Article.
Наталія Крамар
УДК 81`42: 811.111
TOWARDS AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH TO IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION IN ACADEMIC
DISCOURSE
У
статті розглянуто stance («позиція», «ставлення») та voice («голос», «тон») як
два взаємодоповнюючі
теоретичні конструкти
для вивчення
авторської особистості
у науковому
дискурсі. Здійснено
спробу синтезувати
позиційно-центричний
підхід К. Гайленда та
тоно-центричний
підхід Р. Іваніч для
якнайповнішого і
водночас чітко
структурованого аналізу
авторської присутності
у науковому
тексті. Обґрунтовано
доцільність розгляду
засобів вираження
категоричності/некатегоричності (boosting/hedging) у
рамках інтерперсонального
позиціонування (взаємодії з
читачем) замість
текстуального позиціонування (ставлення автора
до пропозиційної
інформації).
Ключові слова: авторська особистість,
саморепрезентація, ставлення, тон, позиціонування.
Over the last two decades, the
statement that academic discourse is subjective and imbued with authorial
presence in just the same way as any other type of discourse has gained
universal acknowledgment. Scientific writing is inherently persuasive and
focused on negotiation of scientific truth by all means available (i.e.
emotional as much as logical) rather than its construction purely with rational
argumentation. As Hyland put it in his trend-setting 2005 paper, “Writers seek
to offer a credible representation of themselves and their work by claiming
solidarity with readers, evaluating their material and acknowledging
alternative views, so that controlling the level of personality in a text becomes
central to building a convincing argument” (Hyland, “Stance and Engagement”
173). Viewed from this perspective, the issue of authorial identity assumes
critical importance in scientific communication, so it is not surprising it has
recently come to the forefront of academic discourse studies. However, while a
wealth of research exists on individual elements of self-representation in
scientific writing (particularly, hedging and boosting, self-reference,
attitude markers), there is no agreement on comprehensive and feasible approach
that would encompass all (or at least, most of) the numerous facets of identity
construction[1] in
academic discourse.
Identity in scientific communication
has been most extensively studied through the lens of stance and related
concepts, such as “appraisal” and “evaluation”, with the focus on the writer’s
attitude to their propositions, to the readers and to themselves (D. Biber, B.
Gray, S. Hood, S. Hunston, K. Hyland, J. Martin, M. Silver). A smaller camp of
researchers has employed the metaphorical concept of voice to provide a broader
insight into how the writer’s individual qualities carry over to their writing
style (A. Hirvela, R. Ivanič, P. Matsuda, C. Tardy). The greatest attention so
far has been paid to hedging and authorial pronouns as the most conspicuous
manifestations of identity in academic discourse (e.g., B. Lewin, E. Hinkel, K.
Hyland, P. Crompton, O. Ilchenko, L. Kim, F. Salager-Myer, T. Yakhontova),
which, however, places more weight on the social aspect of identity rather than
the personal one. There have been very
few efforts to devise a comprehensive and multi-layered framework for the
analysis of self-representation in academic discourse. The most authoritative
of them belongs to Hyland, who offered the model of stance and engagement as
two facets of identity in academic discourse (Hyland, “Stance and Engagement”).
More comprehensive theory has been put forth by R. Ivanič and D. Camps (Ivanič and Camps), who employ the
framework of voice while viewing stance as one of its components.
While most researchers in the domain
of academic writing tend to agree that stance denotes attitudinal dimension of
interaction, whereas voice is a broader phenomenon encompassing more of the
author’s individuality, the agreement seems to end there. The scopes of these
concepts, as well as the nature of their interrelations, remain unclear,
primarily due to the wide disparity of various frameworks devised so far. The
situation gets even more complicated due to the multifaceted nature of human
identity per se, and vastly differing
views on its components and layers. There is a strong need to establish which
elements constitute the scientists’ identity-in-writing and, perhaps more
importantly, which of them are truly worth investigating in light of the
overarching purpose of facilitating academic communication and improving the
teaching of scholarly writing.
The existing literature being so
discordant and copious, the aim of the present paper is to provide an overview
and analysis of currently the most influential frameworks for researching
identity construction in academic discourse, while showing a way for their
synthesis. We hope to prove that Hyland’s concepts of hedging and boosting, as
well as his engagement model, could be integrated into Ivanič’s and Camps’
tripartite model of voice as positioning, thus providing a comprehensive
approach to self-representation in academic writing. The subject matter of the
article is linguistic means whereby identity is constructed in scholarly
writing, while the scope encompasses the English academic discourse. This
particular scope is warranted with the indisputable status of English as lingua
franca of the modern science, alongside the fact that most existing frameworks
for identity construction in academic discourse are based on English, whether
used by L1 or L2 speakers. However, the notions of stance and voice have also
been successfully applied to other languages and have been valuable in
highlighting variations in authorial presence in academic discourse across
cultures (Fløttum; Sheldon; Vassileva; Yakhontova; Yang).
The analysis of identity
construction in academic writing requires answering the question “what is
identity?” in the first place. Admittedly, identity is a broad concept that
eludes clear definition despite the numerous and ongoing efforts of linguists,
philosophers and psychologists alike to tackle it. This word is typically
modified by adjectives such as “national”, “religious”, “political” etc.
However, it would be an extremely reductionist approach to view it just as the
sum of a person’s social affiliations and relations as reflected in a text. In
contrast, modern research tends to construe identity not as some fixed and
essentialized thing-in-itself , but rather a work-in-progress that depends on
the interplay of social, cultural and, not least, linguistic factors. As stated
by Matsuda in his recent review, “Identity in written discourse is a complex
phenomenon that involves both empirical reality that can be described and
measured (e.g., demographics and textual features) and phenomenological reality
that exists in people’s perceptions (e.g., social constructs)” (141). The
latter is not projected, but rather constructed, in a written text by means of
interaction of various linguistics features as well as the interaction between
author and reader (Bucholtz and Hall; Ivanič; Matsuda). Though people usually
have a unified sense of self, their identity is multifaceted and subject to
constant change: “It includes the “self” that a person brings to the act of
writing, the “self” she constructs through the act of writing, and the way in
which the writer is perceived by the reader(s) of the writing” (Burgess and
Ivanič 232). It is recognized that identity has both individual and social
dimensions to it, and they are inevitably intertwined.
Identity in academic writing has
been studied through the conceptual prisms of stance, voice and (to a lesser
degree) style. Stance is most commonly associated with the linguistic expression
of the author’s position and assessment in relation to the status of proposed
knowledge, the reader and/or the author themselves. Apart from “stance,” there
is a wide range of other terms that have been suggested by various researchers
with roughly the same ideational content in mind. The most significant of them
are: “evaluation”, “appraisal”, “posture”, “attitude” and “metadiscourse”
(Hyland and Jiang 252). Positionality is an immanent feature of all human
communication, though some forms or genres of communication can manifest it
more broadly than others. Academic discourse often seems preoccupied with the
demonstration of neutrality and objectivity, but, on the other hand,
“neutrality is itself a stance” (Jaffe 3). While stance-taking is the primary mechanism
of self-presentation in written discourse, it is firmly grounded in context and
is socially determined to a certain extent.
Stance-related meanings can be
expressed in writing with a number of linguistic and paralinguistic features.
Linguistic features are represented by a wide range of linguistic devices, such
as stance adverbials, modals and semi-modals, complement clauses controlled by
nouns or adjectives, prepositional phrase constructions and word choice in
general (Gray and Biber 19). The most authoritative theoretical frameworks of
stance (at least, as far as academic discourse is concerned) draw the
distinction between evidentiality (epistemic stance) and affect (affective or
attitudinal stance) (Hyland “Stance and Engagement”; Biber and Finegan; Gray
and Biber). Evidentiality is related to the author’s evaluation of the
credibility and reliability of their own propositions (e.g. certainty vs.
uncertainty), whereas affect covers more personal and emotional attitudes
towards the stated information (e.g. hope, joy, surprise). On the other hand,
some recent approaches conceptualize stance in a different way, placing an
emphasis on its interactional, or intersubjective, nature and drawing attention
to the author’s attitude to their interlocutors (Keisanen; Scherer; Kiesling).
In particular, Scott F. Kiesling distinguishes between epistemic stance (the
author’s attitude to their propositions) and interpersonal stance (the author’s
attitude to their interlocutors). It should be noted, however, that Hyland’s
(“Stance and Engagement”) theoretical framework also accounts for
interactionality, though placing it not within the scope of stance, but
engagement, which is regarded as another element of the author’s positioning in
writing.
No matter how broadly stance may be
conceptualized, it is obvious that self-representation cannot be reduced to
positionality. The broader concept of voice, though quite vague and contested
due to its “literary and aesthetic overtones” (Tardy 34), has been productive
in highlighting the unique personal stamp the author brings to writing and in
trying to catch its elusive essence. Voice is often placed within a Bakhtinian
perspective, with the focus on social, historical and cultural meanings as
appropriated by authors in their discourse construction (Ivanič and Camps;
Sperling and Appleman). Just like stance, voice is an inherent and inevitable
feature of all kinds of writing, however faceless it may seem at first glance.
Voice has both individual and social dimensions, which were strictly
dichotomized in early research; however, the currently predominant
social-constructivist view of voice regards them as mutually constitutive and
interdependent (Matsuda 147). A person constructs their individuality in
discourse by choosing specific lexical, grammatical and syntactical means, but
this choice is limited with the socially available repertoire and is suited to
the particular social context and conditions. Naturally, the individual voice
of an author would differ depending on the audience they address, on the level
of formality appropriate in this situation, on the author’s status and many
other factors. Ivanič’s authoritative theoretical framework of writing identity
classifies the social aspect of voice into “discoursal self” and “possibilities
for selfhood”, and the individual aspect into “autobiographical self” and “self
as author”, thus emphasizing the multi-layered nature of authorial
identity.
Voice is closely related to stance,
but it also incorporates other elements that convey the writer’s individuality.
The identification of these elements is, however, contentious. By far the most
influential approach to self-representation in academic discourse – that of Ken
Hyland – views voice as comprised of stance and engagement[2].
In this perspective, stance is represented with hedges and boosters (aligned
with evidentiality), attitude markers (aligned with affect), and self-mentions
(aligned with presence), while engagement is marked with reader pronouns,
personal asides, directives, questions, and references to sharedness. Hyland’s
framework has gained enormous popularity in academic writing research over the
last decade, in part due to its clear structure and relative simplicity
enabling corpus-based approach with comparative design. While this approach is
tenable and well-thought-out, it still has a few weak points that we would like
to address here:
1.
As
convincingly demonstrated by Tang and Jones, Starfield and Ravelli, and
Sheldon, self-mentions are far from being homogeneous and can perform an array
of different functions. Thus, Tang and Jones identify six roles of first-person
pronouns in academic discourse ranging from “I as representative” to “I as
originator”, while Starfield and Ravelli, as well as Sheldon, include the category “Reflexive I” as the
most powerful authorial role. Hyland’s framework fails to account for the
multiple functions of self-mentions. Moreover, self-mentions in this scheme are
categorized under stance only, though they can also be incorporated into engagement
markers (especially questions, personal asides, and references to sharedness).
2.
In
a much similar way, Hyland identifies the category “reader pronouns” without
accounting for difference in their functions. Moreover, this category should
not be regarded separately from other engagement markers as there is a natural
overlap between them.
3.
As
argued by P. Matsuda, the definition of voice should necessarily incorporate
non-discursive elements as much as discursive ones, since visual elements and
document design convey much valuable information about the author’s
individuality (Tardy 40). Hyland's framework is focused solely on discursive
elements, thus leaving important semiotic features aside.
4.
The
framework is restricted to positionality as it only covers the author’s
attitude (to their propositions, to the topics they are talking about and to
the readers), without embracing the ways in which the author categorizes and
conceptualizes the world. Also, it says nothing about the author’s beliefs with
regard to knowledge construction and scientific truth, though these features
are of critical importance in scientific communication.
We suggest that, in large part,
these deficiencies can be redressed by drawing upon the theory of voice as
positioning, elaborated by Ivanič and Camps. The researchers conceptualize
voice as represented with ideational, interpersonal and textual positioning, in
alignment with three macrofunctions of language postulated by
systemic-functional linguistics (Ivanič and Camps 10-11). Ideational
positioning refers to the ways whereby the author represents the world and
constructs or reproduces knowledge. It encompasses, first, various interests,
objects, and methodologies (as represented with lexical choice); second,
different stances taken by the author (as represented with evaluative and
classificatory lexis, syntax, and generic reference); third, views of
knowledge-making, or epistemic beliefs (as represented with verb types, generic
vs. specific reference etc). Interpersonal positioning concerns the extent of
the author’s authoritativeness in building relationships with their readers. On
the one part, it encompasses the author’s certainty as expressed by modality,
self-mentions, and evaluation; on the other part, it also includes the writer’s
power relationships with readers marked by self-mentions and mood. Finally,
textual positioning is related to the author’s preferred ways of text
construction, exemplified by semiotic mode, linking devices, complexity of
words chosen etc. It is noteworthy that,
within Ivanič’s and Camps’ framework, first person pronouns are not a separate
category but merely a linguistic representation of different elements spanning
both ideational and interpersonal positioning. Obviously, this approach is much
more comprehensive than the one proposed by Hyland as it accounts for the
author’s choice of topic and object, as well as epistemic beliefs, which are a
critical component of the writer’s identity as a researcher. Moreover, it pays
particular attention to syntax and textual positioning, which are disregarded
by Hyland altogether. However, in terms of interpersonal positioning
(engagement), Hyland offers more detailed and lucid structure than Ivanič and
Camps. Based on the comparison above, we would like to
suggest a framework that seeks to blend the two approaches together (see Table
1). In this synthetic structure, Hyland’s stance
would be roughly aligned with Ivanič and Camps’ ideational positioning, and engagement
would be roughly aligned with interpersonal
positioning. However, we believe that hedges and boosters should be
construed within interpersonal positioning as they are more reflective of the
author’s authoritativeness in regards to readers than their own position
towards the issue at hand. E.g., when a researcher writes it seems likely or perhaps
(which are considered typical examples of hedges), it does not necessarily mean
that he/she has doubts as to his/her claims: rather, it means that he/she wants
to come across as a considerate and careful scientist in the eyes of his/her
intended audience. Likewise, boosters such as in fact, really, indeed convey not as much the author’s
attitude to the proposition as his/her desire to emphasize it for this
particular audience, in contrast to attitude verbs (suppose, think, doubt etc.), which do mark the author’s
stance to the information he/she shares. In Kiesling’s terms, hedges and
boosters would be aligned with “interpersonal stance” (Kiesling 174). Hyland,
too, acknowledges an important role of these instruments in establishing
relationships with readers, stating that they “allow writers to strategically
engage with colleagues, affecting interpersonal solidarity and membership of a
disciplinary in-group.” (Hyland, “Boosting, Hedging” 5). Therefore, we consider
it reasonable to construe hedges and boosters within interpersonal positioning
as the markers of authorial certainty and authoritativeness. Table 1.
Integrative framework for identity construction in academic discourse
The primary category included into
ideational positioning is “attitude markers”, to use Hyland’s term (Hyland,
“Stance and Engagement” 180): Ivanič and Camps label it more broadly as
“stances” (10). As stated by Ivanič and Camps, it is linguistically marked by
evaluative lexis, classificatory lexis, generic vs. specific references, and
syntax; another linguistic realization, which is only noted by Hyland, is
attitude verbs (such as prefer, believe). Ivanič and Camps place an
emphasis on the ways whereby people are referred to in an analyzed piece of
writing, whether their agency is recognized or not. For example, in the
following sentence, taken from student writing, people are referred to in a
rather impersonal way: This capability derives from careful management of three key assets:
highly competent IT human resource, a reusable technology base, and a strong
partnering relationship between IT and business management. (Ivanič and Camps 15) The lexical choice in IT human resource (rather than “IT
professionals”, “IT experts” etc.) diminishes humans’ agency by reducing them
to a resource, while nominalization in IT
and business management further decreases the role of human actors in the
stated relationship. The next category is the choice of topic,
object and methodology. What warrants particular attention here is the extent
of appropriation of the terminology specific to the field and/or attempts of
the author to devise their own terms or to digress from the conventional
methods. The third category, accentuated by Ivanič and Camps (18), is views on
knowledge-making as represented by verb types, passive or active voice, generic
or specific references. This refers to whether the authors regard knowledge as
objective and universally true or subjective and dependent on experience. In
the Hyland’s perspective, the markers of these epistemic views are not regarded
per se, but are merged with the category of hedges, for example: 1)
Our results suggest that rapid freeze and thaw rates during artificial experiments in the
laboratory may cause artifactual formation of embolism. (Hyland, “Boosting, Hedging”
2) 2)
Recently, however, there have
been suggestions by brand theorists that a link may exist between
product judgments and organizational associations (Aaker 1996) or secondary
associations, one of which is the company that produced the product Keller
1993). (Hyland,
“Boosting, Hedging” 29). Hyland classifies our results suggest in Example 1 as a
hedge, while Ivanič and Camps would also regard it as an indicator of the
author’s beliefs of knowledge as objective and dependent on the data itself
rather than the observer. In Example 2, the nominalization there have been suggestions (by brand theorists) places more weight
on the ideas themselves than on the people behind these ideas. Interpersonal positioning comes in
two forms: self-positioning in relation to readers and establishing
relationships with readers. According to Ivanič and Camps, the former is
manifested in evaluation, modality and first person reference, whereas the
latter is projected through mood and first person reference (11). In his
conceptualization of engagement, Hyland offers more narrow and structured
categories, such as directives, questions, references to sharedness, and
personal asides. Moreover, hedges and
boosters (that he places within stance) are convenient terms that incorporate
evaluation, modality and first-person reference to a large extent. Therefore,
drawing upon Hyland’s concepts, self-positioning in relation to readers would
be expressed through the extent of certainty (hedges/boosters) and personal
asides. It should be noted that most academic papers employ both hedges and
boosters to modulate the level of conviction and authoritativeness depending on
the claims, often in close proximity to each others, for example:
Although it is clear that some
group II introns are spliced efficiently under physiological conditions only if
aided by trans-acting actors, it remains plausible that others may
actually self-splice in vivo. Our results indicate that the splicing of
nearly every pre-mRNA intron in the maize chloroplast genome requires either
chloroplast ribosomes or crs2 function. The splicing of this intron may
require nuclear gene products not yet identified in our genetic screens.
(Hyland, “Hedging, Boosting” 3) In this example, it is clear and indicate are boosters, while plausible,
may (used twice) are representative
of hedging. Therefore, it is important that the use of hedges and boosters as
indicative of the writer’s self-assurance should be evaluated based on their
prevalence in the sample (with the use of quantitative methods), not
individually on small sections of the sample (which is the approach Ivanič and
Camps adopt in their analysis of L2 academic writing). Personal asides refer to the
author’s comments in mid-flow of an argument, for example: And – as
I believe many TESOL professionals will readily acknowledge – critical thinking
has now begun to make its mark, particularly in the area of L2 composition.
(Hyland, “Stance and Engagement” 183) If used frequently enough, personal
asides can be a salient indication of the author’s self-assurance and
willingness to impose his/her authority upon the audience. Another facet of interpersonal
positioning – establishing relationships with readers – comes in the form of
questions, directives, and references to sharedness. The particular form and
wording of questions and directives is highly representative of the power
relationships the author seeks to build with his/her audience. For example, the
same ideational content can be expressed by the directives It is important to consider this point and Just think about it, but
the extent of authoritativeness projected will obviously be higher in the
latter case. References, or appeals, to sharedness implicitly request the
audience to accept the proposition as familiar or indisputable by disguising it
as common knowledge; they may be represented with the same lexical units as
boosters (e.g. of course, obviously),
but their primary function is to make the audience identify with certain
statements, not to project the author’s confidence, for example: Of course, we know that the indigenous communities of today have been
reorganized by the catholic church in colonial times and after… (Hyland, “Stance and Engagement”
184). The category of textual positioning is
borrowed from Ivanič and Camps without any modifications: it can be expressed
through semiotic mode, sentence length, linking devices, visual elements etc.
The use of diagrams and tables, their particular structure can be highly
reflective of the author’s personal ways of conceptualizing the data and the
world at large: tools or the analysis of these features can be drawn from
semiotics and visual rhetoric. While this framework seems rather
complex, so is authorial identity; hence, there is no room for simplification
as long as one is interested in all-sided analysis of how the author’s self is
represented and constructed in academic discourse. It should be admitted that
the complexity of this model makes corpus-based approach to authorial voice rather
problematic: however, it is quite feasible with relatively small scope of texts
or with a single author that has to be researched in depth. The broad
conceptualization of voice in academic writing can be particularly useful when
analyzing student academic papers and works by renowned scientists because
these are less dependent on the field conventions than average contributors to
scholarly journals. This approach emphasizes that academic writing has the
author’s identity shining through all of its layers and elements, even if the
author strives to communicate their research results in the most faceless and
objective manner.
In summary, self-representation in academic
discourse has been approached from numerous and disparate perspectives, with
stance and voice being the predominant conceptual frameworks. In large part,
this disparity can be attributed to the complexity and nebulosity of the term
“identity” itself. In the bulk of modern
research, self-representation (or identity construction, following the
social-constructivist perspective) is essentially equated to voice. While
Hyland’s theoretical model of voice as stance and engagement has gained the
greatest acknowledgment among researchers, it has a number of deficiencies and,
in terms of comprehensiveness, is inferior to Ivanič and Camps model of voice
as ideational, interpersonal and textual positioning. Still, in our viewpoint,
Hyland’s binary of hedging and boosting can be instrumental in capturing the
extent of the author’s authoritativeness, so we suggest incorporating it into
Ivanič’s and Camps’ model within interpersonal positioning in lieu of the broad
realizations of modality and evaluation.
[1] In the body of
literature, the terms “identity construction” and “self-representation” (as
well as “authorial presence”) are often found to convey identical ideational
content. We prefer the term “identity construction” in alignment with the
social-constructivist theories, which regard identity as a malleable phenomenon
subject to constant change (Bucholtz and Hall 585; Matsuda 141). However, since “self-representation” is
currently predominant in academic discourse studies, we will use the terms
interchangeably throughout the present paper.
[2] Hyland put forward
this framework in his 2005 paper “Stance and Engagement”, but it’s only in 2008
that he explicitly associated it with voice (in the article “Disciplinary
voices”)..
References.
References
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan. "Styles of
stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and
affect." Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse
9.1 (1989): 93-124. Web.
Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall.
"Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach." Discourse
Studies 7.4-5 (2005): 585-614. Web.
Burgess, Amy, and Roz Ivanič. "Writing and
Being Written: Issues of Identity Across Timescales." Written
Communication 27.2 (2010): 228-55. Web.
Fløttum, Kjersti (2012). “Variation of stance and voice across cultures”. Stance and
voice in academic writing. Ed. by
Ken Hyland and Carmen Sancho Guinda. London: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2012.
218-231. Print.
Gray, Bethany, and Douglas Biber.
“Current Conceptions of Stance”. Stance and voice in academic writing. Ed. by Ken Hyland and Carmen Sancho Guinda. London:
Palgrave-MacMillan, 2012. 15-33. Print.
Hyland, Ken, and Feng (Kevin) Jiang.
"Change of Attitude? A Diachronic Study of Stance." Written
Communication 33.3 (2016): 251-74. Web.
Hyland, Ken. "Boosting, hedging
and the negotiation of academic knowledge." Text - Interdisciplinary
Journal for the Study of Discourse 18.3 (1998): 349-382. Web.
Hyland, Ken. "Disciplinary
voices: Interactions in research writing." English Text Construction
1.1 (2008): 5-22. Web.
Hyland, Ken. "Stance and
engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse." Discourse
Studies 7.2 (2005): 173-92. Web.
Ivanič, Roz, and David Camps.
"I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing." Journal
of Second Language Writing 10.1-2 (2001): 3-33. Web.
Ivanič, Roz. Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in
Academic Writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1998.Print.
Jaffe, Alexandra. “Introduction: The
sociolinguistics of stance”. Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Ed. by
Alexandra Jaffe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. 3-28. Print.
Keisanen, Tiina. “Stancetaking as an
interactional activity: Challenging the prior speaker”. Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction.
Ed. by Robert Englebretson. Amsterdam: Philadelphia, 2007. 253–281. Print.
Kiesling, Scott. “Style as stance: Can stance be the primary
explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation?”. Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives.
Ed. by Alexandra Jaffe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. 171-194. Print.
Matsuda, Paul Kei. "Identity in
Written Discourse." Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35 (2015):
140-59. Web.
Scherer, Klaus R. "What are
emotions? And how can they be measured?" Social Science Information
44.4 (2005): 695-729. Web.
Sheldon, Elena. "From one I to
another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and
Castilian Spanish research articles." English for Specific Purposes
28.4 (2009): 251-65. Web.
Sperling, Melanie, and Deborah
Appleman. "Voice in the Context of Literacy Studies." Reading
Research Quarterly 46.1 (2011): 70-84. Web.
Starfield, Sue, and Louise J.
Ravelli. "“The writing of this thesis was a process that I could not
explore with the positivistic detachment of the classical sociologist”: Self
and structure in New Humanities research theses." Journal of English
for Academic Purposes 5.3 (2006): 222-43. Web.
Tang, Ramona, and Suganthi John.
"The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic
writing through the first person pronoun." English for Specific Purposes
18 (1999): 23-39. Web.
Tardy, Christine. “Current
Conceptions of Voice”. Stance and voice in academic writing. Ed. by Ken Hyland and Carmen Sancho Guinda. London:
Palgrave-MacMillan, 2012. 34-50. Print.
Vassileva, Irena. Who is the
author?: A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German,
French, Russian and Bulgarian academic discourse. Sankt Augustin:
Asgard-Verl., 2000. Print.
Yakhontova, Tatyana. "Cultural
and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors."
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5.2 (2006): 153-67. Web.
Yang, Yingli. "Exploring
linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese
scientific discourse." Journal of Pragmatics 50.1 (2013): 23-36.
Web.
Надійшла до редакції 12 березня 2017 року.
|