What Do They Mean? Comparing International and U.S. Resident Second Language Students’ Use of Sociopragmatic Markers in Writing
Issue: Vol 7 No. 1 (2015)
Journal: Writing & Pedagogy
Subject Areas: Writing and Composition Linguistics
Abstract:
Writing scholars often note the heterogeneity of the second language (L2) student population in higher education writing courses, but only recently have researchers begun to carefully examine differences in the writing ability of international L2 learners and U.S. resident L2 learners. Most of the empirical research to date focuses on the two groups’ grammatical accuracy to the exclusion of other dimensions of writing ability. Such a limited focus not only underrepresents the multifaceted construct of writing ability, but also overlooks potential areas where noticeable differences across the two groups’ writing ability might surface. Although arguably less salient than grammatical (in)accuracy, and not as prevalent in scoring rubrics, students’ use of sociopragmatic features in writing offers an alternative approach for comparing the two groups of learners beyond their use of grammatical forms. Thus, the current study describes and compares how international and U.S. resident L2 learners used certain sociopragmatic markers in their writing. By focusing on the meanings associated with these markers, the study suggests that students’ use of such markers reflects their sociopragmatic awareness. Findings indicate that the two groups of writers may be more similar than different, contrary to previous research.
Author: Kristen di Gennaro
References :
Allison, D. (1995) Assertions and alternatives: Helping ESL undergraduates extend their choices in academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 4(1): 1—15. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/1060374395900209.
Aull, L.L., and Lancaster, Z. (2014) Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication 31(2): 151—183. http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/31/2/151.
Baratta, A. M. (2009) Revealing stance through passive voice. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1406–1421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.010.
Barton, E. L. (1993) Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English 55(7): 745–769. http://www.jstor.org/stable/378428.
Bawarshi, A. (2006) Sites of invention: Genre and the enactment of first-year writing. In P. Vandenberg, S. Hum, and J. Clary-Lemon (eds.). Relations, Locations, Positions: Composition Theory for Writing Teachers 103–137. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Bitchener, J., and Knoch, U. (2008) The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431. http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/12/3/409.refs.
Camp, H. (2012) The psychology of writing development – And its implications for assessment. Assessing Writing, 17(2), 92–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2012.01.002.
Costino, K. A. and Hyon, S. (2007) A class for students like me: Reconsidering relationships among identity labels, residency status, and students’ perceptions for mainstream or multilingual composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 63-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.001.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., and Steffensen, M. S. (1993) Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71. http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/10/1/39.
Devitt, A. (2004) Writing genres. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.
Doolan, S. M. (2013) Generation 1.5 writing compared to L1 and L2 writing in first-year composition. Written Communication, 30(2), 135–163. http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/2.toc.
Ferris, D. R. (2009) Teaching college writing to diverse student populations. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Fox, J. (2005) Rethinking second language admission requirements: Problems with language-residency criteria and the need for language assessment and support. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2, 85-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15434311laq0202_1.
Gere, A. R., Aull, L., Escudera, M. D. P., Lancaster, Z., and Vander Lei, E. (2013) Local assessment: Using genre analysis to validate directed self-placement. CCC, 64(4), 605-633.
Hagge, J., and Kostelnick, C. (1989) Linguistic politeness in professional prose: A discourse analysis of auditors’ suggestion letters, with implications for business communication pedagogy. Written Communication 6: 312--339. http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/6/3/312.
Harklau, L., Losey, K., and Siegal, M. (1999) Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harris, M., and Silva, T. (1993) Tutoring ESL students: Issues and options. College Composition and Communication, 44(4), 525—537. http://www.jstor.org/stable/358388.
Holmes, J. (1984) Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8: 345--365. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378216684900286.
Holmes, J. (1990) Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language and Communication, 10(3), 185–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S.
Holten, C. (2009) Creating an inter-departmental course for generation 1.5 ESL writers: Challenges faced and lessons learned. In M. Roberge, M. Siegal, and L. Harklau (eds.). Generation 1.5 in College Composition: Teaching Academic Writing to U.S.-Educated Learners of ESL 170–184. New York: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2001) Humble servants of the discipline? Self mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889490600000120.
Hyland, K. (2002) Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239. http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/2/215.
Hyland, K. (2004) Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001.
Hyland, K. (2005) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–192. http://dis.sagepub.com/content/7/2/173.
Hyland, K., and Milton, J. (1997) Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6: 183—205. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1060374397900333.
Hyland, K. (2007) Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics 28(2): 266—285. http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2/266.
Hyland, K., and Tse, P. (2004) Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156.
Kondo-Brown. K. (2002) A FACETS analysis of rater bias in measuring Japanese second language writing performance. Language Testing, 19(1), 3-31. http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/19/1/3.
Kuo, C-H. (1999) The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906%2897%2900058-6.
Levi, E. I. (2004) A Study of Linguistic and Rhetorical Features in the Writing of non-English Language Background Graduates of U.S. High Schools. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Martin, J. R. (2009) Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20, 10-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003.
Matsuda, P. K. (2008) Myth 8: International and U.S. resident ESL writers cannot be taught in the same class. In J. Reid (ed.), Writing Myths 159–176. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
McNamara, T. F. (1996) Measuring second language performance. London: Longman.
Neff-von Aertselaer, J., and Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008) Argumentation patterns in different languages: An analysis of metadiscourse markers in English and Spanish texts. In M. Putz amd J. Neff-von Aertselaer (eds.), Studies on language acquisition: Developing contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives 105-120. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nystrand, M. (1989) A social-interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6(1), 66–85. http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/6/1/66.
Ochs, E. (1996) Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity 407-437. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Silva, T. (1994) An examination of writing program administrators’ options for the placement of ESL students in first year writing classes. Writing Program Administration, 18(1-2), 37–43. http://wpacouncil.org/archives/18n1-2/18n1-2silva.pdf.
Slager, W. (1956) The foreign student and the immigrant – their different problems as students of English. Language Learning, 6(3/4), 24–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1956.tb00842.x.
Smagorinksy, P. (2008) The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389-411. http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/25/3/389.
Thompson, G. (2001) Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58.
Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., and Scott, J. (2013) Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36–62. http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/1/36.
Vande Kopple, W. (1985) Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/357609.
Weigle, S. C. (1998) Using FACETS to model rater training. Language Testing, 15, 263-287. http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/15/2/263.
Zhao, C. G. (2013) Measuring authorial voice strength in L2 argumentative writing: The development and validation of an analytic rubric. Language Testing, 30(2), 201–230. http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/30/2/201.