Received: 11th August 2023; Revised: 21st September 2023, 7th November 2023, 16th November 2023, 30th November 2023; Accepted: 14th August 2023


  • David A. Gann Ed. D., Junior Associate Professor, Institute of Arts and Sciences, Tokyo University of Science, Noda City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan



Language, Critical Thinking, Conditional Statement, Discourse Marker, Argument, Coherence, EFL


Among the foundations of critical thinking in EFL is the ability of language learners to be able to express their views in terms of predictions and outcomes. It is all the more important in science universities such as the institution where the author teaches. Nine Japanese first-year university students in Japan, participated in a study involving an extended experiential learning project, using physical objects and observable phenomena. While students’ general use of premise and conclusion markers markedly improved, problems in their construction of hypothetical premises persisted. I will discuss the types of problems and offer explanations for why these problems continue to occur, and I will suggest ways in which instruction on hypothetical premise construction may be improved.


Aaron, E. and Spivey, M. (1999). Frequency vs. probability formats: Framing the three-door problem. In Gernsbacher, M.A., & Derry, S.J. (eds) Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (1st ed.) Routledge, 13-18.

Basturkmen, H. and von Randow, J. (2014). Guiding the reader (or not) to recreate coherence: Observations on post-graduate student writing in an argumentative writing task. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 14-22.

Bao, D. (2014) Understanding Silence and Reticence: Ways of Participating in Second Language Acquisition, London, Bloomsbury Academic.

Cheng, X., and Steffensen, M. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30 (2), 149-181. Available at

Eggins, S. (2013). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics, London, Bloomsbury Academic.

Hosseini, S. S. and Sangani, H. R. (2015). The pre-intermediate Iranian EL learners’ interlanguage and the contribution of their innate system to the development of their oral communicative proficiency, Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 192, 408-418.

Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29.

Intaraprawat, P. and Steffensen, M. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4 (3), 253-272.

Ishikawa, M. and Suzuki, W. (2016). The effect of written languaging on learning the hypothetical conditional in English. System, 58, 97-111.

Maynard, S. (1998). Principles of Japanese discourse: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MEXT. (n.d.). Survey on the Five Proposals and Specific Measures for Developing Proficiency in English for International Communication [Online]. Available at (Accessed 8 November 2023)

Moore, N. B. and Parker, R. (2012). Critical Thinking. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Sanford, S.G. (2012). A comparison of metadiscourse markers and writing quality in adolescent written narratives. Published master’s thesis, Missoula, Montana, University of Montana.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications.

Williams, J. (1992). Planning, discourse marking and the comprehensibility of international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 26 (4), 693-711.




How to Cite

Gann, D. A. (2024). THE VARIETY OF PROBLEMS IN JAPANESE STUDENTS’ HYPOTHETICAL PREMISE CONSTRUCTIONS: Received: 11th August 2023; Revised: 21st September 2023, 7th November 2023, 16th November 2023, 30th November 2023; Accepted: 14th August 2023. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning, 8(1), 17–26.