Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 9:2 (2023) ► pp.215–247
Research article

Exploring patterns of lexical variation in the use of epistemic stance markers in written L2 English across task types and levels of proficiency

A corpus-based study

| University of Turku

The present study examines the lexical patterning of altogether 4,022 instances of epistemic stance markers (EDs) across four levels of L2 proficiency (B1–C2) and three types of writing tasks (‘opinion’, ‘complaint’, and ‘letter’) by using the exploratory technique of Multiple Correspondence Analysis. The data stem from a Finnish learner English corpus, comprising of 1,773 texts. The results of the study showed that while the lexical patterns of EDs in the data seemed to be mostly related to task type, some proficiency-related patterns of ED use were observed across all tasks. In some cases, proficiency-related patterns could also only be observed in some of the tasks, suggesting task type and proficiency are, to some extent, interrelated when examining the use of EDs. The results thus suggest that both task- and proficiency-related constraints of EDs should be considered in both foreign language teaching and assessment.

Keywords: epistemic stance, L2 writing, learner corpus research, multiple correspondence analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Epistemic stance
    • 2.2Lexical variation of epistemic stance in learner writing
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Procedure
    • 3.3Multiple correspondence analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1An overview of the MCA results
    • 4.2Lexical patterns related to both task type and proficiency level (Dimensions 1 & 2)
      • 4.2.1Dimension 1
      • 4.2.2Dimension 2
    • 4.3Lexical patterns related to task (Dimension 3)
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.00034.pyy
References
Aijmer, K.
(2011) Well I’m not sure I think… The use of well by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16 (2), 231–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, L.
(2020) Antconc (3.5.9) [Computer software]. [URL]
Aull, L., & Lancaster, Z.
(2014) Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31 (2), 151–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartley, L., & Hidalgo-Tenorio, E.
(2016) “Well, I think that my argument is…,” or modality in a learner corpus of English. Revista Espanola de Linguistica Aplicada, 29 (1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D.
(2006) Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 (2), 97–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G. N., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(2021) Grammar of Spoken and Written English. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y. H., & Baker, P.
(2016) Investigating criterial discourse features across second language development: Lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1. Applied Linguistics, 37 (6), 849–880.Google Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2020) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment – Companion Volume. Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
Crosthwaite, P., & Jiang, K.
(2017) Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A longitudinal learner corpus study. System, 69 1, 92–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Desagulier, G.
(2020) Multivariate exploratory approaches. In M. Paquot & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp. 435–469). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fordyce, K.
(2014) The differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on EFL learners’ use of epistemic stance. Applied Linguistics, 35 (1), 6–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Boyd, E.
(2017) Epistemic Stance in Spoken L2 English: The Effect of Task and Speaker Style. Applied Linguistics, 38 (5), 613–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D.
(2014) Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In D. Glynn, J. A. Robinson, & T. Colleman (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 443–485). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, B., & Biber, D.
(2014) Stance markers. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 219–248). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, H.
(2015) Lexicogrammatical features of adverbs in advanced learner English. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 166 (1), 163–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgren, A.
(1994) Lexical Teddy Bears and advanced learners: A study into to the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 237–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, E.
(2009) The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 41 (4), 667–683. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S.
(2007) Using a corpus to investigate stance quantitatively and qualitatively. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 27–48). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K.
(2005) Metadiscourse. Continuum.Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Milton, J.
(1997) Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6 (2), 183–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E.
(1992) Modality as a strategy in interaction: Epistemic modality in the language of native and non-native speakers of English. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3 1, 197–216.Google Scholar
(2006) Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text and Talk, 26 (6), 699–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, T.
(2017a) A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes, 48 1, 57–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b) The importance of, it is important that or importantly?. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22 (1), 57–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Grammatical stance marking across registers. Register Studies, 1 (2), 243–268.Google Scholar
Larsson, T., Egbert, J., & Biber, D.
(2022) On the status of statistical reporting versus linguistic description in corpus linguistics: A ten-year perspective. Corpora, 17 (1), 137–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, T., & Kaatari, H.
(2019) Extraposition in learner and expert writing: Exploring (in)formality and the impact of register. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5 (1), 33–62.Google Scholar
Larsson, T., Paquot, M., & Biber, D.
(2021) On the importance of register in learner writing: A multi-dimensional approach. In E. Seoane & D. Biber (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to register variation (pp. 235–258). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finnish National Agency for Education
(2023) National Certificates for Language Proficiency (YKI). Oph.fi. [URL]
Nenadić, O., & Greenacre, M.
(2007) Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software, 20 (3), 1–13.Google Scholar
Pérez-Paredes, P., & Bueno-Alastuey, M. C.
(2019) A corpus-driven analysis of certainty stance adverbs: Obviously, really and actually in spoken native and learner English. Journal of Pragmatics, 140 1, 22–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Paredes, P., & Díez-Bedmar, M. B.
(2019) Certainty adverbs in spoken learner language: The role of tasks and proficiency. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5 (2), 257–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pyykönen, M.
(2023) Epistemic stance in written L2 English: The role of task type, L2 proficiency, and authorial style. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 3 (1), 100040. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
(2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Rizomilioti, V.
(2006) Exploring epistemic modality in academic discourse using corpora. In E. A. Macià, A. S. Cervera, & C. R. Rueda (Eds.), Information technology in Languages for Specific Purposes. Issues and prospects (pp. 53–71). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salsbury, T., & Bardovi-Harlig, K.
(2000) Oppositional talk and the acquisition of modality in L2 English. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and Cognitive Factors in Second Language Acquisition: Selected Proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 57–76). Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M.
(2008) Tasks in Second Language Learning. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & McClair, A.
(2013) Formulaic sequences and EAP writing development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12 (3), 214–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G., & Hunston, S.
(2001) Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 1–27). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wisniewski, K.
(2017) Empirical learner language and the levels of the Common European Framework of Reference. Language Learning, 67 (S1), 232–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoon, H.-J.
(2017) Textual voice elements and voice strength in EFL argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 32 1, 72–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: Effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse. Reading and Writing, 34 1, 705–725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, G. Q., & Sabet, P. G. P.
(2016) Elastic “I think”: Stretching over L1 and L2. Applied Linguistics, 37 (3), 334–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar