First Advisor
John Hellermann
Date of Award
Spring 6-13-2025
Document Type
Thesis
Degree Name
Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in Applied Linguistics and University Honors
Department
Applied Linguistics
Language
English
Subjects
discourse analysis, stance, altaic, corpus linguistics
Abstract
This study will use corpus linguistics techniques and Hyland’s framework for stance in academic discourse to analyze authors’ discoursal roles in different framings of a famous controversy in historical linguistics: the classification of the Altaic language family. Two significant pieces of discourse in this debate include “The End of the Altaic Controversy” by A. Vovin and “In Defense of the Comparative Method, or the End of the Vovin Controversy” by A. Dybo and G. Starostin. Despite the importance of these works, no one has analyzed how these authors use stance to position themselves within it. After performing a corpus word search with lists of common stance items, the results show that Vovin uses stance to assert his rationality and new angle in the Altaic debate, as a former Altaicist turned critic, while Dybo and Starostin use stance to defend their rationality and navigate an uncomfortable situation of addressing hard-to-refute issues. This demonstrates how these experts in their field position themselves within this debate, and suggests a possible applicability to both stance in the Altaic debate and in academic controversies generally.
Recommended Citation
McDowall, Logan, "Rationality and Discomfort: Stance in “The End of the Altaic Controversy” and “In Defense of the Comparative Method, or the End of the Vovin Controversy”" (2025). University Honors Theses. Paper 1638.