Startseite Mapping Evaluation, Appraisal and Stance in Discourse (2000–2015): A Bibliometric Analysis
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Mapping Evaluation, Appraisal and Stance in Discourse (2000–2015): A Bibliometric Analysis

  • Jing Li , Lei Lei EMAIL logo und Le Cheng
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 18. Februar 2020
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

The present study employs a bibliometric analysis to examine the research trends in the field of evaluation, appraisal and stance. The bibliometric information of publications between 2000 and 2015 was retrieved from the Web of Science SSCI Core Collection database. The indicators analyzed include the number of publications by year, most frequently explored topics, most cited works, major individual contributors, publication venues, distribution among countries/regions and institutions. Our findings showed that the annual publications increased dramatically, revealing an upward trend in this research field. The results concerning the most frequently addressed topics suggested that EAP has been a fruitful domain in terms of the evaluative dimension of discourse. Besides, future research will feature more discipline-specific and language-specific empirical studies and comparative cross-linguistic studies. Pedagogical applications of evaluation research also need to be explored. Citation results indicated that the groundbreaking monographs in this field generate the highest citation counts, and that the most cited works cover a variety of sub-fields of linguistics, which may further prove the heterogeneous nature of the evaluative dimension of language.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. This work was supported by National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 15BYY179).

Appendix 1: Most frequently discussed topics in each of the two periods in the past sixteen years and a comparison

(Ranked by Chi and p values; normalized frequency = topic raw frequency divided by number of publications in the period)

Normed-Freq Normed-Freq
Topics 2000–10 2011–15 Chi Value p.
No Significant Change
narrative discourse 19.48 8.96 3.90 0.05
lexico grammatical 19.48 32.84 3.41 0.06
epistemic authority 6.49 14.93 3.32 0.07
semiotic resource 6.49 14.93 3.32 0.07
epistemic stance 58.44 77.61 2.70 0.10
cross linguistic 12.99 20.90 1.85 0.17
discourse strategy 12.99 20.90 1.85 0.17
evaluative adjective 12.99 20.90 1.85 0.17
quantitative and qualitative analysis 19.48 11.94 1.81 0.18
across discipline 6.49 11.94 1.61 0.20
engagement resource 6.49 11.94 1.61 0.20
hedge and booster 6.49 11.94 1.61 0.20
linguistic variation 6.49 11.94 1.61 0.20
stance and engagement 6.49 11.94 1.61 0.20
vague language 6.49 11.94 1.61 0.20
discourse function 32.47 23.88 1.31 0.25
academic discourse 38.96 29.85 1.21 0.27
academic writing 45.45 35.82 1.14 0.29
stance taking 64.94 53.73 1.06 0.30
stance marker 25.97 32.84 0.80 0.37
pragmatic function 12.99 17.91 0.78 0.38
affective meaning 12.99 8.96 0.74 0.39
epistemic marker 12.99 8.96 0.74 0.39
interpersonal function 12.99 8.96 0.74 0.39
political discourse 12.99 8.96 0.74 0.39
hearsay evidential 19.48 14.93 0.60 0.44
quantitative analysis 19.48 14.93 0.60 0.44
discourse community 25.97 20.90 0.55 0.46
evaluative stance 25.97 20.90 0.55 0.46
appraisal framework 32.47 26.87 0.53 0.47
pedagogical implication 12.99 14.93 0.13 0.71
affective stance 38.96 41.79 0.10 0.75
rhetorical strategy 12.99 11.94 0.04 0.83
syntactic device 12.99 11.94 0.04 0.83
systemic functional linguistics 58.44 56.72 0.03 0.87
appraisal theory 71.43 71.64 0.00 0.99
Significantly Increased
conversation analysis 12.99 38.81 12.87 0.00
social action 0.00 23.88 23.88 0.00
news headline 0.00 20.90 20.90 0.00
code switeching 0.00 17.91 17.91 0.00
epistemic status 0.00 17.91 17.91 0.00
evaluative resource 0.00 17.91 17.91 0.00
affect word 0.00 14.93 14.93 0.00
authorial stance 0.00 14.93 14.93 0.00
discipline specific 0.00 14.93 14.93 0.00
engagement strategy 0.00 14.93 14.93 0.00
gender difference 0.00 14.93 14.93 0.00
nominal position 0.00 14.93 14.93 0.00
np clause 0.00 14.93 14.93 0.00
perception verb 0.00 14.93 14.93 0.00
evidential marker 6.49 20.90 7.57 0.01
epistemological stance 6.49 17.91 5.34 0.02
evaluative language 45.45 68.66 4.72 0.03
Significantly decreased
evaluative meaning 77.92 38.81 13.11 0.00
qualitative analysis 58.44 23.88 14.51 0.00
lexical bundle 64.94 11.94 36.53 0.00
source of information 58.44 11.94 30.72 0.00
identity construction 32.47 11.94 9.49 0.00
modal verb 25.97 8.96 8.29 0.00
sentence final particle 25.97 8.96 8.29 0.00
wh cleft 45.45 0.00 45.45 0.00
expression of emotion 25.97 5.97 12.53 0.00
emotion concept 32.47 0.00 32.47 0.00
modal adverb 32.47 0.00 32.47 0.00
complement clause 38.96 17.91 7.79 0.01
person pronoun 32.47 14.93 6.49 0.01
epistemic modality 25.97 11.94 5.19 0.02

References

Algeo, J. (1987). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Review. Journal of English Linguistics, 20 (1), 122–136.10.1177/007542428702000108Suche in Google Scholar

Backtin, M., Holquist, M., & Emerson, C. (2011). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Bednarek, M. (2006). Evaluation in Media Discourse: Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus. London: Continuum International.Suche in Google Scholar

Bednarek, M. (2009). Language patterns and ATTITUDE. Functions of Language, 16(2), 165–192.10.1075/fol.16.2.01bedSuche in Google Scholar

Bednarek, M. (2015). Bibliography of Appraisal, stance and evaluation: Appraisal bibliography. http://www.monikabednarek.com/downloads/ (accessed 5 June 2016)Suche in Google Scholar

Berman, R. A. (2005). Developing discourse stance across adolescence. Special Issue, Journal of pragmatics, 37 (2), 103–274.10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.001Suche in Google Scholar

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Suche in Google Scholar

Biber, D. (2006a). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 (2), 97–116.10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001Suche in Google Scholar

Biber, D. (2006b). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/scl.23Suche in Google Scholar

Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 11 (1), 1–34.10.1080/01638538809544689Suche in Google Scholar

Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9 (1), 93–124.10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93Suche in Google Scholar

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & E. Finegan. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar

Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in University essays in English literature and sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13–25.10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.005Suche in Google Scholar

Çandarlı, D., Bayyurt, Y. & Martı, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 192–202.10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.001Suche in Google Scholar

Conrad, S. & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, 56–73. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0004Suche in Google Scholar

Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In Englebretson G. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.07duSuche in Google Scholar

Eley, G. & Adendorff, R. (2011). The influence of the post-apartheid context on APPRAISAL choices in Clem Sunter’s transformational leadership discourse. Text & Talk, 31(1),21–52.10.1515/text.2011.002Suche in Google Scholar

Ellegaard, O. & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105 (3), 1809–1831.10.1007/s11192-015-1645-zSuche in Google Scholar

Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/pbns.164Suche in Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to functional grammar (2nd Ed). London: Edward Arnold.Suche in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd Ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Heritage, J. (1985). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. (Ed.), Structures of Social Action (1st ed., pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020Suche in Google Scholar

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38.10.1177/019027250506800103Suche in Google Scholar

Hewings, M. (2004). An ‘important contribution’ or ‘tiresome reading’? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 247–274.10.1558/japl.2004.1.3.247Suche in Google Scholar

Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Hood, S. & Martin, J. (2006). Invoking attitude: the play of graduation in appraising discourse. In R. Hasan, C. Matthiessen and J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing Discourse on Language: A functional perspective, (pp.737–762). London, UK: Equinox Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar

Hsieh, C. (2008). Evidentiality in Chinese newspaper reports: subjectivity/objectivity as a factor. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 205–229.10.1177/1461445607087009Suche in Google Scholar

Hu, G. & Wang, G. (2014). Disciplinary and ethnolinguistic influences on citation in research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 14–28.10.1016/j.jeap.2013.11.001Suche in Google Scholar

Huan, C. (2016). Journalistic engagement patterns and power relations: Corpus evidence from Chinese and Australian hard news reporting. Discourse & Communication, 10(2),137–156.10.1177/1750481315611239Suche in Google Scholar

Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In Malcolm Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis, (pp.191–218). London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation and the plains of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, (pp.176–207). New York: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Hunston, S. (2011). Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203841686Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13 (3), 239–256.10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts: Processes and Practices, (pp. 99–121). London and New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315840390-6Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–192.10.1177/1461445605050365Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, K & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 156–177.10.1093/applin/25.2.156Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, K & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: a corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123–139.10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, K & Tse, P. (2009). ‘The leading journal in its field’: evaluation in journal descriptions. Discourse Studies, 11 (6), 703–720.10.1177/1461445609347234Suche in Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: a description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.115Suche in Google Scholar

Karkkainen, E. (2012). I thought it was very interesting. Conversational formats for taking a stance. Journal of pragmatics 44 (15), 2194–2210.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005Suche in Google Scholar

Lancaster, Z. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 16–30.10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.006Suche in Google Scholar

Lei, L. & Liu, D. (2018). Research Trends in Applied Linguistics from 2005 to 2016: A Bibliometric Analysis and Its Implications. Applied Linguistics. amy003. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy003 (accessed 21 May 2018).Suche in Google Scholar

Lembert, M. (2009). On ‘flip-flopping’: Branded stance-taking in U.S. electoral politics. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13(2),223–248.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00405.xSuche in Google Scholar

Leydesdorffi, L. & Felt, U. (2012). Edited volumes, monographs and book chapters in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) and Science Citation Index (SCI, SoSCI, A&HCI). Journal of Scientometric Research, 1 (1), 28–34.10.5530/jscires.2012.1.7Suche in Google Scholar

Li, P. (2015). Ideological positioning in news translation: A case study of evaluative resources in reports on China. Target, 27 (2), 215–237.10.1075/target.27.2.03panSuche in Google Scholar

Martin, J. (2000). Beyond exchange: appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, 1–27. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0008Suche in Google Scholar

Martin, J. (2004a). Mourning - How We Get Aligned. Discourse and Society, 15 (2–3), 321–344.10.1177/0957926504041022Suche in Google Scholar

Martin, J. (2004b). Sense And Sensibility: Texturing Evaluation. In Joseph A. Foley (Eds.), Language, Education and Discourse: Functional Approaches, (pp. 270–304). London: Nicholson Museum, University of Sydney.Suche in Google Scholar

Martin, J. & White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511910Suche in Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. (2002). “A Good Question.” Expressing evaluation in academic speech. In R. Philip & G. Cortese (Eds.), Domain-specific English. Textual Practices across Communities and Classrooms, (pp.115–140). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Suche in Google Scholar

Millar, N. & Hunston, S. (2015). Adjectives, communities, and taxonomies of evaluative meaning. Functions of Language, 22 (3), 297–331(35).10.1075/fol.22.3.01milSuche in Google Scholar

Munday, J. (2012). Evaluation in translation: critical points of translator decision- making. London and New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203117743Suche in Google Scholar

Partington, A., Duguid, A. & Taylor, C. (2013). Patterns and Meanings in Discourse: Theory and Practice in Corpus-assisted Discourse Studies (CADS). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/scl.55Suche in Google Scholar

Peacock, M. (2015). Stance adverbials in research writing. Iberica, 29, 35–62.Suche in Google Scholar

Poole, R. (2017). “New opportunities” and “Strong performance”: Evaluative adjectives in letters to shareholders and potential for pedagogically-downsized specialized corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 47, 40–51.10.1016/j.esp.2017.03.003Suche in Google Scholar

Quirk, R. (Ed.). (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar

Römer, U. (2008). Identification possible?: A corpus approach to realisations of evaluative meaning in academic writing. Functions of Language, 15, 115–130.10.1075/fol.15.1.07romSuche in Google Scholar

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.10.1353/lan.1974.0010Suche in Google Scholar

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, 61–92.10.1016/j.jeap.2014.10.001Suche in Google Scholar

Schmid, H. (1995). Improvements in part-of-speech tagging with an application to German. Proceedings of the ACL SIGDAT-Workshop. Dublin, Ireland.Suche in Google Scholar

Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 343–357.10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00050-XSuche in Google Scholar

Shaw, P. (2006). Evaluative language in evaluative and promotional genres. In Del Lungo G., Dossena M., Crawford B. Variation in Business and Economics Discourse: Diachronic and Genre Perspectives (pp. 152–165). Rome: Officina Edizioni.Suche in Google Scholar

Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard Sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2 (4), 327–341.10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00049-3Suche in Google Scholar

Su, H. & Bednarek, M. (2017). Bibliography of Appraisal, Stance and Evaluation (September 2017). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hang_Su3/publications.Suche in Google Scholar

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Swales, J., & Burke, A. (2003). It’s really fascinating work: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers. In P. Leistyna, & C. Meyer (Eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004334410_002Suche in Google Scholar

Thompson, G. & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: Anintroduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, (pp.1–27). New York: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Thompson, G. & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12 (4), 365–382.10.1093/applin/12.4.365Suche in Google Scholar

Trnavac, R. & Taboada, M. (2012). The contribution of nonveridical rhetorical relations to evaluation in discourse. Language Sciences, 34 (3), 301–318.10.1016/j.langsci.2011.10.005Suche in Google Scholar

Wharton, S. (2012). Epistemological and interpersonal stance in a data description task: Findings from a discipline-specific learner corpus. English for Specific Purposes, 31 (4), 261–270.10.1016/j.esp.2012.05.005Suche in Google Scholar

White, P. (2001). Appraisal: an overview. Manuscript (word processor version). http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/appraisalguide/appraisalguidewpfiles.html. (accessed 28 September 2016).Suche in Google Scholar

White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 23(2): 259–284.10.1515/text.2003.011Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2020-02-18
Published in Print: 2020-02-25

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 25.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/glot-2019-0002/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen