The construction of stance in English and Arabic newspaper editorials: a case study

The study investigates how authorial stance is constructed in English and Arabic newspaper editorials, a genre central to opinion expression and agenda-setting. Grounded in intercultural rhetoric, it examines the influence of first language and cultural context on stance-taking in second-language or cross-linguistic production. The purpose is to compare stance features in editorials from The Guardian (UK, English) and Addustour (Jordan, Arabic) to identify similarities and differences and explore factors shaping stance choices. The research questions are: (1) How do editorialists construct stance in English and Arabic newspaper editorials? (2) What similarities and/or differences exist in the use of stance markers across the two languages? The significance lies in understanding how stance contributes to persuasion, ideology, and writer–reader relations in a stance-rich journalistic genre.

The review highlights extensive work on metadiscourse across genres but comparatively fewer studies on media discourse. Key studies include: Chen and Li (2023), who found NYT used more interactional metadiscourse than China Daily and balanced stance/engagement; McCambridge (2022), showing YouTube comments’ stance skewed toward negative affect with attitude markers most frequent; Hyland and Zou (2021), finding significant disciplinary differences in stance use in 3MT presentations; Droz-dit-Busset (2022), showing celebration/derision stances in media portrayals of social media influencers; Yazdani et al. (2014), reporting higher interactional metadiscourse in English vs Persian news and differing subcategory profiles; Fu (2012), identifying high frequencies of self-mentions and reader-inclusive pronouns in job postings; Al-Subhi (2023), noting both USA/UAE editorials favored stance over engagement with hedges most frequent; Shen and Tao (2021), showing opinion columns use more stance than medical research articles, with hedges most frequent; Al-Anbar et al. (2023) and Alghazo et al. (2023b), comparing native vs non-native and L1 vs L2 English editorials, noting differences in hedges/boosters and slight variations in interactive features. Foundational works on stance and metadiscourse (Hyland 1998, 2005, 2019; Biber & Finegan 1988, 1989; Hunston & Thompson 2000) frame the analysis. Collectively, prior research indicates genre, language, culture, and institutional voice shape stance choices, with hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mentions varying by context.

Design: Mixed-methods combining quantitative corpus comparison and qualitative functional/contextual analysis. Data: 80 editorials (40 English from The Guardian; 40 Arabic from Addustour), published 2020–2021, collected from the newspapers’ websites and compiled into Word documents. Analytical framework: Hyland’s (2005, 2019) stance taxonomy: hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions. Procedure: A list of potential stance markers in English and Arabic was prepared from prior literature. Each candidate marker was double-checked in context; occurrences were functionally identified, highlighted, and counted. Arabic examples were carefully translated after confirming stance function. Quantitative analysis: Frequencies, percentages, and normalized frequencies per 1000 words calculated. Statistical testing used SPSS with Mann–Whitney U tests (Wilcoxon Rank Sum) to compare groups. Qualitative analysis: Contextualized examples examined to explicate functions of stance categories (e.g., hedging via modals and adverbials; boosters across certainty levels; attitudinal adjectives; rare self-mentions aligning with institutional voice).

- Arabic editorials (Addustour): Attitude markers were most frequent, followed by boosters, hedges, and self-mentions. • Counts/percentages per Table 1: Attitude markers 635 (69.2%; 47.49 per 1000 words), Boosters 215 (23.4%; 16.08/1000), Hedges 67 (7.3%; 5.01/1000), Self-mentions 1 (0.1%; 0.07/1000). Total stance features: 918 across 13,372 words (68.65/1000). - English editorials (The Guardian): Hedges were most frequent, closely followed by attitude markers; boosters third; self-mentions minimal. • Counts/percentages per Table 2: Hedges 537 (37.7%; 21.78/1000), Attitude markers 527 (37.0%; 21.37/1000), Boosters 358 (25.2%; 14.52/1000), Self-mentions 1 (0.1%; 0.04/1000). Total stance features: 1,423 across 24,661 words (57.70/1000). - Statistical differences (Mann–Whitney U): Significant differences between English and Arabic sets for total stance usage and for each category (all p<0.001): • Hedges: Z = -7.689; Boosters: Z = -8.187; Attitude markers: Z = -8.187; Self-mentions: Z = -5.880; Total stance features: Z = -7.713. - Self-mentions were extremely rare in both corpora (0.1%; one instance each), aligning with the institutional voice of editorials. - Functional insights: English editorials frequently used epistemic hedges (e.g., perhaps, modals) to temper assertions; Arabic editorials prominently used attitudinal adjectives and strong boosters to express evaluations and certainty.

The findings answer the research questions by showing that editorialists in Arabic and English construct stance differently in the same genre. Arabic editorials foreground attitude and assertion (attitude markers, boosters), projecting strong evaluative positioning aligned with institutional and sociopolitical messaging. English editorials favor mitigation and epistemic caution (hedges), balancing evaluation with tempered commitment. These patterns reflect genre conventions, institutional voice, and broader cultural-rhetorical norms of persuasion. Significance: Editorials influence agenda-setting and ideology; understanding stance distributions clarifies how newspapers project authority, align with readers, and frame issues. The results reinforce that stance is integral to editorial persuasion and that cross-linguistic differences matter for intercultural rhetoric, media literacy, and training. The rarity of self-mentions in both corpora suggests adherence to an institutional persona over individual author identity. The study’s insights can guide editorial practice and pedagogy in crafting persuasive, ethically grounded argumentation and in teaching readers to recognize evaluative language in media.

The study demonstrates that English and Arabic editorials employ stance differently: Arabic pieces rely heavily on attitude markers and boosters, while English ones prioritize hedging with comparable use of attitude markers and fewer boosters; self-mentions are minimal in both. These contrasts likely arise from language/register conventions, institutional routines and policies, and sociocultural values. Implications include integrating stance-awareness into editorial training and media-writing curricula to enhance argumentative writing and critical reading. Future research directions include extending the analysis to other languages and media contexts, refining cross-genre comparisons, and probing how institutional policies and sociocultural systems shape stance deployment. Further work could also examine authorial identity construction and the balance between personal and institutional voice across publishing cultures.