Constructive Criticism or Discouragement? A Linguistic Examination of Supervisory Feedback on Postgraduate Dissertation Drafts

Abstract

This study presents a linguistic examination of supervisors’ feedback comments on Master’s students’ dissertation drafts. The main objective is to analyse the linguistic features that characterise these comments and determine their impact. Fairclough’s (1989) Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) was used as a theoretical framework. A descriptive qualitative design was used. The study analysed 215 comments from five dissertations. Findings show that 37.78% of supervisory comments are interrogatives, commonly used to prompt reflection but potentially confusing if not properly contextualised. Imperatives constitute 27.22%, signalling directives that can feel authoritative and potentially diminish student agency. Personal pronouns appear in 22.78% of comments, highlighting varying degrees of relational positioning between supervisor and supervisee. Modal verbs (10%), judgemental adjectives (7.78%), and overly negative language (7.22%) reflect varied tones and intentions, ranging from guidance to personal attack. Additionally, instances of translanguaging (code-switching and code-mixing), make up 6.67% of the comments, adding cultural relevance but at times affecting clarity. The study argues that clear, respectful feedback supports student growth and urges supervisors to improve feedback literacy to advance metalinguistic awareness.