Title: Verbs denoting authorial position: A contrastive Bulgarian-English study of medical research articles


Vol. 11(2), 2023, pp. 71-82.



Author: Ivaylo Yordanov Dagnev

About the author: Assoc. Professor Ivaylo Yordanov Dagnev, PhD is an Associate Professor of ESP and EAP at UARD – Plovdiv  and a Senior Lecturer at the Medical College of Medical University in Plovdiv. He holds a PhD in linguistics and his particular areas of interest include Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Translation Studies, Cognitive Semantics, Discourse Studies, English for Specific Purposes and English for Academic Purposes. His PhD title is: Metaphorical Terms in Anatomy: An English-Bulgarian Comparative Study. He has submitted two habilitation papers. The primary one is entitled: ‘The "Scientific Medical Article" Genre in Bulgarian and English Academic Discourse’ and the second one written in English is entitled: ‘Medical Discourse - Implications of Inverse Translation for the Medical Research Article Genre’. He has published a book based on his PhD with a title: Metaphors and Shells in Anatomy: Bulgarian-English Cross Linguistic Study.




Citation (APA style): Dagnev, I. (2023). Verbs denoting authorial position: A contrastive Bulgarian-English study of medical research articles. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 11(2), 71-82.

Abstract: The article addresses the issue of a specific discourse category, that of verbs expressing authorial stance in the context of the medical research article. A contrastive study is performed based on two corpora comprising original medical research articles in Bulgarian and English languages, respectively. All the articles have been excerpted from journals with high impact factors covering almost every field of medicine. All data have been processed with the help of word processing programmes to achieve a high level of accuracy. The paper looks into the most frequently used verbs both in the Bulgarian articles and the English ones. The analysis rests on a division of three types of verbs – factive, non-factive and counterfactive ones. Each of the presented verbs is analyzed in the light of this division supported by a number of exemplar sentences extracted from the corpora. One corollary that could be drawn is the fact that Bulgarian authors refrain to a large extent from expressing categorical disagreements which is not so characteristic of the authors in the English-language medical research articles.

Key words: stance verbs, medical research article, contrastive study, Bulgarian, English


  1. Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 (2), 97–16. 
  2. Bloch, J. (2009). The design of an online concordancing program for teaching about reporting verbs. Language Learning & Technology, 13 (1), 59–78.
  3. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  4. Chafe, W. L., & Nichols, J. (1996). Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  5. Davis, R. (2015). A genre analysis of medical research articles. PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow.
  6. Field, M. (1997). The role of factive predicates in the indexicalization of stance: a discourse perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 27 (6), 799–814.
  7. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455. 
  8. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse: English in a global context. London, New York: Continuum.
  9. Hyland, K., Guinda, C. (eds.) (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 
  10. Jirapanakorn, N. (2012). How doctors report: a corpus-based contrastive analysis of reporting verbs in research article introductions published in international and Thai medical journals. The Bangkok Medical Journal, 4. 39–46.
  11. Martin, J., & White, P. (2007). The language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
  12. McEnery, Т., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. Routledge.
  13. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics 10, 1–35.
  14. Nwogu, K. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for specific purposes, 16(2), 119–138.
  15. Scott, M. (2012). WordSmith Tools version 6, Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
  16. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
  18. Tadros, A. (1993). The pragmatics of text averral and attribution in academic texts. In M. Hoey (ed.), Data, description, discourse: papers on the English language in honour of John McH Sinclair on his sixtieth birthday (pp.98- 114). London: Harper Collins.
  19. Thomas, S., & Hawes, T. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 129–148.
  20. Thompson, G., Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365–382. 
  21. Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
  22. van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove (eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp.14-31), Oxford: Blackwell. Downloaded from:

Wyse, B. (2009). Factive/non-factive predicate recognition within question generation systems. London: Open University, ISSN 1744-1986.