Authorial voice in source-based and opinion-based argumentative writing: Patterns of voice across task types and proficiency levels

Abstract

This study examined first-year university students’ use of textual voice markers in two argumentative writing tasks. Previous findings of authorial voice have shown unclear relationships between voice elements and writing proficiency, making us question the pedagogical value of voice for L2 writers. However, it should be noted that the majority of studies on this topic have used timed opinion-based argumentative tasks which may not be the most relevant task type for academic writers, as they are often expected to build source-based argumentation. To fill this gap, we collected 110 opinion-based and source-based essays from 55 students and quantified a wide range of stance and engagement elements that appeared in the essays. Results showed a higher frequency of use of textual voices in opinion-based than in source-based writing, but there was no meaningful association between voice and writing proficiency in both tasks. However, different patterns were exhibited when we examined section-specific voice elements. In the source-based essays, more proficient writers used more varied types of hedges in the synthesis section but fewer boosters and reader pronouns in the introduction. With these quantitative results of authorial voice, we discuss our findings in the light of first-year writing instructional needs and writing assessment.