In this study, we propose a link between L2 rhetorical concepts and ELF as a way of the analysis of the development of a single concept, of an EFL college student’s rhetorical knowledge. Using Vygotskian sociocultural theory as analytical lenses, we examine whether L2 rhetoric can be mastered and internalized as a culturally neutral concept, i.e., the formulaic knowledge of L2 writing the student has learned from the NEST through instruction; and how the student’s L1 rhetorical concept and ELF performance together mediate his L2 concept development in his academic writing. The data consist of a student’s personal narratives, text-based interviews and academic writings. Rather than the mastery of a single variety of English, he produced texts that reflect the flexibility and variability inherent in written ELF. From ELF perspectives, this study offers an opportunity of establishing a new normal, in which rhetorical conventions of texts should be viewed as constructs that are dynamic, emergent, and therefore negotiable and adaptable.

This study investigated EFL college students’ culture-related templates of written texts along the possibility of inter-cultural transfer. We designed a case study to explore how certain cultural assumptions contribute to EFL students’ rhetorical decisions while writing an argumentative writing. The participants were four EFL college students. Multiple data sources include background questionnaires, argumentative essays, and in-depth retrospective interviews. To analyze rhetorical choices in the participants’ writing, we identified choices of argumentation subtypes, and introduction and conclusion components. We also categorized the location of the writer’s main claim and thesis statement. The interview data were qualitatively analyzed to see what rhetorical resources participants draw from the cultural/educational contexts, and which factors had influenced the participants’ rhetorical strategy. Data analyses indicate that each participant manipulated different rhetorical structures to strengthen the rhetorical impact of their writing. Indeed, the complex constellation of individual participants’ cultural resources was at play in their L2 writing. This study contributes to our understanding of the rhetorical templates of L2 texts as constructs that are always in process, and therefore adaptable and negotiable.

Metadiscourse has been recognized as an important aspect of effective persuasive discourse. In this study, we explore how metadiscourse features are deployed by 34 EFL undergraduate students to make their non-discipline persuasive texts effective. We find that students grasp at least some of the metadiscourse resources available to them, but are relatively limited in rhetorical sophistication. In fact, transitions, frame markers, code glosses and hedges were found to be critical elements contributing to student writing quality. The findings also show that both frequency and diversity of frame markers are positive predictors of overall writing quality. We also investigate the linguistic forms of metadiscourse used by the students to project stance in their writing. The students were found to have difficulty handling the range of stance construction they could take, and this was unfortunately couched in single-word modal verbs. Teachers should make the metadiscourse features of persuasive writing explicit to students to assist them in making stronger arguments.

The issue of text appropriation is rarely explored in EFL classrooms where the teachers are native speakers of English. In this study we highlight how the ideology of NESTs influences students’ feedback practices. Two Korean EFL students seemingly welcomed teacher comments into their texts to make their revision process more manageable. By relinquishing their control, they welcome the appropriative behavior the teacher brings as the native English speaker. They believe that appropriating the behavior of the native English-speaking teacher is not only beneficial, but necessary in shaping their English discourse. Nonetheless, the students struggled in the feedback and revision cycles to negotiate between their hegemonic beliefs and the expectations of their native English-speaking teacher. In this sense, EFL students’ writing is always in foreclosure from the native English-speaking teachers, as EFL students are overshadowed by the ideology of NESTs.

The skill of argumentation is problematic for EFL students who are linguistically and rhetorically deficient in expressing academically appropriate forms in English. In fact, many EFL students struggle to write highly elaborate arguments. In this study, we investigated whether EFL students’ skills for argumentation improved after receiving peer feedback. We also investigated which elements of argumentation were related to the quality of argumentative writing. To this end, we used the Toulmin model of argumentation. We collected 34 EFL students’ first drafts and revisions as well as reviewers’ written feedback, and analyzed their drafts and revisions with a range of quantitative and qualitative approaches. We found that peer feedback had a positive effect upon overall writing quality. Peer feedback made meaningful contributions to the development of students’ argumentative strategies they employ. It seems apparent that peer response prompted the students to reflect on whether the logic of their argumentation made sense to the readers.

This study investigates the relationship between a native English-speaking teacher and EFL students in the response-and-revision process. The data consisted of drafts and revisions produced by three students in response to teacher comments and interviews with students. In order to examine how EFL students react to the feedback, teachers’ written feedback on the papers was evaluated by calculating frequency counts on the same types of feedback. We then examined the extent to which students made use of teacher feedback in their revisions. In addition, we supplemented our interpretations by extracting aspects of the students’ views through analysis of the interview data. All three students believe that only native speakers can correct language errors in their writing. Furthermore, the students prefer or indeed demand native English-speaking teachers as writing teachers. In fact, dissimilar student reactions to native English-speaking teacher feedback probably arise from whether and how they positioned themselves as a writer in the EFL writing classroom.