Projecting Gender Identity in Argumentative Written Discourse

Mehdi Nasri, Reza Biria, Mahzad Karimi

Abstract


Generally speaking, writers use various resources for introducing themselves to their readers. Among these, stance and engagement discourse markers are fundamental properties which manifest the underlying interaction process between writers and readers. The present paper sought to investigate whether male and female Iranian EFL learners performed differently in terms of using stance and engagement features in their writing assignments. To this end, a corpus comprising 80 argumentative essays written by advanced learners (40 males and 40 females) were collected and analyzed respectively. Hyland’s (2008) framework of stance and engagement features including hedges, boosters, attitude markers and self-mention as well as readers’ use of engagement markers such as pronouns, directives, questions, and shared knowledge served as a tertium comprationis for comparing and contrasting the written corpora created by male and female students.  For analyzing the data, a software named Hermetic Word Counter was utilized to determine the frequency of the targeted tokens. The findings revealed that male and female writers made a differential use of stance and engagement features in writing argumentative essays. The significance of the differences was further attested by the application of a chi-square statistical technique. Regarding stance-taking, it was found out that both groups followed the same patterns of stance-taking except for the use of hedges and boosters. Moreover, compared to male students, the female writers tried to create reader engagement by asking questions. 


Keywords


Argumentative Writing, Engagement, Gender differences, Meta-discourse markers, Stance

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alphen, I. (2004). How to do things with questions: international power and stance taking. Paper presented at Proceeding of Workshop on the syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Questions, European Summer School on Logic, Language, and Information, France.

Anderson, M. (2003). Text Types in English. South Yarra: Macmillan.

Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentially and Affect, Text 9(1): 93_124

Candlin and K. Hyland (EDs) Writing: Texts: Processes and Practices, pp. 99_121. London: Longman.

Chang, P., & Schleppegrell, M. (2011). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 140-151.

Coffin, C. (2002). The voice of history: Theorizing interpersonal semantics of historical discourses. Text, 22(4), 503-528.

Dousti, M., & Eslami Rasekh., ELT students' gender differences in the use of hedges in interpersonal interactions: A mixed method approach applied. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research 3 (1): 217-231.

Fahy, P. (2002). Use of linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers in computer conference. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 5-22.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary Discourses: Writer Stance in Research Articles. In C.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the Reader: Addressee Features in Academic Writing, Written Communication 18 (4): 549-74.

Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Power and Engagement in Academic Writing, Applied Linguistics 23(2): 215_39

Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal, Applied Linguistics 25(2): 156_77.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2009). Discipline and gender: Constructing rhetorical identity in book reviews. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (EDs.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp.87-104). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Hyland, K. (2008). Small bits of textual material: a discourse analysis of Swales' writing. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 143_160.

Hood, S. (2004). Appraising Research: Taking a stance in academic writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Technology, Sydney.

Hood, S. (2004). Appraising Research: Taking a stance in academic writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Technology, Sydney.

Ivanic, R. (1990). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kroll, B. (1998). Assessing writing abilities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 219-240.

Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines. Written Communication, 31(1). 27-57.

Mirzapour, F. and Mahand, M. (2016), “Hedges and boosters in native and non-native library and information and computer science research articles”, 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of Language Studies, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 119-128.

Mei, W.S. (2008). Investigating the effectiveness of arguments in undergraduate essays from an evaluation perspective. Prospect 23, 59-75.

Poos, D., & Simpson, R. (2002). Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging: Some findings from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. In R. Reppen, S. Fitzmauric & D.

Swain, E. (2009). Constructive and effective "voice" in academic discussion writing, in A. McCabe, M. O'Donnell, & R. Whittaker (EDs.), Advances in Language and Education (pp.166-184). New York & London: Continuum.

Swales, J.M. and B. Malcewski (1999). Discourse management and new episode flags in MICASE. In R.C. Simpson and J.M. Swales (eds.) Corpus Linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium. Ann Arbor, Ml: University of Michigan Press. 145-164.

Tannen, D. (1992). How Men and women use language differently in their lives and in the classroom. The Education Digest:3-6.

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader, Applied Linguistics 22(1): 58_78.

Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse

Winn, L. L. & Rubin, D. L. (2001). Enacting gender identity in written discourse. Journal of Language and Social identities. 20(4), 393-418.

Wu, S.M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high-and-low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes.6, 254-271.

Xu, J., & Long, M. (2008). Comparing stance in Chinese EFL learners' English and Chinese argumentative essays of a shared topic. Paper presented at the international Symposium on Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou.

Yazdani, P., & Ghafar Samar, R. (2010). Involved or Informative: A Gender Perspective on Using Pronouns and Specifiers in EFL Students' Writing. Modern Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(5), 354-378.

Yeganeh, M. T. and Ghoreyshi, S. M. “Exploring gender differences in the use of discourse markers in Iranian academic research articles.” Procedia - Social and Behavi

Yaeger-Dror, M. (1998). Factors influencing the contrast between men's and women' speech. Women and Language, 21(1), 40-45.

Webber, P. (1994). The function of questions in different medical journals genres. English for Specific Purposes, 13 (3), 257-268.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.3p.201

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.