Pronoun I was also used to describe the writer‘s personal anecdotes, experiences,
Question 1: The Overall Frequency and Distribution of Personal Pronouns
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
171
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I would present an overall account of personal pronoun use in argumentative writing as yielded by the quantitative and qualitative analyses of the triangulated data—writing samples, questionnaires and oral interviews. My intention is to highlight how personal pronouns are actually utilized in discourse and what pragmatic strategies the Taiwanese students adopt in accordance with cultural and discoursal norms. To begin with, the main results are summarized in response to the four research questions. Based on the discoveries, I would like to make some
pedagogical suggestions for the tertiary writing classroom in Taiwan, or in other EFL contexts, which I believe is the major contribution of the study. Finally, the limitations of the study are discussed and directions for further research also recommended.
Answers to Research Questions
This study aims to answer what, when, where, how and why different personal pronouns are employed in various discourse contexts by Taiwanese EFL writers. In the following section, the four research questions are answered.
Question 1: The Overall Frequency and Distribution of Personal Pronouns
Overall Frequency and Distribution
The quantitative analysis of the learner corpus of 76 essays showed a
substantial difference in the frequency of types of personal pronouns. Prompted by the topic of same-sex marriage, references to the third group they overwhelmingly
outnumbered the other four (accounting for 51.6% of the total), followed by I (17.6%), we (15.7%), s/he (9.2%) and finally you (5.9%). Overall, the density of personal
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
pronouns used in the texts was an average of 4.69 occurrences per 100 words. The nominative forms were most dominant in all types of personal pronouns, tripling or quadruplicating the rates of other cases. Placing pronouns as a grammatical subject of a clause, the students demonstrated a person-as-the-core thinking pattern, and
increased an emphatic force to their propositions.
Variance among Groups in Distribution
The ANOVA analysis showed a salient difference among the three groups in their use of personal pronouns (F(2,73)=5.690, ＜.05). The High group significantly differed from the other two, but no difference between the Low and the Mid groups was detected. As evidenced by the data, the lower the quality of the essay, the more use of personal pronouns. As for the frequency distribution, regardless of the group, they ranked first and you was the least frequently used. More astonishingly, there was no occurrence of you in the High group.
The Low group, being more personal-oriented and self-involved, used I most often to express personal experiences, and preferred to cite the others‘ anecdotes as examples to illustrate their viewpoints. The Mid group also desired for subjective self-expression, but at the same time attended to the relationship with the reader. The higher density of solidarity marker we suggested their attempt to involve the reader in the discourse. In comparison, the High group used more of we than I to avoid
over-subjectivity.
Question 2: The Most common Linguistic Forms Collocated with Personal Pronouns
Given the argumentative genre, mental verbs outnumbered the other verb processes in all personal pronouns. The data analysis showed that I favored
stance-marking verbs (e.g. believe and agree) for making claims and relational verbs (e.g. be and have) for relating to the writer‘s personal experiences. We preferred verbs
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
be and have to state the generalities. Those verbs that aroused the reader‘s solidarity such as respect, see, and love were ranked top as well. You collocated mostly with verbs that appealed to the reader‘s feelings or those that invited the reader to make his own judgment (e.g. think, say, and find). They and s/he also chose verbs be and have to state the general truth most frequently.
In terms of modals, modals of ability can/could were often connected with I, and modals of obligation/necessity (e.g. should, must, need to) collocated with we most commonly to tone down the directive force. You tended to be followed by modals of possibility and so did they, whereas s/he favored modals of
prediction/volition—will and would. Emphatic markers were most pronounced in I, used to intensify the writer‘s commitment to his proposition. But there was no occurrence of attitude markers (in form of sentence adverb) found in the data.
The clusters chosen would fulfill specific discourse functions and reflect the kind of perspective the students took. Holistically, the most favorite patterns among the five personal pronouns included:
1. pronoun + opinion/thinking verbs (for expressing stance or viewpoints, especially I),
2. pronoun + be/have + adjective/noun phrase (for stating the generalities, e.g.
we, you, they, and s/he),
3. pronoun + emotion/expectation verbs (for involving the writer or the reader, e.g. I and we),
4. pronoun + can/can’t/could/couldn’t + verb (for giving suggestions, indicating possibility or imposing prohibition, e.g. we, you, and they),
5. pronoun + obligation modal + verb (for imposing responsibility, especially we), and
6. pronoun + don’t + verb (for indicating impossibility or lacking in possession,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
e.g. we, you, and they).
In addition, it was found that we, you, they, and impersonal s/he were often placed in questions and adverbial clauses led by if or when to stimulate the reader‘s thinking and refute their arguments.
Question 3: The Discourse Functions Fulfilled by Types of Personal Pronouns
Discourse Functions and Types of Personal Pronouns
The students utilized personal pronouns with accompanying forms to perform various discourse functions. As revealed in the data, self-mention I mainly fulfilled
―asserting the stance‖ function (69.1%), followed by ―referring to the writer‘s experiences‖ and ―indicating discourse structure.‖
The dominant function of we was ―establishing solidarity‖ (39.4%), which was characteristic of Taiwanese collectivism. The pattern ―we + obligation modals‖
fulfilled the ―toning down directives‖ function, whereas the functions of ―presenting a general claim‖ and ―indicating discourse structure‖ accounted for less than one-third of the total occurrences.
The reader marker you enabled the writers to ―involve the reader‖ (56.9%) by a story-life description or an imaginary situation, often linguistically encoded in
if-clauses, when-clauses and interrogatives. The emphatic tone also made it possible to ―confront an opposite stance.‖ Only 15.3% of the occurrences were used to
―present morals or truism.‖
Pronoun they mainly ―detached the third party‖ (84.4%), the function of which enabled the writer to make a neutral reference to the third group or make a contrast between we and they. When the semantic references were homosexuals, they often fulfilled the function of ―stating the generalities.‖
Like they, s/he maintained a sense of detachment but its emergence was
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
referentially-required for illustrations or proof.
In the data, personal pronouns tended to fulfill pragmatic functions more than discourse structure functions (only fulfilled by I and we). In general, to express the writer‘s personal stance, I was selected. To engage the reader, you and we were most common. While I, they and s/he often introduced personal experiences or anecdotes, impersonal we, you, and they expressed generalities or truism.
Variance among Groups in Function Use
There were important differences in the rhetorical uses of personal pronouns among the three groups. To begin with, the High group preferred I to perform
―stance‖ function, while the Low group chose I to recount his personal experiences for intense self-involvement. Next, the ―establishing solidarity‖ function of we was favored by the Mid group, reflecting their intension to arouse a sense of camaraderie.
The High group writers were most meticulous about the use of you, and the Low and Mid group writers utilized you to seek the reader‘s recognition most frequently.
All the three groups used they mainly to make a neutral reference rather than to make a contrast, which was most noticeable in the Mid group. In general, the
interpersonal interaction was made most evident in the Mid group writers‘ endeavor to involve people in the discourse.
Question 4: The Students’ Perceptions of Argumentative Writing
Questionnaire Results
The results of the questionnaires showed that the students were more inclined to express their opinions (60.5%) than to argue (34.2%). The Low group remarkably wrote for self-expression (75% of the total). Only four students (5.3%) wrote for
―fulfilling the assignment requirement.‖
The top three reader groups—―general public,‖ ―opponents,‖ and
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
―teachers/researchers‖—comprised 86.8% of the total occurrences. But the ―others‖
group (e.g. friends, family) used significantly more pronouns than the other four groups, particularly pronoun I. It was probably because the familiarity and closeness with the reader made them present their own opinions freely without having to hide themselves. While you was least utilized by the ―teacher/researcher‖ group due to its imposing tone, they least frequently occurred in ―homosexuals‖ group in fear of offending the homosexuals.
The students overwhelmingly perceived the writer-reader relationship as equal (89.5%). Despite the relatively similar pronoun use, the ―equal‖ group tended to use more of I and less of you than the ―unequal‖ group. Also, the ―unequal‖ group favored we to bridge the status gap. Regarding the convincing strategy, the ―direct‖ strategy was greater in number than the ―indirect‖ one (53.9% vs. 46.1%), indicating the students‘ preference for a clear and straightforward presentation of arguments. These two groups generally displayed quite similar pronoun distributions.
Overall, over 60% of the students found their arguments successfully convinced the reader mostly due to the solid evidence provided. But 31.6% of the students were hesitant about the persuasiveness effect considering people‘s varied viewpoints.
Finally, the students had greatest difficulties in idea development (57.9%), which even caused troubles for the High group writers. The other major problem was ―language expression‖ in the aspects of text organization.
Oral Interview Results
The in-depth interview on 16 students from the three groups found that the choices of personal pronouns varied among writers and were associated with the writers‘ underlying communicative purposes.
I was chosen to denote egocentricity and subjectivity. Some students avoided using I partly because of the teacher‘s discouragement and partly because of the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
students‘ intention to hide themselves for objectivity or safety. The inclusion marker we conveyed a sense of equality and solidarity. Hiding behind the collective group, the students softened their egocentricity. However, some students were concerned about the implied authority of we over the reader and did not want to be held responsible for what they claimed.
You was perceived by the students as an interactive device to include the reader in the discourse. Also, it made a specific group of people as a clear target for open confrontation and moral instillation. But you could display the writer‘s knowledge authority over the reader and might sound so strong as to jeopardize the writer-reader relationship.
They was used when a reference to a group of people outside the discourse had to be made. Classified as a separate group of people, they often represented those who held different views from the writer and the reader. In the same vein, s/he occurred when it was referentially required. But due to its implication of specificity and individuality, it was sometimes avoided.
In conclusion, the results of the study have advanced the current understanding of Taiwanese EFL students‘ actual performance of personal pronouns in
argumentative texts from both lexico-grammatical and discourse-semantic levels.
They have also expanded the knowledge of how the students of different proficiency levels perceive and employ personal pronouns in discourse. Furthermore, the results have revealed how the students use personal pronouns to interact with the reader. All these findings contribute to promoting a better understanding of interpersonal aspects involved in argumentative writing.
Pedagogical Implications
Argumentative essays require student writers clearly to know when and how to
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
intrude into their discourse and to attend to the reader and even the third party, which of course, is quite problematic for students (Hyland, 2001). They have to strategically and carefully balance interpersonal relationship while making their vigorous
arguments. In fact, the manipulation of personal pronouns turns out to be much more complicated and sophisticated than EFL students can imagine. The capability of performing various functions does not necessarily mean that they realize the rhetorical and discourse functions personal pronouns carry and their linguistic realizations. Nor are they aware of their roles as an arguer, the adaptive strategies that can be
maneuvered in response to the reader‘s needs in discourse, and the constraints set by the social context. The discrepancy between what they are capable of doing and what they are still missing should be bridged through explicit instruction for raising such awareness and rhetorical skills.
The results of the present study have revealed some substantial information for the writing teachers and also suggested the inclusion of an interactive approach at both the lexico-grammatical and semantic-discourse levels in the argumentative writing. In the following, some pedagogical implications are derived:
1. The understanding of argumentative genre
The understanding of the genre would have a great impact on how the writer plans the text. A number of students stated in the questionnaires that they simply attempted to express their views rather than convince the reader to take on their side.
Given such a purpose, the students may not recognize the need to find supportive evidence for stronger persuasion. Thus, it is found that some students make clear claims for their positions about same-sex marriage, but fail to find objective proof to justify their assertions. For example, student Low#7 wrote, ―I against same sex marriage for the reasons of extinction, morality and religion. As I‘m being Catholic.
Same sex marriage is disobeying my religion and the nature‘s law.‖ However, he did
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
not elaborate on his arguments except giving his personal examples and anecdotes.
Students should be aware that more justifications, authoritative claims, persuasion, and objective evidence such as facts, reports, and figures are expected in English argumentation (Connor, 1990).
It should also be pointed out that although the term ―argument‖ may suggest
―adversarial nature of argument,‖ the process of ―arguing‖ is in fact an adaptive scheme for winning the reader‘s recognition, not a direct conflict against the reader. In the same vein, the notion of ―counterarguments‖ is not only oppositional but
promotional, with which the writer strategically assigns credit to other perspectives before giving criticism, and also adds an interpersonal touch (Banerjee, 2008).
More importantly, the majority of the students, regardless of proficiency levels, voice the difficulty in collecting relevant information and integrating it into their own arguments. The result stands in contrast with our common belief that language
expressions would pose the greatest difficulty to students in composing an essay. This suggests that there is definitely a need to give opportunities for brainstorming before embarking on the writing task, which will enable the students to know what to write about and how to develop the ideas, particularly in dealing with such a topic of abstract reasoning.
2. The promotion of audience awareness
An effective writing instruction has to address the issues of the text genre and the purpose of writing tasks, and most importantly, the awareness of audience involvement and feedback (Hyland, 2002a). Berkenkotter (1984) argues that skilled writers are able to make a mental sketch of their audience and choose the type of discourse which best fits their representation. Students should learn to analyze the rhetorical situation (including the target reader) and adjust the transaction between themselves and their intended reader. As they write, they need to internalize their
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
audience, often asking themselves the questions that their audience might be expected to ask. The awareness of audience can help students set up a framework for the construction of major arguments and determine the strategy to be adopted.
3. The instruction of personal pronoun use and their discourse functions
There is a gradual transition from impersonal writing to the reflection of the writer‘s personal commitment to his own propositions. The idea that academic writing is purely impersonal has been rejected (Ivanic & Simpson, 1992), and the legitimacy of using personal voice in argument is established. In view of this, it is important that students know how to employ personal pronouns appropriately in argumentative texts, and also they should be informed of the discourse functions personal pronouns are able to fulfill.
To begin with, students should be made known that the inclusion of personal voice in text does not encourage a higher use of personal pronouns. As a matter of fact, personal pronoun use usually varies with the genre. For instance, narration or
description normally allows more personal pronouns, but exposition or argumentation expects a mild and cautious use of personal pronouns in order to maintain text
objectivity. Furthermore, students should be told that a great number of personal pronouns will not necessarily procure a stronger persuasive effect. As demonstrated in the present study, the Low group writers, using twice as many personal pronouns as the High group, do not make the texts more convincing. Similarly, an absence of any personal pronoun does not guarantee the objectivity of the text, either. Quite on the contrary, it may make the writer‘s stance very blurred or ambiguous. More
specifically, the importance of self-reference I for personal stance and a decreased use of you should be mentioned. Pronoun they as grammatical subject, although inevitably required by discourse context, should be replaced at certain times by either full noun phrases or other linguistic patterns.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Furthermore, the functions of personal pronouns have to be examined from cross-cultural perspectives. Since the use of personal pronouns can be seen as a form of socio-cultural manifestation (Flottum, et al., 2006), the functions that are unique in English should be recognized and compared with those in Chinese context.
4. The incorporation of linguistic forms into writing instruction
Students should be familiarized with a variety of linguistic forms. It is found that the students use recurring main verbs for all types of personal pronouns, especially the Low and Mid groups, which reveals that the students have quite a limited vocabulary repertoire. Constrained by some specific verbs, the linguistic forms are accordingly lacking in diversity. In addition to the familiarity with emphatic adverbs and deontic modals, the instructions on hedges and epistemic modals are also crucial, the acquisition of which will facilitate the students‘ audience awareness, their management of writer-reader interaction, and their expression of modesty and
politeness.
Equally important is the introduction of attitude markers. Attitude markers can prompt students to contribute their own ideas and critically react to the text
(Camiciottoli, 2003). Unfortunately, there is no presence of attitude adverbs (sentence adverbs) found in the data, indicating the students‘ unfamiliarity with such a rhetorical device. To bridge the gap, a list of attitude markers of various kinds should be offered, such as surprise, desire, frustration, agreement, assertion, etc. and then ask students to examine the effects they produce in texts.
Finally, as has been pointed out earlier, the students prefer to use the pattern of
―subject pronoun + verb.‖ But English speakers are more inclined to describe a static situation, and consequently, they tend to use more nouns and fewer verbs (Wang &
―subject pronoun + verb.‖ But English speakers are more inclined to describe a static situation, and consequently, they tend to use more nouns and fewer verbs (Wang &