ENGAGEMENT strategies for (dis-)alignment with

readership in postgraduate literature review assignments

CHEUNG Lok Ming EricPhD Candidate, Department of English,

Hong Kong Polytechnic Universityeric.lm.cheung@connect.polyu.hk

Why Literature review assignment?

• Genre: text response: review (Rose and Martin, 2014)• Evaluating a literary, visual or musical text• Staging: Context ^ Description of Text ^ Judgement

• Genre family: critique or literature survey (Gardner & Nesi, 2012)• Develop understanding of the object of study or the literature relevant to the study• Genre examples: academic paper review (critique); literature review (literature survey)

• Occluded genres (Swales, 1996; Loudermilk, 2007)• Different from LRs in published journals or as a part of theses in terms of requirements

• Both suggest the LRs belong to a part of a longer text • LRs in the present study are the stand-alone written papers

Why interpersonal meanings in EAP?

• Criticality is beyond cognitive skills• Expressing criticality discursively (Hood, 2010; Luckett et al, 2013)• Aligning readership to writer’s evaluative position• Stating the significance of studies• Constructing appropriate identity through discourse (“voice”)

• Discourse strategies for readership (dis-)alignment• Academic modesty (hedging and attribution)• Maintaining balance of writer’s own voice and other sources of

voice

APPRAISAL: a quick overview

• Categorisation of discourse semantic resources construing interpersonal meaning• Divided into three

subsystems of ATTITUDE, ENGAGEMENT and GRADUATION

ENGAGEMENT up-close

ENGAGEMENT

monoglossic

heteroglossic

expand

contract

disclaim

proclaim

entertain

attribute

acknowledge

distance

deny

counter

concur

pronounce

endorse

Counter-expectancy in ENGAGEMENT• Disclaim: COUNTER: presupposing the expected; contrary to

expectation – concession

• Typically realised through adversative conjunctions (e.g. ‘but’, ‘however’, etc.)

• The approach seems feasible but it is too time-consuming.

• Usually, the teachers act as facilitators. However, …

• There are still no one adopting this feasible approach.

• The students actually found the program difficult to use.

Data and Methods

• Collected 30 LRs texts from 20 MA applied linguistics students in Academic Year 2013/4

• LRs automatically annotated with Wmatrix (semantic tagging): adversative/concessive (COUNTER-EXPECTANCY in APPRAISAL)

• Discourse analytical approach: • Investigated other ENGAGEMENT features around ‘however’

• Investigated the triple clause relations of situation-evaluation-basis (Hoey, 2000; Winter, 1982) with ‘however’ and the surrounding ENGAGEMENT features

Lexico-grammaticalisation of COUNTER

Counter values lexicalised/ grammaticalised

Frequency Counter values lexicalised/ grammaticalised

Frequency

But 87 Even though 5However 85 Nevertheless 6Only 58 Though 6Still 31 Contrary 3While 35 Unlike 3Rather than 20 Except 2Despite 7 Contrarily 1

Common discourse patterns with ‘however’

ENGAGMENT feature following (^) ‘however’ (COUNTER)

N Rhetorical function(s) Example

Counter ^ Entertain 20 Hedging; obligation or commitment

However, audiences may easily overlook the process of the mediation…

Counter ^ Monoglossic 19 Bare assertion as “intersubjectively neutral”

However, a critical observation raises issues of construct under-representation. (unmodalised declarative statement)

Counter ^ Endorse 14 Asserting validity of external source

However, the research on language acquisition of internationally adopted children (Scott et.al. 2011) indicated that…

Counter ^ Acknowledge

7 Grounding of viewpoint with external source

However, Taylor (1994) argues that authenticity is…

Counter ^ Concur 7 Overt authorial agreement

However, teaching adapted native-speaker norms… rich resources of course materials which are obviously insufficient

Counter ^ Pronounce 6 Explicit authorial emphases/interventions

However, from my own perspective as an English teacher in mainland China…

Situation-Evaluation-Basis: disaligning readership

||| [Situation] As the TOEFL iBT program aims, || the Speaking section includes a

variety of academic reading texts and listening input … (Chapelle, et al., 2008,

p.74). || [Evaluation] This seems || that the content is relevant [[to what students

may encounter in colleges and universities]] (Chapelle, et al., 2008, p.120; ETS,

2011). || However, the Speaking concentrates less on speaking skills than on

listening and content knowledge. || Most often, listening skill is the key

[[ underlying language ability in the TOEFL iBT Speaking.]] || [Basis] Take an

authentic test from the official guide of ETS (2009) as an example… |||

(Flo_1_Content)

Situation-Evaluation-Basis: developing (counter)-counter-argument

||| [Situation] Contextual guesswork in top-down model is commonly used in

the real life… || and Field (2002) does not see any failure [[ in making

guesses.]] || [Evaluation] However, Wilson (2003) argues || that top-down

processing is not ideal ... || [Evaluation + Basis] Based on my experience [[ of

teaching the speaking part of TOEFL iBT test ]], || I may not share the same

point with Wilson|| … It might be difficult [[ to realize the goal ]]|| when

students’ bottom-up processing is problematic.|| Guesswork can compensate

such inadequacy. ||| (Flo_1_Content)

Conclusion• Appropriating evaluation through deployment of

ENGAGEMENT resources• Contribution of ENGAGEMENT resources to textual cohesion

of argument – demonstrating clarity of thinking processes• COUNTER-EXPECTANCY as an overt signal for writer’s

subsequent evaluation• Explicit evaluation from the writer is common, followed by

justification through exemplars or literature• Monoglossic statements may be less evaluative• Writer’s assertion is often downplayed with modality (ENTERTAIN)

Future Works

• Explorations of other COUNTER values

• Exploration of alignment strategies (e.g. use of PRONOUNCE or CONCUR values to express writers’ overt agreement)

•Cross-genres investigations of the assignment texts

•Contrastive study with published literature reviews

Alignment strategy with PRONOUNCE• Accentuating the original evaluative intensity

||| With a clear [+ve] purpose, listeners know [+ve] [[ what

information is needed ]] and [[ what strategy should be used. ]]||

I believe [pronounce] || this approach is of importance [+ve] [[ in

teaching listening comprehension ]], || and it is also an effective

way [+ve] to scaffold spoken language. |||

Major References

• Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press.• Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing.

London: Palgrave Macmillan. • Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation:

Appraisal in English. UK: Palgrave Macmillan• Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn:

Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. London: Equinox.

THANK YOU!Questions, comments & advice are welcomed!