Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse
Do you wish to request the book?
Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse
2021
Overview
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.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
