Appraisal Theory

Politicians adopt a variety of linguistic strategies in their speeches to connect with their audience. To name one, appraisal, as a system of interpersonal meaning, is concerned with evaluation where resources are used for negotiating social relationships. Despite their significance in shaping texts, there have hardly been any extensive inventories of appraisal tools contrasting electoral speeches. The current study examined the evaluative strategies used by presidential candidates during the American 2008 and Iranian 2009 national polls. To this end, we applied qualitative and quantitative analyses and the results revealed significant differences among the winners and losers of each group. While affect and judgment were substantially utilized by the winners in both American and Iranian contexts, appreciation resources were context-sensitive. Differences in the kind and nature of attitudinal markers revealed their different political, social, economic and international statuses at election time.

Despite the importance of author engagement in the literature review of academic articles, many writers fail to publish their academic articles due to being incompetent in using conventional engagement resources. In view of this problem, the present study aimed to study linguistic representation of engagement as a dimension of evaluation in academic articles published in international and Iranian local journals. To do so, the literature review section of eighty psychology and applied linguistics articles as representatives of humanities and mechanical engineering and medicine articles as representatives of hard science articles published between 2008 and 2017 in the international and Iranian local journals formed the corpus of the study and were analyzed on the basis of the engagement resources proposed by Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal Theory The findings indicated that monoglossic resources were used more frequently in articles published in local journals than those published in international ones. Regarding heteroglossic resources, intra-vocalizing resources (countering, denial, pronouncement, and entertainment) were found more frequently in articles published in international journals. However, extra-vocalizing resources (endorsement and attribution resources) used in local journals outnumbered those used in international ones. The findings can provide insights for teaching academic writing in EFL contexts.

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.

Writing a book review is an instance of evaluative academic writing where the writer is involved in an interaction with the author and the reader, evaluates the viewpoints stated in the book and voices his own position and stance in a dialogue with the reader. Working within the framework of Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal Theory as an effective tool for studying the essential resources employed in this interaction and evaluation, the present study examined 60 book reviews from the Humanities academic journals written by native male and female writers, and tried to investigate the type and frequency of the three Appraisal categories (Attitude, Engagement, Graduation). The findings indicate that both writer groups made extensive use of these resources in their writings. However, the male book review writers exceeded the female writers in all the three categories. In addition, the Attitude resources were used the most and The Engagement resources were the least employed resources. The implications of the study for teaching writing skills and developing materials and tasks for writing courses at academic levels are mentioned in detail

The preface which initiates textbooks is a significant convention in writing academic textbooks as it introduces the book, explains assumptions, clarifies expectations, and convinces the readers to read on. In the present study, using Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal framework, ninety textbook prefaces written by both native and nonnative writers, in both hard and soft sciences, were selected and analyzed aiming at exploring writers’ preferences for the type and frequency of appraisal resources. The statistical analysis of the data revealed that the writers plentifully used appraisal resources in the prefaces to express their attitudes, positions, and goals of the inclusion of various sections in the book. Attitude resources, in terms of frequency, are the most frequent, and Engagement elements are the least with Graduation items coming in the middle position. This is quite natural as all academic writing is to express opinions and positions, and prefaces, specifically, are less probable to indicate others’ attitudes and stances, but the authors’ positions and purposes behind the book. Based on the findings, it is concluded that native textbook writers are superior to nonnative writers in terms of communication power, establishing solidarity, and a convincing and forceful voice. The frequency of the subsystem of the main appraisals is also detailed in the article. This study can have implications for textbook writers, teachers, EFL learners, and materials developers.

This study sought to investigate how doctoral candidates are positioned by journal editors and reviewers and how they establish their own position while attempting to get published, as well as the challenges and opportunities they confront throughout this process. Data were gathered from two doctoral candidates at a public university employing a mixed-methods conversion design whose qualitative phase was a multiple case study. In-depth interviews, metalinguistic commentary, and document analysis were used to track the positioning patterns. Data analysis utilizing the Appraisal model revealed that doctoral candidates were perceived as novice researchers by journal editors and reviewers. In addition, doctoral candidates’ own positioning gradually shifted from being novice and intolerant researchers to being independent and tolerant ones. Moreover, the findings revealed that doctoral candidates face different challenges during the process of writing for publication, which makes this process more difficult for them. Based on the interviews, different requirements from different journals, obligations, limited sources of help, and lack of experience were among the most important challenges the participants had to deal with. On the other hand, they mentioned that publication provided them with the chance of expressing themselves and having their own voice, which could be considered as an opportunity in this process.

This paper aimed to study four translations of the Holly Quran using a comprehensive Appraisal theory approach by Martin and White (2005). In so doing, the Chapter Al-Munafequn (The Hypocrites) was considered as the source text and four English translations of the Holly Quran (Arberry, 1955; Irving, 1985; Shakir, 1999; Yusuf Ali, 1934) were considered as the target texts. The study used a corpus-based qualitative translation assessment design. The data collection was based on purposive sampling, and the data analysis was based on all the three sub-systems of Appraisal theory (Attitude, Engagement, and Gradation) based on a three point assessment scale namely ‘+’ meaning acceptable, ‘-’ meaning unacceptable and ‘≈’ meaning relatively acceptable. The study comprised two research questions: (1) What are the choices made by the four translations of the Al-Munafequn Chapter and how can the translations be evaluated individually? (2) Which of the four translations is most qualified in terms of Appraisal theory sub-systems? To answer the first question, data were collected from each source independently and then evaluated and tabulated based on the appraisal theory. Regarding the second research question the following results were obtained: TT1 (Arberry’s version) suggested acceptable translations in terms of the three aspects of Attitude, Engagement, and Gradation. TT2 (Irving’s version) showed a fairly acceptable translation quality by fulfilling most of the Appraisal features of the original verse with several shortcomings. TT3 (Shakir’s version) represented an acceptable translation as it dealt with many aspects of Appraisal in ST. Finally, TT4 (Yusuf Ali’s version) showed a highly acceptable transfer of Appraisals in its translation. As a result, from among the four translations, TT4 (Yusuf Ali’s translation) could be deemed as the most accurate version in translating the Appraisal sub-systems.

Presenting the writer's voice and positioning it within the larger body of alternative voices is essential in academic writing. Realizing the challenges novice academic writers might experience while doing this, we selected and analyzed a corpus of 40 discussion chapters (timespan: 2010-2019) written by Iranian master's students. Following systemic functional perspective (Martin & White, 2005), we explored the engagement resources in the corpus to discover evaluative language choices and stance types. The results showed that although student writers actively engaged other voices and adopted a more balanced dialogically contractive and expansive stance, they employed fewer and less diverse linguistic devices. Moreover, these novice writers tended to avoid certainty and preferred more modest and cautious assertions. There was a great tendency to remain neutral toward other voices. In aligning with other voices, they preferred to present more supportive evaluations than critical ones as well as more explicit structures. They opted for implicit attitudes in evoking resources to show criticism. The implication of this study is for EAP and dissertation writing to novice writers. 

Appraisal theory has provided researchers with a powerful analytical tool to explore how language users express their feelings, attitude and judgments in texts. The present study was conducted to explore the use of appraisals in Persian recounts with a focus on the attitude subsystem. Forty-eight online recounts were selected (22 female writers and 26 male writers). The analysis was conducted two times at a one-week interval using the UAM corpus tool software. The results indicated that women generally used more attitude resources in their recounts compared to men and they also used more affect than men, both men and women encoded their evaluation more explicitly rather than implicitly, and in both types of recounts, attitude subsystems appeared in a special order in terms of frequency. In conclusion, predominant use of attitude in Persian recounts can be considered as evidence of effectiveness and applicability of the appraisal theory.