Functional analysis of stance nouns in English Language Teaching research articles

References

• Ädel A. 2010. Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 69–97. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.218
   Google Scholar
• Barton EL. 1993. Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English 55(7): 745–769. https://doi.org/10.2307/378428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beach R, Anson CM. 1992. Stance and intertextuality in written discourse. Linguistics and Education 4(3-4): 335–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(92)90007-J
   Google Scholar
• Biber D. 2006. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(2): 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
   Google Scholar
• Biber D, Johansson S, Leech G, Conrad S, Finegan E. 1999. Longman Grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Charles M. 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(4): 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00048-1
   Google Scholar
• Charles M. 2007. Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the Noun that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes 26(2): 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crismore A. 1984. The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies 16(3): 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027840160306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crismore A. 1989. Rhetorical form, selection, and use of textbooks. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report No. 454. Champaign: University of Illinois. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4826322.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dafouz-Milne E. 2008. The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40(1): 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl T. 2004. Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics 36(10): 1807–1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flowerdew J. 2003. Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes 22(4): 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00017-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flowerdew J. 2015. Some thoughts on English for research publication purposes (ERPP) and related issues. Language Teaching 48(2): 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000523
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flowerdew J, Forest RW. 2015. Signalling nouns in academic English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139135405
   Google Scholar
• Francis G. 1986. Anaphoric nouns (No. 11). Birmingham: English Language Research, Department of English, University of Birmingham.
   Google Scholar
• Francis G. 1994. Labelling discourse: an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. Advances in Written Text Analysis 83: 101–122
   Google Scholar
• Halliday MAK, Hasan R. 1976. Cohesion in English. Harlow: Longman Group.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday MAK, Martin JR. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. New York: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland K. 1996. Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication 13(2): 251–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland K. 2004. Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(2): 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland K, Tse P. 2005. Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24(2): 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivanič R. 1991. Nouns in search of a context: A study of nouns with both open-and closed-system characteristics. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 29(2): 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1991.29.2.93
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang FK. 2015. Nominal stance construction in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20: 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang F, Hyland K. 2015. ‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies 17(5): 529–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615590719
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang F, Hyland K. 2016. Nouns and academic interactions: A neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics 39(4): 508–531. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauranen A. 2010. Discourse reflexivity-a discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 13–40. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.216
   Google Scholar
• Meyer PG. 1997. Hedging strategies in written discourse: Strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In: Markkanen R, Schroder H (eds), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 21–42.
   Google Scholar
• Precht K. 2003. Stance moods in spoken English: Evidentiality and affect in British and American conversation. Text & Talk 23(2): 239–257.
   Google Scholar
• Schmid HJ. 2000. English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704
   Google Scholar
• Thompson G. 2008. Book review: Ken Hyland, Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Language in Society 37: 138–141. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404508080111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vande Kopple WJ. 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36(1): 82–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varttala T. 2003. Hedging in scientific research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. In: Cortese G, Riley P (eds), Domain-specific English: Textual practices across communities and classrooms. New York: Peter Lang. pp. 141–174.
   Google Scholar
• Winter EO. 1992. The notion of unspecific versus specific as one way of analyzing the information of a fund-raising letter. In: Mann W, Thompson S (eds), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company. pp. 131–170.
   Google Scholar