The use of interactional metadiscourse markers by Saudi EFL male and female college students: the case of a gender-sensitive topic

Abstract

A few studies have explored the use of interactional metadiscourse markers in argumentative writing by male and female college students. More importantly, none explored the topic of metadiscourse resources with respect to gender-sensitive topics. Thus, the present study aims at examining the exploitation of interactional metadiscourse markers by Saudi male and female English as a Foreign Language (EFL) college students in their writing about ‘Who are Better Drivers, Men or Women?’. The study is corpus-based on students’ essays. The corpus consists of four sub-corpora: (a) men favouring men, (b) men arguing for women, (c) women arguing for men and (d) women writing in favour of women. We followed a qualitative and quantitative approach to data analysis. Using AntConc and Hyland’s (2005) metadiscourse model of interactional markers, the results reveal that female writers employed attitudinal lexis, hedges, self-mentions and boosters more than male writers. As for the variables of gender and stance choice, females arguing for men’s driving significantly utilised hedges more than the other three groups. Additionally, female writers writing in support of female drivers significantly used self-mentions more than male writers arguing for men’s driving. This study shows that sensitive topics may cause a difference in the distribution of metadiscourse markers used by people of both genders, and it provides some pedagogical implications for EFL instructors and curriculum developers.