Positioning constructed through employing engagement resources in examiners’ comments on applied linguistics theses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58859/resla.852Keywords:
ENGAGEMENT resources, evaluative language, examiners, gender, positioningAbstract
The present study investigated the way positioning is constructed through utilizing engagement resources by male and female examiners in their comments on applied linguistics theses. To this aim, nine examiners' written comments were collected through a convenience sampling procedure and semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit their perceptions of their own positions and those of the students. Drawing on the ENGAGEMENT of the system of APPRAISAL, the researchers coded all comments and calculated frequencies and percentages of different categories. To compare the two genders, a chi-square test was run after normalizing the data. Findings indicated that heteroglossic resources were utilized almost three times more than the monoglossic ones and expand resources outnumbered contract. Furthermore, female examiners tended to use all resources except for proclaim and attribute more than their male counterparts but the difference in terms of heteroglossic, expand, and entertain resources seemed to be more substantial. Analysis of the interviews revealed the positions reflected in the comments were in accordance with the examiners’ view of themselves and the students as expressed in their interviews. Overall, examiners positioned themselves as kind and supportive teachers and the students as novice researchers/learners.
Global Statistics ℹ️
|
24
Views
|
0
Downloads
|
|
24
Total
|
|
References
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K. & Walker, D. (2019). Introduction to research in education (10th Ed.). Cengage Learning Inc.
Bastola, M. N., & Hu, G. (2021). “Commenting on your work is a waste of time only!”: An appraisal-based study of evaluative language in supervisory feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68, 100962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100962
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483
Bourke, S., & Holbrook, A. P. (2013). Examining Ph.D. and research master’s theses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 407-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.638738
Bui, Y. (2014). How to write a master’s thesis. Sage Publications.
Don, Z. M., & Izadi, A. (2011). Relational connection and separation in Iranian dissertation defences. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3782–3792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.010
Dousti, M., & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2016). ELT students' gender differences in the use of hedges in interpersonal interactions: A mixed method approach applied. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(1), 217-231.
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). Collocations in corpus‐based language learning research: Identifying, comparing, and interpreting the evidence. Language Learning, 67(S1), 155-179. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12225
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.
Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., & Dally, K. (2004a). Qualities and characteristics in the written reports of doctoral thesis examiners. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 4, 126-145.
Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., & Dally, K. (2004b). Investigating Ph.D. thesis examination reports. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(2), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.04.008
Johnston, S. (1997). Examining the examiners: An analysis of examiners' reports on doctoral theses. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3), 333-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331380936
Kayi-Aydar, H., & Miller, E. R. (2018). Positioning in classroom discourse studies: A state-of-the-art review. Classroom Discourse, 9(2), 79-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1450275
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45-79.
Lau, K., Lin, C.-Y., & Odle, E. (2020). ‘I am just saying maybe …’: Engagement in dissertation defenses. Language and Education, 35(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1828450
Lin, C.-Y. (2017). “I see absolutely nothing wrong with that in fact I think …”: Functions of modifiers in shaping dynamic relationships in dissertation defenses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 28, 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.05.001
Lin, C.-Y. (2020). Pragmatic force modifiers in English-medium master’s thesis defenses in Taiwan universities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 58, 30-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.12.004
Lin, C.-Y. & Lau, K. (2021). “I found it very special and interesting”: Evaluative language in Master's thesis defenses in Taiwan universities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 53, 101035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101035
Lovat, T. (2004). ‘Ways of knowing’ in doctoral examination: How examiners position themselves in relation to the doctoral candidate. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 4, 146–152.
Lovat, T., Monfries, M., & Morrison, K. (2004). Ways of knowing and power discourse in doctoral examination. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(2), 163-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.04.011
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Monfries, M., & Lovat, T. (2006). Gender power and Ph.D. examination, presented at Australian Association for research in Education (AARE) Annual Conference, Adelaide.
Nnamdi-Eruchalu, G. I. (2018). The examiner-candidate viva voce discourse: A study of face-threatening acts and politeness theory in a bilingual situation. Humanities and Social Sciences Review, 8(1), 33-44.
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual. A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Allen & Unwin, Berkshire.
Recski, L. (2005). Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: A functional account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes, 24(1), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.07.001
Starfield, S., Paltridge, B., McMutrie, R., Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., Kiley, M., & Lovat, T. (2015). Understanding the language of evaluation in examiners’ reports on doctoral theses. Linguistics and Education, 31, 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.06.004
Starfield, S., Paltridge, B., McMutrie, R., Holbrook, A., Lovat, T., Kiley, M., & Fairbairn, H. (2017). Evaluation and instruction in Ph.D. examiners’ reports: How grammatical choices construe examiner roles. Linguistics and Education, 42, 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.008
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Zahra Alimorad, Mitra Behrouzi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Public licensing terms for published work
All articles published in {$contextName} are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License, unless otherwise stated.
This means that authors retain copyright and that anyone is free to:
- Share – copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
- Adapt – remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Provided that the following conditions are met:
- Attribution – Proper credit must be given to the authors and the journal, a link to the license must be provided, and any changes must be indicated.
- No additional restrictions – No legal terms or technological measures may be applied that restrict others from using the work.
For more information, please refer to the full license text at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
