This research explores intercultural rhetoric, specifically focusing on the construction of authorial stance in newspaper editorials. Authorial stance, or the writer's textual voice, is crucial in achieving writing objectives. This study addresses the under-researched area of stance in newspaper editorials, which are influential in shaping public opinion and political agendas. Editorials, while aiming for balance and objectivity, inherently reflect the newspaper's ideology and the editorialist's perspective. The research investigates how stance is constructed differently in English and Arabic editorials, aiming to understand the linguistic features used and the factors influencing their choices. The study uses a corpus of 80 editorials from The Guardian (English) and Addustour (Arabic), analyzing them to identify similarities and differences in the use of stance markers. The central research questions are: 1. How do newspaper editorialists construct their stance in English and Arabic newspaper editorials? 2. What are the similarities and/or differences (if any) in the use of stance markers in English and Arabic newspaper editorials?

The existing literature extensively examines metadiscourse use across various text types, but research on stance in media discourse, particularly editorials, remains limited. Several studies are reviewed, including Chen and Li (2023) on interactional metadiscourse in China Daily and The New York Times, McCambridge (2022) on stance in YouTube comments, Hyland and Zou (2021) on stance in Three Minute Thesis presentations, Droz-dit-Busset (2022) on the representation of social media influencers in English news agencies, Yazdani et al. (2014) on interactional metadiscourse in Persian and English news articles, Fu (2012) on interactional metadiscourse in job postings, Al-Subhi (2023) on interactional metadiscourse in US and UAE editorials, and Shen and Tao (2021) on stance markers in medical research articles and newspaper opinion columns. Additionally, recent studies by Al-Anbar et al. (2023) and Alghazo et al. (2023a, 2023b) compared native and non-native English editorialists' use of metadiscourse and engagement strategies in English and Arabic newspaper editorials, respectively. These studies provide a background for understanding the use of stance markers in various contexts, but a focused comparison of English and Arabic editorials is lacking.

This study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative analysis of 80 editorials – 40 from The Guardian (UK, English) and 40 from Addustour (Jordan, Arabic), published between 2020 and 2021. The data were collected from the newspapers' websites, transferred to Microsoft Word, and analyzed using Hyland's (2005, 2019) model of interaction, focusing on stance features: hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mentions. A functional analysis was performed to identify stance markers within their contexts, double-checking each marker to ensure accuracy. Arabic examples were carefully translated. The quantitative analysis used SPSS and the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the two groups. Qualitative analysis involved examining examples within their contexts to understand the rationale behind stance choices, drawing on existing literature on stance and metadiscourse.

The quantitative analysis revealed significant differences in stance marker use between English and Arabic editorials. In the Arabic corpus, attitude markers were most frequent (69.2%), followed by boosters (23.4%), hedges (7.3%), and self-mentions (0.1%). The English corpus showed a different pattern: hedges were most frequent (37.7%), followed by attitude markers (37%), boosters (25.2%), and self-mentions (0.1%). The Mann-Whitney U test confirmed significant differences between the two groups in the overall use of stance markers and each category of stance markers (hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mentions). Qualitative analysis explored specific examples, highlighting the functions of hedges in mitigating claims, boosters in strengthening assertions, and attitude markers in expressing emotions and opinions. Self-mentions were extremely rare in both corpora, possibly reflecting the genre conventions emphasizing institutional voice over individual authorial voice.

The findings highlight significant cross-linguistic differences in stance construction in newspaper editorials. The preference for attitude markers in Arabic editorials might reflect cultural values and communication styles. The greater use of hedges in English editorials could be linked to different norms of politeness and argumentation. The rarity of self-mentions in both languages reflects the genre's emphasis on representing the newspaper's institutional voice rather than individual authorial perspectives. These differences have implications for understanding intercultural rhetoric and the role of stance in shaping public discourse. The findings also have practical applications in second-language writing instruction, informing teaching methodologies and materials.

This study reveals significant differences in stance construction between English and Arabic newspaper editorials. Arabic editorials favor attitude markers, while English editorials prefer hedges. Both show a scarcity of self-mentions, highlighting the importance of institutional voice in this genre. These findings are valuable for understanding intercultural communication and improving second-language writing instruction. Further research could investigate stance in other languages and explore the interplay of cultural, linguistic, and institutional factors influencing stance choices.

The study's limitations include the relatively small sample size and the selection of only two newspapers. Future research should investigate a broader range of newspapers to ensure the generalizability of the findings. The temporal scope is limited to 2020-2021, and a longer time span might capture evolving trends in editorial style and stance. Finally, a more nuanced approach to coding stance markers could enhance the accuracy and reliability of the quantitative analysis.