Rhetorical Analysis of Engagement in Discussion Section of Doctoral Dissertations Written by Kurdish Native Speakers

Keywords: Discussion Section, Engagement, Kurdish native speakers, Martin and White’s appraisal theory


Academic writing is commonly regarded as a means to facilitate communication between authors and readers. As a result, scholars are expected not only to present information about the external world through their texts but also to employ language to acknowledge, construct, and foster social connections. Textual engagement requires significant linguistic and cognitive effort, regardless of the writers’ backgrounds. It involves complex knowledge, skills, and familiarity with social practices, which require explicit teaching and time. Even native English speakers find it challenging to acquire the necessary academic skills and social practices of the academic setting due to the discursive nature of higher education. This study aimed to explore the level of engagement in the discussion sections of applied doctoral dissertations written by Kurdish native speakers. To achieve this objective, the researcher analyzed eight randomly selected doctoral dissertations in applied linguistics authored by Kurdish native speakers, employing Martin and White’s (2005) framework. The study identified each dialogic engagement resource’s frequency of occurrence and functions, providing explanations and examples. The findings indicated that the writers being studied utilized different dialogic resources for engaging in conversation with their potential audience. Additionally, they preferred to employ resources that fostered expansive dialogue more often than those that limited it, possibly to reduce the chances of encountering rejection or opposition.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Keivan Seyyedi, Department of Translation, Cihan University-Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq

Keivan Seyyedi is currently a lecturer at the Translation Department of Cihan University-Erbil. He was an assistant professor at Azad University of Mahabad, Iran, where he served for 16 years. His research interests include Applied Linguistics, TESOL, Teaching Language Skills, Language Curriculum Development and implementation, and Discourse Analysis.


Fryer, D. L. (2013). Exploring the dialogism of academic discourse: Heteroglossic Engagement in medical research articles. In English Corpus Linguistics: Variation in Time, Space and Genre (pp. 183–207).

Geng, Y., & Wharton, S. (2016). Evaluative language in discussion sections of doctoral theses: Similarities and differences between L1 Chinese and L1 English writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 80-91.

Harwood, J., & Giles, H., (eds.). (2005). Intergroup Communication: Multiple Perspectives. 2nd ed. Switzerland: Peter Lang Publishing.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.

Loghmani, Z., Ghonsooly, B., & Ghazanfari, M. (2020). Engagement in doctoral dissertation discussion sections written by English native speakers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45, 100851.

Martin, A.J. (2004). School motivation of boys and girls: Differences of degree, differences of kind, or both? Australian Journal of Psychology, 56(3), 133-146.

Martin, A.J. (2012). The role of personal best (PB) goals in the achievement and behavioral engagement of students with ADHD and students without ADHD. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(2), 91-105.

Martin, J.R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. Equinox Publishing.

Martin, J.R., & White, P.R.R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan Publication.

Oancea, A., & Pring, R. (2008). The importance of being thorough: On systematic accumulations of ‘what works’ in education research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42, 15-39.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Daniel, L.G. (2005). Editorial: Evidence-based guidelines for publishing articles in research in the schools and beyond. Research in the Schools, 12(2), 1-11.

Seyyedi, K., & Amin, N.M.H. (2020). The effect of immediate and delayed error correction on accuracy development of intermediate EFL learners’ writing. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 3(2), 100-108.

Seyyedi, K., Rasouli, F., & Mohamedamin, A.A. (2023). Task-Based Language Teaching in EFL Context. In: The 3rd International Conference on Language and Education at Cihan University-Erbil.

Suleiman, H.H., & Seyyedi, K. (2020). Additive discourse markers in English journal articles written by Kurdish and English native speakers: A corpus-based study. SSRN Electronic Journal. 3(1), 56-68.

Thompson, P.M., Woods, R.P., Mega, M.S., & Toga, A.W. (2000). Mathematical/ computational challenges in creating deformable and probabilistic atlases of the human brain. Human Brain Mapping, 9(2), 81-92.

How to Cite
Seyyedi, K. (2024). Rhetorical Analysis of Engagement in Discussion Section of Doctoral Dissertations Written by Kurdish Native Speakers. Cihan University-Erbil Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 8(1), 72-76. https://doi.org/10.24086/cuejhss.v8n1y2024.pp72-76