Stance-taking in peer reviewer and thesis examiner feedback on Iranian scholarly contributions

Abstract

In academia, the assessment of scholarly works is conducted through diverse evaluative genres, each characterized by genre-specific linguistic features. This study adopts a corpus-assisted approach to compare how stance-taking strategies are employed in the contexts of manuscript reviews and doctoral defense sessions, with particular attention to the contributions of Iranian researchers. Following Hyland's (2005) interactional model, both datasets are examined to identify stance-taking strategies, including self-mentions, boosters, hedges, and attitude markers. The study unveils genre-specific norms in reviewers' and examiners' approaches to self-representation, epistemic perspectives, and attitudinal orientations, revealing commonalities and variations in their usage. These linguistic nuances are discussed in terms of the interpersonal relationships between evaluators and their audiences, a crucial factor shaping the landscape of scholarly assessment in these genres. The findings contribute to the literature on stance and deepen our understanding of genre-specific aspects in oral and written academic evaluative contexts. Incorporating these insights into the instruction of English for research writing can assist junior researchers in effectively responding to criticisms during thesis examinations or manuscript reviews, thereby enhancing their prospects of earning recognition in their disciplinary community.