Stance and Engagement Use in a Timed Argumentative Essay by Asian First-Year University Students Studying English as a Foreign Language

Main Article Content

Nakhon Kitjaroonchai
Jun Duan


This paper documents the use of stance and engagement in improvised and timed argumentative essays among 12 Asian first-year university students studying English as a foreign language at an international university in Thailand. A metadiscourse (stance and engagement) model was adopted to analyze 12 papers composed by students from six different nationalities. The findings indicated that the most frequently used stance and engagement markers among these multinational students were hedges, self-mention, and reader mention. The analysis also revealed that students with different mother tongues and cultural backgrounds used these interactional markers disproportionally in timed argumentative essays on similar topics. Implications drawn from such results for second language writing instructions are discussed briefly.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Research Articles


Aull, L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151–183.

Andrews, R. (1995). Teaching and learning argument. London, New York: Cassell.

Dastjerdi, H., & Samian, S. (2011). Quality of Iranian EFL learners’ argumentative essays: Cohesive devices in focus. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 65–76.

Halliday, M. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students' timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53–68.

Hong, H., & Cao, F. (2014). Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(2), 201–224.

Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC Journal, 21 (1), 66–78.

Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23, 215–239.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(2), 133–151.

Hyland, K. (2005). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 363-377.

Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1–23.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.

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

Lancaster, Z. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23(C), 16–30.

Lee, J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of second language writing, 33, 21–34.

Li, T., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 345–356.

Matsuda, P. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1-2), 35–53.

Matsuda, P., & Tardy, C. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 235–249.

Mei, W. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization in students’ argumentation. RELC journal, 37(3), 329–353.

Mei, W. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high-and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 254–271.

Pramoolsook, I., & Qian, L. (2013). Comparative genre analysis of English argumentative essays written by Chinese English and Non-English Major Students. Arab World English Journal, 4(1), 213–223.

Rahayu, B. (2014). Tenor in Indonesian University Students’ Argumentative Texts Written in English. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 5(1), 15–26.

Reid, M. (2000). The process of composition (3rd ed.) Longman, New York: White Plains.

Sanczyk, A. (2010). Investigating argumentative essays of English undergraduates studying in Poland as regards their use of cohesive devices (Master's dissertation, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway). Retrieved from

Sayah, L., & Hashemi, M. (2014). Exploring stance and engagement features in discourse analysis papers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(3), 593–601.

Stock, I., & Eik-Nes, N. (2016). Voice features in academic texts–A review of empirical studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 89–99.

Tan, H., & Eng, W. (2014). Metadiscourse use in the persuasive writing of Malaysian undergraduate students. English Language Teaching, 7(7), 26–39.

Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C., & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36–62.

Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145-154.

Zhao, C. (2017). Voice in timed L2 argumentative essay writing. Assessing Writing, 31, 73–83.

Zheng, C. (2013). A structure analysis of English argumentative writings written by Chinese and Korean EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 67–73.