that an external proposition can be

multifunctional in a new text―and sometimes assigning multiple stances to a

proposition by evaluating different aspects of it across continuing units of discourse can

neatly contextualize it and create a research space and cohesion at the same time.

Importantly, it is “acknowledge” resources that provide the means for the realizations of

these functions.

Developing such a refined skill in managing external viewpoints, therefore,

Post-Print



needs to be set as one of the goals in pedagogic settings. It will be useful for EAP

instructors to explicitly teach students that expressing an external viewpoint without a

specific stance can be a strategic choice for academic writers. As proposed by Petrić and

Harwood (2013) and Samraj (2013), it will be also useful for EAP instructors to have

students analyze the writer’s intention of referring to external propositions in advanced

academic texts in their own discipline. Analyzing various instances of “acknowledge”

resources deployments in advanced academic writing may increase student’s awareness

of the complexity of both successfully managing external viewpoints and negotiating

with the reader while conforming to disciplinary practices.

The scope of this paper has been limited to the analysis of introductory

chapters of history theses, and the paper’s length did not allow a large amount of

qualitative analysis. Further extensive research on this topic is necessary to provide a

more generalized account of the function of stance-neutral formulations and possibly to

identify functional categories for such resources, so that more fruitful pedagogical

implications can be provided.

References:

Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of

Post-Print



identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate

school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 102–117.

doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.05.001

Anderson, C., & Day, K. (2005). Purposive environments: engaging students in the

values and practices of history. Higher Education, 49(3), 319–343. doi:

10.1007/s10734-004-6676-y

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. (M. Holquist, Trans.).

Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the

experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1993). You are what you cite: Novelty and

intertextuality in a biologist’s experimental article. In N. R. Blyler, & C. Thralls

(Eds.), Professional communication: The social perspective (pp. 109–127).

Newberry Park, CA: Sage.

Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary

communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bhatia, V. K. (1999). Integrating products, processes, purposes and participants in

professional writing. In Writing: texts, processes and practices. In C. N. Cadlin

Post-Print



& K. Hyland (Eds.), (pp. 21–39). London: Longman.

Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific

Purposes, 18 (Supplement 1), S41–S56. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00022-2

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. doi: 10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00048-1

Charles, M. (2006a). 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:10.1016/j.esp.2005.05.003

Charles, M. (2006b). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: a

cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 492–518.

doi:10.1093/applin/aml021

Coffin, C., (2010). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation,

London: Continuum.

Coffin, C., & Donohue, J. P. (2012). Academic literacies and systemic functional

linguistics: how do they relate? English for Academic Purposes: Contributions

from Systemic Functional Linguistics and Academic Literacies, 11(1), 64–75.

doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.004

Post-Print



Coffin, C., & O’Halloran, K. L. (2005). Finding the global groove: theorising and

analysing dynamic reader positioning using Appraisal, corpus, and a

concordancer. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(2), 143–163.

doi:10.1080/17405900500283607

Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied

Linguistics, 7(1), 57–70.

Dong, Y. R. (1996). Learning how to use citations for knowledge transformation:

non-native doctoral students’ dissertation writing in science. Research in the

Teaching of English, 30(4), 428–457. doi:10.2307/40171551

Duszak, A. (1997). Cross-cultural academic communication: a discourse-community

view. In Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 11–39). Berlin: Mouton

de Gruyer.

Feak, C., & Swales, J. M. (2011). Creating contexts: Writing introductions across

genres. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.

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:

Routledge.

Post-Print



Gilbert, G. N. (1976). The transformation of research findings into scientific knowledge.

Social Studies of Science, 6(3-4), 281–306. doi:10.1177/030631277600600302

Halliday, M. A. K. (1981). Text semantics and clause grammar: some patterns of

realization. In J. Copeland & P. Davis (Eds.), The Seventh LACUS Forum (pp.

31–59). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward

Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional

Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Vladimirou, D. (2010). Who’s citing whose writings? A

corpus based study of citations as interpersonal resource in English medium

national and English medium international journals. Journal of English for

Academic Purposes, 9(2), 102–115. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.005

Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis.

London: Routledge.

Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: an investigation of the

structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for

Post-Print



Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321–337. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00038-5

Hood, S. (2006). The persuasive power of prosodies: radiating values in academic

writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 37–49. doi:

10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.001

Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion

sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2),

113–121. doi: 10.1016/0889-4906(88)90029-4

Hunston, S. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.),

Register analysis: Theory and practice (pp. 57–73). London: Pinter.

Hunston, S. (2005). Conflict and consensus: construing opposition in Applied

Linguistics. In Strategies in academic discourse (pp. 1–15). Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: citation and the construction of disciplinary

knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341 –367. doi:10.1093/applin/20.3.341

Hyland, K. (2002). Activity and evaluation: reporting practices in academic writing. In J.

Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115–130). London: Longman.

Post-Print



Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic

discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173 –192. doi:10.1177/1461445605050365

Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: relating to readers in popular and

professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2),

116–127. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003

Lewin, B., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse. London: Continuum.

Lorés-Sanz, R. (2011). The construction of the author’s voice in academic writing: The

interplay of cultural and disciplinary factors. Text and Talk, 31(2), 173–193.

Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential

of semantic prosodies. In Baker, M., Francis, G., & Tognini-Bonelli, E. (Eds.),

Text and technology (pp. 157–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Macken-Horarik, M. (2003). Envoi: intractable issues in appraisal analysis? Text, 23(2),

313–319.

Mansourizadeh, K., & Ahmad, U. K. (2011). Citation practices among non-native

expert and novice scientific writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,

10(3), 152–161. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.03.004

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse. London: Continuum.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox

Post-Print



Publishing.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). Language of evaluation: Appraisal in English.

New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Martínez, I. A. (2008). Building consensus in science: resources for intertextual dialog

in biology research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4),

268–276. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.011

Moreno, A. I. (2004). Retrospective labelling in premise-conclusion metatext: an

English-Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and

economics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 321–339. doi:doi:

DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.005

O’Donnell, M. (2008). UAM corpus tool. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Retrieved

from http://www.wagsoft.com/CorpusTool/

O’Halloran, K. L., & Coffin, C. (2004). Checking overinterpretation and

underinterpretation: help from corpora in critical linguistics. In C. Coffin, A.

Hewings, & K. L. O’Halloran (Eds.), Applied English grammar: Functional and

corpus approaches (pp. 275–297). London: Hodder-Arnold.

Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organisation of research article introductions in applied

linguistics: variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes,

http://www.wagsoft.com/CorpusTool/

Post-Print



26(1), 25–38. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.003

Paltridge, B. (2002). Thesis and dissertation writing: an examination of published

advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes, 21(2), 125–143. doi:

10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00025-9

Petrić, B. (2007). Rhetorical functions of citations in high- and low-rated master’s

theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 238–253.

doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.002

Petrić, B., & Harwood, N. (2013). Task requirements, task representation, and

self-reported citation functions: an exploratory study of a successful L2

student’s writing. Source use in L2 academic writing, 12(2), 110–124.

doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2013.01.002

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the

organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4-1), 696–735.

Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: variations across disciplines.

English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 1–17. doi:

10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00023-5

Samraj, B. (2013). Form and function of citations in discussion sections of master’s

theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(4),

Post-Print



299–310. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2013.09.001

Sawaki, T. (2014a). Construing stance in history theses: Dynamic interactions among

ideology, generic structure and engagement. (Unpublished PhD thesis), Sydney:

University of New South Wales. Retrieved from

http://handle.unsw.edu.au/1959.4/53755.

Sawaki, T. (Cited in Appendix C) Interactions between ideology, dialogic space

construction, and the text-organizing function, English Text Construction 7(2), in

press, 178–214, doi: 10.1075/etc.7.2.02saw.

Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Sinclair, J. (1993). Written discourse structure. In J. Sinclair, M. Hoey, & G. Fox (Eds.),

Techniques of description: Spoken and written discourse, a festschrift for

Malcolm Coulthard (pp. 6–31). London: Routledge.

Stubbs, M. (1995). Corpus evidence for norms of lexical collocation. In G. Cook & B.

Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 245–56).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

http://handle.unsw.edu.au/1959.4/53755

Post-Print



Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge

University Press.

Tadros, A. A. (1989). Predictive categories in university textbooks. English for Specific

Purposes, 8(1), 17–31. doi:10.1016/0889-4906(89)90004-5

Tadros, A. A. (1994). Predictive categories in expository text. In M. Coulthard (Ed.),

Advances in written text analysis (pp. 69–82). London: Routledge.

Thomas, S., & Hawes, T. P. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English

for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 129–148. doi:10.1016/0889-4906(94)90012-4

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader.

Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58.

Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic

papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365–382. doi:10.1093/applin/12.4.365

Thompson, G., & Zhou, J. (2000). Evaluation and organization in text: the structuring

role of evaluative disjuncts. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in

text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 121–141). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Thompson, P. (2005). Points of focus and position: intertextual reference in PhD theses.

Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(4), 307–323. doi:

Post-Print



10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.006

Warchał, K. (2010). Moulding interpersonal relations through conditional clauses:

consensus-building strategies in written academic discourse. Interpersonality,

9(2), 140–150. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.002

White, P. R. R. (2012). Exploring the axiological workings of “reporter voice” news

stories—attribution and attitudinal positioning. Discourse, Context, and Media,

1(2–3), 57–67. doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2012.10.004

Winter, E. (1982). Towards a contextual grammar of English. London: George Allen &

Unwin.

Winter, E. (1992). The notion of unspecific versus specific as one way of analysing the

information of a fund-raising letter. In W. Mann & S. Thompson (Eds.),

Discourse descriptions: Diverse analyses of a fund-faising text (pp. 131–170).

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Documents

Post-Print Sawaki, T. (2014). On the function of stance-neutral … · 2016. 4. 21. · Sawaki, T. (2014). On the function of stance-neutral formulations: Apparent neutrality as a