Article Sidebar

Submitted
March 26, 2025
Accepted
July 19, 2025
Published
September 1, 2025
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 90 Download : 21

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aims to examine how students employ evaluative language in argumentative writing using Appraisal theory, specifically the categories of Attitude, Graduation, and Engagement to uncover the connection between evaluative strategies and ideological positioning, a relatively unexplored area in EFL research. Employing a mixed-methods design, the study analysed argumentative essays and survey responses from participants in the 2024 Argumentative Writing Contest. Data were collected from 21 submissions, with four texts selected based on argumentative quality, linguistic richness, and regional representation (Bengkulu, Kotawaringin, Bekasi, and Yogyakarta). A survey questionnaire accompanied the text analysis to gather student insights on their writing experiences. The textual data from students’ writings were examined using the Appraisal framework in systemic functional linguistics (SFL), and the survey data from the questionnaire were processed through the interactive analysis model in qualitative research, involving data condensation, display, and verification. Triangulation and member checking ensured data credibility. Findings revealed that students’ evaluative language mainly utilized appreciation to represent ideological stance and assessing regional learning environments. Most of the writers used intensifier markers, while students from remote regions used more monoglossic expressions. Cultural norms shaped argumentation styles, with some preferring indirect persuasion. This suggests that evaluative writing is both linguistically and culturally situated. The study’s implications advocate for culturally responsive and linguistically targeted instruction to bridge regional disparities in argumentative writing competence.

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Faizal Risdianto, Haryo Aji Nugroho, Sunardi Sunardi, Teisar Arkida

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
  4. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Risdianto, F., Nugroho, H. A., Sunardi, S., & Arkida, T. (2025). Appraisal and ideology in students’ argumentative texts: a systemic functional linguistics study. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 10(2), 558–586. https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v10i2.40957
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Al Bulushi, Z. (2022). Source choice and use in counter-argument writing. TESOL Journal, 13(2), e646.
  2. Ardian, F. (2022). An Analysis of Hedges and Intensifiers in the Research Report Backgrounds of Indonesian EFL Learners (Doctoral dissertation, IAIN Kediri).
  3. Biber, D. (1994). The Register of Written English: A Statistical Analysis of Textual Variation. Cambridge University Press.
  4. Costa, A., & Faria, L. (2024). Individualist-collectivist profiles in secondary school: An exploratory study of trait emotional intelligence and academic achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39(3), 2783-2803.
  5. Edgar, R. E. (2023). The ethics of language learning: Promoting inclusivity, cultural understanding and effective communication. Journal of Philosophy and Ethics, 5(1), 17-25.
  6. Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
  7. Fachriyany, A., & Murtafi’ah, B. (2023). A Survey of an Exposure to Extramural English Activities among EFL Undergraduate Students. EDULANGUE, 6(2), 167-186.
  8. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
  9. Fauziah, M., Warsono, W., & Widhiyanto, W. (2019). The comparison of appraisal resources in argumentative essays written by students with different proficiency levels. English Education Journal, 10(1), 40-53.
  10. Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge & Keagen Paul. P. 185-213
  11. Galiansa, G., Loeneto, B. A., & Sitinjak, M. D. (2020). The correlations among English language exposure, learning motivation, and reading comprehension achievement of high school students in Palembang. English Review: Journal of English Education, 9(1), 167-182.
  12. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1999). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford University Press.
  13. Handayani, A., Drajati, N. A., & Ngadiso, N. (2020). Engagement in high-and low-rated argumentative essays: interactions in Indonesian students’ writings. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 14-24.
  14. Hendriwanto, H., Hartini, S., Nurkamto, J., & Sharda, S. (2020). An analysis of university students’ argumentative writing: Functional perspective. English Education Journal, 11(1), 1-14.
  15. Hood, S. (2010). Developing language learners’ use of Appraisal for argumentative writing: A systemic functional linguistics approach. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 179-191.
  16. Hutasuhut, M. L., Chen, H., & Matruglio, E. (2023). Engaged at the first sight! Anticipating your audience as a way to think critically in writing an argument. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(3), 680-693.
  17. Huwaë, S., & Schaafsma, J. (2018). Cross‐cultural differences in emotion suppression in everyday interactions. International Journal of Psychology, 53(3), 176-183.
  18. Jayawardena, N. S. (2021). The role of culture in student discipline of secondary schools in cross-cultural context: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(6), 1099-1123.
  19. Jenkins, H. H., & Pico, M. L. (2006). SFL and argumentative essays in ESOL. Language Studies Working Papers, 1, 17-30.
  20. Knapp, P. & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, Text, Grammar: Technologies for Teaching and Assessing Writing. Australia: National Library of Australia.
  21. Lam, S. L., & Crosthwaite, P. (2018). Appraisal resources in L1 and L2 argumentative essays: A contrastive learner corpus-informed study of evaluative stance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 1-14.
  22. Lancaster, Z. (2014). Interpersonal stance in L1 and L2 students’ argumentative writing: A systemic functional analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13, 14-27.
  23. Lemke, J.L., (1990). “Technical Discourse and Technical Ideology”. In: Halliday, MAK., J. Gibbons & H. Nicholas, editors. Learning, Keeping and Using Language. Congress paper on applied linguisticsh 8th World congress on applied linguistics. Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing, 435-460.
  24. Liu, F., & Stapleton, P. (2014). Counter-argumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System, 45, 117-128.
  25. Liu, X. (2013). Evaluation in Chinese university EFL students’ English argumentative writing: An APPRAISAL study. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 40-53.
  26. Liu, X., & Thompson, P. (2009). Attitude in students’ argumentative writing: A contrastive perspective. Language Studies Working Papers, 1, 3-15.
  27. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
  28. Martin, J.R (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
  29. Martin, J.R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.
  30. Martin, J.R. & White, P.R.R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  31. McCarthy, P. M., Kaddoura, N. W., Ahmed, K., Buck, R. H., Thomas, A. M., Al-harthy, A., & Duran, N. D. (2021). Metadiscourse and Counterargument Integration in Student Argumentative Papers. English Language Teaching, 14(6), 96-113.
  32. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd Ed). Arizona State University, CA: Sage.
  33. Miller, R. T., Mitchell, T. D., & Pessoa, S. (2014). Valued voices: Students’ use of Engagement in argumentative history writing. Linguistics and Education, 28, 107-120.
  34. Moesarofah, M., & Rahayu, E. Y. (2023). Emotional Engagement in undergraduate thesis writing: Systematic review. Buana Pendidikan: Jurnal Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Unipa Surabaya, 19(1), 142-151.
  35. Mohamad, H. A., Zolkapli, R. B. M., Wahab, N. H. A., Mohaini, M. L., Nath, P. R., & Abd Rashid, M. H. (2023, September). The persuasiveness of research abstracts through analytical thinking and emotional tone domains in academic research writing. In 4th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICON-ELT 2023) (pp. 80-96). Atlantis Press.
  36. Nahrkhalaji, S. S. (2009). Translation: Ideology and Power in political discourse. The 12th International Conference on Translation, Penang, Malaysia. https://research.iaun.ac.ir/pd/shafiee-nahrkhalajiold/pdfs/PaperM_4995.pdf
  37. Ningrum, S., Puspita, H., & Mulyadi, A. I. (2024). Hedges and boosters in academic writing of ASEAN EFL learners. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 8(1), 202-218.
  38. Onoda, R., & Suzuki, M. (2017). Effects of counterarguments and refutations on evaluations of written arguments: Variability of theme and evaluation method. The Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology.
  39. Samosir, H. (2022). Exploring the Impact of Limited English Exposure on Language Proficiency Among Junior High School Students in Rural Areas. TEKILA: Journal of Language Teaching and Literature, 1(2), 60-69.
  40. Schunk, F., Wong, N., Nakao, G., & Trommsdorff, G. (2023). Different functions of emotion regulation in linking harmony seeking and rejection avoidance to life satisfaction and social support in Germany, Hong Kong, and Japan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 26(2), 254-269.
  41. Shi, Y., & Iordanou, K. (2025). A Dialogic Approach to Enhancing Argumentative Writing from Multiple Texts. ECNU Review of Education, 20965311241310884.
  42. Wei, M., Su, J. C., Carrera, S., Lin, S. P., & Yi, F. (2013). Suppression and interpersonal harmony: a cross-cultural comparison between Chinese and European Americans. Journal of counseling psychology, 60(4), 625.
  43. Weva, V. K., Napoleon, J. S., Arias, K., Huizinga, M., & Burack, J. A. (2024). Self-concept and the academic achievement of students from collectivist countries: A scoping review of empirical findings. School Psychology International, 45(4), 359-379.
  44. Wu, J., & Tissari, H. (2021). Intensifier-verb collocations in academic English by Chinese learners compared to native-speaker students. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 44(4), 470-487.
  45. Wu, S. M., & Allison, D. (2003). Exploring Appraisal in claims of student writers in argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 227-246.
  46. Xinghua, L., & Thompson, P. (2009). Attitude in students’ argumentative writing: A contrastive perspective. Language studies working papers, 1(1), 3-15.