Voice Analysis in English and Persian Persuasive Texts: Pedagogical implications in focus

Document Type : Research Paper


1 University of Isfahan

2 Islamic Azad University, Shahreza Branch


The main purpose of this study is to investigate how voice is realized by Iranian EFL learners in persuasive English and Persian text types. This discourse-related notion is a required criterion for writing acceptable English. However, L2 learners from cultures other than English might face problems in realizing it, or even ignore it all through their writing. In this connection, the present study attempted to discover the possible relationship between the intensity of voice and the overall quality of text. Thus, thirty university students were selected as participants. They were asked to write in both English and Persian a persuasive text within the same subject matter. Then, their writings were rated in terms of intensity of voice and the overall quality based on Jacobs’ voice intensity scale and Jacobs’ overall quality scale (1981), respectively. The analysis of their productions indicated that there is a significant relationship between voice intensity and some of its features, and overall quality; while no relationship was found between English and Persian voice intensity. Therefore, voice deserves more attention on the part of writing instructor, as it could enrich the quality of L2 learners’ written productions with more sense of naturalness and smoothness. Moreover, material designers can incorporate English writing materials with various aspects of this critical notion, in addition to other language rhetoric, for learners at appropriate language proficiency level.


            Belcher, D. (1997), An argument of non-adverbial argumentation: The feminist critique of academic discourse to L2 writing pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 21.
Cadman, K. (1997). Thesis writing for international students: A question of identity? English for specific purposes, 16, 3- 14.
Elbow, P. (1994), Landmark essays on voice and writing, CA: Hermagoras Press.
            Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the World: Cultural issues in academic writing, Urbara Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
            Hamp- Lyons, L. (1990). Second language writing: Assessment issues. In B. Kroll, Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (PP. 67- 68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2008). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continum.
Ivanic, R., & Camps, .D (2001), Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 1-2:3-33.
Kaplan, R. (1987). Cultural thought patterns. Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 tests, pp.9- 21.
Matsuda, P.K. (2001). Voice in Japanese writers discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second language writing, 10, 35- 53.
Stapleton, P. (2002). Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in writing: Returning the spotlight to ideas. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 177-190.
Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The “I” identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 23-39.
Zhao, C. G., Liosa, L. (2008). Voice in high-stakes L1 academic writing assessment: Implications for L2 writing instruction. Assessing writing, 13 (3), 153-170.