Stance expressions in legal academic discourse: A corpus-based analysis of legal journals

References

Adams, Heather & Elena Quintana-Toledo. 2013. Adverbial stance marking in the introduction and conclusion sections of legal research articles. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 8(1). 13–22. https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2013.1028.Search in Google Scholar

Appel, Orestes, Chiclana Francisco, Jenny Carter & Hamido Fujita. 2016. A hybrid approach to the sentiment analysis problem at the sentence level. Knowledge-Based Systems 108. 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2016.05.040.Search in Google Scholar

Aull, Laura L. & Zak Lancaster. 2014. Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication 31(2). 151–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055.Search in Google Scholar

Baker, Paul. 2010. Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2006. University Language: A corpus-based Study of Spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/scl.23Search in Google Scholar

Boginskaya, Olga. 2022. Dissenting with conviction: Boosting in challenging the majority opinion. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7(2). 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2073.Search in Google Scholar

Breeze, Ruth. 2011. Disciplinary values in legal discourse. Iberica 21. 93–115.Search in Google Scholar

Brezina, Vaclav, Tony McEnery & Stephen Wattam. 2015. Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(2). 139–173. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre.Search in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L. & Johanna Nichols. 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Search in Google Scholar

Chan, Thomas Hon-Tung. 2015. A corpus-based study of the expression of stance in dissertation acknowledgements. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20. 176–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.005.Search in Google Scholar

Charles, Maggie. 2006. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 27(3). 492–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml021.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le & Xiuli Liu. 2022. Politics behind the law: Unveiling the discursive strategies in extradition hearings on Meng Wanzhou. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7(2). 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2072.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le, Xiuli Liu & Chunlei Si. 2024. Identifying stance in legislative discourse: A corpus-driven study of data protection laws. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11(1). 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03322-9.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le, Ming Xu & Guang Ma. 2023. Tempo-spatial construction in human-law-society triangle from the perspective of cognitive semiotics. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10(1). 851. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02374-7.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Winnie & Le Cheng. 2014. Epistemic modality in court judgments: A corpus-driven comparison of civil cases in Hong Kong and scotland. English for Specific Purposes 33. 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.07.006.Search in Google Scholar

Csizér, Kata & Gyula Tankó. 2017. English majors’ self-regulatory control strategy use in academic writing and its relation to L2 motivation. Applied Linguistics 38(3). 386–404.Search in Google Scholar

Daniel, Florence Oluwaseyi. 2024. That-complement clauses signalling stance in Nigerian Supreme Court lead judgements: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Legal Discourse 9(1). 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2024-2005.Search in Google Scholar

Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2019. It is not just a fact that the law requires this, but it is a reasonable fact. In Fanego Teresa & Paula Rodríguez-Puente (eds.), Corpus-based research on variation in English legal discourse, 123–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.91.06gozSearch in Google Scholar

Gray, Bethany & Douglas Biber. 2019. Current conceptions of stance. In Hyland Ken & Carmen Sancho Guinda (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres, 15–33. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137030825_2Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1970. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6. 322–361.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to functional grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan & Geoffrey Thompson. 2000. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 1996. Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication 13(2). 251–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013002004.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2002. Academic argument: Induction or interaction? Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses Año 44.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary discourses, Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.6719Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2005a. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2). 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2005b. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2008. Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies 8(2). 1–23.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2012. Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in final year reports. In Hyland Ken & Carmen Sancho Guinda (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres, 134–150. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137030825_9Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & Feng Jiang. 2016. Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication 33(3). 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & Polly Tse. 2005. Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24(2). 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Loi Chek & Jason Miin-Hwa Lim. 2013. Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies 15(2). 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612471476.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2008. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Search in Google Scholar

Lancaster, Zak. 2016. Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 23. 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.006.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Ying & Liming Deng. 2019. Writer identity construction revisited: Stance, voice, self, and identity in academic written discourse. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 42(3). 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2019-0020.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James R. & Peter R. White. 2003. The language of evaluation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Mauranen, Anna. 2002. A good question: Expressing evaluation in academic speech. In Riley Philip & Guiseppina Cortese (eds.), Domain-specific English: Textual practices across communities and classrooms, 115–140. New York: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

McKeown, Jamie. 2022. Stancetaking in the US Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence (1973-present): epistemic (im) probability and evidential (dis) belief. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7(2). 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2075.Search in Google Scholar

Pho, Phuong Dzung. 2008. Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies 10(2). 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607087010.Search in Google Scholar

Poole, Robert. 2021. A corpus-aided study of stance adverbs in judicial opinions and the implications for English for Legal Purposes instruction. English for Specific Purposes 62. 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.01.002.Search in Google Scholar

Qu, Feifei, Gengsheng Xiao & Xin Chen. 2023. A review of research on authorial stance in academic discourse. Academic Journal of Management and Social Sciences 2(2). 105–108. https://doi.org/10.54097/ajmss.v2i2.7669.Search in Google Scholar

Ricca, Mario. 2020. Otherness, elsewhere, and the’Ecology’of law’s implications: The semiotic oceans surrounding legal signification and its discriminatory exteriority/objectivity. International Journal of Legal Discourse 5(2). 185–237. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2020-2034.Search in Google Scholar

Spack, Ruth. 2012. Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far should we go? In Zamel Vivian & Ruth Spack (eds.), Negotiating academic literacies, 85–104. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Paul. 2012. Achieving a voice of authority in PhD theses. In Hyland Ken & Carmen Sancho Guinda (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres, 119–133. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137030825_8Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Bin & Brian Paltridge. 2021. Stance expressions in academic writing: A corpus-based comparison of Chinese students’ MA dissertations and PhD theses. Lingua 253. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103071.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Wenjun, Tiejun Huang & Ke Gong. 2020. Ethical principles and governance technology development of AI in China. Engineering 6(3). 302–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2019.12.015.Search in Google Scholar

Xu, Yiran. 2023. Finding the right voice (s): An engagement analysis of L2 writers in hypothetical legal writing. Linguistics and Education 73(2023). 101140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2022.101140.Search in Google Scholar