A Contrastive Analysis of Persuasive Feedback in Written and Spoken Academic Evaluations

Abstract This study developed a persuasive taxonomy tailored to the contexts of written and spoken academic evaluative genres. A corpus of 64 review reports and a self-compiled corpus of 47 Ph.D. defense sessions were analyzed to see how differences in feedback modes (written vs. spoken) and conditions (blinded and asynchronous vs. unblinded and real-time) can yield genre-specific persuasive practices. The analysis identified seven persuasive strategies, including appeal to authority, appeal to disciplinary standards, logical reasoning, collaborative language, clear explanations, hedged language, and rhetorical questions. The findings highlighted both commonalities and variations in the use of these strategies, which are attributed to the rhetorical dynamics and feedback processes of each evaluative genre. These findings have pedagogical implications for eap practitioners and students by raising awareness of genre-specific persuasive linguistic choices in academic evaluation. Moreover, drawing novice researchers’ attention to these strategies can enhance feedback processes and, in turn, improve scholarly work.