Abstract
This study aims to shed some light on the role of evaluative language in the process of persuasion in the newly emerging genre of ‘online debate’. Drawing on the appraisal framework within Systemic Functional Linguistics, this study investigates the distributional patterns of appraisal choices and co-choices in a corpus of widely viewed online debate texts (ODTs). Based on the voting results of each ODT, textual parts of the corpus were segmented into two main categories: ‘more persuasive’ and ‘less persuasive’ debaters. Supported by two specially designed software tools, the ODT corpus was manually annotated for appraisal features, and frequencies of choices and co-choices were extracted automatically. In line with previous research, the findings of this study revealed significant appraisal patterns associated with the ODT debaters, in addition to unique co-patterns characteristic of the ‘more persuasive’ and ‘less persuasive’ debaters. These findings are discussed in terms of potential implications, limitations and directions for future research.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
