本研究探討母語人士與非母語人士在學術英文寫作中以引導性子句所呈現的立場標記語的情況，並給予教學建議，幫助第二語言學習者適當地表達立場。對比研究文獻表示，近年來立場表達的使用情況在學術文章中已為廣泛，但第二F語言學習者卻很少在這方面得到指導。這使本研究 （1）探討母語者在學術文章中所呈現的立場表達程度，（2）對比臺灣學者和學生的立場建構上，與母語者有何相異特點。
本研究的三個對比語料庫中的語料是由應用語言學的學術文章所構建而成的，蒐集了50篇由母語人士所撰寫的期刊文章，50篇由臺灣學者所撰寫的期刊文章，以及25篇臺灣研究生的學術論文。完成語料的匯集後，從而進行定量和定性的研究探討。透過語料的詳細比較分析，也可找出臺灣研究生過度使用與未充分利用的立場標記語。
研究結果顯示：（1）引導性子句的立場表達被廣泛地應用於學術寫作中，而與專業期刊學者相比，臺灣研究生所使用的立場標記頻率最為頻繁和廣泛。（2）兩組專業學者與研究生都傾向於使用動詞來做為引導性子句的主要述語。（3）母語人士使用較多具有模糊、可能性的標記語來表達試探性的立場，而臺灣研究生則過度使用肯定性與情態性的標記語，使文章較有果斷、說服的效果。（4）普遍來說，臺灣學者及研究生傾向於使用虛擬主詞來避免直接的評論責任。（5）臺灣研究生大量地使用肯定性的立場標記使文章充分表達自信，卻少量地利用試探性標記來呈現客觀。
綜上所述，本文認為立場表達在學術寫作中是不可或缺的，但在沒有任何教學幫助下，我們不該期望學生能夠適當地、無誤地使用立場標記語。有限的立場表達方式和不夠充分的語言學習，使母語人士與非母語人士在表達立場上有顯著的差異。本文提供了學術寫作的教學建議，從而使學生增進立場表達的認識，並了解其在學術寫作中的涵義，進而對此類研究作出小小的貢獻。

The aim of this thesis is to investigate and identify the characteristics of stance usage through the realization of that-complement clauses in the writings of native and non-native writers, and to make recommendations for writing instructors to assist L2 learners in controlling stance expressions in research reports. Findings of comparative studies are presented to show that there is a growing demand for stance conveyance in academic writing, but at present L2 students receive very little guidance in this matter. Such shortage arouse current study (1) to empirically examine the extent that native speakers of English display stance and show viewpoint in academic writings, (2) to discover whether Taiwanese writers, either expert or student, convey stance in ways different from native speakers.
Three corpora of academic writing written in the field of applied linguistics were built by collecting 50 journal articles written by native speakers of English, 50 journal articles by local researchers in Taiwan, and 25 master theses by Taiwan graduate students. After the compilation of the corpora, quantitative analysis was conducted to compare and contrast the use of stance-that markers among writers. Through detailed comparison of multiple corpora, L2 students’ overused and underused stance-that markers can also be identified.
Several discoveries were yielded: (1) evaluative that-clause was widely applied in academic writing for stance marking, with L2 students conveyed stance most frequently and extensively as compared to the journal writers. (2) All three groups inclined to use verbal predicates most frequently to control that-clauses. (3) While native expert writers projected greater extent of tentativeness through likelihood stance, L2 students exposed more assertiveness and forcefulness with excessive factive and attitudinal markers. (4) Taiwanese writers generally made considerable use of concealed subjects as an attempt to avoid taking direct responsibility of the evaluation. (5) L2 students were found to have heavy reliance on factive markers to project assurance, and low preference on tentative stance to present objectivity.
In conclusion, the thesis argues that stance marking in academic writing is essential but that students should not be expected to be able to appropriately employ stance without assistance. Limited repertoire of stance expressions and insufficient language input may have contributed to the mismatch exposed among the three groups of writers. This thesis hopes to offer educational implications for enhancing L2 writers’ writing quality, and thus make a small contribution to understanding the significance of stance in academic writing. Possible directions for future research are also provided.

Adams, H., & Quintana-Toledo, E. (2013). Adverbial stance marking in the introduction and conclusion sections of legal research articles. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 8, pp. 18-35.
Ai, H. (2012). The expression of stance in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study of stance adverbs. International Journal of Asian Language Processing, 22(1), pp. 1-14.
Biber, D. (2004). Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5(1), pp. 107-136.
Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and writen university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, pp. 97-116.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11, pp. 1-34.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). 5 Nominalizing the verb phrase in academic science writing. The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora, 99
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. New York: Longman.
Casanava, C. (2003). Looking ahead to more sociopolitically-oriented case study research in L2 writing scholarship (But should it be called "post-process"?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, pp. 85-102.
Charles, M. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), pp. 492-518.
Charles, M. (2007). Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the Noun that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific purposes, 26(2), pp. 203-218.
Chen, Z. (2012). Expression of Epistemic Stance in EFL Chinese University Students' Writing. English Language Teaching, 5(10), pp. 173-179.
Connor, U. (2002). New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), pp. 493-510.
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), pp. 397-423.
Fløttum, K. (2012). Variation of Stance and Voice across Cultures. In K. Hyland, & C. Sancho Guinda, Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 218-231). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gilbert, G. (1977). Referencing as Persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), pp. 113-122.
Granath, S. (2001). Is that a fact?: A corpus study of the syntax and semantics of the fact that. Rayson, Paul, Wilson, Andrew, McEnery, Tony, Hardie, Andrew & Shereen Khoja (red) Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference, Presenterad vid: Corpus Linguistics 2001.
Granger, S. (1998). Learner English on computer. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current Conceptions of Stance. In K. Hyland, & C. Sancho Guinda, Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 15-33). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Henderson, A., & Barr, R. (2010). Comparing indicators of authorial stance in psychology students’writing and published research articles. Journal of Writing Research, 2 (2), pp. 245-264.
Hewings, A. (2012). Stance and Voice in Academic Discourse across Channels. In K. Hyland , & C. Sancho Guinda, Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 187-201). New York : Palgrave Macmillan.
Hood, S. (2004). Appraising Research: Taking a Stance in Academic Writing. (Doctoral dissertation). Sydney: University of Technology.
Hood, S. (2012). Voice and Stance as APPRAISAL: Persuading and Positioning in Research Writing across Intellectual Fields. In K. Hyland, & C. Sancho Guinda, Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 51-68). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
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(11), pp. 2795-2809.
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), pp. 349-382.
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic Attribution: Citation and the Construction of Disciplinary Knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), pp. 341-367.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Directives: Argument and Engagement in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), pp. 215-239.
Hyland, K. (2002b). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56 (4), pp. 351-358.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), pp. 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), pp. 173-192.
Hyland, K., & Guinda, C. S. (Eds.). (2012). Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hyland, K., & Tse. P. (2005a). Evaluative that constructions: Signaling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12(1), pp. 39–63.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005b). Hooking the reader: a corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for specific purposes, 24(2), pp. 123-139.
Kuntjara, E. (2004). Cultural Transfer in EFL Writing: A Look at Contrastive Rhetoric on English and Indonesian. K@ta, 6(1), pp. 13-29.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
McCready, E., & Ogata, N. (2007). Evidentiality, modality and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(2), pp. 147-206.
McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specfic Purposes, 31, pp. 161-173.
Morley, D. (2007). The Cambridge introduction to creative writing. Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text, 9(1), pp. 7-25.
Paradis, C. (2003). Between epistemic modality and degree: the case of really. Topics in English Linguistics, 44, pp. 191-222.
Parkinson, J. (2013). Adopting academic values: Student use of that-complement clauses in academic writing. System, 41, pp. 428-442.
Precht, K. (2003). Great vs. Lovely: Stance Differences in American and British English. Language and Computer, 46(1), pp. 133-151.
Precht, K. (2008). Sex similarities and differences in stance in informal American conversation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(1), pp. 89-111.
Rass, R. (2011). Cultural Transfer as an Obstable for Writing Well in English: The Case of Arabic Speakers Writing in English. English Language Teaching, 4(2), pp. 206-212.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual. Palgrave Macmillan.
Scott, M. (2004). The Wordsmith Tools (V.5.0). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silver, M. (2012). Voice and Stance across Disciplines in Academic Discourse. In K. Hyland, & C. Sancho Guinda, Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 202-217). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (Vol. 1). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied linguistics, 12(4), 365-382.
Tseronis, A. (2009). Qualifying standpoints. Stance adverbs as a presentational device for managing the burden of proof. LOT, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics, Utrecht.
Vázquez Orta, I. (2010). A contrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the expression of epistemic stance in Business Management research articles in English and Spanish. Ibérica, 19, pp. 77-95.
Wang, Y., & Chen, H. (2012). The Stance Study of Evaluative That Clauses in English Abstracts of Chinese Master Theses. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(5), pp. 11.
Wharton, S. (2012). Epistemological and interpersonal stance in a data description task: Findings from a discipline-specific learner corpus. English for Specific Purposes, 31, pp. 261-270.
Xing, M., Wang, J., & Spencer, K. (2008). Raising students' awareness of cross-cultural contrastive rhetoric in English writing via an e-learning course. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), pp. 71-93.
Xu, J. (2009). Log-likelihood ratio calculator. Beijing: National Research Centre for Foreign Language Education.
Zarei, G., & Mansoori, S. (2011). Metadiscursive Distinction between Persian and English: An Analysis of Computer Engineering Research Articles. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), pp. 1037-1042.
王敏 (2011)。基於語料庫的中國大學生學術論文寫作中立場標記語的研究。海外英語，5，295-297。
徐宏亮 (2011)。中國高級英語學習者學術語篇中的作者立場標記語的使用特點:一項基於語料庫的對比研究。外語教學，32(6)，44-48。