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

Douglas Biber | Northern Arizona University, USA

Jesse Egbert | Northern Arizona University, USA

Meixiu Zhang | 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: blogs, web registers, stance, evaluation, reviews, keyword analysis

Published online: 20 September 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296.08bib

References

Biber, Douglas

1988 Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2004 “Historical Patterns for the Grammatical Marking of Stance: A Cross-Register Comparison.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5: 107–135.

2006a University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

2006b “Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 97–116.

2015 “Stance and Grammatical Complexity: An Unlikely Partnership Discovered through Corpus Analysis.” Corpus Linguistics Research 1: 1–19.

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.

Biber, Douglas, and Jesse Egbert

2016 “Register Variation on the Searchable Web: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis.” Journal of English Linguistics 44: 95–137.

2018 Register Variation Online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan

1988 “Adverbial Stance Types in English.” Discourse Processes 11: 1–34.

1989 “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text 9: 93–124.

Biber, Douglas, and Bethany Gray

2016 Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan

1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

Biber, Douglas, and Meixiu Zhang

2018 Expressing evaluation without grammatical stance: Informational persuasion on the web. Corpora 13: 97–123.

Chafe, Wallace L., and Johanna Nichols

(eds.) 1986 Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Charles, Maggie

2006 “The Construction of Stance in Reporting Clauses: A Cross-Disciplinary Study of Theses.” Applied Linguistics 27: 492–518.

2007 “Argument or Evidence? Disciplinary Variation in the Use of the Noun that Pattern in Stance Constructions.” English for Specific Purposes 26: 203–218.

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)

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.

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.

2014 “Stance Markers.” In Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, ed. by Karin Aijmer, and Christoph Rühlemann, 219–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hunston, Susan

1993 “Evaluation and Ideology in Scientific Writing.” In Register Analysis: Theory and Practice, ed. by Mohsen Ghadessy, 57–73. London: Pinter.

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.

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.

2011 Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. New York, NY: Routledge.

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.

Hunston, Susan, and Geoff Thompson

2000 Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, Ken

1996 “Writing without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles.” Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 433–454.

1998 Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

2005 “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192.

Hyland, Ken, and Giuliana Diani

(eds.) 2009 Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hyland, Ken, and Carmen Sancho Guinda

(eds) 2013 Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Labov, William

1984 “Intensity.” In Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, 43–70. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

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.

Martin, J. R., and Peter R. R. White

2005 Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mauranen, Anna, and Marina Bondi

(eds.) 2003 “Evaluation in Academic Discourse.” Special issue of Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4).

Ochs, Eleanor, and Bambi Schieffelin

1989 “Language Has a Heart.” Text 9 (1): 7–25.

Palmer, Frank R.

1986 Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Römer, Ute

2008 “Identification Impossible? A Corpus Approach to Realisations of Evaluative Meaning in Academic Writing.” Functions of Language 15 (1): 115–130.

Scott, Mike, and Christopher Tribble

2006 Textual Patterns: Keyword and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Taboada, Maite, and Jack Grieve

2006 “Analyzing Appraisal Automatically.” In Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text, 158–161.

Taboada, Maite, Julian Brooke, Milan Tofiloski, Kimberly Voll, and Manfred Stede

2011 “Lexicon-Based Methods for Sentiment Analysis.” Computational Linguistics 37: 267–307.

Thompson, Geoff, and Laura Alba-Juez

(eds.) 2014 Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cited by

Cited by other publications

Larsson, Tove

2019. Grammatical stance marking across registers. Register Studies 1:2 ► pp. 243 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 june 2020. 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.