Investigating Stance and Engagement Markers in Ph.D. Theses of Libyan EFL Postgraduates

Sattar Hashim; Ahmed Ahmed; Nayef Jomaa

doi:10.36317/kja/2024/v1.i60.15214

Authors

Sattar J. Hashim Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research – Iraq
Ahmed A. AHMED University of Samarra - Iraq
Nayef Jomaa Jomaa University of Technology and Applied Sciences - Sultanate of Oman

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36317/kja/2024/v1.i60.15214

Keywords:

Academic Writing, EFL, Libyan Students, Qualitative, Stance and Engagement

Abstract

In academic writing, the stance and engagement features establish an important area because they help writers convey their impressions, messages, and attitudes towards their readers. In spite of the increasing studies tackling this issue, limited studies have focused on EFL Libyan students. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the stance and engagement markers in the conclusion sections of ten Ph.D. theses of Libyan postgraduates; five of them are from the soft domain specifically business administration field (B), and the other five are from the hard domain specifically the electrical-electronics engineering (EE). The current study used Hyland’s (2005) model to explore stance and engagement markers used in the conclusion sections. The findings show that the total number of the stance in the soft domain conclusions is (117), and the total number of the engagement markers is (35), whereas in the hard domain, (27) were for the stance and (13) were for the engagement. Such findings could be employed academically to enhance EFL Libyan students’ performance in academic writing.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Atkinson, D. (2001). Reflections and refractions on the JSLW special issue on voice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 107-124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00035-2

Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly 36 (4), 493- 510. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3588238

Crismore, A. and Farnsworth, R. (1990) 'Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse'. In W. Nash (ed.). The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 118-36.

Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807– 1825. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004

Dunleavy, P. (2003). Authoring a PhD: how to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or dissertation. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-80208-7

Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. Kaplan (Eds.). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256.

Hyland, K. (1996). Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum. System, 24(4), 477-490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00043-7

Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, Boosters and Lexical Invisibility: Noticing Modifiers in Academic Texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145

Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication, 18(4), 549–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbour, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2): 173–192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365

Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543–562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005235

Hyland, K.(1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3

Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693–722. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3587930

Ivanic, R. (1998) Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5

Lakoff, George. 1972. ‘Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts’, in Paul Peranteau, Judith Levi and Gloria Phares (eds.), Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS 8), pp 183-228.

Lang, H.L. (2004). The use of reporting verbs in literature reviews of Taiwanese postgraduate business students. (Unpublished doctoral thesis.) University of Manchester, UK.

Lee, N. I. (2011). Academic and journalistic writing in English and Japanese: A contrastive study on stance and engagement expressions. Journal of Modern Languages, 21(1), 59–71.

Nguyen, T. T. L., & Pramoolsook, I. (2015). Citation in Vietnamese TESOL: Analysis of master’s thesis introduction chapters. The Asian ESP Journal, 2(1), 95-184.

Prince, E., Bosk, C., & Frader, J. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In J. Di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the professions (pp. 83-97).

Prior, P. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society: Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1-2), 55-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00037-0

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2

Sayah, L., & Hashemi, M. R. (2014). Exploring stance and engagement features in discourse analysis papers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.3.593-601 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.3.593-601

Tardy, C. M. (2005). “It's like a story”: Rhetorical knowledge development in advanced academic literacy. Journal of English for Academic purposes, 4, 325-338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.005

Thompson, G. (2001) Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58

Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198511781

Williams, J.W. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Yang, W. (2014). Stance and engagement: A corpus-based analysis of academic spoken discourse across science domains. Language for Special Purposes Journal, 5(1), 62–78.

Appendices

The soft domain data:

http://acikerisim.karabuk.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/730/10313862.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

http://acikerisim.karabuk.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/818/10342921.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

http://acikerisim.karabuk.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/780/10337831.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

http://acikerisim.karabuk.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/1995/10468909.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

http://acikerisim.karabuk.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/1050/10377292.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

The hard domain data:

https://acikbilim.yok.gov.tr/handle/20.500.12812/98389

https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=rcZUHkmd3IJlFEepdPrwOQ&no=6YNRHDw9eY6oKgxlnyms0w

http://acikerisim.karabuk.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/1999

http://acikerisim.karabuk.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/2432