It is often the case that undergraduates writing essays to fulfil course requirements have an academic audience (i.e. lecturer/s marking the essay) as their target readers. These texts may represent a form of academic writing by novice writers in the process of learning academic discourse and conventions. Though these texts may not be comparable to professional academic writing, the aspect of the maintenance of a good balance between objectivity and the portrayal of an evaluative stance is of interest in this genre too (Hunston 1989; Hunston and Thompson 2000). This paper investigates undergraduate students’ efforts to portray a contrastive stance through the strategy of problematization (Barton 1993) in argumentative essays. More specifically, it compares how writers of high-rated and low-rated essays problematize issues in more or less effective ways. Using the engagement system of the Appraisal framework (White 1998; Martin 1992; Martin and Rose 2003), this study analyses the evaluative resources used by the writers to achieve more or less successful problematization of issues discussed. The results indicate a more strategic and appropriate use of evaluative resources by the writers of high-rated scripts to create clear lines of contrastive positions. On the basis of the analysis, some pedagogical implications are discussed.
Evaluative language is widely recognised as contributing to the quality of written argumentation, although investigation in this area is more prevalent in professional academic writing (e.g. Hunston, 1989 and Hyland, 2002) than in student texts. This study investigates evaluative expressions in argumentative essays written by first-year undergraduates in the discipline of English Language at the National University of Singapore. Aspects of the Appraisal framework, especially the engagement system, were used to analyse the evaluative expressions in the stages of argumentation outlined by Callaghan and Rothery (1988). The analysis revealed that high-rated and low-rated essays differ in the frequency of the use of the stages of Thesis and Reiteration to construct more or less effective arguments. Also, within the stages, evaluative expressions contributed to arguments that are more or less persuasive.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.