Informality in Academic Writing: An Analysis of ESL Undergraduate Written Discourse

Business correspondence is a foundational genre for ESL undergraduates, especially those preparing for professional roles that demand formal written communication. Despite its importance, research consistently points to a tendency toward informality in student writing, shaped by factors such as first language influence, instructional practices, and the growing role of digital communication. This study examines this issue within the Malaysian higher education context, drawing on 50 business emails produced by undergraduates at a public university. Guided by the informality framework proposed by Chang and Swales (1999) and operationalised by Hyland and Jiang (2017), the analysis focuses on nine informal features, including unattended anaphoric pronouns, second-person pronouns, contractions, sentence-initial conjunctions, direct questions, listing expressions, exclamations, sentence-final prepositions, and split infinitives. The findings indicate that although students possess a basic awareness of formal conventions, informal features persist due to L1 interference, limited exposure to authentic business discourse, and pedagogical priorities that emphasise grammatical precision over register-appropriateness. By shedding light on these patterns, the study contributes to ongoing discussions in ESL writing research and offers practical pedagogical strategies for developing students' professional writing competence.

business correspondence, ESL undergraduates, informality, Malaysian tertiary education, written discourse

1. Baron, N. S. (2015). Words onscreen: The fate of reading in a digital world. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. Continuum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Chang, Y.-Y., & Swales, J. M. (1999). Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers? In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 145–167). Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Guffey, M. E., & Loewy, D. (2021). Business communication: Process and product (10th ed.). Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ho, V. (2018). Exploring the use of metadiscourse in workplace request emails. Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 1-13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO's letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224-245. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hyland, K. (2018). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40-51. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Lee, J. J., Bychkovska, T., & Maxwell, J. D. (2019). Breaking the rules? A corpus-based comparison of informal features in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing. System, 80, 143-153. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Mat, M., Hashim, H., & Sulaiman, N. A. (2025). Uncovering the ESL Undergraduates’ Needs for a Web-based Writing Module. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL (11):111-125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Mehat, S. Z., & Ismail, L. (2021). Malaysian tertiary ESL students’ writing errors and their implications on English language teaching. Asian Journal of University Education, 17(3), 235–242. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2016). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2016-2025. Ministry of Education Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Praminatih, G. A., Kwary, D. A., & Ardaniah, V. (2018). Is EFL students' academic writing becoming more informal? Journal of World Languages, 5(2), 101-112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Puvenesvary, M. (2003). A comparative study of the criteria employed by academic and workplace professionals in evaluating business correspondence [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Melbourne. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Razali, A. B., & Azmar, K. (2024). Teaching and learning of English academic writing in a public university in Malaysia: A case study. International Journal of Instruction, 17(4), 645-668. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Sadjirin, R., Aziz, R. A., Nordin, N. M., Ismail, M. R., & Norzie, D. B. (2018). The development of Malaysian corpus of financial english (MaCFE). GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 18(3), 73. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Tocalo, A. W. I., Racman, S. P., Guiamelon, K. N. A. G., & Mama, B. M. (2022). Is Filipino ESL academic writing becoming more informal? PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 64, 99-125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study