Cover not available
Part of
Advancedness in Second Language Spanish: Definitions, challenges, and possibilities
Edited by Mandy R. Menke and Paul A. Malovrh
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 31] 2021
► pp. 245–272

Chapter 11
Linguistic markers of stance in advanced second language Spanish academic writing

ORCID logo | University of Minnesota
Written academic texts allow for the observation of advanced capacities as writers must negotiate identities in order to position their claims within a disciplinary community. The construct of stance focuses on how a writer stamps her/his personal authority on a text. This chapter reports on how six Spanish studies majors constructed stance in their writing, reporting on both the interpersonal-epistemic elements and the linguistic devices used. Participants employed all four stance elements, relying primarily on a limited number of lexical items to do so. Findings suggest that Spanish studies majors may need additional instruction to acquire the valued ways of meaning in academic writing and highlight the importance of considering diverse contexts of use when exploring advanced language competencies.
Keywords: stance, L2 writing, advanced L2 Spanish, academic discourse
Article outline
  • Previous research
    • Stance
    • Stance in academic writing
    • Interactional stance elements in Spanish and English texts
  • The current study
    • Research context and corpus
    • Data analysis
  • Results
  • Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 8 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.31.11men
References (74)
References
Alonso-Almeida, F. (2015). On the mitigating function of modality and evidentiality. Evidence from English and Spanish medical research papers. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12, 33–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ausín, A., & Depiante, M. (2000). On the syntax of parecer (to seem) with and without an experiencer. In H. Campos, E. Herburger, A. Morales-Front, & T. J. Walsh (Eds.), Hispanic linguistics at the turn of the millennium: Papers from the 3rd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 155–170). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31, 151–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barton, E. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55, 745–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9, 93–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2012). Advanced language proficiency. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 506–520). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2009). Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education, 20, 50–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H., & Norris, J. (2010). Realizing advanced foreign language writing developing in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Modern Language Journal, 94(Supplement), 1–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, D. (2012). Epilogue. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 249–256). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charles, M. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27, 492–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). ‘This mystery…’: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 313–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coffin, C. (2002). The voices of history: Theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses. Text, 22, 503–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 56–73). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Derewianka, B. (2007). Using appraisal theory to track interpersonal development in adolescent academic writing. In A. McCabe, M. O’Donnell, & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp. 142–165). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 16, 19–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fields, G., & Matsuda, P. K. (2018). Advanced rhetoric and socially situated writing. In P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 527–546). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flash, P., Breuch, L. K., VanNorman, M., & Kalbfleisch, E. (2008, February). Writing-Enriched Curriculum. Paper presented at 2008 Writing Research Across Borders (WRAB) Conference, Santa Barbara, CA.
Francis, G. (1994). Labelling discourse: An aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 83–101). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 15–33). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed). London, UK: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 83–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 191–218). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text. Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2012). Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in final year reports. K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 134–150). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005a). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16, 363–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 251–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99–121). London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
(1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 183–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klee, C., Soneson, D., & Melin, C. (2016). From frameworks to oversight: Components to improving foreign language program efficiency. In J. Norris & N. Mills (Eds.), Innovation and accountability in foreign language program evaluation (pp. 131–153). Boston, MA: Heinle.Google Scholar
Koutsantoni, D. (2004). Attitude, certainty, and allusions to common knowledge in scientific research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 163–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines. Written Communication, 31, 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students’ Argumentative Writing in Economics: Implications for Faculty Development in WAC/WID Programs. Across the Disciplines, 8(4). Retrieved from <[URL]> (9 July, 2020).
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life. The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross- linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46, 39–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. J. & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactioons in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21–34.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leki, I. (2007). Undergraduates in a second language. Challenges and complexities of academic literacy development. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text. Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142–175). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 35–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menke, M. R., & Anderson, A. M. (2019). Student and faculty perceptions of writing in a foreign language studies major. Foreign Language Annals, 52, 388–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moreno, A. I. (2004). Retrospective labeling in premise-conclusion metatext: An English- Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and economics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 321–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morton, J., & Storch, N. (2019). Developing an authorial voice in PhD multilingual student writing: The reader’s perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 43, 15–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068–3079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross- cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 50–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). ’I/we focus on...': A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 143–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Analysing stance in American and Spanish Business Management RAs: The case of sentence-initial ‘retrospective labels.’ Journal of English Studies, 4, 137–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neff, J., Dafouz, E., Herrera, H., Martínez, F., Rica, J. P., Díez, M., Prieto, R., & Sancho, C. (2003). Contrasting learner corpora: The use of modal and reporting verbs in the expression of writer stance. In S. Granger & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based research. New applications, new challenges (pp. 211–230). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
North, S. (2005). Disciplinary variation in the use of theme in undergraduate essays. Applied Linguistics, 26, 431–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L., & Byrnes, H. (2008). The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2018). Systemic functional linguistics and advanced second language proficiency. In P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 9–29). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Developmental changes in the use of interactional resources: Persuading the reader in FL book reviews. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 243–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Constructing coherent and cohesive textual worlds in advanced foreign language learner writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A., & Zambrano, N. (2003). The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French, and English medical discourse (1930–1995). English for Specific Purposes, 22, 22–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). Technical writing in a second language: The role of grammatical metaphor. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analyzing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 172–189). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Soliday, M. (2011). Everday genres. Writing assignments across the disciplines. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in research articles abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 327–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suau-Jiménez, F. (2010). Metadiscursive elements in the translation of scientific texts. Linguistics Insights – Studies in Language and Communication, 86, 243–254.Google Scholar
Swales, J., & Burke, A. (2003). It’s really fascinating work: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers. In P. Leistyna & C. F. Meyer (Eds.), Corpus analysis, language structure and language use (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Tardy, C. M. (2009). Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Thetela, P. (1997). Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 101–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. (2012). Achieving a voice of authority in Ph.D. theses. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 117–133). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text. Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 27). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vazquez Orta, I. (2010). A contrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the expression of epistemic stance in Business Management research articles in English and Spanish. Iberica, 19, 77–96.Google Scholar
White, P. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text & Talk, 23, 259–284.Google Scholar
Wilder, L. (2012). Rhetorical strategies and genre conventions in literary studies: Teaching and writing in the disciplines. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.Google Scholar
Wu, S. M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 254–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms, grades 5–12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar