Volume 3, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-7233
  • E-ISSN: 2589-7241
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper models analytical tools for identifying the linguistic resources at play in constructing in high-scoring undergraduate business reports from a systemic functional linguistic perspective. Drawing on the discourse semantic system of and coupling theory in systemic functional linguistics, this paper illustrates a process for analysing the linguistic construction of investment opportunities and risks in undergraduate business reports through the ‘coupling’ of different types of discourse semantic meanings. This study has pedagogical implications for making explicit the key language resources critical for constructing business decisions in undergraduate business studies.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alyousef, Hesham S.
    2015 An investigation of metadiscourse features in international postgraduate business students’ texts: The use of interactive and interactional markers in tertiary multimodal finance texts. SAGE Open5 (4). 1–10. doi:  10.1177/2158244015610796
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015610796 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alyousef, Hesham S. & Michelle Y. Picard
    2011 Cooperative or collaborative literacy practices: Mapping metadiscourse in a business students’ wiki group project. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology27 (3). 463–480. 10.14742/ajet.955
    https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.955 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alyousef, Hesham S. & Peter Mickan
    2016 Literacy and numeracy practices in postgraduate management accounting. InEsther Breuer & ‎Arlene Archer (eds.), Multimodality in higher education, 216–240. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. 10.1163/9789004312067_012
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004312067_012 [Google Scholar]
  4. Backhouse, Roger, Tony Dudley-Evans & Willie Henderson
    (eds.) 1993Economics and language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca & Catherine Nickerson
    1999Writing business: Genres, media and discourses. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barrie, Simon
    2004 A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher Education Research and Development23 (3). 261–275. 10.1080/0729436042000235391
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000235391 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biglan, Anthony
    1973 The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology57 (3). 195–203. 10.1037/h0034701
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034701 [Google Scholar]
  8. Birrell, Bob
    2006 Implications of low English standards among overseas students at Australian universities. People and Place14 (4). 53–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bloor, Meriel & Thomas Bloor
    1993 How economists modify propositions. InRoger Backhouse, Tony Dudley-Evans & Willie Henderson (eds.), Economics and language, 153–169. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bloor, Thomas & Makaya Pindi
    1990 Schematic structure in economics forecasts. InTony Dudley-Evans & Willie Henderson (eds.), The language of economics: The analysis of economics discourse, 55–66. Modern English Publications in association with the British Council.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Camiciottoli, Belinda C.
    2010 Discourse connectives in genres of financial disclosure: Earnings presentations vs. earnings releases. Journal of Pragmatics42 (3). 650–663. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2011 Ethics and ethos in financial reporting: Analyzing persuasive language in earnings calls. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly74 (3). 298–312. 10.1177/1080569911413810
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569911413810 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carrington, Michael, Richard Chen, Martin Davies, Jagjit Kaur & Benjamin Neville
    2011 The effectiveness of a single intervention of computer-aided argument mapping in a marketing and a financial accounting subject. Higher Education Research & Development30 (3). 387–403. 10.1080/07294360.2011.559197
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.559197 [Google Scholar]
  14. Carrió-Pastor, María L. & Rut M. Calderón
    2015 A contrastive analysis of metadiscourse features in business e-mails written by non-native speakers of English. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences173. 214–221. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.055
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.055 [Google Scholar]
  15. Coffin, Caroline & Ann Hewings
    2003 Writing for different disciplines. InCaroline Coffin, Mary Jane Curry, Sharon Goodman, Ann Hewings, Theresa Lillis & Joan Swann (eds.), Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education, 45–72. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Coffin, Caroline, Mary J. Curry, Sharon Goodman, Ann Hewings, Theresa Lillis & Joan Swann
    2003Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Davies, Florence & Gail Forey
    1996 Effective writing for management project: Report to the advisory board. Unpublished report. Bristol: The University of Bristol, School of Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Donohue, James P.
    2006 How to support a one-handed economist: The role of modalisation in economic forecasting. English for Specific Purposes25 (2). 200–216. 10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.009 [Google Scholar]
  19. Donohue, James P., Lina Adinolfi & Prithvi Shrestha
    2013Analysing business cases: 1. U.K.: The Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dorn, Elizabeth M.
    1999 Case method instruction in the business writing classroom. Business Communication Quarterly62 (1). 41–60. 10.1177/108056999906200104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/108056999906200104 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dudley-Evans, Tony & Willie Henderson
    (eds.) 1990The language of economics: The analysis of economics discourse. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Facione, Peter A.
    1990Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2010Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Millbrae, CA: Measured Reasons and the California Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Flowerdew, John & Alina Wan
    2010 The linguistic and the contextual in applied genre analysis: The case of the company audit report. English for Specific purposes29 (2). 78–93. 10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Forey, Gail
    2002 Aspects of Theme and their role in workplace texts. Unpliblished PhD Thesis. Glasgow: University of Glasgow.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2004 Workplace texts: Do they mean the same for teachers and business people?English for Specific Purposes23 (4). 447–469. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(04)00004‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(04)00004-3 [Google Scholar]
  27. Forey, Gail & David Nunan
    2002 The role of language and culture in the workplace. InBarron, Colin, Nigel Bruce & David Nunan (eds.), Knowledge and discourse: Language ecology in theory and practice, 204–220. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gardner, Sheena
    2012 Genres and registers of student report writing: An SFL perspective on texts and practices. Journal of English for Academic Purposes11 (1). 52–63. 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gruber, Helmut
    2004 Scholar or consultant? Author-roles of student writers in German business writing. InLouise J. Ravelli & Robert A. Ellis (eds.), Analyzing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks, 45–66. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1969 Options and functions in the English clause. Brno Studies in English, 8. 81–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1976 [1970] The form of a functional grammar. InGunther R. Kress (ed.), Halliday: System and function in language, 7–25. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1978Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 1979 One child’s protolanguage. InMargaret Bullowa (ed.), Before speech: The beginning of interpersonal communication, 171–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Archive.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1985An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2003 [1973] The functional basis of language. InMichael A. K. Halliday, On language and linguistics, volume 3 in the collected works of M.A. K. Halliday, 298–322. Edited byJonathan J. Webster. London: Continuum. [Reprinted from: Basil Bernstein. ed. 1973 Applied studies towards a sociology of language. Volume 2 Class, codes and control, 343–366. London: Routledge].
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2009 Method – techniques – problems. InMichael A. K. Halliday & Jonathan Webster (ed.), Continuum companion to systemic functional linguistics, 59–86. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    1999Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2004An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition). London: Hodder Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hammer, Sara Jeanne & Wendy Green
    2011 Critical thinking in a first year management unit: The relationship between disciplinary learning, academic literacy and learning progression. Higher Education Research and Development30 (3). 303–315. 10.1080/07294360.2010.501075
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501075 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hamp-Lyons, Liz
    2011 What is EAP?InEli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Volume 2), 89–105. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hood, Susan
    2010Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230274662
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274662 [Google Scholar]
  42. Howard, Sarah & Karl Maton
    2011 Theorizing knowledge practices: A missing piece of the educational technology puzzle. Research in Learning Technology19 (3). 191–206. 10.3402/rlt.v19i3.17109
    https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v19i3.17109 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hutchins, Teresa D.
    2015 A new approach to teaching business writing: Writing across the core-A document based curriculum. American Journal of Business Education8 (2). 131–138. 10.19030/ajbe.v8i2.9135
    https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v8i2.9135 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hyland, Ken
    1998 Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication35 (2). 224–245. 10.1177/002194369803500203
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500203 [Google Scholar]
  45. 1999 Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes18 (1). 3–26. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(97)00025‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2004 Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing13 (2). 133–151. 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2005Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London, England: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2010 Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies9 (2). 125–143. 10.35360/njes.220
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hyland, Ken & Liz Hamp-Lyons
    2002 EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for academic purposes1 (1). 1–12. 10.1016/S1475‑1585(02)00002‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00002-4 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hyland, Ken & Polly Tse
    2004 Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics25(2). 156–177. 10.1093/applin/25.2.156
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kolb, David A.
    1981 Learning styles and disciplinary differences. The Modern American College1. 232–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Lemke, Jay
    1984Semiotics and education. Toronto, Ontario: Toronto Semiotic Circle & Victoria University.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 1995 Intertextuality and text semantics. Advances in Discourse Processes50, 85–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Lentz, Paula
    2013 MBA students’ workplace writing implications for business writing pedagogy and workplace practice. Business Communication Quarterly76 (4). 474–490. 10.1177/1080569913507479
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569913507479 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lillis, Theresa & Mary Scott
    2007 Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics4 (1). 5–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Martin, James R.
    1991 Intrinsic functionality: Implications for contextual theory. Social Semiotics1(1). 99–162. 10.1080/10350339109360331
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10350339109360331 [Google Scholar]
  57. 1992English text: System and structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  58. 1994 Macrogenres: The ecology of the page. Network21. 21–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 1995 Text and clause: Fractal resonance. Text15 (1). 5–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2000 Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. InGeoffrey Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 142–175. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 2008 Innocence: Realisation, instantiation and individuation in a Botswanan town. InAhmar Mahboob & Naomi Knight (eds.), Questioning Linguistics, 32–76. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2010 Semantic variation – Modelling realisation, instantiation and individuation in social semiosis. InMonika Bednarek & James R. Martin (eds.), New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation, 1–98. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 2011 Bridging troubled waters: Interdisciplinarity and what makes it stick. InFrances Christie & Karl Maton (eds.), Disciplinarity: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives, 35–61. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2013Systemic functional grammar: A next step into the theory: Axial relations. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 2014 Evolving systemic functional linguistics: Beyond the clause. Functional Linguistics1 (1). 1–24. 10.1186/2196‑419X‑1‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-419X-1-3 [Google Scholar]
  66. Martin, James R. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    1991 Systemic typology and topology. InFrances Christie (ed.), Literacy in social processes: Papers from the inaugural Australian Systemic Linguistics Conference, 345–383, held atDeakin University, January 1990 Darwin: Centre for Studies in Language in Education, Northern Territory University. Reprinted inZhenhua Wang (ed.) 2010 SFL theory, volume 1 in the collected works of J.R. Martin, 167–215. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Martin, James R. & David Rose
    2007 [2003]Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 2008Genre relations. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Martin, James R. & Peter R. R. White
    2005The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  70. Maton, Karl
    2013 Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education24 (1). 8–22. 10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  71. 2014Knowledge and knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Maton, Karl & Robert Moore
    2010Social realism, knowledge and the sociology of education: Coalitions of the mind. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Maton, Karl, Susan Hood & Suellen Shay
    (eds.) 2016Knowledge-building: Educational studies in legitimation code theory. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Mauranen, Anna
    1993 Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes12 (1). 3–22. 10.1016/0889‑4906(93)90024‑I
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I [Google Scholar]
  75. Moore, Tim
    2013 Critical thinking: Seven definitions in search of a concept. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (4). 506–522. 10.1080/03075079.2011.586995
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.586995 [Google Scholar]
  76. Nathan, Philip
    2013 Academic writing in the business school: The genre of the business case report. Journal of English for Academic Purposes12 (1). 57–68. 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  77. Nesi, Hilary & Sheena Gardner
    2012Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009030199
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009030199 [Google Scholar]
  78. Nguyen, Thi H. H.
    2011 From university to workplace: A contrastive analysis of business writing in Vietnam. Melbourne: Monash University PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Pindi, Makaya & Thomas Bloor
    1987 Playing safe with predictions: Hedging, attribution and conditions in economic forecasting. InProceedings of Written Language: British Studies in Applied Linguistics2 (4). Papers from theAnnual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics. England, Reading.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Prior, Paul
    2013 Multimodality and ESP research. InBrian Paltridge & Sue Starfield (eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes, 519–534. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Purser, Emily
    2012 Teaching academic writing at The University of Wollongong. InGerd Bräuer, Paula Carlino, Lisa Ganobcsik-Williams & Aparna Sinha (eds.), Writing programs worldwide: Profiles of academic writing in many places: Perspectives on Writing, 55–68. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse & Parlor Press. 10.37514/PER‑B.2012.0346.2.05
    https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2012.0346.2.05 [Google Scholar]
  82. Rocci, Andrea
    2017Modality in argumentation: A semantic investigation of the role of modalities in the structure of arguments with an application to Italian modal expressions. The Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑024‑1063‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1063-1 [Google Scholar]
  83. Shrestha, Prithvi N.
    2017 Investigating the learning transfer of genre features and conceptual knowledge from an academic literacy course to business studies: Exploring the potential of dynamic assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes25. 1–17. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  84. Stenglin, Marie K., Katherine Welch & Chris Cléirigh
    2014 Strength, specificity and directionality: Three key parameters of content-communication integration. Unpublished paper.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Swales, John M.
    2000 Languages for specific purposes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics20. 59–76. 10.1017/S0267190500200044
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500200044 [Google Scholar]
  86. Szenes, Eszter
    2017 The linguistic construction of business reasoning: Towards a language-based model of decision-making in undergraduate business. Unpliblished PhD Thesis. Sydney: The University of Sydney.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Tadros, Angela A.
    1985Prediction in text. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 1986 Law cases as input to ESP materials. ESPMENA Bulletin21. 22–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 1989 Predictive categories in university textbooks. English for Specific Purposes8 (1). 17–31. 10.1016/0889‑4906(89)90004‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(89)90004-5 [Google Scholar]
  90. Tan, John, Diane C. Satin & Christopher W. K. Lubwama
    2013 A real-world business approach to teaching M.B.A. managerial accounting: Motivation, design, and implementation. Issues in Accounting Education28 (2). 375–402. 10.2308/iace‑50393
    https://doi.org/10.2308/iace-50393 [Google Scholar]
  91. Thompson, Geoffrey
    2001 Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics22 (1). 58–78. 10.1093/applin/22.1.58
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58 [Google Scholar]
  92. Toulmin, Stephen E.
    1958The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Weekes, Patricia
    2014 From dot points to disciplinarity: The theory and practice of disciplinary literacies in secondary schooling. Unpliblished PhD Thesis. Armidale: University of New England.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Wignell, Peter
    1998 Technicality and abstraction in social science. InJames R. Martin & Robert Veel (eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science, 299–328. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 2007aOn the discourse of social science. Darwin, N.T.: Charles Darwin University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 2007b Vertical and horizontal discourse and the social sciences. InFrances Christie & James R. Martin (eds.), Language, knowledge and pedagogy: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives, 184–204. London: Cassell.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Zappavigna, Michele, Chris Cléirigh, Paul Dwyer & James R. Martin
    2010 Visualizing appraisal prosody. InAhmar Mahboob & Naomi Knight (eds.), Appliable linguistics: Texts, contexts, and meanings, 150–167. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Zappavigna, Michele, Paul Dwyer & James R. Martin
    2008 Syndromes of meaning: Exploring patterned coupling in a NSW Youth Justice Conference. InAhmar Mahboob & Naomi Knight (eds.), Questioning linguistics, 164–185. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Zhao, Sumin
    2010 Intersemiotic relations as logogenetic patterns: Towards the restoration of the time dimension in hypertext description. InMonika Bednarek & James R. Martin (eds.), New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity and affiliation, 195–219. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error