Abstract:
Academic writing is not impersonal and objective; it is interactive and evaluative. The present study examined the evaluative language in examiners’ reports on 100 MPhil theses purposively selected from four departments, namely English, History, Hospitality and Tourism Management, and Population and Health, by, specifically, investigating the types of evaluative comments, evaluated entities, and examiner roles. The present study focused on the Theory of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and key concepts like ‘Evaluation’ and ‘Feedback’ together with adopted analytical framework by Holbrook et al. (2004a) and Starfield et al. (2017). Applying qualitative content analysis to the data set in University of Cape Coast, the study revealed three major findings. First, examiners employed more negative evaluative comments than positive evaluative comments. The negative comments, however, were mitigated, using such strategies as praise and criticism pairs, hedging devices, and personal pronouns. Second, the thesis and the candidate were the major entities evaluated in the data and these were realized largely in Material and Relational processes. Finally, aside their core mandates as examiners and evaluators of what the candidate had done, examiners assumed six other different roles. The study adds to the usefulness of SFL and analytical framework in interpreting evaluative language in thesis examiners’ reports. The study, also, provides insights into the need for supervisors and students to situate their coaching and writing skills respectively to meet institutional and genre requirements.
