Persuading in Arabic and English: A Study of EFL Argumentative Writing in Contrast with Native English Norms

1 Introduction

Undergraduate students need to master argumentative academic writing to meet the requirements of higher education (Ghanbari & Salari, 2022; Ozfidan & Mitchell 2020, 2022; Wu, 2006). The ability to construct and assess arguments in academic writing is recognized as a fundamental university objective (e.g., El Majidi et al., 2021; Pérez-Echeverría et al., 2016; Teng & Yue, 2023). To successfully navigate their university studies, students must be adept at discerning and analyzing arguments and crafting coherent and convincing arguments themselves. Despite the undeniable importance of argumentative academic writing as a skill, it poses a significant challenge for many university students (Altınmakas & Bayyurt, 2019; Divsar & Amirsoleimani, 2021; Saprina et al., 2020; Sundari & Febriyanti, 2021). This challenge can be attributed to students’ difficulties in effectively organizing their arguments (Bacha, 2010; Su et al., 2021; Wingate, 2012). Students are often provided with only basic instructions on argumentative academic writing and are expected to apply them independently without sufficient support (e.g., Ahmad et al., 2024; Bailey & Almusharraf, 2022). This lack of support may result from the absence of comprehensive models for persuasive strategies. The literature has shown that university teachers sometimes struggle with uncertainty over the requirements of argumentative writing (Casanave, 2004; Jacobs, 2005; Mutch, 2003; Wingate, 2012).

Constructing arguments in a second language (L2) presents additional challenges for students (e.g., Majidi et al., 2023; Yoon, 2021), a common scenario in universities where English is the medium of instruction in non-English-speaking countries. Students in these contexts often struggle due to their limited L2 proficiency. They also encounter difficulties with the different writing conventions between their first language (L1) and their L2. According to Connor’s (2011) intercultural rhetoric, different cultures possess distinct rhetorical traditions that influence how individuals structure their arguments, develop ideas, and employ persuasive strategies. In this context, L2 learners may transfer rhetorical strategies and expectations from their L1 to their L2 writing. This is particularly relevant for English as a foreign language (EFL) learners, who are the focus of the current study, as they might approach English academic writing differently from American students given that Arabic and English are typographically, linguistically, and culturally distant languages. For instance, while American and British academic writing typically values explicit argumentation, directness, and clarity, Arabic, along with several Asian and Eastern cultures, is known for placing greater emphasis on indirectness, humility, and harmony. Therefore, examining how EFL writers express argumentation in their L2 English is an intriguing area of research.

Given the significant importance of argumentative writing and the considerable challenges it poses, numerous studies have investigated how language learners, particularly those studying EFL, construct arguments (e.g., Guo et al., 2024; Lee & Lee, 2024; Li & Wang, 2024; Zarrabi & Bozorgian, 2020). However, research on the use of persuasive strategies by EFL learners in their argumentative writing remains scarce. Thus, this study aims to address this gap by examining how EFL learners employ persuasive strategies in their argumentative writing, comparing their English compositions with both their Arabic writing and that of native English speakers. This comparison is crucial for several reasons. First, there is a genuine gap in the literature regarding how EFL learners attempt to persuade readers. It is important to address this gap because it will inform the fields of contrastive rhetoric and EFL pedagogy. By revealing how learners navigate persuasive writing in both their first and second languages, the study can contribute to a deeper understanding of the rhetorical adjustments learners make and the challenges they face, which in turn can guide more effective teaching strategies and curriculum design. Second, the current study contrasts two distinct languages, as noted earlier. Thus, the findings will be highly relevant to the field of contrastive rhetoric. Third, this study involves a tripartite comparison between the writings of EFL learners in their first language (Arabic) and their second language (English), alongside native speakers of English. This type of comparison is often overlooked in the literature, yet it is essential as it allows an examination of EFL learners’ second language writing compared to two pertinent baselines (i.e., writings in Arabic by NSs of Arabic and in English by NSs of English). This tripartite comparison constitutes a significant contribution to the present study. Finally, this investigation explores the influence of language proficiency on EFL learners’ use of persuasive strategies. The findings will offer valuable insights for educators, emphasizing the importance of incorporating targeted instructional interventions in teaching argumentative writing, especially regarding the application of persuasive strategies.

To provide context for the present study, the upcoming sections will explore the relevant theoretical frameworks as well as provide a review of key studies. Subsequently, the research questions, methodology, and results analysis will be presented. The article will conclude by discussing pedagogical implications and suggesting directions for future research.

2 Theoretical Background

The present study examines the rhetorical persuasive strategies utilized in the argumentative paragraphs produced by both EFL learners and native English speakers. The study of rhetorical persuasion strategies dates back to Aristotle’s triad of persuasive appeals: ethos, logos, and pathos. As noted by Perloff (2010), Aristotle identified three essential components of persuasion: ethos, which pertains to the character of the communicator; pathos, which relates to the emotional state of the audience; and logos, which focuses on the logic and reasoning within the message (p. 28). Thus, Aristotle’s three appeals involve emphasizing the credibility of the speaker’s information in the case of ethos, the provision of facts and logical content in the case of logos, and the use of emotions in the case of pathos. Although several studies have employed these appeals to examine the power of persuasion in different genres, they often lack a more in-depth and comprehensive model that associates each appeal with relevant persuasive strategies and linguistic resources (El-Dakhs et al., 2024).

To address this limitation, the current study adopts a more recent model of persuasion based on Aristotle’s three appeals. Proposed by Dontcheva-Navratilova et al. (2020) and informed by corpus studies, this model categorizes various rhetorical strategies into ethos, logos, and pathos. In addition, it offers four tailored versions of this classification to meet the specific needs of business, religious, technical, and academic discourse. The business version applies to any form of communication within the realm of business. The religious version pertains to texts that comment on, interpret, or refer to religious matters. The technical version is suited for texts aiming to disseminate knowledge and technological advancements. The academic version is most appropriate for texts used in academic settings, including academic paragraphs, as is the case in this study. Therefore, we utilize the academic version of the model to analyze the participants’ paragraphs in the current study. A thorough description of the model is provided in the methodology section of this paper.

The persuasive model proposed by Dontcheva-Navratilova et al. (2020) comprises persuasive strategies together with pertinent linguistic resources to implement these strategies. Most of these linguistic resources consist of metadiscourse markers, which serve as lexical tools to organize discourse, express attitudes, present evidence, and establish a connection with the reader (Afzaal et al., 2022). Hyland’s (2005) taxonomy categorizes metadiscourse into interactive and interactional markers, providing a valuable framework for analysis. Interactive markers, which include logical connectives, frame markers, endophoric markers, evidentials, and code glosses, assist readers in navigating the text. Conversely, interactional markers – such as hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions, and engagement markers – are designed to engage readers and promote their active participation in the text. Table 1 presents an overview of Hyland’s taxonomy, featuring specific markers and illustrative examples.

3 Literature Review

Aristotle’ s principles of persuasion have been widely applied to analyze persuasive discourse across various genres. These include public speaking (e.g., Fanani et al., 2020; Zhiyong, 2016), research article abstracts (e.g., El-Dakhs et al., 2024; Mohamad, 2022), letters (e.g., Al-Momani, 2014; Chakorn, 2006), emails and faxes (e.g., Krishnan et al., 2020; Zhu, 2013), and social media posts (e.g., Berlanga et al., 2013; El-Dakhs, 2022). However, only two studies have utilized Aristotle’s appeals to examine the persuasive strategies in argumentative essays. One of these studies, conducted by Kamimura and Oi (1998), compared the argumentative techniques used in English essays about capital punishment by American and Japanese students. The analysis of 42 essays by high school students from both groups encompassed aspects such as organizational patterns, rhetorical appeals, diction, and cultural influences. The findings indicated that American students relied more on logical appeals (logos) by presenting rational justifications, while Japanese students favored emotional appeals (pathos), focusing on eliciting empathy and influencing emotions. The second study that employed Aristotle’s persuasive appeals in examining argumentative essays was conducted by Uysal (2012), who attempted to investigate how 18 native Turkish speakers expressed arguments in both their native language (Turkish, L1) and English (L2). To examine the different preferences within a cultural-educational framework, the participants completed a survey regarding their previous writing instruction, wrote argumentative essays in their L1 and L2, and participated in interviews. The essays were analyzed for the use of argument structures, indirect devices, persuasive appeals, and language style. The results indicated that despite the participants’ differences in their L2 competence and their previous L2 writing history, the L1 and L2 essays were similar for most categories, such as explicit statements of claims, similar frequencies of indirect devices, hedging, and the use of Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals. These similarities were interpreted in terms of a bi-directional transfer between the two languages (i.e., Turkish and English), as most patterns were traced to both L1 and L2 instructional contexts. The results also revealed some culture-motivated contrasts between the Turkish and English essays, particularly in the use of assertive devices, rhetorical questions, and elaborative language.

It must be obvious that there is a genuine lack of research on how L2 learners incorporate persuasive appeals in argumentative essays, with only two studies having thus far attempted to examine their use (i.e., Kamimura & Oi, 1998; Uysal, 2012). Nevertheless, several limitations were identified within the designs of these studies. First, they employed appeals without a comprehensive model that links these appeals to concrete linguistic resources for realizing them. The present study addresses this concern by employing the comprehensive model of persuasion by Dontcheva-Navratilova et al. (2020), as mentioned earlier. Second, Kamimura and Oi (1998) compared the use of persuasive appeals as utilized natively in two languages, while Uysal (2012) examined the appeals in the two languages of bilinguals. Neither of these two studies attempted to investigate L2 essay writing while comparing the use of persuasive appeals in the bilinguals’ L1 and L2 with essays written by L1 speakers as a baseline for comparison. The current study overcomes this limitation by examining Arabic–English bilinguals’ essays in their L1 and L2 in comparison with American students’ essays in their L1.

As in the case of Aristotle’s persuasive appeals, metadiscourse markers have been examined across a wide range of genres, including research articles (e.g., El-Dakhs, 2018a, b; Kashiha, 2021), master’s and doctoral theses (e.g., Kawase, 2015; Míguez-Álvarez et al., 2023), academic blogs (e.g., Hyland & Zou, 2020; Zou & Hyland, 2020), and book reviews (e.g., Birhan, 2021; Soleimani et al., 2020). However, studies examining metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays are far less common. One relevant study is Kobayashi (2016), which investigated the use of metadiscourse markers in English essays written by EFL learners from diverse L1 backgrounds, including Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, and Thai. The analysis revealed notable differences in the frequency of marker usage between the East Asian group (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese) and the Southeast Asian group (Indonesian and Thai). Each group exhibited distinct patterns of marker usage. For instance, Japanese learners overused frame markers, reflecting a superficial focus on logical structure that resulted in artificial, mechanical prose. Surprisingly, Japanese learners also employed self-mentions, boosters, and attitude markers more frequently than other groups, despite Japanese being a reader-responsible language with grammatical features – such as the omission of subjects – that might suggest reduced use of self-mentions.

In addition to comparing the use of metadiscourse markers among EFL learners of different L1 backgrounds, other studies investigated the relationship between metadiscourse markers and essay quality, comparing their use in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. For instance, Lee and Deakin (2016) investigated how Chinese english as a second language (ESL) students used interactional metadiscourse in argumentative essays, comparing successful and less successful examples. They also compared the writing of these students with the high-rated essays written by L1 speakers. The analysis of the three groups of essays (i.e., 25 successful ESL essays, 25 less-successful ESL essays, and 25 successful essays by L1 speakers) revealed significant differences in the use of certain stance and engagement resources in the three groups. For example, successful essays, written by both native and non-native English speakers, utilized significantly more hedging devices compared to less successful essays. The results also failed to find statistically significant differences across the three groups regarding the use of other metadiscourse markers, such as boosters and attitude markers. Interestingly, the study revealed that the L2 speakers were generally reluctant to establish an authoritative identity in their writing, a finding that came in contrast to L1 speakers’ preference to establish a clear authorial identity.

Park and Oh (2018) examined the use of metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays written by native English speakers and Korean EFL learners of varying proficiency levels. Their analysis of interactive and interactional markers showed significant differences in both the quantity and quality of metadiscourse usage across proficiency levels. The findings showed that higher language proficiency correlated with decreased use of interactive markers, more balanced use of interactional markers (like hedges and boosters), and the overall number of metadiscourse markers increased. This suggests that higher language proficiency fosters a more dialogic approach to interaction and greater audience engagement in learners’ persuasive writing.

The connection between language proficiency and the use of metadiscourse markers has spurred additional research. For instance, El-Dakhs (2020) investigated the impact of language proficiency and learning context (EFL vs ESL) on metadiscourse use in 180 argumentative essays. These essays, written by American undergraduates and Japanese (EFL) and Hong Kong (ESL) learners, were sourced from the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE). Using Hyland’s (2005) metadiscourse taxonomy, the analysis showed that learning context significantly affected marker use. For example, EFL learners employed more frame markers, attitude markers, and self-mentions compared to the ESL group, while the ESL group used more hedges. In contrast, language proficiency had a more limited effect, influencing only the frequent use of transition markers, frame markers, and interactive markers by the lower proficiency group.

Taken together, the studies on metadiscourse reflect two limitations for this line of research. First, the research on the use of metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays has been restricted to specific language backgrounds. Most studies have focused on East Asian English learners, particularly Chinese, Japanese, and Korean students. Second, research in this area has mainly relied on comparing two corpora of argumentative essays: namely, one by EFL/ESL learners and one by native speakers of English. No earlier research considered including the essays of the same EFL/ESL learners in their native languages as a baseline for comparison. The current study overcomes these limitations by focusing on Saudi learners of EFL, a relatively underrepresented population in this line of research. In addition, the current study compared the argumentative essays of those EFL learners in both English and Arabic with the argumentative essays of American (L1) speakers. Hence, a baseline for comparison is established. Therefore, the current study fills a true gap in the literature by overcoming the limitations of earlier research on persuasion and previous studies on metadiscourse in relation to argumentative L2 writing. By integrating learners’ L1 writing into the analysis, the study contributes to contrastive rhetoric by illuminating how cultural and linguistic norms shape persuasive practices across languages. This understanding is essential for EFL pedagogy, as it can inform more nuanced, culturally responsive instruction that helps learners bridge rhetorical expectations in their L1 and L2 writing.

4 Methodology

5 Results

This section is divided as per the research questions.

5.4 To What Extent do Persuasive Strategies Exhibit a Different Frequency of Occurrence in the Native and Non-Native Speakers’ Argumentative Essays?

The use of different persuasive strategies in the participants’ paragraphs is represented in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1

Use of the persuasive strategies in the participants’ paragraphs.

A one-way ANOVA test was used to look at how often persuasive strategies appeared in the argumentative essays written by native speakers and EFL learners. As shown in Table 5, several significant differences were found. First, native speakers of English used ethos strategies significantly more often, particularly in showing involvement (i.e., self-mentions), sharing personal views (i.e., self-mentions and attitude markers), modulating commitment to claims (i.e., hedges and boosters), and creating a sense of community (i.e., self-mentions, appeals to shared knowledge). Second, Arabic–English bilinguals used logos strategies more frequently than native speakers, especially in the form of logical reasoning (i.e., logical connections between sentences) in both their English and Arabic paragraphs. Third, the Arabic–English bilinguals employed the pathos appeal considerably more frequently in their English paragraphs, particularly when fostering a sense of camaraderie (i.e., reader references, appeals to common knowledge, enquiries, and asides). Regarding the expressive evaluation strategy (i.e., evaluative language and attitude markers) under the pathos appeal, it was employed significantly less frequently by native speakers of English than by the Arabic–English bilinguals.

Table 5

One-way ANOVA results of the persuasive strategies

	EFL Participants – English paragraphs	EFL Participants – Arabic paragraphs	NS Baseline – English paragraphs	F	p
	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD
Ethos	2.92 ± 1.87	3.02 ± 1.50	6.94 ± 2.95	66.291*	<0.001*
Showing involvement	0.65 ± 0.86	0.18 ± 0.40	2.64 ± 2.50	43.426*	<0.001*
Sharing personal views	0.45 ± 0.57	0.47 ± 0.58	1.10 ± 0.68	21.496*	<0.001*
Modulating commitment to claims	1.54 ± 1.06	2.07 ± 1.15	2.53 ± 1.16	11.807*	<0.001*
Reference to authority	0.0 ± 0.0	0.0 ± 0.0	0.01 ± 0.05	1.017	0.364
Providing credentials	0.0 ± 0.0	0.0 ± 0.0	0.0 ± 0.0	—	—
Claiming common ground	0.25 ± 1.27	0.22 ± 0.31	0.22 ± 0.40	0.028	0.973
Sense of community	0.02 ± 0.14	0.07 ± 0.24	0.45 ± 0.97	9.550*	<0.001*
Reference to expert knowledge	0.0 ± 0.0	0.0 ± 0.0	0.0 ± 0.0	—	—
Logos	5.35 ± 2.21	5.20 ± 1.43	3.84 ± 1.09	15.375*	<0.001*
Logical reasoning	5.34 ± 2.20	5.18 ± 1.43	3.83 ± 1.08	15.441*	<0.001*
Reference to statistics and facts	0.02 ± 0.09	0.01 ± 0.07	0.02 ± 0.09	0.021	0.979
Experimental proof	0.0 ± 0.0	0.0 ± 0.0	0.0 ± 0.0	—	—
Proof by exemplification/testing	0.0 ± 0.0	0.01 ± 0.06	0.0 ± 0.0	0.992	0.373
Providing evidence	0.0 ± 0.0	0.0 ± 0.0	0.0 ± 0.0	—	—
Pathos	3.99 ± 3.10	2.36 ± 1.55	2.61 ± 2.0	8.868*	<0.001*
Evoking positive/negative emotions	0.40 ± 0.70	0.52 ± 0.77	0.61 ± 0.67	1.227	0.296
Expressive evaluation	1.49 ± 0.92	1.43 ± 1.19	0.98 ± 0.87	4.769*	0.010*
Creating an atmosphere of collegiality	2.10 ± 2.93	0.41 ± 0.93	1.02 ± 1.66	10.939*	<0.001*

F: F for One way ANOVA test.

*: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.

6 Discussion

The present study compared English and Arabic argumentative academic paragraphs written by Arabic–English bilinguals with English paragraphs written by native speakers of English. Five research questions were put out to accomplish the study aim. The first three research questions required the use of descriptive statistics, including the numbers and frequencies of the persuasive strategies and relevant linguistic resources used in these paragraphs. The results clearly showed that the appeal used mainly by the participants, whether in English or Arabic, is the logos appeal, as represented by the logical reasoning strategy. The excessive use of logical reasoning by the participants reflects the tendency of the Arabic language to make intersentential relations more explicit through the use of logical connectives (e.g., “wa” = and “fa-” = and/so). It is widely acknowledged that the Arabic language exhibits a more dense use of interclausal and intersentential connectors than the English language (Dickins, 2017). The English language, in contrast, tends to use fewer intersentential connectors as many of the connections are indicated implicitly.

Another finding related to the first three questions is that the appeal predominantly utilized by English native speakers is the ethos appeal, primarily represented by strategies involving showing involvement and modulating claims. According to Connor’s (2011) Intercultural Rhetoric framework, American writers may have developed this rhetorical choice based on specific cultural priorities. The individualistic nature of American society helps explain the predominant use of the ethos appeal, which likely pushed American writers to emphasize their involvement through the frequent use of self-mentions. In addition, there is a significant reliance on the strategy of modulating claims, as often represented by hedges and boosters. However, this usage is similar to the choices made by EFL learners in both their English and Arabic writing. Thus, this appears to be a feature of argumentative writing in general, which emphasizes specifying arguments carefully with boosting or hedging when necessary.

As for the pathos appeal, it was the least used by both the EFL learners and the English native speakers. This relative underuse of the pathos appeal might be a reflection of the nature of college argumentation writing, which is often dependent on facts and logical content in addition to obvious elements of credibility rather than emotional content. Interestingly, the majority of the pathos appeal in the three groups of paragraphs was represented by the use of evaluative lexis and attitude markers, which is expected since the argumentative paragraph the participants were required to write involved taking a position for or against having a part-time job during college years. Hence, it comes as no surprise that the participants would describe their choices with evaluative lexis and attitude markers. It must be noted that English native speakers and EFL writers in their English paragraphs created an atmosphere of collegiality through the frequent use of questions and appeals to common knowledge to a relatively great extent. According to Connor’s (2011) intercultural rhetoric, American writers may follow different writing conventions based on their cultural backgrounds. In this context, American English is known to be a writer-responsible language. This means that English native speakers are expected to involve their readers in their writing using various markers. In contrast, Arabic–English bilinguals may find it easier to replicate this approach because questions and appeals to shared knowledge (e.g., “as you may know”) are straightforward structures that EFL learners can employ easily. This result was also found in a previous study by El-Dakhs et al. (2022) about the use of metadiscourse markers by EFL learners in which it was found that instruction led the learners to use these two structures easily in their persuasive writing.

The fourth research question sought to explore potential statistical variations in the application of persuasive strategies by Arabic–English bilinguals and native speakers of English. A one-way ANOVA test, which applied inferential statistics, revealed several statistically significant differences. One notable difference was related to the logos appeal. The EFL learners used logical reasoning far more frequently than native English speakers. This finding contrasts with the results of Kamimura and Oi (1998), who found that native English speakers used logos more frequently than Japanese speakers. However, this discrepancy was previously explained by the Arabic language’s tendency to use a large number of intersentential connectors (Dickins, 2017), which led to increased utilization of logical reasoning strategies and, consequently, a greater appeal to logos. In addition to the differences in logos, it was also found that native English speakers employed a substantially higher number of ethos strategies compared to EFL learners. This was evident in strategies such as showing involvement, sharing personal views, modulating claims, and community engagement. Once again, this statistical disparity can be attributed to the individualistic nature of American society, which emphasizes the use of self-mentions and individual opinions. It is widely recognized in the literature (e.g., Hu & Cao, 2011) that English writers often adopt a tentative stance in their writing, influenced by the rhetorical norms of the Anglo-American discourse community, which have roots in Socratic and Aristotelian philosophical traditions. These traditions place great importance on challenging notions and assumptions, critically evaluating knowledge, acknowledging subjectivity, and considering multiple interpretations.

Notably, the results of research by Lee and Deakin (2016) and El-Dakhs (2020) are consistent with the finding that native English speakers utilized a much higher number of hedges than EFL learners. Furthermore, compared to English native speakers, EFL learners employed the pathos appeal much more frequently. This was noted in the learners’ Arabic and English paragraphs regarding the usage of evaluative expression, primarily in the form of evaluative lexis. However, the difference was limited to the English paragraphs with the strategy of creating an atmosphere of collegiality. As explained earlier, it is relatively easy to incorporate simple grammatical structures (e.g., questions and “as you know”) in the learners’ writing to mirror the native speakers’ versions.

The fifth study question examined how EFL learners’ use of persuasive techniques in their English paragraphs was influenced by their English language proficiency level. Although the participants’ language abilities ranged from A2 to C2, the impact on the use of persuasive strategies was limited to an increased application of ethos appeal and emotion-evoking strategies. This limited influence indicates that the development of persuasive strategies does not necessarily advance with higher language proficiency. The Arabic–English bilinguals may continue to follow their native language patterns of persuasion, even when writing in a foreign language. One possible explanation for this is that learners may rely on culturally embedded rhetorical norms acquired through their first language, which are not automatically replaced or supplemented by new rhetorical conventions as language proficiency improves. The Arabic–English bilinguals in this study may have continued to follow their native language’s patterns of persuasion, even when writing in English, reflecting a transfer of L1 rhetorical preferences. In addition, instructional factors may play a role: many EFL curricula prioritize grammar, vocabulary, and general writing skills over rhetorical awareness and persuasive writing techniques. As a result, even advanced learners may not receive adequate training in adapting their persuasive strategies to fit the expectations of English argumentative writing. It must be noted that this finding aligns with Uysal’s (2012) results, which showed that Turkish EFL learners employed similar persuasive strategies in their L1 and L2. Therefore, explicit instruction on persuasive strategies and relevant linguistic resources may be considered essential for EFL learning, as recommended by Connor’s (2011) Intercultural Rhetoric framework, which posits that writers can learn to adjust their writing strategies through awareness-raising exercises, instructional interventions, and supported practice.

It is important to note that the current study’s findings should be interpreted with caution due to two key limitations. First, the Arabic–English bilinguals were all female undergraduates from a translation department at a public university. We collected data from this population because this is the population we had access to. The second and third researchers teach at the translation department from which the data were collected. In addition, they did not have access to the male campus because the male and female campuses are segregated. The female focus creates gender imbalance, preventing analysis of potential male–female differences in the data. It is recommended for future studies to collect data from both male and female participants and, perhaps, examine how the use of persuasive strategies might be influenced by gender differences. It is also recommended to collect data from non-English major students who might be using persuasive strategies differently. Second, the data were based on written paragraphs in response to a single prompt: “It is important for college students to have a part-time job.” Focusing solely on writings generated from one prompt raises concerns about the generalizability of our findings and leads us to draw tentative conclusions regarding the specific context in which the data were collected.

7 Conclusion

The purpose of this study is to investigate how EFL students employ persuasive techniques in their argumentative English writing. In light of this, 60 English argumentative paragraphs by Arabic–English bilinguals were compared with 60 Arabic paragraphs by the same participants and 60 English paragraphs by English native speakers for the use of persuasive strategies. The findings revealed statistically significant variations in the application of persuasive strategies in the three groups of paragraphs. Most importantly, the EFL learners tended to employ similar persuasive strategies in their Arabic and English paragraphs, which were sometimes different from the strategies employed in the English paragraphs by the American undergraduates. This was mostly obvious in the Arabic–English bilinguals’ more frequent use of logical reasoning and evaluative expression and less frequent use of showing involvement, sharing personal views, modulating commitment to claims, and community use. It was also found that increased language proficiency had limited influence on the persuasive strategies of EFL writers.

Based on these findings, we recommend explicit instruction in persuasive strategies and their relevant linguistic resources in university-level academic writing classes. As EFL learners followed persuasive patterns in their L2 similar to those in their L1, despite the rhetorical differences observed in American undergraduate writing, language instructors must address this disparity directly by adopting targeted pedagogical approaches. Notably, increased language proficiency alone did not significantly advance the use of persuasive strategies by EFL learners. One effective strategy is contrastive instruction, where students analyze and compare persuasive writing in Arabic and English, focusing on key rhetorical elements such as metadiscourse markers (e.g., transition words vs self-mentions) to enhance rhetorical awareness. In addition, a genre-based approach (Hyland, 2007) can be employed to increase students’ awareness of the specific conventions of argumentative writing by providing model texts, engaging them in scaffolded practice, and emphasizing audience expectations. Utilizing comprehensive frameworks, such as Dontcheva-Navratilova et al.’s (2020) model, further supports this process by linking Aristotle’s three persuasive appeals to concrete linguistic resources. It is important to note that our pedagogical implications align with Connor’s (2011) intercultural rhetoric, which posits that L2 learners can learn to modify their writing strategies to meet the expectations of L1 readers by raising their awareness of different writing conventions in both languages and engaging them in explicit instruction and practice.

In addition to these pedagogical recommendations, further research is needed to deepen our understanding of persuasive strategies in L2 writing. The use of persuasive appeals by L2 learners remains an area that requires further exploration, particularly regarding how these strategies vary across learners from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Comparative studies involving speakers of different L1s could provide valuable insights into whether transfer patterns in persuasive writing are universal among L2 learners or specific to particular language pairs. Future research could also investigate the impact of explicit instruction on the strategic use of ethos, logos, and pathos in L2 writing, examining how focused pedagogical interventions influence learners’ rhetorical awareness and performance. Longitudinal classroom-based studies might assess whether such instruction leads to sustained improvements, not just in the short term but across stages of language development. In addition, experimental designs could evaluate the relative effectiveness of different teaching approaches – such as genre-based instruction, contrastive rhetoric tasks, or corpus-informed writing exercises – in fostering adaptation to L2 rhetorical norms. Expanding the demographic scope of future studies to include male learners and learners from different educational contexts (e.g., secondary school, technical education) would also provide a more comprehensive understanding of how persuasive strategies develop across subgroups. By addressing these targeted research gaps, future studies can make stronger contributions to refining academic writing pedagogy and supporting L2 learners in achieving greater rhetorical competence.