Preserving Meaning in EFL Writing Feedback: Warranted Non-Adoption and Writer Agency

Abstract

Written feedback can make English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) prose more fluent while weakening the evidence or altering the people and practices represented in a sentence. This article examines the linguistic conditions under which a writer has good reason not to implement a particular recommendation. It combines findings from investigations of feedback engagement with a close comparison of six fully specified writing tasks: a survey summary, an interview report, an application notice, an account of informal study gatherings, a subject--verb agreement correction, and an orientation notice for new students. For each task, the analysis compares the information available to the writer with the draft, the recommended change, and a defensible response. The comparisons identify four consequential editing risks: upgrading association to causation, converting an attributed perception into an unattributed assertion, assigning an unidentified actor, and replacing a locally meaningful label with an inaccurate institutional category. A grammatical correction supplies an important counterexample: learner agency can be exercised through acceptance. The orientation task shows that preserving a label is not sufficient when a reader also needs a clear explanation. On this evidence, warranted non-adoption depends on recognition of the requested change, a task-specific reason for declining it, and a resulting sentence that remains accurate and accessible. The article specifies a classroom exchange and assessment distinctions that allow teachers to value source fidelity without treating either agreement or disagreement as proof of learning. Its claims concern linguistic analysis and instructional judgement, not measured effects on learners.