Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 2 |
| Journal | Functional Linguistics |
| Volume | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 21 Jan 2017 |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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 -