Moral outrage or mere possibility? An exploration of epistemic versus deontic stance in reading-to-write argumentation

Abstract

Based on an analysis of 41 placement essays, this study explores the contrasting discourse requirements of two seemingly comparable essay topics, highlighting the construction of stance. While one prompt demanded primarily that students make judgments of necessity and obligation (deontic stance), the other prompt required students to engage primarily with questions of possibility and probability (epistemic stance). The contrasting rhetorical and linguistic demands of the two essay topics shed light on observed differences in student scores, pointing to possible insights for writing task design.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 33 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.