Print

PDF To download article. 

DOI: 10.15507/1991-9468.029.202502.573-594

UDC 82-4:81’243-057.875(560)

 

The Use of Metadiscourse in Turkish EFL Learners’ L1 and L2 Argumentative Essays

Ruhan Güçlü
Ph.D, Assistant Professor of the Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Arts and Science, Gaziantep University (316 University Bulvar, Gaziantep 27310, Republic of Turkey/Republic of Türkiye), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2748-8363, Scopus ID: 57220577363, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Engin Evrim Önem
Ph.D, Lecturer of the Department of Basic English, School of Foreign Languages, Erciyes University (1 Turhan Baytop St., Kayseri 38020, Republic of Turkey/Republic of Türkiye), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2711-7511, Scopus ID: 55749679300, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Abstract
Introduction. The use of metadiscourse facilitates writer-reader interaction and text coherence. While the incorporation of these rhetorical features in student argumentative essays has been frequently stu- died, comparative investigations of metadiscourse markers in L1 and L2 student essays have not received necessary attention. This study aims to reveal whether and how native Turkish university students employ metadiscoursal items in their L1 Turkish and L2 English argumentative essays written at a pre-intermedia- te level.
Materials and Methods. Drawing on Interpersonal Model of Metadiscourse, a comparative analysis was conducted on a corpus of 200 essays, comprising 100 in Turkish and 100 in English. A corpus-driven ap- proach was employed to detect metadiscourse elements. Following identification of metadiscourse marker use, quantitative examination using SPSS tests was conducted to discern significant disparities between Turkish and English essays, complemented by qualitative analysis to elucidate how students employ meta- discourse markers to advance argumentative objectives.
Results. Both intra- and inter-linguistic analyses revealed the presence of all metadiscourse categories within the corpora, each serving specific functions. Notably, self-mentions emerged as the most frequently used category across all metadiscourse categories in both Turkish and English essays. The findings indi- cate that EFL learners employ metadiscourse markers as rhetorical tools to create argumentative, reader- friendly, and cohesive texts, thereby enriching our understanding of students’ expressive abilities in argu- mentative discourse.
Discussion and Conclusion. This study’s findings hold significant implications for language teaching, particularly in EFL contexts. By highlighting the effectiveness of metadiscourse markers as rhetorical tools, it suggests that explicit instruction in these markers can significantly enhance students’ writing profi- ciency and argumentative success. Language educators can incorporate activities focusing on identifying, analyzing, and strategically using various metadiscourse categories to empower learners to produce more sophisticated written communication.

Keywords: argumentative essays, metadiscourse, L1 and L2 written texts, EFL learners, Turkish learners of English

Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

For citation: Güçlü R., Önem E.E. The Use of Metadiscourse in Turkish EFL Learners’ L1 and L2 Argumentative Essays. Integration of Education. 2025;29(3):573–594. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.029.202503.573-594

Authors’ contribution:
R. Güçlü – formulation of overarching research; conducting a research and investigation process; development of methodology; oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution; specifically writing the initial draft; specifically visualization; specifically critical review.
E. E. Önem – formulation of overarching research; management activities to produce metadata for initial use and later re-use; development of methodology; application of formal techniques to analyse study data; provision of study materials; implementation of the supporting algorithms; specifically writing the initial draft; specifically critical review.

Availability of data and materials. The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the authors on reasonable request.

All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Submitted 02.06.2025;
revised 07.07.2025;
accepted 14.07.2025.

 

REFERENCES

  1. Jones J.F. Using Metadiscourse to Improve Coherence in Academic Writing. Language Education in Asia. 2011;2(1):1–14. Available at: https://researchprofiles.canberra.edu.au/en/publications/using-metadiscourse-to-improve-coherence-in-academic-writing (accessed 20.04.2025).
  2. Hyland K., Tse P. Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics. 2004;25(2):156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
  3. Lee J.J., Casal J.E. Metadiscourse in Results and Discussion Chapters: A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of English and Spanish Thesis Writers in Engineering. System. 2014;46:39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009
  4. Sun S.A., Jiang F. Analyzing Metadiscourse in L2 Writing for Academic Purposes: Models and Approaches. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. 2024;3(3):100149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100149
  5. Yoon H.-J. Interactions in EFL Argumentative Writing: Effects of Topic, L1 Background, and L2 Proficiency on Interactional Metadiscourse. Reading and Writing. 2021;34:705–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10085-7
  6. Zali M.M., Abdul Rahman N.A., Che Mat A., Ana. Metadiscourse (MD) Studies in Second Language (L2) Writings: A Systematic Review of Literature. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2023;13(4):270–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i4/16628
  7. Benraiss K., Koumachi B. Interactional Metadiscourse in Applied Linguistics Research Article Abstracts of Moroccan L2 Writers of English: A Small Corpus Investigation. International Journal of English Language Studies. 2023;5(1):23–31. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijels.2023.5.1.3
  8. Gras P., Galiana P., Rosado E. Modal and Discourse Marking in L1 & L2 Spanish: A Comparative Analysis of Oral Narratives. Corpus Pragmatics. 2021;5:63–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-020-00081-1
  9. Al-Wazeer N., Ashuja’a A. Cultural Impact on Interactive Metadiscourse in Legal Hybrid Disciplines: A Comparative Genre Study. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies. 2025;7(2):157–168. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v7i2.2069
  10. Yoon S.Y., Kim N.Y. The Use of Metadiscourse Markers in Mobile-Assisted Flipped Learning in L2 Writing. The Journal of Asia TEFL. 2022;19(1):180–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2022.19.1.11.180
  11. Esfandiari R., Allaf-Akbary O. Assessing the Impact of Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT on EFL Learners’ Interactional Metadiscourse in Argumentative Writing. International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation. 2025;11(1):47–73. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/661438392.pdf (accessed 20.04.2025).
  12. Ahmed A.M., Zhang X., Rezk L.M., Pearson W.S. Transition Markers in Qatari University Students’ Argumentative Writing: A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of L1 Arabic and L2 English. Ampersand. 2023;10:100110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2023.100110
  13. Alghazo S., Al-Anbar K., Altakhaineh A.R.M., Jarrah M. Interactive Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English: Evidence from Editorials. Topics in Linguistics. 2023;24(1):55–66. https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2023-0004
  14. El-Dakhs D.A.S. Variation of Metadiscourse in L2 Writing: Focus on Language Proficiency and Learning Context. Ampersand. 2020;7:100069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2020.100069
  15. Ruan Z. Metadiscourse Use in L2 Student Essay Writing: A Longitudinal Cross-Contextual Comparison. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2020;42(4):417–442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2019-0028
  16. Zhao C.G., Wu J. Voice and Voicing Strategies across Native and Second Language Writing: Extending the Interactional Metadiscourse Framework. Applied Linguistics. 2024;45(6):1075–1090. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amae021
  17. Jančaříková R. Attitude Markers in L2 Learners’ Academic Writing: A Case Study of Master’s Theses by Czech Students Compared to L1 Students’ Writings. Brno Studies in English. 2023;49(1):5–31. https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2023-1-1
  18. Barabadi E., Aghaee E. The Differential Use of Reformulation Markers in Three Sub-Corpora: L1 English, L2 English, and L1 Persian. Journal of Teaching Language Skills. 2021;40(1):1–32. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2021.39241.2924
  19. Yuvayapan F., Yakut I. Functions of Meta-Discursive Nouns: A Corpus-Based Comparison of Post-Graduate Genres in L1 and L2 English. Cognitive Studies. 2022;(22):2827. https://doi.org/10.11649/cs.2827
  20. Can C., Yuvayapan F. Stance-Taking through Metadiscourse in Doctoral Dissertations. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching. 2018;6(1):128–142. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED582375.pdf (accessed 20.04.2025).
  21. Çandarli D., Bayyurt Y., Marti L. Authorial Presence in L1 and L2 Novice Academic Writing: Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2015;20:192–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.001
  22. Uysal H. Tracing the Culture behind Writing: Rhetorical Patterns and Bidirectional Transfer in L1 and L2 Essays of Turkish Writers in Relation to Educational Context. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2008;17(3):183–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.003
  23. Beyazyildirim D., Ercan G.S. Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Argumentative Texts of English Preparatory Class Students. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies. 2023;(98):203–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/JASSS.72817
  24. Aykut-Kolay C., Inan-Karagul B. The Use of Metadiscourse Markers in the Spoken Discourse of Different EMI Disciplines. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2024;47(2):281–308. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2024-0207
  25. Oktay Ö., Reisoglu İ., Gul Ş., Teke D., Sozbilir M., Gunes İ., et al. A Comparative Analysis of Master’s Theses in STEM-Related Disciplines Published in Türkiye and Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2025;69(4):828–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2024.2360898
  26. Tikhonova E., Mezentseva D., Kasatkin P. Text Redundancy in Academic Writing: A Scoping Review. Journal of Language and Education. 2024;10(3):128–160. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2024.23747
  27. Hirose K. Comparing L1 and L2 Organizational Patterns in the Argumentative Writing of Japanese EFL Students. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2003;12(2):181–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00015-8
  28. de Larios J.R., Marín J., Murphy L. A Temporal Analysis of Formulation Processes in L1 and L2 Writing. Language Learning. 2001;51(3):497–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00163http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00163
  29. Rahman M.M. Genre-Based Writing Instruction: Implications in ESP Classroom. English for Specific Purposes World. 2011;33(11):1–9. Available at: https://clck.ru/3Njzex (accessed 20.04.2025).
  30. Wei X., Zhang L.J., Zhang W. Associations of L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer with L2 Writers’ Perception of L2 Writing Difficulty and L2 Writing Proficiency. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2020;47:100907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100907
  31. Agustinos P., Arsyad S. Metadiscourse Markers in the Undergraduate Thesis Introduction Written by English Department Students in University of Bengkulu. Journal of English Education and Teaching. 2018;2(3):50–61. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.2.3.50-61
  32. Djahimo H.R. An Analysis of Transition Signals in Discussion Texts Written by the Sixth Semester Students of the English Study Program of UNDANA in Academic Year 2016/2017. International Journal of Research-Granthaalayah. 2018;6(1):137–149. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1162742
  33. Vogel R. Sentence Linkers in Essays and Papers by Native vs. Non-Native Writers. Discourse and Interaction. 2008;1(2):119–126. Available at: https://journals.muni.cz/discourse-and-interaction/article/view/6923 (accessed 20.04.2025).
  34. Hyland K. Disciplinary Interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2004;13(2):133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
  35. Zali M.M., Mohamad R., Setia R., Baniamin R.M.R., Razlan R.M. Comparisons of Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse among Undergraduates. Asian Journal of University Education. 2021;16(4):21–30. Available at: https://clck.ru/3NjzjQ (accessed 20.04.2025).
  36. Liu D. A Corpus Study of Chinese EFL Learners’ Use of Circumstance, Demand, and Significant: An in-Depth Analysis of L2 Vocabulary Use and Its Implications. Journal of Second Language Studies. 2018;1(2):309–332. https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00006.liu
  37. Tikhonova E., Raitskaya L. Author-Related Concepts in Academic Writing Revisited: A Scoping Review. Journal of Language and Education. 2025;11(1):5–25. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2025.26765

 

PlumX

Лицензия Creative Commons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Details
Hits: 33