Key words
evaluative writing
attitudinal means



The article aims at understanding Vietnamese high school students’ capacity in writing English evaluative paragraphs about three given topics about the internet, the favorite movie and the teacher. Using 3- topic paragraph writing tests and a 15-item questionnaire given to 40 participants as instruments for data collection, the findings were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. The result showed that although the students did not prepare carefully for evaluative writing in terms of knowledge and practice, they could produce evaluative paragraphs using chiefly words and mental and behavioral sentences for affect, judgement and appreciation to the entities in three topics. Their suggestions to themselves and teachers, if being seriously concerned by teachers, surely help them overcome difficulties and improve their writing in the future, even when they enter the university.


  2. Bednarek, M. (2008) Emotion Talk Across Corpora. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  3. Butt, D. et al. (2012). Using functional grammar : an explorer's guide. 3rd ed. South Yarra, Vic. :
  4. Palgrave Macmillan.
  5. Coffin, C, and Hewings, A. (2004). ‘IELTS as preparation for tertiary writing: distinctive
  6. interpersonal and textual strategies’. In L. J. Ravelli and R. A. Ellis (eds.) Analyzing
  7. Academic Writing : Contextualised Frameworks (pp 153-171). London, Continuum,
  8. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional grammar
  9. (3rd ed.). London, UK: Arnold.
  10. Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to
  11. Functional Grammar (revised by Christian M.I.M.Matthiessen, Routledge, 4th edition,
  12. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London & New York.
  13. Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and Organization in a sample of written academic discourse.
  14. In Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis. London: Routledge.
  15. Hunston, S., Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the
  16. construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Hyland, K. (2005a). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse.
  18. Discourse Studies 7,173-192.
  19. Martin, J.R.& Rose, D. (2003) Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause, London:
  20. Continuum.
  21. Martin, JR, and White, PRR. (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London/
  22. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.
  23. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007a). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.)
  24. London, UK: Continuum.
  25. Ngo, Thu & Unsworth, Len (2015). Reworking the appraisal framework in ESL research:
  26. refining attitude resources, Functional Linguistics (2015) 2:1
  27. Reinking, J.A. & von der Osten, R. (2017). Strategies for Successful Writing. A Rhetoric and
  28. Reader. Concise 11th edition, Pearson Education, Inc.
  29. SAHRAGARD, Rahman; AHMADI, Masoume; ZADEH, Naser Sabourian. Using hedges in
  30. research articles of applied linguistics: Native and non-native patterns. Journal of
  31. Modern Languages, [S.l.], v. 26, n. 1, 2016, p. 95-121. ISSN 2462-1986.
  32. Taylor, G. Y. and Tingguan, C. (1991). ''Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in
  33. Contrastive Discourse Analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts''. Applied
  34. Linguistics, 12 (3). p.319-336.
  35. Volosinov, Valentin ([1929] 1973) Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, translated by
  36. Ladislav Matejka and Irwin Titunik, New York: Seminar Press.
  37. Xinghua, L. & Thompson, P. (2009). Attitude in Students’ Argumentative Writing: A
  38. Contrastive Perspective in Language Studies Working Papers, Vol.1, p.3-15. Editors: L.J.
  39. O'Brien and D.S. Giannoni.