The language of evaluation and stance in crowdfunding project proposals
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32714/ricl.13.02.06Keywords:
digital science, evaluation, stance-taking, crowdfunding, genre analysisAbstract
Today, digital crowdfunding platforms allow researchers to increasingly use digital resources to reach and engage diversified audiences, making scientific content accessible to everyone. This paper explores how evaluation in text contributes information relevant to understanding how scientists use language to express their expert opinions of scientific research and their attitudes about the value of their projects. Starting from the compilation and analysis of a 50-science project corpus from Experiment.com, evaluative stance expressions in this work were classified according to Biber’s (2004) taxonomy into the following stance categories: verbs, adverbs, adjectives and nouns. Subsequently, genre analysis was applied to identify the discourse functions of these evaluative words in each rhetorical section of the project proposals. Results show that the analysed crowdfunding proposals are rich in stance verbs (52.65%) and, to a lesser extent, stance adjectives (23.52%), serving to express values of effort, improvement and diligence in the proposed projects, as well as judgement regarding experiments and ‘Lab Notes’ updates, respectively. This can be useful for both theoretical advancement and pedagogical purposes, that is, to apply scientists’ findings to digital communication teaching and learning.
Downloads
References
Biber, Douglas. 2004. Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5: 107–136.
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.5.1.06bib
Conrad, Susan and Biber, Douglas. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Susan Hunston and Geoffrey Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 56-73). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0004
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7 (2): 173–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Jiang, Feng and Hyland, Ken. 2015. 'The fact that': Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5): 529–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615590719
Luzón, María José and Pérez-Llantada, Carmen. 2022. Digital Genres in Academic Knowledge Production and Communication: Perspectives and Practices. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.17398//2340-2784.46.351
Luzón, María José. 2012. "Your argument is wrong": A contribution to the study of evaluation in academic weblogs. Text & Talk, 32 (2): 145 – 165. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0008
Mehlenbacher, Ashley Rose. 2017. Crowdfunding science: Exigencies and strategies in an emerging genre of science communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26 (2). https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2017.1287361
Pérez-Llantada, Carmen. 2021a. Grammar features and discourse style in digital genres: The case of science-focused crowdfunding projects. Revista Signos, 54 (105): 73–96. Retrieved from: https://revistasignos.cl/index.php/signos/article/view/363
Turney, Peter. 2002. Thumbs up or thumbs down? Semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, 6-12 July 2002: 417-424.
Zou, Hang and Hyland, Ken. 2019. Reworking research: Interactions in academic articles and blogs. Discourse Studies, 21 (6): 713-733. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619866983
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Research in Corpus Linguistics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Submission of your paper to this journal implies that the paper is not under submission for publication elsewhere. Material which has been previously copyrighted, published, or accepted for publication will not be considered for publication in this journal. Submission of a manuscript is interpreted as a statement of certification that no part of the manuscript is copyrighted by any other publisher nor is under review by any other formal publication. By submitting your manuscript to us, you agree on these copyright guidelines. It is your responsibility to ensure that your manuscript does not cause any copyright infringements, defamation, and other problems.
Submitted papers are assumed to contain no proprietary material unprotected by patent or patent application; responsibility for technical content and for protection of proprietary material rests solely with the author(s) and their organizations and is not the responsibility of the journal or its editorial staff. The main author is responsible for ensuring that the article has been seen and approved by all the other authors. It is the responsibility of the author to obtain all necessary copyright release permissions for the use of any copyrighted materials in the manuscript prior to the submission.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the BY Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal
Article submission implies author agreement with this policy.
