The Influence of Gender and Culture on First and Second Language Writing of Chinese and Japanese-speaking University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the influence of gender and culture on 23 university students’ first language (L1) and second language writing (L2). Specifically, the study investigated the extent to which gender differences would emerge in students’ L1 and L2 writing and whether any such differences would manifest themselves differentially in L1 as opposed to L2 writing. \n\tStudents represented three national groups (8 Japanese students, 7 Chinese students, and 8 Taiwanese students). The Japanese and Chinese groups received their schooling in their home countries and came to Canada for purposes of university studies. However, the Taiwanese group came to Canada during their schooling years and consequently their English academic skills were better developed than their Chinese skills. L1 and L2 writing was sampled with four different writing tasks and analyzed for patterns of lexical and rhetorical usage. Stimulated-recall interviews were conducted with each student after they had completed the four writing tasks. The goal of the interviews was to identify the metacognitive strategies the students utilized in their L1 and L2 writing. Issues related to how students’ identities intersected with their L1 and L2 writing were also explored.\nBecause the national groups are heterogeneous with respect to L1 and L2 writing experience, each group was considered as a separate case study for purposes of analysis. Exploratory cross-group analyses were carried out only to throw additional light on within-group trends. In the sample as a whole, statistical differences related to gender did not emerge. However, qualitative analysis of students’ L1 writing showed a distinct gender difference within the Japanese group. Specifically, Japanese females used considerably more politeness markers in their Japanese writing in comparison to Japanese males whose L1 writing tended to be more assertive. These differences were not apparent in males’ and females’ L2 (English) writing. No gender differences were observed in either L1 or L2 among the Chinese and Taiwanese groups. The findings suggest that learners absorb the instruction they receive in relation to effective ways of writing in their L2 environments and are fully capable of adjusting lexical and rhetorical features from L1 norms to L2 norms. The fact that female Japanese students did not generalize the politeness features they used in Japanese to English suggests that student identities are fluid and shift according to the cultural and linguistic context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".