Home⇛Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives⇛vol. 3 no. 12 (2025)

Gender Identity and Metadiscourse Marker Usage: An Analysis of Grade 11 Learners’ Argumentative Essays

Mark Kervin Y. Alcantara

Discipline: social sciences (non-specific)

 

Abstract:

Effective written communication, especially in argumentative writing, is vital for academic and professional success. This study examines the unique patterns of metadiscourse usage among male, female, gay, and lesbian individuals in the Philippines, thereby broadening the existing literature on gender-related writing practices. The research emphasizes the significance of representation in academic writing, recognizing the diversity of identities and experiences. It suggests that including gay and lesbian learners in studies can enhance understanding of their language practices and promote representation. This study analyzed interactional metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays from 120 Filipino Senior High School learners who self-identified their gender identity. The cohort consisted of 30 learners identifying as male, 30 as female, 30 as gay, and 30 as lesbian. The primary data source consisted of five argumentative essays from each student, which were analyzed for interactional metadiscourse markers using manual methods and AntConc 4.20, yielding an intercoder agreement rate of 85%. Ethical considerations were paramount; all participants provided informed consent, and their anonymity was protected throughout the analysis, particularly given the sensitive nature of self-disclosed gender identity. The study highlighted significant gender differences in marker usage, with "self-mention" being the most common. Male learners exhibited a complex interplay between indirectness and assertiveness using hedges and boosters. Female learners employed hedges for caution and boosters for confidence. Lesbian and gay learners balanced caution and assertiveness, reflecting strategic communication. The study advocates for teaching metadiscourse in primary education and addressing limitations, such as a small sample size and a lack of participant demographics, in future research to improve generalizability. This approach can help students broaden their knowledge and develop diverse communication tactics, fostering self-reflection on the function of metadiscourse and its link to gender and culture in general.



References:

  1. AbdelWahab, A. F. (2020). Using interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers to develop EFL first-year special diploma students' academic writing skills. Journal of Faculty of Education Assiut University, 36(2), 1–28.
  2. Abdi, R., & Hyland, K. (2019). Gender and metadiscourse: An analysis of engagement markers in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 65–77.
  3. American Psychological Association. (2021). APA dictionary of psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org
  4. Amistad, A. (2018). The lived experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth during their secondary education. Psych Educ.
  5. Anggraini, H. W. (2016). The differences among writing anxiety, gender, and writing achievement of English study program students of PGRI University, Palembang. https://doi.org/10.36706/jele.v3i1.2979
  6. Anggraini, H. W. (2017). Gender-based differences in levels of writing anxiety of undergraduate students of English study program. Language Center of Sriwijaya University, South Sumatra. https://core.ac.uk/download/327227499.pdf
  7. Al-Hindawi, M. (2017). Intercultural communication: A contextual approach. Cengage Learning.
  8. Badari, A. P., et al. (2019). An analysis of features and functions in women's speech in the talk show United States of Women Summit. Journal Albion. https://doi.org/10.33751/v1i2.1309
  9. Banet-Weiser, S. (2018). Activism on autopilot: The digital mobilization of millennial and postmillennial social movements. Femsocieties, 14(2), 183–204. https://tinyurl.com/2p3fzm4e
  10. Bouhali, M., Boulakoul, M., & Amiri, A. (2016). Hedges and boosters as metadiscourse markers of certainty and uncertainty in research article discussion sections: A gender-based analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 142–152.
  11. Butler, P. W. (2018). Gender and culture in American society. University of Notre Dame. https://tinyurl.com/muvw8mh2
  12. Chen, P. L., & Yang, Y. H. (2018). The effects of argumentative writing instruction on EFL learners' self-efficacy in argumentation. 76, 209–222.
  13. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
  14. Eckert, P. (2017). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 46, 169–184.
  15. Fan, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2021). A scaffolding tool to assist learners in argumentative writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(1), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1660685
  16. Furtina, D., Fata, I. A., & Fitrisia, D. (2016). Grammatical errors in writing task: Males vs. females. Reciprocal Graduate Research Symposium Between University of Pendidikan Sultan Idris and Syiah Kuala University.
  17. GLAAD. (2021). Glossary of terms – LGBTQ. https://www.glaad.org/reference/lgbtq
  18. Gong, H. (2021). The influence of gender on the use of metadiscourse in academic writing. Language and Communication, 76, 92–103.
  19. Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
  20. Hyland, K., & Liu, X. (2020). Metadiscourse beyond culture: A cross-linguistic comparison of Chinese and English research articles. Frontiers in Psychology. https://tinyurl.com/54cjx5ky
  21. Jansen, S. C. (2018). #MeToo and the politics of social media outrage. European Journal of Women's Studies, 25(4), 442–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506818790570
  22. Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315813639
  23. Klein, P. D., & Boscolo, P. (2016). Trends in research on writing as a learning activity. Journal of Writing Research, 7(3), 311–350. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.01
  24. Kosar, S. A. (2020). Millennials and Generation Z: Men’s perspectives on hashtag feminism (Master’s Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). Virginia Tech Digital Library. https://tinyurl.com/5xy3xyu7
  25. Labicane, G. E. M., & Oliva, R. M. M. (2022). Common errors in composition writing by college students. Linguistics and Literature Journal, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.30743/ll.v6i1.4975
  26. Liunokas, Y. (2020). Assessing students’ ability in writing argumentative essays at an Indonesian senior high school. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 8(1), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v8i1.1344
  27. Livingstone, A. G., Levine, M., & Wilkins, D. J. (2019). All click, no action? Online action, efficacy perceptions, and prior experience combine to affect future collective action. Computers in Human Behavior, 91, 97–105.
  28. Marra, M., & Paule, A. (2018). “I feel like people don’t take me seriously”: Nonbinary individuals’ experiences with language and gender identity. Journal of Language and Discrimination, 2(1), 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1558/jld.37295
  29. Mustafa, F., & Kirana, M. (2017). Errors in EFL writing by junior high students in Indonesia. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 6(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2016.1366
  30. Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., Taghizadeh, N., Kerman, M. P. A., Babayi, M., Ashrafi, H., & Biemans, H. J. A. (2022). Gender differences in students’ argumentative essay writing, peer review performance, and uptake in online learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2034887
  31. Pasaribu, T. A. (2017). Gender differences and the use of metadiscourse markers in writing essays. International Journal of Humanity Studies, 1(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijhs.2017.010110
  32. Prata, M. J., de Sousa, B., Festas, I., & Oliveira, A. L. (2019). Cooperative methods and self-regulated strategies development for argumentative writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(1), 12–27.
  33. Richardson, L. (2018). Inclusive language: Words matter. Nurse Education Today, 61, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.001
  34. Taragua, A. T. R. (2020). Issues and concerns of the academic well-being of lesbians, gay, bisexual, and transgenders: A qualitative study. Globus, Journal of Progressive Education, 10(2), 35–50.
  35. Thomson, K. (2021). An analysis of LGBTQ+ representation in television and film. Bridges: An Undergraduate Journal of Contemporary Connections, 5(1), 7–21.
  36. Valero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2019). The effects of an online learning environment with worked examples and peer feedback on students’ argumentative essay writing and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in the field of biotechnology. Journal of Biological Education, 53(4), 390–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1472132
  37. Valero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2020). Argumentation competence: Students’ argumentation knowledge, behavior, and attitude, and their relationships with domain-specific knowledge acquisition. Journal of Constructivist Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2020.1734995
  38. Wei, J., et al. (2016). Studies on metadiscourse since the 3rd millennium. Journal of English and Practice, 7(9).
  39. World Health Organization. (2021). Gender and health. https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender
  40. Zali, M., et al. (2021). Comparisons of interactive and interactional metadiscourse among undergraduates. Academy of Language Studies, University of Teknologi MARA. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i4.11946

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic