Volume 12, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Taking an authorial stance is essential in academic writing but remains a challenge for novice researchers, especially EFL/ESL writers. This study explores how authors of English and Arabic research article discussions employ evaluative language resources while commenting on their results. To this end, the study investigated the employment of Engagement resources within Appraisal Theory (Martin & White 2005). The findings exhibited a great divergence between the two language groups as Arabic discussions relied more on Contracting strategies, which indicate the tendency to close down the space for dialogic alternatives, while their English counterparts preferred Expanding resources, which open up the dialogic space for alternative voices. The study, therefore, bears some pedagogical implications for L2 learners.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1981The Dialogic Imagination. (translated byC. Emerson & M. Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chang, Peichin and Mary Schleppegrell
    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, 140–51. 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cheng, Fei-Wen and Len Unsworth
    2016 Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections. Journal of English for Academic Purposes24, 43–57. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Basturkmen, Helen
    2009 Commenting on results in published research articles and master’s dissertations in language teaching. English for Academic Purposes8(4): 241–251. 10.1016/j.jeap.2009.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2012 A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. English for Academic Purposes11(2): 134–144. 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, Douglas
    2006 Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes5: 97–116. 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Geng, Yifan and Sue Wharton
    2016 Evaluative language in discussion sections of doctoral theses: Similarities and differences between L1 Chinese and L1 English writers. English for Academic Purposes22: 80–91. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Hood, Susan
    2004 Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Sydney: Faculty of Education, University of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2010Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230274662
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274662 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hyland, Ken
    2005 Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies7(2): 173–192. 10.1177/1461445605050365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  11. Le, Thi and Michael Harrington
    2015 Phraseology used to comment on results in the Discussion section of applied linguistics quantitative research articles. English for Specific Purposes39: 45–61. 10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Loi, Chek-Kim, Jason Miin-Hwa Lim and Sue Wharton
    2016 Expressing an evaluative stance in English and Malay research article conclusions: International publications versus local publications, Journal of English for Academic Purposes21: 1–16. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Martin, James R. & David Rose
    2003Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Martin, James R. and Peter White
    2005The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  15. Najjar, Hasan
    1990 Arabic as a research language: The case of the agricultural sciences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Swales, John
    1990Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge & Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2004Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524827
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827 [Google Scholar]
  18. Xie, Jianping
    2016 Direct or indirect? Critical or uncritical? Evaluation in Chinese English major MA theses literature reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes23: 1–15. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Yang, Ruiying and Desmond Allison
    2003 Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes22(4): 365–385. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(02)00026‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): academic writing; appraisal theory; Arabic; authorial stance; CARS model
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