Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadisc
- PDF / 899,276 Bytes
- 21 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 7 Downloads / 317 Views
Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse Hyung‑Jo Yoon1
© Springer Nature B.V. 2020
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 nativespeaker 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. Keywords Authorial voice · Corpus-based research · Difference across L1 groups · EFL writing · Interactional metadiscourse · Topic effect · Second language writing
Introduction Over the years, researchers have shown an increased interest in exploring student writers’ use of metadiscourse markers, with a focus on first language (L1) and proficiency effects (e.g., Aull, 2019; Bax, Nakatsuhara, & Waller, 2019; Ho & Li, 2018; Hong & Cao, 2014; Lee & Deakin, 2016). The concept of metadiscourse has been * Hyung‑Jo Yoon [email protected] 1
Department of Linguistics/TESL, California State University, Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff St., Northridge, CA 91330, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
H.-J. Yoon
defined and understood differently across scholars; in this study, metadiscourse is viewed as “linguistic resources used to organize a discourse or the writer’s stance towards either its content or the reader” (Hyland & Tse, 2004, p. 157). It particularly focuses on the interactional dimension of metadiscourse that allows writers to convey their ideas more effectively to their audience (Hyland, 2005). Previous second language (L2) studies on interactional metadiscourse have demonstrated that learner essays, when compared with those by native English-speaking (NS) counterparts, tend to be characterized by the misuse and underuse of metadiscourse features (e.g., Çandarlı, Bayyurt, & Martı, 2015; Hyland & Milton, 1997; Lee & Deakin, 2016). Other studies have also examined the use of interactional metadiscourse markers in relation to learners’ L1 background (e.g., Hong & Cao, 2014) and L2 proficiency (e.g., Bax et al., 2019), and their findings have commonly po
Data Loading...
