Applied Linguistics
Saman Jamshidi; Saeed Rezaei; Mohammad Hassanzadeh; Mahmood Dehqan
Abstract
From when the black box of authorial identity has been unpacked, the paucity of authorial identity model on the basis of a comprehensive theoretical framework addressed the need to establish a robust one (Cheung, Stupple, & Elander, 2015). The current study was comprised of three main phases including ...
Read More
From when the black box of authorial identity has been unpacked, the paucity of authorial identity model on the basis of a comprehensive theoretical framework addressed the need to establish a robust one (Cheung, Stupple, & Elander, 2015). The current study was comprised of three main phases including hypothesizing a model of authorial identity, developing and validating a questionnaire based on the model and finally testing the model based on the questionnaire data. The participants, including M.A. and PhD students, were 30 for initial piloting, 60 for reliability estimation, 140 for exploratory factor analysis, and 175 for confirmatory factor analysis. At first, drawing on Ivanič’s (1998) model of writer identity and Prior’s (2001) ways of classifying voice, reviewing the related literature, and consulting with a cadre of experts, a model of authorial identity was proposed. Secondly, a questionnaire was developed and validated based on the hypothesized model. The reliability of the questionnaire, estimated through Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.73. Following that, exploratory factor analysis identified four components, namely authorial voice and identity, authorial persona, authorial background, and authorial style. Ultimately, SEM was run using AMOS in the confirmatory factor analysis phase to test the model. The results of this multi-phase research are presented and discussed for underlining the key role of authorial identity in academic writing for both novice and professional academicians.
Esmat Babaii; Mahmood Reza Atai; Vali Mohammadi
Abstract
Research in academic writing has revealed a strong tendency on the part of writers to interactively communicate their scientific findings with their readers. In doing so, the writers should take a position while arguing their propositions. This interaction as proposed by Hyland (2005b) takes places having ...
Read More
Research in academic writing has revealed a strong tendency on the part of writers to interactively communicate their scientific findings with their readers. In doing so, the writers should take a position while arguing their propositions. This interaction as proposed by Hyland (2005b) takes places having two sides of stance and engagement. This study targeted the stance component of writer-reader interaction by integrating Hyland’s (2005b) and Hyland and Tse’s (2005a) frameworks to survey lexical and grammatical stance markers in the major subsections of English research articles in anthropology, education, horticulture, and zoology. The corpus included 240 English research articles published during two periods, namely, 1990 and 2010; 60 from each field, 30 articles from 1990 and 30 from 2010 yielding a total number of 1,270,021words. The findings suggested that stancetaking is a common feature of academic writing in the sampled disciplines regardless of the nature of the discipline. Also, hedges ranked first on the list of frequency count. Furthermore, there was a decreasing pattern in the use of stance markers highlighting a convergence among the scholars of the fields with respect to the totality of the facts established day by day. Then, some implications are drawn with plausible applicability in academic writing and EAP syllabus design.