Stance-marking of interaction in research articles written by non-native speakers of English: An analytical study

Hameed Yahya A Al-Zubeiry, Hussein Taha Assaggaf


Stance-marking of interaction is considered an important element for achieving effective communication in any academic discourse. Based on a descriptive-analytic approach, the present study addresses a two-fold objective: a) analyzing and comparing stance-marking of interaction across disciplines in the research articles written by Arab non-native speakers of English, and b) describing how researchers’ lack of using interactional linguistic markers in their research articles would constrain readers from interacting with the arguments and opinions they expressed in their academic articles. The corpus data comprised forty research articles selected randomly from two disciplines: sciences (ten engineering and ten medicine) and humanities (ten education and ten applied linguistics). The findings of the study showed an evident lack of stance-marking in research articles written in English by Arab researchers. A total of 307 occurrences of lack of stance markers were detected in the study corpus. Arab non-native researchers’ deficiency in employing stance markers in their research articles is likely to be attributed to their lack of knowledge and awareness about the effectiveness of stance-marking of interaction in academic writing. The results also show that science discipline articles have a higher frequency of lack of stance markers than humanities discipline articles. The difference between the two disciplines could be attributed to the distinctive persuasive nature of each discipline. The study concluded with some recommendations, including the inclusion of stance-marking of interaction in evaluating papers for publication and teaching academic writing to Arab non-native English postgraduate students.


academic interaction; metadiscourse; research articles; stance markers

Full Text:



Abdi, R., Manoochehr, T., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1669-1679.

Al-Mudhaffari, M., Hussin, S., & HoAbdullah, I. (2020). Interactional strategies in L2 writing: An exploration of hedging and boosting strategies in applied linguistics research articles. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 20(1), 171-186.‏

Al-Zubeiry, H. (2019). Metadiscourse devices in English scientific research articles written by native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 46-61.

Al Zumor, A. Q. (2021). Stance in advanced academic writing by Saudi EFL postgraduates: A corpus-based study of critique writing. JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 9(4), 371-384.

Alotaibi, H, & Arabi, H. (2020). Taking authorial stance in Arabic research articles introductions. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies (IJAES), 20(2), 41-62.

Babaii, E., Atai, M. R., & Mohammadi, V. (2015). Stance in English research articles: Two disciplines of the same science. Tell, 9(1), 1-27.

Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93-124.

Bruce, I. (2010). Textual and discoursal resources used in the essay genre in sociology and English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 153-166.

Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S41-S56.

Burneikaitė, N. (2008). Metadiscourse in linguistics master’s theses in English L1 and L2. Kalbotyra, 59(3), 38-47.

Çandarli, 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(1), 192-202.

Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. Peter Lang.

Darwish, H. (2019). Writer-reader interaction: Writer’s stance in English L1 and L2 [Doctoral dissertation, University of Bedfordshire]. University of Bedfordshire Repository.

Faghih, E., & Rahimpour, S. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 93-107.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.

Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Routledge.

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (1995). The author in the text: Hedging scientific writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 33-42.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99-121). Longman.

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.

Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum International Publishing Group.

Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.

Hyland, K. (2011). Academic discourse. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), The continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 171-184). Continuum.

Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). “I would like to thank my supervisor”. Acknowledgements in graduate dissertations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 259-275.

Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Johnstone, B. (2009). Stance, style, and the linguistic individual. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 29-52). Oxford University Press.

Martin, J. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp. 142-175). Oxford University Press.

Messabhia, I. (2020). A corpus-based analysis of stance marking in research articles: A comparative study of the literature reviews written by native and non-native researchers in applied linguistics [Master’s thesis, Ben M’hidi University]. Oum El Bouaghi.

Moini, R., & Salami, M. (2015). Stance and engagement discourse markers in journal’s author guidelines. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 7(3), 109-140.

Nayernia, A., & Ashouri, F. (2019). Attitude markers in book reviews: The case of applied linguistics discourse community. Linguistics Journal, 13(1), 126-146.

Pérez, M. A., & Macià, E. A. (2002). Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension: Does it really help foreign language learners? Atlantis, 24(2), 3-21.

Qomariana, Y., & Soetama, P. L. (2021). Stance of Indonesian writers in journal articles. Lingual: Journal of Language and Culture, 12(2), 48.

Raissi, A., & El-khatib, S. (2018). A corpus-based study of evidential metadiscourse markers in writing literature review section of dissertations: The case of second year master students of linguistics at Kasdi Merbah University Ouargla [Master’s thesis, Kasdi Merbah University]. DSpace at Kasdi Merbah University Ouargla.

Rhee, S. (2011). From politeness discourse strategy to grammar: Grammaticalization of stance markers. The Journal of Linguistic Science, 59, 1-31.

Sanderson, T. (2008). Corpus, culture, discourse. Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen.

Sayah, L., & Hashemi, M. R. (2014). Exploring stance and engagement features in discourse analysis papers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(3), 593-601.

Serholt, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: A study of gender differences in essays written by Swedish advanced learners of English [Student essay]. Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive.

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), e0247981.

Swales, J. M. (1984). Research into the structure of introductions to journal articles and its application to the teaching of academic writing. In R. Williams, J. Swales & J. Kirkman (Eds.), Common ground: Shared interests in ESP and communication studies (pp. 77-86). Pergamon.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.

Taymaz, N. (2021). A corpus-based comparison of use of hedges and boosters by Turkish ELT MA and PhD students. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(Special Issue 1), 33-49.

Thompson, S. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signaling of organization in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(1), 5-20.

Wei, Y., Wherrity, M., & Zhang, Y. (2015). An analysis of current research on the appraisal theory. Linguistics and Literature Studies, 3(5), 235-239.

White, P. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259-284.


Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

View Journal Stats