Speaker positioning in academic instruction: insights from corpus analysis

References

Barr, Pauline. 1990. The role of discourse intonation in lecture comprehension. In Martin Hewings (ed.), Papers in discourse intonation, 5–21. Birmingham, UK: English Language Research, University of Birmingham, English Language Research.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2006. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(2). 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text-interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 9(1). 93–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Charles, Maggie. 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. 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1475-1585(03)00048-1.Search in Google Scholar

Conrad, Susan & Douglas Biber. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 56–73. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0004Search in Google Scholar

Crompton, Peter. 1997. Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes 16. 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(97)00007-0.Search in Google Scholar

Dudley-Evans, Anthony & Timothy F. Johns. 1981. A team-teaching approach to lecture comprehension for overseas students. The teaching of listening comprehension, 30–46. London: The British Council, ELT documents special.Search in Google Scholar

Duszak, Anna. 1997. Cross-cultural academic communication. A discourse-community view. In Anna Duszak (ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse, 11–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110821048.11Search in Google Scholar

Flowerdew, John. 1994. Research of relevance to second language lecture comprehension: An overview. In John Flowerdew (ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives, 7–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524612.004Search in Google Scholar

Gillaerts, Paul & Freek Van de Velde. 2010. Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(2). 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004.Search in Google Scholar

Grabe, William & Robert B. Kaplan. 1997. On the writing of science and the science of writing: Hedging in science text and elsewhere. In Raija Markkanen & Hartmut Schroder (eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 151–167. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110807332.151Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan. 1994. Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis, 191–218. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

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

Hyland, Ken. 1994. Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks. English for Specific Purposes 13(3). 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 1998. Boosters, hedges and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18(3). 349–382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 1999. Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes 18. 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(97)00025-2.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(2). 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001.Search 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. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & Polly Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25(2). 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & Hang Joanna Zou. 2021. “I believe the findings are fascinating”: Stance in three-minute theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 50. 100973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100973.Search in Google Scholar

Jung, Euen Hyuk. 2003. The role of discourse signaling cues in second language listening comprehension. The Modern Language Journal 87(4). 562–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00208.Search in Google Scholar

Kashiha, Hadi. 2021a. Metadiscourse variations in the generic structure of disciplinary research articles. International Review of Pragmatics 13(2). 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01302004.Search in Google Scholar

Kashiha, Hadi. 2021b. Stancetaking across monologic and dialogic modes of academic speech. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 39(4). 352–362. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2021.1964371.Search in Google Scholar

Kashiha, Hadi. 2022a. Academic lectures versus political speeches: Metadiscourse functions affected by the role of the audience. Journal of Pragmatics 190. 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.003.Search in Google Scholar

Kashiha, Hadi. 2022b. On persuasive strategies: Metadiscourse practices in political speeches. Discourse & Interaction 15(1). 77–100. https://doi.org/10.5817/di2022-1-77.Search in Google Scholar

Kashiha, Hadi. 2022c. “Bear in mind that”: Enhancing lecture comprehension through signaling importance markers. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(1). 86–108. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2020-0013.Search in Google Scholar

Kashiha, Hadi. 2024a. Stance-taking in peer reviewer and thesis examiner feedback on Iranian scholarly contributions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 68. 101364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101364.Search in Google Scholar

Kashiha, Hadi. 2024b. Critical comments in the disciplines: A comparative look at peer review reports in applied linguistics and engineering. Text & Talk. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2023-0055.Search in Google Scholar

Kashiha, Hadi & Swee Heng Chan. 2014. Using multi-word units to take a stance in academic lectures. Journal of Language and Communication (JLC) 1(1). 29–37.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Joseph J. 2009. Size matters: An exploratory comparison of small- and large-class university lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes 28(1). 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.11.001.Search in Google Scholar

Lindemann, Stephanie & Anna Mauranen. 2001. ‘It’s just real messy’: The occurrence and function of just in a corpus of academic speech. English for Specific Purposes 20. 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(01)00026-6.Search in Google Scholar

Lynch, Tony. 2011. Academic listening in the 21st century: Reviewing a decade of research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10(2). 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.03.001.Search in Google Scholar

Meyer, Paul Georg. 1997. Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: Strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In Raija Markkanen & Hartmut Schroder (eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 21–41. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110807332.21Search in Google Scholar

Nesi, Hilary. 2001. A corpus-based analysis of academic lectures across disciplines. In Janet Cotterill & Anne Ife (eds.), Language across boundaries, 201–218. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Poos, Deanna & Rita Simpson. 2002. Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging: Some findings from the Michigan corpus of academic spoken English. In Randi Reppen, Susan Fitzmaurice & Douglas Biber (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 3–21. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/scl.9.03pooSearch in Google Scholar

Swales, John M. & Amy Burke. 2003. ‘It’s really fascinating work’: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers. In Pepi Leistyna & Charles F. Meyer (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 1–18. New York: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004334410_002Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Susan Elizabeth. 1994. Frameworks and contexts: A genre-based approach to analyzing lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes 13(2). 71–86.10.1016/0889-4906(94)90014-0Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Susan Elizabeth. 2003. Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signaling of organization in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2(1). 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1475-1585(02)00036-x.Search in Google Scholar

Titsworth, B. Scott & Kenneth A. Kiewra. 2004. Spoken organizational lecture cues and student note taking as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology 29(4). 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.12.001.Search in Google Scholar

Varttala, Teppo. 2003. Hedging in scientific research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. In Giuseppina Cortese & Philip Riley (eds.), Domain-specific English: Textual practices across communities and classrooms, 141–174. New York: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Young, Lynne. 1994. University lectures – macro-structure and micro-features. In John Flowerdew (ed.), Academic listening, 159–176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524612.013Search in Google Scholar

Zou, Hang Joanna & Ken Hyland. 2022. How the medium shapes the message: Stance in two forms of book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics 193. 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.03.023.Search in Google Scholar