Investigating EFL Learners’ Engagement in Writing Research Papers
Keywords:research report writing, appraisal theory, engagement
This study explores voices from an Appraisal Theory perspective (Martin & White, 2005). It aims to investigate how novice English as a Foreign Language (EFL) research writers deploy Engagement resources to review existing literature in the field. The study is based on a corpus of literature reviews from 25 research articles written by Thai undergraduate students enrolled in a research report writing class. Findings show that the writers demonstrated a strong preference to engage readers in the writers’ justification of knowledge. The results revealed that Entertain, Acknowledge, and Counter resources were most often used in the articles. By contrast, novice research writers, to some extent, convince readers of their perspectives by using bare assertions without reference to other voices. It may be assumed that second language (L2) novice research writers are aware of the need to engage with readers and to strategically construe dialogic divergences in their written works.
Alramadan, M. M. (2020). The use of Engagement resources in English, Arabic and EFL applied linguistics research: A contrastive study within an Appraisal theoretic perspective. In El-Sadig Y. Ezza (Ed.), Teaching academic writing as a discipline-specific skill in higher education (pp.23-54): IGI Global Publisher of timely Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2265-3.ch002
Amonrattanasirichock, S., & Jaroongkhongdach, W. (2017). Engagement in literature reviews of Thai and international research articles in applied linguistics. Paper presented at the International Conferences:DRAL 3/19th ESEA.
Bruce, I. (2014). Expressing criticality in the literature review in research article introductions in applied linguistics and psychology. English for Specific Purposes, 36, 85-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.004
Chang, P., & Schleppegrell, M. (2011). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 140-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.005
Cheng, A. (2011). ESP classroom research: Basic considerations and future research questions. In D. Belcher, A. Johns, & B. Paltridge (Eds.), New directions in English for Specific Purposes (pp. 44-72). University of Michigan Press.
Cheng, F., & Unsworth, L. C. (2016). Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 43-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.001
Du, P. M. (2010). An appraisal analysis of English academic article abstracts in journals of linguistics. (Unpublished master dissertation). Shandong Normal University, China.
Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional language. In U. Connor, & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 11-36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.16.02flo
Geng, Y., & Wharton, S. (2016). Evaluative language in discussion sections of doctoral theses: Similarities and differences between L1 Chinese and L1 English writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 80-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.001
Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274662
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis. London: Routledge.
Hunston, S. (2011). Corpus approaches to evaluation. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841686
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1-23. https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/49151(accessed 15/3/2021).
Hyland, K. (2011). Researching writing. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Kitjaroonchai, N., & Duan, J. (2019). Stance and Engagement use in timed argumentative essays by Asian first-year university students studying English as a foreign language. Human Behavior, Development and Society, 22(3), 105-115.
Kong, K. C. C. (2006). Linguistic resources as evaluators in English and Chinese research articles. Multilingual, 25, 183-216. https://doi.org/10.1515/MULTI.2006.012
Kwan, B. S., Chan, H., & Lam, C. (2012). Evaluating prior scholarship in literature reviews of research articles: A comparative study of practices in two research paradigms. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 188-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.02.003
Lee, J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910
Mei, W. S. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization in students’ argumentation. RELC Journal, 37(3), 329-353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206071316
Mesa,V., & Chang, P. (2010). The language of engagement in two highly interactive undergraduate mathematics classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 21, 83-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2010.01.002
Mo, X. Y. (2010). On the engagement resources of literature reviews in English academic articles. (Unpublished master dissertation). Ningbo University, China
Mori, M. (2017). Using the appraisal framework to analyze source use in essays: A case study of engagement and dialogism in two undergraduate students' writing. Functional Linguistics. 4(11), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-017-0046-4
Ngo, T., & Unsworth, L. (2015). Reworking the Appraisal framework in ESL research: refining attitude resources. Functional Linguistics. 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-015-0013-x
Petric, B. (2007). Rhetorical functions of citations in high- and low-rate master's theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 238-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.002
Salom, L. G., & Monreal, C. S. (2014). Writers' positioning in literature reviews in English and Spanish computing doctoral theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.08.002
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827
Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation of the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-79. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58
White, P. (2001). Engagement. In Appraisal: An overview. Retrieved from http://grammatics.com/appraisal/AppraisalGuide/Framed/Frame.htm. (accessed 15/3/2021).
Xie, J. (2016). Direct or Indirect? Critical or uncritical? Evaluation in Chinese English-major MA thesis literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.001