4.3 Article

Textual voice elements and voice strength in EFL argumentative writing

Journal

ASSESSING WRITING
Volume 32, Issue -, Pages 72-84

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2017.02.002

Keywords

Authorial voice; Second language writing; Writing assessment; Quantification of voice elements; Interactional metadiscourse; Natural language processing

Funding

  1. Second Language Studies program at Michigan State University
  2. English Language Center at Michigan State University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined how the quantity and diversity of textual voice elements contribute to holistic voice strength and essay quality. For the quantification of voice elements, this study used an automated processing tool, the Authorial Voice Analyzer (AVA), which was developed based on categories from Hyland's voice model (i.e., hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions, reader pronouns, and directives). To explore the relationship between textual voice elements and holistic voice strength, as well as between voice elements and essay quality, this study analyzed 219 argumentative essays written by L1 Greek-speaking EFL students. The results suggested positive, but weak to moderate, correlations between textual voice and holistic voice strength; a regression model with three textual voice features explained 26% of the variance in voice strength scores. The results also indicated weak correlations between textual voice and essay quality. Interestingly, the textual voice features contributing to voice strength (boosters, attitude markers, and self mentions) were different from those contributing to essay quality (hedges). Interpreting these findings in relation to the context (timed argumentative writing in an EFL context), this study suggests implications for L2 writing assessment and pedagogy. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available