1 Introduction

Discussed the importance of the author's subjective emotional involvement and interpersonal interaction function in academic writing. It is pointed out that effectively utilizing interpersonal language resources, introducing the author's voice, interacting with other viewpoints, and establishing recognition with the academic community are key to conveying positions and viewpoints. The evaluation system emphasizes the interpersonal function of language and the negotiability of discourse, and negation, as an important component of the intervention subsystem, plays an important interpersonal role in academic discourse. The combination of negative evaluations achieves a balance between expressing criticism and tone control by synergistically mobilizing negative and other evaluation resources, enhancing the interactivity and acceptability of discourse. For doctoral students, mastering the structured application of negative evaluation combinations is an important way to construct academic positions and enhance strategic expression abilities. Existing research has mostly focused on interdisciplinary comparisons, with insufficient systematic exploration of the use of negative evaluation strategies by writers of different levels. This study is based on the evaluation system theory framework, comparing and analyzing the characteristics of the use of negative evaluation combinations in academic writing between Chinese applied linguistics doctoral students and international journal authors. The aim is to reveal the key links in the development of academic discourse ability and provide strategic guidance for doctoral writers.

2 Literature Review

In academic writing, the use of language resources is crucial for establishing reader interaction. Systemic functional linguistics and evaluative theory analyze the interpersonal function of language from different perspectives. Evaluation strategies are particularly important in academic discourse, but there is insufficient research on the combination of evaluation strategies used by writers of different academic levels. The negation strategy plays a unique role in expressing opposition, rejection, or disagreement, and has a critical impact on discourse organization. Existing research has mostly focused on the pragmatic function of negative expression, with limited attention paid to the synergistic use of negation with other evaluation strategies. There are differences in the use of negative evaluation strategies among writers in different disciplinary fields, but there is insufficient comparative analysis between new handwritten authors and expert scholars. This study focuses on the co-occurrence patterns of intra sentence evaluation strategies in Chinese applied linguistics doctoral dissertations and international journal articles. It explores the similarities and differences in the use of negative strategies among writers of different levels, with a particular emphasis on the frequency, formal types, and discourse functions of negative strategies. At the same time, it pays attention to the synergistic use of negative and other evaluation strategies to reveal the expression characteristics of interpersonal positions in academic writing of Chinese applied linguistics doctoral students.

3 Corpus and Research Design

Introduced the source of the research corpus and the research design. The study selected four international journals and doctoral dissertations from China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) as the corpus, and constructed the expert scholar academic paper corpus ESC and the Chinese applied linguistics doctoral dissertation corpus CDC. The analysis is limited to the main body of the paper, and standardized frequency comparison is used to select the complete text to ensure discourse coherence. The study used Lam et al.'s revised evaluation system and Sun et al.'s constructed negative marker vocabulary to annotate negative strategies using the UAM Corpus Tool. By comparing the differences in the use of negation strategies between doctoral students and expert scholars through the log Likelihood ratio test, the aim is to reveal the phased characteristics of doctoral students' academic rhetorical abilities and propose writing optimization strategies.

4 Results and Discussion

In a comparative study of negative evaluation combinations in academic writing between Chinese applied linguistics doctoral students and expert scholars, the results showed that the standardized frequency of negative markers in doctoral student corpora was significantly lower than that in expert scholar corpora. The most common negative word 'not' is also significantly less frequently used among doctoral students than among expert groups. In the form of negation abbreviation, doctoral students use "hasn't" significantly more frequently than experts and scholars, while the frequency of using "couldn't" is significantly lower than that of experts and scholars. The most frequently used negative word by both groups of writers is' not ', which is consistent with Biber et al.'s research, indicating that' not 'has greater pragmatic potential in constructing dialogue spaces. The high-frequency use of negation in academic discourse may be closely related to its function in interpersonal interaction, with experts and scholars using it significantly more frequently than doctoral students, reflecting their tendency to establish interactive relationships with readers through negation resources.

5 Conclusion

This chapter summarizes the differences in negative evaluation strategies between doctoral students and experts in academic writing, pointing out that doctoral students use negative words less frequently, in a single form, and have conservative pragmatic strategies, while expert authors are more mature in using negative strategies. It is recommended that doctoral students enhance the flexibility and reader acceptability of negative evaluation strategies in academic writing, including: 1) at the language level, improving the synergy and completeness of expression, constructing a dual fuzzy restriction structure, and achieving fine adjustment of tone intensity; 2) At the level of discourse organization, enhance the awareness of negotiation, adopt the expression framework of "partial affirmation+conditional criticism", and enhance the openness of the text and the constructive nature of academic dialogue.