Drawing on the appraisal framework from systemic functional linguistics (SFL), this article examines patterns of stance in a corpus of 92 high- and low-graded argumentative papers written in the context of an upper-level course in economics. It interprets differential patterns of stance in students’ texts in light of interview commentaries from the instructors, exploring how their judgments of students’ levels of “critical reasoning” and “analytic rigor,” among other qualities, may be influenced by recurring configurations of stance. As a methodological contribution, the article demonstrates how appraisal analysis of student writing, when used alongside instructor interviews, can reveal types of stances that are tacitly valued in the specific context. Results suggest the need for greater awareness among faculty in the disciplines of what is “going on” when they are reading student work and how they can make their expectations and judgments more explicit to students when assigning and evaluating writing.
AnthonyL. (2011). AntConc (Version 3.2.2) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/
2.
BartonE. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55, 745-769.
3.
BazermanC. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4.
BiberD. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-116.
5.
CoffinC. (2002). The voices of history: Theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses. Text, 22(4), 503-528.
6.
CoffinC.O’HalloranK. A. (2005). Finding the global groove: Theorising and analysing dynamic reader positioning using APPRAISAL, corpus and a concordancer. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(2), 143-163.
7.
DerewiankaB. (2007). Using appraisal theory to track interpersonal development in adolescent academic writing. In McCabeA.O’DonnellM.WhittakerR. (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp. 142-165). New York, NY: Continuum.
8.
DiPardoA.StormsB. A.SellandM. (2011). Seeing voices: Assessing writerly stance in the NWP Analytic Writing Continuum. Assessing Writing, 16(3), 170-188.
9.
Du BoisJ. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In EnglebretsonR. (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139-182). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
10.
EngelbretsonR. (Ed.). (2007). Stancetaking in discourse. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
11.
HallidayM. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
12.
HallidayM. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London, UK: Edward Arnold.
13.
HallidayM. A. K. (2002). Collected works. Vol. 1. On grammar. London, UK: Continuum.
14.
HallidayM. A. K.MatthiessenC. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London, UK: Arnold.
15.
HewingsA. (2004). Developing discipline-specific writing: an analysis of undergraduate geography essays. In RavelliL. J.EllisR. A. (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 131-152). London, UK: Continuum.
16.
HoodS. (2006). The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 37-49.
17.
HylandK. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
18.
HylandK.GuindaC. S. (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
19.
IvaničR. (1998). Writing and identity. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
20.
JaffeA. (Ed.). (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
JohnstoneB. (2009). Stance, style, and the linguistic individual. In JaffeA. (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 29-52). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22.
MartinJ. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In HunstonS.ThompsonG. (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
23.
MartinJ. R.RoseD. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London, UK: Continuum.
24.
MartinJ. R.WhiteP. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
25.
MatsudaP. K. (2011, March). Conceptions of voice in writing assessment rubrics. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Chicago, IL.
26.
McCloskeyD. N. (1998). The rhetoric of economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. (Original work published 1985)
27.
NorthS. (2005). Disciplinary variation in the use of Theme in undergraduate essays. Applied Linguistics, 26, 431-452.
28.
NystrandM. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. New York, NY: Academic Press.
29.
Perales-EscuderoM. D. (2005). Diachronic linguistic variation in academic papers and its relationship to the enculturation process of a novice NNS graduate student into the academia: A developmental case study (Unpublished master’s thesis). Iowa State University, Ames.
30.
SolidayM. (2004). Reading student writing with Anthropologists: Stance and judgment in college writing. College Composition and Communication, 56(1), 72-93.
31.
SolidayM. (2011). Everyday genres: Writing assignments across the disciplines. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
32.
SwainE. (2007). Constructive an effective “voice” in academic discussion writing. In McCabeA.O’DonnellA. M.WhittakerR. (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp. 166-184). New York, NY: Continuum.
33.
SwalesJ. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
TangR. (2009). A dialogic account of authority in academic writing. In CharlesM.PecorariD.HunstonS. (Eds.), Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse (pp. 170-190). New York, NY: Continuum.
35.
TardyC. (2009). Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
36.
ThaissC.ZawackiT. M. (2006). Engaged writers, dynamic disciplines: Research on the academic writing life. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
37.
ThompsonG.ZhouJ. (2000). Evaluation and organization in texts: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. In HunstonS.ThompsonG. (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 121-141). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38.
ThompsonP. (2012). Achieving a voice of authority in PhD theses. In HylandK.GuindaC. S. (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 119-133). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
WaldoM. (2004). Demythologizing language difference in the academy: Establishing discipline-based writing programs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
WhiteP. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259-284.
41.
WuS. M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 254-271.
