Chapter published in:
The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction
Edited by María de los Ángeles Gómez González and J. Lachlan Mackenzie
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 296] 2018
► pp. 201–226

Lexis and grammar as complementary discourse systems for expressing stance and evaluation

| Northern Arizona University, USA
| Northern Arizona University, USA
| Northern Arizona University, USA
Although ‘stance’ and ‘evaluation’ are closely related theoretical constructs, stance is normally investigated through corpus-based methods focusing on the use of lexico-grammatical features, while evaluative language, being regarded as more context-dependent, has been investigated through the use of particular words and phrases in individual texts. This study explores the possibility that these two linguistic systems are partially complementary, with some registers relying on lexico-grammatical stance features and others on evaluative lexis. We compare the linguistic discourse styles of three opinionated/persuasive web registers: ‘Opinion Blogs’ (OB), ‘Reviews’ (RV), and ‘Descriptions-with-intent-to-Sell’ (DS). We show that OB and RV use grammatical stance devices more but DS considerably less than most other web registers. However, our detailed study of the lexical keywords found in these three registers reveals the opposite pattern of use.
Keywords: stance, evaluation, web registers, blogs, reviews, keyword analysis
Published online: 20 September 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296.08bib
References

References

Biber, Douglas
1988 Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “Historical Patterns for the Grammatical Marking of Stance: A Cross-Register Comparison.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5: 107–135.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006a University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006b “Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 97–116.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Stance and Grammatical Complexity: An Unlikely Partnership Discovered through Corpus Analysis.” Corpus Linguistics Research 1: 1–19.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Jesse Egbert, and Mark Davies
2015 “Exploring the Composition of the Searchable Web: A Corpus-Based Taxonomy of Web Registers.” Corpora 10: 11–45.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Jesse Egbert
2016 “Register Variation on the Searchable Web: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis.” Journal of English Linguistics 44: 95–137.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Register Variation Online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
1988 “Adverbial Stance Types in English.” Discourse Processes 11: 1–34.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989 “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text 9: 93–124.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Bethany Gray
2016 Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Meixiu Zhang
2018 Expressing evaluation without grammatical stance: Informational persuasion on the web. Corpora 13: 97–123.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L., and Johanna Nichols
(eds.) 1986 Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Charles, Maggie
2006 “The Construction of Stance in Reporting Clauses: A Cross-Disciplinary Study of Theses.” Applied Linguistics 27: 492–518.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Argument or Evidence? Disciplinary Variation in the Use of the Noun that Pattern in Stance Constructions.” English for Specific Purposes 26: 203–218.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Egbert, Jesse, Douglas Biber, and Mark Davies
2015 “Developing a Bottom-Up, User-Based Method of Web Register Classification.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. (Currently available through Advanced Access: http://​onlinelibrary​.wiley​.com​/doi​/10​.1002​/asi​.23308​/abstract)CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan M.
2004 “Subjectivity, Intersubjectivity and the Historical Construction of Interlocutor Stance: From Stance Markers to Discourse Markers.” Discourse Studies 6 (4): 427–448.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bethany, and Douglas Biber
2013 “Current Conceptions of Stance.” In Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres, ed. by Ken Hyland, and Carmen Sancho Guinda, 15–33. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
2014 “Stance Markers.” In Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, ed. by Karin Aijmer, and Christoph Rühlemann, 219–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan
1993 “Evaluation and Ideology in Scientific Writing.” In Register Analysis: Theory and Practice, ed. by Mohsen Ghadessy, 57–73. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
1994 “Evaluation and Organization in a Sample of Written Academic Discourse.” In Advances in Written Text Analysis, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard, 191–218. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2004 “Counting the Uncountable: Problems of Identifying Evaluation in a Text and in a Corpus.” In Corpora and Discourse, ed. by Alan Partington, John Morley, and Louann Haarman, 157–188. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2011 Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan, and John Sinclair
2000 “A Local Grammar of Evaluation.” In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Susan Hunston, and Geoff Thompson, 74–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan, and Geoff Thompson
2000 Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
1996 “Writing without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles.” Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 433–454.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken, and Giuliana Diani
(eds.) 2009 Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken, and Carmen Sancho Guinda
(eds) 2013 Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1984 “Intensity.” In Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, 43–70. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R.
2000 “Beyond Exchange: Appraisal Systems in English.” In Evaluation in Text, ed. by Susan Hunston, and Geoff Thompson, 142–175. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., and Peter R. R. White
2005 Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna, and Marina Bondi
(eds.) 2003 “Evaluation in Academic Discourse.” Special issue of Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4).CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Eleanor, and Bambi Schieffelin
1989 “Language Has a Heart.” Text 9 (1): 7–25.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R.
1986 Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Römer, Ute
2008 “Identification Impossible? A Corpus Approach to Realisations of Evaluative Meaning in Academic Writing.” Functions of Language 15 (1): 115–130.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mike, and Christopher Tribble
2006 Textual Patterns: Keyword and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite, and Jack Grieve
2006 “Analyzing Appraisal Automatically.” In Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text, 158–161.Google Scholar
Taboada, Maite, Julian Brooke, Milan Tofiloski, Kimberly Voll, and Manfred Stede
2011 “Lexicon-Based Methods for Sentiment Analysis.” Computational Linguistics 37: 267–307.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff, and Laura Alba-Juez
(eds.) 2014 Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Dontcheva-Navratilova, Olga, Martin Adam, Renata Povolná & Radek Vogel
2020.  In Persuasion in Specialised Discourses, ► pp. 39 ff. Crossref logo
Larsson, Tove
2019. Grammatical stance marking across registers. Register Studies 1:2 ► pp. 243 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.