Abstract
The ability to evaluate one’s material and establish a connection with readers is now acknowledged to be a key feature of successful academic writing (Hyland, 2004; Swales, 2004). As other authors in this collection have noted, academic argument involves presenting a position on things that matter to a discipline and this expression of a point of view has to be accomplished in a context of certain community and genre conventions. These conventions simultaneously place constraints on individual expression and offer opportunities to carve out a personal position, and this is the domain of stance and voice (Atkinson, 2001; Biber, 2006). Both these terms address interpersonal aspects of language, concerned with how writers and speakers represent themselves and their ideas to particular interlocutors. Despite their importance, they are extremely complex concepts, variously defined and not always fully grasped by student writers, especially by those working in a foreign language. Following other analysts, I understand stance to refer to a writer’s rhetorically expressed attitude to the propositions in a text and voice as his or her attitude to a given community.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Atkinson, D. (2001) ‘Reflections and refractions in the JSLW special issue on voice’, Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 107–24.
Biber, D. (2006) University language (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Blommaert, J. (2005) Discourse (Cambridge: CUP).
Hunston, S. and G. Thompson (eds) (2000) Evaluation in text (Oxford: OUP).
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989) ‘Context of situation’ in Halliday, M. and R. Hasan (eds) Language, context, and text: aspects of language in a socialsemiotic perspective (Oxford: OUP), pp. 3–14.
Hyland, K. (1998) Hedging in scientific research articles (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Hyland, K. (2002a) ‘Directives: power and engagement in academic writing’, Applied Linguistics, 23 (2), 215–39.
Hyland, K. (2002b) ‘What do they mean? Questions in academic writing’, TEXT, 22 (4), 529–57.
Hyland, K. (2004) Disciplinary discourses (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan).
Hyland, K. (2005) ‘Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse’, Discourse Studies, 7 (2), 173–91.
Hyland, K. (2012) Disciplinary identities (Cambridge: CUP).
Hyland, K. and J. Milton (1997) ‘Qualification and certainty in Ll and L2 students’ writing’, Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 (2), 183–205.
Ivanič, R. (1998) Writing and identity: the discoursal construction of identity in academic writing (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Lillis, T. (2001) Student writing: access, regulation, desire (London: Routledge).
Martin, J. and P. R. R. White (2005) The language of evaluation: appraisal in English (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
Scollon, R. and S. Scollon (2001) Intercultural communication, 2nd edn (Oxford: Blackwell).
Swales, J. (2004) Research genres (Cambridge: CUP).
Thompson, G. (2001) ‘Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader’, Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 58–78.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2012 Ken Hyland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hyland, K. (2012). Undergraduate Understandings: Stance and Voice in Final Year Reports. In: Hyland, K., Guinda, C.S. (eds) Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-33788-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-03082-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)