Evaluative language in discussion sections of doctoral theses: Similarities and differences between L1 Chinese and L1 English writers

Highlights

• A corpus of doctoral thesis discussion sections was constructed.

• The corpus was annotated for Appraisal – Engagement features.

• Features associated with the communicative purpose of the genre are discussed.

• L1 Chinese and L1 English writers showed similar evaluative language patterns.

• A genre-specific feature of Appraisal – Engagement is proposed.

Abstract

Given the consensus that the discussion section of a doctoral thesis is a difficult text to write, we conduct an investigation into the evaluative language choices made in a small corpus of twelve doctoral discussions from a single institution and discipline. Our analytical approach is based on the Engagement sub-system of Martin and White's (2005) Appraisal framework. Using this framework we are able to uncover the evaluative language choices which appear most typical of this part-genre, and additionally to propose a genre-specific addition to the framework. We then make a series of comparisons of the choices made by L1 (first language) Chinese and L1 English writers in our corpus. We show that there are no statistically significant differences in the patterns of choices, and so conclude that, in the context and at the level researched, first language does not seem to be a variable which influences evaluative language choices.

Introduction

Previous research (e.g. Bitchener and Basturkmen, 2006, Chatterjee, 2008) has shown that the discussion section of the doctoral thesis is a challenging part-genre (Dudley-Evans, 1998) to write. The doctoral thesis as a whole is a high-stakes genre, in which writers must negotiate a dual identity: simultaneously as a student presenting him/herself for examination, and as an expert demonstrating his/her credentials for membership of a disciplinary elite (Carter, 2011, Carter and Blumenstein, 2011, Koutsantoni, 2006, Paltridge and Starfield, 2007, Swales, 2004). The discussion section is arguably the part of the thesis in which these two identities come into conflict most acutely, since it is here that a writer is required to comment evaluatively on his/her own work and also set it in the context of other work in the same field, with the overall goal of showing the reader why the contribution of the doctoral research is significant.

A discussion section requires skilful deployment not only of citation for attribution, in order to demonstrate the writer's display of knowledge, but also of citation for evaluation, in order to demonstrate that the writer has succeeded, to some extent, in transforming knowledge and creating new knowledge (Parkinson, 2011). To make the case for the significance of their own results, writers need to position themselves and negotiate their own voice in the context of utterances made by others in the research community. Bitchener and Basturkmen (2006) and Chatterjee (2008) both show how this task is cognitively and linguistically challenging to thesis writers who are, after all, attempting the genre for the first time. Bitchener and Basturkmen (2006) discuss supervisors' perceptions of where the difficulties lie; supervisors emphasise the need for students to make sufficient links to previous literature when interpreting their results, and to negotiate knowledge claims against the backdrop of published knowledge. Despite recognition of these difficulties there is, within the body of research on the doctoral thesis as a genre, comparatively little focus on the deployment of evaluative language in the part-genre of the discussion.

Research on evaluative language in academic texts has tended, rather, to focus either on published research articles (e.g. Bruce, 2014) or on student writing at earlier stages of education. Within this second category, researchers have often conducted comparisons of argumentative discourse produced by L1 and L2 writers, and have tended to conclude that L2 student writers rely on a smaller range of epistemic expressions and grammatical resources to realise interpersonal positioning (Chen, 2010, Gabrielatos and McEnery, 2005, Hyland and Milton, 1997, McEnery and Kifle, 2002).

Hyland and Milton (1997), comparing epistemic markers in argumentative essays by Hong Kong and UK undergraduates, found that the ten most frequently occurring markers accounted for three quarters of the total markers in the Hong Kong corpus. The Hong Kong corpus contained more markers of certainty, whereas the UK corpus contained more markers of probability and tentativeness. Similarly, Chen (2010) found that L1 Chinese student writers were more likely than L1 English writers to employ the item sure, but less likely to employ items such as possible (-ly) or probably.

McEnery and Kifle (2002) found that L1 Eritrean writers relied on a narrower range of epistemic markers than did L1 English writers, tending to overuse modal verbs and adverbs of possibility. Gholami, Nejad, and Pour (2014), studying the writing of Iranian undergraduates, concluded that they used a low frequency of emphatics and attitude markers in conclusion sections of argumentative essays. Hinkel (2003) notes that a group of Asian student writers used notably more amplifiers and emphatics in their argumentative essays than did their L1 English counterparts.

The widely-held view that L2 students use a smaller repertoire of interpersonal language when producing argumentative writing seems, then to be based mainly on research into the writing of students at pre-doctoral stages of education. For students in an English medium doctoral programme and writing a thesis in English, the situation is different: they are likely to be experienced in English academic writing whatever their L1 is. In Swales' (2004: 56–7) terms, they are likely to be at least ‘narrowly English proficient’ and quite probably ‘broadly English proficient’.

The current research investigates the use of evaluative language in a corpus of doctoral discussions written by L1 Chinese and L1 English writers. Its first research question, based on the corpus as a whole, is: What patterns of textual evaluation are salient in this part-genre? Its second research question, based on a comparison of the L1 Chinese and L1 English sub-corpora, is: Are there any systematic differences in the patterns of textual evaluation which the two groups employ?