An analysis of the evaluation contexts in academic discourse

Xiaoyu Xu, Hilary Nesi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This paper develops a new framework to examine the use of ‘evaluation resources’ in research discourse. In previous studies of evaluative resources, two distinct, although interwoven, types of context have been identified: 1) the real world where evaluation resources are used to describe situations, and 2) the research world studying the real world, where they are used to engage readers and open up debate. In this paper, we will propose three context types: 1) the research world, where the choice of evaluation must be affected by the writer’s argumentative intention, 2) the real world where the choice of evaluation is affected by the writer’s argumentative intention, and 3) the real world where the choice of evaluation is not affected by the writer’s argumentative intention. This distinction helps us identify more rigorously those evaluative resources that are relevant to arguments. It will also enable us to explore and quantify the way evaluation functions across contexts.
Original languageEnglish
Article number2
JournalFunctional Linguistics
Volume4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 21 Jan 2017

Fingerprint

discourse
evaluation
writer
resources

Bibliographical note

© The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Keywords

  • Academic writing
  • Research space
  • Real world
  • Research world
  • Planes of discourse
  • Appraisal theory

Cite this

An analysis of the evaluation contexts in academic discourse. / Xu, Xiaoyu; Nesi, Hilary.

In: Functional Linguistics, Vol. 4, 2, 21.01.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3f42a267d615438993f325f6b1b94759,
title = "An analysis of the evaluation contexts in academic discourse",
abstract = "This paper develops a new framework to examine the use of ‘evaluation resources’ in research discourse. In previous studies of evaluative resources, two distinct, although interwoven, types of context have been identified: 1) the real world where evaluation resources are used to describe situations, and 2) the research world studying the real world, where they are used to engage readers and open up debate. In this paper, we will propose three context types: 1) the research world, where the choice of evaluation must be affected by the writer’s argumentative intention, 2) the real world where the choice of evaluation is affected by the writer’s argumentative intention, and 3) the real world where the choice of evaluation is not affected by the writer’s argumentative intention. This distinction helps us identify more rigorously those evaluative resources that are relevant to arguments. It will also enable us to explore and quantify the way evaluation functions across contexts.",
keywords = "Academic writing, Research space, Real world, Research world, Planes of discourse, Appraisal theory",
author = "Xiaoyu Xu and Hilary Nesi",
note = "{\circledC} The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1186/s40554-016-0037-x",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
journal = "Functional Linguistics",
issn = "2196-419X",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An analysis of the evaluation contexts in academic discourse

AU - Xu, Xiaoyu

AU - Nesi, Hilary

N1 - © The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

PY - 2017/1/21

Y1 - 2017/1/21

N2 - This paper develops a new framework to examine the use of ‘evaluation resources’ in research discourse. In previous studies of evaluative resources, two distinct, although interwoven, types of context have been identified: 1) the real world where evaluation resources are used to describe situations, and 2) the research world studying the real world, where they are used to engage readers and open up debate. In this paper, we will propose three context types: 1) the research world, where the choice of evaluation must be affected by the writer’s argumentative intention, 2) the real world where the choice of evaluation is affected by the writer’s argumentative intention, and 3) the real world where the choice of evaluation is not affected by the writer’s argumentative intention. This distinction helps us identify more rigorously those evaluative resources that are relevant to arguments. It will also enable us to explore and quantify the way evaluation functions across contexts.

AB - This paper develops a new framework to examine the use of ‘evaluation resources’ in research discourse. In previous studies of evaluative resources, two distinct, although interwoven, types of context have been identified: 1) the real world where evaluation resources are used to describe situations, and 2) the research world studying the real world, where they are used to engage readers and open up debate. In this paper, we will propose three context types: 1) the research world, where the choice of evaluation must be affected by the writer’s argumentative intention, 2) the real world where the choice of evaluation is affected by the writer’s argumentative intention, and 3) the real world where the choice of evaluation is not affected by the writer’s argumentative intention. This distinction helps us identify more rigorously those evaluative resources that are relevant to arguments. It will also enable us to explore and quantify the way evaluation functions across contexts.

KW - Academic writing

KW - Research space

KW - Real world

KW - Research world

KW - Planes of discourse

KW - Appraisal theory

U2 - 10.1186/s40554-016-0037-x

DO - 10.1186/s40554-016-0037-x

M3 - Article

VL - 4

JO - Functional Linguistics

JF - Functional Linguistics

SN - 2196-419X

M1 - 2

ER -