View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Epistemic Modality in Upper Elementary Students' Argument Writing: A Feature of Argumentation

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Epistemic Modality in Upper Elementary Students' Argument Writing: A Feature of Argumentation
Language: English
Authors: Qihan Chen, C. Patrick Proctor, Rebecca D. Silverman
Source: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2025 38(5):1461-1482.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Contract Number: R305A140114
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Elementary School Students, Persuasive Discourse, Writing (Composition), Epistemology, Linguistics, Language Role, Language Usage
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-024-10550-7
ISSN: 0922-4777
1573-0905
Abstract: Language is essential for making meaning in written communication, and argument writing is a key genre of schooling to which language contributes rich resources for constructing different types of arguments. Despite being a challenging language practice, argument writing research lacks investigation into the language demands of this writing genre. Using an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach, the present study explored the role of language in adolescent students' argument writing through the lens of the relationship between argumentation features (reasons, counterarguments, rebuttals) and students' use of epistemic modality devices (EMDs) -- linguistic tools that express the author's knowledge of and belief about the possibility of whether a state of affairs is true (e.g., 'must', 'maybe'). Argument writing samples from 115 upper elementary students were analyzed to explore the relationship between EMDs and written argumentation. Descriptive analysis showed that reasons and modal auxiliaries that indicated certainty ('will', 'would') were most frequently employed by the students. Multiple regression analyses revealed a positive, significant relationship between number of reasons in students' writing and their EMD usage. Subsequent qualitative content analysis identified two salient patterns of how EMDs assisted with reason construction, (1) predicting consequences, and (2) speculating causes of behaviors. The findings emphasize the close relation between language and argumentation and hence highlight the importance of the explicit instruction of language features pertinent to argumentative discourse.
Abstractor: As Provided
IES Funded: Yes
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1470166
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFZoPcY2PUA3h31Mdm2qhnrAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAWXG4JEhVzOlsLmgAIBEICBm0snztAK17EqRlHB2iuMlPTYIyGkNieIll1ZAedzIbTeukbgo1rKm9kvqSWlInVcle3XqsziQGJutDfvMTsSEEgVfTxOnbr1gOkS1ZSjDe25nbAZPoE0XjatUYLJAqIvdSMXuAjIDMbXn7Q-HLqV4UPtIe-th1pddiF3uN_c7b_sVhwha-InMeICNWtl2Kc8ugMUMMceDZBFiI_e
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184953218;2ap01may.25;2025May07.06:06;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184953218-1">Epistemic modality in upper elementary students' argument writing: a feature of argumentation </title> <p>Language is essential for making meaning in written communication, and argument writing is a key genre of schooling to which language contributes rich resources for constructing different types of arguments. Despite being a challenging language practice, argument writing research lacks investigation into the language demands of this writing genre. Using an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach, the present study explored the role of language in adolescent students' argument writing through the lens of the relationship between argumentation features (reasons, counterarguments, rebuttals) and students' use of epistemic modality devices (EMDs) - linguistic tools that express the author's knowledge of and belief about the possibility of whether a state of affairs is true (e.g., 'must', 'maybe'). Argument writing samples from 115 upper elementary students were analyzed to explore the relationship between EMDs and written argumentation. Descriptive analysis showed that reasons and modal auxiliaries that indicated certainty ('will', 'would') were most frequently employed by the students. Multiple regression analyses revealed a positive, significant relationship between number of reasons in students' writing and their EMD usage. Subsequent qualitative content analysis identified two salient patterns of how EMDs assisted with reason construction, (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) predicting consequences, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) speculating causes of behaviors. The findings emphasize the close relation between language and argumentation and hence highlight the importance of the explicit instruction of language features pertinent to argumentative discourse.</p> <p>Keywords: Argument writing; Adolescent literacy; Epistemic modality; Language; Communication and Culture Linguistics</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Argument writing is an important skill students need to grasp in order to succeed in a wide variety of contexts in life. The Common Core standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref3">49</reflink>]) foreground writing, with argument writing listed prominently, as a foundational skill for college and career readiness. As such, promoting students' ability to develop in this genre of writing is arguably a domain that warrants more attention from both researchers and practitioners. In response to the critical status of argument writing, researchers have studied an array of factors that might influence students' argument writing performance, including mechanics (e.g., Daffern et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]; Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>]), background knowledge of the argument genre and essay prompt (e.g., Olinghouse et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref6">52</reflink>]; Ferretti & Lewis, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>]; Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref8">18</reflink>]), interest and motivation (e.g., Hidi et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref9">23</reflink>]; Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref10">18</reflink>]), and strategies (e.g., planning, analyzing; Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref11">18</reflink>]). Nevertheless, Uccelli ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref12">75</reflink>]) claimed that being "a language-mediated practice" (p. 3), writing research has fallen short of examining language use. Functional linguistics perceives language as an essential building block for making and constructing meaning (Schleppegrell, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref13">68</reflink>]). Language allows speakers/writers to communicate ideas about the surrounding world, interact with and influence their audience, and build cohesive discourse (Halliday & Matthiessen, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref14">20</reflink>]). Generating an argument, whether it be in oral or written form, is an exercise of language (Hinton, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Literature on argumentation has a long history with roots in logic which sees an argument as a conclusion deriving from logical premises (Walton, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref16">82</reflink>]). More recently, literature that approaches argumentation from pragma-dialectical and rhetorical views has gained ground in argumentation studies. Both views foreground argumentation as a communicative activity in which language plays an important role (van Eemeren & Andone, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref17">79</reflink>]). To date, argument writing research with a specific focus on language has explored manifold language features at the lexical (e.g., Olinghouse & Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref18">51</reflink>]; Qin & Uccelli, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref19">62</reflink>]; Maamuujav, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref20">41</reflink>]; Maamuujav et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref21">42</reflink>]; Jo, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref22">33</reflink>]), syntactic (e.g., Beers & Nagy, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>]; Qin & Uccelli, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref24">62</reflink>]; Maamuujav et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref25">42</reflink>]; Deng et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref26">14</reflink>]; Jo, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref27">33</reflink>]), and discourse levels (e.g., Uccelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref28">76</reflink>]; Dobbs, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref29">15</reflink>]; Qin & Uccelli, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref30">62</reflink>]; Jo, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref31">33</reflink>]). This body of research has achieved unanimity that language contributes significantly to successful argument writing performance during adolescence. Yet, the majority of investigations use a numeric holistic score that encompasses not only argumentation quality but also essay organization, language, and mechanics as a proxy for argument writing quality. Little is known about how the use of certain language feature(s) is/are associated with specific argumentation features in writing (e.g., reasons, counterarguments, rebuttals). In a study conducted by Taylor and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref32">72</reflink>]), middle school students' employment of adversative connectives (e.g., '<emph>although</emph>') was predictive of their use of integrative perspective reasoning - the most complex form of reasoning that acknowledged the drawback of one's own position and the benefit of the opposing position. Their analysis provided empirical evidence that substantiated the distinctive relationship between argumentation and language, which further reinforced the necessity of continuing with this domain of research.</p> <p>In the present study, we explore the associations between argumentation features in upper elementary students' writing and their use of epistemic modality devices (EMDs), a language feature prevalent in academic writing, defined as linguistic tools that express the author's knowledge of and belief about the possibility of whether a state of affairs is true (e.g., '<emph>must</emph>', '<emph>possibly</emph>'; Palmer, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref33">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref34">55</reflink>]). In this study, we ask the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What argumentation features (reasons, counterarguments, rebuttals) are present in upper elementary students' argument writing?</item> <p></p> <item> What EMDs are employed by upper elementary students in argument writing?</item> <p></p> <item> Controlling for student demographics, essay length, orthographic knowledge, and language skills, is upper elementary students' use of EMDs associated with argumentation features in their writing? If yes, how do students use EMDs to construct arguments?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184953218-3">Defining epistemic modality</hd> <p>Modality refers to linguistic devices that indicate the degree to which a state of affairs is possible/impossible, probable/improbable, certain/uncertain, permitted/prohibited, or necessary/unnecessary (Lyons, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref35">40</reflink>]). Modality is a semantic concept as well as a grammatical phenomenon manifested in the form of modal expressions such as modal auxiliaries (e.g., '<emph>can</emph>'), modal adjectives and adverbs (e.g., '<emph>maybe</emph>', '<emph>impossible</emph>'), nouns (e.g., '<emph>likelihood</emph>'), and mental state verbs (e.g., '<emph>believe</emph>') (Coates, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref36">10</reflink>]; Palmer, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref37">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref38">55</reflink>]). In addition to a lexical manifestation, modality is often discussed with mood and, therefore, it can be expressed in conditionals (Hegarty, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref39">22</reflink>]; Rocci, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref40">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>Linguists categorize modality into two major divisions - deontic and epistemic (Lyons, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref41">40</reflink>]; Reilly et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref42">64</reflink>]). While deontic modality deals with "the obligatoriness or necessity that a certain state of affairs will obtain" (Reilly et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref43">64</reflink>], p. 184), epistemic modality concerns the author's/speaker's "assessment of probability and predictability" of whether something is or is not the case (Halliday, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref44">19</reflink>], p. 349). It indicates the author's/speaker's belief of and knowledge about the "truth-value or factual status" of a state of affairs (Palmer, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref45">54</reflink>], p. 8). For example,... his mother must be proud of him.</p> <p>As indicated by '<emph>must</emph>', the author's judgment of the likelihood of the incident that his mother is proud of him is very high. In light of EMDs' function to express the author's subjective attitude and judgment, Palmer ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref46">55</reflink>]) labeled it as "modality of proposition" (p. 50) that fulfills an interpersonal function of language in text.</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-4">Epistemic modality as a language feature of argumentation</hd> <p>To date, a growing body of literature has explicitly discussed the contributing effect of EMDs on argumentative discourse. Toulmin ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref47">73</reflink>]) in his seminal work <emph>The Uses of Argument</emph> pointed out that probability was a characteristic of an argument. According to Toulmin, probability expressions, oftentimes manifested in the form of modals, allow authors to articulate varying levels of faith they hope to put into a claim. They grant authors opportunities to be more prudent about their conclusions (Trent, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref48">74</reflink>]). Toulmin's view of probability overlaps with the semantics of epistemic modality. As we noted above, epistemic modality deals with probability. Consequently, we can reasonably argue that argumentation is, to some extent, relevant to epistemic modality.</p> <p>Further, Toulmin ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref49">73</reflink>]) suggested that probability was associated with constructing knowledge beyond existing facts. He cited Kneale (1949) and put forward that "what is known to be false may be described quite reasonably as probable in relation to a certain selection of evidence" (p. 50). Coates ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref50">10</reflink>]) emphasized that based on deductive reasoning, EMDs of certainty (e.g., '<emph>must</emph>') could express assertiveness towards something that has not yet been proven as definitive or true. Hegarty ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref51">22</reflink>]) maintained that epistemic modality communicated "what must, might, should, or cannot be the case, based on available evidence, or what is known" (p. 16). Portner ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref52">60</reflink>]) discussed that epistemic modality allowed "one to say things about, or on the basis of situations which need not be real" (p. 1). In this regard, epistemic modality carries an inferential reading (Papafragou, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref53">57</reflink>]; Rocci, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref54">66</reflink>]). It can be involved in making inferences, predicting, and generating hypothetical speculations about what is possible, probable, or certain based on existing information, all of which are prominent features of argumentation (Walton, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref55">81</reflink>]; Pinto, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref56">59</reflink>]; Oswald, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref57">53</reflink>]). Specifically, Coates ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref58">10</reflink>]) perceived '<emph>would</emph>', '<emph>could</emph>', <emph>'might</emph>' as markers of hypothetical meaning. Likewise, citing Toulmin (1958) and van Eemeren and colleagues (2007), Rocci ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref59">66</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref60">67</reflink>]) suggested that modal auxiliaries such as '<emph>may</emph>' and '<emph>can</emph>' facilitated hypothesis formulation. When appearing in conditional statements, modals that indicate futurity and prediction (e.g., '<emph>will</emph>', <emph>'be going to</emph>') function in parallel with cause-and-effect connectives (e.g., '<emph>because</emph>', '<emph>due to</emph>') and imply causality. According to Rocci, epistemic modality qualifies as an argument indicator that fulfills an argumentative function.</p> <p>From a developmental lens, early childhood education research discusses that the acquisition of epistemic modality is closely tied up with children's development of Theory of Mind (Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref61">47</reflink>]; Papafragou, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref62">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref63">57</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref64">58</reflink>]; Leiss, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref65">37</reflink>]; De Mulder & Gautero-Watzema, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref66">13</reflink>]). Theory of Mind refers to the ability to recognize and understand the mind of self and others (Kidd & Castano, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref67">35</reflink>]). By four years of age, children are capable of discerning varied degrees of certainty conferred by different mental state verbs (e.g., '<emph>think</emph>' vs. '<emph>know</emph>'; Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref68">47</reflink>]). The ability to identify this subtle difference suggests that children as young as four years old have developed the cognitive skill to understand "the mind behind the speech" (De Mulder & Gautero-Watzema, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref69">13</reflink>], p. 100). In this regard, being able to understand that other people may have their unique views, particularly views that object to theirs, facilitates the discussion of alternative standpoints (e.g., opposing ideas and rebuttal) in argumentative discourse. For example, "<emph>I know that other people might disagree with me because they probably think that ...</emph>" is a typical representation of Theory of Mind and EMDs being embedded in discussing an opposing perspective.</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-5">Research gaps on epistemic modality in argument writing</hd> <p>Epistemic modality is seen as a salient feature of the academic discourse in linguistic research (Hyland, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref70">29</reflink>]; Biber, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref71">5</reflink>]). The majority of existing investigations have reported observing an augmented use of EMDs that weaken the strength of a statement (e.g., '<emph>might</emph>', '<emph>possibly</emph>') in skilled writers' writing (e.g., Hyland & Milton, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref72">30</reflink>]; Chen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref73">9</reflink>]; Uccelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref74">76</reflink>]; Aull & Lancaster, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref75">2</reflink>]; Hu & Li, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref76">27</reflink>]; Vandenhoek, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref77">80</reflink>]). Nevertheless, these studies sought to uncover the influence of EMDs on overall argument writing quality, which was represented as a single numeric value that either solely rested on raters' general impression of the essay, or concurrently factored in multiple dimensions of writing performance (e.g., essay organization, grammar, and mechanics). The holistic scoring approach greatly limits the analysis of students' writing to a quantitative approach (Hamp-Lyons, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref78">21</reflink>]). At the same time, it discloses little information about many key traits of argument writing such as features of written argumentation and language use. Therefore, the present study examines epistemic modality in upper elementary students' argument writing through a more fine-grained lens, by probing into the relationship between EMD usage and specific written argumentation (e.g., reason, counterargument, rebuttal) using an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach.</p> <p>Additionally, existing research has primarily explored EMD usage among the English-as-a-foreign language student population in higher education (e.g., McEnery & Kifle, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref79">46</reflink>]; Chen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref80">9</reflink>]; Hu & Li, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref81">27</reflink>]; Vandenhoek, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref82">80</reflink>]; Qin & Uccelli, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref83">63</reflink>]; Jo, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref84">32</reflink>]). How this language feature is employed by young bilingual students in their writing is a topic left largely unexplored. As a result, we will address the gaps in the present study.</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-6">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184953218-7">Participants</hd> <p>The sample consisted of 115 students, with 101 4<sups>th</sups> graders and 14 5<sups>th</sups> graders. The students' essays were collected as a posttest measure after the curriculum implementation in the spring of 2017. Among the 115 students, 47 students were designated as ELs by their schools at the time the project was implemented. 67 students were designated as RELs. One student had missing data regarding her EL status. All participating students were from a Spanish- or Portuguese-English speaking background. They were either designated by their districts as English learners (ELs) or recently-exited English learners (RELs) classified by their schools. Students' WIDA English language proficiency data were provided by their districts. WIDA's ACCESS for ELLs assessment (2015) categorizes ELs' English language proficiency into 6 levels: level 1, <emph>entering</emph>; level 2, <emph>beginning</emph>; level 3, <emph>developing</emph>; level 4, <emph>expanding</emph>; level 5, <emph>bridging</emph>; and level 6, <emph>reaching</emph>. In the present study, all ELs were at WIDA level 3, <emph>developing</emph> and level 4, <emph>expanding</emph>. All RELs were at WIDA level 5, <emph>bridging</emph> and level 6, <emph>reaching</emph>.</p> <p>Participating students were part of the business-as-usual (BAU) group of a quasi-experimental study that investigated the effect of a language-based reading intervention on upper elementary bilingual students' reading, metalinguistics, and writing outcomes (Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref85">61</reflink>]; Silverman et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref86">70</reflink>]). The project was carried out in the 2016-2017 academic year in eight schools in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic U.S. Four schools in each site participated in the project. School recruitment was accomplished through the second and third authors' (Principal Investigators of the larger project) existing connections with districts and schools. As reported in Silverman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref87">70</reflink>]), participating schools served a predominantly bilingual (55–80% across schools) and less economically affluent student population (47–95% across schools according to qualifications for the National School Lunch Program). Teacher recruitment was voluntary and based on interest in undertaking the study. Parents of the student participants were notified of the project through flyers and emails.</p> <p>Because the larger project implemented the intervention in small groups of four to six students, students in the BAU group (i.e., student sample in the present study), who came from the same class as the intervention students, also formed small groups of similar sizes. BAU students received instruction from the same teachers who implemented the intervention, and when their intervention peers were away, they engaged in independent work. When teachers were not delivering intervention instruction, they engaged BAU students in guided reading instruction in small groups. For details of the quasi-experimental design and the instruction received by BAU students, see Proctor et al. ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref88">61</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-8">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184953218-9">Outcome: argumentation features</hd> <p>Students were presented with a short story about "two boys, Jack and Thomas, who participate in a classroom pinewood derby race in which they were expected to build their own pinewood derby cars. Jack works very hard on his pinewood derby car, but Thomas wins the race. Afterward, Jack discovers that Thomas, who doesn't have many friends in class, actually had help making his car" (Silverman et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref89">70</reflink>], p. 222). Then, students were asked to respond to a writing prompt about whether they thought Jack should report Thomas's behavior. Essays in the current sample were fully written in English.</p> <p>The coding framework for argumentation features in students' writing was developed based on Reznitskaya and Anderson ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref90">65</reflink>])'s Argumentation Schema Theory. Essays were transcribed and chunked into idea units. Citing the definition from Mayer (1985), an idea unit is a fragment of text that "expresses one action or event or state, and generally corresponds to a single verb clause" (p. 222). Essays were coded according to six dimensions: stance, reasons (for stance), elaborations (of reasons), counterarguments, rebuttals, and conclusion. Intercoder reliability (Cohen's kappa) was reached at > 0.8. For additional details on the coding procedure, see Silverman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref91">70</reflink>]).</p> <p>After carefully examining the writing sample, we decided to exclude stance and conclusion from analysis because they typically contained heavily deontic and substantially identical position statements that consisted of categorical judgments toward the writing prompt. Categorical judgments primarily concern deontic modality of obligation and necessity (e.g., "<emph>I think Jack</emph><emph>should</emph><emph>tell on Thomas</emph>") rather than epistemic modality of probability and predictability (Qin & Uccelli, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref92">63</reflink>]). Reasons and elaborations were collapsed as a new variable named 'REASONS' because both types of argumentation features provided supporting information to defend the author's position. Counterarguments and rebuttals remained in their original forms. As outcome variables, reasons, counterarguments, and rebuttals were presented as frequency of occurrence (i.e., raw count) per essay.</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-10">Predictor: epistemic modality devices</hd> <p>We coded all EMDs that expressed students' judgment towards the (im)possibility, (im)probability, or (un)certainty of a given state of affairs. Examples taken from the writing sample were presented below (See Ex. 1-8). Coding was conducted by the first author and a doctoral student specializing in adolescent literacy. Coding training was conducted over the course of two weeks. After training, 25% of the sample (<emph>n</emph>=32) was extracted to calculate inter-rater reliability. The average percentage agreement was 84.7%. After reliability was achieved, the first author individually coded the remaining essays.</p> <p>As a predictor variable, EMDs were presented as proportional use per essay, calculated by the raw count of EMDs used per essay divided by the number of total words in that essay.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> It <emph>could be impossible</emph> to do it by yourself.</item> <p></p> <item> He <emph>can</emph> have a dead relationship with Thomas.</item> <p></p> <item> He <emph>might</emph> bully him.</item> <p></p> <item> I <emph>think</emph> Jack is Thomas's friend because Thomas gave the car to Jack.</item> <p></p> <item> I <emph>know</emph> that people might disagree with me.</item> <p></p> <item> Thomas has <emph>probably</emph> not won anything.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>maybe</emph> he <emph>will</emph> become a bully to people in the whole school.</item> <p></p> <item> his mother <emph>must</emph> be proud of him for being nice to Thomas.</item> </ulist> <p>In addition to expressing an epistemic meaning, many modality devices have other interpretations. A few examples are as follows.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> If people disagree I <emph>will</emph> say the truth.</item> <p></p> <item> If someone said that to me I <emph>will</emph> tell them that Thomas was cheating.</item> <p></p> <item> the directions were to work by yourself and that no one <emph>can</emph> do it with someone.</item> <p></p> <item> so I <emph>can</emph> win the race and get the prize.</item> <p></p> <item> I <emph>could</emph> understand how Jack felt about telling on Thomas.</item> <p></p> <item> I <emph>think</emph> Jack should tell on Thomas.</item> </ulist> <p>In Ex. (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref93">9</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref94">10</reflink>), '<emph>will</emph>' showcased students' intention to perform an action. As noted by Palmer ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref95">55</reflink>]), epistemic modality deals with knowledge and belief instead of "actions, states, events" (p. 50). Ex. (<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref96">11</reflink>) demonstrated the permission usage of '<emph>can</emph>' that seeking external assistance was prohibited. '<emph>Can</emph>' and '<emph>could</emph>' in Ex. (<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref97">12</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref98">13</reflink>) expressed the capacity to be able to win the race and to understand a situation. In Ex. (<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref99">14</reflink>), '<emph>think</emph>' marked the student's opinion on Jack's moral obligation to bring to light Thomas's behavior. In this case, '<emph>think</emph>' did not indicate the student's judgment of the likelihood of the incident being true or not and, therefore, it did not qualify as an EMD. Unless an epistemic meaning was interpreted, we did not code modality devices that expressed the aforementioned meanings in examples (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref100">9</reflink>)-(<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref101">14</reflink>).</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-11">Controls</hd> <p>Student demographics including Grade and district-determined EL status were recorded as dichotomous dummy variables.</p> <p>Essay length is suggested to be one of the most significant factors associated with writing outcomes (MacArthur et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref102">43</reflink>]). Further, because our outcome measures are frequency counts, longer essays would logically result in a larger number of occurrences of these outcome indicators. Therefore, we entered essay length, as measured by total number of words, as a control variable.</p> <p>Analytical language skills have been shown to be robust indicators of school-level reading and writing success during adolescence (Snow & Uccelli, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref103">71</reflink>]; Uccelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref104">77</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref105">78</reflink>]). To measure students' analytical language proficiency, we employed the Core Analytic Language Skills Instrument (CALS-I; Uccelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref106">77</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref107">78</reflink>]). The CALS-I is a 45-minute assessment that comprises eight tasks that collectively evaluate students' knowledge of the forms and functions of the language features commonplace in school-relevant activities including morphological awareness, idea construction, and syntactic knowledge. As reported by Uccelli and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref108">77</reflink>]), the assessment has a robust reliability of 0.92 coefficient alpha. The CALS-I scores were on a scale with a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 50 (Barr et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref109">3</reflink>]). The CALS-I data was collected after the intervention concurrently with the writing data.</p> <p>We measured orthographic knowledge using the Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency - Second Edition (TOSWRF-2; Mather et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref110">44</reflink>]). Orthographic knowledge refers to knowledge of "the general attributes of a writing system" (Conrad et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref111">11</reflink>], p. 1225), such as knowledge of word spelling and knowledge of speech-to-print relationships (Apel et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref112">1</reflink>]). Orthographic mapping links tightly with students' ability to decode - to turn unknown printed words into sounds (Share, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref113">69</reflink>]; Bosse, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref114">6</reflink>]). Hence, we operationalized orthographic knowledge using TOSWRF-2, a test that assessed students' ability to recognize printed words by identifying printed words in a string of unspaced words (e.g., dim/how/fig/blue). Scores for orthographic knowledge were standard scores, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-12">Analytic plan</hd> <p>The present study adopted an explanatory sequential mixed methods design that started with quantitative analysis followed by qualitative analysis (Ivankova et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref115">31</reflink>]). This approach allows us to examine data both quantitatively and qualitatively and, therefore, gain a holistic understanding of the study's research question - whether and how students employed EMDs to construct arguments.</p> <p>Quantitative analysis started with generating descriptive statistics to probe into the first two questions that interrogated the features of EMD usage and argumentation in students' writing. With regard to the third research question that examined the association between the two features, we excluded counterarguments and rebuttals from analysis due to the limited presentation of the two argumentation features in the sample. Specifically, only 31 out of 115 students employed counterarguments. The number of students who presented rebuttals in essays was even more scarce - 21 out of 115 students. To answer the third research question, we presented correlational analysis and then fitted multiple regression models with number of reasons in writing as the outcome. We log-transformed the word count variable due to right skewness. When examining multiple regression assumptions, we found that homoscedasticity of residuals was violated. Thus, we used robust standard errors, also known as heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors, to correct for heteroskedasticity (Huber, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref116">28</reflink>]; White, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref117">83</reflink>]). In the series of multiple regression models we built, grade and EL status were first entered, followed by analytical language skills and orthographic knowledge. Proportional use of EMDs per essay was entered lastly. To find out whether EMD usage and language skills collectively exerted an influence on the number of reasons in writing, we created two interaction terms, proportional use of EMDs times analytical language skills and orthographic knowledge, respectively.</p> <p>Table 1 Student demographics (<emph>n</emph> = 115)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Characteristics</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Grade</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Grade 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>101 (87.8%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Grade 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>14 (12.2%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Female</p></td><td align="left"><p>53 (46.1%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>English learner status & WIDA Level</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> EL</p></td><td align="left"><p>47 (40.9%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> WIDA Level 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>11 (9.6%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> WIDA Level 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>36 (31.3%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> REL</p></td><td align="left"><p>67 (58.3%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> WIDA Level 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>14 (12.2%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> WIDA Level 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>53 (46.1%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Language Spoken</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Spanish-English bilinguals</p></td><td align="left"><p>105 (91.3%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Portuguese-English bilinguals</p></td><td align="left"><p>10 (8.7%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td align="left"><p>115</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph> EL – English learner; REL – recently exited EL</p> <p>Based on the quantitative results, if a significant relationship between number of reasons and EMD usage was identified, we performed subsequent qualitative content analysis to provide additional information about how students employed EMDs to facilitate reason construction. Content analysis was conducted from an inductive approach. Given the scarcity of formal knowledge of the present research topic, we resorted to inductive qualitative content analysis because it afforded us an opportunity to set out from the data itself and focus on eliciting meaning and generating phenomenological description of the present data (Mayring, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref118">45</reflink>]). The first author conducted qualitative coding individually in a spreadsheet. First, she prepared the data for analysis by pulling all reasons that contained EMDs from the writing sample and forming a new corpus. She then confirmed the unit of analysis to be each individual coded reason. After carefully examining the new corpus, the first author decided to start initial coding with two layers of codes that simultaneously considered the function of the embedded EMD(s) in each reason as well as the semantic meaning of that reason. The two layers of codes in cooperation explained the ways that EMDs facilitated the intended meaning of a given expression. For example, in "<emph>because Thomas has</emph><emph>probably</emph><emph>have not won anything</emph>", the function of the EMD '<emph>probably</emph>' was to assist with formulating speculation about why Thomas cheated. The intended semantic meaning of this reason could be informed by its literal meaning - Thomas's scarce winning history. See Table 2 for more examples. After the initial phase of coding, the first author identified similar patterns in both layers of initial codes and generated family categories.</p> <p>Table 2 Subsequent qualitative coding for RQ3</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Examples (reasons that contained at least one EMD)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Code for EMD function</p></th><th align="left"><p>Code for intended semantic meaning of reason</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Proverly</italic> if he dosent tell thomas <italic>is going to</italic> be his friend.</p></td><td align="left"><p>To predict the positive consequence of Jack telling on Thomas</p></td><td align="left"><p>Jack establishes friendships with Thomas</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>If Jack does not tell on Thomas he <italic>would</italic> take credit for his brothers work and he <italic>would</italic> be proud.</p></td><td align="left"><p>To predict the negative consequence of Jack not telling on Thomas</p></td><td align="left"><p>Jack takes advantage of others;</p><p>Encourage Thomas's cheating</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I <italic>think</italic> because they <italic>will</italic> buily people that tells on other students on resess out side.</p></td><td align="left"><p>To predict the negative consequence of Jack telling on Thomas</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bullying towards Jack for reporting Thomas</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>because <italic>maybe</italic> Jake Is right only reward he <italic>will</italic> ever got <italic>maybe</italic> in his whole life.</p></td><td align="left"><p>To speculate the cause of Thomas's cheating</p></td><td align="left"><p>Thomas's scarce winning history</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Also someone part of your family <italic>could</italic> do a part of the car. Then it <italic>could be immpossible</italic> to do it by yourself.</p></td><td align="left"><p>To speculate the cause of Thomas's cheating</p></td><td align="left"><p>Violating rules (individual work) is unavoidable</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0184953218-13">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184953218-14">Descriptive and correlational analyses</hd> <p>Our first and second research questions interrogated the features of argumentation and EMD usage in upper elementary students' argument writing. As demonstrated in Table 3, essays on average contained 82 words, with a standard deviation of 56 words. Students used approximately four reasons and less than one counterargument and rebuttal per essay. The number of EMDs used per essay ranged from 1 to 18, resulting in an average use of nearly two EMDs per essay. The average proportional use of EMDs per essay was around 2%. Table 4 shows that more than half of students (<emph>n</emph>=62) employed at least one EMD in their essays. Overall, students employed 21 different types of EMDs including modal auxiliaries (e.g., '<emph>can</emph>', '<emph>may</emph>'), mental state verbs (e.g., '<emph>think</emph>', '<emph>believe</emph>'), epistemic adjectives and adverbs (e.g., '<emph>probably</emph>', '<emph>impossible</emph>'), semi-auxiliaries (e.g., '<emph>be going to</emph>'). As displayed in Table 4, the five most frequently used EMDs in students' writing were '<emph>will</emph>', '<emph>would</emph>', '<emph>maybe</emph>', '<emph>might</emph>', and '<emph>think</emph>'. While the writing samples contained a variety of EMDs that expressed varying semantic meanings ranging from certainty to probability and doubt, the two most frequently used EMDs- prediction '<emph>will</emph>' and conditional '<emph>would</emph>'- were EMDs of certainty that communicated students' confidence towards the truth-value of their propositions. Together, the two EMDs occupied 40% of the total EMD usage in the sample. An example is as follows.</p> <p>Table 3 Descriptive statistics of all variables (<emph>n</emph> = 115)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>M</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p>Min</p></th><th align="left"><p>Max</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Reasons</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.78</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Counterarguments</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.48</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Rebuttals</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.23</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>EMDs</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.59</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>18</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Proportional use of EMDs (EMD_p)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.17</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Essay length</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>81.82</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>56.32</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>345</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Analytical language skills</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>480.32</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>430</p></td><td align="left"><p>545</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Orthographic knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>78.59</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21.3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>136</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4 Frequency of occurrence of EMD in essays (<emph>n</emph> = 115)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>EMDs used in students' essays</p></th><th align="left"><p>Frequency of occurrence across all essays</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number of students who used the EMD</p></th><th align="left"><p>Average proportional use per essay</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>will</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>51</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>26</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0054</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>would</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>32</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0038</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>maybe</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>29</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0031</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>might</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0026</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>think</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0013</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>can</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0012</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>probably</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0008</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>could</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0011</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>be going to</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>will not</italic> (including <italic>won't</italic>)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0006</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>wouldn't</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0007</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>know</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0004</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>may</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0002</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>might not</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0004</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>cannot</italic> (including <italic>can't</italic>)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>believe</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>bet</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>impossible</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0002</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>in fact</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>NA</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>it is like</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>NA</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>must</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Totals</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>207</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>62</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0233</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Jack should not tell on Thomas because Thomas <emph>will</emph> hate him and Thomas <emph>will</emph> get in trouble. Thomas <emph>will</emph> tell other student that Jack is a tattletale and no one <emph>will</emph> be his friend. Everyone <emph>will</emph> think he <emph>will</emph> tattletale on them too.</item> </ulist> <p>In the example illustrated above, through an ample use of '<emph>will</emph>', the student demonstrated an assured attitude towards her judgment of the truth value of a series of expected consequences as a result of Jack's decision of exposing Thomas. Although the consequences depicted here were not practically present but hypothesized, the student portrayed them as if they were to happen undeniably. Further, in close examination of students' EMD usage, we found that in addition to resorting to lexical means, upper elementary students frequently embedded EMDs in conditionals. For example,</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> If Jack told everyone Thomas cheated Thomas <emph>would</emph> beat him up.</item> <p></p> <item> Jack <emph>would have won</emph> the whole race if Thomas didn't cheated.</item> </ulist> <p>Ex. (<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref119">16</reflink>) showcased a conditional clause that referenced an anticipated future incident, while in Ex. (<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref120">17</reflink>), students employed counterfactual conditional that referenced the past. The combined use of lexical and grammatical means indicated that upper elementary students had a variety of linguistic resources and knowledge to communicate certainty, probability, and doubt in their toolkit.</p> <p>Correlational analysis in Table 5 showed that essay length was moderately correlated with number of reasons in writing (<emph>r</emph>=0.57, <emph>p</emph><0.001), which justifies the need to control for essay length. Although there was no significant correlation between proportional use of EMDs and number of reasons in writing, the correlation between the two variables was mild (<emph>r</emph>=0.14, <emph>p</emph>=0.12).</p> <p>Table 5 Correlation matrix of all variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p>5</p></th><th align="left"><p>6</p></th><th align="left"><p>7</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Proportional use of EMDs (EMD_p)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.00</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. Reasons</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.00</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. Essay length</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.57<sup>***</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.00</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. Analytical language skills</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.00</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. Orthographic knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.35<sup>***</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.00</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. Grade<sup>1</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.23<sup>*</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.00</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. EL Status<sup>2</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-0.14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-0.1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-0.41<sup>***</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-0.29<sup>**</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.00</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note </emph> <sups>1</sups>Grade: 0 - Grade 4, 1 - Grade 5, <sups>2</sups>EL Status: 0 - REL, 1 - EL <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.05, <sups>**</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.01, <sups>***</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-15">Relationships between EMD usage and argumentation features</hd> <p>Our third research question explored the association between students' EMD usage and the argumentation features in their writing. The multiple regression models in Table 6 showed that after controlling for student demographics (Grade and EL status), essay length, analytical language skills, and orthographic knowledge, the six predictors in Model 4 together explained 35% of the variance of number of reasons in writing (<emph>F</emph>[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref121">6</reflink>, 103] =7.29, <emph>p</emph> <0.001). As expected, essay length remained a robust predictor (<emph>β</emph> =1.69, <emph>p</emph> <0.001). Proportional use of EMDs per essay positively predicted number of reasons in students' essays (<emph>β</emph> =10.44, <emph>p</emph> <0.05). To interpret the result, a 0.1% increase in students' proportional use of EMDs is associated with an approximately 1 unit increase in reason. In other words, the more EMDs students used, the greater the number of reasons in their essays. No interaction effects between EMD usage and either one of the language skills were found. Therefore, Model 4 was chosen as the final model to explicate the relationship between number of reasons nd EMD usage. The next section details our analysis of students' qualitative use of EMDs in their reasons.</p> <p>Table 6 Multiple regression analysis describing the relationship between reasons and EMD usage</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Model 1</p><p>B</p><p>(SE)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 2</p><p>B</p><p>(SE)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 3</p><p>B</p><p>(SE)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 4</p><p>B</p><p>(SE)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Demographics: Grade (0/1)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.99</p><p>(0.51)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.37</p><p>(0.48)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41</p><p>(0.48)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Demographics: EL Status (0/1)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.56</p><p>(0.38)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.24</p><p>(0.37)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.31</p><p>(0.35)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Essay length</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1.72<sup>***</sup></p><p>(0.31)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.65<sup>***</sup></p><p>(0.33)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.69<sup>***</sup></p><p>(0.33)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Analytical language skills</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.007</p><p>(0.008)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.002</p><p>(0.009)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.002</p><p>(0.009)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Orthographic knowledge</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.002</p><p>(0.008)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.003</p><p>(0.008)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.001</p><p>(0.009)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Proportional use of EMDs (EMD_p)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>10.44<sup>*</sup></p><p>(5.21)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.93<sup>***</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>-7.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>-4.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>-4.39</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>df</p></td><td align="left"><p>113</p></td><td align="left"><p>110</p></td><td align="left"><p>109</p></td><td align="left"><p>109</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.33</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.31</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.35</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>*</sups> <emph>p</emph> < 0.5, <sups>**</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.01, <sups>***</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>Based on the quantitative findings, we furthered the investigation of the third research question by qualitatively exploring how EMDs contributed to reason construction by examining all reasons embedded with EMDs in students' writing and coded for salient patterns. Two noteworthy trends emerged: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref122">1</reflink>) predicting consequences, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref123">2</reflink>) speculating causes of behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-16">Predicting consequences</hd> <p>Deriving effect from cause, or deductive inference, was a salient feature of how students employed EMDs to construct reasons. In the sample, students frequently embedded EMDs in conditionals to express their beliefs of the truth value of the predictions or hypotheses they made about the positive or negative consequences depending on Jack's decision. To prevent Jack from exposing Thomas, examples (<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref124">18</reflink>)-(<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref125">21</reflink>) demonstrated the most prevalent prediction - retaliatory behavior (e.g., bullying).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Jack should not tell mr. Howard because they <emph>may</emph> bulli Thomas and Thomas <emph>will</emph> bully Jack.</item> <p></p> <item> ... because Thomas <emph>probably might</emph> hit him.</item> <p></p> <item> I <emph>think</emph> because they <emph>will</emph> bully people that tells on other students on recess outside.</item> <p></p> <item> If Jack told on Thomas at the end Thomas <emph>will</emph> get mad and Thomas <emph>might</emph> lose his prize and Thomas will get very mad and since not of people like him he <emph>can</emph> he harm Jack.</item> </ulist> <p>Showing sympathy for Thomas was another noteworthy attempt students made to persuade Jack to not report Thomas. In their essays, students analyzed various potential negative consequences that might harm Thomas, provided that an accusation was made against him. For example, making Thomas feel miserable (Ex. 22), causing Thomas to lose reputation and friendship (Ex. 23-24), and ruining Thomas's future (Ex. 25).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Probably</emph> Thomas <emph>is going to</emph> cry because he feels like a loser.</item> <p></p> <item> ... but if Jack tells then Thomas <emph>will</emph> have no friends.</item> <p></p> <item> And then everyone <emph>may</emph> hate him or not. He <emph>can</emph> have a dead relationship with Thomas.</item> <p></p> <item> He <emph>would</emph> never win anything again.</item> </ulist> <p>In addition to giving negative predictions, students emphasized several possible positive consequences that could benefit both Jack and Thomas, such as allowing Thomas to reflect on his behavior (Ex. 26), making the public accept Thomas and befriend him (Ex. 27-28), gaining recognition from Jack's family (Ex. 29):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> My third reason is that if he tells Thomas <emph>would probably</emph> finally learn his lesson and stop being rude to people and pushing them ....</item> <p></p> <item> So I <emph>believe</emph> that by not telling on Thomas he <emph>would</emph> be giving him a chance to get friends, because he <emph>would</emph> be kind of popular.</item> <p></p> <item> ... and people <emph>might</emph> start being his friends.</item> <p></p> <item> ... his mother <emph>must</emph> be proud of him for being nice to Thomas.</item> </ulist> <p>To summarize, as illustrated in the examples, the belief the students held towards their predictions was primarily certainty as indicated by the prevalent use of assured EMDs such as "<emph>will</emph>" and "<emph>would</emph>". At times, students indicated a more cautious, prudent judgment towards their predictions through adopting probable EMDs or hedges, such as "<emph>maybe</emph>", "<emph>might</emph>", "<emph>can</emph>". Occasionally, students hedged even when making assured predictions, as manifested by the pairwise use of a probable EMD followed by an assured EMD (e.g., "<emph>Probably Thomas is going to</emph>" in Ex. 22; "<emph>would probably</emph>" in Ex. 26). In addition, the predictions students made were rooted in a causal logic which unfolded the relationship between a condition or premise (i.e., whether Jack decides to expose Thomas) and its effects (i.e., the potential positive or negative consequences). As such, EMDs provided support for students to present to their audience an imagined world of hypothesized consequences based on predictions and deductive inference.</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-17">Speculating causes of behavior</hd> <p>Another strategy students frequently used was probing for underlying causes behind Thomas's behavior. Through EMDs, students conjectured about the potential incentives for Thomas's act and showed sympathy for the boy's condition. Students' speculations included Thomas's financial situation (Ex. 30-32), past winning history (Ex. 30, 33), fear to lose (Ex. 30, 34), and desire to gain recognition (Ex. 30). Examples taken from the writing sample are as follows.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> so <emph>maybe</emph> he doesn't have money so <emph>maybe</emph> the trophy is the only thing he won so that when he looks at it he <emph>will</emph> feel proud, <emph>maybe</emph> he was scared of doing it wrong.</item> <p></p> <item> it <emph>might</emph> be because he has barely no money.</item> <p></p> <item> Thomas had very dirty cloth so <emph>probably</emph> winning the car race would make him forget that he's poor.</item> <p></p> <item> also, <emph>maybe</emph> that prize could be his first one and he never won a prize before.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Maybe</emph> he was scared of doing it wrong and he lose and everyone laugh at his face.</item> </ulist> <p>Similar to making predictions, students engaged in causal reasoning when speculating about the underlying causes behind Thomas's behavior. While the cause and effect in making predictions were Jack's decision and the corresponding consequences, the cause and effect here referred to students' speculations about Thomas's conditions and his cheating behavior. Additionally, contrary to making predictions, students maintained less certain, more hedged belief towards the truth value of their speculations, as indicated in the enhanced use of probable EMDs (e.g., '<emph>might</emph>', '<emph>could</emph>', '<emph>probably</emph>') in the examples above. As such, students were more emphatic about possible future events that have not yet happened which could potentially create more latitude for imagination.</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-18">Discussion</hd> <p>In the present study, our goal was to probe into the features of argumentation and EMDs employed by upper elementary students in their argument writing and the association between the two features. Our analysis revealed that students had a variety of EMDs of varying semantic meanings and manifold lexical and grammatical manifestations at their disposal. In line with Vandenhoek ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref126">80</reflink>]) and Lombardi ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref127">38</reflink>]), our results demonstrated that prediction '<emph>will</emph>' and conditional '<emph>would</emph>' were the most frequently used EMDs in students' argument writing. The pervasive use of '<emph>will</emph>' and '<emph>would</emph>' showcased that certainty was the dominant attitude in students' written communication. The assertiveness observed in the writing sample is also reported among students in the UK, as well as middle school students in the U.S. (predominantly non-ELs), who tended to use a similar greater amount of strengthening EMDs in their argument writing (McEnery & Kifle, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref128">46</reflink>]; Dobbs, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref129">15</reflink>]). Regardless of EL status, the prevalence of EMDs of certainty in many adolescents' writing left little room for doubt is not surprising in that it indicates what Reilly and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref130">64</reflink>]) posited as a developmental trend "from deontic to epistemic" (p. 186). Qin and Uccelli ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref131">63</reflink>]) interpreted the trend as a shift from "a more egocentric or categorical judgment to more relativistic view that acknowledge multiple perspectives" (p. 33-34). Our results concur with Dobbs ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref132">15</reflink>]) and concluded that this particular sample of students remained at a stage of demonstrating a primarily more assured and faithful attitude towards their beliefs in writing.</p> <p>With regard to argumentation features, our findings illustrated that students sought to persuade predominantly through reasons with sporadic counterarguments and minimal rebuttals. The limited presentation of counterarguments and rebuttals in the present study is in alignment with Taylor and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref133">72</reflink>]) who similarly reported less than one integrative-perspective reasoning (i.e., arguments that acknowledged the drawback of one's own position and the benefit of her opposing position) appear in middle school students' argument writing. Rebuttals can be even more scarce in that young writers with an early attempt to address the opposing position often terminate by underdeveloped counterarguments without further refutation endeavor (Kuhn, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref134">36</reflink>]). Taking the opponent's perspectives into consideration followed by contradicting their views so as to re-affirm one's own position is a demanding task for writers of all ages and of varied linguistic backgrounds. Even writers as mature as college students displayed limited use of counterarguments and even fewer rebuttals in their writing (Nussbaum et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref135">50</reflink>]). Students' scarce use of counterarguments and rebuttals in the present study, however, did not impede their engagement in argumentative discourse. Instead, in their essays, students demonstrated strategic use of language resources to assist them in constructing reasons. Our analysis confirmed a predictive relationship between students' use of EMDs and number of reasons in argument writing. We found that the more EMDs students employed, the greater number of reasons they produced. Subsequent qualitative content analysis further revealed two salient patterns of how students utilized EMDs to construct reasons: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref136">1</reflink>) predicting consequences, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref137">2</reflink>) speculating causes of behavior. In both patterns, students widely engaged in causal reasoning. Through EMDs, students established an imagined world of possibilities in which they contemplated the relationships among the probable reasons undergirding Thomas's behavior, Jack's decision on whether or not to report Thomas, and the potential effects depending on Jack's decision. Our findings are in accordance with Morek ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref138">48</reflink>]) who found that EMDs provided German adolescent writers a channel to "unfold an imaginary course of events" (p. 127) as a means of argumentation in their argument writing. Below are two sets of essays taken from the sample demonstrating different proportional uses of EMDs when constructing reasons:</p> <p>Essay 1: 4<sups>th</sups> grade boy, REL, CALS-I score: 489, word count: 64, proportional use of EMDs: 0.11Jack shouldn't tell on Thomas because if Jack does tell <emph>maybe</emph> he <emph>will</emph> be more mean to Jack and other people and <emph>maybe</emph> he <emph>will</emph> become a bully to people in the whole school. <bold>[reason #1]</bold><emph> Maybe</emph> more people <emph>will</emph> Join him to do more bad stuff to other people.<bold>[reason #2]</bold> But if he doesn't Jack and Thomas <emph>could</emph> become friends do nice thing to each other. <bold>[reason #3]</bold>.</p> <p>Essay 2: 4<sups>th</sups> grade girl, EL, CALS-I score: 484, word count: 70, proportional use of EMDs: 0I think Jack should tell on Thomas because he didn't follow the rules of doing it by himself.<bold>[reason #1]</bold> Another reason is because Thomas haven't win in his life <bold>[counterargument]</bold> but he has more opportunities in his live<bold>[rebuttal]</bold>. Another reason is because he made the car whith a person. A second reason is because he use help from someone. <bold>[reason #2]</bold> For all those reasons is because I think he should tell on Thomas.</p> <p>Essay 3: 4<sups>th</sups> grade boy, REL, CALS-I score: 531, word count: 91, proportional use of EMDs: 0.08I think Jack should tell on Thomas but only to the teacher because cheating is less fun then being honest and following the rules<bold>[reason #1]</bold>. Also, after he tells he <emph>would probably</emph> be realised <bold>[reason #2]</bold> but if he didn't tell he <emph>probably would</emph> keep feeling weird when Thomas brags because Thomas is a type of person who likes to brag <bold>[reason #3]</bold>. My third reason is that if he tells thomas <emph>would probably</emph> finally learn his lesson and stop being rude to people and pushing them so he <emph>would</emph> be happy and have more friends. <bold>[reason #4]</bold>.</p> <p>Essay 4: 4<sups>th</sups> grade girl, REL, CALS-I score: 511, word count: 111, proportional use of EMDs: 0I think that Jake should tell on Thomas because Mr Howard said to make it by yourself but Thomas's brother did almost all of the car and all Thomas did was paint the car and put the Stickers on the car <bold>[reason #1]</bold>. My evidence: "No, my brother made it, i mean i did some of it Like the paint and the sticker's an' stuff, but My brother made sure the wheels were on straight"<bold>[reason #2]</bold> and then when Thomas was saying Hey Jack, come look at this and then Jack says "wow and then Thomas Says what i said earlier but I really hope that there is a series and that Jack tells.</p> <p>Essay 1 and Essay 3 both showcased that EMDs assisted students in unfolding a chain of imagined, causal reasoning that appealed to their readers to consider the multiple potential consequences of Jack's decision. Contrarily, when students did not employ EMDs, reasons in Essay 2 and Essay 4 were greatly confined to a reiteration of factual information that had already been stated in the writing prompt. As a result, EMDs provided students with access to a broader range and greater number of reasons beyond the prompt.</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-19">Implications and limitations</hd> <p>Morek ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref139">48</reflink>]) argues that "learning to modalize is learning to reason" (p. 115). Her argument has pedagogical implications. Consistent with prior research (Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref140">72</reflink>]), our findings add empirical evidence to support the intimate relationship between language and argumentation. In argument writing instruction, the role of nuanced language features in constructing different types of arguments should be explicitly discussed with students. Building upon a Hallidayan view that sees social interactions as a conduit for discussing language and language-based practices, Louwerse and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref141">39</reflink>]) contended that explicitly teaching the language features pertinent to a discipline was on a par with acquainting students with disciplinary knowledge. Uccelli and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref142">76</reflink>]) discussed that deliberate attention to language during writing instruction could promote language competence while at the same time benefit students' cognitive development such as their ability to argue for a proposition. Bruce ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref143">7</reflink>]) labeled it as the "teaching language through content" (p. 322) approach. Carpenter ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref144">8</reflink>]) discussed the synergistic effect between "​​learning about language, and learning through language" (p. 123). The present study calls for simultaneous attention to teaching language and argumentation during argument writing instruction, which could be particularly beneficial to the upper elementary student population who are at the onset of practicing argument writing.</p> <p>The present study should be viewed in consideration of a few limitations. First, qualitative coding was done solely by the first author. No formal reliability assessment was undertaken. Second, whilst the present study discussed how students employed assured and probable EMDs (e.g., '<emph>will</emph>' vs. '<emph>maybe</emph>') differently in predicting consequences and speculating causes, we did not explicitly distinguish different types of EMDs and investigate each of their unique contributions to argument construction. Future research could further explore how students utilize specific types of EMDs, for example, probable EMDs or hedges- linguistic devices that communicate the author's prudent attitude towards a state of affairs- to construct various types of arguments in argument writing. Here, the implication for future research likewise has implications for classroom practice. In argument writing instruction, teachers can discuss with students different types of EMDs and their unique functions when constructing meaning in argumentative discourse. For example, Jovic and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref145">34</reflink>]) studied the persuasive power of hedges (i.e., probable EMDs) in TED talks and indicated that these linguistic devices occurred frequently when appealing to emotions, opening up dialogic space, and establishing a prudent image of the speaker/writer which could consequently enhance the credibility of their propositions.</p> <p>Third, in examining the contributing effect of EMDs on number of reasons in writing, only 35% of the variance of the outcome was explained by the predictor and the controlled variables in the final model. Engaging in argumentation entails a set of complex, discursive practices that encompass not only attending to specific language features but "assessing alternatives, weighing evidence, interpreting texts" (Driver et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref146">16</reflink>], p. 288). This means that students' practices of argumentation in writing can be impacted by a host of factors, from the multiple characteristics of students to features of argument writing instruction. All of which could contribute to accounting for the unexplained variance.</p> <p>Last but not the least, epistemic modality, though being a promising entry point to approach the intersection of argumentation and language, only constitutes one aspect of students' many language practices, especially considering the student sample (young bilingual writers) that constituted the present study. Bilingual writers have strong potential because movement across languages in daily language and literacy activities endows them with certain cognitive advantages such as the awareness of the minds associated with speakers of different languages, which helps bilingual writers develop social perspective taking skills crucial to argument writing that involves not only writers' own stance but alternative propositions (Hsin & Snow, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref147">25</reflink>]; Hsin et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref148">26</reflink>]). Although the present study contained a sample of upper elementary Spanish- and Portuguese-English bilingual students, we lacked additional information about their bilingual backgrounds and diverse language practices in school and at home. It is worth keeping in mind that the essays in the current sample were fully written in English and that students received English-only instruction in all four schools in the mid-Atlantic site. How bilingual writers leverage bilingualism and maneuver written language to practice argumentation and argument writing is not investigated in the present study, which is certainly worth further research attention.</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-20">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The research reported here was supported by funding from the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through a grant (R305A140114) awarded to the second author (principal investigator) and the third author (co-principal investigator). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute of Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education. The authors acknowledge the contributions of the teachers and students at the participating schools.</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-21">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184953218-22">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors report no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0184953218-23">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0184953218-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Apel K, Henbest VS, Masterson J. Orthographic knowledge: Clarifications, challenges, and future directions. Reading and Writing. 2019; 32; 4: 873-889</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aull LL, Lancaster Z. Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication. 2014; 31; 2: 151-183</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref109" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barr CD, Uccelli P, Phillips Galloway E. Specifying the academic language skills that support text understanding in the middle grades: The design and validation of the core academic language skills construct and instrument. Language Learning. 2019; 69; 4: 978-1021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref23" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Beers SF, Nagy WE. Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures?. Which Genre? Reading and Writing. 2009; 22; 2: 185-200</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref71" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Biber D. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2006; 5; 2: 97-116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref114" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bosse ML. Learning to read and spell: How children acquire word orthographic knowledge. Child Development Perspectives. 2015; 9; 4: 222-226</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref143" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bruce N. Dovetailing language and content: Teaching balanced argument in legal problem answer writing. English for Specific Purposes. 2002; 21; 4: 321-345</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref144" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Carpenter, B. D. (2020). Linguistic socialization: More than regular talk, paraphrase and stuff. In J. A. Kerr, & A. M. Amicucci (Eds.), Stories from first-year composition: Pedagogies that foster student agency and writing identity (pp. 121–137). The WAC Clearinghouse.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref73" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chen Z. Expression of epistemic stance in EFL Chinese university students' writing. English Language Teaching. 2012; 5; 10: 173-179</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conrad NJ, Harris N, Williams J. Individual differences in children's literacy development: The contribution of orthographic knowledge. Reading and Writing. 2013; 26; 8: 1223-1239</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daffern T, Mackenzie NM, Hemmings B. Predictors of writing success: How important are spelling, grammar and punctuation?. Australian Journal of Education. 2017; 61; 1: 75-87</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Mulder HNM, Gautero-Watzema A. Acquiring epistemic modal auxiliaries: The role of theory of mind. Research in Language. 2018; 16; 1: 99-112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deng Z, Uccelli P, Snow C. Diversity of Advanced Sentence structures (DASS) in writing predicts argumentative writing quality and receptive academic language skills of fifth-to-eighth grade students. Assessing Writing. 2022; 53: 100649</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dobbs CL. Signaling organization and stance: Academic language use in middle grade persuasive writing. Reading and Writing. 2014; 27; 8: 1327-1352</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education. 2000; 84; 3: 287-312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferretti RP, Lewis WE. Knowledge of persuasion and writing goals predict the quality of children's persuasive writing. Reading and Writing. 2019; 32; 6: 1411-1430</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Harris KR, Fishman E, Houston J, Wijekumar K, Lei PW, Ray AB. Writing skills, knowledge, motivation, and strategic behavior predict students' persuasive writing performance in the context of robust writing instruction. The Elementary School Journal. 2019; 119; 3: 487-510</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halliday MAK. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language. 1970; 6; 3: 322-361</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halliday, M. A. K, & Matthiessen, C. M. (2013). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamp-Lyons L. Rating nonnative writing: The trouble with holistic scoring. TESOL Quarterly. 1995; 29; 4: 759-762</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hegarty, M. (2016). Modality and propositional attitudes. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hidi S, Berndorff D, Ainley M. Children's argument writing, interest and self-efficacy: An intervention study. Learning and Instruction. 2002; 12; 4: 429-446</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hinton M. Language and argument: A review of the field. Research in Language. 2019; 17; 1: 93-103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsin L, Snow C. Social perspective taking: A benefit of bilingualism in academic writing. Reading and Writing. 2017; 30: 1193-1214</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsin, L. B, Galloway, E. P, & Snow, C. E. (2024). Supporting social strengths amid emerging bilingualism: Effects of Word Generation on social perspective taking in English learners' writing. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu C, Li X. Epistemic modality in the argumentative essays of Chinese EFL LEARners. English Language Teaching. 2015; 8; 6: 20-31</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In le Cam, L. M, & Neyman, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability,1, 221–233. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyland K. Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks. English for Specific Purposes. 1994; 13; 3: 239-256</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyland K, Milton J. Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 1997; 6; 2: 183-205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ivankova NV, Creswell JW, Stick SL. Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods. 2006; 18; 1: 3-20</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jo CW. Exploring general versus academic English proficiency as predictors of adolescent EFL essay writing. Written Communication. 2021; 38; 2: 208-246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jo CW. Mapping adolescent literacy across L1 backgrounds: Linguistic and discourse features as predictors of persuasive essay quality. System. 2022; 104: 102698</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jovic M, Kurtishi I, AlAfnan MA. The persuasive power of hedges: Insights from TED talks. World Journal of English Language. 2023; 13; 5: 200-212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kidd DC, Castano E. Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science. 2013; 342; 6156: 377-380</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhn D. Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education. 2010; 94; 5: 810-824</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leiss, E. (2012). Epistemicity, evidentiality, and theory of mind (ToM). In W. Abraham, & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modality and theory of mind elements across languages (pp. 39–66). De Gruyter Mouton.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lombardi A. Moral outrage or mere possibility? An exploration of epistemic versus deontic stance in reading-to-write argumentation. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2022; 58: 100912</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Louwerse MM, Crossley SA, Jeuniaux P. What if? Conditionals in educational registers. Linguistics and Education. 2008; 19; 1: 56-69</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maamuujav U. Examining lexical features and academic vocabulary use in adolescent L2 students' text-based analytical essays. Assessing Writing. 2021; 49: 100540</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maamuujav U, Olson CB, Chung H. Syntactic and lexical features of adolescent L2 students' academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2021; 53: 100822</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacArthur CA, Jennings A, Philippakos ZA. Which linguistic features predict quality of argumentative writing for college basic writers, and how do those features change with instruction?. Reading and Writing. 2019; 32; 6: 1553-1574</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mather, N, Hammill, D. D, Allen, E. A, & Roberts, R. (2004). Test of silent word reading fluency. PRO-ED.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education: Examples of methodology and methods (pp. 365–380). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McEnery, T, & Kifle, N. A. (2002). Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 182–195). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore C, Pure K, Furrow D. Children's understanding of the modal expression of speaker certainty and uncertainty and its relation to the development of a representational theory of mind. Child Development. 1990; 61; 3: 722-730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morek M. Learning to modalize is learning to reason: On the role of epistemic modalizations in parent–child-talk and in written argumentation of secondary school students. Research on Children and Social Interaction. 2020; 4; 1: 115-141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. National Governors Association Center for Best Practice.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nussbaum EM, Kardash CM, Graham SE. The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2005; 97; 2: 157-169</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olinghouse NG, Wilson J. The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing. 2013; 26; 1: 45-65</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olinghouse NG, Graham S, Gillespie A. The relationship of discourse and topic knowledge to fifth graders' writing performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2015; 107; 2: 391-406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oswald S. Pragmatics for argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics. 2023; 203: 144-156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palmer, F. R. (2013). Modality and the English modals (2nd ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papafragou A. The acquisition of modality: Implications for theories of semantic representation. Mind & Language. 1998; 13; 3: 370-399</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papafragou, A. (2001). Linking early linguistic and conceptual capacities: The role of theory of mind. In A. Cienki, B. Luka, & M. Smith (Eds.), Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic structure (pp. 169–184). CSLI.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papafragou, A. (2002). Modality and theory of mind: Perspectives from language development and autism. In S. Barbiers, F. Beukema, & van der W. Wurff (Eds.), Modality and its interaction with the verbal system (pp. 185–204). John Benjamins Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pinto, R. C. (2001). Argument, inference and dialectic: Collected papers on informal logic (Vol. 4). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor, C. P, Silverman, R. D, Harring, J. R, Jones, R. L, & Hartranft, A. M. (2020). Teaching bilingual learners: Effects of a language‐based reading intervention on academic language and reading comprehension in grades 4 and 5. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1), 95–122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qin W, Uccelli P. Same language, different functions: A cross-genre analysis of Chinese EFL learners' writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2016; 33: 3-17</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qin W, Uccelli P. Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics. 2019; 139: 22-39</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reilly J, Baruch E, Jisa H, Berman R. Propositional attitudes in written and spoken language. Written Language & Literacy. 2002; 5; 2: 183-218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reznitskaya, A, & Anderson, R. C. (2002). The argument schema and learning to reason. In C. C. Block, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 319–334). Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rocci A. Modality and its conversational backgrounds in the reconstruction of argumentation. Argumentation. 2008; 22; 2: 165-189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rocci, A. (2017). Modality in argumentation (Vol. 29). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share DL. Orthographic learning at a glance: On the time course and developmental onset of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2004; 87; 4: 267-298</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverman, R. D, Proctor, C. P, Harring, J. R, Taylor, K. S, Johnson, E. M, Jones, R. L, & Lee, Y. (2021). The effect of a language and literacy intervention on upper elementary bilingual students' argument writing. The Elementary School Journal, 122(2), 208–232.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. E, & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson, & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor KS, Lawrence JF, Connor CM, Snow CE. Cognitive and linguistic features of adolescent argumentative writing: Do connectives signal more complex reasoning?. Reading and Writing. 2019; 32; 4: 983-1007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trent JD. Toulmin's model of an argument: An examination and extension. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 1968; 54; 3: 252-259</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uccelli P. The language demands of analytical reading and writing at school. Written Communication. 2023; 40; 2: 518-554</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uccelli P, Dobbs CL, Scott J. Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication. 2013; 30; 1: 36-62</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uccelli P, Barr CD, Dobbs CL, Galloway EP, Meneses A, Sánchez E. Core academic language skills: An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics. 2015; 36; 5: 1077-1109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uccelli P, Galloway EP, Barr CD, Meneses A, Dobbs CL. Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly. 2015; 50; 3: 337-356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Eemeren, F. H, & Andone, C. (2007). Argumentation and communicative practices. In A. Rocci, & L. Saussure (Eds.), Verbal Communication (pp. 245–268). De Gruyter Mouton.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vandenhoek T. Epistemic markers in NS and NNS academic writing. Journal of Academic Writing. 2018; 8; 1: 72-91</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walton DN. What is reasoning? What is an argument?. The Journal of Philosophy. 1990; 87; 8: 399-419</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walton, D. (2009). Argumentation theory: A very short introduction. In Simari, G, & Rahwan, I. (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Boston, MA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica,48, 817–830.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Qihan Chen; C. Patrick Proctor and Rebecca D. Silverman</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref148"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1470166
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Epistemic Modality in Upper Elementary Students' Argument Writing: A Feature of Argumentation
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Qihan+Chen%22">Qihan Chen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22C%2E+Patrick+Proctor%22">C. Patrick Proctor</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rebecca+D%2E+Silverman%22">Rebecca D. Silverman</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+and+Writing%3A+An+Interdisciplinary+Journal%22"><i>Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 38(5):1461-1482.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R305A140114
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Epistemology%22">Epistemology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Linguistics%22">Linguistics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Role%22">Language Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Usage%22">Language Usage</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11145-024-10550-7
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0922-4777<br />1573-0905
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Language is essential for making meaning in written communication, and argument writing is a key genre of schooling to which language contributes rich resources for constructing different types of arguments. Despite being a challenging language practice, argument writing research lacks investigation into the language demands of this writing genre. Using an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach, the present study explored the role of language in adolescent students' argument writing through the lens of the relationship between argumentation features (reasons, counterarguments, rebuttals) and students' use of epistemic modality devices (EMDs) -- linguistic tools that express the author's knowledge of and belief about the possibility of whether a state of affairs is true (e.g., 'must', 'maybe'). Argument writing samples from 115 upper elementary students were analyzed to explore the relationship between EMDs and written argumentation. Descriptive analysis showed that reasons and modal auxiliaries that indicated certainty ('will', 'would') were most frequently employed by the students. Multiple regression analyses revealed a positive, significant relationship between number of reasons in students' writing and their EMD usage. Subsequent qualitative content analysis identified two salient patterns of how EMDs assisted with reason construction, (1) predicting consequences, and (2) speculating causes of behaviors. The findings emphasize the close relation between language and argumentation and hence highlight the importance of the explicit instruction of language features pertinent to argumentative discourse.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Funded
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Yes
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1470166
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1470166
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11145-024-10550-7
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 1461
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Epistemology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Linguistics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Usage
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Epistemic Modality in Upper Elementary Students' Argument Writing: A Feature of Argumentation
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Qihan Chen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: C. Patrick Proctor
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rebecca D. Silverman
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0922-4777
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-0905
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 38
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1