






































citation


AsiaCALL Online Journal Received: 01/07/2021 

ISSN 1936-9859; https://asiacall.info/acoj  Revision: 22/07/2021 

Vol. 12, No.4, 2021  Accepted: 23/07/2021 

pp. 66 - 87  Online: 24/07/2021 

 

CITATION |      Ndoricimpa, C., & Barad, D. P. (2021). Does online instruction in discourse conventions of 

literary analysis affect L2 students’ critical stance in academic writing? A longitudinal 

study. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 12(4), 66-87. 

 

Does online instruction in discourse conventions of literary analysis affect L2 

students’ critical stance in academic writing? A longitudinal study 

Clément Ndoricimpa1*, Dilip P. Barad1 

 

1English Department, M.K Bhavnagar University, Gujarat state, India  
*Corresponding author’s email: ndoricimpac@gmail.com 

                                                   

Abstract 

The purpose of this study is to explore L2 students’ longitudinal development of critical stance 

patterns in academic writing as a result of their exposure to online instruction in the discourse 

conventions of literary criticism. The data consisted of a 75661-word longitudinal corpus of 63 

essay assignments, collected over 7 weeks’ instruction via pre-, during- and post-instruction 

google classroom submissions. Applying Martin & White’s (2005) appraisal taxonomy, the 

data was analyzed for frequency and wording differences using manual coding of attitude, 

graduation, and engagement markers through UAM Corpus Tool. The results show a significant 

longitudinal decrease in the use of linguistic resources which express personal feelings and 

make the construed evaluative meanings forceful and compelling. This shows that the teaching 

and the learning methods employed in the online instruction may have impacted L2 students’ 

ability to develop a formal style of academic writing; the results also indicate a less significant 

longitudinal increase in the use of linguistic resources that construe a register-appropriate 

critical stance, such as the use of attitude sub-types of judgment and appreciation. This shows 

that the teaching and learning methods employed in the online instruction may not have 

impacted L2 students’ ability to develop a register-appropriate critical stance. These findings 

have far-reaching implications for the use of online mode to make explicit the discourse 

conventions of literary criticism to L2 students. They show the extent to which the integration 

of certain teaching and learning methods in online instruction has an impact on L2 students' 

academic writing.  

Keywords: Critical stance, discourse conventions of literary criticism, evaluation, longitudinal 

corpus, online instruction 

 

1.Introduction 

Academic writing plays a crucial role in university students’ life in academia. Not only is it 

hard to imagine students’ experience in academia without essay assignments, research reports, 

research papers, etc., but writing is also a key to students’ success in a particular discipline. 

Indeed, the success of students in a particular discipline is partly dependent upon their success 

in writing different tasks that are given to them (Hyland, 2013). Many studies have shown that 

writing a successful text requires students to follow the discourse conventions of the discipline 

in which they write (Lancaster, 2012, 2014, 2016; Wilder, 2002, 2005, 2012; Wilder & Wolfe, 

2009, etc.). While it is reasonable for students to adopt disciplinary discourse conventions in 

writing, it also has been shown that these discourse conventions are challenging for many 

students, particularly students writing in English as a foreign language (Miller, Mitchell & 

Pessoa, 2017). This is because of three main factors. First, as Hyland (2013) points out, students' 

https://asiacall.info/acoj
mailto:ndoricimpac@gmail.com


ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 Clément Ndoricimpa & Dilip P. Barad Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

67 
 

prior writing experience does not prepare the student for the literacy demands of disciplinary 

discourse communities. Second, the disciplinary discourse conventions are not often tacitly 

taught to students even though teachers invoke them when assessing students' written texts 

(Wilder, 2002). Third, students’ writing in English as a foreign language may have difficulties 

in grammar, structures of arguments due to the fact that different language seems to have 

different ways of organizing ideas and arguments (Hyland, 2013).  

To help students gain access to disciplinary discourse conventions, many researchers working 

within composition and rhetoric, systemic functional linguistics, critical discourse analysis, etc. 

have analyzed the nature of these conventions (e.g., Bruce, 2008, 2010, 2016; Crosthwaite & 

Jiang, 2017; Lee & Deakin, 2016; Wilder & Wolfe, 2009; Wu, 2007, etc.). These researchers 

demonstrate that these disciplinary discourse conventions are exceedingly associated with 

construing critical stance in academic text. Construing a critical stance involves adopting a 

stance toward ideas or the subject matter at hand, toward the status of knowledge, and towards 

other positions, views, or voices (Hyland, 2005; Lancaster, 2016; White, 2003; etc.). Therefore, 

many researchers analyze the rhetorical or linguistic features associated with enacting a critical 

stance in disciplinary writing. For example, Wilder's (2002, 2005, 2012) studies analyze the 

rhetorical features of literary analyses by university students. The study by Bruce (2016) 

examines linguistic features associated with enacting critical stances in essays written by 

students majoring in sociology and English studies. 

These analyses of linguistic and rhetorical features associated with critical stance are motivated 

by pedagogical needs to help students become aware of how these features are realized in 

academic texts. As a result, these analyses have led to the creation of EAP and WID (Writing 

In Discipline) courses to demystify to students how critical stance patterns are enacted in 

disciplinary writing. Pedagogically, it has been shown that the deconstruction of successful 

academic texts in terms of critical stance features alongside explicit teaching of this feature 

improves students' success in writing in a particular discipline (Wilder & Wolfe, 2009). 

 However, while a considerable number of studies deconstruct critical stance patterns in 

successful academic texts for pedagogical needs (e.g., Bruce, 2016; Humphrey & Economou, 

2015; Miller, Mitchell & Pessoa, 2017, etc.), less is known regarding how L2 students develop 

critical stance in academic writing as a result of online instruction in the discourse conventions 

of a particular discipline. Addressing this gap would contribute to shedding light on the 

effectiveness of online instruction in discourse convention of a particular discipline in 

producing a desired academic genre. Therefore, this study investigates whether online 

instruction in the discourse conventions of literary analysis over time affects L2 students’ 

development of critical stance in academic writing. It uses students’ corpus collected 

longitudinally to examine whether online instruction in the discourse conventions of literary 

analysis influence students’ development of critical stance in academic writing.  

2. Literature Review 

2.1. Critical stance in Disciplinary Writing 

There has been a significant body of studies on the concept of critical stance in disciplinary 

writing (e.g., Aull & Lancaster, 2014; Bruce, 2014, 2016; Jiang & Hyland, 2015; Lancaster, 

2012, 2016; etc.). In these studies, there is an agreement that construing critical stance in 

academic writing involves different things in different disciplinary contexts. In other words, it 

involves engaging with the epistemological beliefs or values of a particular discipline. In the 

discipline of education, it involves, as Humphrey & Economou (2015, p.46) point out, "the 

challenging of a theoretical notion or aspect of research in an external source, and the 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

68 
 

positioning of the reader to accept an authorial alternative/counter position". As Rothery & 

Stenglin (2000) suggest, literary analysis involves challenging conventional interpretations of 

literary work under analysis, evaluating the techniques/strategies employed by writers 

(novelists, poets, etc.), and positioning readers to accept an authorial interpretation of the 

portrayal of characters.  In this regard, many studies conduct a linguistic and rhetorical analysis 

of critical stance in a published research paper and successful essay assignments by 

undergraduate and postgraduate students writing in a particular discipline.  

 For example, in the study by Rothery & Stenglin (2000), an appraisal analysis of a successful 

response to a literary text is conducted. The analysis reveals that successful responses to literary 

texts employ linguistic resources of judgement to evaluate characters in terms of behavior and 

attitude, linguistic resources of appreciation to evaluate the aesthetic qualities of the literary 

work under analysis, and linguistic resources of engagement to interpret the characterization in 

the work under analysis from the perspective of a particular literary theory. Another similar 

study to the study by Rothery & Stenglin (2000) is the study by Bruce (2016). In this study, 

Bruce conducts a genre and linguistic analysis of successful essays by university students in 

literature. The analysis shows that successful essays in literature employ critical statements of 

ground conclusion, concession contra-expectations and reason result, and the linguistic markers 

of hedging and attitude.  

 In the study by Wilder (2012), a rhetorical analysis of successful literary analyses by 

undergraduate students is conducted. The findings reveal that successful literary analyses 

employ special topoi. Topoi is a term used by Fahnestock & Secor (1988, 1991) and Perelman 

& Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) to mean commonly held warrants or unstated premises that seek to 

connect with an audience’s hierarchy of values (in Wilder, 2005). Topoi, as Fahnestock & Secor 

(1991) argue, invoke the shared assumption of literary scholars, and make literary arguments 

convincing to their intended audience. Specifically, the results indicate that successful literary 

analyses predominantly employ appearance/reality topoi to invoke the apparent meaning of the 

literary text under analysis before arguing for the real meaning. Another similar study to the 

study by Wilder (2012) is the study by Lancaster (2016). In this study, Lancaster conducts a 

linguistic deconstruction of critical stance in unsuccessful literary analyses by one upper-level 

university students and literary analyses from Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Corpus 

(MICUSP). The findings indicate that literary analyses from MICUSP employ more linguistic 

resources that realize the appearance/reality topoi than unsuccessful literary analysis by one 

upper-level university student.   

In summary, the reviewed studies show how critical stance is linguistically and rhetorically 

construed in successful literary analysis. It is obvious that these studies adopt different 

perspective to examine critical stance in successful literary analysis. The study by Wilder 

(2012) follows a rhetorical approach to the analysis of critical stance in literary analyses, while 

the study by Rothery & Stenglin (2000) adopt a systemic functional linguistics perspective, 

particularly appraisal theory by Martin & White (2005) to analyze how critical stance is 

construed in literary analyses. The objectives of these analyses are to inform pedagogy in 

English studies. In other words, teachers in the discipline of English studies can draw on these 

analyses to make explicit the linguistic and rhetorical resources associated with critical stance 

to students. However, although these analyses are conducted for pedagogical need, they do not 

inform us on how students majoring in English studies develop the linguistic and rhetorical 

resources associated with critical stance. In other words, these analyses do not show how 

students learn to construe critical stance in their literary analyses. Therefore, it is still uncertain 

the extent to which instruction in the linguistic features associated with critical stance help 

students develop register-appropriate critical stance in academic writing. Qualitative and 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 Clément Ndoricimpa & Dilip P. Barad Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

69 
 

quantitative analyses of the longitudinal impact of online instruction in the discourse 

conventions of literary criticism on the production of critical stance patterns are important in 

determining the usefulness of making explicit the linguistic and rhetorical resources associated 

with the discourse conventions of literary criticism to students over a period of time. 

2.2. Online Instruction in Disciplinary Discourse conventions 

Disciplinary discourse conventions concern the ways in which knowledge is built and 

arguments are developed in a particular discipline. Wilder (2012) points out that these discourse 

conventions are reflected in the linguistic and rhetorical features of successful academic texts 

produced by professional academic writers or undergraduate and postgraduate students writing 

in a particular discipline. Therefore, a number of studies are conducted to explore the ways in 

which instructions in disciplinary discourse conventions impact students’ quality of writing, 

improve students’ critical awareness in academic writing and affect students’ ability to construe 

register-appropriate critical stance (e.g., Crosthwaite & Jiang, 2017, Wilder & Wolfe, 2009; 

Wingate, 2012, etc.). 

For example, the study by Wingate (2012) explores the impact of an online writing course in 

the discipline of management on students' critical awareness. This online course was guide by 

the constructionist theory of learning and genre approach to academic writing. In other words, 

the online writing course in this study exposed students to the discourse conventions of the 

discipline of management through research papers and successful essays. In this study, Wingate 

used a questionnaire as a research method to explore the impact of the course on students’ 

critical awareness. The results reveal that the components of the course that exposed students 

to the ways texts are organized were highly useful, while the components of the course that 

raised students’ critical awareness were not useful. This seems to suggest that the online writing 

course in the study by Wingate (2012) impacted students’ ability to organize an academic text, 

but it did not raise students’ critical awareness. The reason for these results, as Wingate (2012) 

suggest, is that the online course was detached from regular subject teaching. 

The study by Wingate, Andon & Cogo (2011) investigates the usefulness and the impact of a 

blended (online and offline) instruction in the discourse and epistemological features of the 

discipline of applied linguistics on undergraduate students' writing quality. This online and 

offline course was guided by academic literacies and genre approach to academic writing, and 

it was embedded in the teaching of applied linguistics. In other words, participants in this study 

were exposed to the ways in which knowledge is built and arguments are developed in the 

discipline of applied linguistics. The results from holistic assessment of students' submissions 

and from questionnaire show that students made progress in the quality of writing from the first 

submissions to the final submissions, and students felt that the writing course helped them 

improve their academic writing. The results in this study agrees with the findings in the study 

by Wilder & Wolfe (2009). In this study, Wilder & Wolfe employed a quasi-experimental 

research design to examine whether an offline explicit instruction in the discourse conventions 

of literary criticism helps students produce rhetorically effective discourse or hampers students' 

enjoyment, expression, and engagement in literature. The results indicate that students in the 

experimental group produced essays of higher quality and engaged more effectively with the 

special topoi of literary criticism than students in the control group.  This suggests that the 

offline instructions in the discourse conventions of literary criticism improved students’ quality 

of writing.   

In summary, the reviewed studies show the extent to which an online or offline instruction in 

the discourse conventions of a particular discipline impact students’ writing quality. It is clear 

in these studies that many factors affect the effectiveness of the instructions in disciplinary 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

70 
 

discourse. One of these factors is the detachment of the instructions from subject teaching. 

However, although these studies contribute to understanding the importance of embedding 

academic writing in the teaching of disciplinary knowledge, they do not inform us on which 

linguistic features or rhetorical features contribute to the progress in the quality of writing by 

students. They indicate a holistic progress in the quality of writing as a result of online or offline 

instruction in disciplinary discourse conventions, but they do not indicate which discourse and 

epistemological features contribute to this progress. Therefore, this study examines whether 

there is a progress or a regress in the use of discourse and epistemological features that construe 

a register-appropriate critical stance as a result of an online academic writing course. To meet 

this objective, this study draws on appraisal theory from systemic functional linguistics.  

2.3. Theoretical Framework: Appraisal Theory  

The theoretical framework applied in this study to investigate whether there is a progress or a 

regress in the use of discourse and epistemological features that construe a register-appropriate 

critical stance is appraisal theory (Martin & White, 2005). This theory extends SFL account of 

interpersonal meaning and consists of three linguistic systems: attitude, graduation and 

engagement. 

2.3.1. Attitude system 

Attitude system include all the linguistic resources (semantic region) that are used to construe 

emotions and feelings, to evaluate human character or behavior according to ethical norms, and 

to assess the value of entity (Martin and White, 2005). According to Martin and White (2005), 

the system of attitude differentiates three attitude types: affect, judgement, appreciation.  

Affect deals with personal emotions/feelings. It groups emotions/feelings into four major sets 

having to do with dis/inclination, un/happiness, in/security and dis/satisfaction. Dis/inclination 

covers emotions concerned with intention/desire and fear. Un/happiness covers emotions 

concerned with “affair of the heart”- sadness, hate, happiness and love. In/security covers our 

feelings of peace and anxiety in relation to our environment, including of course the people 

sharing them with us. Dis/satisfaction deals with our feelings of achievement and frustration in 

relation to the activities in which we are engaged, including our roles as both participants and 

spectators. All these four sets of emotions have positive and negative polarity. 

Judgement deals with meaning construing our attitudes to people, the way they behave- their 

character. Judgement can be divided between those dealing with social esteem and those 

oriented to social sanction. Judgements of social esteem have to do with normality (how unusual 

someone is), capacity (how capable they are), and tenacity (how resolute they are). Judgements 

of social sanction have to do with veracity (how truthful someone is) and propriety (whether 

someone behaves according to social-cultural norms). Similarly, all these forms of judgements 

have positive and negative polarity.  

Appreciation deals with meanings construing our evaluations of things, for example, the worth 

of a literary text and process in a culture. Appreciations can be divided into three sub-systems- 

reaction, their composition, and their valuation. Rothery & Stenglin (2000) points out that each 

of these sub-systems corresponds to one of the three metafunctions of language: ideational 

meaning, interpersonal meaning and textual meaning. Reaction corresponds to interpersonal 

meaning. It describes an emotional impact of an entity/thing, such as a literary work, message 

in the literary work, etc. on literary critics/readers. Positive reaction includes linguistic 

resources such as captivating, interesting, stunning, beautiful, etc. Negative reaction includes 

linguistic resources such as boring, questionable, debatable, predictable, etc. Composition is 

aligned with textual meaning. It describes the texture of a thing, such a literary work, in terms 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 Clément Ndoricimpa & Dilip P. Barad Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

71 
 

of its complexity and balance. Positive composition includes detailed, rich, etc. Negative 

composition includes simplistic, irregular, ambiguous, cyclic, etc. Valuation corresponds to 

ideational meaning. It evaluates the worth of a particular literary work, for example, its social 

contribution to understanding a particular idea. It also evaluates the message conveyed in a 

particular literary work. Positive valuation includes linguistic features, such as innovative, 

significant, important, unique, etc. Negative valuation entails linguistic resources, such as 

insignificant, overdue, useless, shallow, etc. 

2.3.2. Graduation System 

Graduation system has to do with linguistic items which intensify meaning or grade values. 

Martin and White (2005) identifies two graduation types. First, graduation according to 

prototypicality (focus) involves sharpening or softening the boundaries of a categorical 

meaning (e.g., He is a true friend; It was an apology of the sort). Second, graduation according 

to force involves scaling of intensity (e.g., very interesting, somewhat interesting) and scaling 

of amount or extent of entities (e.g., I have many worries about your performance; There is a 

paucity of information on the matter).  Xie (2016, p.3) argues that graduation “may function to 

evoke attitudinal reading out of experiential meanings”. For instance, by scaling down an 

apology given by someone as in “It was an apology of the sort.”, the readers are invited to have 

a negative attitude towards the proposition. 

2.3.3. Engagement System 

The system of engagement is concerned with the linguistic mechanism by which the 

writer/speakers incorporate various positions in their texts and take a stance towards those 

positions. These various positions may be single-voiced (mono-glossic) and multi-voiced 

(hetero-glossic). Mono-glossic assertions are those, as Martin & White (2005) point out, which 

do not recognize other voices. On the other hand, hetero-glossic options include linguistic 

mechanisms by which writers/speakers expand or contract dialogic space for alternative 

positions or voices (White, 2003).                                                                                                  

2.4. Research Question 

This study investigates L2 students’ longitudinal development of critical stance patterns in 

academic writing as a result of their exposure to online instruction in the discourse conventions 

of literary criticism. It addresses the following research question. 

RQ: Is there any variation in the distribution of critical stance patterns in L2 students’ written 

literary analyses pre-, during- and post-online instruction in the discourse conventions of 

literary criticism? 

3. Research Methods 

3.1. Research Context 

The present study is situated in the department of English at Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji 

Bhavnagar University (MKBU). The department of English at this university offers 

postgraduate courses in literature studies. These courses generally include those related to world 

literature (Indian writing in English, British literature, American literature, African literature, 

etc.) and to literary critical theories (existentialism, feminism, new critical theory, etc.). This 

postgraduate program requires regular writing activities. The writing activities include written 

thinking activities, and lengthy essay assignments, which students can present orally in class.  

However, although teachers and researchers across disciplines in India acknowledge the 

difficulties university students face in writing effectively, academic writing courses are not 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

72 
 

included on the curriculum of undergraduate and postgraduate level in all disciplines-arts, 

humanities, social sciences, etc. (e.g., Evangeline & Ganesh, 2016; Vijayakumar, 2018; etc.). 

In addition, there is no provision of English for academic writing course that helps students 

transition from general writing to disciplinary-specific writing. Two assumptions may underpin 

this no provision of English academic writing course in Indian educational context. The first 

assumption is that students may learn disciplinary-specific way of writing tacitly. The second 

assumption is that students who have difficulties in academic writing may attend academic 

writing workshops. Indeed, many universities in India organize academic writing workshops 

and encourage students to attend them. However, academic writing workshops provide students 

with knowledge of how to organize an academic text, but they do not help students learn 

disciplinary-specific way of writing.  Therefore, this study explores whether online instructions 

in the discourse conventions of literary criticism impacts students’ ability to produce a register-

appropriate critical stance or affect students’ quality of writing. This study is relevant as it may 

inform teachers across disciplines in India the usefulness and the importance of teaching 

disciplinary-specific way of writing to university students.  

3.2. Participants 

The participants in the present study were selected as follows. First, after the writing course 

was designed, the researchers made video recordings that introduced the content of each unit 

of the course. Second, a google classroom website was created. Third, a video recording that 

introduced the course was uploaded on the google classroom website. The introduction of the 

course was intended to explain to students the reasons and the objectives of the course. Fourth, 

students were requested to watch the video recording and to read the content of the introduction, 

and if interested, to register for the course. Before registering, students were asked to do a 

diagnostic writing task which required them to analyze a literary work from a particular literary 

theory. Therefore, 42 postgraduate students registered for the course. Some of these students 

were in the first year, and others were in the final year of a two-year program of English studies 

in the department of English at MKBU. However, all the students who registered did not take 

or did not comply with all the requirements of the course. Of 42 students, 21 students satisfied 

all the requirements of the course. This means that only 21 students were able to watch the 

video recording, to read the content of the course, and to do all the assignments. As a 

consequence, the data were collected from 21 postgraduate students who complied with all the 

requirements of the online instruction. It is important to note that students in this study writes 

in English as a second language. Nevertheless, they are generally considered as competent users 

of English, having been instructed through it in their three-year undergraduate program and 

having learned English as a subject in their pre-university studies. In addition, although the 

researchers did not measure this competence with reliable English texts, Bhavnagar university 

admits students who have a score of 48% and above on English tests to its postgraduate 

programs (see on https://www.mkbhavuni.edu.in).   

3.3. Online Instruction in the Discourse conventions of Literary Criticism 

3.3.1. The structure of the Online Instruction 

The online instruction was planned as follows. First, it comprised 5 units. The design of the 

contents of the 5 units was guided by genre approach to teaching academic writing and by 

academic literacies. In other words, the contents of the online instruction exposed students to 

the ways in which knowledge is built in the discipline of English studies and to the discourse 

and epistemological practices of literary criticism. Second, it consisted of video recordings of 

5 to 20 minutes, which introduced each unit of the module. These introductory videos were 

intended to help participants know what is included in each unit, what was expected of them, 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 Clément Ndoricimpa & Dilip P. Barad Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

73 
 

and online submissions details. Third, it consisted of assessment rubrics to evaluate each 

submission. Last, it comprised an individualized online feedback on each online submission. In 

summary, the intervention comprised the contents of 5 units, 5 introductory videos, assessment 

rubrics, and individualized feedback. 

3.3.2. Implementation of the online instruction 

The intervention lasted 7 weeks from 16th January 2021 to 8th March 2021- 5 weeks were for 

independent learning and individualized online feedback on each online submission and two 

weeks were for completing the final submission. This self-regulated learning was guided by the 

integration of the following methods. 

Watching introductory videos and reading the contents of the online instruction: upon the 

weekly upload of the introductory video and the content of each unit on google classroom 

website, students were asked to watch the video and read the content of the unit. The upload 

followed a sequential pattern from unit one to unit five.  This sequential pattern was followed 

for two reasons. First, each unit was designed to help students learn specific types of discourse 

and epistemological practices of literary criticism. Second, it was possible to evaluate whether 

students have understood the content of the unit through multiple-choice questions and writing 

task.  They were given four days for reading the content of each unit and for doing the above-

mentioned tasks. Therefore, the content of the unit contained explanations of the requirements 

for writing a literary analysis and an excerpt from a successful essay in literature. The 

explanations were intended to help students understand the ways in which literary critics 

critically engage with the portrayal of characters and the message conveyed in the literary text 

under analysis. They were also intended to help students understand how literary critics assess 

the techniques used by writers to articulate a particular theme and show an understanding of the 

literary theory in the interpretation of the message articulated in literary work under analysis. 

Then, students were asked to read the excerpt from successful essay and to comment on the 

ways in which these explanations were realized in the excerpt. The content of the second and 

the third unit contained explanations of discourse and epistemological features of literary 

analyses. In these two units, students were presented with extracts from published paper in 

literature and successful essays by university students. These extracts were used to 

demonstrated the linguistic and discourse markers that are usually used to meet the 

requirements explained in the first unit, as well as the style of citing and referencing. These 

markers included linguistic markers of critical stance and language used to develop arguments 

in literary analyses. The contents of the fourth and the fifth units contained explanations of the 

ways in which arguments in an essay and research paper are organized. In these two units, 

students were presented with an example of an essay and research paper and were asked to 

comment on the ways in which the introductions of an essay and research paper provide 

background information on with the essay or the research paper focuses. Students were also 

asked to comment on the ways in which arguments are developed and the ways in which critical 

stance is expressed in the body sections of the two genres. Last, students were asked to comment 

on the ways in which the conclusions of the two genres summarize the content of the body 

section, consolidate the position taken in the introduction or answer the research question 

formulated in the introduction, etc. 

Online submission and individualized online feedback: online submission and individualized 

online feedback were organized in sequential pattern. This was done in order to ensure that the 

researchers can track a longitudinal development of students’ ability to construe a register-

appropriate critical stance in their literary analyses. In this regard, in the first unit, students were 

presented with a short story and were asked to write two paragraphs which demonstrated their 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

74 
 

critical engagement with the portrayal of characters and with the message conveyed in the short 

story. After they submitted the two paragraphs on google classroom, the researchers took two 

days to evaluate each submission and to give individualized feedback. In the second unit, 

students were asked to revised the two paragraphs according to the content of the second unit 

and were given individualized feedback. In the third unit, students were asked to edit the two 

paragraphs submitted in the first unit according to the content of the third unit and were also 

given individualized feedback. In the fourth unit, students were asked to extend the two 

paragraphs submitted in the first unit and to write an essay which included the introduction, the 

body, and the conclusion and were also given individualized feedback. In the fifth unit, students 

were asked to add an abstract and a list of references and were also give individualized 

feedback. Each submission was evaluated on the basis of assessment rubric, which was 

uploaded on google classroom website. Students were asked to read the assessment rubric 

before writing each submission.    

In summary, the implementation of the online instruction was guided by the integration of the 

above-outlined methods. Students were independent learners in that they were not told the 

number of hours a week they should read the content of each unit. They were free to read the 

content of each unit as many times as they wanted, provided that they complete all the tasks 

within four days in a week. The introductory videos, the contents of the online instruction and 

the assessment rubrics can be accessed via the following website: 

https://classroom.google.com/c/MjU2NjcxMDk2NDAw. 

3.4. Collection of Data 

The data were collected longitudinally at three points- pre-instruction, meaning a diagnostic 

writing task before students were exposed to the course (point 1), during-instruction, meaning 

immediately after the fourth unit (point 2), and post-instruction, meaning the final writing task 

(point 3). The assignments at point two were selected for one reason. It was after the fourth unit 

that students were asked to write an extended essay which comprised the introduction, the body 

and the conclusion. Therefore, the assignments at this point were selected in order to match the 

format of assignments at point 1 and at point 3. At these two points, students were asked to 

write an extended essay. The written assignments collected at each point were used to constitute 

three corpora. The first corpus included 21 essay assignments collected at point 1 and this 

corpus was called “Pre-Instruction Corpus 1 (PIC 1)”. The second corpus included 21 essay 

assignments collected at point 2 and this corpus was called “During-Instruction Corpus 2 (DIC 

2)”. The third corpus included 21essay assignments collected at point 3 and this corpus was 

called “Post-Instruction Corpus 3 (PIC 3)”. The collection of data at these three points made it 

possible to fit a developmental line which could shed light on the linear progression, U or 

reverse-U shaped behavior (Meunier, 2016 cited in Crosthwaite & Jiang, 2017). Table 1 

presents the size of each corpus.  

Table 1.  

Longitudinal Corpora  

Longitudinal corpora                      Texts                      Words                         Sentences 

PIC 1                                                  21                           17582                              1025 

DIC 2                                                 21                           14774                              832 

PIC 3                                                 21                           43305                              2401 

Total                                                 63                           75661                               4258 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 Clément Ndoricimpa & Dilip P. Barad Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

75 
 

3.5. Analysis of Data 

In this study, a discourse analytic research method was employed to examine critical stance 

patterns in the longitudinal corpus. This analysis of critical stance patterns drew on appraisal 

system (Martin & White, 2005) through manual coding using UAM corpus tool (O’ Donnell, 

2007). The appraisal analysis of longitudinal corpus was conducted as follows. First, the 

researchers converted the corpus into plain text (with extension txt), compatible with UAM 

Corpus Tool. Second, after uploading the corpus into the application (UAM Corpus Tool), the 

researchers conducted three layers of appraisal analysis. The first layer involved drawing on 

the appraisal sub-system of attitude to examine the ways in which students critically evaluated 

the portrayal of characters, the message conveyed and the techniques used by writers to 

articulate a particular theme in the literary work under analysis. The second layer entailed 

drawing on the appraisal sub-system of graduation to explore the ways in which students 

amplified evaluative meanings in their assignments. The third layer involved drawing on the 

appraisal sub-system of engagement to examine the ways in which students position readers to 

accept their interpretations and critically engage with alternative interpretations of the portrayal 

of characters. These three layers of analysis contributed to understanding the differences in 

construing critical stance in the longitudinal corpus. By examining the ways in which students 

selected linguistic and discourse resources to evaluate entity, people's behavior, and to negotiate 

other positions, the three layers of analysis shed light on the variation in the register-appropriate 

critical stance in the longitudinal corpus. 

3.6. Coding of the Data 

The coding of the three layers of appraisal system drew on Martin & White’s (2005) taxonomy. 

It was conducted as follows. First, the researchers coded the attitude types- affect, judgement, 

appreciation, and their sub-categories, the attitude mode as inscribed or evoked and the attitude 

polarity as negative or positive. In order to code these resources, the researchers had to read 

each assignment multiple times in order to interpret accurately the critical stance patterns that 

occurred in the assignment. The researchers had also to read back-and-forth between clause and 

text levels and to resort to co-textual relations to examine how one linguistic item could 

influence the interpretation of another linguistic item or to capture how a particular linguistic 

item could have different interpretation when it occurred in different co-textual relations. 

Example [1] presents the coding of attitude, in which “patriarchal” explicitly embodies the 

writer’s negative evaluation of “arrangement of social order. Patriarchal is a descriptive term 

and therefore does not carries an evaluative meaning. The negative evaluative meaning it 

inscribes results from the linguistic items it occurs within the same sentence, e.g., “horrific 

form” and “unsafe position”. 

[1]: Women were subject to horrific [Appreciation: reaction -] forms of sexual violence 

during partition which suggests the unsafe [Appreciation: reaction -] position of women in 

the patriarchal [Appreciation: valuation -] arrangement of social order (PIC 3). 

Second, the researchers coded the graduation type as force and focus, the graduation orientation 

as up-scaling and down-scaling, and the graduation effect as evoking and non-evoking attitude. 

If the graduation resources evoked attitude, then we coded the attitude type and its polarity. If 

the graduation resources did not evoke attitude, then we coded the graduation orientation. 

Examples [2] and [3] illustrate this coding. 

[2]: Retelling of a story becomes very interesting [Force: intensity, up-scaling] to interpret 

when it is said from a different perspective (PIC 1). 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

76 
 

[3]: The River Churning presents [Focus: fulfilment, up-scaling], [Appreciation: valuation 

+, evoked] how the state intervention on the bodies of women affected their lives (PIC1). 

Third, the researchers coded the engagement resources. In order to code these resources, the 

researchers had to interpret whether propositions in the assignments were mono-glossically or 

hetero-glossically formulated based on the clausal level. If the propositions were hetero-

glossically formulated, the researchers coded the sub-categories of hetero-glossic resources. 

Example [4] and [5] illustrates this coding.  

[4]: Partition violence positioned women as objects of possession and vehicles to carry the 

burden of hostility of opposed groups of men (PIC 3) [Mono-glossic proposition]. 

[5]: Moreover, the above lines can be read as an insightful presentation of Jenny’s experience 

of comprehending reality [Hetero-glossic proposition, expand: entertain]. 

The researchers coded these resources using UAM Corpus Tool. To ensure reliability of the 

coding, appraisal resources were coded at one-month interval. This involved coding the data 

manually using UAM Corpus tool and after one month, the researchers coded again the 

resources manually using UAM Corpus Tool. This was done to make sure that there was an 

inter-rater agreement at one-month interval.  

3.7. Statistical Analysis 

After coding the data, the number of occurrences of appraisal resources was calculated per 100 

words. Then, the mean and the standard deviation along with the significance of differences in 

the longitudinal corpus were calculated through SPSS (version 16.0). 

4. Results and Discussions 

4.1. Longitudinal Variation in Critical Stance Patterns in L2 Students’ Written Literary 

Analyses  

Previous studies show that projecting a critical stance is a highly valued features of literary 

analyses (e.g., Macken-Horarik, 1996, 2003; Rothery & Stenglin, 2000; Wilder, 2012, etc.). 

Rothery & Stenglin (2000) show that project a critical stance involves the use of attitude 

markers to critically evaluate the portrayal of characters and the message convey in the literary 

work under analysis. It also entails the use of graduation and engagement markers to position 

readers to accept authorial interpretations and to critically engage with alternative 

interpretations of the message conveyed in the literary work under analysis. In this regard, the 

results were reported as follows: (1) findings from the analysis of the distribution of attitude 

markers, (2) results from the analysis of the distribution of graduation resources, and (3) 

findings from the analysis of the distribution of engagement markers.   

4.1.1. Longitudinal Distribution of Attitude Resources in L2 Students’ Literary Analysis 

Table 2 presents longitudinal distributions of attitude resources in the three corpora collected at 

three points, namely Pre-Instruction Corpus (PIC 1), During-Instruction Corpus (DIC 2), post-

instruction Corpus (PIC 3). The results reveal a longitudinal rise in the use of attitude sub-types 

of judgement and appreciation and a reverse-U shaped reduction in the use of attitude subtype 

of affect as seen at PIC 1, DIC 2 and PIC 3.  Table 2 shows that the use of judgement resources 

by students increased at PIC 3 (M = 1.01) from PIC 1 (M = 0.74, Mean difference = -0.27, P-

value = 0.142), the use of appreciation increased at PIC 3 (M = 0.82) from PIC 1 (M = 0.70, 

Mean difference = -0.11, P-value = 0.272), while the use of affect resources decrease at PIC 3 

(M = 0.44) from PIC 1 (M = 0.53, Mean difference =0.08, P-value = 0.319). However, the 

increase in the use of judgement and appreciation resources from PIC 1 to PIC 3 is not 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 Clément Ndoricimpa & Dilip P. Barad Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

77 
 

statistically significant, while the decrease in the use of affect resource from PIC 1 to PIC 3 is 

statistically significant. 

Therefore, the less significant increase in the use of attitude sub-types of judgement and 

appreciation may not be suggestive of an impact of the online instruction in the discourse 

convention of literary criticism, and the significant reverse-U shaped decrease in the use of 

attitude sub-type of affect may be suggestive of the impact of the online instruction. To be more 

specific, the resources of judgement and appreciation are employed to evaluate the behaviors 

of characters according to ethical norms, the strategies and techniques used by writers 

(novelists, poets, etc.) to convey a particular message, and the aesthetic qualities of the literary 

work under analysis. Rothery & Stenglin (2000) demonstrate that successful literary analyses 

are characterized by the use of the resources of judgement and appreciation. In addition, the 

content of the online instruction, the online assessment rubrics and the individualized online 

feedback focused on the use of these linguistic markers. Therefore, the less significant increase 

in the use of these resources presumably suggest that the teaching and learning methods 

employed in the online instruction may not have impacted L2 students’ ability to construe a 

register-appropriate critical stance. The resources of affect are used to articulate an emotional 

response to the literary work under analysis. Rothery & Stenglin (2000) show that successful 

literary analyses are characterizes by a near absence of the resource of affect. Furthermore, the 

individualized online feedback emphasized the need to use impersonal style and the need to 

avoid expressing emotional feelings in academic writing. Therefore, the significant reverse-U 

shaped decrease in the use of affect suggests that the individualized may have impacted L2 

students’ ability to avoid expressing emotional feelings in their literary analysis.  

Table 2.   

Longitudinal distributions of Attitude Resources   

Attitude 

markers 

Mean per 100 

words 

Standard 

Deviation 

Pairwise comparison  

(Bold = statistically significant, 

P<0.05) 

Affect (PIC 1) M = 0.53 

(DIC 2) M = 

0.88 

(PIC 3) M = 0.44 

(PIC 1) SD = 

0.45 

(DIC 2) SD = 

0.60 

(PIC 3) SD = 

0.28 

PIC 1<DIC 2 MD = -0.34 P = 0.017 

PIC 1>PIC 3 MD = 0.08 P = 0.319 

DIC 2>PIC 3 MD = 0.43 P = 0.006 

Judgement (PIC 1) M = 0.74 

(DIC 2) M = 

0.77 

(PIC 3) M = 1.01 

(PIC 1) SD = 

0.60 

(DIC 2) SD = 

0.45 

(PIC 3) SD = 

0.50 

PIC 1<DIC 2 MD = -0.03 P = 0.848 

PIC 1<PIC 3 MD = -0.27 P = 0.142 

DIC 2<PIC 3 MD = -0.25 P = 0.106 

Appreciation (PIC 1) M = 0.70 

(DIC 2) M = 

0.83 

(PIC 3) M = 0.82 

(PIC 1) SD = 

0.42 

(DIC 2) SD = 

0.40 

(PIC 3) SD = 

0.36 

PIC 1<DIC 2 MD = -0.12 P = 0.435 

PIC 1<PIC 3 MD = -0.11 P = 0.272 

DIC 2>PIC 3 MD = 0.005 P = 0.958 

 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

78 
 

Within the attitude subcategories of judgement and appreciation, then subcategories that are 

predominantly used in successful literary analysis are judgement subtypes of capacity and 

propriety and the appreciation subtype of valuation, composition and reaction. Therefore, it is 

important to report on the distribution of these subcategories in order to see whether there may 

be any important variation in the longitudinal corpus. 

4.1.1.1. Longitudinal Distribution of Judgement sub-categories in the corpora 

Table 3 presents a longitudinal distribution of judgement sub-categories in the three corpora 

collected at three points. The results show a less significant increase in the use of judgement 

sub-category of capacity as seen at PIC 3 (M = 044) from PIC 1 (0.28, Mean difference = -0.15, 

P-value = 0.152). The resources of judgement of capacity are predominantly employed to 

evaluate writers' strategies to convey a particular message in successful literary analysis 

(Rothery & Stenglin, 2000) as in [6] 

[6]: Divakaruni has skillfully demystified [Judgement: Capacity +] the story of Mahabharata 

by de-glamorizing the male characters and making it suit the assertion of the female self of the 

twenty-first century India (PIC 3).  

The results also show a less significant increase in the use of judgement sub-category of 

propriety as seen at PIC 3 (M = 0.46) from PIC 1 (M = 0.23, Mean difference = -0.22, P-value 

= 0.065). The resources of judgement sub-category of propriety are employed to evaluate the 

behavior of characters according to ethical norms (Rothery & Stenglin, 2000) as in [7] and [8].  

[7]: Velutha, the god of small things, transgresses [Judgement: Propriety-] the established 

norms of society by having an affair with a woman of high caste (PIC 3). 

[8]: Government officials were corrupt, manipulative [Judgement: Propriety-] of villagers, 

and could arrest anyone they chose for any reason, more often than not for their own benefit 

(PIC 1]. 

Table 3.  

Longitudinal Distribution of Judgement Sub-categories 

Judgement 

sub-types 

Mean per 100 

words 

Standard 

Deviation 

Pairwise comparison (Bold = 

statistically significant, P<0.05) 

Capacity (PIC 1) M = 0.28 

(DIC 2) M = 0.38 

(PIC 3) M = 0.44 

(PIC 1) SD = 0.44 

(DIC 2) SD = 0.29 

(PIC 3) SD = 0.21 

PIC 1<DIC 2 MD = -0.09 P = 0.430 

PIC 1 <PIC 3 MD = -0.15 P = 0.152 

DIC 2<PIC 3 MD = -0.06 P = 0.412 

Propriety (PIC 1) M = 0.23 

(DIC 2) M = 0.29 

(PIC 3) M = 0.46 

(PIC 1) SD = 0.27 

(DIC 2) SD = 0.28 

(PIC 3) SD = 0.38 

PIC 1<DIC 2 MD = -0.060 P = 

0.421 

PIC 1<PIC 3 MD = -0.22 P = 0.065 

DIC 3<PIC 3 MD = -0.16 P = 0.122 

In addition, Macken-Horarik (2003) shows that the predominant use of the resources of 

propriety enable literary analysts to recontextualize the characterization in the literary work 

under analysis in terms of ethical struggle and therefore to construct an ethical stance.  

The content of online instruction, the individualized online feedback, and the assessment 

rubrics emphasized the need for students to critically evaluate the portrayal of characters and 

the techniques used by writers to convey a particular message in the literary work under 

analysis.  Therefore, it can be inferred that the less significant increase in the use of the resources 

of capacity and propriety probably suggest that the teaching and the learning methods employed 

in the online course may not have impacted students’ ability to construe a register-appropriate 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 Clément Ndoricimpa & Dilip P. Barad Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

79 
 

critical stance in their literary analyses. Two factors may have contributed to these results. First, 

the online instruction did not include follow-up discussions. These follow-up discussions would 

have contributed to checking whether students had understood the content of the online course, 

the assessment rubric, and the individualized online feedback. In addition, the online instruction 

was detached from regular teaching of English literature. Embedding the online instruction into 

regular teaching of English literature would have helped students understand the ways in which 

a critical evaluation of the portrayal of characters and the techniques used by writers to 

articulate a particular theme is construed in literary analyses. These results seem to agree with 

the results in the study by Wingate (2012). In this study by Wingate, the results indicated that 

the online writing course did not impact students’ critical awareness in academic writing 

because the online instruction was not embedded in subject teaching.  

4.1.1.2. Longitudinal Distribution of Appreciation Sub-categories in the corpora 

Table 4 presents a longitudinal distribution of appreciation sub-categories in the three corpora 

collected at three points. The results indicate a less significant increase in the use of appreciation 

sub-category of reaction as seen at PIC 3 (M = 0.23) from PIC 1 (M= 0.16, Mean difference = 

-0.07, P-value = 0.152). The resources of reaction are predominantly used to express a critical 

personal response to the portrayal of characters and to the message conveyed in the literary 

work under analysis (Rothery & Stenglin, 2000). Example [9] illustrates this use. 

[9]: It seems that this story is a good [Appreciation: Reaction +) example for television 

represents the world of illusion rather than reality (DIC 2).  

Table 4.  

Longitudinal Distribution of Appreciation Sub-categories 

Appreciation 

Sub-type 

Mean per 100 

words 

Standard Deviation Pairwise Comparison 

(Bold = statistically significant, 

P<0.05) 

Reaction (PIC 1) M = 0.16 

(DIC 2) M = 0.30 

(PIC 3) M = 0.23 

(PIC 1) SD = 0.14 

(DIC 2) SD = 0.19 

(PIC 3) SD = 0.17 

PIC 1<DIC 2 MD = -0.13 P = 

0.023 

PIC 1<PIC 3 MD = -0.07 P = 

0.154 

DIC 2>PIC 3 MD = 0.06 P = 

0.284 

Composition (PIC 1) M = 0.13 

(DIC 2) M = 0.01 

(PIC 3) M = 0.07 

(PIC 1) SD = 0.19 

(DIC 2) SD = 0.06 

(PIC 3) SD = 0.07 

PIC 1>DIC 2 MD = 0.11 P = 

0.012 

PIC 1>PIC 3 MD = 0.06 P = 

0.212 

DIC 2<PIC 3 MD = 0.05 P = 

0.016 

Valuation (PIC 1) M = 0.41 

(DIC 2) M = 0.51 

(PIC 3) M = 0.50 

(PIC 1) SD = 0.30 

(DIC 2) SD = 0.37 

(PIC 3) SD = 0.30 

PIC 1<DIC 2 MD = -0.10 P = 

0.436 

PIC 1<PIC 3 MD = -0.09 P = 

0.264 

DIC 2>PIC 3 MD = 0.001 P = 

0.984 

The results also indicate a less significant increase in the use of the resources of valuation as 

seen at PIC (M = 50) from PIC 1 (M = 41, Mean difference = -0.09, P-value = 0.264). The 

resources of valuation are predominantly employed to evaluate the strategies and techniques 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

80 
 

employed by the writers to convey a particular message or to explore a particular theme as in 

[10] (Rothetery & Stenglin, 2000). 

[10]: In the play, the chorus is an expedient [Appreciation: Valuation +] device used 

brilliantly to provide the commentary on the way communal provocation instigates mindless 

mob violence (PIC 3). 

In addition, the results show a significant decrease in the use of the resources of composition 

as seen at PIC 3 (M = 0.07) from PIC 1 (M = 0.13, mean difference = 0.06, P-value = 0.212). 

The resources of composition are also predominantly used to explore the strategies used by the 

writers to convey a particular theme and to evaluate the aesthetic qualities of the literary work 

under analysis as in [11] 

[11]: Their sexual attraction and relation are beautifully woven [Appreciation: Composition 

+] in more than one level, it represents a union that openly defies all society constructed 

restrictions and leads to a sense of fulfilment and contentment [PIC 3]. 

The content of the online instruction, the individualized online feedback, and the online 

assessment rubrics focused on the linguistic features that are used to critically evaluate the 

strategies used by writers to articulate a particular message in their literary work and on the 

linguistic resources that used to critically engage with the message conveyed in the literary 

work under analysis. Therefore, the less significant increase in the use of the resources of 

reaction and valuation and the significant decrease in the use of the resources of composition 

probably suggest that the teaching and the learning methods employed in the online instruction 

may not have impacted students’ ability to evaluate the strategies and techniques employed by 

the writers to convey a particular message or to explore a particular theme. The two factors 

outlined earlier (in 4.1.1.1) may have contributed to these results.  

4.1.2. Longitudinal Distribution of Graduation Resources in L2 Students’ Literary Analysis  

Table 5 presents a longitudinal distribution of graduation resources in the three corpora 

collected at three points. The results show a significant decrease in the use of graduation 

resources of force as seen at PIC 3 (M = 0.91) from PIC 1 (M = 1.18, Mean difference = 0.266, 

P-value = 0.046).  

Table 5.  

Longitudinal Distribution of Graduation Resources in the corpora 

Graduation 

type 

Mean per 100 

words 

Standard Deviation Pairwise Comparison 

(Bold= statistically significant, 

P<0.05) 

Force (PIC 1) M = 1.18 

(DIC 2) M = 1.21 

(PIC 3) M = 0.91 

(PIC 1) SD = 0.56 

(DIC 2) SD = 0.50 

(PIC 3) SD = 0.27 

PIC 1<DIC 2 MD = -0.032 P = 

0.859 

PIC 1>PIC 3 MD = 0.266 P = 

0.046 

DIC 2>PIC 3 MD = 0.270 P = 

0.022 

Focus (PIC 1) M = 0.044 

(DIC 2) M = 0.006 

(PIC 3) M = 0.017 

(PIC 1) SD = 0.11 

(DIC 2) SD = 0.03 

(PIC 3) SD = 0.05 

PIC 1>DIC 2 MD = 0.038 P = 

0.146 

PIC 1>PIC 3 MD = 0.027 P = 

0.374 

DIC 2<PIC 3 MD = -0.010 P = 

0.449 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 Clément Ndoricimpa & Dilip P. Barad Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

81 
 

The results also show a less significant decrease in the use of graduation resources of focus as 

seen at PIC 3 (M = 0.017) from PIC 1 (M = 0.044, Mean difference = 0.027, P-value = 0.374). 

The resources of graduation are employed to make the construed evaluative meaning 

compelling, forceful (Hood, 2004, 2010; Lancaster, 2012, 2014, 2016, etc.) as in [12].  

[12]: Retelling of a story becomes very [Graduation: Force) interesting [Appreciation: 

reaction+] to interpret when it is said from a different perspective (PIC 1). 

The content of the online course, the individualized online feedback, and the online assessment 

rubrics emphasized the need for students to tone down evaluative meanings in their literary 

analysis. Therefore, the significant decrease in the use of graduation resources of force 

presumably suggest that the teaching and learning methods employed in the online instruction 

impacted students’ ability to construe a less compelling and forceful evaluative meaning.    

4.1.3. Longitudinal Distribution of Engagement Resources in L2 Students’ Literary Analysis 

Table 6 presents longitudinal distributions of single-voiced (monoglossia) and multi-voiced 

(heteroglossia) statement in the corpora collected at three points. The results indicate a less 

significant decrease of single-voiced statements in the corpora as seen at PIC 3 (M = 3.35) from 

PIC 1 (M = 3.64, Mean difference = 0.29, P-value = 0.142). Single-voiced statements are those, 

as Martin & White (2005) point out, which do not recognize other voices. They are presented 

as facts (Lyon, 1977, p.794). In addition, single-voiced statements function to make the 

construed evaluative meanings assertive and are less valued in academic writing (Xie, 2016). 

The individualized online feedback insisted on the need for students to avoid making 

unwarranted interpretations. Therefore, the less significant decrease of single-voiced statement 

from PIC 1 to PIC 3 presumably suggest that the teaching and learning methods in the online 

instruction may not have impacted students’ ability to avoid making literary interpretations 

within single-voices formulations.  

Table 6:  

Longitudinal distributions of voices in the corpora 

Voices Mean per 100 

words 

Standard 

Deviation 

Pairwise Comparison 

(Bold = statistically significant, 

P<0.05) 

Monoglossia (PIC 1) M = 3.64 

(DIC 2) M = 3.49 

(PIC 3) M = 3.35 

(PIC 1) SD = 1.03 

(DIC 2) SD = 1.37 

(PIC 3) SD = 0.71 

PIC 1>DIC 2 MD = 0.15 P = 0.655 

PIC 1>PIC 3 MD = 0.29 P = 0.142 

DIC 2>PIC 3 MD = 0.14 P = 0.403 

Heteroglossia (PIC 1) M = 1.68 

(DIC 2) M = 2.38 

(PIC 3) M = 1.96 

(PIC 1) SD = 0.94 

(DIC 2) SD = 0.72 

(PIC 3) SD = 0.63 

PIC 1<DIC 2 MD = -0.699 P = 

0.004 

PIC 1<PIC 3 MD = -0.286 P = 

0.096 

DIC 2>PIC 3 MD = 0.412 P = 

0.048 

 

The results also show a significant reverse-U shaped increase of multi-voiced statements across 

the corpus as seen at DIC 2 (M = 2.38) from PIC 1 (M = 1.68, Mean difference = -0.699, P-

value = 0.004), at PIC 3 (M = 1.96) from DIC 2 (Mean difference = 0.412, P-value = 0.048) 

and at PIC 3 from PIC 1 (Mean difference = -0.286, P-value = 0.096). Multi-voiced statements 

are those which are employed to make readers accept authorial interpretations and to critically 

engage with alternative interpretations (Martin & White, 2005). The content of the online 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

82 
 

course, the individualized online feedback, and the online assessment rubrics focused on the 

importance of the use of linguistic resources to make multi-voiced statements. Therefore, the 

reverse U-shaped increase of multi-voiced formulations from PIC 1, DIC 2 to PIC 3 seem to 

suggest that the teaching and learning methods employed in the online instruction may have 

impacted students’ ability to recognize multiple literary interpretations. However, multi-voiced 

statements are divided into different categories. Therefore, it is important to report the results 

on the distributions of those categories in order to see whether there is a significant variation in 

the longitudinal corpus. Table 7 presents longitudinal distributions of multi-voiced statements 

in the corpora collected at three points. The results indicate a less significant increase in the use 

of dialogic contractions as seen at DIC 2 (M =1.20) from PIC 1 (M = 0.95, Mean difference = 

-0.253, P-value = 0.208), at PIC 3 (M = 1.11) from DIC 2 (Mean difference = 0.082, P-value = 

0.662) and at PIC 3 from PIC 1 (Mean difference = -0.162, P-Value = 0.333).  Dialogic 

contractions include linguistic mechanisms by which writers/speakers use to contract dialogic 

space for alternative viewpoints and therefore to show confidence and authoritativeness in the 

construed meanings or interpretations (Lancaster, 2012). Example [13] and [14] illustrate this 

use. 

[13]: Although higher-class female characters like Rahel, Ammu and Mammachi are 

physically healthy, they are not the decision-makers in the family or society [Contract, 

disclaim: counter] (PIC 3).  

[14]: It is obvious that communal unrest arises from highlighting the differences between these 

two religious groups [Contract, proclaim: concur] (PIC 3).  

Table 7. 

 Longitudinal Distributions of multi-voiced statements in the corpora   

Multi-

voiced 

statements 

Mean per 100 

words 

Standard 

Deviation 

Pairwise Comparison 

(Bold = statistically significant, 

P<0.05) 

Contract (PIC 1) M = 0.95 

(DIC 2) M = 1.20 

(PIC 3) M = 1.11 

(PIC 1) SD = 0.81 

(DIC 2) SD = 0.62 

(PIC 3) SD = 0.34 

PIC 1<DIC 2 MD = -0.253 P = 

0.208 

PIC 1<PIC 3 MD = -0.162 P = 0.333 

DIC 2>PIC 3 MD = 0.082 P = 0.662 

Expand (PIC 1) M = 0.72 

(DIC 2) M = 1.16 

(PIC 3) M = 0.79 

(PIC 1) SD = 0.44 

(DIC 2) SD = 0.60 

(PIC 3) SD = 0.45 

PIC 1<DIC 2 MD = -0.442 P = 

0.011 

PIC 1<PIC 3 MD = -0.066 P = 0.544 

DIC 2>PIC 3 MD = 0.375 P = 0.063 

The less significant increase in the use of dialogic contractions seem to indicate that the teaching 

and learning methods employed in the online instruction may not have impacted students' 

abilities to construe evaluative meaning in a confident and authoritative manner.  

The results also show a significant reverse-U shaped increase in the use of dialogic expansions 

as seen at DIC 2 (M = 1.16) from PIC 1 (M = 0.72, Mean difference = -0.441, P-value = 0.011), 

at PIC 3 (M = 0.79) from DIC 2 (Mean difference = 0.375, P-Value = 0.063) and at PIC 3 from 

PIC 1 (Mean difference = -0.066, P-value = 0.544). Dialogic expansions include linguistic 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 Clément Ndoricimpa & Dilip P. Barad Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

83 
 

resources that writers/speakers use to expand dialogic space for alternative positions (Martin & 

White, 2005). In addition, dialogic expansions are linguistic mechanism by which 

speakers/writers avoid construing an empty or descriptive critical stance (Xie, 2016). In literary 

analysis, some dialogic expansions, such as entertainment options, are used to signal that the 

interpretation of the portrayal of characters or events in the literary work under analysis is one 

among multiple interpretations and, therefore to make allowance for those alternative 

interpretations (Bruce, 2016).  In addition, Lancaster (2016) shows that entertainment options 

are found within the rhetorical strategies that Wilder (2012) calls "appearance/reality topoi".  

Wilder argues that this rhetorical strategy is employed to invoke the apparent meaning of the 

literary text under analysis before arguing for the real meaning. She also says that this rhetorical 

strategy is an important characteristic of the discourse practices of literary criticism because her 

analysis of students’ successful assignments and published research papers reveals that 

appearance/reality topoi is the most frequently used rhetorical strategies in those texts. Example 

[15] illustrates this use.  

[15]: Ramnik and Javed confess their actions, the hesitation of Javed and Ramnik suggest that 

each individual survives with a human identity that is beyond externally imposed communal 

identity [Expand: entertain] (PIC 3).  

Therefore, the significant reverse-U shaped increase in the use of dialogic expansions probably 

suggest that the teaching and learning methods employed in the online instruction may have 

impacted students’ ability to recognize alternative multiple interpretations in their literary 

analysis.  

5. Conclusion 

The analysis of variation in the distribution of critical stance patterns in the longitudinal corpus 

show the extent to which teaching and learning methods employed in the online instruction 

have impacted students’ ability to construe a register-appropriate critical stance in their literary 

analysis. The results show a less significant increase in the use of attitude sub-categories of 

judgement and appreciation to evaluate the behaviors of characters and the strategies used by 

writers to convey a particular theme. Since the content of the online instruction, the 

individualized online feedback, and the assessment rubric emphasized on the importance of the 

use of linguistic resources of judgement and appreciation, it was expected a significant increase 

in the use of these resources. Therefore, it can be concluded that the teaching and learning 

methods employed in the online instruction may not have impacted students’ ability to develop 

a more register-appropriate critical stance. The findings also show a significant reverse-U 

shaped decrease in the use of attitude sub-category of affect. Since the content of the online 

instruction and the individualized online feedback insisted on the use of impersonal style, it can 

be inferred that the teaching and learning methods may have affected students’ ability to avoid 

expressing personal feelings in their literary analyses. Moreover, the findings show a significant 

decrease in the use of graduation sub-type of force, which includes linguistic mechanism by 

which writers/speakers make their construed evaluative meanings forceful and compelling (Xie, 

2016). Since the individualized online feedback insisted on the need for students to tone down 

evaluative meanings in their literary analyses, the decrease in the use of graduation sub-type of 

force suggests that the individualized feedback have impacted students’ ability to construe a 

more register-appropriate critical stance.   

The findings also show a less significant decrease in the use of single-voiced statements and a 

significant reverse-U shaped increase in the use of multi-voiced formulations. Since the 

individualized online feedback insisted on the need for students to avoid making unwarranted 

interpretations, it may be concluded that the less significant decrease in the use of single-voiced 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

84 
 

statements presumably suggest that the individualized feedback may not have affected students’ 

abilities to develop an avoidance of making assertive interpretations. In addition, since the 

content of the online instruction, the individualized online feedback and online assessment 

rubrics focused on the linguistic resources that are employed to engage with alternative 

interpretations, the significant increase in the use of multi-voiced statements seems to suggest 

that the online instruction may have affected students’ ability to make appropriate literary 

analyses.   

In summary, the results paint the following picture of the impact of the online instruction on 

students’ ability to construe a register-appropriate critical stance in their literary analysis. First, 

the individualized online feedback may have affected students’ ability to avoid using features 

that are not valued in literary analyses, such as expressing personal feelings in the interpretation 

of literary work and making construed evaluative meanings forceful and compelling. Second, 

the content of the online instruction, the individualized online feedback, and the online 

assessment rubrics may not have impacted students’ ability to construe critical stance in their 

literary analysis, for example, the use of attitude sub-categories of judgement and appreciation 

to construe a register-appropriate critical stance. Third, the teaching and learning methods 

employed in the online instruction may have impacted students’ ability to engage with 

alternative interpretations. These results seem to suggest that the teaching and learning methods 

employed in the online instruction may have improved students’ formal writing style, but they 

may not have developed students’ ability to construe critical stance in their literary analyses. 

Two main factors may have contributed to these results. First, the online instruction did not 

include follow-up discussions. These follow-up discussions would have contributed to checking 

whether students had understood the content of the online course, the assessment rubric, and 

the individualized online feedback. In addition, the online instruction was detached from 

regular teaching of English literature. Embedding the online instruction into regular teaching 

of English literature would have helped students understand the ways in which a critical 

evaluation of the portrayal of characters and the techniques used by writers to articulate a 

particular theme is construed in literary analyses. Nevertheless, these results have far-reaching 

implications for the effectiveness of online instruction. This study shows that online instructions 

guided by the integration of a set of teaching and learning methods has an impact on students' 

writing style. It shows that self-regulated learning, individualized online feedback, and online 

assessment rubrics may affect students’ ability to develop a formal style of academic writing. 

Therefore, future studies may explore the effectiveness of online instruction in the discourse 

conventions of a particular discipline by integrating others methods, such as the use of follow-

up online discussions, the embedding of the online instruction into regular subject teaching, and 

peer feedback. They may also employ blended teaching and learning methods where offline 

classroom discussions are held and online feedback are given.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 Clément Ndoricimpa & Dilip P. Barad Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

85 
 

References 

Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced 

academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151-183. 

doi: 10.1177/0741088314527055 

Bruce, I. J. (2008). Cognitive genre structures in methods sections of research articles: a 

corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 39-55.               

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.12.001 

Bruce, I. (2010). Textual and discoursal resources used in the essay genre in sociology and 

English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 153-166. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.011. 

Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in university essays in English literature and 

sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13-25.                 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.005 

Coffin, C., Hewings, A., & North, S. (2012). Arguing as an academic purpose: The role of  

asynchronous conferencing in supporting argumentative dialogue in school and 

university. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 38-51. doi: 

10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.005. 

Crosthwaite, P., & Jiang, K. (2017). Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A  

longitudinal learner corpus study. System, 69, 92-107. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.06.010 

Evangeline, J. C. K., & Ganesh, K. (2016). A need analysis of technical writing skills of 

engineering students in India. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 26, p. 01090).  EDP 

Sciences. 

Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1988). The stases in scientific and literary argument. Written 

communication, 5(4), 427-443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088388005004002 

Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1991). The rhetoric of literary criticism. In C. Bazerman & J. 

Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies 

of writing in professional communities (pp. 77-96). Madison: University of Wisconsin 

Press. 

Hood, S. (2006). The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in academic writing. 

Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 37-49. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.001 

Hood, S. (2010). Appraising Research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave 

Macmillan 

Hood, S. (2012). Voice and stance as appraisal: Persuading and positioning in research writing 

across intellectual fields. In stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 51-68). 

London: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Humphrey, S. L., & Economou, D. (2015). Peeling the onion–A textual model of critical 

analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 37-50.  

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.01.004 

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. 

Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. DOI: 10.1177/1461445605050365 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.12.001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.06.010
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741088388005004002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.01.004


ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

86 
 

Hyland, K. (2013). ESP and Writing. In Paltridge, B. & Starfield, S. (Eds.). The handbook of  

English for Specific Purposes (pp. 95-114). Oxford: Blackwell.  

Lancaster, Z. (2012). Stance and Reader Positioning in Upper-Level Student Writing in 

Political Theory and Economics (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). The University of 

Michigan. 

Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the 

disciplines. Written Communication, 31(1), 27-57. DOI: 10.1177/0741088313515170 

Lancaster, Z. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and 

general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 16-30. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.006 

Lancaster, Z. (2016). Using corpus results to guide the discourse-based interview: A study of 

one student's awareness of stance in academic writing in philosophy. Journal of Writing 

Research, 8(1), 119-148. Doi: 10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.04. 

Lee, S. H. (2008). Attitude in undergraduate persuasive essays. Prospect: an Australian journal 

of TESOL, 23(3), 43-58. https://researchoutput.scu.edu.au. 

Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: 

Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004 

MacDonald, S. P. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. 

Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UP. 

Macken-Horarik, M. (1996). Construing the invisible: Specialized literary practices in junior 

secondary English. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sydney. 

Macken-Horarik, M. (2003). Appraisal and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text-The 

Hague Then Amsterdam Then Berlin, 23(2), 285-312. Retrieved from 

www.researchgate.net. 

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

York: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Miller, R. T., Mitchell, T. D., & Pessoa, S. (2017). Emergent argument: A functional approach 

to analysing student challenges with the argument genre. Journal of Second                 

Language Writing, 38(1), 42-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.013 

O’ Donnel, M. (2007). UAM Corpus Tool: Software for corpus annotation and exploration. 

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. 

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. 

Notre Dame, [Ind.]: University of Notre Dame Press. 

Rothery J. and Stenglin, M. (2000). Interpreting literature: The role of appraisal. In Researching 

Language in Schools and Communities: Functional Language perspectives, L. Unsworth 

(ed.), 222-224. London: Cassel. 

Vijayakumar, C. (2018). Achieving academic proficiency standards in higher education through 

corpus-based language teaching. Journal of English Language Teaching , 60(5), 3-

10. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004
http://www.researchgate.net/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.013


ACOJ-ISSN 1936-9859 Clément Ndoricimpa & Dilip P. Barad Vol. 12; No. 4; 2021 

87 
 

White, P. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of 

intersubjective stance. TEXT-THE HAGUE THEN AMSTERDAM THEN BERLIN-, 

23(2), 259-284. 

Wilder, L. (2002). “Get Comfortable With Uncertainty” A Study of the Conventional Values 

of Literary Analysis in an Undergraduate Literature Course. Written Communication, 

19(1), 175-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/074108830201900106 

Wilder, L. (2005). “The rhetoric of literary criticism” revisited: Mistaken critics, complex 

contexts, and social justice. Written Communication, 22(1), 76-119. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088304272751 

Wilder, L. (2006). " Into the Laboratories of the University": A Rhetorical Analysis of the First 

Publication of the Modern Language Association. Rhetoric Review, 25(2), 162-184. 

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327981rr2502_3.  

Wilder, L., & Wolfe, J. (2009). Sharing the tacit rhetorical knowledge of the literary scholar: 

The effects of making disciplinary conventions explicit in undergraduate writing about 

literature courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(2), 170-209. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27784356 

Wilder, L. (2012). Rhetorical Strategies and Genre Conventions in Literary Studies: Teaching 

and Writing in the Disciplines. Southern Illinois University: Southern Illinois University 

Press. 

Wingate, U., Andon, N., & Cogo, A. (2011). Embedding academic writing instruction into 

subject teaching: A case study. Active learning in higher education, 12(1), 69-81. DOI: 

10.1177/1469787410387814 

Wingate, U. (2012). Using Academic Literacies and genre-based models for academic writing 

instruction: A'literacy’journey. Journal of English for academic purposes, 11(1), 26-37. 

doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.006 

Wu, S. M. 2007). The use of engagement resources in high-and low-rated undergraduate 

geography essays. Journal of English for academic purposes, 6(3), 254-271. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.006 

Xie, J. (2016). Direct or indirect? Critical or uncritical? Evaluation in Chinese English-major 

MA thesis literature reviews. Journal of English for academic purposes, 23, 1-15. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.001 

 

Biodata 

Clément Ndoricimpa is a PhD research scholar in Applied Linguistics at M.K. Bhavnagar 

University, Gujarat state, India. His research fields include critical discourse analysis, academic 

writing, disciplinary writing, media discourse, and newspaper discourse. 

 

Prof. Dilip P. Barad is a teacher of English literature and language at postgraduate level at M.K 

Bhavnagar University, Gujarat state, India. He has an experience of 24 years teaching students 

belonging to various faculties like commerce, management, computer science, humanities, and 

social sciences. His areas of interest are CALL, innovative use of ICT in teaching English 

literature and literary theories.                    

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F074108830201900106
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088304272751
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327981rr2502_3
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.001

