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.
2006b “Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 97–116.
Biber, Douglas
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.
Biber, Douglas, and Jesse Egbert
2018Register Variation Online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
1988 “Adverbial Stance Types in English.” Discourse Processes 11: 1–34.
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
1989 “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text 9: 93–124.
Biber, Douglas, and Bethany Gray
2016Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Biber, Douglas, and Meixiu Zhang
2018Expressing evaluation without grammatical stance: Informational persuasion on the web. Corpora 13: 97–123.
Chafe, Wallace L., and Johanna Nichols
(eds.)1986Evidentiality: 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.
Charles, Maggie
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: [URL])
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.
Gray, Bethany, and Douglas Biber
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.
Hunston, Susan
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.
Hunston, Susan
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.
Hunston, Susan
2011Corpus 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
2000Evaluation 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.
2005 “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192.
Hyland, Ken, and Giuliana Diani
(eds.)2009Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hyland, Ken, and Carmen Sancho Guinda
(eds)2013Stance 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
2005Language 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.
1986Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 2024. 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.