<![CDATA[This study investigates how students use evaluative language in argumentative writing and how their linguistic choices represent particular ideological positions. The study applies the Appraisal framework within Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), which consists of three main systems: Attitude, Graduation, and Engagement. A mixed-methods research design was employed by combining the analysis of argumentative texts with questionnaire responses from participants in the 2024 Argumentative Writing Contest. Of the 21 submitted essays, four texts were selected for in-depth analysis based the quality of the arguments, the variety evaluative linguistic features, and the representation of different geographical regions. The argumentative essays were analyzed using the Appraisal framework, while questionnaire data were analyzed through data condensation, data display, and verification. To strengthen the credibility of the findings, triangulation and member checking were also applied. In the Graduation system, Force occurred more frequently, particularly through intensification, indicating that students often increased the strength their evaluations make their arguments more emphatic and persuasive. The findings further reveal regional differences in the construction of ideological positions. Students from Bekasi and Bengkulu generally expressed more optimistic perspectives on English language learning, whereas students from West Kotawaringin and Yogyakarta tended present more critical perspectives. Overall, the study demonstrates that students’ evaluative choices are influenced not only by linguistic competence but also by their educational and sociocultural backgrounds. Therefore, English writing instruction should develop students’ awareness and effective use of evaluative language, particularly Graduation and Engagement resources, while encouraging them to recognize and respond to diverse viewpoints in argumentative writing.]]>
