The study investigates how interactional metadiscourse resources are used to articulate and construct gender identity among ESL learners in Malaysia. The main purpose of the study is to provide language practitioners with empirical data of how gender is projected in the academic writings of ESL learners and to what extent learners’ writings are affected by their gender. The data can then be utilised for the design and development of more effective academic writing courses in Malaysia. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on the similarities and differences in the use of interactional metadiscourse resources, namely; hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers and self mentions between male and female ESL learners involved in the study. The findings of the quantitative analyses show no obvious differences in the writing style of female and male writers in the study, while the qualitative findings reveal slight differences in the way writers position themselves in the reader/writer interaction and in the expression of agreement statement.

Keywords:  interactional metadiscourse; gender; identities; argumentative writing; ESL learners

DOI: http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2016-2201-16

Abbas, Z. & Sheena, K. (2012). Do male undergraduates write more argumentatively? Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences 46, 5785-5791. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.515.

Ahmad, U.K. (1995). Academic language and culture: Some observations on scientific Malay and scientific English. RELC Conference. Exploring Language, Culture and Literature in Language Learning, Singapore.

Clarke, P. (1994) Men and Women’s Performance in Tripos Examinations, 1980–1993. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002

Dana, W. (2008). Differences in men’s and women’s ESL academic writing at the University of Melbourne. Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 14 (7), 447-463.

Franchis, B. (2000). Boys, Girls and Achievement. London: Routledge.

Francis, B., Robsen, J., Read, B. (2001). An analysis of undergraduate writing styles in the context of gender and achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 26 (3), 313–326.

Granger, S. (2002). A Bird's-eye view of learner corpus reseach. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotics. London: Edward Arnold.

Hinkel, E. (2002). Second Language Writer’s Text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15 (1&2), 29-53.

Holmes, J. (1988). Doubts and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 91, 20-44.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437–455.

Hyland, K., (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133–151.

Hyland, K., (2005). Metadiscourse. Continuum: London.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156

Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2008). Robot kung-fu: Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1232-1248.

Kanaris, A. (1999). Gendered journeys: Children’s writing and the construction of gender. Language and Education, 13(4), 254-268

Kubota, R. (2003). New approaches to gender, class, and race in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 31-47.

Kuteeva, M. (2011). Wkis and academic writing: Changing the writer-reader relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 44-57.

Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language and Society, 2, 45–79.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper & Row.

Leaper, C. (1991). Influence and involvement in children’s discourse: Age, gender, and partner effect. Child Development, 62, 797-811.

Mason, E.S. (1994). Gender differences in job satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 143-151.

Meinhof, U.H. (1997). ‘The most important event of my life!’ A comparison of male and female narratives. In Johnson, S. and U.H. Meinhof (Eds.), Language and masculinity (pp. 208-239). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S.J. & Chan S. H. (2013). Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19 (1), 65-74.

Morris, L.A. 1998. Differences in men’s and women’s ESL writing at the junior college level: Consequences for research on feedback. The Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 55(2), 219-38.

Mulac, A., Bradac, J.J. & Gibbons, P. (2001). Empirical support for the gender-as culture hypothesis. An intercultural analysis of male/female language difference. Human Communication Research, 27, 121-152.

Naderi, S., Yuen C.K. & Latif, H. (2013). The use of referential cohesion in academic texts by Persian EFL learners. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 13(3), 45-62.

Ohta, A. (1991). Evidentiality and politeness in Japanese. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 183-210.

Rubin, D. & Greene, K. (1992). Gender-typical style in written language. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 7–40.

Scollon, R. (1994). As a matter of fact: The changing ideology of authorship and responsibility in discourse. World English, 13, 34-46.

Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.