jAL (print) issn 1479–7887 jAL (online) issn 1743–1743

Journal of Applied Linguistics

Article

Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments: aspects of appraisal in assigned English language essays Wu Siew Mei and Desmond Allison Abstract 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. Keywords Evaluation, appraisal, argumentation, claims, discourse analysis

Affiliations Wu Siew Mei, National University of Singapore. Desmond Allison, Carleton University, Ontario, Canada. Corresponding author: Wu Siew Mei, Centre for English Language Communication, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260. email: [email protected]

JAL vol 2.1 2005: 105–127 ©2005, equinox publishing

doi : 10.1558/japl.2005.2.1.105 LONDON

106

Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments

1 Introduction One of the most common forms of curriculum genre (Johns, 1995) that undergraduate students write is the argumentative essay. Although essays have traditionally been given less attention and often dismissed as writing without an authentic audience (O’Brien, 1995), there are encouraging signs that researchers have begun to investigate this curriculum genre more thoroughly. Such investigations are necessary as the argumentative essay forms part of undergraduates’ induction or possibly assimilation into a student role and often has a considerable bearing upon relative success or failure in that role, yet is also quite problematic in terms of how the genre is understood (e.g. relationship between argumentation and exposition) and what academic readers expect (Lea & Street, 1999). Our study explores evaluative expressions found in particular stages of argumentation, specifically in undergraduates’ assigned essays in English Language (EL). An essential requirement for this curriculum genre is that student writers should argue for a position credibly. This has important implications both for argument structure and for writers’ more or less effective uses of evaluative wording in order to express judgments, provide reasons for them, and support them with evidence. Our study focuses on evaluative expressions found in two key stages of these essays (Thesis and Reiteration stages, following Callaghan & Rothery, 1988) that typically play important roles in signalling an author’s position in an essay. We seek to compare evaluation resources across the two sets of EL essays that received the highest and lowest ratings from their original raters (EL teachers), in order to explore the role of evaluation in the selected stages of argument structure. With this aim in view, the opening sections of the paper will review research into argument structure and evaluative wording. There has been quite extensive investigation into the structure of students’ argumentation at different grade levels. This has involved efforts to describe the structural elements of argumentation (e.g. Connor, 1990; Crammond, 1998; Teruo, 1996, all following or adapting Toulmin, 1958) and to associate these elements with the organisational stages of an argumentative essay (Callaghan & Rothery, 1988; O’Brien, 1995). Accounts of this kind have important applications in analysing the quality of students’ written texts and the effectiveness of particular arguments. Whether, how, and at what stages claims are supported are central issues in the teaching and learning of written argumentation as well as the assessment of students’ essays. The significance of claims on which writers anchor their stance – what Callaghan and Rothery (1988) call Position Statements – provides the basis for more detailed deliberation into the linguistic expression of these statements



S. M. Wu & D. Allison 107

that will enhance the arguments made. The kinds of writer evaluation expressed in claims will affect the quality of assertion made in the argument. Analysis requires careful attention both to evaluative wording and to the cumulative context against which each instance of wording is interpreted. Love (1999) highlights the importance of investigating linguistic resources used by undergraduates to provide contextual frames for claims made. A study of evaluative expressions in claims is especially important in what Martin (1989) calls analytical texts. Martin (1989) differentiates between analytical and hortatory texts, depending on the purpose of argumentation. Analytical texts argue for the credibility of a well-formulated claim or thesis while the argumentative purpose in hortatory texts is to persuade the reader towards a certain social action for instance, that is expressed within the thesis. Argumentation, in Martin’s analytical texts, is characterised by the need to persuade its audience to a certain intellectual position on a particular issue. Similarly, Van Eemeren et al. (1996) present argumentation as being ‘aimed at increasing (or decreasing) the acceptability of a controversial standpoint for the listener or reader’ (Van Eemeren et al., 1996: 340). An important aspect of a well-formulated claim concerns the manner in which writers express their opinion or evaluation of what they discuss. Hunston’s definition of evaluation as ‘the expression of the speaker’s or writer’s attitude or stance towards, viewpoint on, or feelings about the entities or proposition that he or she is talking about’ (2000: 5) is useful as a broad cover term for evaluative expressions investigated in this study. The role of evaluative language is heightened when one considers the persuasive intent of argumentation. The need to persuade readers has been recognised in even seemingly objective scientific writing (see for example, Hunston, 1989), implying also that ostensibly expository prose is tacitly argumentative in function. This gives an interpersonal dimension to the role of evaluative language in analytical argumentation, even if this is often less strikingly apparent than in hortatory texts. It is increasingly recognised amongst researchers of professional academic discourse that ‘evaluativeness undoubtedly constitutes an essential aspect of the interpersonal in academic discourse…’ (Mauranen & Bondi, 2003: Editorial) and that interpersonal meaning and interactivity characterise academic discourse too (Thompson, 2001). At the same time, there are important constraints on how evaluation may be appropriately expressed. These may become more or less familiar to professional writers, but they certainly pose a continuing challenge for learners and teachers of academic writing.

108

Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments

2 Generic framework The significance of evaluative language, like other language dimensions such as grammatical choice, is best understood in its context of use. The concept of genre arising from the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) tradition proves useful in providing that context for the study of these expressions. In the SFL tradition, genre is defined in terms of staged, goal-oriented social processes (Eggins, 1994). Central to this tradition is the close relationship between language and context. Language both shapes and is shaped by the context of use. Text structures and lexico-grammatical systems allow the effective communication of social purposes among participating members of discourse communities. Thus, the evolution and description of generic forms within communities is of central importance within SFL. As much work in Australia especially has shown, these notions extend not only to established professional discourse but to curriculum genres and associated teachinglearning communities as well. Generic descriptions provide accounts of the stages that are typically associated with certain text types and their possible sequence. As such, the concept of generic forms motivates the choice of the Callaghan and Rothery (1988) framework for the identification of Thesis and Reiteration stages in this study. The generic argumentative sub-type of ‘exposition’ in the SFL tradition is characterised by the primary thesis at the beginning stage of the text. According to White (1998), expository texts typically exhibit the following features and sequence: 1 A Thesis, the stage which sets out the primary argument or position of the text; 2 A series of supporting Arguments; 3 Textual closure supplied by a Reiteration stage in which the original, central thesis is restated. Callaghan and Rothery (1988) specify the functional elements that constitute each stage: 1 Thesis – Position and Preview; 2 Argument – Point and Elaboration; 3 Reiteration – Restatement of Thesis. Callaghan and Rothery illustrate the application of this framework to a short primary school essay. How far the same generic framework will prove effective in describing the organisation of argumentative writing at more advanced levels



S. M. Wu & D. Allison 109

of schooling or in professional writing, or indeed for other instances of primary school writing, remains an open question. Yang and Allison (2004) found that a broadly comparable Introduction – Argument – Conclusion macrostructure made initial sense of data from secondary research articles in applied linguistics, and that the main argumentation section in theory-oriented papers typically introduced and elaborated a series of points. Pedagogically, thesis statements are widely emphasised in the teaching of academic essay writing, not least in the curriculum we investigate in this study. All told, we find this framework useful as a way into our analysis. We comment briefly below on elements of generic variation in our data. The generic framework is used to identify the Thesis and Reiteration stages and their respective elements in the data set. The textual formulation of the writers’ positions is then examined in relation to these stages. Our analysis focuses upon evaluative expressions in the independent clauses of relevant elements in the Thesis and Reiteration stages. It makes use of the SFL-based Appraisal theory, which offers ‘a particular approach to exploring, describing and explaining the way language is used to evaluate, to adopt stances, to construct textual personas and to manage interpersonal positionings and relationships’ (White, 2002: 2) in order to differentiate specific evaluative patterns used by high-rated and low-rated essay writers.

3 Framework of evaluation The Appraisal framework provides a systematic network of resources for the analysis of evaluative language in texts. Martin defines Appraisal as ‘semantic resources used to negotiate emotions, judgments, and valuations, alongside resources for amplifying and engaging with these evaluations’ (Martin, 2000: 145). White (2002) provides a detailed account of the Appraisal framework, comprising three major systems: attitude, engagement and graduation. This research focuses mainly upon resources in the engagement system, as these were by far the most widely attested in the data. The engagement system includes many of those lexico-grammatical resources that are variously termed epistemic modals, evidentials and hedges. Engagement concerns the dialogic potential inherent in a discourse. It provides the resources to describe intersubjective positioning, or the way writers moderate and negotiate the arguability of their propositions, thus making it a key element in our analysis of the evaluative quality of Position Statements. The engagement system adopts a wider perception upon the expression of attitudes to various entities including knowledge rather than the traditional narrower concerns with truth validity. An expression of writer’s opinion may not just indicate an individual’s positioning towards a proposition but also convey willingness to

110

Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments

recognise and negotiate alternative socio-semiotic positions. As White says of engagement: …rather than necessarily reflecting the speaker’s state of knowledge, it can also be seen as signaling that the meanings at stake are subject to heteroglossic negotiation. It may have no connection at all with doubt or vagueness, being used, instead, to acknowledge the contentiousness of a particular proposition, the willingness of the speaker to negotiate with those who hold a different view, or the deference of the speaker for those alternative views. (2002: 2)

The engagement system recognises that ‘all utterances to some degree take into account or respond to prior utterances and to some degree anticipate or acknowledge likely responses, reactions and objections from actual or potential dialogic partners’ (White, 2002). An utterance represents one option amongst a diversity of socio-semiotic realities. Those utterances that employ engagement resources openly acknowledge the dialogic potential of the utterance, while those that do not do so thereby suppress or ignore the dialogic nature of the utterance inherent in the communicative social context. To summarise, when a writer introduces a proposition into a text, dialogic diversity can be:

• ignored or denied altogether (bare assertion); • contracted in a number of ways (denying or countering a ‘disclaim’

opposite, or concurring, pronouncing or endorsing a point in order to ‘proclaim’ it);

• expanded in a number of ways (entertaining a point, attributing it with acknowledgement, attributing it with indication of distance).

These options represent different degrees of acknowledgment of dialogic diversity. Bare assertions deny dialogic diversity. Utterances to which the writer expresses commitment tend to reduce or ‘contract’ dialogic space to varying degrees. Utterances that are ‘extravocalised’ (assigned in some manner to another source, without the writer’s endorsement) are most open to such diversity. Professional academic writers regulate their stance towards the status of disciplinary knowledge in academic discourse. First-year undergraduate writers may be aware of the need to be evaluative but may not be sufficiently immersed in any particular discipline to be able to portray attitudes to knowledge in terms of truth validity. Thus, the wider perspective taken in the engagement system may be helpful in explaining statements such as ‘The first [period] would be Early Middle English, from about 1100 to about 1250 and the second would be



S. M. Wu & D. Allison 111

the Central Middle English period from about 1250 to 1400.’ The presentation of historical facts in tentative terms may be more indicative of acknowledging other possible interpretations of the dates than a personal assessment of truth validity. Furthermore, the engagement system elaborates on the source of attribution and the element of writer responsibility in determining the evaluative quality of propositions. It highlights the more recent perception of the role of attribution and reporting verbs as contributing to evaluative meanings. This emphasis is useful in the investigation of undergraduate writing as intertextual reference is one feature that differentiates writing at this level from writing of earlier school years. In fact, the framework considers the role of implicit attributions which are not generally discussed as attributions in academic writing classifying it as disclaim: counter. Also, the use of questions, which is not uncommon in student writing, is also analysed for its role in engaging the readers. Besides the engagement system, the present study explains the significance of evaluation using the Appraisal systems of graduation or attitude, where relevant, although the prevalence of these two other systems in the data is not as pervasive as the engagement system. Briefly, the attitude system expresses meanings to indicate either a positive or negative assessment of people, places, things, happenings and states of affairs while the graduation system involves the semantics of scaling, the moderation of intensity of meaning. Attitude resources can be scaled in their intensity through the graduation systems of force and focus. They scale meanings ‘along two possible parameters – either locating them on a scale from high to low intensity [force], or from core to marginal membership of a category [focus]’ (White, 2002: 21). Force operates on gradable categories emphasising the degree of some basic core meaning such as in ‘extremely fast’ and ‘a little tired’. Force is commonly realised by adverbs of intensification such as ‘very’, ‘slightly’ or ‘completely’. It can also be part of the meaning of a lexical item carrying the ideational meaning as in ‘His level of enthusiasm plunged when he saw the audience leaving the hall.’ This outline of engagement and other resources in the Appraisal system suggests the level of lexical precision that competent writers have attained in order to establish and negotiate argumentative positions effectively for an audience. Textual interactions such as those which mark solidarity, evaluate content or acknowledge alternative perspectives are increasingly seen as contributing to successful academic writing. For students the challenge is compounded by the fact that the audience is usually not one of peers, but the professor whose course they are following. This, coupled with the subtle nature of evaluative meanings would justify the functional analysis of essays that highlights the construal of these meanings in more or less successful ways.

112

Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments

4 The study To reiterate, this study presents an exploratory comparison of the role of evaluation in the structure of argumentation as developed by Callaghan and Rothery (1988). It compares evaluation resources used in the Thesis and the Reiteration stages of the sets of English Language (EL) essays that received highest and lowest ratings from the teachers who originally marked them in their curriculum context. For each stage, Thesis and Reiteration, the investigation asks: ‘What are some evaluative expressions used in high-rated and low-rated EL essays that may result in more or less effective argumentation?’ Whether argumentation is more or less effective will partly depend on how, and by whom, it is read. As analysts with interests in pedagogy, we seek to understand the likely effects of aspects of evaluative wording upon teachers’ readings of the essays. We would not presume either to endorse or reject the teachers’ actual rankings, which are assessments of whole essay texts within a particular task context, not of essay extracts and selected features of wording alone. The present data set consists of assignments written by first-year undergraduates at the National University of Singapore reading English Language. The essays analysed are taken from a larger data set of 225 EL essays collected as part of the first author’s doctoral research in evaluative expressions in argumentative essays. Only the essays given grades at the higher and lower extremes of the rank scale were selected for analysis. The large majority of essays received grades in the middle of the range; from B+ to B-. The composition of EL essays is as follows: 13 high-rated essays (A range) and 14 low-rated essays (C and D range). The EL assignment topic is reproduced below: EL assignment topic: ‘One compelling reason for change is the need for language to adapt itself to the needs and realities of the speakers’. Discuss the above statement by focusing on changes to the English Language in either the Middle English period or the context of the USA.

‘Discuss’ can be interpreted in many ways (Dudley-Evans, 1988). The shape of a discussion that would be more or less well-regarded in the teaching context cannot adequately be inferred from the written prompt alone (Reid & Kroll, 1995; Lea & Street, 1999). In the present case, the Callaghan and Rothery framework is helpful in the identification of Thesis and Reiteration stages although the data yielded the following observations that may indicate a slight difference from the stages described. a) The Restatement of the Position Statement made in the Thesis stage may occur after the presentation of each argument rather than at the



S. M. Wu & D. Allison 113

concluding paragraphs of the essay in the Reiteration stage. Thus, the significance of each Point and Elaboration in the Argument stage/s may be presented to highlight evidence that reinforces the Thesis and this may occur throughout the essay. Example 1 is one instance where the Position Statement is reinforced after the presentation of an Argument stage. (In Example 1, S5 indicates the student number, 26 the clause number.) Example 1 Again, we see that English was made to change during the Middle English period in a bid to accord to the reality of the speakers, i.e. the dominance and prestige of the French language due to the Norman Conquest, as well as the need of English speakers for such borrowings given this new cultural renaissance. (S5 26)

However, in this analysis, only Position Statements in the Thesis and Reiteration stages are analysed for their evaluative expressions. b) Often at the Reiteration stage there is an equivalent of the Preview in the Thesis stage, which (following the first author) we term Review. The Review summarises preceding Points and Elaboration in the body of the essay. Thus, in some essays, a Review of points is presented before the Thesis is restated. As shown in Example 2, sentence (i) contains a Restatement of the Thesis and a summary of the key areas that have contributed to English Language change as discussed in the preceding paragraphs of the essay. Sentences (ii) and (iii) review other key reasons for the infiltration of new terms into American English. Thus, besides the Reiteration of Position Statements, the Reiteration stage reviews key areas discussed in the essay. Example 2 (i) American English came about because of the need to adapt to new, unfamiliar landscape and to address the different social, cultural, political, and economic background and life in America. (ii) Yet the Americans willingness, openness, and creativity must also be credited to the adoption and invention of new terms. (iii) This aspect together in consideration with America’s political and economic power, has thereby helped the expansion of English into an international language and enabled American English to be on equal footing with British English. (S24 40–42)

Occasionally, commitment to a Position Statement may be qualified by mention of a Counterargument (Crammond, 1998), as in Example 3:

114

Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments

Example 3 (i) Moreover, ‘it is ultimately [speakers] who decide what language to use and how to use it language does not have a life of its own’ (lecturer’s name). (ii) However, there exists a number of people who are uneasy about the concept of change in language. (S5 4–5)

There is clearly scope for further discussion of, and research into, the nature, extent and impact of generic variation in the arrangement of argument content in these essays, but that must be for another occasion. Our focus below is on evaluative wording within those stages we have selected for analysis.

5 Evaluation in the Thesis and Reiteration stages An analysis of the high-rated EL essays shows that all the high-rated essays have a Thesis stage in the introductory paragraphs of the essays and a Reiteration stage at the concluding paragraphs of the essays. In contrast, among the lowrated EL essays, there are seven instances where the writer’s position is not clear, in our reading, because of various problems in the Thesis stage, some of which are related to evaluative expressions. Also, among the EL low-rated essays, there are four essays where the Reiteration stage could be perceived as problematic. 5.1 Thesis stage in the high-rated EL essays In the high-rated essays, various engagement and graduation resources are used to convey the writers’ positions in the Thesis stage. These strategies are listed in examples 4–7. (Graduation resources are underlined.) Example 4 The English language is an example of a language, which has undergone prodigious changes as a result of political and social upheavals. (S9 3)

Example 5 (i) The Middle English period (1100‑1450) is heralded as the period where the English Language underwent ‘momentous changes... more extensive and fundamental than those that have taken place at any time before or since’ (Baugh, 1959: 189). (ii) In this period, all‑encompassing changes to Old English were observed – in terms of vocabulary, grammar or literary styles – such that an almost brand‑new language emerged.



S. M. Wu & D. Allison 115 (iii) The underlying motivation of this phenomenon can be attributed to the evolution of society: (iv) With language being ‘a form of human activity’ (Baugh, 1959: 218), the ever‑changing needs and situations of its speakers – politically, culturally and economically – creates modifications to the language. (S3 1–3)

Example 6 (i) Many English historians have attributed changes to Middle English as a compelling need to adapt to the needs and realities of the speakers. (ii) These changes are reflected in terms of the pronunciation, spelling, grammar and vocabulary of the language. (iii) However, were the changes really a result of the needs and realities of these speakers or was it merely a natural progression of a language? (iv) I shall be exploring this issue by looking at external evidence in order to explain the internal evidence found in Middle English. (S1 1–4)

Example 7 (i) ‘One compelling reason for change is the need for a language to adapt itself to the need and realities of the speakers.’ (ii) This is certainly true in my point of view as a language must be able to allow its speakers to express their ideas, thoughts and feelings as well as communicate with one another. (S5 1–4)

The variation amongst these Theses lies mainly in the type of engagement resources used. In Example 4, the writer mainly asserts his/ her position with a bare assertion. Though accompanied by graduation resources (‘prodigious’), the Position Statement does not acknowledge dialogic diversity. However there is only one bare assertion among the Theses of the high-rated EL essays. In Example 5, the writer uses the engagement resource of attribute in the Preview (‘is heralded’), and attributes it to a source (‘Baugh’) in sentence (i). Also, the entertain option (‘can be attributed’) is used to usher in the statement of position in sentence (iv). Although an attribution is used, much of the attributed proposition is assimilated, i.e. the source is not quoted verbatim. The small segment that is quoted is clearly indicated (‘a form of human activity’). The combination of entertain resources results in an interactive Position Statement as negotiation space is created. The writer’s voice is not lost, though the diversity of opinions is acknowledged. This strategy of making one’s position clear in spite of an attribute is repeated in six of the EL high-rated essays. (S3, S5, S8, S9, S12, S13)

116

Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments

A similar evaluative strategy is seen in Example 6 sentence (iii) where a question form is used as part of the dialogic option. White (2003) discusses the use of a question to open up the dialogic space although the original framework does not include this category. The question form invites readers to query the proposition attributed to historians in sentence (i) on the real cause of English Language change. However, the writer does not clarify what his/ her position is as sentence (iv) states that the writer will be ‘exploring’ the issue rather than arguing for either position. One can however surmise the writer’s position through the use of the word ‘merely’ to indicate the lesser importance of ‘natural progression’ in the process of language change. This is the only instance of the use of question in the high-rated EL essays. This technique is actually more common in the low-rated EL essays although questions here tend to come across as less well crafted. For instance, there were questions such as ‘Why is this so?’ or even a curt phrase ‘Why?’ that seem to both convey dialogic interaction and to help structure the progression of ideas within the text. In Example 7 sentence (ii), the writer emphasises ownership of the proposition through the engagement resource of pronounce: proclaim (‘in my point of view’). Also, the entertain option of ‘certainly true’ is used to assert the writer’s position. There is only one instance in the high-rated essays of a Position Statement emphasising the attribution to self. Although our focus here is not primarily upon the use of graduation resources, we note the adoption of ‘compelling’ from the essay prompt in Examples 6 and 7. A fuller analysis of individual essays, outside our scope here, would do well to look more closely at these and other such instances of intertextuality. The more common entertain option in the Position Statement of high-rated EL essays is the use of modals of possibility as shown in Example 8. Example 8 The changes in the American English can be explain by several factors, one of which is the need for it to adapt itself to the needs and realities of the dissimilar English speakers in USA. (S4 5)

There are four instances where the Position Statements are moderated for their assertiveness levels through the use of modals. 5.2 Thesis stage in the low-rated EL essays There are some interesting evaluative expressions in the construction of the Thesis stage in the low-rated EL essays. Three particular ways in which Position Statements are presented may have resulted in unclear writer positions being conveyed. Firstly, the Thesis is presented rather late beyond the introductory



S. M. Wu & D. Allison 117

paragraphs. Secondly, the writer attributes the Position Statement to a source but does not clarify his/ her own position and thirdly, the Thesis states a position that is irrelevant to the issue being discussed, or whose potential relevance may not have been brought out. Firstly, the delay in the presentation of the Thesis leaves the reader unclear on what the issue is. For instance, in S20, within the introductory paragraph, the closest statement to a Position Statement is shown in Example 9. Example 9 (i) To understand the changes in the English language, one has to look at the historical circumstances that prompted these changes. (ii) We shall focus on the Middle English period and discuss the changes to the English language in relation to the changing needs and realities of the speakers during this period. (S20 5–6)

The writer uses what Hunston (2000) calls the statement type focus in sentence (ii) to indicate the way the text will develop. In fact, in the Hunston model, focus statements organise the discourse and are not seen as evaluative. This statement may imply support for the proposition in the question prompt on the importance of needs and realities in English Language change but the writer’s position is not explicitly stated. Another example is found in writer S18. Example 10 (i) Let us examine the statement made in the question in two aspects. (ii) The first aspect is: Language adapt itself to the needs and realities of people. (S18 7–8)

In Example 10, sentence (i) organises the text. In (ii), the writer merely restates the topic area indicated in the question prompt without clarifying what the writer’s position is. Secondly, there are cases where the Position Statements are attributed to sources or put in a question form. However, as the text develops, the writer does not specify what his/ her position is as shown in Example 11. Example 11 (i) There were many changes made to the language owing to factors such as social, political, economic and ideological changes. (lecturer’s name) (ii) Why are there changes? (iii) As in the case of America, why are the changes so massive? (S25 4–6)

118

Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments

As shown in Example 11, the Position Statement is attributed to the lecturer who taught the course. The reader can only assume that the writer aligns himself/ herself to the lecturer’s proposition since lecture notes may constitute an authoritative source. The questions in (ii) and (iii) bring into focus the relevant issue being debated and the question form creates some dialogic space. However, the writer does not clarify his/ her main overall position on the issue. Instead, the subsequent sentence launches into the first argument of the Norman Conquest as one factor of change in the next paragraph. There are three instances of questions used in the Thesis stage in the low-rated EL essays. In all three instances, the writers’ positions are not clarified after the statement of the questions. Finally, some writers of the low-rated EL essays engage in Position Statements that seem irrelevant to the issue being debated. This is shown in Example 12. Example 12 (i) The massive flexibility of language is a result of many years of change and adaptation. (ii) We use language (iii) and thus when needs be, appropriate changes have to be made in order to allow it to continue serving us. (iv) In this essay we shall be dealing with the changes to the English language during the Middle English Period. (v) The language spoken at that period is undoubtedly called Middle English, which is sandwiched in-between by Old English and Modern English. (vi) Discussing the changes to Middle English will involve having to look at Old English. (vii) Middle English is said to be the most unstable form of English as it was constantly undergoing changes and varied according to the various geographical regions. (S15 5–11)

Example 12 shows some statements that verge on stating the writer’s Position Statement but fail to do so. In sentences (i) to (iii), the writer talks generally about language change but does not mention the factors of change. Sentence (iv) focuses on Middle English but the relevant issue (as specified in the essay prompt) to be debated using Middle English is not clear. The writer’s assertion with the engagement resource of proclaim: pronounce in sentence (v) (‘undoubtedly’) is used to convey what the English during a certain period is called. Ultimately, only sentence (vii) verges on stating the Position Statement using the engagement resource of entertain (‘is said to be’). However, the assigned



S. M. Wu & D. Allison 119

essay topic was not about the most unstable form of English, but the factors of English Language change. The rest of the essay compares the level of stability in Old English, Middle English and Modern English. The concluding paragraph emphasises that:

Middle English is the phase of the development of the English language where it sees the most changes before it becomes adequate and progresses into Modern English that had a standard form.

Although the author possibly intended to convey that language-internal factors were more important than adaptation to needs and realities of speakers in accounting for language change, nothing in the essay provides explicit support for such an interpretation. The opening part of the essay prompt appears to be ignored rather than challenged, giving at least an appearance of irrelevance in the context of an undergraduate essay. This problem is found in two low-rated essays (S15, S18). Generally, the low-rated essay writers express stronger definiteness in their choice of entertain categories. For instance, in S14, S21 and S22, these options are used in the Position Statements respectively: ‘It is as inevitable as it can get…’ ‘It is true that one of the reasons…’ and ‘It is inevitable that language will change…’. The high-rated essays are more measured in their options of entertain resources often employing the use of the modal ‘can’. Two writers of low-rated EL essays, and one high rated essay, emphasise the attribution of the proposition to self (e.g. ‘in my personal opinion’). Thus, in the Thesis stage, the low-rated essay writers are either not very clear in their statement of position or rather assertive. The high-rated essay writers tend to be consistently clear without necessarily being unduly assertive. The above observations on the Thesis stage shows that the EL high-rated essay writers tend to indicate more clearly what their Position Statements are in the introductory paragraphs using different evaluative strategies. The employment of an external voice through attribute is not uncommon, though without submerging the writer’s voice. This contrasts with low-rated EL essay writers who tend not to clarify the alignment of their positions with the quoted source’s position. The use of questions does help to open up the dialogic space but both the high-rated and low-rated EL essay writers tend not to indicate their positions clearly. The low-rated essay writers’ positions also tend to be more implicit because of delayed Position Statements that verge on making a claim. There is also the problem of debating on the wrong issue (i.e. not the assigned issue).

120

Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments

5.3 Reiteration in the high-rated EL essays All the high-rated EL essays had a Restatement of the writer’s Position at the concluding paragraphs. Two of the low-rated essays (S20, S21) did not have a Restatement of the writer’s Position statement. White (1998: 249) describes this lack of closure provided by the Reiteration stage in issues reports which do not seek culmination in issues reported. However, in the context of an expository text, such essays without a Reiteration stage would seem incomplete. Among the high-rated EL essays, five instances of Thesis Restatement make use of modals such as ‘can’ or ‘would’. This is shown in Example 13. Example 13 In conclusion, we can say that adaptability of a language to the needs and realities of its users is one reason for change. (S7 61)

Five restated Theses use dialogically contractive engagement resources of proclaim: endorse such as that shown in Example 14. Example 14 Thus, the Middle English period clearly illustrates [entertain: endorse] why the need for a language to adapt itself to the needs and realities of the speakers is a compelling reason for change. (S10 44)

Two Restatements are in the form of bare assertion. One of them uses appreciation resources to convey the evaluation of the proposition as shown in Example 15. Example 15 As such, the statement is a reasonable one, taking into consideration the change of the English language seen in the American context. (S13 41)

5.4 Reiteration stage in the low-rated EL essays In two of the low-rated essays (S15, S18), the Review and Restatement of Thesis are present but are less than effective. In S15, the Restatement of the writer’s Thesis concerns the issue of whether Middle English is the most unstable form of the English Language. As seen earlier, this issue is not linked to the topic in the essay prompt either explicitly or through a clear chain of inferences in the course of the essay. In S18, there is no Position Statement in the Thesis although the writer gives a good Review of the major Points (sentences (i) and (ii), Example 16)



S. M. Wu & D. Allison 121

including a Counterargument that was developed in the body of the essay. An apparent ‘Restatement’ of the writer’s Position Statement appears in sentence (iii), but in this essay, it is only in the Reiteration stage that a Position Statement is stated clearly for the first time. The writer then problematises the issue in sentence (iv) and brings in what appears to be a contrary position. The issue is resolved through another Position Statement in sentence (vii) that is hard to reconcile with the initial Position Statement in sentence (iii). Readers may not be prepared for the change in the clear statement of the writer’s position and its problematisation towards the concluding part of the essay. Also two apparently contrary positions are indicated within the Reiteration stage. Example 16 (i) In conclusion, the change in language as seen from the above is very much a two-way process. (ii) In reality, language is developed by first sighting a thing, then experiencing it to naming it, (iii) therefore, language adapts to the needs and realities of speakers. (iv) On the other hand, the idea of ‘whorfism’ (linguistic determinism) prove otherwise. (v) It shows that language very much shapes the thoughts of speakers or forms the thoughts of speakers. (vi) Also, surroundings like economy and societal conformity as mentioned above would result in the adapting to certain forms of language. (vii) Therefore, change need not necessarily be the need for language to adapt itself to the needs and realities of the speakers. (S18 40–45)

On a sympathetic reading, the student may have been attempting a coherent and quite sophisticated statement of two-way rather than one-way causation (see sentence (i) and thereby taking issue with the prompt. If so, there are at least two ways in which the essay and this extract could have been made more communicatively effective: (a) the sophisticated position could have been developed throughout the essay, rather than introduced at the end, and (b) other wording could have reduced any appearance of contradiction among statements that were to be reconciled (e.g. change ‘In reality’ to ‘From one point of view’; change ‘prove otherwise’ to ‘offer a complementary insight’). These kinds of consideration would require detailed follow-up on an individual basis, and take us beyond the limits of textual evidence alone. One other feature of the Reiteration stage in the low-rated essays is the stronger sense of assertion as indicated by the engagement options used. In

122

Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments

some instances, the Restatement of Position Statements is rather assertively conveyed: Example 17 (a) There is no doubt a compelling need for the English language to be flexible to better serve its purpose as an international language. (S17) (b) Nevertheless for a language to – itself to the needs and realities of the speakers is undeniably a compelling reason why American English has changed. (S22 43) (c) In conclusion, I agree that a compelling reason for change is the need for a language to adapt itself to the needs and realities of the speakers; (S19 44) (d) Though not discussed, they still serve, as examples showing us that language changes are needed so as to cater to the needs and realities of the speakers at that particular point in time. (S14 54) (e) Hence, to deny that the inevitable need of language to change is independent of the needs and realities facing the speakers is inconceivable in any context. (S26 41)

In the examples 17a to 17d above, the dialogically contractive engagement options (underlined) are used to convey the sense of finality in the position stated. In (e), the appreciation resources in the words ‘inevitable’ and ‘inconceivable’ add to the sense of finality of the assertion. Aside from these five instances, four other Restatements are in the form of bare assertion (S15, S24, S25, S27). These options are rather assertive as no dialogic option is entertained. Three instances of restated position are dialogically expansive, using modals such as ‘may be’. This is shown in Example 18. Example 18 To conclude, it is suggested that the varieties that have arisen in the above situation have been shaped by contact: contact with other languages, as well as between the varieties of English used by settlers. (S16 67)

6 Discussion This study has examined evaluative expressions used in the Thesis and Reiteration stages of 27 undergraduate argumentative essays with the aim of differentiating the high-rated and low-rated essays in the use of such expressions. The high-rated essay writers are more consistent in the use of both the Thesis and Reiteration stages. The high-rated writers identify their Position Statements early in the essay and reiterate a consistent position at the end



S. M. Wu & D. Allison 123

of the essay. There was one instance where the high-rated essay writer failed to clarify his/ her position because of the ineffective use of a question form, perhaps in an attempt to lead readers to derive the Position Statement rather than to state it explicitly. In the low-rated essays, there were instances where the Position Statement is presented far beyond the introductory details in the Thesis stage. Instead, the low-rated essay writers may initially identify a topic area for discussion rather than formulate their position on the issue. Similarly, in the Reiteration stage, the high-rated essay writers are more likely to re-empahsise their positions. The low-rated essay writers may include a statement of their position after providing a review of their major points but it becomes ineffective mainly because the writer has not made clear his/ her Position Statement in the Thesis or that the writer’s position in the Thesis stage is somewhat different from his/ her position in the final stage. The importance of stating the claim or Position Statement is supported by the data in our study, in that essays identified as high-rated were much more likely to do this clearly. Within the frameworks of argumentation developed within the SFL tradition, the presence of a Position Statement or claim makes the difference between an analytical exposition or discussion (Coffin, 2004). This shows the importance of the Position Statement in the characterisation of a generic sub-type. One of the markers of the essay pointed out the need for a clear statement of the writer’s position as one of the first criteria of good essays described. A quality essay ‘needs to be highly focused and it must pick out the issue that is being referred to, mainly language change and expand on it’. Though the writer’s opinion can permeate throughout the texts, these stages are good focal points for the learner writer to clarify his/ her position with regard to the issue being debated on. It is thus of value to reiterate the role of Position Statements to learners, and it is equally important for students to learn how to craft such statements strategically. This is not, however, to claim that clear Position Statements are required by all academic readers, or in all disciplines, or in all genres. It remains critical to focus students’ attention on partly predictable effects of their writing choices, without falling into new or old dogma. Within the stages, evaluative resources were used differently in the highrated and low-rated essays. In the high-rated essays, graduation resources to scale the impact of certain factors on the English Language were often used. These resources convey the writer’s assessment of how important some socio-historical factors were (e.g. ‘compelling reason for change’, although this example intertextually echoes the prompt, raising other questions about whose assessment we may be encountering) or the kind of effect these factors had on the English Language (e.g. ‘all-encompassing changes’). A consistent use of these resources to rate the contribution of various factors towards language

124

Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments

change accumulatively conveys the writer’s judgement of the importance of these factors and this addresses the question implicit in the assignment prompt. On the other hand, the absence of a clear statement of position in some of the low-rated essays obliterates the opportunity for the manipulative use of these evaluative resources in the crux of the essays. The appropriate use of graduation resources and its role in contributing to the sense of evaluation may be neglected and could be highlighted to learner writers. In terms of engagement resources, the high-rated essay writers tend to maintain a more dialogically expansive stance to soften the assertiveness level of the claims. In particular, the frequent use of attributions construes a sense of the writers’ awareness of the intertextual nature of discourse and indicates a level of negotiability in positions taken. In reiterating their positions, high-rated essay writers confirm the validity of their positions by seeking endorsement from either authoritative sources or evidence presented earlier (proclaim: endorse). This ensures a firm stance that is difficult to dispute given the validation from another source. Appropriate guidance on such usages will ensure that learner writers continue to develop strategies to manage writing tasks at the tertiary level that often require the evaluative synthesis of ideas from more than one source. The low-rated essay writers, on the other hand, tend to use dialogically contractive resources such as proclaim: pronounce in their Position Statement and its reiteration. This results in an unnecessarily high level of assertion, conveying a constriction of negotiation space. The importance of conveying the appropriate level of epistemic meaning in students’ texts has been investigated by Hyland and Milton (1997) in their comparative study of ESL and native English writers’ essays. Generally, ESL writers tend to rely on a narrower set of certainty markers and offer stronger commitments to what they say than the native English writers. This pattern is not unlike the low-rated EL essay writers’ tendency in the present study to constrict dialogic space. Allison (1995) points out that one problem ESL writers face is that: …academic readers will consider claims that [student writers] put forward in their essays should be properly warranted and neither overstated nor understated in relation to evidence that the writers present or to assumptions that they might reasonably make about shared knowledge and values. (1995: 4)

As recommended by Allison (1995: 11), ‘raising the awareness of likely consequences of linguistic choices, and of alternatives that are available, can therefore constitute a modest but very practical form of student empowerment’. This process of empowering the novice writer may be enhanced by a systematic



S. M. Wu & D. Allison 125

categorisation of available choices such as the engagement resource list in the Appraisal framework. Teacher-learner review of alternatives available and the consequent level of dialogic space conveyed through the use of various options may provide concrete guidance for student writers who struggle to understand what vague comments such as ‘too strong’ along the margin mean. The use of question forms to create dialogic space is attempted unsuccessfully by both the high-rated and low-rated essay writers. Question forms in academic writing perform various functions, one of which is ‘to orientate [readers] in a certain way to the arguments presented’ (Hyland, 2002: 532). Hyland also suggests that ‘common conversational uses do not adequately prepare novices for ways questions work in academic genres to establish a particular relationship, draw readers into an argument and manage their understanding of an issue’ (2002: 554). While Hyland’s emphasis in these selected comments is on interpersonal meaning, strategic uses of questions can also serve ideational and text-organising functions in helping to structure the essay as a whole. It is not apparent from the data set that the writers use questions in a strategic way. It is therefore helpful to highlight to students how questions can convey both rhetorical and evaluative meanings in context.

7 Conclusion This study has identified ways in which academically more successful student writers use evaluative language at certain key stages of their essays to indicate their stance. Though these stages are not expected to occur in all argumentative texts, they are helpful constructs that facilitate the development of a coherent text as novice writers hinge their ideas around a central argument. It is also not unusual for marking schemes to include the presence of a thesis/ claim as one indicator of a clear introduction. This attests to the importance of investigating the effectiveness of one’s position in essays. Equally important to the quality of the essay is the construction of a stance that effectively puts across the desired position. The engagement system provides the means by which we can describe how writers adjust and negotiate the arguability of their positions. The framework brings together disparate items that indicate interpersonal meaning as a system of choices with varying degrees of dialogicity. The wider perspective adopted in this framework allows one to look beyond the epistemic meaning of evaluative items (e.g. modals) and allows better insights into reader-writer negotiation. In particular, the role of attributions, which is an important element in tertiary level writing in the creation of an appropriate stance, is recognised. Ultimately, the identification of factors that contribute to the quality of an argumentative essay is a complex process. The relative importance of each of

126

Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments

these factors can only be arrived at in an interpretative manner such as by investigating the assessment criteria in the context of a specific task. However, as discussed earlier, the relevance of the Position Statement in an argumentative writing task has been recognised consistently and thus, it is important for writing teachers to continually find better ways to help raise students’ awareness of its potential to begin an argumentative piece of discourse. We believe that the investigation into the evaluative quality of Position Statements in this paper presents another step forward in this direction. References Allison, D. (1995) Assertions and alternatives: helping ESL undergraduates extend their choices in academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 4 (1): 1–15. Callaghan, M. and Rothery, J. (1988) Teaching Factual Writing: a genre-based approach. Report of the Disadvantaged Schools Program Literacy Project. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program. Coffin, C. (2004) Arguing about how the world is or how the world should be: the role of argument in IELTS tests. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 229–46. Connor, U. (1990) Linguistic/ rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English 24: 67–87. Crammond, J. G. (1998) The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication 15 (2): 230–68. Dudley-Evans, T. (1988) A consideration of the meaning of ‘discuss’ in examination questions. In P. C. Robinson (ed.) Academic Writing: process and product 35–47. (ELT Documents 129) Hong Kong: Modern English Publications and The British Council. Eggins, S. (1994) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter. Hunston, S. (1989) Evaluation in experimental research articles. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham. Hunston, S. (2000) Evaluation and the planes of discourse: status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds) Evaluation in Text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse 176–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds) (2000) Evaluation in Text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hyland, K. (2002) What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text 22 (4): 259–557. Hyland, K. and Milton, J. (1997) Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6 (2): 183–205. Johns, A. M. (1995) Teaching classroom and authentic genres: initiating students into academic cultures and discourses. In D. Belcher and G. Braine (eds) Academic Writing in a Second Language: essays on research and pedagogy 277–93. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.



S. M. Wu & D. Allison 127

Lea, M. R. and Street, B. (1999) Writing as academic literacies: understanding textual practices in higher education. In C. N. Candlin and K. Hyland (eds) Writing: texts, processes and practices 62–83. London: Longman. Love, A. (1999) Framing claims: an examination of one feature of undergraduate writing in Zimbabwe. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 25 (1–2): 71–85. Martin, J. R. (1989) Factual Writing: exploring and challenging social reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martin, J. R. (2000) Beyond exchange: appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds) Evaluation in Text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse 142–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mauranen, A. and Bondi, M. (2003) Editorial. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 269–71. O’Brien, T. (1995) Rhetorical structure analysis and the case of the inaccurate, incoherent source-hopper. Applied Linguistics 6 (4): 442–82. Reid, J. and Kroll, B. (1995) Designing and assessing effective classroom writing assignments for NES and ESL students. Journal of Second Language Writing 4 (1): 17–41. Teruo, H. (1996) American and Japanese high school students’ rhetorical patterns in writing English persuasive compositions. Unpublished PhD thesis, National University of Singapore. Thompson, G. (2001) Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22: 58–78. Toulmin, S. E. (1958) The Use of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H. and Krabbe, E. C. W., et al. (1996) Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. White, P. (1998) Telling media tales: the news story as rhetoric. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Sydney. White, P. (2002) The language of attitude, arguability and interpersonal positioning. Retrieved June 2002. http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/index.html White, P. (2003) Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23(2): 259–84. Yang, R. and Allison, D. (2004) Research articles in applied linguistics: structures from a functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes 23(3): 264–79.