Cited by 136Discourse Analysis in Language StudiesLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.

Current Conceptions of Stance

Gray, Bethany, Biber, Douglas·2012·Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres

Abstract

The linguistic mechanisms that convey a speaker or writer’s personal attitudes and assessments have long been of interest to linguists, and several major approaches to this function of language have been taken. In this chapter we survey several related threads of research, including evidentiality (e.g. Chafe, 1986), affect (e.g. Ochs and Schieffelin, 1989), hedging (e.g. Hyland, 1998b), evaluation (e.g. Thompson and Hunston, 2000), appraisal (e.g. Martin, 2000) and stance (e.g. Biber and Finegan, 1989). While each paradigm has its own focus and approach, this body of research as a whole contributes to our understanding of the ways in which speakers and writers encode opinions and assessments in the language they produce. In this chapter, we will refer to this overall concept as stance. Studies within these paradigms have been conducted with a variety of methodologies, ranging from detailed analyses of a single text to largescale investigations of patterns across texts in a corpus, as well as from detailed analyses of a single linguistic item or feature to descriptions of a large set of lexical and grammatical features. Taken together, these studies show that the expression of stance varies along two major parameters: meaning of the assessment: personal feeling/attitude H status of knowledge linguistic level used for the assessment: lexical H grammatical These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/9781137030825_2

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Overt stance expressions are far less common in academic prose than in other registers.

    “First, we need to acknowledge that overt stance expressions are far less common in academic prose than in other registers (e.g. Gray & Biber, 2012).”

    From Change of Attitude? A Diachronic Study of Stance (2016) · cites this paper as Gray & Biber, 2012

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 53 · Cited by 136

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Baratta, A. (2009) ‘Revealing stance through passive voice’, Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1406–21. · DOI
  2. Besnier, N. (1990) ‘Language and affect’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 419–51. · DOI
  3. Biber, D. (1988) Variation across speech and writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Biber, D. (1995) Dimensions of register variation: a crosslinguistic comparison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). · DOI
  5. Biber, D. (2004) ‘Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: a crossregister comparison’, Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5, 107–136. · DOI
  6. Biber, D. (2006a) ‘Stance in spoken and written university registers’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97–116. · DOI
  7. Biber, D. (2006b) University language: a corpusbased study of spoken and written registers (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). · DOI
  8. Biber, D. and S. Conrad (2009) Register, genre, and style (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). · DOI
  9. Biber, D., M. Davies, J. Jones and N. Tracy-Ventura (2006) ‘Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: a multidimensional analysis’, Corpora, 1, 7–38. · DOI
  10. Biber, D. and E. Finegan (1988) ‘Adverbial stance types in English’, Discourse Processes, 11, 1–34. · DOI
  11. Biber, D. and B. Gray (2010) ‘Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: complexity, elaboration, explicitness’. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. · DOI
  12. Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad and E. Finegan (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English (London: Longman).
  13. Brown, P. and S. Levinson (1987) Politeness: some universals in language use (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). · DOI
  14. Bybee, J. and S. Fleischman (1995) Modality in grammar and discourse (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). · DOI
  15. Chafe, W. (1986) ‘Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing’ in Chafe, W. and J. Nichols (eds) Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation).
  16. Chafe, W. and J. Nichols (1986) Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation).
  17. Charles, M. (2006) ‘The construction of stance in reporting clauses: a crossdisciplinary study of theses’, Applied Linguistics, 27, 492–518. · DOI
  18. Diani, G. (2008) ‘Emphasizers in spoken and written academic discourse: the case of really’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13, 296–321. · DOI
  19. Dressen, D. (2003) ‘Geologists’ implicit persuasive strategies and the construction of evaluative evidence’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 273–90. · DOI
  20. Fitzmaurice, S. (2004) ‘Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: from stance markers to discourse markers’, Discourse Studies, 6, 427–48. · DOI
  21. Grabe, W. (1984) Towards defining expository prose within a theory of text construction, unpublished doctoral dissertation (Los Angeles: University of Southern California).
  22. Hunston, S. (1993) ‘Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing’ in Ghadessy, M. (ed.) Register analysis: theory and practice (London: Pinter).
  23. Hunston, S. (1994) ‘Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse’ in Coulthard, M. (ed.) Advances in written text analysis (London: Routledge).
  24. Hunston, S. (2004) ‘Counting the uncountable: problems of identifying evaluation in a text and in a corpus’, Linguistic Insights — Studies in Language and Communication, 9, 157–88.
  25. Hunston, S. and J. Sinclair (2000) ‘A local grammar of evaluation’ in Hunston, S. and G. Thompson (eds) Evaluation in text (Oxford: Oxford University Press). · DOI
  26. Hunston, S. and G. Thompson (2000) Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse (Oxford: Oxford University Press). · DOI
  27. Hyland, K. (1996) ‘Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles’, Applied Linguistics, 17, 433–54. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Hyland, K. (1998a) ‘Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge’, Text, 18, 349–83. · DOI
  29. Hyland, K. (1998b) Hedging in scientific research articles (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). · DOI
  30. Hyland, K. (1999) ‘Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles’ in Candlin, C. and K. Hyland (eds) Writing: texts, processes and practices (London: Longman).
  31. Hyland, K. (2000) Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing (London: Longman).
  32. Hyland, K. (2005) ‘Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse’, Discourse Studies, 7, 173–91. · DOI
  33. Labov, W. (1984) ‘Intensity’ in Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, form and use in context: linguistic applications (Washington: Georgetown University Press).
  34. Lyons, J. (1993) ‘Subjecthood and subjectivity’ in Yaguello, M. (ed.) Subjecthood and subjectivity: proceedings of the colloquium, the status of the subject in linguistic theory (Paris: Ophrys).
  35. Martin, J. R. (2000) ‘Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English’ in Hunston, S. and G. Thompson (eds) Evaluation in text (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  36. Martin, J. R. (2003) ‘Introduction’, Text, 23, 171–81. · DOI
  37. Martin, J. R. and P. R. R. White (2005) Language of evaluation: appraisal in English (London: Palgrave Macmillan). · DOI
  38. Mauranen, A. and M. Bondi (2003a) ‘Evaluative language use in academic discourse’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 269–71. · DOI
  39. Mauranen, A. and M. Bondi (eds) (2003b) Evaluation in Academic Discourse (Special issue) Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2. · DOI
  40. McQuillan, P. (2005) ‘Possibilities and pitfalls: a comparative analysis of student empowerment’, American Educational Research Journal, 42, 639–70. · DOI
  41. Ochs, E. and B. Schieffelin (1989) ‘Language has a heart’, Text, 9, 7–25.
  42. Palmer, F. R. (1986) Mood and modality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
  43. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language (London: Longman).
  44. Silver, M. (2003) ‘The stance of stance: a critical look at ways stance is expressed and modeled in academic discourse’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 359–74. · DOI
  45. Swales, J. and A. Burke (2003) “‘It’s really fascinating work”: differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers’ in Leistyna. P. and C. Meyer (eds) Corpus analysis: language structure and language use (Amsterdam: Rodopi).
  46. Thompson, G. and S. Hunston (2000) ‘Evaluation: an introduction’ in Hunston, S. and G. Thompson (eds) Evaluation in text (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  47. Tucker, P. (2003) ‘Evaluation in the arthistorical research article’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 291–312. · DOI
  48. White, P. R. R. (2003) ‘Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance’, Text, 23, 259–84.

Metadata

Authors
Gray, B., & Biber, D.
Affiliations
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • Northern Arizona University (US)
Venue
Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres
Published
2012
Pages
15-33
OpenAlex
W2389007382
Cited by
136
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7
FWCI
88.50
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Keywords
stance, speaker attitude, evaluation, appraisal, evidentiality, affect, hedging, personal feelings, state of knowledge, lexical and grammatical features

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review