본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Exploring the use of hedges and stance devices in relation to Korean EFL learners’ argumentative writing qualities

백진경|강유선|민수현
한국영어교육학회 (Korea Association Of Teachers Of English)|2019.03|영어교육 (English Teaching)|제74권 제1호|pp. 3-23

2

조회

0

다운로드

4

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

argumentative writingdiscourse analysishedgesKorean EFL studentsstance deviceslexico-grammatical stance
주제분류영어와문학

초록

In argumentative writing, writers are expected to use hedged expressions and stance devices through specific linguistic expressions to convince their proposition effectively. Yet little research attention has been paid to whether the inclusion of such devices is related to the overall quality of second or foreign language learners’ argumentative writing. In this study, hedges and stance devices that are included in 28 advanced Korean EFL writers’ argumentative writing were analyzed to identify their potential relation to the overall writing quality. Analyses demonstrated that although hedges and stance devices were related to argumentative writing quality in general, the specific linguistic forms that predicted two different aspects of writing quality – formal and content quality – were different. Specifically, hedges played a significant positive role in only content quality of writing, and the specific stance devices that significantly predicted formal quality did not contribute to the content quality, and vice versa. The findings from this study provides important pedagogical implications for EFL writing instruction.

Abstract

In argumentative writing, writers are expected to use hedged expressions and stance devices through specific linguistic expressions to convince their proposition effectively. Yet little research attention has been paid to whether the inclusion of such devices is related to the overall quality of second or foreign language learners’ argumentative writing. In this study, hedges and stance devices that are included in 28 advanced Korean EFL writers’ argumentative writing were analyzed to identify their potential relation to the overall writing quality. Analyses demonstrated that although hedges and stance devices were related to argumentative writing quality in general, the specific linguistic forms that predicted two different aspects of writing quality – formal and content quality – were different. Specifically, hedges played a significant positive role in only content quality of writing, and the specific stance devices that significantly predicted formal quality did not contribute to the content quality, and vice versa. The findings from this study provides important pedagogical implications for EFL writing instruction.

참고문헌 (63)

  1. Ädel, A., "Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric", pp.45~62 (2008), John Benjamins
  2. Afshar, H. S., "The impact of discipline and being native", non-native on the use of hedging devices, 2014, pp.136, 260~264
  3. Ağçam, R., "A corpus-based study on evaluation adjectives in academic English", Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, pp.3~11 (2015)
  4. Allison, D., "Assertions and alternatives : Helping ESL undergraduates extend their choices in academic writing", Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(1), pp.1~15 (1995)
  5. Almeida, F. A., "Sentential evidential adverbs and authorial stance in a corpus of English computing articles", Revista española de lingüística aplicada, 25(1), pp.15~32 (2012)
  6. Aull, L. L., "Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing : A corpus-based comparison", Written Communication, 31(2), pp.151~183 (2014)
  7. 백주현, "A corpus-based study of hedging in Korean EFL students' academic essays", 현대문법연구, (65), pp.279~307 (2011), 현대문법학회
  8. Biber, D., "Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance : A cross register comparison", Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5(1), pp.107~136 (2004)
  9. Biber, D., "Stance in spoken and written university registers", Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), pp.97~116 (2006)
  10. Biber, D., "University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers (Vol. 23)" (2006), John Benjamins
  11. Biber, D., "Longman student grammar of spoken and written English" (2002), Pearson Education
  12. Biber, D., "Adverbial stance types in English", Discourse Processes, 11(1), pp.1~34 (1988)
  13. Biber, D., "Styles of stance in English : Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect", Text-interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9(1), pp.93~124 (1989)
  14. Biber, D., "Expressing evaluation without grammatical stance : Informational persuasion on the web", Corpora, 13(1), pp.97~123 (2018)
  15. Çandarlı, D., "Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing : Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives", Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, pp.192~202 (2015)
  16. Chafe, W. L., "Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology", pp.261~272 (1986), Ablex
  17. Chan, T. H. T., "A corpus-based study of the expression of stance in dissertation acknowledgements", Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, pp.176~191 (2015)
  18. Chen, Z., "Expression of epistemic stance in EFL Chinese university students’writing", English Language Teaching, 5(10), pp.173~ (2012)
  19. Cheng, X., "Metadiscourse : A technique for improving student writing", Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), pp.149~181 (1996)
  20. 최연희, "Hedging in EFL Academic Writing of Korean Postgraduates", 영어교육, 60(1), pp.3~27 (2005), 한국영어교육학회
  21. Connor, U., "Linguistic", rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing, 1990, pp.24, 67~87
  22. Connor, U., "Writing across languages and cultures", pp.138~159 (1988), Sage
  23. Crammond, J., "The uses of complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing", Written Communication, 15, pp.230~268 (1998)
  24. Crismore, A., "Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act" (1989), Peter Lang
  25. Crismore, A., "Metadiscourse in persuasive writing : A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students", Written Communication, 10(1), pp.39~71 (1993)
  26. Crompton, P., "Hedging in academic writing : Some theoretical problems", English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), pp.271~287 (1997)
  27. Crosthwaite, P., "Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A longitudinal learner corpus study", System, 69, pp.92~107 (2017)
  28. Dobbs, C. L., "Signaling organization and stance : Academic language use in middle grade persuasive writing", Reading and Writing, 27(8), pp.1327~1352 (2014)
  29. Eckes, T., "Rater types in writing performance assessments : A classification approach to rater variability", Language Testing, 25(2), pp.155~185 (2008)
  30. Enright, M. K., "Complementing human judgment of essays written by English language learners with e-rater® scoring", Language Testing, 27(3), pp.317~334 (2010)
  31. Fordyce, K., "The differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on EFL learners’ use of epistemic stance", Applied Linguistics, 35(1), pp.6~28 (2013)
  32. Hinkel, E., "Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features" (2002), Routledge
  33. Hinkel, E., "Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing", Applied Language Learning, 15, pp.29~53 (2005)
  34. Ho, V., "The use of metadiscourse and persuasion : An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays", Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, pp.53~68 (2018)
  35. 허명혜, "On the Use of Metadiscourse in EFL Undergraduate Student Writing", 영어교육, 71(3), pp.99~120 (2016), 한국영어교육학회[DOI]
  36. Hunston, S., "Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction", pp.27~48 (2007), John Benjamins
  37. Hunt, K. W., "Syntactic maturity in school children and adults", Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35(1) (1970), University of Chicago Press
  38. Hyland, K., "A genre description of the argumentative essay", RELC Journal, 21(1), pp.66~78 (1990)
  39. Hyland, K., "Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks", English for Specific Purposes, 13, pp.239~256 (1994)
  40. Hyland, K., "Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum", System, 24(4), pp.477~490 (1996)
  41. Hyland, K., "Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge", Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 18(3), pp.349~382 (1998)
  42. Hyland, K., "Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility : Noticing modifiers in academic texts", Language Awareness, 9(4), pp.179~197 (2000)
  43. Hyland, K., "Metadiscourse : Exploring interaction in writing" (2005), Continuum
  44. Hyland, K., "Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing", Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), pp.183~205 (1997)
  45. Intaraprawat, P., "The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays", Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), pp.253~272 (1995)
  46. 김철규, "코퍼스에 기반한 영국 신문의 논설문과 한국 대학생의 영어 논설문에 사용된 메타담화(metadiscourse) 비교 연구", 담화와 인지, 16(3), pp.65~88 (2009), 담화·인지언어학회[DOI]
  47. Lackoff, G., "Hedges : A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts", Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, pp.458~508 (1975)
  48. Lancaster, Z., "Expressing stance in undergraduate writing : Discipline-specific and general qualities", Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, pp.16~30 (2016)
  49. 이은주, "A Corpus-Based Analysis of the Korean EFL Learners’ Use of Evaluative Adjectives", Foreign Languages Education, 14(4), pp.73~92 (2007), 한국외국어교육학회
  50. Lee, J. J., "Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing : Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays", Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, pp.21~34 (2016)
  51. Nussbaum, E. M., "The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing", Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, pp.157~169 (2005)
  52. 오선영, "A Corpus-based Study of Epistemic Modalityin Korean College Students’ Writings in English", 영어교육, 62(2), pp.147~175 (2007), 한국영어교육학회[DOI]
  53. 백진경, "Investigation of Content Features that Determine Korean EFL Learners’ Argumentative Writing Qualities", 영어교육, 72(2), pp.101~122 (2017), 한국영어교육학회[DOI]
  54. 박세희, "Korean EFL Learners’ Metadiscourse Use as an Index of L2 Writing Proficiency", The SNU Journal of Education Research, 27(2), pp.65~89 (2018), 교육종합연구원
  55. Powers, D. E., "Stumping e-rater : Challenging the validity of automated essay scoring", Computers in Human Behavior, 18(2), pp.103~134 (2002)
  56. Evaluating the construct-coverage of the erater ® scoring engine, "Quinlan, T.", Educational Testing Service, ~, pp.ETS Research Report Series No. 09-01 (2009)
  57. 이성하, "On the emergence of the stance-marking function of English adverbs: A case of intensifiers", 언어연구, 33(3), pp.395~436 (2016), 언어정보연구소[DOI]
  58. Salager-Meyer, F., "Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse", English for Specific Purposes, 13, pp.149~149 (1994)
  59. Staples, S., "Understanding first-year L2 writing : A lexicogrammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings", Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, pp.17~35 (2016)
  60. Swales, J. M., "Genre analysis" (1990), Cambridge University Press
  61. Tapia, A. M. G., "Lexico-grammatical stance in Spanish news reportage : Socio-political influences on que-complement clauses and adverbials in Ecuadorian broadsheets", Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 2014, pp.27(1), 208~237
  62. Thompson, G., "Voices in the text : Discourse perspectives on language reports", Applied Linguistics, 17(4), pp.501~530 (1996)
  63. Weigle, S. C., "Validation of automated scores of TOEFL iBT tasks against non-test indicators of writing ability", Language Testing, 27(3), pp.335~353 (2010)

관련 논문AI추천

Epistemic Rhetorical Stance: Hedges and Boosters in L1 and L2 Students’ English Writing김찬희, 서홍원사단법인 한국언어학회 · 언어학2014 · 제22권 제2호Stance Expressions in Korean Students’ Writing in English이혜경담화·인지언어학회 · 담화와 인지2018 · 제25권 제4호Investigation of Content Features that Determine Korean EFL Learners’ Argumentative Writing Qualities강유선, 백진경한국영어교육학회 · 영어교육2017 · 제72권 제2호Hedging in EFL Academic Writing of Korean Postgraduates고미숙, 최연희한국영어교육학회 · 영어교육2005 · 제60권 제1호Correlation of Linguistic and Discourse Features with Writing Quality in a Korean EFL Context정윤희21세기영어영문학회 · 영어영문학212022 · 제35권 제2호On the Use of Metadiscourse in EFL Undergraduate Student Writing이인환, 허명혜한국영어교육학회 · 영어교육2016 · 제71권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (3건)

The Effects of Note-Taking Strategy Training on Students’ Notes During Academic English Listening Tests김정현pp. 25-48Korean EFL Learners’ Processing of English Caused-Motion Construction성하경pp. 49-73What If Learners Are Not Involved in Reading? Reading Ability and Reading Motivation of EFL Learners김지혜, 전유아pp. 75-94
원문 보기