Evaluation can be said to be one of the most fundamental functions of language that merits in-depth research. Therefore, evaluative language has recently attracted a lot of attention from linguists worldwide. However, the term seems rather new in the Vietnamese linguistic community. In order to shed further light on the use of evaluative language in Vietnamese in comparison with that in another language, a contrastive analysis of the use of engagement resources in the Appraisal framework by Martin and White (2005) in a corpus of 72 empirical research articles (36 in Vietnamese and 36 in English) was carried out. Results show that English and Vietnamese writers share a lot of similarities in their ways of thinking and expressing their engagement in research articles. They tend to contract the dialogistic space more than expand it. They make use of the engagement resources the most in the Discussion/ Conclusions section and hardly use engagement in the Methods section. However, English writers express engagement more frequently than their Vietnamese counterparts. The results of the study are hoped to be of reference for article writers as well as to enrich literature materials for the fields of evaluative language and academic writing pedagogy in Vietnam.

Keywords: Evaluative language; Appraisal framework; Engagement; Contract; Expand

Al-mudhaffari, M., Hussin, S., & Abdullah, I. H. (2019). Interaction in Academic L2 writing: An analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Strategies in Applied Linguistics Research Articles. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 25(3), 16-32. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2019-2503-02

Alotaibi, H. S. (2019). An Exploration of Authorial Stance in SSCI-ranked Journals versus Non-SSCI-ranked Journals. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 25(3), 65-78. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2019-2503-05

Bang, M.-H., & Shin, S.-I. (2012). A corpus-based study of green discourse in the South Korean press in comparison with the US press. Sociolinguistics, 20(1), 79-110.

Brooke, M. (2014). Attribution and authorial (Dis) Endorsement in high- and low-rated undergraduate ESL students’ English academic persuasive essays. English linguistics research, 3(1), 1-11.

Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. London: Continuum.

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2009). Analysing Genre: The Colony Text of UNESCO Resolutions. Brno: Masaryk University.

Fryer, D. L. (2013). Exploring the dialogism of academic discourse: heteroglossic engagement in medical research articles, In Gisle Andersen & Kristin Bech (ed.), English corpus linguistics: variation in time, space and genre: selected papers from ICAME 32. Rodopi. ISBN 978-90-420-3679-6. Kapittel. s 183 – 207.

Geng, Y., & Wharton, S. (2016). Evaluative language in discussion sections of doctoral theses: similarities and differences between L1 Chinese and L1 English writers. Journal of English for academic purposes, 22, 80-91.

Hu, G., & Choo, L. (2015). The impact of disciplinary background and teaching experience on the use of evaluative language in teacher feedback. Teachers and teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(3), 329-349.

Hunston, S. (2011). Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. New York/ London: Routledge.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25, 156–176.

Kochetova, L. A., & Volodchenkova, O. I. (2015). Evaluative language in English job advertisements in diachronic perspective. Review of European studies, 7(11), 292-302.

Kong, K. C. C. (2006). Linguistic resources as evaluators in English and Chinese research articles. Multilingual – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 25 (1-2), 183-216.

Lancaster, Z. (2011). Interpersonal stance in L1 and L2 students’ argumentative writing in Economics: Implications for faculty development in WAC/WID programs. Across the Disciplines, 8(4). Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm

Liu, X. (2010). An application of appraisal theory to teaching college English reading in China. Journal of language teaching and research, 1(2), 133-135.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London/ New York: Palgrave/ Macmillan.

Mazlum, F., & Afshin, S. (2016). Evaluative language in political speeches: A case study of Iranian and American presidents’ speeches. Macrothink Institute, International Journal of Linguistics, 8(4), 166-183. doi:10.5296/ijl.v8i4.9398

Myers, G. (1989). “The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles.” Applied linguistics, 10, 1-35.

Myskow, G. (2017). Surveying the historical landscape: The evaluative choice of history textbooks. Functional linguistics, 4(7), 1-15.

Ngo, T. (2013). The deployment of the language of evaluation in English and Vietnamese spoken discourse. Thesis of Doctor of Philosophy. University of New England.

Swain, E. (2010). Getting engaged: Dialogistic positioning in novice academic discussion writing. In E. Swain (Ed.), Thresholds and potentialities of systemic functional linguistics: Multilingual, multimodal and other specialised discourse (pp. 291-317). Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste. Retrieved from

http://hdl.handle.net/10077/3647

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taboada, M., & Carretero, M. (2010). Labelling evaluative language in English and Spanish: The case of Attitude in consumer reviews. Paper presented at the 6th international contrastive linguistics conference Berlin, September 30-October 2, 2010.

Trnavac, R. (2024). Fake news and the discourse of deception. Journal of Pragmatics, 215, 1-12.

Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2004). Research articles in applied linguistics: Structures from a functional perspective. English for specific purposes, 23(3), 264-27.