make an essay about 14 stances

Critical writing: Deciding your position

• Managing your reading
• Source reliability
• Critical reading
• Descriptive vs critical

Deciding your position

• The overall argument
• Individual arguments
• Signposting
• Alternative viewpoints
• Critical thinking videos

Jump to content on this page:

“Ideal critical thinkers ... take a position and change a position when the evidence and reasons are sufficient” Robert Ennis in  The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , edited by Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett

Most essays that you write at university will require you to produce a reasoned argument to support a particular viewpoint. This viewpoint is your position —the overall stance you are taking about the issue at hand.

What is a position?

A position is the overall stance that the writer of an essay takes in answering the question or on the issue/topic at hand (if there is not a specific 'question'). It is the central idea of your essay. If you could sum up your essay on a post-it note, what would it say? That would be your position.

Argumentative essays (the majority of university essays) require you to convince the reader of that position through a series of sound arguments (those that are backed up by credible evidence) which lead them to your conclusion. The purpose is to persuade the reader that your conclusion is a logical and sound one, based on the evidence you have presented.

Examples of positions

Some essay questions or assignment criteria make it easier to take a position than others. Instruction words and phrases like 'evaluate', 'assess' or 'to what extent' clearly require you to come to some sort of judgement which represents your position. With instructions such as 'analyse', 'examine', 'explore' or 'consider' this may not seem as obvious. However, there is still a need to come to a final conclusion that states a position. Look at the table below for some ideas:

Do some initial reading

You may well have an idea about what your position will be before you start an essay: you may have had a lecture on the topic and formed some opinions; the question or topic may resonate with personal experiences or you may consider something to be common sense. On the other hand, you may start with no idea of what your final position will be.

Either way, some initial reading is essential before you decide:

• Try to approach the reading with an open mind, even if you think you already have an idea.
• Be wary of confirmation bias—where you only see what you want to see in the literature.
• Be prepared to change or at least modify any original viewpoint. 
• Decide which position to plan your essay around—but be prepared to revise it further if your ideas develop as you write.

Books on your reading list are a good place to start—there may be whole books or at least chapters dedicated to the topic that will give an overview and help you understand the extent to which there is agreement or disagreement on the topic. This may lead you to dig a little deeper by reading at least the abstracts of some journal articles.

Your task is to get a feel for the range of viewpoints and decide which you feel you could argue most effectively . Sometimes it can be useful to purposefully argue a point of view that you disagree with (though this is harder).

What if there isn't an obvious position to take?

Some topics are more contentious than others and will have a wider spectrum of possible viewpoints. However, even with topics where the authors all appear to agree, there will be nuances of difference. For example, none of the nursing literature will disagree that it is important for nurses to show compassion—but there will be different reasons why they think it is important or how it can be demonstrated. You can focus on these differences to decide your own nuanced position.

Let the evidence guide you

Which position is the right one?

There are  no right or wrong positions . There are only unjustified positions—ones that are not backed up by relevant and appropriate evidence.

You do not need to hold the same position as your tutor or the other students on your module. If anything, an unusual, yet justified position can make your essay stand out and get you a high mark.

• << Previous: Descriptive vs critical
• Next: Writing your argument >>
• Last Updated: Feb 13, 2024 10:53 AM
• URL: https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/criticalwriting
• Login to LibApps
• Library websites Privacy Policy
• University of Hull privacy policy & cookies
• Website terms and conditions
• Accessibility
• Report a problem

Rhetorical functions in academic writing: Taking a stance

Introduction.

In higher education, you need to be able to write critically. As well as giving the facts, you need to be able to make use of these facts to come to general conclusions. These conclusions need to be justified and supported by evidence. You also need to be aware of other points of view that exist and this must be dealt with.

Read the following sentence:

In academic writing, it is often necessary to make it clear to your reader what opinion you hold or what your position is with regard to a certain issue. This is often called your "voice" or your "position" or your "claim". It may be based on other people's research (eg, Smith & Jones), but the conclusion you have come to is your own.

As a student, it is not enough to simply describe a situation or recall the facts, you need to take a stance or position yourself in relation to the situation or the facts. This is particularly important in assessment when you have to answer a question.  Of course, you need to know and reproduce the information, but you also need to use the information to give an answer to the question, to give YOUR answer to the question.

In the sentence above, the words " indicate ", " may " and " some " show the writers position towards the previous studies. Instead of " indicated ", the words " shown ", "proved " or " suggested " could have been used. The word " may " might have been replaced by " could ", " will " or nothing. " Some " was chosen, where " many ", " few " or " most " were also possible.

Expressing your voice

You can show your position with respect to a particular issue by:

• Showing how confident - or not - you are with regard to your position.
• Being explicit about the relationships you are discussing.

Indicating the strength of your claim.

Showing confidence.

It was clearly proposed not as a permanent arrangement, but as a temporary measure of co-operation between different individual. This latter point was perhaps the greatest concern for Britain's aviation planners as the war went on. You can be cautious through the use of hedges such as " perhaps ", " maybe ", " could ", " might ". You can be confident through the use of boosters such as " definitely ", " will ", " must ", " cannot ". See: Expressing degrees of certainty

Being explicit about relationships

You can show your position towards the relationships in the text. If you think two ideas are almost the same, be explicit about it Marx referred throughout his work to other systems than the capitalist system, especially those which he knew from the history of Europe to have preceded capitalism; systems such as feudalism, where the relation of production was characterized by the personal relation of the feudal lord and his serf and a relation of subordination which came from the lord's control of the land. Similarly , Marx was interested in slavery and in the classical Indian and Chinese social systems, or in those systems where the ties of local community are all important. If you intend your sentence to give extra information, make it clear. He is born into a family, he marries into a family, and he becomes the husband and father of his own family. In addition , he has a definite place of origin and more relatives than he knows what to do with, and he receives a rudimentary education at the Canadian Mission School. See: Writing paragraphs: signalling

You can show your position with regard to the points of view or the evidence that you have presented. Research suggests that we have at least four types of memory. or: Research shows that we have at least four types of memory. See: Citing sources Here are some other words and phrases that you can use to show your position: 1 Introductory verbs e.g. seem, indicate, suggest 2 Thinking verbs e.g. believe, assume, suggest 3 Reporting verbs e.g. claim, find, confirm, assert 3 Evaluative adjectives e.g. important, misguided, wrong, misguided, inaccurate, incorrect 4 Evaluative adverbs e.g. accurately, unsatisfactorily 5 Adverbs of frequency e.g. often, sometimes 6 Modal verbs e.g. will, may, might, could 7 Modal adverbs e.g. certainly, definitely 8 Modal adjectives e.g. certain, definite 9 Modal nouns e.g. assumption, possibility 10 Signalling words e.g. furthermore, similarly

Read the following example from the field of Physiotherapy and identify words that show the author's position:

Examples are:

Try this exercise: 

Back to Introduction

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• The four main types of essay | Quick guide with examples

The Four Main Types of Essay | Quick Guide with Examples

Published on September 4, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on July 23, 2023.

An essay is a focused piece of writing designed to inform or persuade. There are many different types of essay, but they are often defined in four categories: argumentative, expository, narrative, and descriptive essays.

Argumentative and expository essays are focused on conveying information and making clear points, while narrative and descriptive essays are about exercising creativity and writing in an interesting way. At university level, argumentative essays are the most common type. 

In high school and college, you will also often have to write textual analysis essays, which test your skills in close reading and interpretation.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Argumentative essays, expository essays, narrative essays, descriptive essays, textual analysis essays, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about types of essays.

An argumentative essay presents an extended, evidence-based argument. It requires a strong thesis statement —a clearly defined stance on your topic. Your aim is to convince the reader of your thesis using evidence (such as quotations ) and analysis.

Argumentative essays test your ability to research and present your own position on a topic. This is the most common type of essay at college level—most papers you write will involve some kind of argumentation.

The essay is divided into an introduction, body, and conclusion:

• The introduction provides your topic and thesis statement
• The body presents your evidence and arguments
• The conclusion summarizes your argument and emphasizes its importance

The example below is a paragraph from the body of an argumentative essay about the effects of the internet on education. Mouse over it to learn more.

A common frustration for teachers is students’ use of Wikipedia as a source in their writing. Its prevalence among students is not exaggerated; a survey found that the vast majority of the students surveyed used Wikipedia (Head & Eisenberg, 2010). An article in The Guardian stresses a common objection to its use: “a reliance on Wikipedia can discourage students from engaging with genuine academic writing” (Coomer, 2013). Teachers are clearly not mistaken in viewing Wikipedia usage as ubiquitous among their students; but the claim that it discourages engagement with academic sources requires further investigation. This point is treated as self-evident by many teachers, but Wikipedia itself explicitly encourages students to look into other sources. Its articles often provide references to academic publications and include warning notes where citations are missing; the site’s own guidelines for research make clear that it should be used as a starting point, emphasizing that users should always “read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says” (“Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia,” 2020). Indeed, for many students, Wikipedia is their first encounter with the concepts of citation and referencing. The use of Wikipedia therefore has a positive side that merits deeper consideration than it often receives.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

An expository essay provides a clear, focused explanation of a topic. It doesn’t require an original argument, just a balanced and well-organized view of the topic.

Expository essays test your familiarity with a topic and your ability to organize and convey information. They are commonly assigned at high school or in exam questions at college level.

The introduction of an expository essay states your topic and provides some general background, the body presents the details, and the conclusion summarizes the information presented.

A typical body paragraph from an expository essay about the invention of the printing press is shown below. Mouse over it to learn more.

The invention of the printing press in 1440 changed this situation dramatically. Johannes Gutenberg, who had worked as a goldsmith, used his knowledge of metals in the design of the press. He made his type from an alloy of lead, tin, and antimony, whose durability allowed for the reliable production of high-quality books. This new technology allowed texts to be reproduced and disseminated on a much larger scale than was previously possible. The Gutenberg Bible appeared in the 1450s, and a large number of printing presses sprang up across the continent in the following decades. Gutenberg’s invention rapidly transformed cultural production in Europe; among other things, it would lead to the Protestant Reformation.

A narrative essay is one that tells a story. This is usually a story about a personal experience you had, but it may also be an imaginative exploration of something you have not experienced.

Narrative essays test your ability to build up a narrative in an engaging, well-structured way. They are much more personal and creative than other kinds of academic writing . Writing a personal statement for an application requires the same skills as a narrative essay.

A narrative essay isn’t strictly divided into introduction, body, and conclusion, but it should still begin by setting up the narrative and finish by expressing the point of the story—what you learned from your experience, or why it made an impression on you.

Mouse over the example below, a short narrative essay responding to the prompt “Write about an experience where you learned something about yourself,” to explore its structure.

Since elementary school, I have always favored subjects like science and math over the humanities. My instinct was always to think of these subjects as more solid and serious than classes like English. If there was no right answer, I thought, why bother? But recently I had an experience that taught me my academic interests are more flexible than I had thought: I took my first philosophy class.

Before I entered the classroom, I was skeptical. I waited outside with the other students and wondered what exactly philosophy would involve—I really had no idea. I imagined something pretty abstract: long, stilted conversations pondering the meaning of life. But what I got was something quite different.

A young man in jeans, Mr. Jones—“but you can call me Rob”—was far from the white-haired, buttoned-up old man I had half-expected. And rather than pulling us into pedantic arguments about obscure philosophical points, Rob engaged us on our level. To talk free will, we looked at our own choices. To talk ethics, we looked at dilemmas we had faced ourselves. By the end of class, I’d discovered that questions with no right answer can turn out to be the most interesting ones.

The experience has taught me to look at things a little more “philosophically”—and not just because it was a philosophy class! I learned that if I let go of my preconceptions, I can actually get a lot out of subjects I was previously dismissive of. The class taught me—in more ways than one—to look at things with an open mind.

A descriptive essay provides a detailed sensory description of something. Like narrative essays, they allow you to be more creative than most academic writing, but they are more tightly focused than narrative essays. You might describe a specific place or object, rather than telling a whole story.

Descriptive essays test your ability to use language creatively, making striking word choices to convey a memorable picture of what you’re describing.

A descriptive essay can be quite loosely structured, though it should usually begin by introducing the object of your description and end by drawing an overall picture of it. The important thing is to use careful word choices and figurative language to create an original description of your object.

Mouse over the example below, a response to the prompt “Describe a place you love to spend time in,” to learn more about descriptive essays.

On Sunday afternoons I like to spend my time in the garden behind my house. The garden is narrow but long, a corridor of green extending from the back of the house, and I sit on a lawn chair at the far end to read and relax. I am in my small peaceful paradise: the shade of the tree, the feel of the grass on my feet, the gentle activity of the fish in the pond beside me.

My cat crosses the garden nimbly and leaps onto the fence to survey it from above. From his perch he can watch over his little kingdom and keep an eye on the neighbours. He does this until the barking of next door’s dog scares him from his post and he bolts for the cat flap to govern from the safety of the kitchen.

With that, I am left alone with the fish, whose whole world is the pond by my feet. The fish explore the pond every day as if for the first time, prodding and inspecting every stone. I sometimes feel the same about sitting here in the garden; I know the place better than anyone, but whenever I return I still feel compelled to pay attention to all its details and novelties—a new bird perched in the tree, the growth of the grass, and the movement of the insects it shelters…

Sitting out in the garden, I feel serene. I feel at home. And yet I always feel there is more to discover. The bounds of my garden may be small, but there is a whole world contained within it, and it is one I will never get tired of inhabiting.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Though every essay type tests your writing skills, some essays also test your ability to read carefully and critically. In a textual analysis essay, you don’t just present information on a topic, but closely analyze a text to explain how it achieves certain effects.

Rhetorical analysis

A rhetorical analysis looks at a persuasive text (e.g. a speech, an essay, a political cartoon) in terms of the rhetorical devices it uses, and evaluates their effectiveness.

The goal is not to state whether you agree with the author’s argument but to look at how they have constructed it.

The introduction of a rhetorical analysis presents the text, some background information, and your thesis statement; the body comprises the analysis itself; and the conclusion wraps up your analysis of the text, emphasizing its relevance to broader concerns.

The example below is from a rhetorical analysis of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech . Mouse over it to learn more.

King’s speech is infused with prophetic language throughout. Even before the famous “dream” part of the speech, King’s language consistently strikes a prophetic tone. He refers to the Lincoln Memorial as a “hallowed spot” and speaks of rising “from the dark and desolate valley of segregation” to “make justice a reality for all of God’s children.” The assumption of this prophetic voice constitutes the text’s strongest ethical appeal; after linking himself with political figures like Lincoln and the Founding Fathers, King’s ethos adopts a distinctly religious tone, recalling Biblical prophets and preachers of change from across history. This adds significant force to his words; standing before an audience of hundreds of thousands, he states not just what the future should be, but what it will be: “The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.” This warning is almost apocalyptic in tone, though it concludes with the positive image of the “bright day of justice.” The power of King’s rhetoric thus stems not only from the pathos of his vision of a brighter future, but from the ethos of the prophetic voice he adopts in expressing this vision.

Literary analysis

A literary analysis essay presents a close reading of a work of literature—e.g. a poem or novel—to explore the choices made by the author and how they help to convey the text’s theme. It is not simply a book report or a review, but an in-depth interpretation of the text.

Literary analysis looks at things like setting, characters, themes, and figurative language. The goal is to closely analyze what the author conveys and how.

The introduction of a literary analysis essay presents the text and background, and provides your thesis statement; the body consists of close readings of the text with quotations and analysis in support of your argument; and the conclusion emphasizes what your approach tells us about the text.

Mouse over the example below, the introduction to a literary analysis essay on Frankenstein , to learn more.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is often read as a crude cautionary tale about the dangers of scientific advancement unrestrained by ethical considerations. In this reading, protagonist Victor Frankenstein is a stable representation of the callous ambition of modern science throughout the novel. This essay, however, argues that far from providing a stable image of the character, Shelley uses shifting narrative perspectives to portray Frankenstein in an increasingly negative light as the novel goes on. While he initially appears to be a naive but sympathetic idealist, after the creature’s narrative Frankenstein begins to resemble—even in his own telling—the thoughtlessly cruel figure the creature represents him as. This essay begins by exploring the positive portrayal of Frankenstein in the first volume, then moves on to the creature’s perception of him, and finally discusses the third volume’s narrative shift toward viewing Frankenstein as the creature views him.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

At high school and in composition classes at university, you’ll often be told to write a specific type of essay , but you might also just be given prompts.

Look for keywords in these prompts that suggest a certain approach: The word “explain” suggests you should write an expository essay , while the word “describe” implies a descriptive essay . An argumentative essay might be prompted with the word “assess” or “argue.”

The vast majority of essays written at university are some sort of argumentative essay . Almost all academic writing involves building up an argument, though other types of essay might be assigned in composition classes.

Essays can present arguments about all kinds of different topics. For example:

• In a literary analysis essay, you might make an argument for a specific interpretation of a text
• In a history essay, you might present an argument for the importance of a particular event
• In a politics essay, you might argue for the validity of a certain political theory

An argumentative essay tends to be a longer essay involving independent research, and aims to make an original argument about a topic. Its thesis statement makes a contentious claim that must be supported in an objective, evidence-based way.

An expository essay also aims to be objective, but it doesn’t have to make an original argument. Rather, it aims to explain something (e.g., a process or idea) in a clear, concise way. Expository essays are often shorter assignments and rely less on research.

The key difference is that a narrative essay is designed to tell a complete story, while a descriptive essay is meant to convey an intense description of a particular place, object, or concept.

Narrative and descriptive essays both allow you to write more personally and creatively than other kinds of essays , and similar writing skills can apply to both.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, July 23). The Four Main Types of Essay | Quick Guide with Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 30, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/essay-types/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to write an argumentative essay | examples & tips, how to write an expository essay, how to write an essay outline | guidelines & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Write an Argumentative Essay

4-minute read

• 30th April 2022

An argumentative essay is a structured, compelling piece of writing where an author clearly defines their stance on a specific topic. This is a very popular style of writing assigned to students at schools, colleges, and universities. Learn the steps to researching, structuring, and writing an effective argumentative essay below.

Requirements of an Argumentative Essay

To effectively achieve its purpose, an argumentative essay must contain:

●  A concise thesis statement that introduces readers to the central argument of the essay

●  A clear, logical, argument that engages readers

●  Ample research and evidence that supports your argument

Approaches to Use in Your Argumentative Essay

1.   classical.

●  Clearly present the central argument.

●  Outline your opinion.

●  Provide enough evidence to support your theory.

2.   Toulmin

●  State your claim.

●  Supply the evidence for your stance.

●  Explain how these findings support the argument.

●  Include and discuss any limitations of your belief.

3.   Rogerian

●  Explain the opposing stance of your argument.

●  Discuss the problems with adopting this viewpoint.

●  Offer your position on the matter.

●  Provide reasons for why yours is the more beneficial stance.

●  Include a potential compromise for the topic at hand.

Tips for Writing a Well-Written Argumentative Essay

●  Introduce your topic in a bold, direct, and engaging manner to captivate your readers and encourage them to keep reading.

●  Provide sufficient evidence to justify your argument and convince readers to adopt this point of view.

●  Consider, include, and fairly present all sides of the topic.

●  Structure your argument in a clear, logical manner that helps your readers to understand your thought process.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

●  Discuss any counterarguments that might be posed.

●  Use persuasive writing that’s appropriate for your target audience and motivates them to agree with you.

Steps to Write an Argumentative Essay

Follow these basic steps to write a powerful and meaningful argumentative essay :

Step 1: Choose a topic that you’re passionate about

If you’ve already been given a topic to write about, pick a stance that resonates deeply with you. This will shine through in your writing, make the research process easier, and positively influence the outcome of your argument.

Step 2: Conduct ample research to prove the validity of your argument

To write an emotive argumentative essay , finding enough research to support your theory is a must. You’ll need solid evidence to convince readers to agree with your take on the matter. You’ll also need to logically organize the research so that it naturally convinces readers of your viewpoint and leaves no room for questioning.

Step 3: Follow a simple, easy-to-follow structure and compile your essay

A good structure to ensure a well-written and effective argumentative essay includes:

Introduction

●  Introduce your topic.

●  Offer background information on the claim.

●  Discuss the evidence you’ll present to support your argument.

●  State your thesis statement, a one-to-two sentence summary of your claim.

●  This is the section where you’ll develop and expand on your argument.

●  It should be split into three or four coherent paragraphs, with each one presenting its own idea.

●  Start each paragraph with a topic sentence that indicates why readers should adopt your belief or stance.

●  Include your research, statistics, citations, and other supporting evidence.

●  Discuss opposing viewpoints and why they’re invalid.

●  This part typically consists of one paragraph.

●  Summarize your research and the findings that were presented.

●  Emphasize your initial thesis statement.

●  Persuade readers to agree with your stance.

We certainly hope that you feel inspired to use these tips when writing your next argumentative essay . And, if you’re currently elbow-deep in writing one, consider submitting a free sample to us once it’s completed. Our expert team of editors can help ensure that it’s concise, error-free, and effective!

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template (2024)

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

• ACADEMIC ADVICE

How to Write an Argumentative Essay

• November 27, 2022

Table of Contents

What is an argumentative essay, introduction, thesis statement, body paragraphs, outline and research, wrapping up.

We’ve all dreaded writing an intimidating essay at some point or other. Argumentative essays are extra intimidating as you’ll have to do justice to the topic and make a strong argument in its favor.

Read on if you want to master writing clear and concise argumentative essays and have common questions answered, such as:

• How to write an argumentative essay
• What are the types of arguments
• How to write a thesis statement for an argumentative essay and others

An argumentative essay is designed to convince the reader why your stance is correct by expanding on the topic and offering fact-based evidence against counter-claims. It requires thorough research of the topic, a clear thesis statement, and follow sound reasoning.

An exceptionally written argumentative essay will:

• Engage the reader with a compelling and exciting topic.
• Give a fair explanation of all points of view.
• Address the potential counter-claims.
• Make the reader ponder and convince them to adopt and consider a new perspective.

Structure of an Argumentative Essay

When writing an argumentative essay, you’ll want to present your stance in the best way possible, which is where a structure is essential. A strong structure consists of:

• A clear and defined thesis statement
• Organic transitions between paragraphs
• Evidential support (factual, logical, or statistical)

Because argumentative essays usually follow a five-paragraph structure, your structure should be as follows:

• First paragraph: introduction and thesis statement.
• Second to the fourth paragraph: body paragraphs , each one detailing your claims.
• Fifth paragraph: conclusion.

However, depending on the complexity of the topic, argumentative essays can be longer than five paragraphs. So, keep in mind to follow the assignment specifications when outlining your essay.

You’ll want to grab the reader’s attention and retain it until the last sentence, which is why the introduction paragraph should be entertaining while still following academic writing rules. For example, you can open up an interesting statistic not well-known in the field.

Your introduction paragraph should serve to outline the topic and the evidence you will present, provide background information, and your statement thesis.

The thesis statement should be the last sentence of the introduction paragraph, and while it’s only a sentence long, it’s the most important part of your essay. A well-constructed thesis will summarize what your argumentative essay is about and what the reader can expect. You can write a thesis statement by following these three steps:

• Turning the topic into a question and then answering it: ask a big question in the title or the first few sentences and then answer it in your thesis statement.
• Stating an argument and then refuting it: introduce an idea you don’t align with and then explain why you disagree with it.
• Briefly outlining your points: introduce your main point and explain how you’ll back it with evidence.

In the body paragraphs, you should include evidential support to your statement thesis. When writing them, keep the following in mind:

• Explain how the evidence supports the thesis statement,
• Present differing points of view on the topic and why these points don’t support the thesis,
• Connect logically to the thesis statement,
• Try to limit a paragraph to one point.

Lastly, in the conclusion paragraph, you restate the thesis statement, but in the light of the evidence you provided. You can use the conclusion to showcase why the topic is important and what future research should focus on. Note that you should refrain from introducing new information in this section.

Types of Arguments

An argumentative essay can use one of the three arguments to approach a topic. Following an approach or combining them can help you structure your essay more easily and be more evident in your claims.

The classical or Aristotelian argument is a classic for a reason, as it is the most common strategy for making a straightforward argument. It relies on five parts:

• Introduction: it introduces the topic and how you’re going to prove your stance.
• Thesis: it explains your point of view.
• Refutation: it includes counter-arguments and refutes them.
• Confirmation: it presents your evidence.
• Conclusion: it summarizes your argument powerfully with evidential support.

The Toulmin argument approach is better used for complex topics or when refuting an opposing point of view. This method is founded on logic and deep analysis, and it relies on six areas:

• Claim: stating the argument clearly.
• Reasons: presenting the evidence.
• Warrant: connecting the argument with evidence.
• Backing: providing additional evidence.
• Qualifier: explaining the limits of the argument.
• Rebuttal: finding opposing views and refuting them.

The Rogerian argument is best used in essays where you have to show the validity of both sides of an argument. When using this approach, you should take a wider-scope view of the topic. While it is more structure-free than the other approaches, you can still follow a structure by:

✅ Request information on BAU's programs TODAY!

First Name*

Field Of Study BA in Business Administration BA in Economics & Finance BA in Political Science & International Relations BS in Information Technology BS in Software Engineering MBA MSc in Big Data Analytics MSc in Cyber Security MSc in Artificial Intelligence Engineering MSc in Cloud Computing Engineering MSc in Software Engineering Dual Master Program in MBA & Big Data Analytics Intensive English Program (Mentora ESL)

• introducing the argument,
• explaining and validating the opposite point of view,
• explaining your point of view and why you hold that stance,
• finding the middle ground between the opposing points of view, and
• concluding the argument and recognizing where there’s still work to be done.

Steps in the Writing Process

Although the writing process is unique to each person, following some steps can help you be more productive.

If your argument or point of view isn’t provided as an assignment, you can try brainstorming to come up with the perfect topic for your project. When looking for topics or arguments, you should:

• be coherent and relevant to the course,
• pick an important topic, and
• pick a topic with potential for further research.

Outlining and researching are crucial, as they set the foundation for an excellent argumentative essay.

When outlining, you should decide whether to follow the five-paragraph outline or the longer essay outline, depending on the complexity of your topic.

On the other hand, when researching, you’ll have to follow a few steps:

• Picking a point of view and argument,
• researching who else supports your argument,
• exploring the potential counter-arguments, and
• organizing your evidence.

You should also keep in mind to check the validity of your evidence.

After outlining your essay and gathering all the material you need, you can start writing. It’s important to write a rough draft with all your ideas and opinions. You should also remember that in this step, it is more important to write and fill in the gaps than to have a perfect version immediately.

Following the rough draft is the revision part, in which you polish it and transform it into the perfect version. When revising, you should ensure your language is clear, optimize word choice, and strengthen any weak argument. This step will help you retain your essay’s credibility and intellectual integrity.

Naturally, when writing, we can all make grammatical and technical mistakes, which is why you should always proofread your essay before submitting it. While you can proofread it yourself, you can also use online resources such as Grammarly to ease the proofreading process. A handy trick is to proofread your essay after taking a break, as it will help you find tiny mistakes you might otherwise have overlooked.

Writing can be a challenging process, especially when you have to prove your point clearly and concisely. However, by sticking to a bulletproof structure and utilizing our tips for writing a stellar argumentative essay, we’re sure you can take on any topic without any difficulty.

Bay Atlantic University

Leave a reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You May Also Like

• 6 minute read

Mastering ESL Teacher Skills: A Comprehensive Guide to Success

• April 24, 2024
• 3 minute read

How to Write a Body Paragraph?

• December 2, 2021
• 5 minute read

Traditional Classes vs. Online Classes: Which One Is Better?

• October 21, 2022
• 8 minute read

Types of Degrees in College: Which One is the Best Fit for You?

• May 1, 2023

What Is a Good SAT Score?

• May 27, 2023
• 7 minute read

Top 6 Gift Ideas for Teachers

• June 1, 2022

What’s the Difference Between a Ph.D. and a Doctorate?

• July 8, 2024
• INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

Application Process for U.S. Universities: Everything You Need to Know

• 4 minute read

Pros & Cons of Accounting: Is an Accounting Degree Worth It?

How long does it take to get a master’s degree: full-time vs. part-time.

• July 5, 2024

Request information on BAU's programs TODAY!

What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

We define an argumentative essay as a type of essay that presents arguments about both sides of an issue. The purpose is to convince the reader to accept a particular viewpoint or action. In an argumentative essay, the writer takes a stance on a controversial or debatable topic and supports their position with evidence, reasoning, and examples. The essay should also address counterarguments, demonstrating a thorough understanding of the topic.

Table of Contents

What is an argumentative essay  .

• Argumentative essay structure 
• Argumentative essay outline 
• Types of argument claims 

How to write an argumentative essay?

• Argumentative essay writing tips 
• Good argumentative essay example 

How to write a good thesis

• How to Write an Argumentative Essay with Paperpal? 

Frequently Asked Questions

An argumentative essay is a type of writing that presents a coherent and logical analysis of a specific topic. 1 The goal is to convince the reader to accept the writer’s point of view or opinion on a particular issue. Here are the key elements of an argumentative essay: 

• Thesis Statement : The central claim or argument that the essay aims to prove. 
• Introduction : Provides background information and introduces the thesis statement. 
• Body Paragraphs : Each paragraph addresses a specific aspect of the argument, presents evidence, and may include counter arguments.  Articulate your thesis statement better with Paperpal. Start writing now!
• Evidence : Supports the main argument with relevant facts, examples, statistics, or expert opinions.
• Counterarguments : Anticipates and addresses opposing viewpoints to strengthen the overall argument.
• Conclusion : Summarizes the main points, reinforces the thesis, and may suggest implications or actions. 

Argumentative essay structure  

Aristotelian, Rogerian, and Toulmin are three distinct approaches to argumentative essay structures, each with its principles and methods. 2 The choice depends on the purpose and nature of the topic. Here’s an overview of each type of argumentative essay format.

Have a looming deadline for your argumentative essay? Write 2x faster with Paperpal – Start now!  

Argumentative essay outline  

An argumentative essay presents a specific claim or argument and supports it with evidence and reasoning. Here’s an outline for an argumentative essay, along with examples for each section: 3  

1.  Introduction : 

• Hook : Start with a compelling statement, question, or anecdote to grab the reader’s attention. 

Example: “Did you know that plastic pollution is threatening marine life at an alarming rate?” 

• Background information : Provide brief context about the issue. 

Example: “Plastic pollution has become a global environmental concern, with millions of tons of plastic waste entering our oceans yearly.” 

• Thesis statement : Clearly state your main argument or position. 

Example: “We must take immediate action to reduce plastic usage and implement more sustainable alternatives to protect our marine ecosystem.” 

2.  Body Paragraphs : 

• Topic sentence : Introduce the main idea of each paragraph. 

Example: “The first step towards addressing the plastic pollution crisis is reducing single-use plastic consumption.” 

• Evidence/Support : Provide evidence, facts, statistics, or examples that support your argument. 

Example: “Research shows that plastic straws alone contribute to millions of tons of plastic waste annually, and many marine animals suffer from ingestion or entanglement.” 

• Counterargument/Refutation : Acknowledge and refute opposing viewpoints. 

Example: “Some argue that banning plastic straws is inconvenient for consumers, but the long-term environmental benefits far outweigh the temporary inconvenience.” 

• Transition : Connect each paragraph to the next. 

Example: “Having addressed the issue of single-use plastics, the focus must now shift to promoting sustainable alternatives.” 

3.  Counterargument Paragraph : 

• Acknowledgement of opposing views : Recognize alternative perspectives on the issue. 

Example: “While some may argue that individual actions cannot significantly impact global plastic pollution, the cumulative effect of collective efforts must be considered.” 

• Counterargument and rebuttal : Present and refute the main counterargument. 

Example: “However, individual actions, when multiplied across millions of people, can substantially reduce plastic waste. Small changes in behavior, such as using reusable bags and containers, can have a significant positive impact.” 

4.  Conclusion : 

• Restatement of thesis : Summarize your main argument. 

Example: “In conclusion, adopting sustainable practices and reducing single-use plastic is crucial for preserving our oceans and marine life.” 

• Call to action : Encourage the reader to take specific steps or consider the argument’s implications. 

Example: “It is our responsibility to make environmentally conscious choices and advocate for policies that prioritize the health of our planet. By collectively embracing sustainable alternatives, we can contribute to a cleaner and healthier future.” 

Types of argument claims  

A claim is a statement or proposition a writer puts forward with evidence to persuade the reader. 4 Here are some common types of argument claims, along with examples: 

• Fact Claims : These claims assert that something is true or false and can often be verified through evidence.  Example: “Water boils at 100°C at sea level.”
• Value Claims : Value claims express judgments about the worth or morality of something, often based on personal beliefs or societal values. Example: “Organic farming is more ethical than conventional farming.” 
• Policy Claims : Policy claims propose a course of action or argue for a specific policy, law, or regulation change.  Example: “Schools should adopt a year-round education system to improve student learning outcomes.” 
• Cause and Effect Claims : These claims argue that one event or condition leads to another, establishing a cause-and-effect relationship.  Example: “Excessive use of social media is a leading cause of increased feelings of loneliness among young adults.” 
• Definition Claims : Definition claims assert the meaning or classification of a concept or term.  Example: “Artificial intelligence can be defined as machines exhibiting human-like cognitive functions.” 
• Comparative Claims : Comparative claims assert that one thing is better or worse than another in certain respects.  Example: “Online education is more cost-effective than traditional classroom learning.” 
• Evaluation Claims : Evaluation claims assess the quality, significance, or effectiveness of something based on specific criteria.  Example: “The new healthcare policy is more effective in providing affordable healthcare to all citizens.” 

Understanding these argument claims can help writers construct more persuasive and well-supported arguments tailored to the specific nature of the claim.  

If you’re wondering how to start an argumentative essay, here’s a step-by-step guide to help you with the argumentative essay format and writing process.

• Choose a Topic: Select a topic that you are passionate about or interested in. Ensure that the topic is debatable and has two or more sides.
• Define Your Position: Clearly state your stance on the issue. Consider opposing viewpoints and be ready to counter them.
• Conduct Research: Gather relevant information from credible sources, such as books, articles, and academic journals. Take notes on key points and supporting evidence.
• Create a Thesis Statement: Develop a concise and clear thesis statement that outlines your main argument. Convey your position on the issue and provide a roadmap for the essay.
• Outline Your Argumentative Essay: Organize your ideas logically by creating an outline. Include an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Each body paragraph should focus on a single point that supports your thesis.
• Write the Introduction: Start with a hook to grab the reader’s attention (a quote, a question, a surprising fact). Provide background information on the topic. Present your thesis statement at the end of the introduction.
• Develop Body Paragraphs: Begin each paragraph with a clear topic sentence that relates to the thesis. Support your points with evidence and examples. Address counterarguments and refute them to strengthen your position. Ensure smooth transitions between paragraphs.
• Address Counterarguments: Acknowledge and respond to opposing viewpoints. Anticipate objections and provide evidence to counter them.
• Write the Conclusion: Summarize the main points of your argumentative essay. Reinforce the significance of your argument. End with a call to action, a prediction, or a thought-provoking statement.
• Revise, Edit, and Share: Review your essay for clarity, coherence, and consistency. Check for grammatical and spelling errors. Share your essay with peers, friends, or instructors for constructive feedback.
• Finalize Your Argumentative Essay: Make final edits based on feedback received. Ensure that your essay follows the required formatting and citation style.

Struggling to start your argumentative essay? Paperpal can help – try now!   

Argumentative essay writing tips  

Here are eight strategies to craft a compelling argumentative essay: 

• Choose a Clear and Controversial Topic : Select a topic that sparks debate and has opposing viewpoints. A clear and controversial issue provides a solid foundation for a strong argument. 
• Conduct Thorough Research : Gather relevant information from reputable sources to support your argument. Use a variety of sources, such as academic journals, books, reputable websites, and expert opinions, to strengthen your position. 
• Create a Strong Thesis Statement : Clearly articulate your main argument in a concise thesis statement. Your thesis should convey your stance on the issue and provide a roadmap for the reader to follow your argument. 
• Develop a Logical Structure : Organize your essay with a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Each paragraph should focus on a specific point of evidence that contributes to your overall argument. Ensure a logical flow from one point to the next. 
• Provide Strong Evidence : Support your claims with solid evidence. Use facts, statistics, examples, and expert opinions to support your arguments. Be sure to cite your sources appropriately to maintain credibility. 
• Address Counterarguments : Acknowledge opposing viewpoints and counterarguments. Addressing and refuting alternative perspectives strengthens your essay and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the issue. Be mindful of maintaining a respectful tone even when discussing opposing views. 
• Use Persuasive Language : Employ persuasive language to make your points effectively. Avoid emotional appeals without supporting evidence and strive for a respectful and professional tone. 
• Craft a Compelling Conclusion : Summarize your main points, restate your thesis, and leave a lasting impression in your conclusion. Encourage readers to consider the implications of your argument and potentially take action. 

Good argumentative essay example  

Let’s consider a sample of argumentative essay on how social media enhances connectivity:

In the digital age, social media has emerged as a powerful tool that transcends geographical boundaries, connecting individuals from diverse backgrounds and providing a platform for an array of voices to be heard. While critics argue that social media fosters division and amplifies negativity, it is essential to recognize the positive aspects of this digital revolution and how it enhances connectivity by providing a platform for diverse voices to flourish. One of the primary benefits of social media is its ability to facilitate instant communication and connection across the globe. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram break down geographical barriers, enabling people to establish and maintain relationships regardless of physical location and fostering a sense of global community. Furthermore, social media has transformed how people stay connected with friends and family. Whether separated by miles or time zones, social media ensures that relationships remain dynamic and relevant, contributing to a more interconnected world. Moreover, social media has played a pivotal role in giving voice to social justice movements and marginalized communities. Movements such as #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and #ClimateStrike have gained momentum through social media, allowing individuals to share their stories and advocate for change on a global scale. This digital activism can shape public opinion and hold institutions accountable. Social media platforms provide a dynamic space for open dialogue and discourse. Users can engage in discussions, share information, and challenge each other’s perspectives, fostering a culture of critical thinking. This open exchange of ideas contributes to a more informed and enlightened society where individuals can broaden their horizons and develop a nuanced understanding of complex issues. While criticisms of social media abound, it is crucial to recognize its positive impact on connectivity and the amplification of diverse voices. Social media transcends physical and cultural barriers, connecting people across the globe and providing a platform for marginalized voices to be heard. By fostering open dialogue and facilitating the exchange of ideas, social media contributes to a more interconnected and empowered society. Embracing the positive aspects of social media allows us to harness its potential for positive change and collective growth.

• Clearly Define Your Thesis Statement:   Your thesis statement is the core of your argumentative essay. Clearly articulate your main argument or position on the issue. Avoid vague or general statements.  
• Provide Strong Supporting Evidence:   Back up your thesis with solid evidence from reliable sources and examples. This can include facts, statistics, expert opinions, anecdotes, or real-life examples. Make sure your evidence is relevant to your argument, as it impacts the overall persuasiveness of your thesis.  
• Anticipate Counterarguments and Address Them:   Acknowledge and address opposing viewpoints to strengthen credibility. This also shows that you engage critically with the topic rather than presenting a one-sided argument. 

How to Write an Argumentative Essay with Paperpal?  

Writing a winning argumentative essay not only showcases your ability to critically analyze a topic but also demonstrates your skill in persuasively presenting your stance backed by evidence. Achieving this level of writing excellence can be time-consuming. This is where Paperpal, your AI academic writing assistant, steps in to revolutionize the way you approach argumentative essays. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to use Paperpal to write your essay: 

• Sign Up or Log In: Begin by creating an account or logging into paperpal.com .  
• Navigate to Paperpal Copilot: Once logged in, proceed to the Templates section from the side navigation bar.  
• Generate an essay outline: Under Templates, click on the ‘Outline’ tab and choose ‘Essay’ from the options and provide your topic to generate an outline.  
• Develop your essay: Use this structured outline as a guide to flesh out your essay. If you encounter any roadblocks, click on Brainstorm and get subject-specific assistance, ensuring you stay on track. 
• Refine your writing: To elevate the academic tone of your essay, select a paragraph and use the ‘Make Academic’ feature under the ‘Rewrite’ tab, ensuring your argumentative essay resonates with an academic audience. 
• Final Touches: Make your argumentative essay submission ready with Paperpal’s language, grammar, consistency and plagiarism checks, and improve your chances of acceptance.  

Paperpal not only simplifies the essay writing process but also ensures your argumentative essay is persuasive, well-structured, and academically rigorous. Sign up today and transform how you write argumentative essays. 

The length of an argumentative essay can vary, but it typically falls within the range of 1,000 to 2,500 words. However, the specific requirements may depend on the guidelines provided.

You might write an argumentative essay when:  1. You want to convince others of the validity of your position.  2. There is a controversial or debatable issue that requires discussion.  3. You need to present evidence and logical reasoning to support your claims.  4. You want to explore and critically analyze different perspectives on a topic. 

Argumentative Essay:  Purpose : An argumentative essay aims to persuade the reader to accept or agree with a specific point of view or argument.  Structure : It follows a clear structure with an introduction, thesis statement, body paragraphs presenting arguments and evidence, counterarguments and refutations, and a conclusion.  Tone : The tone is formal and relies on logical reasoning, evidence, and critical analysis.    Narrative/Descriptive Essay:  Purpose : These aim to tell a story or describe an experience, while a descriptive essay focuses on creating a vivid picture of a person, place, or thing.  Structure : They may have a more flexible structure. They often include an engaging introduction, a well-developed body that builds the story or description, and a conclusion.  Tone : The tone is more personal and expressive to evoke emotions or provide sensory details. 

• Gladd, J. (2020). Tips for Writing Academic Persuasive Essays.  Write What Matters . 
• Nimehchisalem, V. (2018). Pyramid of argumentation: Towards an integrated model for teaching and assessing ESL writing.  Language & Communication ,  5 (2), 185-200. 
• Press, B. (2022).  Argumentative Essays: A Step-by-Step Guide . Broadview Press. 
• Rieke, R. D., Sillars, M. O., & Peterson, T. R. (2005).  Argumentation and critical decision making . Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. 

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)
• What is a Narrative Essay? How to Write It (with Examples)

Make Your Research Paper Error-Free with Paperpal’s Online Spell Checker 

The do’s & don’ts of using generative ai tools ethically in academia, you may also like, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers....

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 19 February 2024

A corpus-based comparison of linguistic markers of stance and genre in the academic writing of novice and advanced engineering learners

• Siu Wing Yee Barbara 1 ,
• Muhammad Afzaal   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4649-781X 2 &
• Hessah Saleh Aldayel 3  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  284 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1352 Accesses

2 Citations

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics

Stance-taking in academic writing plays a crucial role in enabling tertiary academic writers to express their positions about their topics and other voices. Based on a corpus linguistic analysis of academic reports by civil and environmental engineering (CEE) undergraduate students and student papers in the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers (MICUSP), this article investigates the use of stance markers in the genres of persuasive and argumentative writing as well as analytical explanatory writing. This study compares the stance markers used by L2 engineering students (Hong Kong University) and native engineering students (U.S. University) to investigate the genre-specific lexical stance patterns used by academic writers. This study found that stance within the CEE reports and MICUSP was expressed through approximative hedges and boosters, code glosses, and adversative and contrast connections, pointing to a specific developmental trajectory as academic writers. Non-native engineering students were found to use a significantly smaller number of approximative, self-mention, and evidential verb hedges. In addition, they tend to use a more significant number of modal hedges compared to native English speakers. The CEE students’ reports also tended to be characterized by the underuse of boosters, contrastive connectors, emphasis, and counter-expectancy markers. However, the study found no significant difference in the use of exemplification markers between the CEE and MICUSP. The findings of this study support the construction of the academic stance as a process of delimiting one’s perspective. This is achieved by deploying selected stance features to account for other scholarly perspectives.

Similar content being viewed by others

The use of interactional metadiscourse markers by Saudi EFL male and female college students: the case of a gender-sensitive topic

The use of discourse markers in argumentative compositions by jordanian efl learners.

Exploring linguistic features, ideologies, and critical thinking in Chinese news comments

Introduction.

In academic writing, linguistic devices are strategically deployed by writers to communicate with their readers (Jin, 2015 ). In technical terms, such attempts to interact with readers may be understood as ‘stance’ (Alghazo et al., 2021a ). ‘Stance’ is defined here as ‘the speaker’s or writer’s feeling, attitude, perspective, or position as enacted in discourse’ (Strauss and Feiz, 2013 ). In an academic context, this allows academic writers to take charge of their work by expressing knowledge-based evaluations of the topics within their writing to convince their readers of their authorial position (Jiang and Hyland, 2015 ). In the realm of academia, writing assumes a formal and enduring style of communication, where individuals from diverse linguistic backgrounds employ stance to share knowledge and actively contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge, (Alghazo et al., 2021a ; Abusalim et al., 2022 ).

As part of their studies, undergraduate and graduate engineering students undertake various types of scholarly writing, with academic reports comprising one of the most common writing tasks assigned to them. A vital imperative of an effective academic report is the need for students to formulate and present their position or stance towards the topic of scholarly voices within the field. Numerous scholars have identified stance as playing a pivotal role in academic writing research, particularly in linguistics-based studies (Hunston and Thompson, 2001 ; Hyland, 2005b , 2012 ; Silver, 2003 ; Afzaal et al., 2021 , 2022 ; Strange, 2023 ; Keisling, 2011 ; Lu, 2023 ; Alghazo et al., 2023 ). In light of this context, the current study undertakes a comparative analysis of stance markers employed by L2 engineering students and native engineering students with the aim of investigating genre-specific lexical stance patterns utilized by academic writers. Consequently, this research concentrates on undergraduate students pursuing civil engineering, specifically those who have submitted their final-year projects and hold the potential to publish their reports in high-caliber academic journals.

Over the past two decades, various linguistic features have been examined to gauge how writers express stance (Hunston and Thompson, 2001 ), namely: appraisal (Martin and White, 2005 ), evidentiality (Chafe, 1986 ), metadiscourse features (Hyland, 2005a ; Vande Kopple, 1985 ), and positioning (Harré and Van Langenhove, 1999 ; Aull and Landcaster, 2014 ). As this body of research shows, the importance of posture is evident in academic writing across early and upper-level English second language (L2) writing and published academic writing (Hyland and Jiang, 2018 ). Stance-taking and stance-support are considered to be defining acts in the argumentative or expository essay, a text type often used as an assessment tool in academic settings (Chandrasegaran and Kong, 2006 ). Furthermore, stance is viewed as part of an expert writer’s tacit genre knowledge awareness, which can help student writers succeed in college-level writing (Soliday, 2011 , p. 37).

In academic writing, stance is considered vital because it expresses the communicator’s “attitudes, feelings, judgments, or commitment concerning the propositional content of a message” (Biber, 1999 , p. 23). Biber ( 2006 ) elaborates that stance expressions “convey many different kinds of personal feelings and assessments, including attitudes [towards] certain information, how certain they are about its veracity, and how they obtained access to it and what perspective they are taking”. Stance can be achieved through “grammatical devices and lexical words, which express epistemic knowledge (e.g., might, suggest, probably, possibly, likely) and authors’ attitudes towards propositions (e.g., unfortunately, surprisingly)” (Biber et al., 1999 in Shen and Tao, 2021 , p. 2). As a linguistic mechanism, stance is studied from the perspectives of evidentiality, affect, attitude, attitude, evaluation, appraisal, and meta-discourse (Shen and Tao, 2021 ). Drawing upon these linguistic mechanisms, writers can convey their position and feelings about the proposition within their discourse and establish an effective interpersonal relationship with their readers (Kiesling et al., 2018 ; Shen and Tao, 2021 ; Zhang and Zhang, 2023 ).

Metadiscursive cues for facilitating “social negotiations embedded in discourse” are prominent in all “university registers” (Biber, 2006 in Aull, 2019 , p. 268). However, they are particularly significant in scholarly discourse in which “stance is constantly adjusted in interaction with the construed readership” (Wharton, 2012 , p. 262). Drawing upon Hyland ( 2012 ) and Soliday ( 2011 ), Aull ( 2019 ) observes that for learners entering tertiary education programs, linguistic mechanisms for expressing stance tend to be “tacit”. Hence, it is difficult for novice academic writers to comprehend scholarly writing as a discourse that acknowledges, creates, and navigates social relations through the use of stance devices, thus enabling them to evaluate propositions and address alternative perspectives. This is something that is unlikely to be unattainable if the text lacks the use of stance. Under such circumstances, the text is likely to reflect impersonality.

Although stance markers are present in all university registers, they tend to be more prominent in scholarly writing, wherein stance experiences ongoing modification while interacting with an imagined audience (Wharton, 2012 , p. 262). Changing one’s stance is contingent upon disciplinary preferences and broader academic practices (Afzaal & Du, 2023 ; Hyland and Tse, 2004 ). Using stance norms is also important because it directly impacts the grades achieved by native speakers and English language learners who write for school (Lee and Deakin, 2016 ).

Research interests in linguistic stance markers within undergraduate writing have been growing as students who are new to higher education tend to be unaware of these linguistic devices (Hyland, 2012 ). In addition, studying Stance in the writings of L2 writers is also necessary because they employ fewer linguistic resources to alter epistemic commitment when compared with L1 writers (Hyland and Milton, 1997 ). The academic writing of L2 writers differs noticeably, indicating that undergraduates are still learning to apply these linguistic markers. Compared with seasoned scholarly writing, the written output of undergraduate learners tends to make more extensive use of boosters and significantly limited use of hedges (Hyland, 2012 ).

Against this backdrop, the present paper compares the stance markers used by L2 engineering students (from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University) and native engineering students (U.S. University) to investigate the genre-specific lexical stance patterns used by academic writers. Therefore, this study focuses on undergraduate students studying civil engineering who have submitted their final-year projects and have the potential to publish their reports in top-quality academic journals.

Understanding how to identify what constitutes valuable stance patterns in student writing is another difficulty the students face. For instance, a valuable stance pattern may depend on the purpose of writing, ranging as it may from laying out the facts to persuading the readers. For the most part, undergraduate student writing does not resemble published academic writing in terms of level and genre. Students are far more likely to respond to assignments rather than produce writing for scholarly journals. For instance, the writing of undergraduates studying language, philosophy, and education reflects a greater tendency towards the expression of opinions as well as mental processes in the form of lexical verbs and phrases compared with the writing of graduate-level engineering students (Hyland and Jiang, 2018 ). In research comparing authorial attitude expressed via stance adverbs in abstracts within Chinese and American doctoral engineering dissertations, Bao ( 2022 ) found that the Chinese writers tended to deploy more boosters (a category of epistemic stance adverbs) and to use stance adverbs for the expression of affect rather than evaluation. It was observed that the language used to express thoughts and mental processes tends to be more prevalent in reports and research documents than in the assignment genre within the advanced writing corpus (Hardy and Friginal, 2016 ; Rhee, 2023 ). Hitherto, stance research on student writing has confined itself to common genres. While Charles ( 2007 ) has investigated theses and Hyland and Tse ( 2004 ) have focused on abstracts, Hyland ( 2012 ) has explored dissertations, and Aull et al. ( 2019 ) have turned their attention to argumentative essays.

The present paper undertakes a corpus-based comparative analysis of stance expressions in a corpus of final-year projects of engineering students (L2) and an L1 engineering academic writing corpus. As researchers have yet to explore the MICUSP assignment category from this perspective, the present study’s focus represents an attempt to address this gap.

Stance in academic writing

There has been considerable research into using hedges and boosters in academic writing. According to Hyland and Jiang ( 2016 ), these markers demonstrate that “the writer has expressed commitment to the veracity of the propositions he or she offers and the prospective influence on the reader”. Epistemic position markers such as “perhaps”, “maybe”, or “might” allow the creation of a dialogic space. They downplay the degree of confidence ascribed to an accompanying claim, thus allowing for the potential of other ways of thinking and divergence in opinion. On the other hand, boosters such as “unquestionably” sequester the dialogic space by allowing no room for dissent. Existing literature suggests that hedges and boosters enable authors to introduce more indirectness and politeness in academic prose (Hyland, 1998 ; Li and Wharton, 2012 ; Vande Kopple, 2002 ). Based on their studies of hedges and boosters, researchers such as Aull ( 2015 ) and Aull and Lancaster ( 2014 ) observe that successful academic writing is characterized by carefully calibrated epistemic commitment achieved through the strategic deployment of boosters and more liberal use of hedges.

Additionally, according to the studies mentioned above, students transitioning from secondary to postsecondary writing are not always aware of this expectation. Aull et al. ( 2017 ) and Hyland ( 2012 ) pointed out that learners transitioning to postsecondary writing are not always familiar with the notion of epistemic commitment or how to achieve it. Secondary and postsecondary writing is characterized by greater certainty and generality, even though teachers appear to prioritize writing with lower levels of certainty and generality. For instance, while the deployment of hedges in late secondary essays was associated with higher ratings of writing quality (Uccelli et al., 2013), Brown and Aull ( 2017 ) reported “emphatic generality” to be evident in low-attainment writing and “elaborated specificity” to be evident in high-attainment writing in advanced placement (AP) English. Research shows a predominant use of hedges in A-awarded argumentative essays (in contrast with B-graded essays) written by Chinese writers of English and native writers of English in their first year of college (Lee and Deakin, 2016 ). According to Thompson ( 2001 ), interactional techniques include questions or views potentially belonging to the reader (Aull and Lancaster, 2014 ). Interactional resources are modeled more generally as functioning either as “stance” or “engagement” devices in Hyland’s more lexically focused approach (see, for example, Hyland, 2005a , 2005b ). Hyland ( 2005 ) introduces the model of interactional metadiscourse features; within the context of this model, “interactional macro functions” are served by stance and engagement (Hyland, 2005b , p. 176).

Novice and advanced academic writers

Aull and Lancaster ( 2014 ) identified a greater use of hedges and limited generality compared to writing done by novice undergraduate learners (Aull and Lancaster, 2014 ). Investigating instructor evaluations of advanced undergraduate prose, Aull and Lancaster ( 2014 ) notes that while the writing teachers support the strategic use of boosters, they show a preference for student writers demonstrating critical neutrality from the claims. While research suggests that academic writers mould their writing in response to the discursive practices prevalent in their disciplinary field (Hunston, 1994), advanced academic prose, irrespective of the discipline within which it is produced, integrates characteristics that are obstructive rather than supportive of the writer’s argument (Mei, 2007 ). For instance, while observing that clausal features that explicated ideas and relationships supported strongly critical claims in undergraduate argumentative writing, Staples et al. (2016) found that in more explanatory genres, the student academic writers tended to deploy passive voice and complex phrases to distance themselves from critical statements. Therefore, this study focuses on comparing novice and advanced academic writers.

This study investigates stance-taking/interactional strategies deployed by L2 writers compared to native English writers in their report writing. The linguistic aspects of text-based analytical writing asking students to assess a nonfiction article’s theme, make claims about the author’s message, provide evidence to support the claim, and analyze the author’s craft remain unexplored. It is essential to explore these because understanding these aspects enables student writers to express their position and stance toward a topic, author, or issue more effectively. Writing in this style differs from the more common source-based, argumentative style. The present study is significant as it contributes to the existing literature by focusing on the idea that academic argumentation “involves articulating a viewpoint on matters that matter to a discipline” (Hyland, 2012 , p. 134) which can be improved through attention to stance in undergraduate writing. Therefore, the study addresses the following research questions.

The following research questions framed our investigation:

RQ1) What stance-taking/interactional strategies were deployed by L2 writers compared to native English writers in their report writing?

RQ2) What are the key patterns in stance markers deployed by writers in assignments from the CEE and MICUSP corpora?

RQ3) What are the implications of these patterns for the development of L2 writers in the argumentative genre?

The study investigated the stance-taking/interactional strategies used by the L2 writers in relation to upper-level writers in English in an L1 university setting. Therefore, MICUSP is used as the expert corpus, whereas CEE is used as the L2 corpus. A detailed description of the corpora is given in the next section.

The MICUSP corpus

The MICUSP is an online corpus of 829 upper-level student writing documented at the English Language Institute at the University of Michigan (see Romer and O’Donnell, 2011 ). It comprises the writings of ‘highly advanced student writers whose written assignments have been awarded the grade ‘A’ (Ädel and Römer, 2012 , p. 3). This online corpus is freely available to the public. The writing in MICUSP represents a very high standard of upper-level student writing because of the competitiveness of the University of Michigan (UM) undergraduate and post-graduate programs and the high ranking of UM itself, which was ranked as the 28th best undergraduate school in the country in the 2018 US News and World Report rankings (Romer and O’Donnell, 2011 ). Each post-graduate-level UM program included in this research is likewise very selective, placing amongst the top 15 in the country. These programs range from psychology and education to engineering and political science. The study focused on the essays written by civil and environmental engineering departments uploaded to the official corpus of the MICUSP. The upper-level writing in civil and environmental engineering was included to compare the final year reports of Hong Kong Polytechnic University undergraduates.

We extracted 155 Upper-Level Student Papers from the Michigan Corpus of (MICUSP) for our analysis. The MICUSP contains A-graded papers written by native students in the final year of undergraduate education or the first three years of graduate school, thus offering insights into ‘successful university writing models in terms of their linguistic composition, format, and style”’(Hardy and Römer, 2013 ).

The CEE corpus

The Polytechnic University corpus of civil and environmental engineering (CEE) was based on the final year reports submitted by undergraduates studying in the civil and environmental engineering department at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. This study’s unit of analysis comprised 97 final-year reports written by L2 undergraduates at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University in Hong Kong. Students write final-year project arguments using evidence from expository texts and take their time reading, drafting, writing, and revising them. The CEE corpus comprises a significant collection of writing completed by students transitioning to the next level of their education. The writing was in the form of an argumentative response to readings that were not discipline-specific and included time for the stages of the writing process. The length of the reports in the corpus varies. The average word count of the reports in the entire sample is 8362.69, and the total number of tokens in the CEE corpus are 811,181 (Table 1 ).

Analysis procedure

The research employs a mixed-method approach to analyze the data, encompassing both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Initially, the study employs quantitative analysis, statistical analysis, and corpus-based analysis using Sketch Engine. Texts in the CEE and MICUSP were uploaded to Sketch Engine (Kilgarriff et al., 2014 ) and annotated with TreeTagger Tag Set (Santorini, 1990 ). The targeted searches of stance markers corresponding to each functional category were adopted from Aull and Lancaster’s ( 2014 ) analysis, which was compiled based on a large strand of relevant literature. In addition, several studies have also utilized Python to extract stance features from political discourse and narratives, as well as for the acquisition of discourse markers. This approach is exemplified in the works of Aminu and Chiluwa ( 2023 ) and Polat ( 2011 ). Corpus query language was written to extract stance markers. Then, each concordance line was manually scrutinized to confirm whether the retrieved item was used as a particular stance marker. For example, we first used the query language [lemma = “particularly”] to extract concordances containing the word particularly and then manually eliminated those in which mainly was used as an adverb, instead of a code gloss, for example, particularly complicated . Subsequently, it transitions to qualitative analysis to delve deeper into the data and gain a comprehensive understanding of the research phenomena. The mean and standard deviation of stance markers used in each corpus are summarized in Table 2 .

This study compares the use of stance markers in reports written by non-native civil engineering students (CEE corpus) with reports produced by native English academic writers (MICUSP corpus). Both hedging and boosting assist authors in expressing a greater or lesser level of commitment to their claims; the phenomenon is examined in our analysis. Hedging is typically realized through appearance-based evidential verbs ( seems, appears ), self-mention phrases ( we believe, from our perspective ), modal verbs of probability ( may, might, and could ), and approximative adverbs ( approximately, about ). In contrast, boosting refers to efforts made to increase epistemic commitment. This is typically accomplished by exaggerating or intensifying adverbs, such as completely and definitely which boost authors’ expressions of stance. Boosting is a form of embellishment (Biber et al., 1999 ; Hyland, 2005b ; Quirk et al., 1985 ).

The proportion of each metadiscourse category

Considering that the MICUSP has different sizes, the frequencies of stance markers used in each corpus are normalized to a common base, i.e., per 10,000 words. Figure 1 compares the normalized frequencies of metadiscourse in reports written by the CEE students and MICUSP writers. The most striking observation to emerge from the data comparison is that these metadiscourse categories are employed in loosely similar proportions in the CEE and MICUSP corpus. Hedges are used most frequently by native and non-native university students, with boosters coming in second place and contrastive connectors in third place. Moreover, the least frequent use is code glosses. Although Biber ( 2006 ) divides epistemic adverbs into four different categories, namely certainty, attitude, and style, these categories are not mutually exclusive. Our results indicated that civil engineering students used fewer phrases of clarity for expressions of likelihood. For example, a claim that is described as either extraordinarily likely or certainly unlikely is a boosted assertion along these lines.

Frequency Distribution of Metadiscourse Features in the CEE (Black) and MICUSP (Grey).

Figure 1 indicates that both native and non-native undergraduates used hedges more frequently than other categories of stance markers. The result highlights a general trend that writers, especially advanced language users, tend to open dialogic space using hedges in their writings (Aull, 2019 ). Moreover, the result suggests that boosters are the second most frequently used stance markers in both CEE and MICUSP. The finding is consistent with that of Hyland ( 2005 ) and Lancaster ( 2016 ), who found that advanced language users appear to employ hedges to open dialogic space while using boosters to close dialogic space to achieve more measures and less blunt tone of scholarly writing. Table 3 presents the normalized frequencies of stance makers used in the CEE and MICUSP. A chi-square test of independence was performed via SPSS to examine the relationship between native university students and non-native undergraduates in their use of metadiscourse features. Moreover, Fisher’s exact test was conducted for additional information about the significance value.

As shown in Table 3 , statistical analysis reveals that the use of modal hedges in the MICUSP was significantly less (62.42) than in the writings within the CEE corpus (81.65). However, native college students used a significantly greater number of approximative hedges (49.26), self-mention hedges (1.92), and evidential verb hedges (20.76) than non-native university students (respectively, 32.24, 0.12, and 13.46). In addition, the use of boosters in the MICUSP was greater (114) than evidenced in the writings within the CEE corpus (87.49).

The use of code glosses presents mixed results. Essays written by native college students were found to make significantly more frequent use of emphasis (3.30) and counter-expectancy markers (0.55) and less frequent use of elucidation markers (5.92). Moreover, there was no significant difference between the CEE (17.65) and MICUSP (16.19) concerning the use of exemplification markers. In terms of contrastive connectors, the frequency of contrastive connectors in the MICUSP (72.16) is significantly higher than in the essays written by the CEE students (34.14).

Further analysis of the most frequently used stance words or phrases by native and non-native university students shows more similarities than differences between the corpora from MICUSP and CEE. Table 4 presents the frequently used stance markers in the CEE and MICUSP in the order of their frequencies. For example, the most frequently used evidential verb hedges and self-mention hedges in the two corpora are identical.

Elucidation and exemplifying: use of code glosses

The analysis of the results focuses on code glosses because these are linguistic resources that “assist readers in grasping the acceptable interpretations of components in texts” (Vande Kopple, 1985 , p. 84). Many different code glosses, like approximative hedges, are used to express meanings with greater precision. Furthermore, by indicating that a proposition requires careful elaboration or clarification, code glosses can implicitly elevate the status of material as deserving readers’ attention.

One clear difference between types of code glosses is the distinction between elucidation and exemplification techniques (Hyland, 2007 ). As illustrated in examples 1 and 2 below, extracted from the CEE corpus, the former category comprises moves for explaining, paraphrasing, or specifying a point (made by the writer or someone else), whereas the latter includes moves to further illustrate a point with examples.

Elucidation : The microplastics cannot be treated by a normal wastewater treatment process because it is too small to screen and settle. In other words, microbead finally will discharge to the river or ocean directly and causing plastic resin pellet pollution. (FYP-CEE)

Exemplification: Sources of microplastics in the oceans of the world. Microbead can be defined as a 5 micrometre (μm) to 1 mm plastic fragments or beads made of synthetic polymers. For instance, polyethene, polylactic acid and polypropylene (Rochman, 2015 ). It can usually be existed in various exfoliating personal care and cosmetic products, including body wash, face wash and cosmetics instead of natural ingredients, including oatmeal, walnut husks, and pumice (FYP-CEE).

According to our findings, the CEE used more elucidation than the MICUSP students. Figure 1 also shows that CEE writers use other categories such as counter expectancy of code glosses less frequently than MICUSP writers. While there is a slight increase in the use of exemplification between CEE and MICUSP writers, the differences are minor. The CEE students, like the MICUSP students, include many examples in their argumentation, denoted by such as, for example , and other wordings.

Expressing concession and contrast

Our analysis of frequently occurring adversative/contrast connectors such as however, but , and nevertheless revealed the need to differentiate between two related functional categories: concessive/counter connectors on the one hand and contrast connectors on the other (see, e.g., Halliday and Hasan, 1976 ; Izutsu, 2008 ). Stance features appear in bold and are discussed below each passage. For example, example 3 comes from a research report written by an undergraduate student in civil engineering in the CEE corpus. Fu and Wang ( 2022 ) suggest that interpreted and spontaneous speeches tend to follow distinct hedging patterns in terms of preferred linguistic choices. In addition, hedges can assist researchers in defending their positions while also assisting them in applying plausibility and clarity to their assertions (e.g., Lakoff, 1972 ; Hyland, 2000 , 2005 ).

Concessive/counter : The supply of fresh water supplies declines, wastewater reuse after treatment is gaining recognition around the world. However, it is also important to remember the social and cultural disparities that in various parts of the world, particularly those in which wastewater reuse for food production or some other domestic usage is not yet suitable (FYP-CEE).

Contrast : People use these personal care and cosmetic products every day so that the microbeads flow to the wastewater treatment plant with wastewater. The microplastics cannot be treated by a normal wastewater treatment process because it is too small to screen and settle. In contrast, microbead finally will discharge to the river or ocean directly and causing plastic resin pellet pollution (FYP-CEE).

Concessive/counter connectors, such as those used in Examples 3 and 4, seek to establish an assertion as being contrary to the imagined reader’s anticipation, which falls under the functional category of counter expectancy (e.g., Martin and White, 2005 ). However, there is one more distinction to be made within this category. Whereas ‘however’ follows an earlier conceded element in example 3 (Gladwell is correct), it works in example 4 to signal a counter to an earlier conditional statement. If there is a concession element in the first sentence, it is not stated explicitly (e.g., through signals like certainly, of course, obviously, or is correct). Because these two meanings are related—the element being countered is projected as a possible view—we classified them as concessive/counters. However, contrast expressions such as in contrast and on the other hand , as seen in example 3, work to distinguish between two opposing ideas or views rather than to contradict an earlier statement’s expectation.

In the third example, the author presents both his or her own analytical technique as well as an alternate strategy, emphasizing the distinction between the two by employing a contrastive phrase. In these descriptions, the student allots roughly the same amount of textual space to each strategy, and they place an emphasis on processes (rather than, for example, human actors) and the assumptions that support each strategy.

The need for water in the residential, farming, manufacturing, and urban sectors grows as the human population grows. Whereas the effect of effluent reuse on human health and environmental risk are the two main issues. The effluent reuse should be approached cautiously and only with close analysis of the possible consequences and risks (FYP-CEE).

It became evident shortly after installation that the membranes were fouling. Because the water in Dundee is supplied from Lake Eerie, Enviroquip assumed that there should be no problems with mineral deposits in the Dundee plant. Therefore, in order to solve the fouling problem, the plant began flushing the membranes with a 1% sodium hypochlorite solution. Due to the frequent recurrence of the problem, the plant has used the cleaning solution every two months since the membranes were installed. Recently, the membrane racks were removed for cleaning, at which point mineral deposits were observed on the membrane surfaces. This means that the plant will also have to add flushes of 1% citric acid. However, it is possible that the fouling problems will be resolved by using the proper chemicals because the problem was related to mineral deposits rather than to biomass. As a result of the membrane fouling, the plant is forced to treat a lower quantity of water than it is capable of treating, making the current plant maximum capacity 3.3 MGD instead of the 4.0 MGD possible with the new raw wastewater pumps. Additionally, Enviroquip suggested that they lower the Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS), which means that they are wasting a higher volume, and therefore producing more sludge. (FYP- MICUSP Corpus)

Common problems of prairie re-creation and restoration may be further complicated by managing LIHD systems for biofuel production. For example, degraded fields can be so dominated by persistent invasive species such as spotted knapweed (Centuarea maculosa), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) that increasing native diversity is nearly impossible. Many sub-dominant prairie species, important for overall diversity, have conservative establishment characteristics that limit their ability to compete with invasives. However, the greatest biomass, and thus the most energy, is available after the summer growing season (FYP-MICUSP Corpus)

When compared to the CEE corpus, the MICUSP students use more reformulation strategies, almost around half as often as noted in the examples from the experienced student writers. The bulk of these resources implement a certain kind of reformulation move, referred to as a particular reformulation move, which is perhaps the most significant point to substantiate their work.

Discussions

The study analyzed selected assignments from the CEE Corpus and the MICUSP to identify overlapping patterns in the CEE and the MICUSP corpora. Textual signals that signify reformulation, on the other hand, appear to be equally appreciated in both genre groups. In addition, the study suggests that second language (L2) writers need to be familiar with academic writing rules and the formal code. It is essential for students to understand what linguistic options they have and why and when these options are appropriate. A multi-faceted pedagogical approach may be necessary for teachers to help L2 students develop their language resources and repertoires. The findings presented in the “Results” section also resonate with previous research on boosters and hedges, which suggests that in general, and across all academic fields, skilled academic writers use more hedges than boosters (Hyland, 2005b ; Hyland and Milton, 1997 ; Piqué-Angordans et al., 2002 ). This approach should include exposing students to a variety of materials and activities that are representative of academic writing and align with its conventions, as well as providing explicit instruction that focuses students on syntactic structures and lexical use, as well as strategy instruction that shows how language is used to construct meaning (Maamuujav and Olson, 2018 ). Teachers can assist students in understanding how writers make meaning from and with texts and how linguistic choices are influenced by socially established genre conventions through this approach. Investigating paper categories in the MICUSP, Hardy and Friginal ( 2016 ) found that while more objective genres like reports or research papers featured a greater number of passive voice constructions, argumentative writing was more dialogic, reflecting the linguistic devices of the conversation (e.g., pronouns and adverbs). Students’ performance, academic writing, and metadiscourse markers have been studied extensively. These studies have investigated the ways L2 students write, adjust degrees of doubt and certainty (Hyland and Milton, 1997 ), engage and recruit readers into the discourse, intrude interpersonally in the text through sentence beginnings or themes (Ebeling and Wickens, 2012 ). Research based on secondary and early undergraduate writing has studied the connections between corpus patterns and the genre of assignments. For example, keyword analysis by Aull et al., ( 2017 ) revealed notable divergences between argumentative and explanatory writing in a composition module.

Overall, our investigation of stance markers or metadiscoursal features across all three levels revealed that there appeared to be a clear developmental trajectory in terms of frequency for three categories: hedges, boosters, code glosses, and connectors. These results align with Alharbi’s ( 2023 ) findings, indicating that Arabic writers prioritize the substance of their writing over captivating their audience. Notably, the Arabic corpus demonstrates a significant utilization of self-mentions, with a frequency of 4.2 occurrences per 1000 words. In addition, the most apparent discrepancies were seen between CEE students in more advanced writing corpus MICUSP. As a result of this, the response to our first question is that the CEE students have underused stance markers such as hedges, code glosses, and contrast expressions. In contrast, their more advanced peers and native English learners within MICUSP tend to draw on these linguistic resources more frequently. Moreover, as compared to second language learners of Arab countries extensively employ literary techniques like repetition and emphasis in their scientific writing.

The study found that metadiscoursal resources (e.g., hedges/boosters, code glosses, and adversative/contrast connectors) appeared with greater frequency in the MICUSP corpus (advanced writers) than in the CEE corpus (novice writers). Final-year students studying civil and environmental engineering programs used fewer metadiscourse markers than native English writers whose writings were part of the MICUSP. Specifically, the CEE students tended to underuse approximative hedges, code glosses, concessions, and contrast expressions, while the MICUSP academic writers made more frequent use of these.

These results help to identify the areas where learners might need further support with their academic writing. This highlights indicators that help language teachers to arrange workshops and engage students in writing practice to improve their academic writing skills. Our study is limited to the students enrolled in environmental and engineering school of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, but future studies may find it valuable to study the reports from other schools because stance analysis is key to preparing student writers effectively for meeting the writing requirements in a variety of genres and disciplines.

These findings have pedagogical implications’ making clear to the reader that these findings have meaning in the real world. For instance, accommodating perspectives, negotiating stance, rebutting alternatives, and persuading the readers can be done more effectively if L2 writers learn to use contrastive connectors within argumentative essays more strategically. The students may also learn about deploying hedging more effectively to contribute to the overall impact of academic writing. Further, corpus-based studies such as this one are vital for identifying variations in stance patterns across writing proficiency levels and study majors.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article in the supplementary files.

Abusalim N, Zidouni S, Alghazo S, Rababah G, Rayyan M (2022) Textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in political discourse: a case study. Cogent Arts Humanit 9(1):2124683

Article   Google Scholar  

Ädel A, Römer U (2012) Research on advanced student writing across disciplines and levels: introducing the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers. Int J Corpus Linguist 17(1):3–34

Afzaal M, Du X (2023) Syntactic complexity in translated eHealth discourse of COVID-19: A comparable parallel corpus approach. Asia Pac Transl Intercult St 10(1):3–19

Google Scholar  

Hyland K, Sancho Guinda C (Eds.) (2012) Stance and voice in written academic genres. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY

Afzaal M, Ilyas Chishti M, Liu C, Zhang C (2021) Metadiscourse in Chinese and American graduate dissertation introductions. Cogent Arts Humanit 8(1):1970879

Harré R, Van Langenhove L (Eds.) (1999) Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Blackwell, Oxford, UK

Afzaal M, Imran M, Du X, Almusharraf N (2022) Automated and human interaction in written discourse: a contrastive parallel corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse features in machine–human translations. SAGE Open 12(4):21582440221142210

Aiello J, Latorraca R (2023) Stances toward translation training and the discipline: A study of future translators’ EFL retrospective reports. Transl Translanguaging Multiling Contexts 9(1):111–134

Alghazo S, Al Salem MN, Alrashdan I (2021) Stance and engagement in English and Arabic research article abstracts. System 103:102681

Alghazo S, Al Salem MN, Alrashdan I, Rabab’ah G (2021a) Grammatical devices of Stance in written academic English. Heliyon 7(11):e08463

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Alghazo S, Al-Anbar K, Altakhaineh ARM, Jarrah M (2023) Interactive metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English: evidence from editorials. Top Linguist 24(1):55–66

Alharbi JM (2023) Linguistic Features Self-Repair Strategies of Arab Speakers of English Language. Technium Soc Sci J 46:342

Aminu P, Chiluwa I (2023) Reinventing identity and resistance ideology in protest narratives: the case of Oduduwa secessionist group on Facebook. J Lang Aggress Confl 11(2):200–225

Aull L (2019) Linguistic markers of stance and genre in upper-level student writing. Writ Commun 36(2):267–295

Aull LL, Lancaster Z (2014) Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: a corpus-based comparison. Writ Commun 31(2):151–183

Aull LL, Bandarage D, Miller MR (2017) Generality in student and expert epistemic stance: A corpus analysis of first-year, upper-level, and published academic writing. J Engl Acad Purp 26:29–41

Aull L (2015) Linguistic Attention in Rhetorical Genre Studies and First Year Writing. In: Composition Forum (Vol. 31). Association of Teachers of Advanced Composition

Bao J (2022) A comparative study on stance adverbs in abstracts of Doctoral Dissertations by Chinese and Americans—a case study in petroleum engineering. Int J Lang Linguist 10(2):95

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Biber D (2006) Stance in spoken and written university registers. J Engl Acad Purp 5:97–116

Biber D, Finegan E (1989) Styles of Stance in English: lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text—Interdiscip J Study Discourse 9(1):93–124

Biber D, Johansson S, Leech G, Conrad S, Finegan E, Quirk R (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English, vol 2. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Brown DW, Aull LL (2017) Elaborated specificity versus emphatic generality: A corpus-basedcomparison of higher-and lower-scoring Advanced Placement exams in English. Res Teach Engl 51:394–417

Chafe W (1986) Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe W, Nichols J (eds.) Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ

Chandrasegaran A, Kong KMC (2006) Stance-taking and stance-support in students’ online forum discussion. Linguist Educ 17(4):374–390

Charles M (2007) Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the Noun that pattern in stance construction. Engl Specif Purp 26(2):203–218

Crompton P (1997) Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems. Engl Specif Purp 16(4):271–287

Davies M (2009) The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (19902008+): design, architecture, and linguistic insights. Int J Corpus Linguist 14(2):159–190. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.2.02dav

Davies M (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Retrieved from http://www.americancorpus.org

Dias P (2000) Writing classrooms as activity systems. In: Dias P, Pare A (Eds.) Transitions: writing in academic and workplace settings. Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, p 11–29

Ebeling SO, Wickens P (2012) Interpersonal themes and author stance in student writing. Lang Comput 74(1):23–40

Ellis R (2006) Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: the differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Appl Linguist 27(3):431–463

Fu R, Wang K (2022) Hedging in interpreted and spontaneous speeches: a comparative study of Chinese and American political press briefings. Text Talk 42(2):153–175. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0290

Gere AR, Aull L, Green T, Porter A (2010) Assessing the validity of directed self-placement at a large university. Assess Writ 15(3):154–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.08.003

Gray B, Biber D (2012) Current conceptions of Stance. In: Hyland K, Sancho Guinda C (Eds.) Stance and voice in written academic genres. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 15–33

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Gross A, Chesley P (2012) Hedging, Stance, and voice in medical research articles. In: Hyland K, Sancho Guinda C (Eds.) Stance and voice in written academic genres. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 85–100

Halliday MAK (1994) An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd edn. Edward Arnold, London, UK

Halliday MAK, Hasan R (1976) Cohesion in English. Longman, London

Halliday MAK, Matthiessenn CMIM (2004) An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. Arnold, London

Hardy JA, Römer U (2013) Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: a multi-dimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora 8(2):183–207

Hardy JA, Friginal E (2016) Genre variation in student writing: a multi-dimensional analysis. J Engl Acad Purp 22:119–131

Hewings A (2004) Developing discipline-specific writing: an analysis of undergraduate geography essays. In: Ravelli LJ, Ellis RA (eds) Analyzing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks. Continuum, pp. 131–152

Hinkel E (1995) The use of modal verbs as a reflection of cultural values. TESOL Q 29(2):325–343

Hood S (2004) Appraising research: taking a stance in academic writing. University of Technology, Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Hunston S, Thompson G (2001) Evaluation in text: authorial Stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

Hyland K (1998) Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. J Pragmat 30(4):437–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5

Hyland K (2000) Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: noticing modifiers in academic texts. Lang Aware 9(4):179–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145

Hyland K (2005) Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguist Educ 16(4):363–377

Hyland K (2005a) Metadiscourse. Continuum, London

Hyland K (2005b) Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. Continuum, London, UK

Hyland K (2007) Applying a gloss: exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Appl Linguist 28(2):266–285

Hyland K (2012) Undergraduate understandings: stance and voice in the final year reports. In: Hyland K, Sancho Guinda C (Eds.) Stance and voice in written academic genres. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 134–150

Hyland K, Milton J (1997) Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. J Second Lang Writ 6(2):183–205

Hyland K, Milton J (1999) Assertions in students’ academic essays: a comparison of English NS and NNS student writers. In: Berry R, Asker B, Hyland K, Lam M (Eds.) Language analysis, description, and pedagogy. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Language Centre, Hong Kong, pp. 147–161

Hyland K, Tse P (2004) Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Appl Linguist 25(2):156–177

Hyland K, Jiang F (2016) Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Writ Commun 33(3):251–274

Hyland K, Jiang F (2018) ‘We believe that…’: Changes in an academic stance marker. Aust. J Linguist 38(2):139–161

Izutsu MN (2008) Contrast, concessive, and corrective: toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations. J Pragmat 40(4):646–675

Jiang F, Hyland K (2015) ‘The fact that’: stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Stud 17(5):529–550

Jin B (2015) Exploring the development of lexical verbs in academic writing: a multiple-case study of three Chinese novice researchers. Asian ESP J 2(1):7–38

Kiesling SF, Pavalanathan U, Fitzpatrick J, Han X, Eisenstein J (2018) Interactional stancetaking in online forums. Comput Linguist 44(4):683–718

Kiesling SF (2011) Stance in context: affect, alignment and investment in the analysis of stance taking. In: iMean conference, vol. 15. Presented at the iMean conference, The University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

Kilgarriff A, Baisa V, Bušta J, Jakubíček M, Kovář V, Michelfeit J, Suchomel V (2014) The sketch engine: ten years on. Lexicography 1(1):7–36

Lakoff G (1972) Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chic Linguist Soc Pap 8:183–228

Lancaster Z (2016) Using Corpus Results to Guide the Discourse-Based Interview: A Study of One Student’s Awareness of Stance in Academic Writing in Philosophy. J Writing Res 8(1):119–148

Lee JJ, Deakin L (2016) Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. J second lang Writ 33:21–34

Li T, Wharton S (2012) Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: a cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. J Engl Acad Purp 11(4):345–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004

Lockman K, Swales J (2010) Sentence connector frequencies in academic writing

Lu L (2023) Exploring Singlish as a pedagogical resource in the ELT classroom: implementing bidialectal pedagogy in Singapore. TESOL Q 57(2):323–350

Maamuujav U, Olson CB (2018) Meeting the linguistic needs of adolescent multilingual writers for academic writing. In: The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. pp. 1–7

Mao LR (1993) I conclude not: toward a pragmatic account of metadiscourse. Rhetor Rev 11(2):265–289. https://doi.org/10.2307/465802

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Martin J, White P (2005) The language of evaluation. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY

Book   Google Scholar  

Mei WS (2007) The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. J Engl Acad Purp 6:254–271

Mei WS (2007) The use of engagement resources in high-and low-rated undergraduate geographyessays. J Engl Acad Purp 6(3):254–271

North S (2005) Disciplinary variation in the use of Theme in undergraduate essays. Appl Linguist 26:431–452

Piqué-Angordans J, Posteguillo S, Andreu-Besó J-V (2002) Epistemic and deontic modality: a linguistic indicator of disciplinary variation in academic English. LSP Prof Commun 2(2):49–65

Polat B (2011) Investigating acquisition of discourse markers through a developmental learner corpus. J Pragmat 43(15):3745–3756

Quirk R, Greenbaum S, Leech G, Svartvik J (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman, New York, NY

Rhee S (2023) Distance contrast of demonstrative-based discourse markers and speaker’s stance in Korean. J Pragmat 215:4–18

Rochman CM (2015) The complex mixture, fate and toxicity of chemicals associated with plastic debris in the marine environment. Mar Anthropogenic litter 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_5

Römer U, O’Donnell M (2011) From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): the design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora 6:159–177

Russell D, Petraglia J (1995) Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 51–78. Retrieved from: https://timrdoc.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/russelldavid-activity-theory-and-its-implications-for-writing-instruction-in-reconceiving-writing-rethinking-writing-instruction-edjoseph-petraglia-hillsdale-nj-erlbaum1995-51-78/

Salager-Myer F, Alcaraz Ariza MA, Luzardo Briceno M (2012) The voice of scholarly dispute in medical book reviews. pp. 1890–2010. Springer

Sancho Guinda C (2012) Proximal positioning in students’ graph commentaries. In: Hyland K, Sancho Guinda C (Eds.) Stance and voice in written academic genres. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 166–183

Sancho Guinda C, Hyland K (2012) Introduction: a context-sensitive approach to Stance and voice. In: Hyland K, Sancho Guinda C (Eds.) Stance and voice in written academic genres. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 1–14

Santorini B (1990) Part-of-speech tagging guidelines for the Penn Treebank project (3rd revision). Technical Report 570. p. 4

Schleppegrell MJ (2004) Technical writing in a second language: the role of grammatical metaphor. In: Ravelli LJ, Ellis RA (eds) Analyzing academic writing: contextualized frameworks. Continuum, pp. 172–189

Shaw P (2009) Linking adverbials in student and professional writing in literary studies: What makes writing mature. In: Academic Writing: at the interface of corpus and discourse. Continuum, London, pp. 215–235

Shen Q, Tao Y (2021) Stance markers in English medical research articles and newspaper opinion columns: A comparative corpus-based study. Plos One 16(3):e0247981

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Silver M (2003) The Stance of Stance: a critical look at ways Stance is expressed and modelled in academic discourse. J Engl Acad Purp 2(4):359–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1475-1585(03)00051-1

Simpson P (2003) Language, ideology and point of view. Routledge, New York, NY

Soliday M (2011) Everyday genres: writing assignments across the disciplines. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale

Strange L (2023) Ní Saoirse go Saoirse na mBan: gender and the Irish language in the linguistic landscape of Ireland’s 2018 abortion referendum. Lang Soc 52(2):215–239

Strauss S, Feiz P (2013) Discourse analysis: putting our worlds into words. Routledge

Tang R (2009) A dialogic account of authority in academic writing. In: Charles M, Pecorari D, Hunston S (Eds.) Academic Writing: at the interface of corpus and discourse. Continuum, New York and London, p 170–190

Tardy CM (2009) Building genre knowledge. Parlor Press, West Lafayette, IN

Thompson G (2001) Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Appl Linguist 22(1):58–78

Thompson G, Thetela P (1995) The sound of one hand clapping: the management of interaction in written discourse. Text 15(1):103–127

Vande Kopple W (1985) Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. Coll Compos Commun 36:82–93

Vande Kopple W (2002) Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In: Barton EL, Stygall G (Eds.) Discourse studies in composition. Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, pp. 91–114

Wharton S (2012) Epistemological and interpersonal stance in a data description task: Findings from a disciplinespecific learner corpus. Engl Specif Purp 31(4):261–270

Zhang L, Zhang LJ (2023) Improving EFL students’ stance-taking in academic writing with SFL-based instruction: a qualitative inquiry. Language Teach Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231164

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hunghom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Siu Wing Yee Barbara

Institute of Corpus Studies and Applications, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, China

Muhammad Afzaal

Kind Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Hessah Saleh Aldayel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SWYB played a pivotal role in supervising the study, offering substantial assistance in both the data collection process and the meticulous proofreading of materials. YA was instrumental in the analysis phase and made significant contributions to the initial /final drafting of the manuscript. HSA was deeply involved in conducting the literature review and played a critical role in the comprehensive drafting and refinement of the manuscript throughout the revision process.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Muhammad Afzaal or Hessah Saleh Aldayel .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Micusp corpus, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Barbara, S.W.Y., Afzaal, M. & Aldayel, H.S. A corpus-based comparison of linguistic markers of stance and genre in the academic writing of novice and advanced engineering learners. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 284 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02757-4

Download citation

Received : 19 April 2023

Accepted : 29 January 2024

Published : 19 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02757-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

BibGuru Blog

Be more productive in school

• Citation Styles

How to write an argumentative essay

The argumentative essay is a staple in university courses, and writing this style of essay is a key skill for students across multiple disciplines. Here’s what you need to know to write an effective and compelling argumentative essay.

What is an argumentative essay?

An argumentative essay takes a stance on an issue and presents an argument to defend that stance with the intent of persuading the reader to agree. It generally requires extensive research into a topic so that you have a deep grasp of its subtleties and nuances, are able to take a position on the issue, and can make a detailed and logical case for one side or the other.

It’s not enough to merely have an opinion on an issue—you have to present points to justify your opinion, often using data and other supporting evidence.

When you are assigned an argumentative essay, you will typically be asked to take a position, usually in response to a question, and mount an argument for it. The question can be two-sided or open-ended, as in the examples provided below.

Examples of argumentative essay prompts:

Two-sided Question

Should completing a certain number of volunteer hours be a requirement to graduate from high school? Support your argument with evidence.

Open-ended Question

What is the most significant impact that social media has had on this generation of young people?

Once again, it’s important to remember that you’re not just conveying facts or information in an argumentative essay. In the course of researching your topic, you should develop a stance on the issue. Your essay will then express that stance and attempt to persuade the reader of its legitimacy and correctness through discussion, assessment, and evaluation.

The main types of argumentative essays

Although you are advancing a particular viewpoint, your argumentative essay must flow from a position of objectivity. Your argument should evolve thoughtfully and rationally from evidence and logic rather than emotion.

There are two main models that provide a good starting point for crafting your essay: the Toulmin model and the Rogerian model.

The Toulmin Model

This model is commonly used in academic essays. It mounts an argument through the following four steps:

• Make a claim.
• Present the evidence, or grounds, for the claim.
• Explain how the grounds support the claim.
• Address potential objections to the claim, demonstrating that you’ve given thought to the opposing side and identified its limitations and deficiencies.

As an example of how to put the Toulmin model into practice, here’s how you might structure an argument about the impact of devoting public funding to building low-income housing.

• Make your claim that low-income housing effectively solves several social issues that drain a city’s resources, providing a significant return on investment.
• Cite data that shows how an increase in low-income housing is related to a reduction in crime rates, homelessness, etc.
• Explain how this data proves the beneficial impact of funding low-income housing.
• Preemptively counter objections to your claim and use data to demonstrate whether these objections are valid or not.

The Rogerian Model

This model is also frequently used within academia, and it also builds an argument using four steps, although in a slightly different fashion:

• Acknowledge the merits of the opposing position and what might compel people to agree with it.
• Draw attention to the problems with this position.
• Lay out your own position and identify how it resolves those problems.
• Proffer some middle ground between the two viewpoints and make the case that proponents of the opposing position might benefit from adopting at least some elements of your view.

The persuasiveness of this model owes to the fact that it offers a balanced view of the issue and attempts to find a compromise. For this reason, it works especially well for topics that are polarizing and where it’s important to demonstrate that you’re arguing in good faith.

To illustrate, here’s how you could argue that smartphones should be permitted in classrooms.

• Concede that smartphones can be a distraction for students.
• Argue that what teachers view as disruptions are actually opportunities for learning.
• Offer the view that smartphones, and students’ interest in them, can be harnessed as teaching tools.
• Suggest teaching activities that involve smartphones as a potential resource for teachers who are not convinced of their value.

It’s not essential to adhere strictly to one model or the other—you can borrow elements from both models to structure your essay. However, no matter which model of argumentation you choose, your essay will need to have an outline that effectively presents and develops your position.

How to outline and write an argumentative essay

A clear and straightforward structure works best for argumentative essays since you want to make it easy for your reader to understand your position and follow your arguments. The traditional essay outline comprises an introductory paragraph that announces your thesis statement, body paragraphs that unfold your argument point by point, and a concluding paragraph that summarizes your thesis and supporting points.

Introductory paragraph

This paragraph provides an overview of your topic and any background information that your readers will need in order to understand the context and your position. It generally concludes with an explicit statement of your position on the topic, which is known as your thesis statement.

Over the last decade, smartphones have transformed nearly every aspect of our lives, socially, culturally, and personally. They are now incorporated into almost every facet of daily life, and this includes making their way into classrooms. There are many educators who view smartphones with suspicion and see them as a threat to the sanctity of the classroom. Although there are reasons to regard smartphones with caution, there are ways to use them responsibly to teach and educate the next generation of young minds. Indeed, the value they hold as teaching tools is nearly unlimited: as a way to teach digital literacy, to reach students through a medium that is familiar and fun for them, and to provide a nimble and adaptable learning environment.

Body paragraphs

Most argumentative essays have at least three body paragraphs that lay out the supporting points in favor of your argument. Each paragraph should open with a topic sentence that presents a separate point that is then fleshed out and backed up by research, facts, figures, data, and other evidence. Remember that your aim in writing an argumentative essay is to convince or persuade your reader, and your body paragraphs are where you present your most compelling pieces of information in order to do just that.

The body of your essay is also where you should address any opposing arguments and make your case against them, either disproving them or stating the reasons why you disagree. Responding to potential rebuttals strengthens your argument and builds your credibility with your readers.

A frequent objection that teachers have to smartphones in the classroom is that students use them to socialize when they should be learning. This view overlooks the fact that students are using smartphones to connect with each other and this is a valuable skill that should be encouraged, not discouraged, in the classroom. A 2014 study demonstrated the benefits of providing students with individual smartphones. Sanctioned smartphone use in the classroom proved to be of particular importance in improving educational outcomes for low-income and at-risk students. What’s more, learning apps have been developed specifically to take advantage of the potential of smartphones to reach learners of various levels and backgrounds, and many offer the ability to customize the method and delivery of lessons to individual learner preferences. This shows that the untapped potential of smartphones is huge, and many teachers would do well to consider incorporating them into their classrooms.

Your concluding paragraph wraps up your essay by restating your thesis and recapping the arguments you presented in your body paragraphs. No new information should be introduced in your conclusion, however, you may consider shifting the lens of your argument to make a comment on how this issue affects the world at large or you personally, always keeping in mind that objectivity and relevance are your guiding principles.

Smartphones have a growing place in the world of education, and despite the presence of legitimate concerns about their use, their value as teaching tools has been clearly established. With more and more of our lives going digital and with the growing emphasis on offering distance learning as an option, educators with an eye to the future won't wait to embrace smartphones and find ways to use them to their fullest effect. As much time and space as we could devote to weighing the pros and cons of smartphones, the fact is that they are not going to disappear from our lives, and our best bet is to develop their, and our students', potential.

Frequently Asked Questions about argumentative essays

Your argumentative essay starts with an introductory paragraph. This paragraph provides an overview of your topic and any background information that your readers will need in order to understand the context and your position.

Like any traditional essay, the argumentative essay consists of three parts:

• Introduction

There are do's and don'ts in argumentative writing. This article summarizes some of them well - you should, for example, avoid coming to an argument based on feelings, without any evidence. Everything you say needs to be backed up by evidence, unless you are the renowned expert in the field.

Yes, you can start your argumentative essay with a question or with a thesis statement. Or you can do both - ask a question and then immediately answer it with a statement.

There are contrasting views on that. In some situations it can make sense to end your argumentative essay with a question - for example, when you want to create room for further discussions or want the reader to leave thinking about the question.

Make your life easier with our productivity and writing resources.

For students and teachers.

Resources: Discussions and Assignments

Module 3 discussion: take a stance.

In this module, you learned about the basics of essay-writing—finding thesis statements, organizing paragraphs, and supporting claims. At first, it may feel awkward to organize your thoughts into an essay, but organizing your thoughts to make an argument is something you do in regular conversations all the time. Think about the last heated discussion you were in—how did you defend your point of view? Did you include supporting claims or evidence? Did you mostly rely on emotional appeals (ethos), logical appeals (logos), or something else?

In this course, you will get practice taking a stance on an issue and defending your point of view. Let’s practice that now in the following discussion assignment.

STEP 1 : Pick  ONE  of the following questions to post about. Click on the link and read all of the corresponding background information about it from  The New York Times,  including the questions at the bottom of the page.

• Should Kids Be Social Media Influencers?
• Should Texting While Driving Be Treated Like Drunken Driving?

STEP 2 : Post your reply (in at least 250 words) in the discussion forum. Your response should include a clear stance on the issue with supporting evidence as to why you feel the way you do. Show that you can think critically on the topic by integrating your own thoughts, analysis, or experiences.

STEP 3 : Respond in two separate posts to two classmates (in at least 75 words). Explicitly address their responses and try to extend, complicate, or redirect their points in a substantive, knowledge-demonstrating way.

• Modification, adaptation, and original content. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

Encyclopedia

Writing with artificial intelligence, rhetorical stance.

• © 2023 by Joseph M. Moxley - Professor of English - USF

The rhetorical stance refers to the position or attitude a writer or speaker takes in relation to their audience and subject matter . For instance, a reader might call a writer's rhetorical stance to be tough, sweet, or stuffy . This article provides a guide to developing an appropriate rhetorical stance.

Table of Contents

What is Rhetorical Stance?

The Rhetorical Stance is

• “the available arguments about the subject itself,
• the interests and peculiarities of the audience, and
• the voice, the implied character, of the speaker” (141). In Booth’s model, poor writing is the consequence of a writer failing to balance three rhetorical elements (i.e., subject, audience, ethos). In contrast, good writing exemplifies an appropriate balance between these elements.
• As some point during composing, most usually during prewriting and invention, writers . . . take a position on a topic . Ideally, assuming the goal is reader-based prose , this position is sensitive to the needs, interests, opinions, and values of readers, listeners, users . . .

Synonymous Terms

• perspective
• positionality .
• When writers adopt a rhetorical stance , they are attempting to create a persona . That persona has a tone and a voice , tone , and register .

Related Concepts: Audience ; Footing; Positionality; Rhetorical Analysis

Wayne Booth’s Model of The Rhetorical Stance

In 1963, Wayne Booth introduced the concept of the rhetorical stance in a brief academic essay that he published in an academic journal for Writing Studies :

“The common ingredient that I find in all of the writing I admire—excluding, for now, novels, plays and poems—is something that I shall reluctantly call the rhetorical stance, a stance which depends on discovering and maintaining in any writing situation a proper balance among the three elements that are at work in any communicative effort: the available arguments about the subject itself, the interests and peculiarities of the audience, and the voice, the implied character, of the speaker. I should like to suggest that it is this balance, this rhetorical stance, difficult as it is to describe, that is our main goal as teachers of rhetoric. Our ideal graduate will strike this balance automatically in any writing that he considers finished. Though he may never come to the point of finding the balance easily, he will know that it is what makes the difference between effective communication and mere wasted effort.” (Booth 1963)

Booth’s articulation of the rhetorical stance informs theories of composing as well as theories of interpretation, especially rhetorical analysis . Booth’s model of the rhetorical stance presumes writers, speakers, knowledge workers . . . need to have a deep understanding of the topic and audience in order to write with clarity . Additionally, writers . . . need to adjust their persona , point of view , tone , and voice to account for the special needs, opinions, and attitudes of the audience.

Booth did not elaborate in his model of the rhetorical stance regarding how writers . . . can judge the appropriateness of particular appeals to topic , audience , and ethos –i.e. “discovering and maintaining in any writing situation a proper balance among the three elements” (144). Booth doesn’t elaborate much on how people could achieve balance —i.e, discern which particular rhetorical element ( topic, audience, & ethos ) to emphasize at any given moment. Booth also didn’t address how writers develop their sense of rhetorical stance nor did he address how writers could discern which stances were appropriate for particular rhetorical contexts. Frankly, he never elaborated much on appropriateness.

It’s also not clear what Booth means when he write writes “Our ideal graduate will strike this balance automatically in any writing that he considers finished.” I suspect he’s saying that this process of adjusting what we are going to say based on what we know about our audience is so foundational to human communication that this intellectual process goes underground, becomes invisible–a form of tacit knowledge. We cease to focus on it, much like we don’t think about breathing or thinking. We just do.

The Rhetorical Stance & Composing Processes

Booth’s model of the rhetorical stance has some important implications for composing and composing processes : it presumes writers, speakers, knowledge workers . . . need to take a deep dive into the subject matter and audience . Subsequently, they can develop their persona , point of view , tone , and voice .

• Topic Writers . . . need to invest the time needed to understand the topic . They need to develop an understanding of what their audience knows about the topic and how their audience feels about the topic. After engaging in informal research and strategic searching , writers . . . need a sense of the archive , of prevailing conventions , and the current status of scholarly conversations on a particular topic .
• Audience To find the available means of persuasion, writers . . need to understand what their audience knows and feels about a topic. Writers . . . need to know their audience so well that they know what the audience is likely to think, feel, and do when they receive particular messages. Writers . . . want to have engaged so fully with the audience’s perspective, to have so fully empathized with their audience, that they can understand the audience’s pain, their point of view, their reading of the topic or conversation.
• Ethos The ethos of the writers . . . , what Booth called “the voice, the implied character, of the speaker” goes a long way in determining whether or not an audience will consider a message. Communication fails when the ethos of the writer annoys readers, listeners, users . . . No one may listen to you if sound uninformed, overly emotional, or impartial.

The Rhetorical Stance as a Measure of Writing Quality

Booth contends poor writing is characterized by a lack of balance among the three elements of discourse: Subject , Audience , Ethos .

Based on his observations of student work which he conducted as a professor of English, Booth suggested that there were three common rhetorical stances that characterized poor nonfiction writing:

• Advertiser’s Stance
• Pedant’s Stance
• Entertainer’s Stance

Related Concepts

Persona and rhetorical stance are somewhat intertwined concepts. However, persona suggests the writer may be engaged in role playing, misrepresentation, and rhetrickery (see Rhetoric ). That’s the stuff of sophistry–of smoke and mirrors. The rhetorical stance, in contrast, concerns the degree to which a writer balances appropriately

Booth, Wayne C. (1963). “ The Rhetorical Stance “. College Composition and Communication . 14 (3): 139–145.

Related Articles:

Code Switching

Point of View

Recommended

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Structured Revision – How to Revise Your Work

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Credibility & Authority – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Research, Speech & Writing

Citation Guide – Learn How to Cite Sources in Academic and Professional Writing

Page Design – How to Design Messages for Maximum Impact

Suggested edits.

• Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
• Your full name
• Your email address *
• Page URL needing edits *
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

• Joseph M. Moxley

Code switching is more than the use of multiple languages or dialects in a text: it’s a strategy for navigating interracial interactions. Review definitions of code switching from linguistics, sociology,...

Persona in writing shapes the perspective through which ideas, characters or individuals are understood, blending foundational roles like ‘The Hero’ or ‘The Rebel’ with personal histories and motivations. In writing,...

Tone in writing and communication captures the mood or emotion the author intends to convey. Rooted in linguistic choices, contextual cues, and author’s perspective, tone can vary from formal to...

Find your voice, your unique way of expressing ideas and persuading others, to engage readers and be more inventive.

Featured Articles

Still have questions? Leave a comment

Add Comment

Checklist: Dissertation Proposal

Enter your email id to get the downloadable right in your inbox!

Examples: Edited Papers

Need editing and proofreading services, how to write an argumentative essay (examples included).

• Tags: Academic Writing , Essay , Essay Writing

Argumentative essay writing, as the name implies, involves creating strong arguments based on facts and evidence. The goal of this essay is to convince the reader to adopt a logical viewpoint based on the available proof. It is a complex form of essay writing which requires extensive first-hand as well as second-hand research.

Let’s understand what an argumentative essay is and how to write it with the help of numerous argumentative essay examples. To guide you in your essay writing journey, we’ve also provided a well-structured argumentative essay outline.

Let’s start off with understanding what is an argumentative essay.

What is an argumentative essay?

An argumentative essay is a piece of writing that convinces one to adopt a particular viewpoint, based on statistics and evidence. Unlike an expository essay, an argumentative essay involves adopting a particular point of view on a topic based on the available information.  

Since it’s aimed at convincing the readers, it needs to contain strong supporting evidence. This requires a much more thorough examination of the available data sources. An argumentative essay is the most common essay type assigned in science, technology or even advanced literature courses in colleges. 

A well-written argumentative essay makes use of information rather than personal opinion. For instance, the statement “beaches are better than mountains” makes for a poor argument. However, including statistical data and figures makes this argument more substantial. For instance “48% of Americans prefer beaches, whereas only 27% prefer mountains”

Now that we’ve understood the meaning of an argumentative essay, let’s take a look at its outline.

Argumentative essay outline

The argumentative essay structure is different from other essay types. Although its aim is to convince the reader to adopt a viewpoint, a good argumentative essay structure looks at an argument from all sides and also addresses the counterargument. The goal is to disprove the opposing arguments with the use of logic and the latest evidence. 

There are three main argumentative essay formats. Let’s take a look:

This is the simplest structure of an argumentative essay when it comes to writing. It follows a logical path of introducing the argument, providing evidence supporting the argument, refuting counterarguments, and finally concluding your argument.

The following outline talks about the advantages of using nuclear power for environmental protection. 

Advantages of Nuclear Power for Environmental Protection

I. Introduction

A. Background information on the topic

B. Thesis statement: Despite the negative reputation and potential risks associated with nuclear power, it is the best bet for our environment due to its low carbon emissions, high energy production, and advancements in safety technology.

II. Low carbon emissions

A. Explanation of carbon emissions and their impact on the environment

B. Comparison of nuclear power to other energy sources in terms of carbon emissions

C. Case studies and statistics supporting the low carbon emission of nuclear power

III. High energy production

A. Explanation of energy production and its importance

B. Comparison of nuclear power to other energy sources in terms of energy production

C. Case studies and statistics supporting the high energy production of nuclear power

IV. Advancements in safety technology

A. Explanation of nuclear power safety concerns

B. Overview of advancements in nuclear power safety technology

C. Comparison of nuclear power safety technology to other energy sources

D. Case studies and statistics supporting the advancements in nuclear power safety technology

V. Counterarguments and refutations

A. Discussion of common counterarguments against nuclear power

B. Refutation of counterarguments with evidence and examples

VI. Conclusion

A. Restatement of thesis

B. Summary of main points

C. Final thoughts on the importance of nuclear power in addressing environmental challenges.

This format is used to explain your stance on a highly polarizing, complex topic. It involves presenting your stance and comparing it with the generally accepted evidence. It also involves presenting the limitations of your claim along with rebuttals. 

The following Toulmin essay outline highlights the dangers of genetic modification:

The Dark Side of Genetic Modification

B. Thesis statement: Genetic modification is dangerous due to the potential risks it poses to human health, the environment, and ethical concerns surrounding genetic engineering.

II. Claim 1: Risks to human health

A. Explanation of the potential risks to human health associated with genetic modification

B. Overview of studies and research that have shown adverse effects on human health

C. Evidence and examples supporting the claim

III. Claim 2: Risks to the environment

A. Explanation of the potential risks to the environment associated with genetic modification

B. Overview of studies and research that have shown negative impacts on the environment

IV. Claim 3: Ethical concerns

A. Explanation of the ethical concerns surrounding genetic engineering

B. Overview of the potential consequences of genetic modification on social, cultural, and ethical values

V. Counterargument and refutation

A. Discussion of common counterarguments in favor of genetic modification

V. Conclusion

C. Final thoughts on the dangers of genetic modification and the need for caution in its application.

3. Rogerian

This format acknowledges both sides of the argument and provides evidence as to why your stance is valid. It is the least confrontational form of argument which is used to convince to opposition to adopt your point of view.  

The following Rogerian essay outline talks about why more government funds should be dedicated to space exploration.

A Cosmic Investment

B. Thesis statement: While some may argue that government funds should be allocated towards pressing issues on earth, dedicating more funds to space travel is necessary because of the technological advancements it brings, the potential for scientific discoveries, and economic benefits.

II. Understanding the opposing arguments

A. Explanation of the opposing viewpoint’s concerns and arguments

B. Acknowledgement of valid points made by the opposing viewpoint

C. Statement of common ground between the opposing viewpoint and the argument

III. Presenting the supporting arguments

A. Explanation of the technological advancements made possible through space travel

B. Overview of the scientific discoveries that have been made possible through space exploration

C. Explanation of the economic benefits of space travel and the growth of the space industry

IV. Addressing concerns of the opposition

A. Discussion of concerns raised by the opposing viewpoint and why they should not prevent the dedication of funds to space travel

B. Explanation of how funding for space travel can coexist with funding for pressing issues on earth

C. Evidence and examples to support the argument

V. Common ground and conclusion

A. Restatement of the thesis statement

B. Summary of the main points of the argument

C. Statement of common ground and call to action for continued exploration of space.

Now that you’ve learned how to structure, let’s understand how to write an argumentative essay. 

How to write an argumentative essay

Although the process of writing an argumentative essay is similar to other essay types, it requires much more research and planning. Developing an argument requires a significant understanding of the subject matter from all angles. 

Let’s take a look at the steps to writing an argumentative essay:

1. Choose appropriate argumentative essay topics.

Although topics for an argumentative essay are highly diverse, they are based on a controversial stance. So, make sure that your argumentative essay topics are debatable. Here are a few examples of good argumentative essay topics:

Should animal testing be prohibited?

Should sports be segregated by gender?

Are wildlife sanctuaries ethical?

2. Construct a thesis statement. 

The thesis statement involves taking a stance on your topic. For instance, if your topic is “Should school uniforms be mandatory?”, your thesis statement will take a stance for, or against this. However, make sure that your thesis statement has sufficient evidence from reliable sources to back it up. 

Let’s take a look at a thesis statement example for the topic “Why four-day work-weeks should  be encouraged”: 

A four-day workweek is a viable solution for reducing employee burnout, enhancing work-life balance, and improving overall productivity. It not only promotes a healthier and happier workforce but also reduces costs for employers.

3. Collect evidence.

After taking your stance on your essay topic, it’s time to back it up with facts, evidence, and statistics. This requires an extensive amount of research. 

Make sure to facilitate your research from reputed sources. To make your essay up-to-date and reliable, you can even collect evidence with the help of surveys and experiments. 

Next, sort your evidence into main points to create a basic outline of your essay. This is also a good time to address the counterarguments to your stance.

4. Write the first draft.

After developing the outline, it’s time to flesh it out. Start by constructing an interesting hook, and providing background information for your thesis statement in the introduction. 

Next, elaborate on the topic sentences that provide support to your thesis statement. You can add statistics and empirical data along with plenty of direct quotes and citations to give credibility to your essay. 

And finally, conclude your essay with a summarization of the main points of your essay along with the key takeaway. A powerful conclusion not only allows the readers to see your viewpoint but also creates a lasting impression on their minds.

5. Edit your draft.

Your first draft may not be perfect. Make sure to optimize the sentence structure and word choice. Also, modify your arguments if necessary. You can have friends and family go over your essay and spot any errors that slip through the cracks. For a more fool-proof, error-free essay you can also take the help of professional essay proofreading services .

Now that we’ve understood how to write an effective argumentative essay, let’s take a look at an example of an argumentative essay.

Argumentative essay example 

To guide you in your essay-writing journey, we’ve provided you with an argumentative essay example. It discusses the ill effects of automation. This essay is slightly longer in length and deviates from the commonly used five-paragraph structure. 

Should Companies Invest in Manpower over Autonomous Machines?

The rise of autonomous machines has revolutionized the manufacturing industry, with robots now able to perform tasks that were once done exclusively by human workers. While this technology has undoubtedly improved efficiency and productivity, the question remains whether companies should be required to hire human workers over using autonomous machines. 

The use of autonomous machines has resulted in job losses in the manufacturing industry. According to a study by the Brookings Institution, the use of robots in the United States has led to the loss of over 1.7 million jobs since 2000. While automation has created new jobs in certain industries, such as software development and engineering, the number of jobs lost is significantly higher.

Hiring human workers also has a positive impact on the economy. According to a report by the National Bureau of Economic Research, every robot that replaces a human worker leads to a net loss of 1.6 jobs. This means that for every 10 robots introduced into the workforce, 16 jobs are lost. Hiring human workers over using autonomous machines can help to create more jobs and improve the overall economic situation.

In addition to the economic benefits, human workers offer several advantages over autonomous machines. Human workers are able to adapt to changing situations and problem-solve in a way that machines cannot. This is particularly important in industries where there is a high level of variability in the work being done. 

Furthermore, the use of autonomous machines can lead to safety concerns in the workplace. While robots have become increasingly sophisticated, they are still prone to malfunctions and errors. In some cases, this can lead to workplace accidents and injuries. Human workers are able to identify potential safety hazards and take preventative measures to reduce the risk of accidents.

Although the use of autonomous machines has led to increased efficiency and productivity, their negative impact cannot be ignored. Hiring human workers over using autonomous machines can create jobs, improve the economy, and offer many more advantages. Additionally, the safety concerns associated with the use of autonomous machines highlight the importance of prioritizing human workers. Human workers are more adept at ensuring the well-being of the workforce and the economy as a whole. Therefore, they should be prioritized over machines. 

We hope the above explanation and examples have clarified the basics of writing argumentative essays. As providers of essay editing services , we understand how writing good essays is not a piece of cake. 

To help you write good essays, our team has created detailed resources. Continue reading to take your essay-writing skills to the next level! 

• Guide to a Perfect Descriptive Essay
• Expository Essays | Step-by-Step Manual
• How to Start an Essay
• How to Write an Essay Outline

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the purpose of an argumentative essay, how does an effective argumentative essay address counterclaims, how to conclude an argumentative essay, what is an effective claim in an argumentative essay, how to start an argumentative essay, how to title an argumentative essay.

Found this article helpful?

Leave a Comment: Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Your vs. You’re: When to Use Your and You’re

Your organization needs a technical editor: here’s why, your guide to the best ebook readers in 2024, writing for the web: 7 expert tips for web content writing.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Get carefully curated resources about writing, editing, and publishing in the comfort of your inbox.

How to Copyright Your Book?

If you’ve thought about copyrighting your book, you’re on the right path.

© 2024 All rights reserved

• Terms of service
• Privacy policy
• Self Publishing Guide
• Pre-Publishing Steps
• Fiction Writing Tips
• Traditional Publishing
• Additional Resources
• Dissertation Writing Guide
• Essay Writing Guide
• Academic Writing and Publishing
• Citation and Referencing
• Partner with us
• Annual report
• Website content
• Marketing material
• Job Applicant
• Cover letter
• Resource Center
• Case studies

Writing Academically

Proofreading, other editing & coaching for highly successful academic writing

• Editing & coaching pricing
• Academic coaching
• How to conduct a targeted literature search
• How to write a successful critical analysis
• How to write a strong literature review
• Cautious in tone
• Formal English
• Precise and concise English
• Impartial and objective English
• Substantiate your claims
• The academic team

What does taking a stance or position really mean?

By My favourite duck bovine

What does developing an essay thesis or taking a stance or position really mean?

When writing an academic essay, you are required to provide logical arguments to support your position or thesis for the essay topic.

Your position or thesis is not about your opinion or what you think about the essay question. Your thesis is about the various arguments or research evidence presented in the literature, that is, the pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages or strengths and shortcomings of these arguments or research studies.

This means you have to balance up in a debating style the arguments and research results found in the body of literature on the topic, both for and against the essay question.

It also means indicating, in your view, which are the strongest or more plausible arguments or findings and the reasons for this view. This is where your opinion is important -to explain why you think particular arguments or positions are the strongest or more convincing.

So, essentially your thesis or position in an essay is based around what others argue, show or have found , not about your personal opinion on the essay question.

WRITING FORMATS FOR EDITING OR COACHING

• Essay or assignment
• Thesis or dissertation
• Proposal for PhD or Masters research
• Literature review
• Journal article or book chapter
• IELTS writing tasks 1 & 2 for general and academic writing
• Resumes & cover letters
• Presentations
• Applications & submissions

Do you have a question?

• Academic writing skills
• Academic English skills
• The Academic team
• Privacy policy
• Terms and conditions
• ABN: 15796080518
• 66 Mungarie Street, Keperra, Qld 4054 Australia
• Email: [email protected]

Website design and development by Caboodle Web

Chapter 1: What is stance in academic writing?

Chapter 2: Which language best shows stance in an essay?

Chapter 3: How can stance be maintained throughout an essay?

Downloadables

Once you’ve completed all three chapters about stance , you might also wish to download our beginner, intermediate and advanced worksheets to test your progress or print for your students. These professional PDF worksheets can be easily accessed for only a few Academic Marks .

Our stance academic reader (including all three chapters about this topic) can be accessed here at the click of a button.

Gain unlimited access to our stance  beginner worksheet, with activities and answer keys designed to check a basic understanding of this reader’s chapters.

To check a confident understanding of this  reader’s chapters , click on the button below to download our  stance   intermediate worksheet with activities and answer keys.

Our stance  advanced worksheet with activities and answer keys has been created to check a sophisticated understanding of this  reader’s chapter s. 

To save yourself 5 Marks , click on the button below to gain unlimited access to all of our stance chapters and worksheets. The All-in-1 Pack includes every chapter in this reader, as well as our beginner, intermediate and advanced worksheets in one handy PDF.

Click on the button below to gain unlimited access to our stance  teacher’s PowerPoint, which should include everything you’d need to successfully introduce this topic.

Collect Academic Marks

• 100 Marks for joining
• 25 Marks for daily e-learning
• 100-200 for feedback/testimonials
• 100-500 for referring your colleages/friends