Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined how students of English as a foreign language (EFL) with different first language (L1) backgrounds use interactional metadiscourse markers in argumentative writing. Specifically, to explore unique patterns of metadiscourse features that reflect context and development, the essays written by Chinese, Japanese, and Korean EFL students at three proficiency levels were analyzed for topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency. For a comprehensive analysis of 1986 essays, I used a natural language processing tool that generates quantity scores for Hyland’s (2005) metadiscourse categories (i.e., hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions, reader pronouns, and directives). The results showed notable differences in the students’ use of metadiscourse features across topics, and significant variation was also found across different L1 groups. However, their use of interactional metadiscourse did not differ by L2 proficiency. A post hoc analysis of a parallel native-speaker corpus further revealed EFL students’ underuse of hedges and overuse of reader pronouns. Findings are discussed in terms of academic writing instruction, writing prompt development, and L2 learner categorization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Cohen’s d values indicate effect sizes for the comparison between two means. Cohen (1988) set d values of .2, .5, and .8 as benchmarks for small, medium, and large effects.

References

  • Abbuhl, R. (2006). Hedging and boosting in advanced-level L2 legal writing: The effect of instruction and feedback. In H. Byrnes, H. Weger-Guntharp, & K. A. Sprang (Eds.), Educating for advanced foreign language capacities: Constructs, curriculum, instruction, assessment (pp. 152–164). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aull, L. (2019). Linguistic markers of stance and genre in upper-level student writing. Written Communication, 36, 267–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31, 151–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F., & Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System, 83, 79–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 231–274). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çandarlı, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Martı, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 192–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 149–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, Y. L., & Low, T. H. (2019). Pre-university students’ voice construction in argumentative essays. RELC Journal, 50, 269–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Does writing development equal writing quality? A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 66–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J., & Navarro, N. (2011). Lessons for WAC/WID from language learning research: Multicompetence, register acquisition, and the college writing student. Across the Disciplines, 8, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Thai. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in Writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 89–109). Alexandria: Teachers to Speakers of Other Languages.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinkel, E. (2003). Adverbial markers and tone in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1049–1068.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinkel, E. (2009). The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 667–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 13, 9–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, H., & Cao, F. (2014). Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing: A corpus-based study. Interactional Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19, 201–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, M., & Liu, B. (2004). Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 168–177).

  • Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Mercer, C. D. (2005). Writing prompts: The role of various priming conditions on the compositional fluency of developing writers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 473–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research, 60, 237–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18, 549–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2002a). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23, 215–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2002b). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 183–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of International Education (IIE). (2019). Open doors 2019 fast facts. Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Fact-Sheets-and-Infographics/Fast-Facts.

  • Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 253–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishikawa, S. (2013). The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. In S. Ishikawa (Ed.), Learner corpus studies in Asia and the world (pp. 91–118). Kobe: Kobe University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50, 245–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, D., & Manning, C. D. (2003). Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 423–430).

  • Korbin, J. L., Deng, H., & Shaw, E. J. (2011). The association between SAT prompt characteristics, response features, and essay scores. Assessing Writing, 16, 154–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46, 39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: International metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, T., & Warton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 345–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, S. (1993). Discourse modality: Subjectivity, emotion and voice in the Japanese language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammad, S., & Turney, P. (2013). Crowdsourcing a word-emotion association lexicon. Computational Intelligence, 29, 436–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paek, H. (2005). Understanding celebrity endorsers in cross-cultural contexts: A content analysis of South Korean and US newspaper advertising. Asian Journal of Communication, 15, 133–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38, 444–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, J. (1990). Responding to different topic types: A quantitative analysis from a contrastive rhetoric perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 191–210). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Römer, U. (2009). English in academia: Does nativeness matter? Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 20, 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, F. (1989). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as key to learning English composition. College Composition and Communication, 40, 456–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. H. (2017). Teaching English in East Asia: A teacher’s guide to Chinese, Japanese, and Korean learners. Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, C. R. (2011). Argumentation across the curriculum. Written Communication, 28, 193–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, W., & Kim, Y. (2020). The effect of topic familiarity on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of second language writing. Applied Linguistics Review, 11, 79–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, W., Lu, X., & Weigle, S. C. (2015). Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 53–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, H. (2017a). Textual voice elements and voice strength in EFL argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 32, 72–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, H. (2017b). Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited: Issues of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality. System, 66, 130–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, H., & Römer, U. (2020). Quantifying disciplinary voices: An automated approach to interactional metadiscourse in successful student writing. Written Communication, 37, 208–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, C. G. (2017). Voice in timed L2 argumentative essay writing. Assessing Writing, 31, 73–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, A. A., Busch, M., & Cumming, A. (2014). Do adult ESL learners’ and their teachers’ goals for improving grammar in writing correspond? Language Awareness, 23, 234–254.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics/TESL, California State University, Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff St., Northridge, CA, 91330, USA

    Hyung-Jo Yoon

Authors
  1. Hyung-Jo Yoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hyung-Jo Yoon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yoon, HJ. Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse. Read Writ 34, 705–725 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10085-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10085-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation