10.30495/

A Genre Study of Cross-gender and Cross-cultural Variations in IELTS Essays

PDF
  • Jafar Asadi*1,
  1. Department of English, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran

Received: 2022-03-04

Revised: 2022-03-19

Accepted: 2022-07-14

Published in Issue 2022-08-01

Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL)

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite

Asadi, J. (2022). A Genre Study of Cross-gender and Cross-cultural Variations in IELTS Essays. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 1(3), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.30495/
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 143

Abstract

Writing essays and articles has long been considered as a crucial mode of written discourse which is a
difficult type of text for students, especially for English as foreign language (EFL) learners. Writing
essays also makes up a significant part of the International English Language Test System (IELTS), as
one of the most reputable English tests that is used to assess the language proficiency of those intending
to study or work in an English-speaking context. This study offers a contrastive genre analysis of the
essays written by male and female, and native and non-native writers in IELTS tests. The foremost
purpose of the study is to discover whether native and non-native writers utilized the same rhetorical
techniques in composing IELTS essays. Grounded on Swales’ (1990) CARS genre framework, this
research proposed a modified model for argumentative essays. The findings show some variations
between male and female, native and non-native writers. The article has theoretical and pedagogical
implications for teachers, learners, material developers, and syllabus designers, too.

Keywords

  • Academic writing,
  • CARS model,
  • Move analysis,
  • IELTS writing,
  • Genre analysis
PDF

References

  1. Ahmad, U. (1997). Research articles in Malay: rhetoric in an emerging research community. In A.
  2. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse. Austin, TX: De Gruyter.
  3. Alderson, J. C. (1988b). New procedures for validating proficiency tests of ESP? Theory and practice.
  4. Language Testing, 5(2), 220-232.
  5. Al-Haq, F., & Al-Sobh, M. A. (2010). The effect of a web-based writing instructional EFL program
  6. enhancing the performance of Jordanian secondary students. The Jalt Call Journal, 6(3), 189–218.
  7. Bawarshi, A., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to History, Theory, Research, and
  8. Pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press/WAC Clearinghouse.
  9. Bhatia, V. (1993) Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
  10. Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-based View. London: A&C Black.
  11. Bhatia. V. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London
  12. Blundell, S. (2007). International students & English language skills: Strategies for success. Paper
  13. presented at the Australian International Education Conference Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved
  14. from http://www.aiec.idp.com/past_papers/2007.aspx
  15. Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific
  16. Purposes, 13(1), 47–59.
  17. Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18,
  18. S41–S56.
  19. Bunton, D. (2002). Generic Moves in PhD Thesis Introductions. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic
  20. discourse (pp. 57–75). London: Longman.
  21. Charles, M. (2003). This mystery . . .: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in
  22. theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 313–326.
  23. Condon, W., &Kelly-Riley, D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between
  24. college-level writing and critical thinking abilities. Assessing Writing,2(9),56–75.
  25. Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric. Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing.
  26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Connor, U., & Mauranen, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals. English for Specific
  28. Purposes, 18(1), 47–62.
  29. Dudley-Evans, A. (1994). Genre analysis: an approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.),
  30. Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge.
  31. Ezeifeka, C. R. (2014). Grammatical metaphor in SFL: A rhetorical resource for academic writing.
  32. UJAH: Unizik: Journal of Arts and Humanities, 12(1), 207-221.
  33. Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. London: The British Council.
  34. Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Oxon &
  35. New York: Routledge.
  36. Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research
  37. article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321–337.
  38. Humphrey, S. L., & Economou, D. (2015). Peeling the onion–A textual model of critical analysis.
  39. English for Academic Purposes, 17(4), 37-50.
  40. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
  41. Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied
  42. Linguistics, 28(2), 266–285.
  43. IELTS Worldwide. (2011). Test-taker performance 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ielts.org/
  44. researchers/analysis_of_test_data/test_taker_performance_2010.aspx.
  45. Jalilifar, A. (2010). Research article introductions: Sub-disciplinary variations in applied linguistics. The
  46. Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 2(2), 29-55.
  47. Johns, A.M. (Ed.). (2002). Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
  48. Erlbaum Associates.
  49. Joseph, R., Lim, J., & Nor, N. (2014). Communicative moves in forestry research introductions:
  50. Implications for the design of learning materials. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,
  51. ,53e69.
  52. Kwan, B. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics.
  53. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 30–55
  54. Lin, B. (2006). Genre-based teaching and Vygotskyian principles in EFL: The case of a university writing
  55. course. Asian EFL Journal, 8 (3), 226-248.
  56. Lindeberg, A. (1994). Rhetorical conventions in the discussion/conclusion sections of research articles
  57. in finance, management and marketing. In M. Brekke, O. Anderson, T. Dahl, & J. Myking (Eds.),
  58. Applications and implications of current LSP research. Proceedings of the 9th European LSP
  59. Symposium, Bergen, Norway, August 1993 (pp. 761–779). Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.
  60. Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, Register and Genre. In F. Christie (Ed.), Children writing: Reader
  61. (pp. 21-29). Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
  62. Melander, B., Swales, J. M., & Frederickson, K. M. (1997). Journal abstracts from three academic fields
  63. in the United States and Sweden: National or disciplinary proclivities? In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture
  64. and styles of academic discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  65. Moore, T. & Morton, J. (2005). Dimensions of difference: a comparison of university writing and IELTS
  66. writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4 (4), 43-66.
  67. Ong, J. (2011). Investigating the use of cohesive devices by Chinese EFL learners. The Asian EFL
  68. Journal Quarterly, 11(3), 42–65.
  69. Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2017). Introduction to Academic Writing. Pearson Longman.
  70. Paltridge, B. (2002). Thesis and dissertation writing: An examination of published advice and actual
  71. practice. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 125–143.
  72. Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30 (4), 479-497.
  73. Raimes, A. (1990). The TOEFL Test of Written English: Causes for concern. TESOL Quarterly, 24 (3),
  74. -442.
  75. Richards, J., & Renandya, W. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current
  76. Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  77. Ridley, D. (2000). The different guises of a PhD thesis and the role of a literature review. In P. Thompson
  78. (Ed.), Patterns and perspectives: Insights into EAP writing practice (pp. 61–76). Reading:
  79. University of Reading.
  80. Rivers, W. M. (1981). Teaching Foreign Language Skills (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  81. Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master’s thesis across disciplines with a focus on
  82. introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 55-67.
  83. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge
  84. University Press.
  85. Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of Article Introductions. Birmingham, UK: University of Aston, Language
  86. Studies Unit.
  87. Swales, J. M., & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication,
  88. (2), 175–191.
  89. Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions (Aston ESP research report no. 1). Language Studies
  90. Unit, The University of Aston, Birmingham.
  91. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University
  92. Press, Cambridge
  93. Swales, John M., and Feak, Christine B. (2004). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential
  94. Tasks and Skills. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
  95. Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and a
  96. look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 79–101.
  97. Thompson, P. (2001). A pedagogically-motivated corpus-based examination of Ph.D. theses:
  98. macrostructure, citation practices and uses of modal verbs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
  99. Reading: University of Reading.
  100. Thompson, P. (2005). Points of focus and position: Intertextual reference in Ph.D. theses. Journal of
  101. English for Academic Purposes, 4 (2), 307–323.
  102. Tseng, F. (2011). Analyses of move structure and verb tense of research article abstracts in applied
  103. linguistics journals. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 27e39.
  104. Umar, I., & Ratharkrishnam, M. (2012). The effects of online teachers’ social role and learning style on
  105. students’ essay writing performance and critical thinking in a wiki environment. Procedia Social
  106. and Behavioral Sciences, 46 (4), 5730–5735.
  107. Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). RAs in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English
  108. for Specific Purposes, 4(22), 365e384.