Abstract Tertiary English academic writing is challenging owing to the students’ unfamiliarity of academic discourse. The students also find appropriating voice for negotiating and evaluating knowledge difficult. Meanwhile, postgraduate academic assignments are further more demanding due to the need to incorporate students’ critical insights into the subject matters, alongside the longer assignments. These challenges to the postgraduate students necessitate the investigation of the voices construed in the postgraduate assignment texts, motivating the present study. The present study adopts systemic functional linguistics (SFL) to investigate the APPRAISAL resources in postgraduate assignment texts. ENGAGEMENT resources are the particular focus of the present study to closely examine the source of evaluation of the academic written discourse. The present study then follows the qualitative research paradigm and examines naturalistic data from 27 full-time postgraduate English writers in Department of English at Hong Kong Polytechnic University. The multiple case study research design is adopted to analyse participants’ assignments and interview verbatim data from both the postgraduate and the course instructors. The confirmation report of the present study selected one student from the 27 participants as the pilot case study. The pilot case study aims to capture how “Flo”, a female postgraduate writer, balance her authorial voice and other sources of voices across the assignments as a successful postgraduate writer. Through the case studies, the present study aims to examine how written discourse is socially constructed to negotiate evaluation under the postgraduate academic context. The confirmation report closes with the discussion of implications for future EAP research and pedagogies.

1. Emergence and
development of critical
voice in postgraduate
assignment genres
CONFIRMATION PRESENTATION
ERIC CHEUNG 13901602R
2:30 – 3:30, 9 JANUARY 2015 (FRIDAY)

2. “
”
‘Critical thinking’ as involving the
expression of forms of knowledge…
is largely obscured.
SZENES, TILAKARATNA AND MATON (2014)

3. “
”
Successful writers understand
academic discourse conventions
which are inherently hierarchical.
SHAUGHNESSY (1977)

4. “
”
Struggling for power through
discourse to become like-minded
peers in a society
FAIRCLOUGH AND WODAK, 1997;
IVANIČ, 1998

5. “
”
Developing democratic
pedagogies to aim for equality in
genre access
MARTIN AND ROSE (2007);
COFFIN AND DONOHUE (2012)

6. Research objectives
 Identify the lexicogrammatical and discourse patterns
defining the voice of the postgraduate written genres
 Model the effective dialogic structure for postgraduate
writing
 Capture voice development and its corresponding
evaluation across phases of the texts and genres
 Suggest future research to enhance understanding of
voice variation in postgraduate academic written
discourse

7. Discourse, identities and voice
 Academic discourse as situated discourse (e.g. Trappes-
Lomax, 2008)
 Achieve social goals: share knowledge, signal affiliations, secure
community membership and establish identities
 Identity and self (Clark and Ivanič, 1998)
 Academic literacies (Lea and Street, 2006)
 SFL perspective on genre and register
 APPRAISAL (Martin and White, 2005) as global potential for
evaluation
 Stance and voice as registerial key (Coffin, 2002; Hood, 2012;
Hunston, 2010; Hyland, 2005; White, 1998)

8. Analytical framework: APPRAISAL
 APPRAISAL framework (Martin and White, 2005)
 ATTITUDE: explicit evaluative resources for displaying emotive
responses (AFFECT), and valuating people (JUDGEMENT) and
things/phenomena (APPRECIATION)
 ENGAGEMENT: sourcing of voice – either expands or contracts
dialogic space
 EXPANSION: ENTERTAIN (modality) or ATTRIBUTE other voices
 CONTRACTION: rejects (DISCLAIM) or limits (PROCLAIM) the scope of
voices
 GRADUATION: upscaling or downscaling the evaluative values
through FORCE or FOCUS

9. APPRAISAL (Martin and White,
2005)
APPRAISAL
ENGAGEMENT
ATTITUDE
GRADUATION
MONOGLOSSIC
HETEROGLOSSIC
APPRECIATION
JUDGEMENT
FORCE
FOCUS
AFFECT

10. ENGAGEMENT up-close:
lexicogrammatical realisation
ENGAGEMENT
monoglossic
heteroglossic
expand
contract
disclaim
proclaim
entertain
attribute
acknowledge
distance
deny
counter
concur
pronounce
endorse
Sentence fragments and run-on sentences
break the structural rule of forming a
correct sentence.
Fitzpatrick and Ruscica (2000)
once pointed out that
However; although; but
It is clear that
Syntactic variety can hardly be
achieved
This evaluation is, of course,
based on individual teaching
context
They might
misunderstand
sentence variety
This research indicates the
strong relationship

11. Analytical framework:
periodicity
Layers of Themes and News in discourse (Martin and Rose, 2007, p.199)

12. Methodology
APPRAISAL analysis
(micro)
Longitudinal
observation (macro)
Pilot case
study
ENGAGEMENT
strategies(meso)

13. Research Site and participants
 Purposive sampling
 From 167 students in the 2013-4 cohort
 Recruitment from entry questionnaire survey
 29 interested students, 2 left during the course of study
 27 full-time postgraduate students from the 4 ENGL MA programmes
 All Chinese (20 Mainland Chinese, 5 local Chinese, 1 Canadian, 1
Singaporean)
 Constant increase of Mainland Chinese students in 5 years
 Few overseas admittees
 25 female, 2 male
 10 male every 34 female students in the cohort

14. Pilot case study: Flo
 From Guangdong, China – Non-native English speaker
 Had teaching experience – TOEFL private tutoring in
China
 Enrolled in MA English Language Teaching
 Active participant among the volunteers
 Did not opt for dissertation but performed constantly
outstanding in all the assignments throughout the
academic year
 Exception: a lower grade (C) in research proposal

15. Data preparation and analysis
APPRAISAL analysis with
UAM CorpusTool
(O’Donnell, 2008)
Examining other
texts (Assignment
requirements,
feedback from
instructors, etc.)
Student and
teacher interviews
and transcription of
verbatim

16. Subject Genres Assignment
type
Abbreviation of
assignment
Grade/ Score
SEMESTER 1
ENGL582 Second Language
Teaching
Procedural
recount
Research report Flo_582_RR B+/A
ENGL582 Second Language
Teaching
Review Literature
review
Flo_582_LR B+
ENGL587 Research Design and
Methods
Procedures Research
proposal
Flo_599_RP C
ENGL523 Second Language
Learning
Exposition Argumentative
essay
Flo_523_AE 25/30
SEMESTER 2
ENGL585 Syllabus Planning and
Materials Design
Procedural
recount
Research
article*
Flo_585_RA_CA B+
ENGL585 Syllabus Planning and
Materials Design
Review Literature
Review
Flo_585_LR A
ENGL5011 Discourse Analysis for
Language Teachers Research
Paper
Compositional
report
Analysis report Flo_5011_AR B+
ENGL545 Multi-media in English
Language Learning
Procedural
recounts
Research report Flo_545_RR 56/60
ENGL526 Testing and Assessment Critical response Critique essay Flo_526_CE 54/60
SEMESTER 3
ENGL599 Functional Grammar for
English Language Teachers
Descriptive
report
Description of
analysis
Flo_599_DA B+

17. Macro-level analysis
60.4
27.6
57.7
46
21
44.3 48.9
38 40.1
39.6
72.4
42.3
54
79
55.7 51.1
62.1 59.9
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Monoglossic Heteroglossic

18.  Two selected assignments:
 1st: Research-based paper (FLO_582_RR) – Solutions to
avoid sentence fragments and run-ons
 2nd: Literature review (FLO_582_LR) – Using listening
comprehension to teach oral English
 Both from “Second Language Teaching”
 Close relevance of the topics (Petric and Harwood, 2013)
 Outstanding grades (B+ or above)
 Requirement: Summary, Synthesis, Evaluation
 Linking theories to practice
Meso-level analysis

19. ENGAGEMENT in Research Paper
(FLO_582_RR)
ENGAGEMENT
monoglossic (N=119; 60.4%)
heteroglossic
expand
contract
disclaim
proclaim
entertain
attribute
acknowledge
distance (N=0; 0%)
deny (n=1; 12.5%)
counter (n=7; 87.5%)
concur (n=0; 0%)
pronounce (n=1; 20%)
endorse (n=7; 80%)
Sentence fragments and run-on sentences
break the structural rule of forming a
correct sentence.
Fitzpatrick and Ruscica (2000)
once pointed out that
However; although; but
It is clear that
Syntactic variety can hardly be
achieved
This evaluation is, of course,
based on individual teaching
context
(N=78; 39.6%)
(N=13; 16.7%)
(N=65; 83.3%)
(N=8; 61.5%)
(N=5; 38.5%)
(N=42; 64.6%)
(N=23; 35.4%)
(N=23; 100%)
They might
misunderstand
sentence variety
This research indicates the
strong relationship

20. ENGAGEMENT in Literature Review
(FLO_582_LR)
ENGAGEMENT
monoglossic (N=37; 27.6%)
heteroglossic
expand
contract
disclaim
proclaim
entertain
attribute
acknowledge
distance (N=0; 0%)
deny (n=5; 45.5%)
counter (n=6; 54.5%)
concur (n=3; 33.3%)
pronounce (n=3; 33.3%)
endorse (n=3; 33.3%)
Spoken language is increasingly
demanded by learners in EFL
classroom…
Tavil (2010) points out…
It seems feasible…
However; although; but
Flowerdew and Miller
show…
I found…
Teaching speaking is not just
the matter of teaching how to
speak fluently and accurately.
Contextural guesswork in top-down
model is commonly used
(N=97; 72.4%)
(N=20; 16.7%)
(N=77; 83.3%)
(N=11; 55%)
(N=9; 45%)
(N=43; 55.8%)
(N=34; 44.2%)
(N=34; 100%)

21. Meso-level analysis
 HETEROGLOSSIC voice
 More expansion than contraction (80% - 20%)
 ENTERTAIN values occur more frequently
 ACKNOWLEDGE features are common as attribution
 MONOGLOSSIC voice (FLO_582_RR: 60%; FLO_582_LR: 30%)
1. Assert writer’s own experience and perspectives
2. Indicate the structure, the purposes and the methods of the
paper
3. Demonstrate the assumed shared field knowledge
4. Share the responsibility of the argument with other sources

22. Examples: HETEROGLOSSIC contraction
 Based on my experience of teaching the speaking part of TOEFL iBT
test, I may not [deny] share the same point with Wilson.
[FLO_582_LR]
 This approach sounds adoptable, but [counter] in the practice of
question 6 in TOEFL speaking… it is too difficult for students...
[FLO_582_LR]
 This evaluation is, of course, [concur] based on individual teaching
context... more empirical studies have to be investigated.
[FLO_582_LR]
 It is clear that [pronounce] the emergence of both fragments and
run-ons rapidly [was] cut down... [FLO_582_RR]
 This research indicates [endorse] the strong relationship between
writing and grammar, and the inner relationship of grammar.
[FLO_582_RR]

23. Examples: HETEROGLOSSIC expansion
 They might [entertain] misunderstand sentence
variety as complicated sentences. [FLO_582_RR]
 Fitzpatrick and Ruscica (2000) once pointed out
[attribute]that by recognising… writers will be able
to add variety to the writing and make sentences
more effective. [FLO_582_RR]

24. Examples: MONOGLOSSIC voice
1. As the training proceeded, based on my own teaching
experience, the first task… [FLO_582_RR]
2. In the first section, I shall discuss the listening activities…
[FLO_582_LR]
3. Sentence fragments and run-on sentences break the
structural rule of forming a correct sentence. [FLO_582_RR]
4. Along these years, there has been an emphasis on top-
down processing which is regarded as an important part
of the communicative approach (Wilson, 2003).
[FLO_582_LR]

25. Shifting the balance of voice
Research
Paper
Literature
Review
Feature N % N %
MONO-
GLOSSIC
119 60.4 37 27.6
HETERO-
GLOSSIC
78 39.6 97 72.4
Total 197 100.0 134 100.0
 Increased teacher support
 Change in reading tactics
 Viz. The more Flo read, the
more she could use the
reviewed literature
 Requirements for different
rhetorical purposes
 Research report (inform)
 Literature review (evaluate)

26. Micro-level analysis
 Literature Review (FLO_582_LR) selected
 Summary of literature with varying degrees of critical
evaluation (Nesi and Gardner, 2012)
 Requirements are explicitly given to include critical
insights (Appendix 8) instead of being an annotated
bibliography
 Tracing voice shifts in the text
 Identifying the ENGAGEMENT and evaluation strategies

27. # Text and the APPRAISAL resources marked Remarks
3.1.1 Teachers adopting the top-down model are
encouraged [+jud] to think about whether the
teaching materials help learners to focus [+app] on
top-down listening skills. [monoglossic]
HyperTheme: Semantically dense
argument set up; explicit evaluation
establishes the attitudinal prosody
across the phase – awaiting
elaboration (voice as academic writer)
3.1.2 In developing materials for top-down processing, it is
important [+app] to teach students to use context
and situation as prior knowledge of the topic to
comprehend the upcoming listening task (Nunan,
2002) [attribute]
The writer’s voice and commentary is
exemplified and justified through
acknowledging other research studies
(voice as academic reader)
3.1.3 One of the ideal [+app] patterns of making use of
previous knowledge is to personalize the listening
content. [monoglossic]
3.1.4 The learner-centered dimension has been promoted
in the teaching of listening in recent years.
[monoglossic]
3.1.5 Nunan (2002), for example, suggested that teachers
can use students’ speech which includes their own
background knowledge and personal experience
as listening materials. [attribute]
3.1.6 He also mentioned that the activities which involve
students’ listening to one’s speech and writing down
their responses, may evoke speaking tasks of
discussing about their different responses (p.240).
[attribute]

28. # Text and the APPRAISAL resources marked Remarks
3.1.7 It seems [entertain] feasible in
classrooms where students’ level are
relatively similar, supported by Wilson
(2003) [+attribute] while choosing
listening text.
The writer uses elaborate
engagement strategies
disalign readers from the
previous evaluative position,
drawing upon her own
teaching experience. (voice
as experienced teacher)
3.1.8 In my present TOEFL training course,
however [counter], advanced-level
[+jud] students may [entertain] find it
so easy [-app] to respond speech
from less-advanced [-jud] students.
3.1.9 Thus, the teaching and learning
becomes inefficient [-app].
3.1.10 One possible [entertain] solution
[+app] is that teachers can select
speech from students of higher level,
which may [entertain] benefit
students of different levels.
HyperNew: distillation of
information from literature
and evaluation of her
experience to become a
solution to improve teaching
(voice as teaching advisor)

29. Disalignment strategy
 ENTERTAIN ^ [GRADUATION: FOCUS •COUNTER] ^ APPRECIATION
 It seems [entertain] feasible… supported by Wilson (2002). In my present
TOEFL training course [graduation: focus], however [counter],
advanced-level students may find it so easy [-ve appreciation] to
respond speech from less-advanced students. Thus, the teaching and
learning becomes inefficient [-app].(3.1.7 – 3.1.9)
 Usually [entertain], it is the teacher who plays a role in introducing the
background, but [counter] in the real test [graduation: focus], such
activity will not occur [-ve appreciation].

30. Alignment strategy
 ATTITUDE ^ PRONOUNCE ^ ATTITUDE
 With a clear [+appreciation] purpose, listeners know [+judgement]
what information is needed and what strategy should be used. I
believe [pronounce] this approach is of importance [+appreciation] in
teaching listening comprehension, and it is also an effective way
[+appreciation] to scaffold spoken language.
 When students are aware of [+judgement] these characteristics, they
can predict [+judgement] what the whole listening is talking about. I
find [pronounce] the use of real-life dialogues helpful [+judgement] in
training the TOEFL speaking parts with conversational listening.

31. Attitudinal positioning of the
teacher voice
 Quality of the pedagogic approach; capabilities of the students
 [The top-down model] seems feasible [+ve appreciation: quality]
where students’ level are relatively similar, supported by Wilson
(2002). In my present TOEFL training course, however, advanced-
level [+ve judgement: capability] students may find it so easy [-ve
appreciation: complexity] to respond speech from less-advanced [-
ve judgement: capability] students. Thus, the teaching and learning
becomes inefficient [-ve appreciation: balance].

32. Summary of findings: Flo as an
effective postgraduate writer
 Macro-level (from above)
 MONOGLOSSIC voice prevails in research-related assignments
 heteroglossic expansion/contraction dominates in literature review texts
 Meso-level (from within)
 Shift of voice among assignments suggests sophistication of voice
balance or subtle voice differences across genres
 Display academic modesty and wide range of reading
 Micro-level (from below)
 Refined dialogic choice to (dis-)align with readership
 Effective attitudinal positioning with the appropriate voice

33. Future Works
 Elaborate macro-level analysis
 Incorporate identified patterns in discourse analysis to the student
assignment corpus
 Compare features across genres and cases
 Fully utilise interview data
 Annotation with respect to notions of authorial presence, identities
and “critical thinking”
 Reiterate the significance of voice teaching (Matsuda and
Tardy, 2009)
 Explicate practice of “critical thinking” in academic disciplines
(Szenes, Tilakaratna & Maton, 2014)
 Theoretical explorations
 Better define and map “postgraduate assignment genres”
 Modification of ENGAGEMENT system(?)

34. Major references
 Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to
functional grammar (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
 Hood, S. (2004). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing.
Unpublished University of Technology, Sydney.
 Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
 Hood, S. (2012). Voice and stance as APPRAISAL: Persuading and positioning in
research writing across intellectual fields. In K. Hyland, & C.S. Guinda (Eds.),
Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 51-68). UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
 Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the
clause. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
 Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in
English. UK: Palgrave Macmillan
 Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. UK: Equinox.
 Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre,
knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. London: Equinox.

35. Thank you
very much!
Questions and comments
are welcome!