CC BY
13Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024, pp. 54-65
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-54-65
Original Research
Stance expressions in applied linguistics research articles: A corpus-based contrastive study
by Muchamad Sholakhuddin Al Fajri and Ikmi Nur Oktavianti
Muchamad Sholakhuddin Al Fajri
ORCID 0000-0002-5628-065X h m-sholakhuddin-al-fajri@vokasi.unair.ac.id Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia
Ikmi Nur Oktavianti
ORCID 0000-0001-7048-5208 h ikmi.oktavianti@pbi.uad.ac.id Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Indonesia
Article history Received November 13, 2023 | Revised February 20, 2024 | Accepted March 11, 2024 Conflicts of interest The authors declared no conflicts of interest Research funding No funding was reported for this research doi 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-54-65
For citation Al Fajri, M. S., & Oktavianti, I. N. (2024). Stance expressions in applied linguistics research articles: A corpus-based contrastive study. Training, Language and Culture, 8(1), 54-65.
Stance, a crucial aspect of academic writing, is complex and vital for both beginner and advanced writers. However, L2 English learners and experienced writers frequently struggle with using stance markers effectively. Currently, there remains a scarcity of research comparing the utilisation of stance markers in applied linguistics research articles between native English professional writers and L1 Indonesian speakers. This study aims to fill this gap by investigating similarities and differences in the deployment of stance markers in applied linguistics research articles by authors with L1 Indonesian and L1 English backgrounds and discussing the educational implications derived from the analysis results. The analysis involves two corpora: the Indonesian academic corpus (IAC), comprising articles authored by L1 Indonesians, and the English academic corpus (EAC), consisting of articles by native English speakers. The study investigates various types of stance markers and their distribution across the corpora, revealing significant differences in their usage. L2 English authors employ more boosters and attitude markers, while L1 English writers use more hedges and self-mentions, with the most notable disparities observed in the usage of self-references. These findings underscore the necessity for educators, particularly within the Indonesian context, to sensitise learners to the discursive norms surrounding the use of stance markers in applied linguistics research articles and provide targeted instruction to enhance English learners' proficiency in employing stance markers effectively.
KEYWORDS: stance markers, corpus-based study, academic writing, English for academic purposes, applied linguistics
This is an open access article distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which allows its unrestricted use for non-commercial purposes, subject to attribution. The material can be shared/adapted for non-commercial purposes if you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
1. INTRODUCTION
and Finegan (1989) defined stance as features used to express the writer's or speaker's attitudes, feelings, commitment, judgments, or judgement about the propositional content of a message. Writers must articulate something to gain credibility in a way that is persuasive for the readers (Jiang & Hyland, 2015).
Academic prose is traditionally seen as an objective and impersonal genre due to the need to provide scientific explanations analytically. However, it has recently been regarded as a persuasive endeavour (Hyland, 2005b) because it saturates the author's perspectives regarding the issue/problem being analysed (Jiang & Hyland, 2015). In academic writing, despite being objective, the author should show their attitude and position towards the issue to show critical thinking ability. Linguistically, this is possible by utilising stance markers. Stance is a textual voice representing the writer's position that reflects a community's epistemological beliefs and values (Hyland, 2005b; Jiang & Hyland, 2015; Hyland & Jiang, 2016). Formerly, Biber
Conscious attention to stance-making is as essential as providing facts and discussing results. Writers' competence to establish an authorial identity and manage their presence to persuade their readers is crucial to successful academic writing (Wang & Jiang, 2018; Wingate, 2012). By presenting the authorial presence and attitudes in the text, academic writing can be more analytical and show the author's level of knowledge on the related topic (Dontcheva-Navratilova, 2012). Lancaster
© Muchamad Sholakhuddin Al Fajri, Ikmi Nur Oktavianti 2024 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
by Muchamad Sholakhuddin Al Fajri and Ikmi Nur Oktavianti
(2014a) demonstrated that students' papers receiving lower grades often lack stance and proved that there is evidence showing that patterns on stances are related to grades. In short, stance might influence readers' judgment of writing quality, especially in the academic context.
Regarding the importance, Aull and Lancaster (2014) emphasised that stance is a complex concept, and it is crucial in academic writing from early and upper-level English as a second language (ESL) (also EFL) writing. The prominence of this concept is supported by the spotlight given to different terms, such as evaluation, appraisal, evidentiality, metadiscourse, and positioning. However, previous studies showed that second-language students and experienced writers have not fully mastered stance markers in academic writing (Qiu & Ma, 2019; Wu & Paltridge, 2021). Master and doctoral students face significant problems in stance-making, while this concept serves as an important indication of writing proficiency and disciplinary encul-turation (Abdollahzadeh, 2019; Qiu & Ma, 2019). It seems that stance-taking and stance-making can be challenging for English as a second language writers (as well as L1 writers) to evaluate evidence and position the readers regarding the author's views (Lancaster, 2014b).
Studies on stance features have predominantly focused on research articles, students' academic writing, and the nativity of the writers. In terms of research articles, some studies examine the use of stance in multiple disciplines (Hu & Cao, 2015; Hy-land, 2005b; Hyland & Jiang, 2018; Jiang & Hyland, 2015; Wang & Jiang, 2018). On the contrary, several studies also focus solely on a single discipline, such as Poole et al. (2019), who explored stance use in biochemical research articles. Meanwhile, most studies primarily investigated the stance in applied linguistics research articles (Abdollahzadeh, 2019; Cheng & Un-sworth, 2016; Hu & Cao, 2015; Jalali, 2017; Qiu & Ma, 2019; Grishechko, 2024). These studies broadly argued that applied linguistics demonstrates the dominant use of stance markers, a salient feature of the field's rhetorical markers. Qiu and Ma (2019) also pointed out that applied linguistics requires a more careful interpretation of findings than hard sciences. Therefore, it is crucial to comprehensively explore stance markers in applied linguistics research articles.
However, to date, there is still limited research that compares and contrasts the use of stance markers by native English professional writers and L2 English authors in applied linguistic research articles. Most studies tend to employ one set of data or a corpus, thereby lacking an in-depth comparative analysis and often concentrating on specific segments within articles (Abdol-lahzadeh, 2019; Cheng & Unsworth, 2016; Hu & Cao, 2015; Qiu & Ma, 2019). Additionally, there is a lack of comparative analysis regarding the use of stance markers in applied linguistics research articles by L1 Indonesian speakers and native English speakers. To address this research gap, this article aims to investigate the application of stance markers by professional writers whose native language is English (L1) and those for whom English serves as their second language (L2) or a foreign
language in an extensive collection of academic articles within the discipline of applied linguistics. Specifically, it examines both similarities and differences in the frequency and types of stance markers employed by authors with L1 Indonesian and L1 English backgrounds and discusses the pedagogical implications arising from the findings of the analysis. This study uses a comparative corpus consisting of articles written by L1 and L2 English authors, which will enable a more thorough and explicit comparison (Adrian & Fajri, 2023). The findings of this study could be used to improve the professional development of L2 writers by providing targeted guidance on effectively employing stance markers in their academic discourse, thereby enhancing their scholarly communication skills.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. Academic writing
Academic discourse as a medium of communication has been long perceived as an objective form of writing. Academic writing has been conceptualised as a means of conveying information in a detached and impersonal manner (Hyland, 2005b). However, as writing constitutes a form of social interaction and text represents a mode of engaging with others within a social framework, as asserted by Hyland (2014), the same so-ciolinguistic principles apply to academic discourse. Analogous to spoken interactions, where speakers convey their viewpoints and judgments through language, writers similarly employ language to encode their perspectives and evaluations. Within this framework, the perspective of academic writing has evolved from being perceived solely as a product influenced by societal norms to being recognised as a process facilitating the creation and mediation of social connections (Hyland, 2005b). Within the realm of academic writing, authors endeavour to establish an interactive connection with their readers, a process that entails situating the roles of both writers and readers within the text in order to craft compelling academic prose (Hyland, 2005a). The utilisation of language in this context is multifaceted, aiming to persuade, inform, entertain, or simply engage the audience, thereby necessitating the conveyance of a specific attitude towards both the content and the readers themselves (Hyland, 2005a). It is essential to acknowledge, however, that acts of constructing meaning through language are inherently non-neutral and closely intertwined with the interests, perspectives, and values held by those who engage in the act of communication (Hyland, 2005a).
2.2. Academic interaction: stance and engagement
Similar to any other texts, academic writers also interact with the readers of the texts by positioning or adopting a point of view related to the issue being investigated. To convince the readers of a particular discipline, the writer must strengthen the arguments and create dialogue with the readers. According to Hyland (2005b), academic writers manage to situate themselves in two main ways, i.e., stance and engagement. Stance can be defined as an attitudinal dimension, which refers to the ways
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024, pp. 54-65
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-54-65
writers present themselves and convey their assessment, perspectives, and commitments (Hyland, 2005b). Previous research predominantly focused on the importance of stance devices, e.g., hedges to limit commitment and boosters to indicate a high degree of certainty. Meanwhile, engagement is the way the author relates to the readers, considering the position in the
text (Hyland, 2005b). Both stance and engagement build up the dialogue between the author and the reader, and they overlap often since one linguistic form can perform more than one function at once. However, it should be noted that the current study focuses on analysing the stance markers only. Figure 1 below illustrates the academic interaction taken from (Hyland, 2005b).
Stance
Interaction
Engagement
Hedges Boosters
Attitude markers
Self-mention
Reader pronouns
Directives Questions
Figure 1. Key resources of academic interaction (Hyland, 2005b)
Shared Personal knowledge asides
2.3. Stance
In scientific writing, the authors need some mechanisms that convey their personal attitudes or assessments, which include a set of lexical and grammatical features called stance markers (Gray & Biber, 2013). Hyland (2005b) pointed out that there are four main elements of stance, namely hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mentions. Hedges represent linguistic constructs utilised by writers to convey their level of certainty or confidence regarding a statement, often through the employment of terms such as might or typically. Boosters serve as linguistic tools employed by writers to signify a heightened degree of confidence in their written assertions while also indicating a strong engagement with the subject matter and a sense of unity with their audience. Examples of such boosters include terms like clearly and obviously. Attitude markers manifest as linguistic elements that convey the writer's emotional stance towards a proposition, indicating sentiments such as agreement, frustration, or excitement, as opposed to expressing a commitment, as seen in terms like important or expected. Self-mention, in the context of language usage, pertains to the deployment of first-person pronouns and possessive adjectives with the intention of conveying prepositional, affective, and interpersonal information. This includes instances such as the utilisation of personal pronouns in discourse.
2.4. Previous studies on stance markers
There have been several previous studies on stance expressions in research articles. Some research compares the use of stance markers in students' writing (novice writers) and re-
search articles (professional writers) (Crosthwaite et al., 2017; Qiu & Ma, 2019; Abdollahzadeh, 2019). For example, Crosthwaite et al. (2017) found the mismatches of stance usage between professional writers and student writers. In their study, professional writers tend to use a more limited set of linguistic devices than student writers, who tend to utilise a larger set of stance expressions. The mismatches were also found in the study of Qiu and Ma (2019) and Abdollahzadeh (2019). Qiu and Ma (2019) identified that master students employed more hedges, boosters, and attitude markers to express stance, but they rarely use self-mentions. This is in contrast with the use of stance markers in doctoral and expert writing that employed more frequent self-mentions. Abdollahzadeh's (2019) study also showed several discrepancies in stance expressions used by professional writers and graduate student writers in that graduate writers use modal verbs as hedges the most frequently, while professional writers produced fewer sets of modal verbs but use them more accurately.
Other studies focus on investigating the use of stance markers in different disciplines. For instance, Hu and Cao (2015) examined the use of stance markers in three different disciplines (i.e., applied linguistics, education, and psychology) and identified some differences. The study demonstrated that applied linguistics research articles employed more reader references but fewer self-mentions compared to psychology research articles. Jiang and Hyland (2015) also investigated stance expressions in eight disciplines, namely applied linguistics, marketing, sociology, philosophy, electronic engineering, medicine, cell biology, and physics. This study focused on the construction of
by Muchamad Sholakhuddin Al Fajri and Ikmi Nur Oktavianti
stance expressions and reported that some differences in structures were noticed and identified, which is due to the different nature of each discipline. In addition, Wang and Jiang (2018) studied stance expressions in four different disciplines, i.e., Physics, Life Science, Material Science and Computer Science, and revealed that pure science writers involve more authorial intrusion and build more authorial interactions with readers compared with hard applied science.
As stance expression is highly sensitive to disciplinary basis, it is necessary to focus on a particular discipline, such as applied linguistics. Some studies analysing stance expressions in applied linguistics research articles have been conducted (Hu & Cao, 2015; Cheng & Unsworth, 2016; Qiu & Ma, 2019; Wu & Paltridge, 2021; Malyuga & Rimmer, 2021). These include limited research that explores the utilisation of stance markers by both native English (L1) and non-native English (L2) academic experts in international journal articles within the domain of applied linguistics (Ansarin & Tarlani-Aliabdi, 2011; Farrokhi & Emami, 2008; Shirzadi et al., 2017; Yotimart & Abd Aziz, 2017). The findings of these studies have generally shown some variations in the use of the linguistic manifestation of stance markers or a specific type of stance device, such as between native English and Iranian authors (Farrokhi & Emami, 2008; Shirzadi et al., 2017), native English and Persian writers (Ansarin & Tar-lani-Aliabdi, 2011), native English and Thai authors (Yotimart & Abd Aziz, 2017). Nevertheless, there is still no study that compares and contrasts the use of stance markers in applied linguistic research articles by L1 English and L1 Indonesians by drawing upon comparative corpora. In the Indonesian context, studies of stance markers in applied linguistics research articles focused on specific sections, such as abstracts (Mazidah, 2019) and discussions (Sanjaya et al., 2019). Also, their research was constrained by the utilisation of one corpus comprising a limited quantity of articles, which hindered their capacity to carry out a comprehensive comparative analysis. Therefore, our current
study aims to fill this gap in the literature by analysing the utilisation of stance markers by L1 English and L1 Indonesian professional writers in applied linguistics scientific articles. This study can contribute to the existing body of research on the use of stance devices by L1 and L2 English by providing different contexts, specifically centred on L1 Indonesians.
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. The corpora of the study
For the purpose of this research, two corpora were assembled to analyse the similarities and disparities in the utilisation of stance markers within each corpus. These corpora consist of the Indonesian academic corpus (IAC) and the English academic corpus (EAC). The IAC was derived from 200 research articles authored by L1 Indonesians, which were published in internationally recognised Indonesian applied linguistics journals indexed by Scopus. Conversely, the EAC was obtained from 200 scientific research articles written by native English speakers published in prestigious journals in the field of applied linguistics, which possess high Impact Factors (IF) and are indexed in both the Scopus database and the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) (see Table 1 for the list of the journals). The journals selected for the IAC are considered equivalent to those selected for the EAC for several reasons. Firstly, they are peer-reviewed journals, adhering to the academic conventions in international publications. Secondly, they are indexed by international research article databases. To address the potential issue of excessive use of hedges in a particular issue or a year and to ensure the recency of the data, we decided to include articles published within a 5-year period from 2017 to 2021. Additionally, the decision to select articles from Indonesian journals for the IAC is based on the understanding that these publications are more likely to capture the language used by Indonesian authors within the context of Indonesia, while still catering to an international readership.
Table 1
The overview of the journals
NO. IAC JOURNALS EAC JOURNALS
1. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics Applied Linguistics
2. International Journal of Language Education Journal of Second Language Writing
3. Studies in English Language and Education Language Learning
4. Teflin Journal Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Furthermore, to determine the first language of the author (s), we employed the method proposed by Wood (2001). This method classifies individuals as L1 English writers if their first and last names are characteristic of native English speakers and if they are affiliated with institutions in countries where
English is the primary language. L1 Indonesian writers, therefore, are identified as those whose first and last names align with typical Indonesian names and who are affiliated with Indonesian institutions (Fajri et al., 2020). If the articles had multiple authors, only those in which all authors fulfilled the criteria
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024, pp. 54-65 doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-54-65
for either English or Indonesian writers were included in the study. We acknowledge that using the method proposed by Wood (2001) may introduce bias as it relies solely on names and affiliations, overlooking the complexities of global academic mobility and the diverse linguistic backgrounds of researchers. However, it is important to note that despite its limitations, this method has been utilised by many prominent studies in the field (Hyland, 2016; Omidian et al., 2021; Pan et al., 2016; Wang & Zhang, 2021). Given the practical challenges of directly assessing language nativeness on a large scale, this method may rep-
resent one of the most viable approaches currently available. In addition, it is important to note that the chosen texts encompassed the Introduction, Methods, Results/Findings, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, while other components of the articles, such as the author(s)' names and affiliation, journal details, tables and figures, references, and appendices were excluded from the analysis as they typically do not contain academic stance features. Direct quotes and extracts from language data were also removed since they do not show the author(s)' stance markers. Table 2 provides the details of the corpora,
Table 2
Distribution of the corpora
CORPUS NUMBER OF ARTICLES WORD COUNT
IAC 200 1,678,773
EAC 200 957,575
There are marked differences in the number of words, with the EAC showing a higher number of tokens. This suggests that articles in the EAC tend to be longer compared to those in the IAC. Thus, the normalisation process will be applied when conducting an analysis of cross-corpora frequencies to ensure fair comparisons and accurate assessments of the stance markers across the corpora. This normalisation process involves dividing the raw frequency of a particular stance marker by the number of words of the corpus in which it occurs and then multiplying the result by 1,000.
3.2. Data analysis
The initial step of the analysis involved converting the data from the two corpora into text files to enable their searchability using the corpus software LancsBox (Brezina et al., 2015). Then, targeted searches were carried out to identify instances of common stance devices as proposed by Hyland (2005a). Both American and British spellings were also checked. Additionally, a qualitative concordance analysis of stance devices was conducted to investigate whether the targeted items fulfilled their stated function, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the findings. Then, the raw frequencies of the stance markers were adjusted by normalising them into a frequency per 1,000 words to address the differences in corpus sizes. We applied the log-likelihood test to determine the statistical significance of the differences in the use of stance markers. The log-likelihood value represents a contingency measure indicating potential significant differences between target wordings and non-target wordings across two or more corpora (Crosthwaite et al., 2017). Significance values of p < 0.001 were assigned to LL (log-likelihood) values exceeding 10.83, while significance values of p < 0.0001 were assigned to LL values surpassing 15.13. Understanding the implications of these statistical differences is vital for both academic writing and instruction. For instance, if certain stance
markers are significantly more prevalent in one corpus compared to another, it could suggest differing rhetorical preferences or linguistic conventions within distinct academic communities.
4. STUDY RESULTS
4.1. Distribution of stance devices in the corpora
Table 3 presents the distribution of stance devices within both corpora with the normalised frequencies and the values of significance tests.
The results reveal that there was a statistically significant difference in the deployment of stance markers between the two corpora, with the EAC containing higher frequencies of stance devices, which is in line with studies by Al-Zubeiry and Assaggaf (2023) and Seyri and Rezaei (2021) on research articles by L1 Arabic and Iranian writers respectively. However, in each specific type of stance marker, L1 Indonesian authors employed a significantly greater number of boosters and attitude markers, whereas L1 English writers used considerably more hedges and self-mentions. In addition, based on the percentages of the usage of each type of stance marker, the most substantial differences were in the utilisation of self-mentions and boosters, with a notable gap of 14% and 11%, respectively. The subsequent sections provide a detailed comparison of the use of each type of stance device
4.2. Comparison of hedges
From Table 3, it can be seen that hedges were the most recurrent stance markers in both corpora, indicating that expert writers frequently refrain from committing fully to a proposition in order to enable information to be presented as an opinion and create a space for readers to argue their interpretations. This corresponds to Hyland's (2016) study, which demonstrated that hedges had the highest occurrences among other stance markers in journal articles from four different academic disciplines.
by Muchamad Sholakhuddin Al Fajri and Ikmi Nur Oktavianti
Table 3
Distribution of the use of stance markers
STANCE MARKERS IAC EAC
Raw frequency Normalised frequency Proportion Raw frequency Normalised frequency Proportion P-value
Hedges 9,898 10.34 45% 21,631 12.89 47% 0.0001
Boosters 7,154 7.47 33% 10,048 5.99 22% 0.0001
Attitude 3,017 3.30 14% 4,110 2.54 9% 0.0001
Self-mentions 1,552 1.73 8% 10,332 6.20 22% 0.0001
Total 21,621 22.84 100% 46,121 27.63 100% 0.0001
Nevertheless, there is a significant difference in the application of hedges between L1 English and L2 or L1 Indonesian authors, with L1 employing more hedges. This is in line with previous studies (Samaie et al., 2014; Thuy, 2018; Yagiz & Demir, 2014) that compared the use of hedges in academic articles written by native and non-native English writers.
This difference may be due to the culturally diverse backgrounds of the authors (Thuy, 2018; Yagiz & Demir, 2014), their intended audiences, the norms of two discourse communities (Thuy, 2018), and the cultural model or belief system of individual authors (Sanjaya, 2015). Sanjana's (2015) study pointed out that Indonesian applied linguistics researchers generally believe that research articles should have an authoritative tone
that reflects the absolute authority of the authors, which should not be questioned by the readers. This belief, which may be held by the majority of Indonesians, may inspire Indonesian research articles authors to be overconfident in their presentation of knowledge (Sanjaya, 2015).
However, the fact that the frequency of hedges in IAC is still high may imply that some Indonesian writers used hedges less frequently in their research articles than others, which seems to lend weight to Sanjaya's (2015) argument that the differences in the use of hedges between L1 and L2 English writers might be significantly determined by cultural models concerning the use of hedges embraced by individual authors, instead of so-ciocultural context.
Table 4
Distribution of the use of specific types of hedges
IAC EAC
Normalised frequency Proportion Normalised frequency Proportion
Modal verbs 3.93 38% 5.15 40%
Epistemic lexical verbs 3.06 29% 3.26 25%
Adverbs, adjectives and nouns 0.72 7% 1.55 12%
Approximators 2.61 25% 2.91 22%
Other phrases 0.01 1% 0.01 1%
In the case of the frequency and proportion of the five types of hedges, both authors preferred to use modal auxiliaries to hedge their assertions (see Table 4). However, there is a difference in the most frequently used hedging items. L1 English writers tended to use may and would, which accounted for 57% of modal auxiliaries, while L2 authors more frequently applied could and should, constituting 53% (see Excerpts 1 and 2 for examples of the use of hedges).
(1) Therefore, self-efficacy in writing is different from self-efficacy in other domains of language learning, and self-efficacy in one writing task may be different from that in another writing task (EAC).
(2) In encouraging students' awareness and motivation to learn to speak, the teacher or lecturer should have some roles to provide adequate teaching which can get students to speak English (IAC).
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024, pp. 54-65
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-54-65
The high frequency of may and would in EAC echoes the findings of Thuy's (2018) research on the use of hedges in scientific articles in linguistics and related social sciences and humanities written by native English speakers. This is also consistent with Hyland's (1998, p. 116) study, which stated that may is 'the only modal which figures significantly more often in academic than other genres'. May and would might be used by L1 authors to avoid absolutism, providing more choices of interpretation. Meanwhile, the tendency of L1 Indonesians to use could and should might indicate that they focus on expressing more certainty and necessity, which is congruent with Adrian and Fajri's (2023) research regarding the use of hedges by Indonesian authors in social sciences articles.
4.3. Comparison of boosters
As demonstrated in Table 3, the occurrences of boosters were higher in IAC than in EAC. This finding is congruent with Oz's (2022) study on the employment of boosters by L1 English and L1 Turkish expert writers, which stated that non-native English authors predominantly used more boosters than their
counterparts. This might still be influenced by the tendency of Indonesian writers to use an authoritative tone in their articles, as pointed out by Sanjaya (2015). This also supports Hinkel's (2002) research which stated that exaggeration and overstatements are viewed as suitable and effective methods of persuasion in non-Anglo-American rhetorical traditions including Indonesian, explaining the high frequencies of boosters in L2 writing.
In terms of the distribution of the types of boosters, both writers tended to use epistemic lexical verbs, rather than modal verbs, and adverbs and adjectives of certainty (see Table 5). This is consistent with Hyland's (2018) study in the sense that expert writers frequently employ verbs to bolster their or others' assertions. The lower occurrence of adverbs and adjectives of certainty, particularly amplifying adverbs, could also be explained by the fact that 'advanced academic writers delimit their own view and show caution and deference to alternative views', while novice writers have a tendency to overuse intensifying boosters, showing a less measured and more generalised stance (Aull & Lancaster, 2014, p. 175).
Table 5
Distribution of the use of specific types of boosters
TYPE OF BOOSTERS IAC EAC
Normalised frequency Proportion Normalised frequency Proportion
Modal verb (must) 0.38 5% 0.20 3%
Epistemic lexical verbs 5.45 73% 4.23 71%
Adverbs, adjectives and nouns
1.64
22%
1.55
26%
Furthermore, there seems to be a similar pattern in the case of the most frequently used verb boosters. Both L1 and L2 expert writers mainly utilised find/finds/found and show/shows/ showed/shown, with total occurrences of approximately 50% in both corpora (see Excerpts 3 and 4 for examples). They were mainly applied emphatically to reinforce their or other scholars' propositions.
(3) The results showed that there was a positive relation between teacher reflective inventory and teacher reflective practice, efficacy, and autonomy (IAC).
(4) In the cued recall task, we found a significant difference in response accuracy between the bolding and the reading-only conditions (z= 2.59, multiplicity adjusted p= .026), but not between bolding + glossing and reading only (EAC).
4.4. Comparison of attitude markers
The use of attitude markers by both L1 and L2 English authors accounted for a small proportion of stance markers, with around 9% and 14%, respectively (see Table 3), which corresponds to previous research (Lee & Deakin, 2016; Qiu & Ma,
2019; Shen & Tao, 2021; Wu & Paltridge, 2021) on academic discourse. Authors employ attitude markers not only to convey their standpoint on a proposition but also to communicate their emotions and evaluations to readers (Martin & White, 2005). The aim is to establish alignment with the readers regarding shared beliefs and values, fostering a sense of mutual understanding and agreement (Martin & White, 2005) 'so that it can often be difficult to dispute these judgments' (Hyland, 2005a, p. 180). The occurrences of attitude markers in both corpora, nevertheless, are significantly different, with IAC showing more attitude markers. The greater use of attitude markers by L1 Indonesian authors may reflect their tendency to assert conviction in their writing.
Regarding types of attitude markers, attitudinal adjectives were more frequent than attitudinal adverbs and cognitive verbs in both corpora (see Table 6), which is in line with previous studies on the employment of attitude markers in research articles (Dueñas, 2010; Koutsantoni, 2004; Lee & Deakin, 2016; Qiu & Ma, 2019; Stotesbury, 2003). Both L1 and L2 writers also mostly employed the same adjectival attitude markers, which
by Muchamad Sholakhuddin Al Fajri and Ikmi Nur Oktavianti
Table 6
Distribution of the use of specific types of attitude markers
TYPE OF ATTITUDE MARKERS IAC EAC
Normalised frequency Proportion Normalised frequency Proportion
Attitudinal adverbs 0.66 21% 0.86 35%
Attitudinal adjectives 2.10 67% 1.42 58%
Cognitive verbs 0.39 12% 0.17 7%
are important, expected and appropriate, which is congruent with Wu and Paltridge's (2021) finding in MA and PhD dissertations/ theses in applied linguistics. Excerpts 5 and 6 show examples of the most frequently used adjectival attitude markers.
(5) A more acceptable explanation is that TJ is one of the most appropriate scholarly venues for voicing concern about the teaching of English as a foreign language in the Indonesian context (IAC).
(6) As suggested, in order to identify playful sequences in classroom talk, it is important to explore extracts where talk is treated as playful by the participants themselves (e.g. laughter) (EAC).
However, the three adjectives accounted for 47% of all attitude markers in IAC, while in EAC, they constituted 44%, which may suggest that L1 authors utilised slightly a wider range of lexical items as attitude markers. Additionally, attitude markers were applied by both authors in a similar way. They are predominantly used to convey affective attitudes towards their research methodology, findings and contributions in methods, results and discussion sections.
4.5. Comparison of self-mentions
It can be seen from Table 3 that L1 English authors utilised considerably more self-mentions than Indonesian authors. The log-likelihood test also suggested that the difference is statistically significant. This is likely to be influenced by a dramatic increase in the use of self-mentions in leading journals in applied
linguistics over the past 20 years (Rezaei et al., 2021). The high frequency of self-mentions in research articles by L1 English writers may also show the high level of their English proficiency since when writers gain proficiency, they become more comfortable asserting themselves through the usage of self-mentions or self-references (Hyland & Tse, 2004; Qiu & Ma, 2019). This finding is congruent with Pourmohammadi and Kuhi's (2016) and Shirzadi et al.'s (2017) studies in Iranian contexts and Martínez's (2005) research on native speakers of Spanish. This might also extend Hyland's (2002) and Lee and Deakin's (2016) findings in the sense that when it comes to professional writers, L2 English writers still underuse self-mention markers compared with L1 authors.
The lower use of self-mentions by L2 English expert writers could be influenced by the way they were taught in their academic writing classes. Non-native English writers are generally taught to avoid using first-person pronouns in written academic discourses (Qandarli et al., 2015; Hyland, 2002) as it is connected to subjectivity and seen by conventional educators as inappropriate in academic writing (Hyland, 2002), which seems to occur in Indonesian contexts as well. They, therefore, prefer to employ the passive voice, non-human subjects or it as dummy subjects (Hyland, 2002).
In terms of the distribution of the use of the types of self-mention markers, both L1 and L2 professional writers tended to use first-person pronouns rather than nouns and phrases (e.g., the author, the writer) to refer to themselves (see Table 7).
Table 7
Distribution of the use of specific types of attitude markers
IAC EAC
TYPE OF SELF-MENTIONS _
Normalised frequency Proportion Normalised frequency Proportion
First-person pronouns 1.51 93% 6.11 99%
Nouns and phrases 0.11 7% 0.04 1%
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024, pp. 54-65 doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-54-65
The use of personal pronouns in the humanities and social sciences indicates that the writer intends to establish a strong relationship with his or her claims, such as by emphasising his or her contribution or pursuing audience agreement (Hyland, 2001, 2005a). The most frequent self-mention markers used in both corpora are exclusive we and our, which are mostly used to describe the research methodology and findings and present arguments (see Excerpts 7 and 8 for examples).
(7) After we discussed and negotiated the project with the English teacher, the school principal, and the parents, a total of thirty (30) children (Graders 4-6) were recruited to participate in a digital storytelling (DST) project (IAC).
(8) We measured SES using the Highest International Standard Classification of Education (HISCED) proposed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (EAC).
The finding is congruent with Khedri's (2016) study on the use of self-mentions in four different academic disciplines. This, however, contrasts with Qiu and Ma's (2019) research, which found that writers of published research articles more recurrently used the first-person pronoun I. This may be potentially explained by the fact that most research articles in these current corpora were written by two or more authors, which is similar to Dueñas' (2007) findings in business management research articles. In addition, it should be noted that while L1 English authors employed more first-person pronouns than L2 writers, they used slightly fewer nouns and phrases to mention themselves than their counterparts. This might be used by L2 writers to give a sense of objectivity without distancing themselves entirely from the texts (Januarto & Hardjanto, 2020).
5. DISCUSSION
The findings of the study reveal significant differences in the deployment of stance markers between the IAC and the EAC. These may have implications for English for Academic Purposes (EAP) or academic writing classes, particularly in Indonesia. Firstly, the significant difference between the two corpora highlights the importance of teaching students, especially postgraduate students in applied linguistics or humanities and social sciences, about the use of stance devices in academic articles. It seems essential for L2 English learners to develop an understanding of how to effectively express their stance and opinions in a manner that aligns with the expectations of English academic writing conventions. This finding emphasises the need to provide explicit instruction and practice opportunities for English learners to enhance their proficiency in using stance markers appropriately.
Secondly, the variation in the usage of specific types of stance markers between L1 Indonesian and L1 English authors suggests that English learners may benefit from targeted instruction in these specific linguistic devices. For instance, since L1 Indonesian authors employed a greater number of boosters and attitude markers, students can be guided to effectively use these devices to strengthen their arguments and express confidence in their writing. Conversely, the underuse of self-mentions and
hedges indicate the need to teach L2 students how to use these devices to mitigate the potential for over-generalisation or as-sertiveness in their academic writing.
Furthermore, notable gaps in the utilisation of self-mentions and boosters highlight areas where specific attention and instruction can be focused. L2 writers can be guided to increase their usage of self-mentions, particularly first-person pronouns, which can enhance personal engagement and authorial presence in their writing, demonstrating their rhetorical decision to establish their credibility and obtain approval or credit for their assertion (Hyland, 2012). Similarly, providing explicit instruction on the appropriate use of boosters can help students effectively emphasise key points and bolster their arguments.
To sum up, to optimise the effectiveness of teaching academic writing, particularly in the field of applied linguistics, educators should consider pedagogical approaches that further sensitise learners to the discursive norms of the research genre and the rhetorical expectations inherent in the writing style appropriate to the discipline (Crosthwaite et al., 2017). This process may begin by narrowing the scope of expressions used for stance markers to those identified as preferred in the professionally written research articles examined in the present study. Also, incorporating interactive instructional methods, such as guided practice exercises, peer collaboration activities, and analysis of authentic academic texts, such as a corpus of research articles, can further facilitate meaningful engagement and application of stance markers within the context of EAP courses. Overall, by leveraging the insights gained from the analysis of stance marker usage, educators can design and implement effective teaching strategies that empower L2 English learners to excel in academic writing and communication.
6. CONCLUSION
The present research compared the employment of stance markers by L1 English and L1 Indonesian writers in the corpora of applied linguistics research articles. The findings reveal a statistically significant difference in the deployment of stance markers between the two professional academic writers. However, a closer examination of each specific type of stance marker uncovers that L1 Indonesian authors demonstrate a higher usage of boosters and attitude markers, while L1 English writers employ more hedges and self-mentions. Understanding the differences in stance marker usage between L1 English and L1 Indonesian writers can enrich our knowledge of how linguistic and cultural backgrounds influence academic discourse. This understanding is particularly crucial in today's globalised academic landscape, where scholars from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds collaborate and communicate across borders. By illuminating the specific linguistic features that shape academic writing practices across different cultural contexts, this research can inform more effective pedagogical strategies for teaching academic writing to L2 English learners. This finding underscores the significance of targeted instruction and practice activities to develop English learners' proficiency in employing stance markers appropriately.
by Muchamad Sholakhuddin Al Fajri and Ikmi Nur Oktavianti
While this study has provided valuable insights, it is crucial to acknowledge its limitations. The study focused specifically on research articles authored by native Indonesian and English writers in the field of applied linguistics. The generalisability of the findings to academic writing in different languages or disciplinary domains may be limited. Thus, future research endeavours could explore the usage of stance markers across various genres of academic writing, encompassing literature reviews, empirical investigations, and case studies across a broader spectrum of academic fields.
References
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2019). A cross-cultural study of hedging in discussion sections by junior and senior academic writers: Un estudio transcultural. Ibérica, 38, 177-202. Adrian, D., & Fajri, M. S. A. (2023). Hedging practices in soft science research articles: A corpus-based analysis of Indonesian authors. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 10(1), 2249630. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2249630 Al-Zubeiry, H. Y. A., & Assaggaf, H. T. (2023). Stance-marking of interaction in research articles written by non-native speakers of English: An analytical study. Studies in English Language and Education, 10(1), 235-250. Ansarin, A. A., & Tarlani-Aliabdi, H. (2011). Reader engagement in English and Persian applied linguistics articles. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 154-164. https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ ELT.V4N4P154
Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151-183. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055 Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (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://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text 1.1989.9.1.93 Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Wattam, S. (2015). Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 139-173. Qandarli, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Marti, 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. Cheng, F.-W., & Unsworth, L. (2016). Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 43-57. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.001 Crosthwaite, P., Cheung, L., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 107-123. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.02.001 Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2012). Lexical bundles in academic texts by non-native speakers. Brno Studies in English, 38(2), 37-58. https://dx.doi.org/10.5817/BSE2012-2-3 Dueñas, P. M. (2007). 'I/we focus on...': A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 143-162. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002
Moreover, future studies could delve into a comparative analysis of stance marker usage within distinct sections of research articles. Analysing the deployment of stance markers in sections such as the introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion would offer valuable insights into how writers signal their attitudes and perspectives throughout the different stages of their research. This comparative approach could uncover variations in stance marker usage based on the communicative purposes and rhetorical conventions associated with each section.
Dueñas, P. M. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: a cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 50-72. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00228.x Fajri, M. S. A., Kirana, A. W., & Putri, C. I. K. (2020). Lexical bundles of L1 and L2 English professional scholars: A contrastive corpus-driven study on applied linguistics research articles. Journal of Language and Education, 6(4), 76-89. Farrokhi, F., & Emami, S. (2008). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: Native vs. non-native research articles in applied linguistics and engineering. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 1 (2), 62-98. Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2013). Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 109-136. https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ijcl. 18.1.08gra Grishechko, E. G. (2024). The linguistic landscape of 'controversial': Sentiment and theme distribution insights. Gema Online Journal of Language Studies, 24(1), 79-97. https://doi.org/ 10.175 76/gema-2024-2401 -05 Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers' text Linguistic and rhetorical
features. Routledge. Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12-25. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005 Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02) 00035-8 Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing.
Bloomsbury Publishing. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 Hyland, K. (2012). Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in final year reports. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 134-150). Palgrave Macmillan.
Hyland, K. (2014). Dialogue, community and persuasion in research writing. In L. Gil-Salom & C. Soler-Monreal (Eds.), Dialogi-city in written specialized genres (pp. 1-21). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Training, Language and Culture Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024, pp. 54-65
Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58-69. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005 Hyland, K. (2018). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing.
Bloomsbury Publishing. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251-274. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399 Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2018). 'We believe that..': Changes in an academic stance marker. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38(2), 139-161. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07268602.201 8.1400498
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi. org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156 Jalali, H. (2017). Reflection of stance through it bundles in applied linguistics. Ampersand, 4, 30-39. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.a mper.2017.06.001 Januarto, A., & Hardjanto, T. D. (2020). Authorial presence in English research articles by native and non-native English scholars. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 23(2), 241-254. https://dx.doi.org/10.24071/llt.v23i2.2473 Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2015). 'The fact that': Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529-550. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461445615590719 Khedri, M. (2016). Are we visible? An interdisciplinary data-based study of self-mention in research articles. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52(3), 403-430. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/psicl-2016-0017 Koutsantoni, D. (2004). Attitude, certainty and allusions to common knowledge in scientific research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(2), 163-182. https://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jeap.2003.08.001 Lancaster, Z. (2014a). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines. Written Communication, 31 (1), 27-57. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07410883135 15170
Lancaster, Z. (2014b). Making stance explicit for second language writers in the disciplines: What faculty need to know about the language of stancetaking. In T. M. Zawacki & M. Cox (Eds.), WAC and second-language writers: Research towards linguistically and culturally inclusive programs and practices (pp. 269-298). Parlor Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.3 7514/PER-B.2014.0551.2.11 Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21-34. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.jsl w.2016.06.004
Malyuga, E. N., & Rimmer, W. (2021). Making sense of 'buzzword' as a term through co-occurrences analysis. Heliyon, 7(6), e07208. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07208 Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. Martinez, I. A. (2005). Native and non-native writers' use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 174-190. https://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.j slw.2005.06.001
rudn.tlcjournal.org doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-54-65
Mazidah, E. N. (2019). A comparison of the interactive metadiscourse in the abstracts of articles written by Indonesian and NES Scholars. Etnolingual, 3(1), 57-73. https://dx.doi.org/10.204 73/etno.v3i1.12995
Omidian, T., Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Biber, D. (2021). A new multidimensional model of writing for research publication: An analysis of disciplinarity, intra-textual variation, and L1 versus LX expert writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 53, 101020. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.202 1.101020
Oz, G. (2022). A comparative corpus-based analysis of boosters in ness and NNESs' academic articles. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 1-11. https://dx.doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v7i 1.1128
Pan, F., Reppen, R., & Biber, D. (2016). Comparing patterns of L1 versus L2 English academic professionals: Lexical bundles in Telecommunications research journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 60-71. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.je ap.2015.11.003
Poole, R., Gnann, A., & Hahn-Powell, G. (2019). Epistemic stance and the construction of knowledge in science writing: A dia-chronic corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 1-11.
Pourmohammadi, M., & Kuhi, D. D. (2016). A comparative analysis of self-mentions in applied linguistics PhD dissertations written by native and non-native English writers. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 4(1), 109-124. https://dx.doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2018.2616 5.1051
Qiu, X., & Ma, X. (2019). Disciplinary enculturation and authorial stance. Ibérica, 38, 327-348.
Rezaei, S., Kuhi, D., & Saeidi, M. (2021). Diachronic corpus analysis of stance markers in research articles: The field of applied linguistics. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 8(1), 1872165. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2021.1872165
Samaie, M., Khosravian, F., & Boghayeri, M. (2014). The frequency and types of hedges in research article introductions by Persian and English native authors. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1678-1685. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.sbspr o.2014.03.593
Sanjaya, I. N. S. (2015). Revisiting the effects of sociocultural context and disciplines on the use of hedges in research articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 116-125. https://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.838
Sanjaya, I. N. S., Sitawati, A. A. R., & Handayani, L. N. C. (2019). Investigating the use of grammatical stance markers in discussion section of English applied linguistics research articles written by Indonesian scholars. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 354, 138-142. https:// doi.org/10.2991/icastss-19.2019.30
Seyri, H., & Rezaei, S. (2021). Disciplinary and cross-cultural variation of stance and engagement markers in soft and hard sciences research articles by native English and Iranian academic writers: A corpus-based analysis. Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching, 1(1), 87-102.
Shen, Q., & Tao, Y. (2021). Stance markers in English medical research articles and newspaper opinion columns: A comparative corpus-based study. PLOS ONE, 16(3), 1-22. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0247981
by Muchamad Sholakhuddin Al Fajri and Ikmi Nur Oktavianti
Shirzadi, M., Akhgar, F., Rooholamin, A., & Shafiee, S. (2017). A corpus-based contrastive analysis of stance strategies in native and nonnative speakers' English academic writings: Introduction and discussion sections in focus. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(4), 31-40. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.29252/ijree.2.4.31 Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 327-341. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1475-1 585(03)00049-3 Thuy, T. N. T. (2018). A corpus-based study on cross-cultural divergence in the use of hedges in academic research articles written by Vietnamese and native English-speaking authors. Social Sciences, 7(4), 70. Wang J., & Jiang, F. (2018). Epistemic stance and authorial presence in scientific research writing: Hedges, boosters and self-mentions across disciplines and writer groups. In P. Mur-Dueñas & J. Sinküniené (Eds.), Intercultural perspectives on research writing (pp. 195-216). John Benjamins. Wang, M., & Zhang, Y. (2021). 'According to.': The impact of language background and writing expertise on textual priming patterns of multi-word sequences in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 61, 47-59.
Wingate, U. (2012). 'Argument!' helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, ii (2), 145-154. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2 011.11.001
Wood, A. (2001). International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 71-83). Cambridge University Press. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524766.008 Wu, B., & Paltridge, B. (2021). Stance expressions in academic writing: A corpus-based comparison of Chinese students' MA dissertations and PhD theses. Lingua, 253, 1-18. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103071 Yagiz, O., & Demir, C. (2014). Hedging strategies in academic discourse: A comparative analysis of Turkish writers and native writers of English. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 260-268. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014. 12.085
Yotimart, D., & Abd Aziz, N. H. (2017). Authorial identity and linguistic features of native English and Thai writers in research articles. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(3), 1319-1334. http://pertanika.upm.edu.my/pjssh/ browse/regular-issue?article=JSSH-1635-2016
Muchamad Sholakhuddin Al Fajri
ORCID 0000-0002-5628-065X h m-sholakhuddin-al-fajri@vokasi.unair.ac.id
Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia
Ikmi Nur Oktavianti
ORCID 0000-0001-7048-5208 h ikmi.oktavianti@pbi.uad.ac.id Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Indonesia
