Evaluative expressions in analystical arguments: aspects of appraisal in assigned English language essays

Mei, Wu; Allison, Desmond

doi:10.1558/japl.v2i1.105

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Firstly, as argumentative writing skill is required at a higher level in university where making a good argument is necessary (Wu & Allison, 2005). Furthermore, argumentative writing is one of the greatest challenges that many English language learners are likely to encounter (Hirvela, 2013).…”

Section: Flaws On Collaborative Writing Research In Efl Classroommentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have illustrated that collaborative writing (CW) activities are beneficial activities as they enhance language learning in the language classroom (Li & Zhu, 2017). Furthermore, learning to write argumentatively is an essential skill for students in a university context (Wu & Allison, 2005). Nevertheless, collaborative writing places many challenges since students come from different backgrounds where such analytical writing, and its associated thinking, is not common.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collaborative Writing in EFL Classroom: Comparison on Group, Pair, and Individual Writing Activities in Argumentative Tasks

Moonma

Kaweera

2021

EDU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focused on comparing the effects on 32 students’ argumentative writing qualities when they worked alone or collaborated in pairs and groups and explored the students’ opinions towards critical thinking across different writing activities. The 32 students were divided into groups of four (n=8), pairs (n=16) and individuals (n=32). Their papers were rated in terms of content, language use, and organization by three raters. The research employed argumentative writing rubrics, semi-structured interview, and observation. From the total of 15 points, the novice learners gained the highest scores when writing in groups (X ̅ = 11.22), followed by pairs (X ̅ = 10.19) and individuals (X ̅ = 8.98). The intermediate learners also gained the highest scores in group work (X ̅ = 11.50), followed by pairs (X ̅ = 10.32), and individual work (X ̅ = 9.04), respectively. Similar to the advanced level, they had the highest scores when working in groups (X ̅ = 11.95), followed by pairs (X ̅ = 10.45), and individuals (X ̅ = 9.45). The findings indicated that group work led to the highest scores in all proficiency levels and in groups, the students’ critical thinking improved regarding analyzing, evaluating and creating information when they brainstormed, shared and discussed all information. In pairs, the students also demonstrated that their critical thinking developed but only in analyzing from sharing information with a partner. In individuals, all proficiency levels reported that critical thinking was not developed as no interaction with peers.

show abstract

Section: Flaws On Collaborative Writing Research In Efl Classroommentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative Writing in EFL Classroom: Comparison on Group, Pair, and Individual Writing Activities in Argumentative Tasks

Moonma

Kaweera

2021

EDU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another inquiry which is worthy of mention is Mei and Allison (2007). They believe that evaluative language is extensively identified as an instrumental contributor to the quality of written discourse; however, studies in this domain is more common in professional academic argumentation than in learners' texts.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Logogenetic Delve into Attitudinal Meanings in Native vs. Non-Native Discussion Section of Research Articles

Bahmani

Chalak

Tabrizi

2021

IJFLTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using evaluative language has been considered as the significant predictor of academic writing success in second and foreign language research. Such an importance paved the way for the current study to investigate the use of the APPRAISAL tool, namely ATTITUDE resources, in the research articles (RAs) written by native (N) and non-native (NN) writers, focusing on the discussion sections. A qualitative corpus selection resulted in choosing 30 RAs written by American writers and 30 authored by Iranian writers. Two coding schemes were used: one for discussion boundaries based on Kanoksilapatham's (2005) discussion move structure, and the modified version of APPRAISAL theory (Xu, 2017) for identifying attitudinal resources. The corpus analysis revealed that academic writers preferred to use a great number of inscribed ATTITUDE resources, that is, APPRECIATION tools compared to JUDGMENT. There was also a significant difference between N and NN sub-corpora in using attitudinal resources, highlighting that the language of N RAs contained more authorial stance of ATTITUDE compared to NN subcorpus. However, the use of idioms as evoked ATTITUDE was found to be frequently applied by NN authors. The findings of the study contributed to the significance of using evaluative language in academic writing through which the writers can make a dialogic interaction with readers and enhance their critical stance by involving them in the argument.

show abstract

“…The use of Engagement in academic writing has been mostly examined in the production of student writers (e.g., Chatterjee, 2008;Geng, 2015;Geng & Wharton, 2016;Loghmani, Ghonsooly, & Ghazanfari, 2020;Mei & Allison, 2007;Oskoz, Gimeno-Sanz, & Sevilla-Pavón, 2018;Ryshina-Pankova, 2014;Widhiyanto, 2017), with comparatively fewer studies focusing on research writers (e.g., Cheng & Unsworth, 2016;Fryer, 2013;Loi et al, 2016;Pascual & Unger, 2010;Xu & Nesi, 2019). Although the important role of Engagement resources in producing a more successful piece of writing has been attested in certain academic genres such as doctoral and undergraduate dissertations (Chatterjee, 2008;Geng & Wharton, 2016;Loghmani et al, 2020;Widhiyanto, 2017), this role has been relatively underexplored in the research article genre as, thus far, only four studies considered published articles.…”

Section: Studies On Engagement In Academic Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Engagement in the Discussion Section of Marketing Research Articles

Alzahrani¹

2020

lls

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies have shown that the use of Engagement resources is a subtle task for research article writers, making the appropriate use of such resources a complex topic for less experienced writers. For this reason, the present study examined expert writers' ways of positioning their work in marketing research articles on Discussion sections to highlight how Engagement resources can be managed successfully. Drawing on the Engagement subsystem of the Appraisal Framework nine Discussion sections were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively using the UAM corpus tool. The analysis revealed that the Discussion sections were highly heteroglossic, and had contractive resources twice as much as expansive ones, suggesting that marketing academics are more concerned with establishing their credibility as knowers in the field than construing a reader-friendly text. It is also observed that academics in the marketing field tend to focus more on proclaiming their findings in the Discussion section while at the same time mitigating the communicative force of their argument by using tentative language, creating a subtle balance between claim-making and acceptance of potentially differing views. The findings of the present study can offer insights for academic writing materials' developers, novice researchers, and academic writing instructors.

show abstract

Evaluative expressions in analystical arguments: aspects of appraisal in assigned English language essays

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Collaborative Writing in EFL Classroom: Comparison on Group, Pair, and Individual Writing Activities in Argumentative Tasks

Collaborative Writing in EFL Classroom: Comparison on Group, Pair, and Individual Writing Activities in Argumentative Tasks

A Logogenetic Delve into Attitudinal Meanings in Native vs. Non-Native Discussion Section of Research Articles

Examining Engagement in the Discussion Section of Marketing Research Articles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About