The present study offers an alternative methodological approach to the growing body of literature on stance—the linguistic arrangements that construe a writer’s perspective on knowledge. A number of recent studies have concluded that control over linguistic stance tends to develop through college and that preferred markers of stance differ by discipline. We know relatively little, however, about how those patterns differ within and between individuals. This study uses a person-centered method, multilevel latent profile analysis, to determine how secondary students in the United States use typical markers of stance in their writing, and to what extent that use varies across texts. The analysis focuses on 338 informal responses produced by 27 rising high school seniors during a college access program. Findings point to wide variation in how students at this level use linguistic markers in their writing, and to the role of the larger instructional context in shaping stance in the informal response genre.
AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2008). Multilevel mixture models. In HancockG. R.SamuelsenK. M. (Eds.), Advances in latent variable mixture models (pp. 27–51). Information Age Publishing Inc.
3.
AullL. (2015). First-year university writing: A corpus-based study with implications for pedagogy. Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
AullL. (2017). Corpus analysis of argumentative versus explanatory discourse in writing task genres. Journal of Writing Analytics, 1(1), 1–47.
5.
AullL. (2019). Linguistic markers of stance and genre in upper-level student writing. Written Communication, 36(2), 267–295.
6.
AullL. L. (2020). How students write: A linguistic analysis. Modern Language Association of America.
7.
AullL. L.BandarageD.MillerM. R. (2017). Generality in student and expert epistemic stance: A corpus analysis of first-year, upper-level, and published academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 26, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.01.005
8.
AullL. L.LancasterZ. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055
9.
BartholomaeD. (1983). Writing assignments: Where writing begins. In StockP. L. (Ed.), Fforum: Essays on theory and practice in the teaching of writing (pp. 300–312). Boynton Cook.
10.
BartonE. L. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55(7), 745. https://doi.org/10.2307/378428
11.
BawarshiA. (2003). Genre and the invention of the writer: Reconsidering the place of invention in composition. Utah State University Press.
12.
BeckS. W. (2006). Subjectivity and intersubjectivity in the teaching and learning of writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 413–460.
13.
BeckS. W.JefferyJ. V. (2007). Genres of high-stakes writing assessments and the construct of writing competence. Assessing Writing, 12(1), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2007.05.001
14.
BermanR.RagnarsdóttirH.StrömqvistS. (2002). Discourse stance: Written and spoken language. Written Language & Literacy, 5(2), 255–289.
15.
BiberD. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers (Vol. 23). John Benjamins Publishing.
16.
BiberD.DouglasB.ConradS.ReppenR. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.
17.
BlackK. E. (2020). Apprenticeship in textual conversation: A mixed methods study of student writing in a college access seminar [Doctoral dissertation, New York University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
18.
BlieseP. D.MaltarichM. A.HendricksJ. L. (2017). Back to basics with mixed-effects models: Nine take-away points. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9491-z
19.
BrownD. W.AullL. (2017). Elaborated specificity versus emphatic generality: A corpus-based comparison of higher- and lower-scoring Advanced Placement exams in English. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(4), 394–417.
20.
CharlesM. (2009). Stance, interaction and the rhetorical patterns of restrictive adverbs: Discourse roles of only, just, simply and merely. In CharlesM.HunstonS.PecorariD. (Eds.), Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse (pp. 152–169). Continuum International Publishing Group.
21.
CremeP. (2008). A Space for Academic Play: Student learning journals as transitional writing. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 7(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022207084882
22.
CrossleyS. A.WestonJ. L.McLain SullivanS. T.McNamaraD. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28(3), 282–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088311410188
23.
CrosthwaiteP.JiangK. (2017). Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A longitudinal learner corpus study. System, 69, 92–107.
24.
DobbsC. L. (2014). Signaling organization and stance: Academic language use in middle grade persuasive writing. Reading and Writing, 27(8), 1327–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9489-5
25.
ElbowP. (1997). High stakes and low stakes in assigning and responding to writing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1997(69), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.6901
26.
Fagginger AuerM. F.HickendorffM.Van PuttenC. M.BéguinA. A.HeiserW. J. (2016). Multilevel latent class analysis for large-scale educational assessment data: Exploring the relation between the curriculum and students’ mathematical strategies. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(2), 144–159.
27.
GereA. R.AullL.PeralesM. D.EscuderoZ. L.Vander LeiE. (2013). Local assessment: Using genre analysis to validate directed self-placement. College Composition and Communication, 64(4), 605–633.
28.
GriesS. T. (2015a). Some current quantitative problems in corpus linguistics and a sketch of some solutions. Language and Linguistics, 16(1), 93–117.
29.
GriesS. (2015b). The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multilevel (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10(1), 95–125.
30.
HardyJ. A.FriginalE. (2016). Genre variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.03.002
31.
HardyJ. A.RömerU. (2013). Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 8(2), 183–207. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2013.0040
32.
HenryK. L.MuthénB. (2010). Multilevel latent class analysis: An application of adolescent smoking typologies with individual and contextual predictors. Structural Equation Modeling : A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(2), 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511003659342
33.
HylandK. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Publishing.
34.
HylandK. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 266–285.
HylandK.MiltonJ. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183–205.
37.
HylandK.GuindaC. S. (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. In GuindaC. S.HylandK. (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 1–11). Palgrave Macmillan.
38.
KiblerA. K.HardigreeC. (2017). Using evidence in L2 argumentative writing: A longitudinal case study across high school and university. Language Learning, 67(1), 75–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12198
39.
LancasterZ. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines. Written Communication, 31(1), 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313515170
40.
LancasterZ. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.006
41.
LeeH.WarschauerM.LeeJ. H. (2019). The effects of corpus use on second language vocabulary learning: A multilevel meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 40(5), 721–753.
42.
LeeJ. J.DeakinL. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21–34.
43.
LukočienėO.VermuntJ. K. (2009). Determining the number of components in mixture models for hierarchical data. In FinkA.LausenB.SeidelW.UltschA. (Eds.), Advances in data analysis, data handling and business intelligence (pp. 241–249). Springer.
44.
MäkikangasA.TolvanenA.AunolaK.FeldtT.MaunoS.KinnunenU. (2018). Multilevel latent profile analysis with covariates: Identifying job characteristics profiles in hierarchical data as an example. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 931–954.
45.
MelzerD. (2014). Assignments across the curriculum: A national study of college writing. University Press of Colorado.
46.
MorinA. J.MarshH. W. (2015). Disentangling shape from level effects in person-centered analyses: An illustration based on university teachers’ multidimensional profiles of effectiveness. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(1), 39–59.
47.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2005). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.
48.
NesiH.GardnerS. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press.
49.
NesiH.GardnerS. (2018). The BAWE corpus and genre families classification of assessed student writing. Assessing Writing, 28, 51–55.
50.
NowacekR. S. (2011). Agents of integration: Understanding transfer as a rhetorical act. Southern Illinois University Press.
51.
PeelD.McLachlanG. J. (2000). Robust mixture modelling using the t distribution. Statistics and Computing, 10, 339–348.
52.
RömerU.O’DonnellM. B. (2011). From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): The design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 6(2), 159–177.
53.
RotheryJ.StenglinM. (2000). Interpreting literature: The role of appraisal. In UnsworthL. (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistic perspectives (pp. 222–244). Cassell.
54.
SnowC. E.UccelliP. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In OlsonD. R.TorranceN. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609664.008
55.
SolidayM. (2011). Everyday genres: Writing assignments across the disciplines. Southern Illinois University Press.
56.
SpurkD.HirschiA.WangM.ValeroD.KauffeldS. (2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 1–21.
57.
UccelliP.DobbsC. L.ScottJ. (2013). Persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36–62.
58.
Van EckK.JohnsonS. R.BettencourtA.JohnsonS. L. (2017). How school climate relates to chronic absence: A multi-level latent profile analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 61, 89–102.
59.
VermuntJ. K. (2008). Latent class and finite mixture models for multilevel data sets. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 17(1), 33–51.
60.
YoonH.RömerU. (2020). Quantifying disciplinary voices: An automated approach to interactional metadiscourse in successful student writing. Written Communication, 37(2), 208–244.
