Does online instruction in discourse conventions of literary analysis affect L2 students’ critical stance in academic writing? A longitudinal study

A longitudinal study


  • Clément Ndoricimpa M.K. Bhavnagar University
  • Dilip P. Barad M.K. Bhavnagar University


Critical stance, discourse conventions of literary criticism, evaluation, longitudinal corpus, online instruction


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.


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.

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.

Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in university essays in English literature and sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13-25.

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.

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.

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.

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. (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.

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.

Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays.

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

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.

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.

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.

Wilder, L. (2005). “The rhetoric of literary criticism” revisited: Mistaken critics, complex contexts, and social justice. Written Communication, 22(1), 76-119.

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.

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.

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.

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.




How to Cite

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: A longitudinal study. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 12(4), 66 - 87. Retrieved from