Authorial Voice in Research Articles on Applied Linguistic Written by Iranian and International Authors

Document Type : research article

Authors

1 PhD student in Linguistics, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor and Doctor of Linguistics, Faculty Member of Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor and Doctor of English Language Teaching, Faculty Member, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran.

Abstract

The concept of authorial voice has been discussed by many scholars in the field of applied linguistics. This study was an attempt to explore voice from an appraisal theory perspective. To this end, Iranian and Iinternational author’s usage of authorial voice in their published research articles was investigated. A corpus of 30 research papers (15 Iranian and 15 International research articles) written in English language in the field of applied linguistics was gathered. The thematic analysis of authorial voice was conducted by using Swale’s move structure analysis (1990) as well as Martin and White’s appraisal model (2005). The data were analyzed mostly quantitatively. For the qualitative part some excerpts have been chosen from the texts to find a meaningful pattern. The findings revealed that the tendency of Iranian and International writers for some linguistic resources was to some extent the same that is they followed a similar pattern of voice. The two groups showed similarity when using Affect, Judgment and Appreciation. This study remarkably introduces a new form of studying authorial voice in different sections of the articles based on Swales’ move structure analysis (1990) and Martin and white’s appraisal model. This contributes to new information about authorial voice in different sections of articles in the field of applied linguistics, and gives unique insights about the assessment and teaching of voice in ELT and applied linguistic disciplines.

Keywords

References

 بابایی عصمت, هاشمی محمدرضا, امینی فارسانی محمد (1395)، بررسی دیدگاه های استادان رشته آموزش زبان انگلیسی ایران نسبت به پژوهش: مطالعه ترکیبی، مجله پژوهش های زبانشناختی در زبان های خارجی (پژوهش زبان های خارجی) پاییز و زمستان 1395 , دوره  6 , شماره  2 ; از صفحه 501 تا صفحه 533 .،
علیرضا نبی لو، فرشته دادخواه (1398) تحلیل مدیر مدرسه آلاحمد بر مبنای سبک شناسی انتقادی، مجله پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی، دورة 9 ،شمارة 3 ،پاییز 1398 ،از صفحه 991 تا 103
Biber, D. (1988). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-116.
Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 4-18.
Bondi, M. (2012). Voice in textbooks: Between exposition and argument. In Gross & Chesley’s Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 101-115). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Bowden, D. (1999). The mythology of voice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of PhD conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 207-224.
Flowerdew, J. (2001). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation and the nonnative English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127-150.
de Magalhãesa, S. Cotterallb, N. & Miderosc, E. R. (2018). Ethnography as method, methodology, and deep theorizing: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25(3), 353–388.
Gross, A. G., & Chesley, P. (2012). Hedging, stance and voice in medical research articles. In Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 85-100). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming Back to Voice: The Multiple Voices and Identities of Mature Multilingual Writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1-2), 83-106.
Hood, S. (2004). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing. Sydney, Australia: University of Technology, Sydney.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins Publishing.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction, 1(1), 5–22.
Hyland, K. & Guinda, R. (2012). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 156-177.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language learning, 16(1), 1-20.
Kwan, B. S. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for specific purposes, 25(1), 30-55.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(2), 35-53.
Moreno, A. I. (1998). The explicit signaling of premise-conclusion sequences in research articles: A contrastive framework. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 18(4), 545-586.
Moreno, A. I., & Suárez, L. (2008). A framework for comparing evaluation resources across academic texts. Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies, 28(6), 749-769.
Morton, J & Storch, N. (2018). Developing an authorial voice in PhD multilingual student writing: The reader’s perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 45-67.
O'Donnell, M. (2011). UAM Corpus Tool (Version 3.2). Retrieved from http://www.wagsoft.com/CorpusTool/download.html
Ramanathan, V.,& Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45–75.
Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Audience and voice in current L1 composition texts: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 21-34.
Scollon, R., (1994). The post-Confucian confusion: Including a bibliography on post-Confucian cultural learning and traditional Chinese influences on teaching and learning. City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, Department of English.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004).Research Genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, W. & Cheung, Y. L. (2018). The construction of authorial voice in writing research articles: A corpus-based study from an APPRAISAL theory perspective. International Journal of English Studies, 18(2), 53–75.
Williams, P. (1999). Result sections of medical research articles; analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 347-366.
Journal of Foreign Language Research
Volume 10, Issue 4
February 2021
Pages 854-865

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics