Hatin 7 2021) cose (Contents lists available a ScivnceDicect Heliyon Journal homepage: wore! comiheliyon Grammatical devices of stance in written academic English io Sharif Alghazo” , Mohd Nour Al Salem *, Imran Alrashdan”, Ghaleb Rabab'ah ” sent of ak an ent of Saya Ute eb Brvaas owe enc ate abenare ‘oad logue “Sane ira feature of accenie wing that eter to bow writers Ineact and engage with Ul readers by means Oo inguistic devices. This stay focuses om the grammatical devices—and semantic distinctions theret—that ae {pied By seademie wes of Fngleh to express ence tn research article asec inthe ares of apoied lings (ALD and erate (1). To hen, orp of 120 reser rile asta (50 nthe area ofA an another 60 in tht of) was built and analy using SPSS and following Beret al's (1995) framework of ‘rammatical devices of stance, The abstracts weve exact fom high-quality joule inthe respective arene “Apple Lingus and English Joural of te Bglch Asociadon. Both we Sl journals and published by Oxford fri Poblishing. A mited-method approach, applying quaniaive and quitatve measures, was adopted 10 anmer the two questions: How is sance grammatically expressed in AL esearch antile abstracts aL research ate abstracts, and Hovis the expression of tance in AL research atl abstracts similar o/aifferent fom that [nL ones Me ndings are cansuedin ight of theories of academiedseourse and English fr Academic Purposes (EAP) The ests revel that there ae important silanes an dferences inthe exen owhiehand the means through which stance is expressed in AL esearch article abstracts and L research arte abstracts, Ip particule, "be ining how tha both AL and L abstracts were sir in the most frequen ws stance marke which ete stance complement else. Hovsever, they were diferent in the feguency of use of other devies, The sy Provides insights nto the ways aendemie writers express sane n various Rds which beter et ability Co vie esearch atcle abstract, 1. Introduction Academic weting is a mode of communication thar involves an Inornetion berveon writers and readers by means of linguistic devices Gin, 2015). As Hyland (2005) notes, academic writers seek to establish for a relationship with theic readers by actively interacting with chem. ‘This kind of inceaetion is cechnically referred co as stance whet IS defined by Serauss onc Feiz (201) “the speaker's or weiter’ feeling, aricude, perspective, or positon as enacted in discourse” (p.103).Stanee taking refers to one taking position fo express hers atgudes,opin- ions or ideologies towards something or someone. Jiang ané Hyland (2015) define stance-caking as “tie means by which academies eke ‘ownership of theic work: making epistemic and evaluative Judgement regarding entices, actibutes and the relations berween material co [persuade readers of their right ro speak with authority and to establish thei reputations” (p. 20), 0 (2015) adds dhat stance is “he writes “denity as well a the writers expression of atcudes, feelings, or jude mens" (p- 3; talies added). This denticy is constructed and Corresponding auhoe mad air p00. sheioyaboo com (8. Alghaz. Iups://doLorg/10.1016/,heyon2021-c08463 communicated to readers by means of a variety of lexical and gram- matical devices that ae differently used according to cegistet Register fsa discourse-eloced term that “refers tothe sets of gram matical, lexical, and prosaic fesrires of discourse within genres that ‘ogedher signal or index membership within a specific group .. AS such, registers also index ideologies and identities” (Straus= and Sei2, 201, p 172 che fis ales iin original, and the second is added). For example, Biber (2006), im his investigation of spoken and written university reg- Isters, showed clone differences in the expression of stance based on register. In keeping with Sts and Fels (201) definition of register above, ier (2012) argues that the linguistic devices—lexical and frammatical—and thelr semantic distinctions. representa major ‘component of che description of register. The othe ro components are the situational context and is celationship with the linguistic devices. Research in areas of academic discourse and genre analysis has focused on the linguistic devices (exicogrammacical features) chat weiers use to intarace with readers by expressing their attitudes and feelings (eg. Gray and Biber, 2012, 20145 Hyland, 20055 Jalal, 2017, Received 29 July 2021; Received in revise fem 7 October 2021; Aceepted 18 November 2021 2405,8440/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Haevier Ld, This is an apen aces artile under tbe CC BY Loe (s eretvecmmmons.ore iene b9/4.0,S.Aifam eet ‘among many others). Inher seminal work, ber el. (1999) assert that lexical stance marking is limited in chat i encompesses only one prop- ‘sition end doesnot "prove actirudinal and evaluative frame for other Droposicions(p. 966). In addon, saxtes have investigated compara tively the expression of stance in various registers (eg. ier, 2006) and languages (eg, Liber, eal, 2006). However, the expression of stance in subsisciplines has not been given enough attention from researchers. “Thus, this study plugs chs gap and explores the grammatical devices of stance in AL research arcele abstraess and 1 ones by seeking, answers £0 the following research questions 1, How is stance grammatically expressed in applied lingusces research cite absenetsand Hceraure research ace abstracts? 2, What are the differonces and/or similarities (if eny) in the use of| immaticl davies ro express sence in bath types of abetacts? 2. Literature review ‘The licerature on stance making in academic writing vated in is focus and scope. Some studies, for example, vere monolingual and rmonocultural in the sense that stance matking was iavestigared within the same language (eg. Dider, 2006), Other studies were cross-cultural “The literature on ste marking abounds with studies whose aim is to ‘compare the expression of sence in aeademie writing across languages and cultures (eg Alghazo et al, 20215 Yu, 20154 Sinkaniené, 2018. In ‘monolingual and monocultucal research, many studies focused om spe ‘ile grammatial devices and thelr distibution across disciplines (8. Hylond and Tse, 2005). Other studies were more holistie in nature ‘encompassing a wide range of stance marking (6. iI", 2005). Tas seudy falls within the later type and aims to explore stance marking in English academic weting in the fields of applied linguistes and Hteracure. 2.1, Monocuitralsuties [As mentioned above, some of the monolingual studies aimed to ‘explore che grammatical devicesthac writers use co express stance; one of these isthe noun complement constuction (e.. the asstemption that.) “ang and Hyland (2015) explore the use (by measures of frequencies), forms and functions of te noun complement onstruction, The data were taken from a compus (1.7 milion words) comprising 160 research articles fcom eight disciplines, The concordance sofsware Antone was employed to spot the following srucuves: The N that, N to-fnitive, and. ope posiion structures. In addition, the researchers conducted @ manu reading ofthe articles 0 ensure that all noun complement clauses have ben identified. The foews was on the semantic rather than the funetional ‘characteristics of the nown complement clauses, The cesults show that vilers” tance towards actbutes of entices is dhe mose used, with 2596 ‘ofall sance nouns. The findings also reveal that stance nouns Which refer to objects and relacions ace the least used. Ie as also een revealed that ‘noun complements are used more in the soft elds such a applied bir ‘guises, marketing, and sociology than in the hard ones like engineering Allin all, the study emphasize dhatstance is noconly a lexical feacuce in dliscourse but als a grammatical one In an eatier study, Hyland ond Tse (2005) investigated the use of ‘evoluaive shat constructions as one of the interpersonal fearuresaca- demic writers use to express stance in chele wetings. The data included 240 abstracts from different disciplines which were classified into cace- ‘gories and subcategories. The results about che feequency of use ofthat show 2 significant difference between the abstracts of articles in the «liffecent disciplines covered inthe sul. That construcions were found to be more frequent in computer sciences and business studies, with 8.5 ‘and 80 chat word per 1000 words collected in both sciences respectively. ‘Conversely, that constructions were the leas frequent in electronic ea ‘ineering with 2.1 that word per 1000 words. The findings demonstramed Hoty 72021 8483 that academic writers make use of thatclause in their abstracts to give ‘smmments and to validate cheie conclusions and claims. In another study, Jlali (2017) investigated the use of a particular coup of lexical bundles in che expression of stance. The daca were caken from theee corpora: research articles, dactraldisetttions, and masters ‘theses, ll the field of applied linguistics, The use of these bundles was compared across the three coxpora, More specifically, the aim ws to compare between published writers and students in tens of styles of \wecing. The results reveal the use of 17 different bundles identified in the ‘corpus of research atiles. bridles sich as iis tmportant t,t shold Be noted, iis necessary to and its not clear ae used in all heee corpora fe Dunes such asi is lear dat, ts nerestng to, is Roped dat, and suggested shat were nov employed frequently in the postgraduace writings. “The wee ofthe it uncles was similar in doctoral dissertations and master’ theses as the difference was not significant. There were certain differ ences, however, inthe average of use oft bundles such as i should Be noted, iis dificult to which were identified more in the masters theses compared c the doctoral dissertations. I has been found cha skilled eee in he fel of applied linguists resort ro the use of such bundles to expres cir position, stance, and inexpersonal meanings. The func= tonal analysis reveals thac ee use ofthese lexical bundles in the research ticles was more significant compared tothe doctoral dissertations and master's heses. This may be due co the degeee of eonfdence chat skilled Writers show in research articles which gives them more space and freedom to take stance and express themselves. Some monolingual studies concentrated on how the use of stance markers changes over time. For example, Vyland and Jiang (2017) explored how the use of ‘Evaluative cha’ hs/nor changed over the past 50 years To thisend, three corpora of research aricles from five journals fn four disciplines (viz, applied linguistics, sociology, biology, and lectronie engineering) spaced at theee peciods: 1965, 1985 and 2015 wore constructed. Overall, the corpuscomprised 360 papersand a total of 2.2 million words. The results show that chere has been a substantial Increase in che use of evaluative that constructions over the past 50 years Decreases ware recorded in biology and applied linguistics with the shacpest decrease after 1985 seen namely in sociology and electrical tengincering, This was attibuted to @ ‘syliée shit in academic ‘laim-making. Despite the decline offs popularity in che pat 50 yenrs ‘aceos all the fou disciplines, evaluative that constructions remain a sige nificant chetocial option for authorsto express tance The decline ofthis structure by about 2096 since 1965 entails that there are alternative epistemic resources available to authors (single modal items) which allow more saccinet expressions and a more compact syle of argument. Such findings call for more studies on diachronic changes of other sence markers use in English academic writing {A similar study was conducted by Hyland and Jiang (2018) on ‘changes tothe use of various meradseourse devices. The sudy aimed to explore changes in metndiscourse using corpus analysis. Three corpora were created consisting of 20 articles from five journals in four dsc plines (applied linguistics, sociology, eleceial engineering, and biology) ar thee periods over the past 50 Years: 1965, 1985 and 2015. The data were analysed using. AniGone and focused on expec extal devices analysed based on Vyland’s (2004, 2005) model. The esuls reveal that there was a smtistically significant increase in the use of interactive fearures in all fields sce 1965, vi, endoporcs, code glosses ane e¥- identals which nearly doubled. This was atrbuted ro weiter sevking to eahance de cohesion and expicimness of their arguments. Ineactional resources onthe other hand, have seen a 6.54 derease with devices fa ‘categories. Hoosters and attinade markers have shown the steepest decline over the last $0 years. Thus, writers are using more features co suide readers through more explicitly cohesive texts and fewer features {o take a personal stance and engage directly with readers Jn-a comparative monolingual study that investigated both disc. plinary differences and academic levels of writes, Akinci (2015) explored differences in stance marking devicesin the writings of student ‘writers and academics, To this end dhe researcher analysed a corpus ofS.Aifam eet 30 research atiles using !iylan!s (2005) framework of metadiscourse to find diferences according to discilinesin this case Civil Engineer- ing and Applied Linguistes~and according o level of writers, ie, stu ‘dene weters and expert academics. The findings reveal thae more stance markers were used i smident writer’ ariles than those in the aca- demice’ articles. In addition, che results show that there exist some ‘crossdisciplinay differences in terms of stance markers. In particule, the study found that Applied Linguistics research articles included more stance marking devices than did the Civil Engineering arccles. The re- sults also demonstrate that student writing featured more stance, most notably inthe we of selEmentions. Such Findings have insights for both students and teachers on how c© addvess stance making in wetig 2.2. Crossciltralsudies Cross-cufeuraly, fewer stties were conducted co explore differences ‘cross lngunges in how stance is expressed, OF dese cies is that by Ys 2019) who examined eross-culeural differences in how academe writers ‘express auhorial stance by analysing corpora of published cesearch articles in English and Korean. To achieve this objective, che researcher bul ewo ‘corpora of Applies Linguists research articles inthe two languages. eh ‘corpus contained 50 articles A mixed-method appceadh Was wie eho ‘analysis of stance marking devices inthe two corpoca. The results showed that dere ae differences inthe ways dhrough which writers expees chee ‘stance towards propositions in English and Korean. These dillerences were ‘rcibuced to cultura dtferenes chat ace reflected in writing which i ‘ssentilly a reflective ts. The study provided repercussions for which co adtess ese diferences in academic and research ving courses, Space does norpermita comprehensive review of ross-cultural studies ‘onthe use of stance marking devices. This endeavour is beyond the scope ‘of his srady which exclusively focuses on English. However, andl based on the foregoing, we notice thae despite the plethora of erossiscplinary research in relation ro stance marking in English which compares highly livergent disciplines, very few studies look at diferences beeen related, ‘genres or sub-seplines. To fil cis gap this study exploreshow stance ‘expressed by wrtersof research artcleabstractsinthe we relatedareaso Applied Linguistics and English Literazre. In addition, most scaies are limited in temnsof the seope ofthe linguistic devicesinvestigated, with the reviewed studies mostly examining the use of only one device ta time However, his study is moce encompassing and comprehensive, Finally, ‘most seus followed Hylands and others! models which erticised for ‘being limited in scope. Hiber oro (199°) fe mage comprehensive ini ‘coverage ofthe linguistic devices of stance. 8. Methodology BL Corpus “The researchers designed a corpus that consists of 120 research article absiraets (60 in che area of AL and 60 in that of 1). The absracts were ‘extracted from research artiles published in two highly-indexed journals in the cespectve fields—Applied Linguistics and English Journal ofthe B= lsh Association. Both are 1! journals and published by Oxford Academie Publishing. Theresearch articles were published between 2014 and 2020. NNativeness co English was not an importa variable in this stl because ie fete language used, rather dan the writer, that is being investigated. ‘The whole corpus resulted in 25,560 words (12,430 words in AL. and 13,180 in L). The study was designed to allow fora comparison becween AL esearch article abstncts and L ones in terms of the grammatical de- ‘vices and cher semantic distnetons chat weters use co express stance, 32. Dota coding and deta analysis As for dhe analysis, ber era's (1999) feamework ofthe grammat- Fea macking of stance was adopted to analyse grammacical seance Hoty 72021 8483 markers in the so corpora. ibe era's (1998, pp, 969-970) model of stance matking comprises an exhaustive isto linguistic devies tha is categorised under five main classes: stance adverbials, ance comple- ment clauses, modals and semi-modals, stance nown + prepositional phrase, and premodifying stance adverb (tance adverb + adjective oF rom phrase). Each type is manifested in sevesal grammatical construc tions that funetion as stance marking. able 1 below shows beret als (2999) framenrorkof grammatical stance marking and examples on each marker from Pier etal. (1999), By applying vider eos 1999) framework, the researchers used a mixed:method approach to analyse the data, employing both quancia- ‘ive and qualitative measures. The former method resulted in staistical Presentation of the frequencies of occurrence of each grammatical device fn the «wo corpora, The latter wns necessary to apprise readers of the way/s each device was used ro express stance and to provide them with authentic examples that show the similarities and differences erween AL research aricle abstracts and L ones in the use of grammatical ance marking. In order co analyse the data, the researchers surveyed ibe" era's 1999) source forall possible linguist deviees that are used to express stance ond made a list of these devices. In addition, each researcher perused dhe abstracts so as to present a precise count of the sramumatical devices in each abstract. in onder to validate the individual analysis ofthe abstracts, a collective session of negotiation among the researchers rested in more robust analysis of the various sence markers. 4. Results ‘This secion presents the findings of che study. As noted earlier, there wore rwomethods of data analyse: quantitative and qualitative. The frst part ofthis section is devoted to dhe quantiative analysis ofthe gram- ‘matical devices that weve found in the tro corpora highlighting simi laricles and/or diferences (if any) berween the AL research arcicle “Table 1 ibe cs (1999) framework of grammatical stance marking rama) Saooe anker——Graunaizal Cas Kime Alvetals 1 Single adres rams we cack do andadve pnaesayung ur 2 Mods HesAnd fai mts S.Preposlonal mal font a acon of pins ‘hismumber sally oes 4:Advial ses Aso api pec Cass ‘San clot mt wih oe ‘Somes cnr You jut veto ry and 1 stance Complement 1.comoled bya tye ta ve phage foes Ss Soper, 2. contol by an tmoeyyhgpy tacwre gag saecne ‘osm ee ee as pe pray wes cuspeoue 4. comoled by The fe ha ew et may = veo ssnlig mr degre C-Modae and Semimodale Meh Hae: mire up befor ou. ae ay Shehasb gatos spc D.Seance Noun Powsbly, Fear They day 2 pmb of Prepositonal Prase ess in tinge eden fa E Prumodiying Stance So, Rely About Eso poy fer you ‘verb Gtaie Adverb + rey hpy fr you. ‘Ajeetve or Noun PaveS.Aifam eet ‘abstracts and L ones. The second part presents examples that show the ‘semantic distinctions of stance in both corpora highlighting disciplinary feauces of stance in academic research writing. 4.1. Quantitative findings ‘The data analysis shows chat there exiss a vatiation in the use of ‘various stance-marking devices in the two corpora. The following table Shows frequencies and percentages of occurrences of grammatical de- ‘ices of sanee in the AL and L abstrats corpora. The percentages ace ‘counted pee 1000 words, In addition, the able shows the results ofthe ‘Cai cescand che significance value of the comparison, “innle 2 above shows that the mose common ype of grammatical stance marking inthe A. resoatch arc abstacrs was stance complement clauses, with 216 occurrences, Jiang and Hylan’ (2015) argue that the ‘noun complement structure is “relaively overlooked” (p. 1) a means of marking sance whieh plays roe in eveacing cohesion and in conveying the attitudes of the viter. Within this type, clauses controlled by a verb ‘wore the most used, with a frequency of 174 occurrences (2.40%). Adjecvecontroled clauses came second, with 24 occurrences and ‘exvaposed sirctres third, with 18 occurrences. There were no nou controlled clauses in this corpus. The second most common «ype of ‘grammatical strice marking in AL. research article abstracts was modal ‘nd sem-modal, with 60 occartences. This was followed by stance noun + prepasional pirase, with 48 oecuerences, Stance adverbial came next ‘with 30 occurrences. Most frequent stance adverbials were single adverbs nat adverb phoases (24 times} and some were hedges (6 occurrences) “There were no instances of other types of stance adverbs such as prep- ‘asitional phrases, adverbial clauses, end comment clauses. Finally, there ‘were 12 instances of premeadifing stance adverbs AAs for the L abstracts, Tablc 2 above demonstrates that the most ‘common eype of grammatical stance marking in was stance complement clauses, with a frequency of 186 occurrences. Within ehis type, clauses contolled bya verb were the mot used, with a fesuency of 1:22 oceur= rences (1.4096), Adjetive-contoled clauses came second, with 30 occ rences and extraposed structures thied, with 18 occurrences, There were six occurrences of noun-controlled clauses inthis corpus. The table also shows that stance noun -+ prepositional phrase was che second most frequent stance device (84 eceureences) inthe L corpus. Stance adverbials Hoty 72021 8483 scored third in thie corps in terms of fesuency of occurrence with 72 times. Mose stance adverbials were adverbial dawses (42 cies; single ‘aiverbs and adver phrases and prepostinal phrases occured 12 vmnes tech. There were six inseances of comment clauses, but none of hedges. Modals and semimodalt came fourth, with $8 occurrences. The least frequently used stance marker was premodifying stance adver (stance adverb + adjective or noun phrase with only 6 occurrences. “Table 2 above shows chat che grammatical stance devices in the AL abstraets corpus were (12.430), and the grammatical sence devices in the L abseracts corpus were (13-130). The single adverbs and adveed phrases were (24) in the AL abstracts with a percentage of (0.002/1000 words). On the other hand, ce singe avers and adverb pases were 22) in the Labstracts corpus, with a percentage of €0.0009/1000 words “The (Chi*) value was (.000}, is significance isa (0.05), and the vari- fice wins in favour of the Al. abstracs carps. The hedges were ony found in the AL abstracts compus, with a percentage of (0.00088 1000 words). In addition, the results reveal that there were no prepositional Dhrases, adverbial clauses and comment clauses in the Al abstracts ‘corpus. However, the L abstracts corps contained prepositional phrases, with a frequency of (22) anda percentage of (0.00093/1000 words) and adverbial clauses with a Teequency of 42 and a percentage of (0.0032/ 1000 words). The comment clauses were (6) with a percentage of (.0004/1000 words) in the I abstracts corpus. The toral number of| stance adverbals in the AL abstracts corpus was (30), with a percencage 9f(0.0024/1000 words) and that in the L abstracts compus was (72), with a percentage of (00088,/1000 words). The cesultsshovt that there were statistically significane differences between AL and L abstracts comora (Chi? = 17.294) whichis significanc aca level of 0.08 andthe variance s fn favour of L. abstracts comput [As for the stance complement clauses, the results shove that the clauses which are controlled by a verb in the AL abstcats corpus were (174), with a percentage of (0.014/2000 words) while the occurrences of ‘he same grammatical construction in che 1 abstaets corpus were (132), witha percentage of (0.020). The findings reveal thar there are sai cally significane differences hervresn the AL and L. abstracts corpora (Ci? = §.765), and its significance is ata level of (0.05) which implies thatthe variance is in favour of the AL abstracts corpus. The results also show there are no statistically significance diferences berween the AL, and [ strats coxpora in relation tothe stance cormplensent clases which are “Table 2. Frequencies and percentages of stance markers nthe to corpora, Tegicacy Pecerage Regency Perce 2430) 10000)" ‘03130. a000)" { Siance Alveinle TSagleivervand ry 2 oo a9 Oe der pre 2 nedues ° 008s ° oom S Prepmitoa pines 0 0% 2 00080 Adve dacs ot a ons ‘oul »” pom 72 oss 17284 0.00" 2 convo by an Es 02 » ona 06s? oa aie SBevapoedvescurey 16 gots 18 oot oan 9729 SCongalledby avo 0 00 6 0004 ‘oul a6 Le 186 1% aso 0277 6 Moat and Semnodats Dg aso, Mus, ay 60 od 5 0081 pais 0s , stance Noun + Frepostonl Phrase oss. Far a ons me co ssa ona Pruning Sunce Adve (Stace Averb + SoReal About 2 can86 6 0008 20000157 [Adjedve oe Nous Pease) Tot 6 an oy nw ise 0194 * perceniages ate euned per 1000 wordsS.Aifam eet controlled by an adjective because the frequency forthe A. abstracts ‘corpus is (24) = (0,002/1000 words) ana for the L abstracts corpus i (0) = 0.0022/1000 words); the Chi? = 0.667 and ths sor significant at he level of (0.08). The extaposed structures were equal Decween the AL and 1. abstracts corpora, with a frequency of (18) for each, and @ percentage of (0.0014/1000); che Chi? value was (0.111) which is not significant at che level of (0.05) The stance complement clauses which ‘are controlled by a noun were absent inthe AL abstracts corpus, bu there ‘were (6) occurrences in the L abstracts corpus, with a percentage of (€.0004/1000 words). ‘Te tied category of stance markees is modals and semi-modals, The results presented in ‘le 2 above demonscatethac there i a fequency ‘of (60) = (0.0088/1000 words) in the AL abstracts corpus and a tre ‘queney of (54), with a percentage of (0.0041/1000 words) in the La “ret corps. The resus show hae there were na statically sigaificant differences beeween the AL and L abstracts coepora (Chi? = 0.316), and this isnot a significant difference atthe level of (0.0). “The fourth eacegory isthe stance noun + prepositional phrase. Here, the Al. abstmets contain (48) occurrences, with a percentage of (0.00387 41000 words), and the abstracts contain (84) occurrences, with per~ ‘centage of (0,0064/1000 words) The Chi? cesule is 5.541 which is ig- nificant atthe level of (0.05). This indicates that chere are significant differences between the evo corpora, and that che variance isin favour of the L abstracts compas. As fr the premodifying stance adverbs (stance adverb + adjective or ‘noun pase), dhe cesuls show that te AL abstracts corpus inchides a frequency of (12), with a percentage of (0.00096/1000 words), and he absiracts corpus has frequency of (6, with a percentage of (0.0004/ 11000 words). The Chi? value is (2.000) which isnot significant at the level of (0.05). nally, the total number of grammatical stance devices in the AL. abstracts corpus was (266) words out of (12430), with percent of (0.029/ 1000 words) whereas che grammatical stance devies in he L abstracts corpus were (402) words out of (13,130), with a percentage of 0.030), “The Chi value i (1.688) which is ot significane atthe level of (0.05) IF we compare the vo corpora in tems of grarumatical stance ‘ming, we notice that bot the AL and L abstracts share a similarity ia ‘thae stance complement clauses were che most frequent. This emphasises the argument put fot by Jiang ant Fiyland (2015) eat stance com- plement clauses are deviees employed by writers tote segments of the text in a harmonious manner. However, the analysis shows chat more ‘occurrences of these markers were spotted in the AL corps than were found in the L one. In addition, while there were sie occurrences of ow-conmoled clawes in the L compas, there was no instance of rh ‘marker in the AL one. Finally, while stance noun + preposidonal phrase ‘came second on the list of most fequent devices in the L corpus, modals ‘ara sen mods occupies! this postion in cerms of frequency in che AL, ‘corpus with stance noun + prepasional phrase being chien the list 4.2 Quatiatve ndings “This sub-section is devored ro presenting a qualitarive analysis ofthe data, 1 illustrates though authentic exarupls how each existing gea- ‘matical stance marker is wed in the cwa corpora of AL and L. research article abstracts. As found i the quandcarive analysis above, stance ‘complement clauses Were the most fequent stance marker in the AL. corpus. This marker, as Sibor et al (1999) note, Is realised in four grammatical constactions. However only theee existed io he AL corps. Examples on each existing construction are presented below. 1, Stance Complemene Clause |Asmentioned above, sane complement clauses can be controlled by ‘a verb, an adjective, ora noun. They can also be extaposed structures. a this corps, no instances of woun-complement clauses were found, The ‘other three conseuctioas (ie, controlled by a verb, controlled by aa ‘adjective and extraposed serucures) were found as in the following ‘examples: Hoty 72021 8483 ‘2 These findings suggest shat ways of navigating the body in the class oom space aa index pedagogical concerns By drawing on eriical langusge policy, it appears thar policy may be 0 ethnonstionalist char ichas caused disassociation ce: Results indicate thar ic possible to identify particular features of English speach varivies that are most likely to lead to breakdown in A. Teisnaw 20,ears since’ social remittances’ was tken up to caprue the notion that. more engible cireulation of maney. Ascan be seea, the fest examples above show stance complement, clauses concolled by die cwo verbs sugges an appear, respectively and, in), by the evaluative adjective “etmnonationalis. The tied and fourth ‘examples demonstrate how the sanee complement clase to identity ‘communication’ and ‘since .. money’ are extraposed structures that are used (0 express stance 2, Modale and Semi-modals ‘The second most common ype of grammatical stance marking in AL research article abstracts was madals and semimodals, with 69 occur- fences. Examples ace the following: . From, cespectvely, a distinctive collexeme ... and beaavioral profile analysis... will emerge that beyond expressions of joint atention, ‘hikdren's TOM abiligy progressively underpins However, SEM also suggested that che recognition and recall mae: tecies of any particular word knowlege component mus be seen as Separate constructs. 8. This article shoves, with Malaysia as @ case study, chat an etino- nationalist language policy need not have disempowering eanse- ‘quences fr minodtes ‘The examples above show thar modals as stance markers have Aiferentsemancie distinctions. In (), the modal wil js wed to express prediction or volition. n (9, mustis used ro expeess obligation, and in), the semimodal need no is uted "asa frame for the interpretation of the ropoxicional information” (Biber et aly, 189% p. 970, 3, Sunnce Noun + Prepostional Phrase AAsnored above, stance noun + prepositional phrase markers scored thie in dhe AL corpus in ceems of frequency, with 48 occurrences ber er al, (2899) Wam that although stance noun + prepositional phrase markers “have wo distinct components. itis nor always clear thar the Drepositional phrase actually presents “preposition” (p. 970). There- fore, care mast be caker when analysing such markers, Below are two examples from the corps. 1. The findings confim te applicability of CDS approaches to L2 oral evelopment and carry” valuable implieations for CDST theory development and oral language reaching 1. Lesming a visual language gives heating mothers the possibility of pttlipating ka hele deaf chikden's cule. We notice chat in the two examples above, che stance nouns appt cabaiy andl possibility Were both fellowed by prepositional pheases that Dresene propeidrions. Such uses are common in academic writing, o¢ noted by Hie e al. (1989), 4, Phrase Stance Adverbials “The quanstative analysis presented above shows thie pase stance a verbal ame fourth in terms of frequency, with 30 ecurrences. should be recollected chat mosesance adverbial were single acherbs and acer phrases (24 times aod sme yee edges (6 occurences). There were no instances of other sypes of stance adverbs such ws repsiional pass, adverbial clases, ant comment dss. Below are some examples chat show dei occurences 5 Unlike continuous whole-class ‘plenary’ interaction, independent ask ork involves incipient teacher-seudent elk, asthe teacher typically ‘makes round” ro engage with stuxiens,S.Aifam eet Results indicae tha i is possible to identify particular features of [English speech varieties that are mostikely co lead toa breakdown in ‘The two examples Gj & X) demonstrate that phrase stance adverbials ‘expres ferent semantic distinctions, For example, pically ij) hovre an epistemie condition see ibe" eta, 1999) on the proposition, chat of fa limitarion, Most likely in (X) expresses an epistomic condition of cor- ‘minty on the proposition. As Hier et ol. (2999) argue, phrase stance adverbials are usually used to “convey the speaker/writers assessanent of the proposition inthe clause” (p. 548), 5, Premodifying Stance Adverbs ‘Te Teas fequentty used stance marker inthe AL corpus was pres ‘molfying stance adverbs, with 12 instances, Two examples are pre- ‘ented below in wie so and vary’ ace ase, 1 By deewing on cxscal language policy, i appears thar poliey may be so echnonationalisg chat thas caused dissociation. ‘m. However, research systematically investigating the threshold of {nceligibiliy nas been very limited vretumto the corpus, wefind, as noted above, some similarities 0 and differences from he ways in which these stance markers are used in the AL research article abstracts—although the difference in the coral Imumber of stance mackers in the nwo sets of data was not sigaificant (29.45/1000w for the AL corpus and 30.6/1000W for the L one, see “Table 2 above). For example, stance complement clauses were—similar to the AL set—the most frequent inthe L corpus. However, chere was some variegation in the se of structural manifestations ofthis marker. “Thetis all four constructions of stance complement clauses were foun in this cogs, as follows 1. Stance Complement Clause Stance complement clauses were the mest use in he 1. corpus Within this type, clauses controlled by a verb were the most wed, with a frequency of 132 occurrences (1.408). Adjacive-conrolled clauses came ‘second with 90 occurrencesand exraposed structures came thicd with 18 ‘occurrences, There were six occurrences of noun-contolled clauses in this ‘corpus a shown in ce following examples: 4) Iwill also argue that ithas been brough surpeisingly to the fore in wo ‘recone experimental texts, Eimear Metiride's The Lever Boferians and Nicola Barkers HOAJPPY. by in particular, it suggests that chee are fruitful connections ro be made between modem posthumanice cheortial approaches, and ie post- inumanism of Higainss approach co exemplary history, whereby his ‘dmonitory text appears to abandon is premise of human primacy and pertectailgy in response co the perceived falluce of Hizabethan tudvioe Hteriture ro effact politcal change, ©) For Neshe, fe was mich more impertant to concentrate on the lo- ality of England icsel 4) Identifying the importance of these techniques tm Wordsworthian egy, Shelley's sonnet “To Wordsworth’ shows him inheriting Wordsworth’ bole that any elegy must negotiate berween ‘common, woot’ and individual feeling In the examples above (a), we find how stmnce complement 509-00 Jia B15 Slr devon les era cade ring: ihe ie uy ofthe Genes avd Av SP 11 C7 to, 201, th Sunce Rae ls Es on Aid ns ‘sb Elution Tecnology: alge basal, Harpo Stun, 201, Te ower of Eagan we sin, Lian gh So ih gh sas wos Sor uckasy Ps Sakae 40) ‘Ses Rempel ej Rog Company Atseran,p. 99-73, son 8 in abl Das anc Puy ur Woe io Words Rou, SalI; SM. Gere Atay Eph a Ace sod Reseach Seige Cage ag 20 Revappe ents Tn ahi ad ral “amine Gane Sy Dover Sea Tae Ute of yay, ey vee a0. Wing Uae Sf hede Purne Rraedge RwFre