臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

學術寫作不僅呈現研究內容的訊息及論點，也涉及作者對於所引述研究的立場。所謂作者立場在本文所指的是作者運用詞彙或句法對訊息所表達的形式、態度、感受、評價、或承諾。過去已有文獻討論研究者在學術論文中如何建立自己的立場。然而，有關讀者如何解讀作者立場的相關研究甚少。本研究探討英文為外語之讀者，如何掌握論文作者對其所引述研究之立場。本研究透過閱讀者以學術文章中的立場標記物為線索，探究其對作者所引述研究之立場覺察。因此，研究問題有三：(1) 以英文為外語的學術閱讀者，能否覺察作者所引述之研究立場，為理解學術論文時，所需留意的線索﹖(2) 這些閱讀者在某些情況下，能否覺察到作者立場﹖(3) 以英文為外語之讀者，運用哪些脈絡線索來辨識讀者立場﹖十位來自相近學術領域的研究生，參與包含閱讀任務、立場辨識測驗、與半結構式訪談的三階段實驗。三項任務的實驗結果彼此相關並能互相解釋。互相參照的結果產生三項主要發現；第一，根據閱讀任務的統計分析結果及受試者的訪談發現，兩組略為不同的任務說明並未造成在立場標記物的辨識表現上顯著的不同。學術閱讀者覺察作者立場的能力可能受到對作者立場的重視程度影響，而非閱讀任務的任務說明。第二，學術閱讀者或許覺察到了作者立場的存在，然而卻未必視其為值得注意的特點。第三，立場標記物作為脈絡線索，提升了學術閱讀者對於作者對所引述研究的立場的覺察。
本論文的發現已經闡明了對作者立場的覺察的重要性。希望以此提供教學者在教學上的啟發，提升研究生對於作者對所引述文章的立場的覺察，並激發未來研究對於從學術閱讀者角度來探索作者立場的興趣。

Academic writing presents not only informational and propositional content but also indications of the writer’s stance toward this content. Here writer’s stance means the lexical and grammatical expression of the writer’s attitude, feelings, judgments, or commitment concerning a message (Biber & Finegan, 1989). The ways that academic writers construct their stance in journal articles have been discussed in numerous studies; however, attention to how academic readers detect writer’s stance has been rare. This thesis is an investigation of L2 academic reader’s detection of the writer’s stance toward cited research. It aims to investigate readers’ awareness of writer’s stance toward cited research and stance markers that readers employ as clues to detect writer’s stance. Thus, three research questions are addressed: (1) To what extent are L2 academic readers, specifically graduate students, aware that the writer’s stance toward reported research is a feature of research writing worth their notice as readers? (2) To what extent are these readers able to detect the writer’s stance in specific cases? and (3) What contextual clues do L2 readers employ to recognize writer’s stance? A total of ten EFL graduate students with similar academic backgrounds participated in this study. Three instruments, including a reading task, a stance identification task, and a semi-structured interview, were implemented. The results of the three instruments are relevant to one another and helped to illuminate each other. With cross-referencing the results, three major findings are yielded. First, it was found from statistical analysis of first task and the participants’ interview responses that different instructions for the two groups did not result in significantly different performances on stance marker identification. The ability to detect writer’s stance may be affected by the extent of the importance that readers place on it rather than on instructions given for the experimental task. Second, academic readers may be aware that writer’s stance exists yet still not necessarily regard it as an important feature worth notice. Third, stance markers as contextual clues enhance academic readers’ detection of writer’s stance toward cited research.
The findings of the thesis have shed light on the important role of writer’s stance detection. It is hoped to offer pedagogical implications for EFL instructors to enhance graduate students’ awareness of writer’s stance toward cited research in academic reading and arouse future research’s interest in exploring writer’s stance from readers’ perspectives.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
1 1 Background of the Study 1
1 2 Motivation of the Study 5
1 3 Purpose of the Study 8
1 4 Research Questions 10
1 5 Scope and Organization of the Study 10

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 13
2 1 The Concept of Stance 13
2 2 Frameworks of Stance 16
2 2 1 Biber’s Framework 17
2 2 2 Hyland’s Framework 21
2 3 Stance in Citation 23
2 3 1 Integral and Non-integral 24
2 3 2 Reporting Verbs 27
2 4 Linguistic Features as Stance Markers 32
2 4 1 Adverbials 33
2 4 2 Complement Clause 34
2 4 3 Modals and Semi-modals 36
2 4 4 Lexical Bundles 38
2 5 Summary of Stance Markers for Citing Research 40
2 5 Summary of Chapter Two 41

CHAPTER THREE: METHODLOGY 43
3 1 Overview of Methods 43
3 2 Pilot Study 44
3 2 1 The First Pilot Study 44
3 2 2 The Second Pilot Study 48
3 3 Participants and Materials of the Formal Experiment 52
3 3 1 Participants 52
3 3 2 Materials 54
3 4 Procedures 55
3 4 1 Reading Task 56
3 4 2 Stance Identification Task 58
3 4 3 Semi-structured Interview 59
3 4 4 Verbal Protocol 59
3 5 Data Collection and Analysis 60
3 5 1 Data Collection 60
3 5 2 Data Analysis 61

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 63
4 1 Tasks Results and Discussion 64
4 1 1 Results 64
First Research Question and Results of the First Task 64
Second Research Question and Results of the Second Task 72
Results of Follow-up Analysis 75
4 1 2 Discussion 78
Discussion of the First Task 79
Discussion of the Second Task 80
Discussion of Follow-up Analysis 81
4 2 Interview Findings and Discussion 82
4 2 1 Interview Findings 88
4 2 2 General Discussion on Integrated Findings from Task 1, Task 2, and the Interview 99
4 3 The Contextual Clues for Detecting Writer’s Stance in the Target Article 106

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 115
5 1 Major Findings in the Study 115
5 2 Pedagogical Implications 117
5 3 Limitations of the Study 119
5 4 Suggestions for Future Research 121

REFERENCES 123
APPENDICES 130
Appendix A: Reading Task of the First Pilot Study 131
The Stance Judgment Group 131
The Information Gathering Group 137
Appendix B: Semi-structured Interview of the First Pilot Study 138
The Stance Judgment Group 138
The Information Gathering Group 139
Appendix C: Reading Task of the Second Pilot Study 140
The Stance Judgment Group 140
The Information Gathering Group 141
Appendix D: Semi-structured Interview of the Second Pilot Study142
The Stance Judgment Group 142
The Information Gathering Group 143
Appendix E: Reading Task of the Formal Experiment 144
The Stance Judgment Group 144
The Information Gathering Group 148
Appendix F: Informed Consent Form 149
Appendix G: Stance Identification Task 151
Appendix H: Semi-structured Interview of the Formal Experiment 152
The Stance Judgment Group 152
The Information Gathering Group 154
Appendix I: Sample Interview Transcript (Participant SJ1) 156
Appendix J: Transcript of the responses of the semi-structured interview 158

Biber, D. (2006a). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: Benjamin.
Biber, D. (2006b). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97–116.
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263–286.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at ...: lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2002). Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11, 1–34.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9, 93–124.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Bloch, J. (2010). A concordance-based study of the use of reporting verbs as rhetorical devices in academic papers. Journal of Writing Research, 2, 219-244.
Bruce, B. C. (1980). Plans and social actions. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension (pp. 367-384). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carr, N. (2006). The Factor Structure of Test Task Characteristics and Examinee Performance. Language Testing, 23, 269-289.
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. L. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261-272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Charles, M. (2003). “This mystery…”: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 313-326.
Charles, M. (2006a). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 310-331.
Charles, M. (2006b). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: a cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27, 492-518.
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. (pp. 56–73). New York: Oxford University Press.
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2004).The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 20,56-71.
Cortes, V. (2013). The purpose of this study is to: connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 33-43.
Di Pietro, R. (1987). Strategic interaction: Learning Language through scenarios. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Educational Testing Service. (2009). The Official Guide to the TOEFL® Test. Third edition. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Educational Testing Service. (2012). The Official Guide to the GRE® revised General Test. Second edition. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1984), Protocol Analysis: Verbal reports as data, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1996). Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.
Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1992). The prediction of GRE reading comprehension item difficulty for expository prose passages for each of three item types: main ideas, inferences, and explicit statements (ETS Research Report 91-59). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1993). The prediction of TOEFL reading item difficulty: implications for construct validity. Language Testing, 10, 133–70.
Friginal, E. (2009). Language of outsourced call centers: A corpus-based study of cross-cultural interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gorin, J. (2005). Manipulating processing difficulty of reading comprehension questions: The feasibility of verbal item generation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42, 351–373.
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In K. Hyland & C.Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 15-33). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward
Arnold.
Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Vladimirou, D. (2010). Who’s citing whose writings? A corpus based study of citations as interpersonal resource in English medium national and English medium international journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 102–115.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809.
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433–454.
Hyland, K. (1999a). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds), Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices (pp. 99-121). London, UK: Longman.
Hyland, K. (1999b). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 341-367.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18, 549-574.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115–130). London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2002b). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112.
Hyland, K. (2002c). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23, 215-239.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16, 363-377.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–192.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4–21.
Hyland, K., &Tse, P. (2005a). Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12, 39-63.
Hyland, K., &Tse, P. (2005b). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123-139.
Hwang, K., & Dizney, H. F. (1970). Predictive validity of the TOEFL for Chinese graduate students at an American university, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 475-477.
Jaaskelainen, R. (2001). Think-aloud protocols. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routeledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 269–273). London: Routeledge.
Johnson, K.E., Jordan, S. R., & Poehner, M.E. (2005). The TOEFL trump card: An investigation of test impact in an ESL classroom. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal, 2, 71-94.
Keck, C., & Biber, D. (2004). Modal use in spoken and written university registers: Acorpus-based study. In R. Facchinetti, & F. Palmer (Eds.), English Modality in
Perspective: Genre Analysis and Contrastive Studies (pp. 3-25). Frankfurt: Peter Lang PubInc.
Martin, J. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp. 142-175). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Mauranen, A. (2003). A good question. Expressing evaluation in academic speeches: strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In R. Markkanen, & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 21-41). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 161-173.
Ng, J.N.K., (2007). Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL): Good Indicator for Student Success at Community Colleges? (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Oregon State University.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text, 9, 7–25.
Parkinson, J. (2013). Adopting academic values: Student use of that-complement clauses in academic writing. System, 41, 428-442.
Peirce, B. (1992). Demystifying the TOEFL reading test. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 665–689.
Pickard, V. (1995). Citing previous writers: what can we say instead of ‘say’? Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 89–102.
Rayner, K. (1978). Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 618-660.
Rupp, A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23, 441–474.
Shaw, P. (1992). Reasons for the correlation of voice, tense, and sentence function in reporting verbs. Applied Linguistics, 13, 302-319.
Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, UK: Aston University Languages Study Unit.
Swales, J. M. (1986). Citation analysis and discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 7, 39-56.
Swales, J. M. (1990).Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004).Academic writing for graduate students: essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Thomas, S., & Hawes, T. P. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 129-148.
Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An Introduction. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12, 365-382.
Thompson, P., & Tribble, C. (2001).Looking at citations: using corpora in English for academic purposes. Language Learning and Technology, 5, 91–105.
Wharton, S. (2012). Epistemological and interpersonal stance in a data description
task: findings from a discipline-specific learner corpus. English for Specific
Purposes, 31, 261-270.