Engagement Resources in Project Works Written by Selected Students at St. John Bosco’s College of Education, Ghana
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56498/322021139Keywords:
Appraisal Theory, engagement resources, introduction and conclusions, project workAbstract
Writing a thesis in a second language (L2) remains a considerable challenge. By drawing on the Appraisal Theory (Martin & White, 2005), this study explored the way students of St. John Bosco's College of Education engage with the academic discourse community in their undergraduate (diploma) project writing. The data comprised introduction and conclusion sections of thirty (30) purposively sampled project works. Engagement items in the project works were examined manually. The results revealed that expand engagement markers were more frequently used than contract engagement markers, that deny was the dominant type of contract engagement markers, and that acknowledge was the most favored subtype of the expand engagement markers. This study confirms that an engagement system is a key tool to help novice writers align authorial voices with readers, thereby achieving promotional and persuasive purposes. The findings are of potential interest to other novice research writers and their examiners in future project work writing and examinations.
References
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (translated by C. Emerson & M. Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and masters dissertations in language teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 241-251.
Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. N. (2016). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Routledge.
Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers (Vol. 23). John Benjamins Publishing.
Bitchener, J. & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 4-18.
Bunton, D. (2002). Generic moves in Ph.D. thesis introductions. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 57-75). London: Longman.
Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of Ph.D. conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 207-224.
Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. (2002). On reporting reporting: the representation of speech in factual and factional narratives. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 309-322). London: Routledge.
Cheng, F. W. & Unsworth, L. (2016). Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 43-57.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis in ESP. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219-228). London: Routledge.
Hood, S. (2004). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Sydney: University of Technology.
Hyland, K. (2012). Bundles in academic discourse. Annual review of applied linguistics, 32, 150-169.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2008). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 41-62.
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. In Bierwisch, M. & Heidolph, K. (eds.), Progress in linguistics (pp. 143-173). The Hague: Mouton.
Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses. Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 19-36.
Kwan, B. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 30-55.
Lee, J. J. & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46, 39-54.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22.
Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 86-101.
Pagano, A. (2002). Negatives in written text. In In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 264-279). London: Routledge.
Paltridge, B. & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. London: Routledge.
Pinying, C. (2018). A Comparative Study on Engagement Resources in American and Chinese CSR Reports. English Language Teaching, 11(11), 122-135.
Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master’s theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 55-67.
Sanderson, T. (2008). Interaction, identity and culture in academic writing. In A. Ädel, & R. Reppen (eds.), Corpora and Discourse: The Challenges of Different Settings, Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company, 57-92.
Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 343-357.
Sheldon, E. (2013). The research article: A rhetorical and functional comparison of texts created by native and non-native English writers and native Spanish writers. Ph.D. Thesis. The University of New South Wales.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vassileva, I. (2000). Who is the author?: A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian, and Bulgarian academic discourse. Sankt Augustin: Asgard.
Xu, X. & Nesi, H. (2019). Differences in engagement: A comparison of the strategies used by British and Chinese research article writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 121-134.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
