Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/98157
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of English and Communicationen_US
dc.creatorHo, Ven_US
dc.date.accessioned2023-04-12T08:28:20Z-
dc.date.available2023-04-12T08:28:20Z-
dc.identifier.issn0929-998Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/98157-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherJohn Benjaminsen_US
dc.rights© John Benjamins Publishing Companyen_US
dc.rightsThis is the accepted version of the publication Ho, V. (2016). Evaluative prosodies in academic quality audit reports: An exploratory study. Functions of Language, 23(3), 336-360. The Version of Record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.23.3.03ho.en_US
dc.titleEvaluative prosodies in academic quality audit reports : an exploratory studyen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.spage336en_US
dc.identifier.epage360en_US
dc.identifier.volume23en_US
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1075/fol.23.3.03hoen_US
dcterms.abstractThis paper analyzes the discourse of academic quality audit reports by drawing upon Appraisal Theory (Martin & White 2005). It focuses on the evaluative prosodies in the discourse leading up to the three main components of the reports, namely commendations, affirmations, and recommendations. These reports are prepared by the audit panels formed by the Quality Assurance Council of the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong upon the completion of academic quality audit visits to each of the city's eight publicly-funded tertiary institutions. This paper argues that such evaluative prosodies, or the pattern of use of evaluative language, are strategically employed by the audit panels in an attempt to strike a balance between three needs: (1) to discharge their quality assurance responsibilities with their power vested by the Hong Kong Government through the University Grants Committee; (2) to maintain and/or reinforce a credible ethos for the panels themselves; and (3) to attend to the face wants of the institutions and the stakeholders concerned.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationFunctions of language, Jan. 2016, v. 23, no. 3, p. 336-360en_US
dcterms.isPartOfFunctions of languageen_US
dcterms.issued2016-01-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85011928575-
dc.description.validate202304 bcwwen_US
dc.description.oaAccepted Manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumberENGL-0222-
dc.description.fundingSourceOthersen_US
dc.description.fundingTextFaculty of Humanities of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Project No. 1-ZVBE)en_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
dc.identifier.OPUS6721228-
dc.description.oaCategoryGreen (AAM)en_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Ho_Evaluative_Prosodies_Academic.pdfPre-Published version488.53 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Final Accepted Manuscript
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Page views

40
Citations as of Apr 14, 2025

Downloads

43
Citations as of Apr 14, 2025

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

2
Citations as of Dec 19, 2025

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

2
Citations as of Oct 10, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.