Profiling the Use of Attitude Markers, Boosters and Hedges in Academic Written Production of International Student Mobility Participants

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Background: Motivated by the growing interest in the impact of study abroad programs on language development, the present research addresses a gap in the literature by examining the often-overlooked role of metadiscourse markers in writing.

Purpose: The study explores the impact of study abroad on the use of attitude markers, boosters, and hedges in the L2 English academic writing of international students.

Method: Using a pre-test post-test within-subject design, we analysed essays written by students before and after a semester abroad to map the characteristics of their interactional metadiscourse style and assess changes in their use of these markers.

Results: The findings show a significant increase in hedges post-study abroad, indicating a shift towards a more cautious and nuanced writing style. However, no statistically significant changes were observed for attitude markers and boosters. The overall range of interactional metadiscourse markers remained limited, occasionally making lexical choices more typical of informal language rather than academic written discourse.

Conclusion: While study abroad may enhance certain aspects of language use, targeted pedagogical interventions are needed to improve academic writing. Emphasizing interactional metadiscourse markers could help students develop a more sophisticated written style, better suited to academic contexts. This research contributes to both pragmatics and study abroad literature. In pragmatics, it expands existing knowledge on the writing styles of novice academic writers, particularly by identifying potential areas for improvement related to the use of metadiscourse markers. Simultaneously, it advances study abroad literature by introducing metadiscourse as a critical, yet previously underexplored indicator of writing quality. By highlighting the importance of these linguistic features, this study opens new avenues for both theoretical inquiry and practical applications in enhancing the academic writing skills of international students.

About the authors

Sanja Marinov Vranješ

University of Split

Author for correspondence.
Email: smarinov@efst.hr
Croatia, Split

Mirna Varga

University of Osijek

Email: smarinov@efst.hr
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2318-4490
Croatia, Osijek

References

  1. Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (vol. 24). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24
  2. Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31, 151-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055
  3. Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
  4. Borràs, J. (2023). Comparing L2 learning outcomes in traditional and English as a lingua franca study abroad contexts. The Language Learning Journal, 52(4), 414-425. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2023.2193581
  5. Borràs, J., & Llanes, À. (2019). Re-examining the impact of study abroad on L2 development: A critical overview. The Language Learning Journal, 49(5), 527-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1642941
  6. Borràs, J., Llanes, À., & Prieto Botana, G. (2023). Development of lexical deployment as a result of a short-term study abroad experience in Costa Rica. In I. Checa-García & L. Marqués-Pascual (Eds.), current perspectives in spanish lexical development (pp. 137–160). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110730418-006
  7. Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2021). The assessment of metadiscourse devices in English as a foreign language. Assessing Writing, 50, 100560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100560
  8. Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480600320X
  9. DeKeyser, R. (2010). Monitoring processes in Spanish as a second language during a study abroad program. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01061.x
  10. Herraiz-Martínez, A. (2019). Students’ performance of hedges in an English medium instruction context: The impact of length of study abroad. In P. Salazar-Campillo & V. Codina-Espurz (Eds.), Investigating the learning of pragmatics across ages and contexts (pp. 125–140). Brill Rodopi.
  11. Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 18(3), 349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
  12. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
  13. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interactions in writing. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  14. Hyland, K. (2013). Writing in the university: education, knowledge and reputation. Language Teaching, 46(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444811000036
  15. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
  16. Hyland, K. (I999). Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99–121). Longman.
  17. Jiang, F. (Kevin), & Hyland, K. (2016). Nouns and academic interactions: A neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 508-531. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw023
  18. Jiang, F. (Kevin), & Hyland, K. (2021). “The goal of this analysis …”: Changing patterns of metadiscursive nouns in disciplinary writing. Lingua, 252, 103017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.103017
  19. Kinginger, C. (2015). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research. Palgrave Macmillan.
  20. Köylü, Z. (2016). The influence of context on L2 development: the case of Turkish undergraduates at home and abroad [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of South Florida.
  21. Köylü, Z. (2021). The ERASMUS sojourn: Does the destination country or pre-departure proficiency impact oral proficiency gains? The Language Learning Journal, 51(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2021.1930112
  22. Köylü, Z., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2022). Learning English in today’s global world. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(5), 1330-1355. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263121000917
  23. Lee, J. L., & Subtirelu, N. C. (2015). Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.005
  24. Lee, J. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004
  25. Liu, P., & Huang, X. (2017). A study of interactional metadiscourse in English abstracts of Chinese economics research articles. Higher Education Studies, 7(3), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v7n3p25
  26. Llanes, À., Arnó, E., & Mancho-Barés, G. (2016). Erasmus students using English as a lingua franca: Does study abroad in a non-English-speaking country improve L2 English? The Language Learning Journal, 44(3), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1198099
  27. Marinov Vranješ, S. (2023). Development of lexical competence in English as a foreign language during study abroad [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Zagreb.
  28. Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5
  29. Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492
  30. Pearson, W. S., & Esmaeel Abdollahzadeh. (2023). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A systematic review. Lingua, 293, 103561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103561
  31. Pérez-Vidal, C. (2014). Study abroad and formal instruction contrasted: The SALA Project. In C. Pérez-Vidal (Ed.), AILA Applied Linguistics Series (pp. 17–58). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.13.03ch2
  32. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Barquin, E. (2014). Comparing progress in academic writing after formal instruction and study abroad. AILA Applied Linguistics Series (pp. 217–234). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.13.11ch9
  33. Sasaki, M. (2007). Effects of study-abroad experiences on EFL writers: A multiple-data analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 602–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00625.x
  34. Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Walter de Gruyter.
  35. Serrano, R., Llanes, À., & Tragant, E. (2011). Analyzing the effect of context of second language learning: Domestic intensive and semi-intensive courses vs. study abroad in Europe. System, 39(2), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.05.002
  36. Serrano, R., Tragant, E., & Llanes, À. (2012). A longitudinal analysis of the effects of one year abroad. Canadian Modern Language Review, 68(2), 138–163. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.68.2.138
  37. Šinkūnienė, J. (2011). Autoriaus pozicijos švelninimas rašytiniame Moksliniame diskurse: gretinamasis tyrimas [Hedging in written academic discourse: a crosslinguistic and cross-disciplinary study] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Vilniaus universitetas.
  38. Storch, N. (2009). The impact of studying in a second language (L2) medium university on the development of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.003
  39. Thomson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An Introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thomson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford University Press.
  40. Tseng, W.-T., Liu, Y.-T., Hsu, Y.-T., & Chu, H.-C. (2024). Revisiting the effectiveness of study abroad language programs: A multi-level meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 28(1), 156–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820988423
  41. Vakanjac Ivezić, S. (2024). A corpus-based comparative analysis of metadiscourse in non-native and native English argumentative essays [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Osijek.
  42. Varela, O. E. (2017). Learning outcomes of study-abroad programs: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(4), 531–561. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0250
  43. Varga, M. (2016). Epistemic modality in academic discourse in the Croatian and English language [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Osijek.
  44. Vold, E. T. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: a cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x
  45. Xu, Y. (2019). Changes in interlanguage complexity during study abroad: A meta-analysis. System, 80, 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.11.008
  46. Yang, J.-S. (2016). The effectiveness of study-abroad on second language learning: A meta-analysis. Canadian Modern Language Review, 72(1), 66–94. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2344
  47. Yoon, H.-J. (2020). Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse. Reading and Writing, 34, 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10085-7
  48. Yoon, H.-J., & Römer, U. (2020). Quantifying disciplinary voices: An automated approach to interactional metadiscourse in successful student writing. Written Communication, 37(2), 208–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088319898672

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


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