WRITING TO ‘NEGOTIATE’ VERSUS FOR WRITING TO ‘REPORT’.

WRITING TO ‘NEGOTIATE’ VERSUS FOR WRITING TO ‘REPORT’
Widhiyanto
Semarang State University
(DIKTI Scholarship grantee at University of Wollongong)

Abstract: This paper compares the linguistic features found in undergraduate theses written by students coming
from different linguistic backgrounds and contexts, a native-English (Honours) and an Indonesian student. It
reports a part of a study investigating ways students construct and negotiate interpersonal meanings to establish
and maintain interpersonally oriented argumentation throughout the various stages in their theses. The study is
underpinned by theories of APPRAISAL and of genre pedagogy of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL).
However, this paper merely explains the ways students employ linguistic choices to establish discipline-related
meanings, engage with others and assume authority. The data involve resources in the level of discourse
semantic and are analyzed through ATTITUDE, ENGAGEMENT and GRADUATION systems. The Honours
student tends to employ the resources in developed ways. Complex negotiations with external sources overlay
her text in “bringing in”, evaluating, and integrating them in developing her arguments. In contrast, the
Indonesian student seems to pay little attention to the resources and merely report what she did in her research.
External sources tend simply to support her argument without evaluating them critically. Accordingly,
Indonesian students need to be explicitly exposed to and taught the ways to engage with external sources and
deploy them appropriately.

Introduction

This paper forms a part of a larger research project. The project itself aims to understand how students
coming from different linguistic backgrounds and contexts diversely establish and maintain interpersonally
oriented argumentation throughout the various stages of their thesis. It denotes a more pedagogical motivation as
it has been based on a concern that students in the Indonesian EFL (English as a Foreign Language) context
experience difficulties in bringing in and negotiating with others in their academic texts. The project is generally
divided into two parts: seeing writing as negotiation--the application of the interpersonal language for
negotiating meanings and as stage goal-oriented argumentation—adoption of the academic genre. The data were
taken from two theses written by an Honours student from an Australian university and a high-graded student
from an Indonesian university (English department). These texts were analyzed to see how they differ in
developing argumentation throughout the stages of the theses genre. The analysis has been shaped by the theory
of APPRAISAL (Martin, 2000; Martin & White, 2005; White, 2003) and of genre-pedagogy (Martin, 1992,
2009; Martin & Rose, 2007; Rose, 2006).
However, this paper discusses merely a half of the project. It compares the use of interpersonal
language in negotiating stance towards the material they write, the readers whom they communicate, and other
writers who hold those positions (Martin & White, 2005; White, 2003) throughout the texts. It aims particularly
at explaining how the two students differ in making use of the resources to establish discipline-related meanings,
engage with others and assume authority. It deals with how students as prospective members of an academic
community negotiate meanings to generate new knowledge. This means that they begin to join a new discourse
community—a group of people observing and sharing certain conventions and expectations, and negotiating
meanings within these conventions and expectations to pursue the same goals (Borg, 2003; Lee, 2006; Swales,

1990). Here, each student has to take on new roles and to engage with knowledge in new ways (Hood, 2004,
2010; Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002). This negotiation—the 'dialogue’, requires students to observe the norms of
the community. So, in the context of the current study, writing theses is essentially responding to what others
have previously written (Martin & White, 2005; White, 1998), within certain academic norms and expectations.
However, in the context of novice writers, the case often becomes a real problem, as they sometimes do not
observe the contextually specific requirements the academic community has established (Lee, 2006). In the
Indonesian context, the problem becomes even worse. Entering higher education often means adopting and
adapting a new way of learning. Writing subject has even become nightmare, for both students and tutors. These
indicate how demanding English academic writing for non-native speaker of English are.
Academic writing: reporting or (and) negotiating
There has been a change in the view of academic writing. It was often portrayed as a compilation of
clauses and clause-complexes, which are usually impersonal. They represented none but the truth and/or facts
found in research. Student writers were commonly trained to detach themselves from what they wrote. Many
academic references suggested students to write academically unbiased, informational and impersonal (Hyland,
1994). However, during the last three decades or so, there have been general considerations on how academic
st

The 61 TEFLIN International Conference, UNS Solo 2014

391

writing has been portrayed as embodying negotiation between the writer and the readers (e.g. Hyland, 2004a,
2004b, 2005; Martin & White, 2005; Thompson, 2001; White, 2003). Writing is considered as social
engagement, that is, the interaction between the writer and the reader and the writer and other sources (e.g.
Hyland, 2004b, 2005; Thompson, 2001). The interaction in the academic text can draw on interactive recourses
(guiding the readers through the text) and interactional resources (involving readers in the development of the
texts) (Thompson, 2001). Drawing on Volosinov's(1973, p. 95) dialogic perspective, White (2003) offers a
framework for analysing the linguistic resources of intersubjective positioning. He suggests that all the resources
"provide the means for speakers/writers to take a stance towards the various points-of-view or social positioning
being referenced by the text and thereby to position themselves withrespect to the other social subjects who hold
those positions" (2003, p. 259). In the Indonesian context, there has been a problem. Research has shown that
Indonesian students, even in postgraduate degrees, have been confronted with difficulties in becoming academic
researchers and in presenting their research in an acceptable academic discourse (e.g. Cahyono, 2000; Holliday,
2001). Student writers often face problems such as take on new roles and to engage with knowledge in new
ways, constructing texts which constitute unfamiliar and unlearnt language (Hood, 2004). However, the
Indonesian 2004 genre-based pedagogy has attempted to cope with such problems. Since then, schools and
universities have attempted to adopt Australian Genre-based pedagogy. Students are trained to write following
the stages and purpose of each text and engage with the readers and other texts. Emilia (2005) claims that genrebased pedagogy has enhanced the written academic discourse practices especially in students’ performance in
their argumentative skills.
Negotiation meanings: APPRAISAL System

APPRAISAL theory deals with the roles of interpersonal language in texts. It lies under SFL that view
language as resource for meaning making. It provides a comprehensive account of the linguistic resources in
which writer may use to take intersubjective stance (Martin, 2000; Martin & Rose, 2007; Martin & White, 2005;
White, 1998, 2003). It details the SFL discussions on interpersonal meaning by breaking it down into three
elements that comprise the linguistic realizations of feelings, emotions and opinions (ATTITUDE), the
amplification or toning down subjective values (GRADUATION), and the resources to engage with others by
taking intersubjective positioning (ENGAGEMENT) (Martin, 2000; Martin & Rose, 2007; Martin & White,
2005; White, 1998). This theory has been outlined in a number of studies in academic texts [see for example,
Hood (2004, 2006), Lee (2006)] and mass media [e.g. White (1998, 2003, 2006)]. Moreover, as in SFL, it
considers texts as units of analysis and suggests the analysis of the texts should remain in the discourse
semanticlevel. (For further reading see Martin, 2000, 2003; Martin & Rose, 2007; Martin & White, 2005)
Negotiation in Honours thesis
The honours thesis depicts a well-developed negotiation between the writer and others. Prudently
employing interpersonal linguistic resources she introduces and warrants the research, seeks and develops the
space of the research (Kwan, 2006), explicats the methodology, analyzes the data and presents the findings. In
introducing the research, she directs readers to the focus of the study and frames their expectations towards what
and how to read the research. Most clauses are bare assertion—positive declarative in the mood: monoglossic.
The clauses used indicate that she has to say so in the very beginning of the stage as there might be no prior
context for what to say (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 58). Multiple types of engagement with others, which
carefully negotiate stance and voices, have started to play since this early stage. She seems to smoothly drive

others to follow her argument. To warrant her research, she then positions the research among the crowd. She
employs various types of clauses as she engages in various contexts throughout the discussions. She begins by
declaring her claim how controversial the field of the study is, and develops her argument by illustrating how the
dispute has intensified. Then she positions her own stand among other voices. Negative values, which are
directly collided against the positive ones, seem to dominate the discussion. Having got the space, she then
explains the details of her research. Finally, she identifies and admits some limitations, but offers solutions to
each of them.
To seek and develop the space for the research, the writer develops arguments to warrant the research.
The stage is for the writer to displays her awareness and familiarity to the field and the norms of discourse
community. She reviews the literature to identify what has been done in the research and what the strengths and
weaknesses of those studies are; to prevent duplication of research; to avoid a fault of the previous research; to
promote her own research and research design, and to locate a gap from the previous research and help them
occupy the gap (Hart, 1998, 2001). Multiple monoglossic and heteroglossic clauses are in play in this stage. The
writer seems to limit her use of ATTITUDE and GRADUATION but of more ENGAGEMENT resources. She
tends, in many cases, to use more dialogic expansion clauses than contraction, with finally states her own stance.
Attributive clauses which play to acknowledge other positions spread across the stage. Countering as dialogic
contraction also frequently used to balance the argument. She often displays all the voices and then states her

392

st

The 61 TEFLIN International Conference, UNS Solo 2014

own by smoothly countering them. She tends not to show her alignment obviously but portraying it with her
logical aligning arguments.
To explicate the methodology, she presents her arguments supported by acknowledging others.
Monoglosic clauses tend to lead the stage as it deals with what she did in her research. These clauses are
supported either with data or others’ voices. The stage seems to be more one way negotiation in which she
explains what, why, where, how and when she did the research.
Complex negotiations cover the analysis of the data and the findings. In this last stage, the writer
recounts what has previously discussed, justifies the presentation, summarizes the findings, analyzes the data,
and discusses them all. For all of these, dialogic expansive and contractive clauses are in play throughout the
stage. The ATTITUDE and GRADUATION are also in action. Finally in general, this text has portrayed
efficient negotiations between the writer and the readers and the writer and the sources: other positions and
voices.
Negotiation in Indonesian thesis
The Indonesian thesis portrays a relatively poor negotiation between the writer and the readers, and the
writer and the sources. As in the findings of my previous study (Widhiyanto, 2012), this student inadequately
employs interpersonal linguistic resources in negotiating meanings. She seems to try to meet the stages of the

thesis genre; yet what she writes is more structural than functional features of it. In general, she employed more
monoglossic clauses in which some of them are inappropriately used and limited types of heteroglossic ones. She
seems to be so confident with her argument, or, she perhaps unknowingly assumes others to know well her
research.
In introducing her research, she seems to talk to herself and/or the readers who really understand her
study. As found in the Honours thesis, most clauses are bare assertion—positive declarative in mood:
monoglossic. Yet, the heteroglossic clauses, mostly dialogic contracting, are used to support her argument. The
clauses used indicate that she might be confidence with her argument, or does not let negotiation to happen.
They might also indicate that she unknowingly does not recognize the importance of acknowledging others in
academic community. This often happens with inexperienced student writers (Derewianka, 2007).
The review of related literature remains similar to the previous stage. The writer applies the same
strategy by relying more on monoglosic clauses and employing limited negotiation with others. The
heteroglossic clauses used are mostly to support her argument, without evaluating other positions critically.
There is no clear argument about what she tries to depict in the review. She often portrays her position counting
on well developed theories. Her voice is influenced by others without necessarily entering into a critical dialogue
with them.
The writer explains the methodology in similar way to the previous stages. Monoglossic clauses spread
throughout the stage as it plays to recount and warrant her methods. She similarly presents her arguments
supported merely by others positions. It seems to be relatively similar to the way honours does: one way
negotiation, in which she explains her own research.

Relatively more developed negotiations complete the analysis of the data and the findings. As in
honours, the writer recounts what has previously discussed, justifies the presentation, summarizes the findings,
analyzes the data, and discusses them all. However, critical analysis and evaluation are not easily found in this
stage. The majority of clauses are still monoglossic, with some heteroglossic ones that play more to narrow the
space by excluding other dialogic alternatives with others. In general, this text has portrayed insufficient
negotiations between the writer and the readers and the writer and the sources: other positions and voices
Conclusion
The results show that the native-English student writer tends to mutually engage with readers
throughout her writing in particular ways. The complex negotiation with external academic sources includes
“bringing them in”, tactically evaluating them, and thoughtfully integrating them in the argument as it develops.
In contrast, the Indonesian student writer tends to report what she has done in her research and pay little attention
to the readers’ presence and other voices. She employs external sources to merely support her argument without
critically evaluating them. Pedagogically, these suggest that Indonesian student writers need to be explicitly
exposed to and taught the ways to engage with outside sources as well as the readers and deploy linguistic
resources appropriately and efficiently.
References
Borg, E. (2003). Discourse community. ELT Journal, 57(4), 398-400. doi: 10.1093/elt/57.4.398
Cahyono, B. Y. (2000). The Overall Proficiency in English Composition of Indonesian University Students of
EFL. TEFLIN Journal, 11(1).

st

The 61 TEFLIN International Conference, UNS Solo 2014

393

Derewianka, B. (2007). Using appraisal theory to track interpersonal development in adolescent academic
writing. In A. McCabe, M. O’Donnell & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in Language and Education
(pp. 142–165.). London and New York: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar Third Edition
(Third ed.): Hodder Arnold.
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE.
Hart, C. (2001). Doing a literature search: a comprehensive guide for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, Calif:
Sage.
Holliday, L. (2001). Thesis and Research Writing In English By Indonesian Higher Degree Students. TEFLIN
Journal, 12(1).
Hood, S. (2004). Appraising Research: Taking a stance in academic writing. (Doctor of Philosophy), University
of Technology, Sydney, Sydney. Retrieved from http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/hoodS-phdlinks.htm
Hood, S. (2006). The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English
for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 37-49.

Hood, S. (2010). Appraising Research: Evaluation in Academic Writing (fIRST ed.). Hampshire: PALGRAVE
MACMILLAN.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239256. doi: 10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3
Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing (Michigan Clasic Edition
ed.). Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2004b). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies,
7(2), 173-192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
1(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1016/s1475-1585(02)00002-4
Kwan, B. S. C. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics.
English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 30-55.
Lee, S. H. (2006). The use of interpersonal resources in argumentative/persuasive essays by East-Asian ESL and
Australian tertiary students. (Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Online), University of Sydney, Sydney.
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1285
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: system and structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL System in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.),
Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Martin, J. R. (2003). Introduction. Text, 23(2), 171.
Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education,
20(1). doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: meaning beyond the clause. New York: Continuum.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Rose, D. (2006). Reading genre: a new wave of analysis. Linguistics & the Human Sciences, 2(2), 185-204. doi:
10.1558/lhs.v2i2.185
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics,
22(1), 58-78. doi: 10.1093/applin/22.1.58
Volosinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and The Philosophy of Language (L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). New
York: Seminar Press.
White, P. R. R. (1998). Telling Media Tales: the news story as rhetoric. (Doctor of Philosophy), University of
Sydney, Sydney. Retrieved from http://grammatics.com/appraisal/whiteprr_phd.html
White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging:A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance.
Text, 23(2), 259.
White, P. R. R. (2006). Evaluative Semantics and Ideological Positioning in Journalistic Discourse. In I. e.
Lassen (Ed.), Image and Ideology in the Mass Media (pp. 45- 73 ). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Widhiyanto. (2012). Engaging with others by establishing academic stance inn the context of English as a
Foreign Language. Paper presented at the The 39th International Systemic Functional Congress,
Sydney.

394

st

The 61 TEFLIN International Conference, UNS Solo 2014

Biodata
Widhiyanto is a lecturer at Semarang State University. He is currently studying at the Faculty of Social Science
University of Wollongong for his doctoral degree under DGHE (DIKTI) Scholarship. He has presented his paper
in TEFLIN, ASFLI, ISFC39, ASFLA, and other conferences. His research interests include SFL, discourse
analysis and academic writing.

st

The 61 TEFLIN International Conference, UNS Solo 2014

395