Stance Markers in Academic Writing: Native Vs. Non-native (Iranian) Authorship in Hard and Soft Sciences Research Articles

Abdi, R. (2009). Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking: A comparison of Persian and English research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 52 (212), 1-15.

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in Applied linguistics paper. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (1), 288-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019

Al-Zubeiry, H. (2019). Metadiscourse devices in English scientific research articles written by native and non- native speakers of English, International Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 46-61. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v11i1.14259

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600109

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/40250192

Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers. Studies about Linguistics, 5, 1-7.

Bhowmik, S. K., Chaudhuri, A., Tweedie, G., Kim, M., & Liu, X. (2021). Culture and L2 writing: Student perceptions of factors affecting academic writing. Writing and Pedagogy, 12(2-3), 223–255. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.19538

Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3 (4), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10 (1), 39-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002

Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(20, 211-241.  

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 newspapers discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003

Dobakhti, L. & Zohrabi, M. (2017). How do writers present their work in introduction? sections? Issues in Language Teaching (ILT), 6(2), 181-207.

Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004

Deliery Moghadam, F. (2017). Persuasion in journalism: A study of metadiscourse in texts by native speakers of English and Iranian EFL writers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(6), 483-495. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0706.11

Dobakhti, L. (2013). Attitude markers in discussion sections of qualitative and quantitative research articles. International Journal of English and Education, 2(3), 39-53.

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2021). Engaging with the reader in research articles in English: Variation across disciplines and linguacultural backgrounds. English for Specific purposes, 63, 18-32.

Farzannia, S. & Farnia, M. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in introduction sections of 

Persian and English mining engineering articles. English for Specific Purposes, 49(17), 1-16.

Faghih, E., & Rahimpour, S. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in applied linguistic research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 92-107.

Farnia, M. & Gerami, S. (2021). Comparative study of interactional metadiscourse markers in the discussion section of soft and hard science research articles: hedges and boosters in focus. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures,13, (2), 263-280. https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.13.2.5

Ghafoori, N. & Oghbatalab, R. (2012). A comparative study of metadiscourse in academic writing: Male vs. female authors of research articles in applied linguistics. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5 (1), 87-113

Gholami, J., & Ilghami, R. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and Journal impact factor: Non-native writers vs. native writers. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44 (4), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20961

Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 1-12.    

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. Harlow: Longman.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835853

Hind, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B.  Kaplan (Ed.), Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95198-07

Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers' text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602848

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(98)00009-5

Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(97)000252

Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline: Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20 (3), 207-226.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(00)00012-0

Hyland, K. (2002). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text, 22 (4), 529-557.

https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2002.021

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(02)00124-8

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

Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London continuum. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508097560

Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365

Hyland, K. (2008). ‘Small bits of textual material’: A discourse analysis of Swales’ writing. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 143-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.005

Marandi, S. (2003). Metadiscourse in Persian and English master’s theses: A contrastive study. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v1n1p88

Mauranen, A. (2001). Description or explanation? Some methodological issues in contrastive

Rhetoric. In M. Hewings, (Ed.), Academic Writing in Context (pp. 43-54). Birmingham: 

University of Birmingham Press. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474211734.0009

Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis. London continuum. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404508080706

Salek, M. & Yazdanimogaddam, M. (2014). A cross-cultural analysis of metadiscourse in ELT and theoretical linguistics research articles by native English vs. Iranian academic writers. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 2(1), 29-39.

Sengupta, S. (1999). Rhetorical consciousness raising in L2 reading classroom. Journal of Second Language writing, 8(3), 291-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80118-0

Seyri, H. & Rezaee, S. (2021). Disciplinary and cross-cultural variation of stance and engagement markers in soft and hard sciences research articles by native English and Iranian academic writers: A corpus-based analysis. ISELT Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching, 1(1), 1- 22. 

Sheldon, E. (2009). The relationship between first and second language rhetorical structure: Implications for writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 243-261.  

Swales, J. (2004). Research Genre: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524827

Swann, J. Dumert, A., Lillis, T., & Methrie, R. (2004). A discourse of sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: University Press.

Tan, T. X., Fan, X., Braunstein, L. B., & Lane-Holbert, M. (2022). Linguistic, cultural and substantive patterns in L2 writing: A qualitative illustration of Mislevy’s socio-cognitive perspective on assessment. Assessing Writing, 51, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100574

Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20 (1), 83-102.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(99)00029-0

Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 https://doi.org/10.18172/cif.2434

Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2007). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive analysis of English and Persian research articles. The Asia ESP Journal, 3(2), 24-40.

Zohrabi, M. & Radkhah, S. (2019). A Comparative Analysis of Institutional Identities in Corpus of English and Persian News Interview. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 10 (1), 132-154.

Zhao, C. G. (2019). Writer background and voice construction in L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.004