See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263845408

Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in

Economics: Implications for Faculty Development in WAC/WID Programs

Article in Across the Disciplines · December 2011

DOI: 10.37514/ATD-J.2011.8.4.22

CITATIONS READS

31 669

1 author:

Zak Lancaster
Wake Forest University
15 PUBLICATIONS 560 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Zak Lancaster on 07 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

About ATD Submissions Advanced Search

ATD Home Special Issues Archives Reviews Board Clearinghouse My Page

Across the Disciplines: A Journal of Language, Learning, and Academic Writing

Home Journals Across the Disciplines Volume 8 Special Issue: WAC and Second
Language Writing Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students'
Argumentative Writing in Economics

WAC and Second Language Writing: Cross-field Research, Theory, and Program Development

Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students'

Argumentative Writing in Economics:
Implications for Faculty Development in
WAC/WID Programs[1]
Zak Lancaster, University of Michigan

Abstract: This article offers a linguistic analysis of interpersonal stancetaking in four argumentative
term papers written in an upper-level undergraduate course in economics. Two of the papers were
written by English L2 writers who experienced particular difficulty with the assignment and two by
English L1 writers who received the highest grades among the forty students in the course. My
analysis is guided by the question of how recurring patterns of interpersonal meanings operate to
construct an argumentative stance that indexes, or not, the specific goals and expectations for
writing in the course. Considered alongside interviews with the professor and the graduate student
instructor (GSI) who graded and commented on the papers, my analysis draws on the Engagement
framework from systemic functional linguistics (Martin & White, 2005), which has proven useful in
recent years for understanding the ways both professional and student writers (Chang &
Schleppegrell, 2011; Derewianka, 2009; Wu, 2007) use language to construct an authorial stance
within specific disciplinary contexts. Following my analysis, I consider implications of this line of
research for working with English L2 writers in upper-level courses in the disciplines.

Introduction
In recent years, the concept of stance has drawn increased attention from writing researchers and
linguists who are interested in better understanding how interpersonal meanings[2] are managed in
discourse (see, e.g., Barton, 1993; Biber, 2006; Engelbretson, 2007; Hunston & Thompson, 2001;
Hyland, 2005; Jaffe, 2009; Martin & White, 2005; Soliday, 2011). In academic writing, as with other

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 1 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

written discourses, stancetaking includes moves to mark one's level of commitment to assertions,
comment on the significance of evidence, build solidarity with imagined readers, clarify anticipated
misunderstandings, and other interactional strategies. As Ken Hyland's research shows (e.g., Hyland,
2005), these subtle interpersonal moves populate even the most formal and "objective" of disciplinary
discourses, and they are guided by writers' (usually tacit) awareness of the specific interpersonal
dynamics that are at play in the discoursal context, i.e., dynamics between writers, readers, and other
discourse participants.

Stance is a useful concept for WAC/WID professionals because it helps bring into focus hard-to-
pinpoint stylistic difficulties that many students encounter when writing in the disciplines. These
difficulties have to do not only with use of personal pronouns ("Can we say 'I'"?), but also trickier
questions about constructing an appropriate authorial presence in the text through such means as
tuning up or down one's commitment to assertions, acknowledging alternative perspectives,
responding to anticipated counterarguments, endorsing or distancing oneself from others' views, and
so on. More generally, these language-related difficulties arise from the need in academic writing to
evaluate propositions and give reasoned judgments without being "judgmental," or, as Mary Soliday
(2011) puts it, to "take your own position" while also avoiding "bias" (p.39-40). An added difficulty is
that experts' own decisions about these matters tend to be so ingrained in disciplinary ways of
knowing and doing that they are often regarded as self-evident and therefore not discussed explicitly
in instructional contexts (Hyland, 2007). The main argument I put forth in this paper, then, is that
conscious awareness of the ways valued interpersonal meanings are built up in student coursework
genres can help instructors attend to specific discursive goals that pose challenges for their students.

This focus on stancetaking, I'd further like to suggest, may be most important in the context of
working with second language (L2) writers as they learn to navigate the challenges of writing in the
disciplines. Many instructors find it difficult to pinpoint sources of awkwardness in student writing, as
discussed in Barton (2004), and this difficulty can be exacerbated when working with L2 writers,
especially when there are subtle infelicities in stancetaking, as found in Hyland & Milton (1997), Feak
(2008), and Schleppegrell (2004). For student writers, learning to notice and resolve these infelicities
is made difficult when instructors respond to them in an overly general way as "grammar problems."
Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that L2 writers are often advised to "get help with your
English," even when there are no observable "errors" to be found in their texts, because their
stancetaking strategies do not correspond to their instructors' taken-for-granted assumptions about
appropriate forms of disciplinary stance (Feak, 2008).

In addition to being perceived as "grammar" problems, subtle infelicities in stancetaking can also
contribute to the impression that the student writer has not engaged in an expected level of critical
reasoning, in-depth thinking, or engagement with course material. Lack of facility in taking a nuanced
stance toward evidence used to support a claim, for example, can be read by instructors as insufficient
engagement with the disciplinary discourse or even learning of course material (Soliday, 2011, p. 37).
Close analyses of stancetaking patterns are therefore important for developing a robust metalanguage
for talking explicitly and in detail about how language is used to construct valued interpersonal
meanings in disciplinary genres. Such a metalanguage can be useful for facilitating discussions with
instructors across the disciplines about ways to address the language needs of L2 writers in ways that
move significantly beyond prescriptively-oriented views of grammatical accuracy.

Taking a step in this direction, in this paper I closely analyze four term papers that were written in the
context of an upper level undergraduate course in economics at a large university. Two of the papers
were written by L2 writers who experienced particular difficulty with the argumentative writing
assignment and two by L1 writers who received the highest grades among the 40 students in the
course. Drawing on detailed text analysis of the papers as well as interviews with the professor and

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 2 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

graduate student instructor (GSI), my analysis takes into account the purposes of the assignment (as
articulated by the professor), repeated stance patterns operating in the four papers, and the GSI's
comments about each of the four papers. This analysis is guided by the question of how recurring
patterns of interpersonal meanings in the four papers operate to construct an argumentative stance
that indexes, or not, the specific goals and expectations for writing in the course. Following my
analysis, I consider implications of this line of research for working with English L2 writers in upper-
level courses in the disciplines.

Theoretical and Analytical Orientation

Linguistic resources of stance include phrase and clause level wordings that operate to construct an
authorial presence in the text and to negotiate meanings with the anticipated reader and other
participants in the discourse. The framework guiding my analysis is Appraisal theory from systemic
functional linguistics, or SFL. Appraisal, which is developed most fully by James R. Martin and Peter R.
R. White (2005)[3] builds on Michael A.K. Halliday's (1994) grammar of mood and modality. The
framework makes use of three interrelated sub-systems to track choices in interpersonal stancetaking:
Attitude explores how feelings, judgments of people, and evaluations of things are built up in texts;
Graduation explores how feelings and evaluations are subtly adjusted in terms of force and focus; and
Engagement explores how "values are sourced and readers aligned" (Martin & Rose, 2007, p. 16)
through such moves as conceding, countering, endorsing, and entertaining other voices and
perspectives.

Past Appraisal analyses of student argumentative writing (Coffin, 2002; Derewianka, 2009; Swain,
2009; Wu, 2007) show that the system of Engagement is especially useful for homing in on salient
differences between effective and less effective argumentative writing. This is because it offers means
for tracking in detail the ways writers use language to position their assertions vis-à-vis their
anticipated readers. In so doing, as Martin & White (2005) explain, the framework "provides the
means to characterize a speaker/writer's interpersonal style and their rhetorical strategies according to
what sort of heteroglossic backdrop of other voices and alternative viewpoints they construct for their
text and according to the way in which they engage with that backdrop" (p. 93).

The SFL Engagement Framework: Dialogical Contraction

and Expansion
The Engagement framework models the choices that we as speakers/writers make for raising and
lowering our commitment to propositions and thus for contracting and expanding dialogic space for
negotiating with alternative perspectives and voices. At the most general level in the framework, we
choose either "monoglossic" or "heteroglossic" expressions of the propositions we are putting forth.
The statement Competition is healthy for the economy can be considered monoglossic because it puts
forth just one voice, that belonging to the author; it does not acknowledge or invoke any alternative
voices. In contrast, the statement It is widely believed that competition is healthy for the economy is
heteroglossic, or dialogically engaged, because it shifts responsibility for the proposition to some
unnamed external source. This shift allows the authorial voice to remain uncommitted to the
proposition and, as a consequence, to open up dialogic space for negotiation with alternative positions.
In contrast to this, monoglossic, or "bare," assertions often assume that the reader is already aligned
with the perspective endorsed by the authorial voice and thus alternative positions need not be
entertained or negotiated with: the proposition is understood to be unproblematic or uncontested
(White, 2008; Martin & White, 2005).

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 3 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

At the next level of generality in the Engagement framework (see Figure 1), we choose from
heteroglossic options that are more or less dialogically expansive (e.g., It seems to me that
competition is good) or dialogically contractive (e.g., It is obviously true that competition is good).
Expansive wordings, which include attributions (e.g., according to …, it is believed that … ), lower our
commitment to the proposition being put forth and thus expand space for the inclusion of alternative
perspectives. Contractive wordings, in contrast, boost our commitment to the proposition; in so doing,
they contract space for the inclusion of alternative perspectives.

An important point that the Engagement framework helps to reveal is that even strongly worded
assertions like It is certain that the interview was successful and Clearly, the reasoning of the courts is
flawed are dialogically engaged because they subtly bring into play alternative points of view. The use
of certainty markers foregrounds the high level of commitment from the speaker and, as Halliday has
famously remarked about such high force expressions, "we only say we are certain when we are not"
(Halliday, 1994, p. 362). Halliday's point is that bare assertions—e.g., The interview was successful
and The reasoning of the courts is flawed—paradoxically carry more certainty than forms especially
marked for certainty, which can come off as somehow less than absolute. Highly committed forms,
that is, may work to mask "an element of doubt" (Halliday, 1994, p. 363).

Figure 1: The Engagement Framework

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 4 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

Adapted from Martin & White (2005, p. 134).

With such complex interpersonal meanings brought into play through variations in modalizations, it
becomes clearer how other types of wordings such as it may be that, possibly, seems, perhaps, and in
my view operate not just to lower the author's commitment to the proposition being put forth but also
to increase the dialogic diversity afforded by the text. The various options for expanding and
contracting dialogical space are represented in Figure 1.[4]

While the various options represented in this figure are subtle, the point of Engagement analysis is to
unearth patterns of choices that recur in texts and that work to create a particular "interpersonal style"
(Martin & White, 2005). Overuse of contractive options in some situations can create an
uncompromising stance that runs the risk of alienating readers who hold alternative perspectives.
Overuse of expansive options, in contrast, can create an overly noncommittal stance that may result in
missed opportunities to maneuver readers to accept the position(s) forwarded by the authorial voice.
In the case of academic argumentation specifically, such a noncommittal stance may result in missed
opportunities to persuade the reader to accept the significance of certain types of evidence (Soliday,
2011). These possibilities are suggested in previous investigations of stance in student academic

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 5 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

writing.

Previous Investigations of Interpersonal Stance in

Student Academic Writing
Previous investigations of stance have found that argumentative texts written by more advanced
writers in certain disciplinary contexts tend to be more dialogically open or interpersonally engaged
than those written by less advanced writers. Beverly Derewianka (2009), for example, found that,
through strategic use of attributions, concessions, and counters, more advanced student writers
constructed stances that were "explicitly open to other voices and possibilities" (p. 162). Corroborating
this finding, other research has revealed differential patterns in stancetaking between higher and lower
graded papers (e.g., Coffin, 2002; Swain, 2009; Wu, 2007). Less successful papers may develop a
stance of unwarranted assertiveness, as Wu Siew Mei (2007) found in lower-rated essays written by
L2 writers in geography, or they may construct an incoherent evaluative stance, as Elizabeth Swain
(2009) found in her comparative analysis of one successful and one unsuccessful argumentative essay.

Importantly, differences have also been identified in papers written by L1 and L2 writers. Ken Hyland
and John Milton (1997) found that, in comparison to the L1 writers in their study of university
students' writing in Hong Kong, the L2 writers relied on a more limited range of grammatical
resources, including particular modal verbs and the expression I think. This partly resulted in a style of
stancetaking that was less dialogically nuanced, as Wu (2007) found in the lower graded L2 papers in
her corpus. The more contractive style in the papers written by the L2 writers in Hyland and Milton's
(1997) study may have resulted from their more limited repertoire of options for subtly adjusting
levels of certainty and doubt when building claims.

Mary Schleppegrell's (2004) study corroborates Hyland and Milton's (1997) finding. This study
compared L1 and L2 students' writing of lab reports in chemical engineering and found that the L2
writers tended to overuse the modal verbs must and should to construct an authoritative stance. The
L1 writers, in contrast, commanded a wider range of resources for constructing such an authoritative
stance; for example they tended to use more "objective" grammatical markers of certainty like It is
obvious that … and Clearly.[5] While both groups of writers were writing in an assertive, highly
committed manner, as perhaps appropriate for the genre of chemical engineering lab reports, the L2
writers did not exploit the same wealth of resources for constructing an authoritative stance.

In sum, what these studies suggest is that argumentative stances valued in college-level writing
assignments may be characterized, to evoke Wayne Booth (1963), as "rhetorically balanced." The
balance is between, on the one hand, expansive meanings that work to open room for negotiation with
an imagined academic reader who is, as Chris Thaiss and Terry Zawacki (2006) describe, "coolly
rational, reading for information, and intending to formulate a reasoned response" (p.7), and, on the
other hand, contractive meanings that work to pull these readers over to the author's perspective.
Striking such a balance would seem especially valued in genres that call for reasoned argumentation
and critical analyses of others' arguments. Importantly, these studies also suggest that developing
such a balanced rhetorical stance may be especially difficult for L2 writers, many of whom do not
control a wide range of linguistic/discursive resources for striking such a balance.

To continue with this line of investigation, it is important to be clear about how linguistic/rhetorical
patterns in student writing work to influence readers' evaluations in particular disciplinary contexts. In
this study I take a step in this direction by asking how recurring stancetaking patterns work to realize
such discursive goals as "critical reasoning," "in-depth thinking," "sophisticated argumentation," and

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 6 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

other values cited by the professor and GSI of one upper-level undergraduate course in economics.

The Study
This study asks how differential patterns in stancetaking in the L1 and L2 students' term papers may
interrelate with the professor's learning goals and the GSI's evaluations of the papers. Using the SFL
Engagement framework, I closely analyzed four term papers, two written by L1 writers and two by L2
writers, and I draw on interviews with the professor and GSI in order to inform my interpretation of
Engagement patterns. These interviews were conducted as part of a multi-year study that is
investigating the effects of instructional strategies for fostering students' disciplinary thinking and
writing (referred to below as "the Teagle-Spencer study").[6] Below I explain the focus of the course
and the term paper assignment and then my method for selecting the four papers.

The Course and Term Paper Assignment

The focus of the course was economic regulation and antitrust policy. It had 80 students who met
together as a lecture twice a week, along with four associated discussion sections. These sections were
led by two GSIs who, in addition to leading their two appointed sections of 20 students (40 students
total), graded and commented on all the papers in their sections. Between the two GSIs, it is fair to
say that Mark's expertise (Mark is a pseudonym) is more closely aligned with the focus of the course.
At the time of the course, Mark was in his 5th year of a joint Ph.D. program in law and economics and
had worked as an antitrust litigation consultant. In addition, the course was Mark's seventh time to
work as a GSI in an economics course that required extensive writing. For these reasons, the papers I
selected for analysis (explained below) came from Mark's sections.

The term papers, which are approximately 3,000-3,500 words in length, are best characterized as
policy papers based on the economic consequences of legal decisions. The assignment required that
students select and analyze an antitrust case that is "interesting" in terms of its public policy and
economics consequences. It required that students provide:

1. a detailed description of the case they selected (the allegations, the defendants' arguments, the
resulting case, the majority and minority opinions);
2. an explanation of the remedies adopted by the courts and the relevant public policy issues
involved;
3. an analysis of how these remedies affected the market structure, conduct, and performance of
the firms under analysis; and
4. an argument for new or modified remedies in the case, if different from the courts' remedies.

My Engagement analysis focused on the latter two stages in the four students' papers because it was
in these sections that the writers departed from recounting events and arguments and began to
develop their own evaluations and arguments. Stages 3 and 4 combined were approximately 2,000
words in length.

During a pre-term interview conducted through the Teagle-Spencer study, the professor explained the
purpose of the course and the term paper assignment in terms of fostering critical thinking:

What I try to teach and develop in students via critical thinking is to take a situation which is given to them, a real
world situation … and to get them to try to see which of the tools that they have learned are most relevant, which ones
can be used to evaluate and assess the situation and to identify what some of the shortfalls in reasoning might be from
very very smart people who just don't happen to be economists.

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 7 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

In a follow-up interview, Mark confirmed this emphasis on critical thinking when he listed the qualities
of A-graded papers, which are evidence of "independent thinking," "a sound argument," and
"acknowledgment of other arguments." Weaker papers, he explained, often lack "deep insight into
what the case is about" or do not develop a "well-reasoned argument." On this latter point, he
explained, "the really big problem that I see is … many [students] just don't understand how I could
possibly criticize their argument because 'it's obviously true'. There's always a counter argument to
whatever you're saying. Many don't see that."

As suggested by these interview comments, this term paper assignment required a very high level of
critical analysis and argumentation. As Mark helped me to understand during a post-term interview, it
required that students understand complex legal cases; pick out the parts of the case that are most
relevant to an economics analysis; analyze the effects of court decisions through the use of economic
models; evaluate the reasoning of Supreme Court Justices in terms of the economic consequences of
their decisions (and sometimes evaluate competing economic analyses of the chosen cases); and,
finally, propose a new or modified set of remedies based on critical analysis of the courts' remedies.
Clearly, this is a challenging assignment for all students because it requires several types of analysis,
evaluation, and argumentation while at the same time moving back and forth between the discourses
of antitrust law and economic regulation. For many L2 writers, therefore, the assignment must be
more difficult yet because it requires carrying out these discursive moves with (quite likely) a more
limited range of linguistic/discursive resources to draw upon. Therefore, making explicit the range of
discursive resources employed by the more successful writers in the class can help throw light on the
specific language areas with which L2 writers need particular attention.

Selection of Papers
My analysis focuses on four papers. These are, using pseudonyms, David's and Brandon's papers,
which received grades of 99 and 98, and Soohyun's and Mallorie's papers, which received grades of 87
and 82. David and Brandon, who are both L1 writers, received the two highest grades among Mark's
40 students. Soohyun and Mallorie, who are both L2 writers, received grades that fell in the mid-to-
low end of the grade distribution, which ranged from 78 to 99. Mark explained that he graded the
papers first holistically by deciding if they were A-range (90-100), B-range (80-89), or C-range (70-
79), adding that "papers are pretty clearly in one of these three ranges." He then took off individual
points for problems having to do with "analytic rigor," "argumentative logic," or "quality of writing."[7]

To select these four papers, I started by informally reading the papers written by the five L2 writers in
the class. (These were students who, in a pre-term survey, identified English as their second
language.) The general question with which I approached these papers was whether these students
experienced significant problems with their writing or not. I found the answer to this question mixed: I
ended up excluding two of the five papers because they received A-range grades and mostly positive
comments from Mark in terms of writing and analysis. Importantly, these two students noted in the
pre-term survey that they were more comfortable writing in English than in their first language. I then
excluded one other L2 paper because its problems had less to do with analysis and argumentation
than with completion of the assignment.

Two of the L2 writers, Soohyun and Mallorie, completed the assignment with some degree of success
but, according to Mark's written comments, their papers displayed problems with argumentation
and/or analysis of the case. Soohyun's first language is Korean, and she moved to the US to attend
university after having completed her primary and secondary schooling in Korea. Mallorie's first
language is Spanish, and she grew up in Puerto Rico, also having completed her schooling there prior
to college. In the survey, both students responded that they were more comfortable writing in their

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 8 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

first language than in English.

When I brought these two papers to Mark's attention during our interview, he explained that
Soohyun's writing displays "typical second language issues," which he identified as lack of "clarity" and
"grammar" problems. In addition, her writing is "very simple, with short sentences that are very direct
and following the assignment almost too closely." Interestingly, Mark was unaware that Mallorie was a
L2 writer. He explained that he found Mallorie's arguments "hard to follow," which he attributed to her
"poor understanding of the material." He conceded that her writing problems "could be a result of
second language issues" but that she "definitely seems confused about the material and the points she
wants to make." Finally, Mark explained that both Soohyun's and Mallorie's papers, while displaying
"some understanding of the economics involved," are not very "complex" or "sophisticated" in their
argumentation or depth of reasoning. In contrast, Mark confirmed that David's and Brandon's papers
were the top two in his combined sections. Their papers, in addition to being "clearly written" and "well
reasoned," displayed an awareness of "the big picture."[8]

Results and Discussion

My procedure for analyzing these four papers was to code every sentence at the levels of word/phrase
and clause according to the following eight categories.[9] These categories are presented here in order
of increasing dialogical expansiveness.

bare assertion
The mistakes made by the court were many.
disclaim:deny
This argument does not explain the behavior of the share price.
disclaim:counter
While there is no precise formula to figure out this question, common sense may go a long way
in shedding light on the answer.
proclaim:concur
Indeed, it is odd that both the FTC and courts have …
proclaim:pronounce
Clearly, we also know that Herald had the capability to do this.
proclaim:endorse
Waldman shows that the average lease price for …
entertain
For example, let's say a producer sells …
attribute
The argument is that physicians are concerned with making profit.

In order to reduce the effects of idiosyncratic selection or over-interpretation of these Engagement

categories (Coffin & O'Halloran, 2005), I coded each of the papers twice, allowing an interval of one
month between each analysis, during which time I received alternative suggestions from a department
colleague also experienced in Appraisal analysis. Both procedures helped me refine my analysis, for
example by identifying Engagement patterns that operate in coordinated pairs, e.g., deny/counter
pairs and concede/counter pairs. Identification of these pairs (shown in Table 1 and discussed below)
proved useful for identifying how certain Engagement options pattern together. Table 1 summarizes
the relative frequency (per 1,000 words) of Engagement resources in each of the students' papers.

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 9 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

Table 1: Relative Frequency of Engagement

Resources (per 1,000 words) in the Four Papers
David Brandon Soohyon Mallorie
Engagement resources grade: 99 grade: 98 grade: 87 grade: 82
2,549 words 2,474 words 1,810 words 2,345 words

bare assertions 20.8 19.8 18.8 15.8

CONTRASTIVE MOVES 33.9 28.67 31.54 32.98
disclaim:deny 10.0 8.1 12.7 7.3
disclaim:counter 14.5 11.7 11.6 14.1
proclaim:concur 4.3 4.0 1.1 0.4
proclaim:pronounce 3.1 2.0 2.2 9.8
EXPANSIVE MOVES 41.0 31.10 10.5 34.1
entertain 30.5 20.2 7.2 32.4
attribute 10.5 10.9 3.3 1.7
RHETORICAL PAIRS 13 instances 11 instances 3 instances 1 instance
deny/counter 5 instances 4 instances 1 instance 0 instance
concede/counter 8 instances 7 instances 2 instances 1 instance

As indicated by the wide range of expansive and contractive moves, all four papers are dialogically
engaged. Bare assertions are used two to three times less frequently than heteroglossic options. This
engagement with other views and reader expectations displays the students' (perhaps inchoate)
awareness of the need to negotiate assertions with an imagined reader who is "coolly rational" (Thaiss
& Zawacki, 2006, p. 7), questioning and critical.

Another commonality between the four essays is that the most frequently used contractive resources
are 'disclaim', rather than 'proclaim', options. One reason for this may be that the subject matter deals
with law and economics, a subdisciplinary discourse that Deirdre McCloskey (1985) identified in the
discourse of the economist Ronald Coase as having a more "adversarial" rhetorical style than that
found in more mainstream economics. In particular, McCloskey found that the use of counters (e.g.,
but, however, nevertheless), especially at sentence beginnings, appeared throughout Coase's famous
paper "The Nature of the Firm" (1937). Coase's paper makes frequent use of sentences beginning with
"But …" and "Not only … but also …," formulations which, McCloskey points out, worked to create an
adversarial and "lawyerly" style that "puzzled" fellow economists at the time. Interestingly, Soohyun's
paper, which uses more 'disclaim' moves than all five other heteroglossic options combined, frequently
refers to Coase's arguments in the course of her discussion. It is possible, then, that some of her
stancetaking choices were partially modeled after Coase's prose style.

The one departure from this preference for disclaiming is Mallorie's comparatively frequent use of
pronouncing her position through such wordings as This is certainly the case because and Due to the
fact that. Use of such pronouncements was found by Wu (2007) to be more prevalent in the lower-
graded papers in her study; the higher graded papers more frequently used the 'endorse' option
(another subcategory of 'proclaim') to express alignment with an attributed proposition, one often held
by perceived sources of authority.

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 10 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

David's and Brandon's Papers

As noted above, Mark explained that David's and Brandon's papers both display "independent" and "in-
depth thinking"; they "take a step back," offering nuanced evaluative judgments of court decisions;
and they display understanding of "the big picture." How do recurring stancetaking patterns contribute
toward realizing these goals? To answer this question, it is first important to point out that both papers
construct a steady balance between expansive and contractive options, with the expansive options
used slightly more frequently. The numbers presented in Table 1 do not tell the whole story, however.
Mallorie's paper, which was less successful, makes use of an equally close balance between expansive
and contractive options. In addition to balance, therefore, it is also important to understand the
specific options that are used and how they pattern together within paragraphs. Differences in these
regards affect what I refer below to as dialogical control. Below I discuss how dialogical balance and
control are managed on a paragraph level in David's and Brandon's papers, and then I turn to a
discussion of Soohyun's and Mallorie's papers.

Dialogical Expansion through Attributions

In terms of expansive moves, all four writers use the 'attribute' option frequently in the first stage of
their papers, when they are recounting arguments from the principle participants in their selected
cases. However, it is only David and Brandon who frequently infuse attributions into their analysis and
argument sections. One specific attribution strategy they use is to weave others' voices and
perspectives into their own building of claims through the use of scare quotes and phrasings such as
has been attributed, the reasoning, and saying. This strategy is illustrated in the excerpts in (1).

(1) As expected, the legislation was accompanied by a concurrent "loosening" of managed care insurance practices.
Through case studies and interviews, this change in insurance behavior has been attributed in part simply to market
forces stemming from the overwhelming dissatisfaction of patients, employers, and physicians. However, specific
regulations reducing the types of procedures needing individual approval directly compelled additional changes in
insurance business practice and improved physicians' autonomy to "provide high quality care."

That looks like exactly what happened in this case. The court got so accustomed to associating increased competition
with increased consumer welfare that it simply equated the two things. It decided that preserving distributors'
freedom was essentially the same as preserving competition, which was always beneficial. That is the reasoning
behind making maximum price fixing per se illegal, but unfortunately, that reasoning is wrong. Making something per
se illegal is the same as saying there are no exceptions to the rule, when clearly there are exceptions in this case.

As illustrated here, David and Brandon's papers frequently open up the dialogical space in order to set
up alternative views, which they then counter via However and but unfortunately. This attribute-
counter strategy works to construct a stance that is at once adversarial, or contrastive, and "aware" of
alternative positions. Such a stance corresponds to the rhetorical strategy of problematization that has
been identified in expert and high-rated student argumentative writing (Barton, 1993; Wu, 2006).

Dialogical Expansion through Entertains

David and Brandon's papers also expand dialogical space by subtly entertaining alternative voices and
perspectives. The option of 'entertain' works either by formulating the proposition as just one view
among other possible views, or by foregrounding the contingent nature of the claim. Both options are
seen in the examples in (2).

(2) There is also a possibility that for new retailers to enter the market they would have to charge higher prices

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 11 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

initially, in which case a maximum price could deter competition.

If insurance were purchased directly by the patient, competition among providers could equate the objects of both
provider and patient.

It appears that maximum price fixing does the greatest harm when set below a competitive level.

In addition to the oligopolistic nature of the market, consumers can be assumed to be at a significant informational
disadvantage.

Dialogical Contraction and Rhetorical Pairs

In addition to using the 'attribute' and 'entertain' options to increase dialogic diversity and negotiate
with alternative views, David and Brandon also use a wide range of strategies for closing down the
dialogical space and thus guiding the reader to their views. These resources include, most commonly,
instances of 'disclaim:counter', 'disclaim:deny', and 'proclaim:concur'. Both writers use these options
in a very specific way that Soohyun and Mallorie do not, or do with less control, which is to combine
them into rhetorical pairs.

Rhetorical pairs identified in David's and Brandon's papers are instances of (a) a concession, or concur
move, immediately followed by a counter and (b) a denial immediately followed by a counter. These
pairings work to engage with an imagined reader who is carefully tracking and perhaps questioning the
unfolding argument. This purpose is evident in the examples in (3):

(3) It is true that Herald hired a firm to solicit customers and sold customers to another firm, but neither of those
firms had incentive to help it fix prices.

While this is true, if local markets each came to be dominated by a few individual health care provider companies with
enough market power to balance that of the insurance firms, the same costs increases would occur.

The employers' objective is again not the well-being of the patient. Rather, it is the maximization of profit through
lower human resource costs.

Price floors do not have a competitive justification; they merely protect retailers' profits and prevent consumers from
getting the benefit of lower prices.

It is useful to see concede/counter pairs, as shown in the first two example in (3), as working to
establish solidarity with a disagreeing reader by conveying willingness to give up some ground (White,
2008). In contrast, it is useful to see deny/counter pairs, as shown in the second two examples in (3),
as working to "repair" a potential misunderstanding and thus maneuver the reader toward the author's
perspective. While Soohyun's paper makes use of one deny/counter pair, Mallorie's does not make use
of any. This is in contrast to David's use of five such pairings and Brandon's use of four. Likewise,
Soohyun's paper makes use of two concede/counter pairs, while Mallorie's makes use of just one. This
is in contrast to David's use of eight such pairings and Brandon's use of seven. These numbers are not
huge, but the accumulated effect of these resources is identifiable as they work to generate additional
discursive material that contributes toward the construction of an authoritative and reader-engaged
contrastive stance.

Alternating Dialogical Expansion and Contraction within

Paragraphs
A final pattern found in David's and Brandon's papers and not in Soohyun's and Mallorie's is the

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 12 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

strategy of closely alternating expand and contract moves within paragraphs. This alternation is
graphically illustrated in Table 2, which shows a paragraph from the analysis stage of Brandon's paper.

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 13 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

Table 2: Expand-Contract Coordination in

Brandon's Paper
heterogloss monogloss
expand contract
(57) * The result of this
kind of market structure is
a system in which
insurance firms control
significant market power,
as a monopsony to medical
practitioners and a
monopoly to patients.
(58) The Supreme Court
rejected[attribute] the
argument[attribute] that
the Federation's actions
were designed to protect
patients from insufficient
dental treatment,
stating[attribute] that the
idea of the provision of
information leading to
adverse outcomes was
directly against the spirit of
the Sherman Act.
(59)However[counter],
their reasoning[attribute]
that insurance companies
act almost as simple
representatives of patients
is not[deny]upheld by the
current situation.
(59) The object of the
health insurance company
is to maximize profit,
not[deny] to maximize the
health of the patient.
(60) If[entertain] insurance
were purchased directly by
the patient, competition
among providers
could[entertain] equate the
objects of both provider
and patient.
(61) However[counter], a
perfectly competitive

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 14 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

market
clearly[pronounce]
is not[deny] available to
many of the consumers
who purchase insurance
directly.
*The numbers are the sentence numbers in the respective papers.

The alternating expand-contract pattern in this paragraph, and elsewhere in David's and Brandon's
papers, works to bring into play a subtle juxtaposition of perspectives. This juxtaposition of
perspectives may be characteristic of academic writing valued for engaged and "critical" reasoning. In
her study of the ways experts in anthropology evaluated student writing in a general education course,
Mary Soliday (2004) found that readers tended to reward a "reflective stance," which involves a
"student's ability to appreciate diverse positions and then to commit to a judgment within [that]
context" (p. 74). Such appreciation, or at least awareness, of diverse positions is subtly infused
throughout David's and Brandon's paragraphs as they open up dialogic space by acknowledging and
entertaining other points of view, and their commitment to positions is then constructed in an
"orderly" way as they tighten up the dialogic space through the use of concede/counter and
deny/counter pairs. The back-and-forth process of expanding and contracting room for alternative
views contributes towards the "textual complexity" that their essays achieve, and also, perhaps more
importantly, the construal of reader-engaged "critical reasoning" valued by the professor and GSI.

Soohyun's Paper
As mentioned above, Soohyun's paper makes use of many disclaim moves, both counters and denials,
with far fewer expansive moves. The relative frequencies of denial and counter moves are,
respectively, 12.7 and 11.6 (per 1,000 words), while the relative frequencies of entertain and attribute
moves are 7.2 and 3.3. (Note, in contrast, that David's relative frequencies of entertain and attribute
moves are 30.5 and 10.5, while Brandon's are 20.2 and 10.9). The imbalance between contractive and
expansive resources in Soohyun's paper seems to contribute to an overly committed style of
stancetaking that does not consistently signal awareness of alternative perspectives. Table 3 displays a
representative paragraph from Soohyun's argument stage.

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 15 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

Table 3: Engagement Patterns in Sooyun's

Argument Stage
heterogloss monogloss
expand contract
(72) First, a monopolist
cannot[deny] exclude
competitors more
effectively by leasing than
by selling.
(73) A sale is a lease for
the life of the product.
(74) Short term leases free
customers from capital
commitments to the
monopolist's product.
(75) Leasing thus leaves
those customers more able
to switch to a competitor.
(76) The monopolist's
lease-only policy prevents a
second-hand market,
but[counter] it facilitates a
more effective form of
competition through the
entering of firms that make
new competing goods.

This paragraph is direct and assertive and, at least from my perspective as a non-expert in economics,
it is clearly written. Mark's own impression, which he revealed in our interview, is that Soohyun
worked very hard to revise her papers for clarity and concision, which Mark had emphasized to
students in his sections. Despite these strengths, however, close analysis of this paragraph reveals
several missed opportunities to actively negotiate meanings with the reader by foregrounding the
underlying semantic relationships between clauses. For example, the second sentence, sentence (73),
could be operating as a counter, one that expands on the initial denial move in the preceding
sentence. However, this sentence does not include a contrastive conjunction (e.g., rather, in contrast)
or continuative (e.g., only, simply, merely) that would clearly bring the countering move into effect.
Rather, it is presented as a bare assertion; as such it does not explicitly cohere with the preceding
sentence. Likewise, the two clauses in (76) seem to be bound together in a concessive relationship,
but this relationship is not clearly signaled in the first clause via Certainly/It is true that the
monopolist's lease-only policy prevents … or The monopolist's lease-only policy does prevent …).

The passage in (4) below shows a similar instance where Soohyun's writing, though direct, does not
clearly signal a concessive relationship.

(4) (66) In brief, the remedies did not result in sufficient effects. (67) In the structure of the shoe machinery market,
competition increased: United's market share declined, the number of entrants rose, second market developed, and
the competitor's market share increased. (68) However, the remedies were not effective in the performance part

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 16 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

because the price of shoe machinery leases did not decrease and there was no social welfare increase.

This short stretch of text, again, can be praised for its directness, and it clearly shows that Soohyun
had carried out sufficient research to be able to speak about economic consequences of the court
remedy. One problem, however, is that it is not entirely clear what is being countered in sentence
(68). After stating in (66) that "the remedies did not result in sufficient effects," the authorial voice
seems to be conceding in (67) that, in fact, there were some actual effects. That sentence, however,
does not explicitly concur with the reader that "yes, there were some effects, but …." Avoidance of an
explicit 'concur' move is evident in the relatively low frequency of these moves throughout Soohyun's
paper. This pattern, combined with the more general imbalance between expansive and contractive
resources in Soohyun's paper, seems to corroborate Mark's evaluation of Soohyun's writing as lacking
"complexity" in argumentation. Soohyun's preference for bare assertions and dialogic contraction
points to a lack of facility in opening up the dialogical space to bring in and entertain alternative
perspectives. Possibly, this preference also points to a lower level of awareness of the need to
negotiate assertions with a critically questioning reader.

When I presented this analysis to Mark in the context of a follow up interview, he pointed out that
many of Soohyun's sentences are structurally simple and "monotonous." He pointed specifically to
sentences (73)-(75) in the paragraph I discussed above. In addition, however, he also agreed that
clearer signaling of inter-sentential relations might have made his reading of the text easier and,
importantly, might have demonstrated that Soohyun is, in his words, "more in control of the
argument."

Mallorie's Paper
Mallorie's paper displays quite different Engagement problems. As shown in Table 1 above, the paper
makes use of a nearly even balance of expansive and contractive options (34.1 and 32.8,
respectively). The graphic display of expand and contract patterns within paragraphs (as illustrated in
Table 4 below) resemble paragraphs that recur in David's and Brandon's papers. Mallorie's writing,
then, suggests a high level of tacit dialogical awareness, or awareness of the need to expand and
contract room for alternative perspectives in the course of her argumentation. In addition, apart from
very infrequent 'concur' and 'attribute' moves, the Engagement options are "balanced" in that there is
a near equal representation of expansive and contractive resources in her paper. The problem for
Mallorie, then, seems not to be about adopting an overly expansive or committed stance (as is the
case with Soohyun) but rather one of coordinating or controlling the range and selection of
Engagement resources in particular stretches of text. The problem seems to be less about dialogical
awareness, in other words, than dialogical control, or control over the discursive resources used to
construct an interpersonally engaged argumentative stance.

Table 4 displays a representative paragraph from Mallorie's paper in which the authorial voice seems
to be struggling to control the interpersonal negotiation.

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 17 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

Table 4: Engagement Patterns in

Mallorie's Argument Stage
heterogloss monogloss
expand contract
(52) Assuming[entertain]
that Arizona's
claim[attribute] was true
and that the price caps
were merely a tool for tacit
collusion, the effect of the
removal of the caps
would[entertain] increase
social benefit.
(53) This is so
especially[proclaim]
considering the
fact[proclaim] that
it is safe to
assume[entertain] that the
demand for healthcare is
virtually inelastic.
(54) Producer surplus
however[counter],
would[entertain] decrease,
but[counter] not[deny] as
much as
consumer surplus
would[entertain] increase.
(55) This becomes
especially evident when we
consider[entertain]
the fact[proclaim] that
there was price
discrimination among those
patients who did not[deny]
have insurance plans that
were approved by the
foundation due to the
fact[proclaim] that the
medical professionals were
free to choose what fees
they would charge.
(56) Therefore the gain to
these consumers
would[entertain] be
even[counter] greater.

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 18 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

One way to look at some of the awkwardness in this paragraph is in terms of syntactic options. In
particular, the over-complexity of clausal embedding may be working to bury the authorial stance.
Sentence (53), for example, embeds three clauses (especially considering …; the fact that …; it is safe
to assume that …), while (55) embeds six (when we consider …; the fact that …; who did not …; that
were approved …; due to the fact that …; what fees …). Coming to notice this syntactic over-
complexity would be a useful first step for Mallorie to alleviate some of the awkwardness in this
paragraph. However, after making this observation, the problem then becomes how Mallorie can learn
to make decisions about managing the textual flow in a more controlled manner.

The concept of "control" is the subject of Robert de Beaugrande's (1979) College Composition and
Communication article in which he argues that simply asking novice writers to revise by reformulating
the combination of clauses is insufficient advice. If we do not enable students to make decisions about
textual flow by providing them with linguistic criteria for making those decisions, then merely sending
students out to reformulate and recombine sentences may give rise to other textual problems.
"Plodding monotony," for example, may not lead "to interesting variation but to distracting chaos"
(Beaugrande, 1979, p. 357). Beaugrande's solution is formulated in terms of helping students control
the flow of information in texts: There are levels of priorities for making "control decisions," and "the
top level is that of information priorities: the rate and the distribution of new information being
presented against a background of known information" (p. 358).

This concept of learning to control the flow of information in text is useful when discussing stance, but
it may be more useful to frame advice for making top-level control decisions in terms of managing the
dialogical space rather than the flow of information. Sentence (53), for example, may be confusing,
not because it is too densely packed with information, but because the proposition that is entertained
in the first sentence is taken up as a bare assertion in the next sentence (This is so …). This bare
assertion is then elaborated on both by proclaiming and entertaining the notion that the demand for
healthcare is virtually inelastic. Sentences (52) and (53) could operate together more coherently if we
revised in such a way that both propositions are entertained:

(52) Assuming that Arizona's claim was true and that the price caps were merely a tool for tacit collusion, the effect of
the removal of the caps would increase social benefit. (53) This possibility[entertain] seems particularly
likely[entertain] given[entertain] that the demand for healthcare is virtually inelastic. (54) Producer surplus however
…

In this revised version, the dialogical space has been opened up more consistently by reframing (53)
as a suggestion rather than a bare assertion or pronouncement. This slight modification places the
authorial voice in a more "controlled" position for then contracting the dialogical space in sentence
(54). As it is now, though, the somewhat confusing nature of Mallorie's writing in this paper suggests
an authorial voice still searching for a coherent stance vis-à-vis the reader and other invoked
perspectives. The lack of coherence with regard to interpersonal stancetaking corroborates Mark's
perspective that her arguments "were hard to follow" perhaps due to "poor understanding of the
material." Mark confirmed my take on Mallorie's writing, agreeing that the slight modification above
would have helped make this paragraph easier to read. Pointing out that Mallorie's understanding of
the case is still tenuous, Mark agreed that some of her difficulties with argumentation may have
resulted from her being a second language writer. He stated that he "definitely wished" he had known
her language background during the course of the term because he "might have been more sensitive
to her difficulties with the writing itself."

Some Final Thoughts on the Analysis

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 19 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

Before considering pedagogical implications of this analysis, let me concede that this small study of
four term papers written in one upper-level economics course cannot lead to general conclusions about
problems L2 college writers have constructing an argumentative stance. This study is situated in one
upper-level course, and one that placed perhaps special emphasis on argumentation. It is also a
course that shunts back and forth between the discourses of economics, law, and public policy, and so
the frequent disclaim moves and rhetorical pairs identified in the higher graded papers may be more
characteristic of the "lawyerly" rhetoric identified by McCloskey (1985) in Robert Coase's discourse.
Within this specific context, however, it is apparent that the valued style of stancetaking is one that is,
on the one hand, authoritative and adversarial, and, on the other, dialogically aware, or open to
alternative possibilities and perspectives. A steady gaze on alternative possibilities is especially evident
in David's paper, which adopted the strategy of discussing four hypothetical cases as a means to make
an argument about the actual case under analysis. In sum, then, the valued argumentative stance in
this term paper assignment is in line with the findings of Derewianka (2009), Swain (2009), and Wu
(2007) that more proficient student academic writing, especially writing that calls for argumentation
and critical "discussion," tends to be authoritative and dialogically open. In addition, it seems that
successful realization of such a stance is one that is "controlled," as suggested by David's and
Brandon's frequent use of coordinated patterns (via concede/counter and deny/counter pairs) to
engage with reader expectations and by Mallorie's comparative difficulty navigating her tacit dialogical
awareness into reader-friendly and coherent prose.

Mark's Feedback
When I shared this analysis with Mark, he agreed that the concept of stance is useful for refining the
ways that he addresses language issues with his students. He remarked that rhetorical pairs and
alternation between expansive and contractive resources are useful concepts because they show
specific means by which David and Brandon accomplished what he referred to as a "nice
argumentative rhythm" in their papers. He elaborated on this point by explaining that quite a few L2
writers (but not only L2 writers) in the course have difficulty making arguments for modified remedies
because they tend to put forth claims too assertively. At its worst, Mark suggested, relying on bare
assertions and uncoordinated contractive moves has the effect of "merely reeling off facts" or "rushing
to judgment."

Elaborating on what he found to be an effective stance, Mark turned to the paragraph from Brandon's
paper that I discussed above in Table 2:

Here, he actually steps outside economics for a little bit. … Really, really good economics papers can recognize the
shortfalls of how economists and lawyers think about these things. In standard economic models taught to
undergrads, we don't consider something "silly" like patient welfare to be a goal of the healthcare system. And this
student is able to kind of take a step back and say, "you know, patient welfare is important."

In terms of dialogical stancetaking, we can link this idea of "taking a step back" to specific
Engagement strategies in Brandon's paper. For example, his use of the conditional structure in
sentence (60) allows him to entertain a counter-factual situation before offering a high-force denial of
this situation. Without this preceding entertain move, the strongly worded denial (However, a perfectly
competitive market clearly is not …) might otherwise come off as unjustifiably assertive. When working
with weaker writers, therefore, it is important to discuss language choices such as these in ways that
connect up to "higher order concerns" regarding valued rhetorical stances in specific genres.

Pedagogical Implications for Focusing on Stance in

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 20 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

WAC/WID
As noted above, the term paper assignment in this course required that students engage in a very
high level of critical analysis and argumentation. It required that students evaluate legal decisions by
identifying the implicit economic assumptions behind those decisions and analyzing their economic
consequences; it then required that they argue for alternative legal remedies in terms of their likely
economic consequences. Even though the majority of students were majoring in economics or
industrial organization, many found the task of identifying and applying economic constructs to
critically analyze the consequences of antitrust cases very challenging. Not all English L2 writers in the
course experienced particular difficulties with the assignment (as noted above, two of the five L2
writers earned As on the paper); however, it is not surprising that many L2 writers like Soohyun and
Mallorie, who reported greater comfort writing in their L1, would have trouble controlling the necessary
discursive resources for constructing an effective argumentative stance.

It is also important to bear in mind that the notion of stance was not discussed explicitly in class, and
so Soohyun and Mallorie may have found it especially difficult to become aware of and then construct
the adversarial yet dialogically engaged stance that seemed to be implicitly valued. This valued stance
is only suggested in the professor's interview responses when he explained, as quoted above, that one
of his chief goals in the course was for students to learn how "to identify what some of the shortfalls in
reasoning might be from very very smart people who just don't happen to be economists." The
wording of this explanation suggests that students might do well in the course of their argumentation
to display awareness that the case is complex and that the reasoning under analysis came from "very
very smart people." Students might do well, in other words, to position their evaluations and counter-
proposals in a dialogically expansive manner and to ease into their claims through the use of
concessions and "repair" strategies (e.g., deny/counter formulations).

Considering that instructor expectations regarding stance often remain implicit, it is important that
upper-level WID courses provide students with opportunities to reflect explicitly on language/rhetorical
issues in their writing. Recent research in writing studies calls for increased opportunities for students
to engage in meta-reflective activities focused on their understanding of disciplinary thinking and
writing practices (Jarratt et al., 2009; Melzer, 2009; Thaiss & Zawacki, 2006). Providing opportunities
for rhetorical/linguistic reflection is important for all writers but would seem especially so for English L2
writers, who often have difficulty with the advanced forms of argumentation required in WID contexts.
Furthermore, in light of the findings from this study, it would seem particularly important to provide
opportunities for reflection on authorial stance. Such opportunities can be provided in the context of
instructor-led whole-class discussions or small-group activities, including peer review workshops, as
well as office hour interactions and instructor-to-student feedback on paper drafts.

Specifically, instructor-led discussions with students about what sorts of critical stances are valued in
certain disciplinary genres could go a long way toward making explicit what "critical" reasoning means
for the purposes of the discipline or subdiscipline as a whole. Such a discussion can be guided by
walking the class through paragraphs in students' papers from previous terms where the stancetaking
is particularly well-handled, much as Mark did (above) when discussing Brandon's paragraph with me,
and then comparing these paragraphs with ones that do not quite hit the mark in terms of valued
disciplinary stance. Examples of questions that can guide these discussions include: How committed is
the author to his or her assertions, and is this level of commitment warranted for this portion of the
paper? How does the author comment on the status of evidence that is used to support claims (for
example, as suggesting or "proving" a certain conclusion)? Where and how does the author show
awareness of alternative points of view? Does the author engage with readers' expectations and, if so,
how?

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 21 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

Another valuable instructional practice is to have students rewrite excerpts from students' papers that
they find problematic, as I attempted to do above with Mallorie's problematic sentences in (52) and
(53). In general, the opportunity for students to engage in sustained reflection on texts that model (or
fall short of) the discursive moves that they are expected to make can increase students' awareness of
the range of stancetaking options that are available to them in a given genre or sub-genre, and it may
enable them to become more mindful of their own stancetaking choices.

While engaging in close analysis of stancetaking strategies can help both English L1 and L2 writers to
become more conscious of stance in disciplinary writing, it is likely that the activity of closely analyzing
texts would be particularly beneficial to L2 writers. As suggested in Christine Tardy's (2006)
comparative research on L1/L2 genre studies, it is possible that L2 writers refer to genre models when
learning to write in a new genre more regularly than their English L1 peers. If this is the case, then the
process of analyzing samples of the target genre (with the guidance of their instructors) could help
alert these writers to important rhetorical meanings that underlie recurring linguistic features in the
samples they are examining, and it can raise their awareness of the discursive options that are
available for achieving valued meanings in the genre. Such rhetorical consciousness-raising could help
L2 writers to use genre samples as models in more nuanced ways.

In addition to whole-class discussions about stance, it is important that instructors provide students
with opportunities to engage in reflection on their own stancetaking strategies while writing. One of
the instructional interventions used in the Teagle-Spencer study (see Kaplan et al. (2009) and Silver et
al. (2011)) is the requirement that students insert metareflective "monitoring comments" in the
margins of their papers (using the "Comments" function on Microsoft Word). Using this tool, students
can raise questions about their understanding of course material, pinpoint areas in their writing where
they have drawn on key disciplinary concepts, and express uncertainty about their writing decisions.
Preliminary findings from this study suggest that both students and instructors find this commenting
tool very helpful for engaging in dialogue about genre expectations and for drawing students'
conscious attention to areas of strength and weakness in their writing. In light of this positive
feedback, this commenting tool seems ideal for the purpose of initiating a dialogue between students
and instructors (and potentially peer reviewers) about student writers' stancetaking strategies.

Again, while the opportunity to reflect on sentence/text-level choices would be useful for both English
L1 and L2 writers, it may be that many L2 writers have a greater commitment to (and often linguistic
preparation for) analyzing their writing at this level. Many L2 learners, that is, "know about grammar"
and would be likely to take up offers to reflect on and raise questions about fine-grained textual
choices in their writing. Specifically, instructors can encourage that students reflect on the relative
degree of dialogic openness in particular stages of an argument (e.g., summary, analysis, counter-
proposal). Students may want to ask whether their evaluations of others' arguments are organized
and worded in a way that is both authoritative and dialogically open, or whether they are handling the
requirement to be concise and assertive, on the one hand, and sophisticated and nuanced in their
analysis, on the other.

A remaining issue to consider is the degree of metalinguistic knowledge that is needed to engage in
discussions about stancetaking in disciplinary writing. One argument to make in support of using a
specific metalanguage in instructional contexts (such as that provided by the SFL Engagement
framework) is that it can enable students to adopt a "critical distance" from the texts they are
analyzing (Wallace, 2003); in so doing, it can facilitate the process of noticing recurring patterns of
language use that are otherwise difficult to observe when scanning texts more casually. There is some
research from English for Specific Purposes (ESP) which suggests that students equipped with specific
constructs for analyzing texts are better positioned to engage in nuanced reflection on their own
rhetorical choices. An Cheng (2007; 2008), for example, discusses the gains an L2 graduate student

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 22 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

made reflecting on the rhetorical "moves" (Swales, 1990) that he used in his own writing and that
were used in genre exemplars from his field of study. Close text analysis guided by the concept of
"moves" may have enabled this student to develop, as Cheng puts it, "a deepened understanding of
how writer, reader, and purpose interact in a piece of text that results in the use of certain generic
features" (Cheng, 2008, p. 65). In contrast to internalized or tacit knowledge of language, explicit
knowledge of the ways specific linguistic features give rise to socially valued meanings may be "more
cognitively accessible for reflection and decision-making, and may therefore be a powerful enabling
tool for writers tackling the cognitively complex task of writing" (Myhill, 2010, p. 141).

For the purposes of working with L2 writers in WID contexts, it is likely that taking on a specific
language analytic framework would require too much time investment for students and instructors. In
light of this reality, I would suggest a less technical recognition that stancetaking in disciplinary writing
is important and pervasive, extending as it does well beyond discrete issues such as whether or not to
use self mentions (like I or my) or whether to include explicit reader engagement devices like reader-
based pronouns (you), directives (Now consider …; Refer to Table 1), or rhetorical questions. In
addition to devices like these, stancetaking also has to do with even less deliberate choices about
degree of commitment to assertions, the use of counterargument strategies, patterns in modality and
evidentiality (perhaps, might, seems, could), and many other choices regarding subtle authorial
intrusions into the discourse. Providing opportunities for sustained reflection on genre texts, then, with
or without the added benefit of a specific metalanguage, can help L2 writers gain increased awareness
of the types of discursive moves that are valued within the specific disciplinary context as well as the
range of resources that are available to them for arguing and interacting effectively in that context.

References
Atkinson, Dwight. (1998). Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975. New York: Routledge.

Barton, Ellen. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55,
745-769.

Barton, Ellen. (2004). Linguistic discourse analysis: How the language in texts works. In Charles
Bazerman & Paul Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 57-82). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Beaugrande, Robert de. (1979). Moving from product toward process. College Composition and
Communication, 30(4), 357-363.

Biber, Douglas. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 5, 97–116.

Booth, Wayne. (1963). The rhetorical stance. College Composition and Communication, 14(3), 139-
145.

Chang, Peichin and Schleppegrell, Mary. (2011). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic
writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes. doi:10.1016/ j.jeap.2011.05.005

Cheng, An. (2007). Transferring generic features and recontextualizing genre awareness:
Understanding writing performance in the ESP genre-based literacy framework. English for Specific
Purposes, 26, 287–307.

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 23 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

Cheng, An. (2008). Analyzing genre exemplars in preparation for writing: The case of an L2 graduate
student in the ESP genre-based instructional framework of academic literacy. Applied Linguistics,
29(1), 50–71.

Coase, Ronald H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4, 386-405.

Coffin, Caroline. (2002). The voices of history: Theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical
discourses. Text, 22(4), 503–528.

Coffin, Caroline, & O'Halloran, Kieran 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.

Derewianka, Beverly. (2009). Using appraisal theory to track interpersonal development in adolescent
academic writing. In Anne McCabe, Mick O'Donnell, & Rachel Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in
language and education (pp.142-165). New York and London: Continuum.

Engelbretson, Robert. (Ed.) (2007). Stancetaking in discourse. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins
Publishing.

Feak, Christine B. (2008). Culture shock? Genre shock? Paper presented at the British association of
lecturers in English for academic purposes. University of Reading, Whiteknights, UK.

Halliday, Michael A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward
Arnold.

Hood, Susan. (2006). The persuasive power of prosodies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5,
37–49.

Hunston, Susan, & Thompson, Geoff. (2001). Evaluation: An introduction. In Susan Hunston & Geoff
Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (p. 1-27).
London: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, Ken. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.
Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192.

Hyland, Ken. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 16, 148–164.

Hyland, Ken, & Milton, John. (1997). Qualifications and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205.

Jaffe, Alexandra. (Ed.) (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. New York/Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Jarratt, Susan C., Mack, Katherine, Sartor, Alexandra, & Watson, Shevaun E. (2009). Pedagogical
memory: Writing, mapping, translating. WPA Journal, 33(1), 46-73.

Kaplan, Matt, Meizlish, Deborah, & Silver, Naomi. (2009, October). Crafting meta-cognitive
interventions and analyzing their impact on disciplinary thinking. Workshop presented at ISSOTL,
Bloomington, IN.

Martin, James R., & Rose, David. (2007). Working with discourse 2nd edition. London: Continuum.

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 24 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

Martin, James R., & White, Peter R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.

McCloskey, Deirdre N. (1985). The rhetoric of economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Melzer, Dan. (2009). Writing assignments across the curriculum: A national study of college writing.
College Composition and Communication, 61(2), 240-261.

Myhill, Debra. (2010). Ways of knowing: Grammar as a tool for developing writing. In T. Locke (Ed.),
Beyond the grammar wars (pp. 129-148). New York: Routledge.

Schleppegrell, Mary J. (2004). Technical writing in a second language: The role of grammatical
metaphor. In Louise J. Ravelli & Robert A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized
frameworks (pp. 172-189): London: Continuum.

Silver, Naomi, LaVaque-Manty, Danielle, LaVaque-Manty, Mika, & Lancaster, Zak. (2011, February).
The impact of metacognitive strategies within writing in the disciplines. Presentation given at the
Writing Research Across Borders II conference, George Mason University: Washington
D.C./Northern Virginia.

Soliday, Mary. (2004). Reading student writing with anthropologists: Stance and judgment in college
writing. College Composition and Communication, 56(1), 72-93.

Soliday, Mary. (2011). Everyday genres: Writing assignments across the disciplines. Carbondale &
Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

Swain, Elizabeth. (2009). Constructive an effective "voice" in academic discussion writing. In Anne
McCabe, Mick O'Donnell, & Rachel Whittaker, R. (Eds.), Advances in Language and Education
(pp.166-184). New York & London: Continuum.

Swales, John M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Tardy, Christine M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative
review and a look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 79–101.

Thaiss, Christopher & Zawacki, Terry M. (2006). Engaged writers, dynamic disciplines: Research on
the academic writing life. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Wallace, Catherine. (2003). Critical reading in language education. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

White, Peter R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of
intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259-284.

White, Peter R. (2008). Praising and blaming, applauding, and disparaging: Solidarity, audience
positioning, and the linguistics of evaluation disposition. In Gerd Antos, Eija Ventola, & Tilo Weber.
(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 567–594). Berlin & New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.

Wu, Siew Mei. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of
problematization in students' argumentation. RELC Journal, 37, 329-353.

Wu, Siew Mei. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 25 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 254–271.

Notes
[1] I wish to thank Terry Myers Zawacki and Michelle Cox for their very helpful comments on earlier
versions of this paper. I am also grateful to John Swales, Peichin Chang, and Moisés Escudero for their
feedback on the linguistic analysis that led to this paper.

[2] Interpersonal meanings, as explained by the linguist Michael A. K. Halliday (1994), involve the
speaker's or writer's "own intrusion in the speech event: the expression of his [sic] comments, his
attitudes and evaluations, and also of the relationship that he sets up between himself and the listener
—in particular, the communication role that he adopts, of informing, questioning, greeting,
persuading, and the like" (p. 91-2).

[3] For additional explanations of the Appraisal framework, see Hood (2006), Martin & Rose (2007),
White (2003), and White (2008).

[4] The use of straight brackets in SFL system networks such as this one indicate that one option is
selected over another. For example, a particular wording is contractive or expansive; if contractive,
the option is disclaim or proclaim, and so on.

[5] See Halliday (1994) on the objective vs. subjective distinction with regard to modal expressions.

[6] This multi-year study, co-sponsored by the Teagle and Spencer foundations, is investigating the
effects of metacognitive strategies for fostering students' understanding of disciplinary thinking and
writing. See Kaplan et al. (2009) and Silver et al. (2011).

[7] Mark conceded that paper length and number of secondary sources probably correlates with the
term paper grades because "these things usually point to level of effort." These two factors, however,
do not seem to be deciding factors in Soohyun's and Mallorie's comparatively low grades. Both writers
refer to at least 4 secondary sources (which is the average number of sources used in A-range papers)
and, while Soohyun's paper is considerably shorter than the other three (as shown in Table 1),
Mallorie's paper is actually longer than the average length in the class.

[8] In terms of educational level, Brandon, David, and Mallorie were all in their fourth year, and
Soohyun was in her third year. In terms of majors, David and Mallorie were majoring in economics,
Soohyun in industrial organization, and Brandon in chemistry. Based on this mix, the students' years
and major areas of study do not seem to be important factors in the relative success of their term
papers.

[9] These eight categories represent a slight modification of the various options represented in Martin
and White's (2005) model (represented in Figure 1 above). The modifications were to collapse Martin
& White's distinctions between concur:affirm and concur:concede under the general category of
"concur," as well as attribute:acknowledge and attribute:distance together under the general category
of "attribute." These modifications were made due to the relative infrequency of concur and attribute
moves in all four papers.

Contact Information
http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 26 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

Zak Lancaster
Doctoral Candidate, Joint Program in English and Education
Department of English Language and Literature
University of Michigan
435 S. State Street, 3187 Angell Hall
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1003
(734) 478-8546

Email: [email protected]

Complete APA Citation

Lancaster, Zak. (2011, December 21). Interpersonal stance in L1 and L2 students'
argumentative writing in economics: Implications for faculty development in WAC/WID
programs. Across the Disciplines, 8(4). Retrieved June 1, 2013, from
http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm

Across the Disciplines is an open-access, educational Web site published on the WAC Clearinghouse and supported by Colorado State University
and Georgia Southern University. ISSN 1554-8244. Copyright © 1997-2013 The WAC Clearinghouse and/or this site's authors, developers, and
contributors. Some material is used with permission. Valid HTML5 and CSS.

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 27 of 28
Lancaster, Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics 6/1/13 5:30 PM

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm Page 28 of 28

View publication stats