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

A few studies have explored the use of interactional metadiscourse markers in argumentative writing by male and female college students, and none with respect to gender-sensitive topics. This study examines how Saudi male and female EFL college students exploit interactional metadiscourse markers when writing about the topic “Who are Better Drivers, Men or Women?”. Using a corpus of student essays divided into four sub-corpora (men favouring men; men arguing for women; women arguing for men; women writing in favour of women) and adopting a mixed-methods approach with AntConc and Hyland’s (2005) model, results show that female writers employed attitudinal lexis, hedges, self-mentions and boosters more than male writers. By gender and stance, females arguing for men’s driving significantly utilised hedges more than the other three groups, and females supporting female drivers used self-mentions significantly more than males arguing for men’s driving. The study suggests sensitive topics may affect the distribution of metadiscourse markers across genders and offers pedagogical implications for EFL instruction and curriculum design.