Stylistic differences in male and female undergraduate narratives: A content analysis in an EFL context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58712/se.v1i1.3Keywords:
gender, narrative writing, stylistic features, EFL writing, qualitative analysisAbstract
Writing skills are important for EFL learners, especially those in tertiary education where they are required to engage in English writing throughout their studies. While most English writing in tertiary education tends to be academic in nature, there are also narrative writings that are done by these students especially those who are majoring in English education or English literature. While there are many studies done on academic writing, there are few done on narrative writing. Therein the question lies as to if there are variations between male and female EFL students’ styles in narrative writing, which might influence how these writings are perceived or even evaluated. Therefore, this study is conducted to probe into stylistic variations between male and female undergraduate learners in their EFL character-based narrative writing. It employed descriptive qualitative methodology by way of document-based analysis. The stylistic features framework introduced by Rubin and Greene (1992) was used to distinguish writing styles between male and female undergraduate EFL students. It was found that female students applied majority of 13 stylistic features while writing which consisted of different connectives and pronouns with intensifiers alongside de-intensifiers and proximals and auxiliaries of possibility plus demonstratives. This led to more coherent and expressive writing style. The expressions of moral lessons from male students appeared shorter and indirect while female students' responses were both thorough and clear conclusions. The study proves that gendered language patterns in EFL writing tasks remain dominant thus generating implications for teaching approaches which support different writing approaches.
Downloads
References
Acar, A. S. (2023). Genre pedagogy: A writing pedagogy to help L2 writing instructors enact their classroom writing assessment literacy and feedback literacy. Assessing Writing, 56, 100717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100717
Allein, L., Tru?c?, M. M., & Moens, M.-F. (2025). Interpretation modeling: Social grounding of sentences by reasoning over their implicit moral judgments. Artificial Intelligence, 338, 104234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2024.104234
Anggraini, F. (2023). Analysis of Gender Representation in Students’ Writing Recount Text. Journal of English for Specific Purposes in Indonesia, 2(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.33369/espindonesia.v1i2.25991
Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., & Shimoni, A. R. (2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text & Talk, 23(3), 321–346. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.014
Bai, B., Shen, B., & Mei, H. (2020). Hong Kong primary students’ self-regulated writing strategy use: Influences of gender, writing proficiency, and grade level. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 65, 100839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100839
Carey, M. D., Davidow, S., & Williams, P. (2022). Re-imagining narrative writing and assessment: a post-NAPLAN craft-based rubric for creative writing. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 45(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44020-022-00004-4
Fernández-Fontecha, A. (2021). The role of learner creativity in L2 semantic fluency. An exploratory study. System, 103, 102658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102658
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
Kilby, B. (2023). Gender and communication in children and school: aligning theory and evidence. SN Social Sciences, 3(2), 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00622-w
Kim-Rich, E., & Curwood, J. S. (2023). Literacies, language, and schooling: exploring writing pedagogy for English language learners. In International Encyclopedia of Education(Fourth Edition) (pp. 65–75). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.07057-3
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500000051
Nguyen, B., & Crossan, M. (2022). Character-Infused Ethical Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(1), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04790-8
Rizkiawan, M. A. (2023). Undergraduates’ writing style in character-based narrative text: A gender perspective . Universitas Negeri Padang.
Rubin, D. L., & Greene, K. (1992). Gender-Typical Style in Written Language. Research in the Teaching of English, 26(1), 7–40. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte199215447
Saeidzadeh, Z. (2023). Gender Research and Feminist Methodologies (pp. 183–213). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14360-1_6
Savitz, R. S., Irvin, V., & Soulen, R. R. (2024). Developing an empathic analysis: Using critical literacy, dialogue, and inquiry with literature to explore the issues with gender labels. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 68(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1336
Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Men and women in conversation. In Social Interaction in Everyday Life.
van Krieken, K., Hoeken, H., & Sanders, J. (2017). Evoking and Measuring Identification with Narrative Characters – A Linguistic Cues Framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01190
Wei, P., Wang, X., & Dong, H. (2023). The impact of automated writing evaluation on second language writing skills of Chinese EFL learners: a randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1249991


STKIP PESISIR SELATAN 




















