evaluative language

This study examined academic articles and journalistic reports in 5 disciplinary areas to explore how similar contents might attitudinally be realized in two different genres. To this end, 25 research articles and 210 news reports were carefully selected and underwent detailed discourse semantic and grammatical analyses with the purpose of identifying the evaluative linguistic patterns. The findings showed that academic texts are attitudinally charged with appreciation rather than other categories of attitude. This suggests that markers of appreciation are responsible for detachment, impersonality, and objectivity. On the contrary, notwithstanding the frequent use of appreciation in journalistic texts, other categories of attitude (affect and judgment) are also effectively used. This suggests that affective and judgment markers account for the subjectivity of journalistic texts. One of the findings emerging from this study is that frequent instances of appreciation in the different parts of an RA might be attributed to the development of language use within an individual which does not lead to lowering the level of objectivity in academic texts but enhancing interpersonal communication.

Using evaluative language has been considered as the significant predictor of academic writing success in second and foreign language research. Such an importance paved the way for the current study to investigate the use of the APPRAISAL tool, namely ATTITUDE resources, in the research articles (RAs) written by native (N) and non-native (NN) writers, focusing on the discussion sections. A qualitative corpus selection resulted in choosing 30 RAs written by American writers and 30 authored by Iranian writers. Two coding schemes were used: one for discussion boundaries based on Kanoksilapatham’s (2005) discussion move structure, and the modified version of APPRAISAL theory (Xu, 2017) for identifying attitudinal resources. The corpus analysis revealed that academic writers preferred to use a great number of inscribed ATTITUDE resources, that is, APPRECIATION tools compared to JUDGMENT. There was also a significant difference between N and NN sub-corpora in using attitudinal resources, highlighting that the language of N RAs contained more authorial stance of ATTITUDE compared to NN sub-corpus. However, the use of idioms as evoked ATTITUDE was found to be frequently applied by NN authors. The findings of the study contributed to the significance of using evaluative language in academic writing through which the writers can make a dialogic interaction with readers and enhance their critical stance by involving them in the argument.

Lexical bundles are recurrent multi-word sequences that play a crucial role in academic discourse. This article presents an analysis of lexical bundles in book reviews across the disciplines of human and natural sciences. Drawing from a corpus of 737 book reviews, the study investigates the functional roles and structural patterns of these recurrent linguistic units. The research aims to bridge a gap in the literature by exploring how lexical bundles vary across disciplines. Employing a quantitative-qualitative approach, the study first quantitatively identifies the most common 4-word lexical bundles and compares their distribution between the two disciplines. The researchers then qualitatively analyzed the context in which these bundles are used, observing that they often serve to refer to or evaluate the structure, content, audience, or scope of the book under review. Findings reveal that while both human and natural sciences book reviews share some lexical bundles, they exhibit variations in their distribution, structures, and functions. Notably, natural sciences book reviews employ a greater frequency of lexical bundles signaling an evaluative context, particularly contexts related to the assessment of a book. The study also uncovers differences in the structural preferences of lexical bundles between the two disciplines. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the genre-specific utilization of lexical bundles and underscores their role in conveying evaluative meaning in scholarly discourse. Furthermore, the study suggests avenues for further exploration, providing a foundation for future investigations into the intricate interplay between linguistic features and disciplinary preferences.