中英文寫作之章法及風格比較研究

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學英語學系碩. 士. 論. 文. Master Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 中英文寫作之章法及風格比較研究. Rhetorical Conventions in Chinese and English: A Study on Performance and Perceptions. 指導教授：朱錫琴博士馮和平博士 Advisors: Dr. Hsi-chin Janet Chu Dr. Ho-ping Feng 研究生：陳姿蓉 Tzu-jung Chen. 中華民國九十八年六月 June, 2009.

(2) 摘要本研究主要目的為比較台灣大學生的中英文作文及相關寫作觀念的不同。參與本研究的學生為五十四位國立台灣師範大學非主修英語的大一學生。他們被分成四組，每組以不同語言及寫作題目的順序在兩堂課中分別寫出一篇中文作文及英文作文。他們接著在另一天完成寫作觀念問卷 (Rhetorical Conception Questionnaire)。這些文章之後以由 Wu & Rubin’s (2000) 的研究中發展而來的寫作評分標準就其直接程度(directness)及風格特色 (stylistic features)進行分析。評改完文章及分析完寫作觀念問卷之後，研究者就在對中文論說文文體及自己的中文作文中的直接程度勾選不同的學生另外再進行事後訪談，以獲得進一步的答案。研究結果顯示這些學生的中英文文章在各方面並無顯著差異。然而，在寫作觀念上，這些學生可分辨出不同的中英文論說文寫作模式，這些不同點主要在於直接程度(degree of directness)、風格特色(stylistic features)、及組織(organization) 上。在直接程度上，這些學生認為中文論說文可以直接或間接的方式寫作，但英文論說文則偏向以直接的方式寫作。在組織上，這些學生認為起承轉合仍是中文論說文所強調的文章結構。此外，在寫作觀念上及此次寫作文章中直接程度的感知，這些學生認為他們在中文的部分有顯著差異，但英文的部分則沒有差異。學生們在寫作表現與寫作觀念的差異顯示出他們的認知過程與知識並不相等。在文章的章法方面，最大的不同在於中文的部分，原因可能是受到他們的語言能力、本次的寫作主題、本次寫作時間的限制、以及在第一節課所寫的英文作文所影響。在風格特色上，學生沒有出現大量的引經據典(use of proverbs and other canonical expressions)，原因為受到他們的語言能力限制及對此特徵的負面觀感。另一方面，這些學生的文章出現大量集體自我意識(collective self)，原因主要為從小受到的教育使然。最後，研究者也就教學及研究方法上提出一些相關建議。. 2.

(3) ABSTRACT The present study aims to compare Taiwanese college students’ writing performance and rhetorical conceptions in Chinese and English. The participants were 54 non-English majors in NTNU. They were randomly divided into four groups, and each student in each group wrote a Chinese essay and an English one in different orders of topics and languages in two periods. On the other day, they filled out the Rhetorical Conception Questionnaire (RCQ). The participants’ essays were analyzed in terms of directness and four stylistic features (personal disclosure, use of proverbs and other canonical expressions, collective self, and non-assertiveness) with coding schemes developed from Wu and Rubin’s (2000) study. After analysis of students’ Chinese and English essays and their RCQs, a post hoc interview was implemented to supplement the ambiguity in students’ answers in the RCQ. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the participants’ Chinese and English essays on directness and the four stylistic features. However, students could identify different rhetorical patterns in Chinese and English argumentative writing. The differences lay in degree of directness, stylistic features, and organization. For degree of directness, these students considered Chinese argumentative writing was both direct and indirect, whereas English argumentative writing was generally more direct. For organization, these students regarded qi-cheng-zhuan-he as a currently emphasized structure in Chinese argumentative writing. In addition, there was a significant difference between students’ perception of directness in Chinese argumentative writing and their perception of directness in their own Chinese essays, but there was no significant difference between their perception of directness in English argumentative writing and their perception of directness in their own English essays. The discrepancy between the participants’ writing performance and their rhetorical conventions indicated that their cognitive process 3.

(4) was not the same as their knowledge. For the directness in their Chinese essays, they were influenced by their language proficiency, the writing prompts, the time limits, the topics, the first essay they wrote, and Westernization. For their little canonical expressions, both the factors of language proficiency and their negative feelings toward fixed patterns were involved. For their copious collective self use, they were mainly influenced by their education. At the end of the thesis, several pedagogical and methodological implications are provided.. 4.

(5) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis could not have been finished without the support from many people. First and foremost, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my two advisors: Professor Ho-ping Feng and Professor Hsi-chin Janet Chu. Professor Feng helped me particularly in shaping my ideas at the initial stages and my revision work after the oral defense. In addition to her academic enlightenment, she provided me with constant encouragement in my dark and pessimistic moments. For Professor Chu, I really feel greatly indebted for her willingness to co-advise me and for the enormous amount of time she had spent on me. With her careful and critical correction and feedback, she guided me a lot on the forming of the method and on arranging and interpreting the data. Moreover, I am thankful to my two advisors for allowing me to invite their students as the participants in my study. I also want to express my appreciation to my committee members, Professor Yeu-ting Liu and Professor Yi-chun Liu. For Professor Yeu-ting Liu, I am thankful for his careful examination of my thesis and the precious opinions he had given me since the proposal hearing. For Professor Yi-chun Liu, I’m grateful for her critical remarks on my thesis, which made me improve the quality of my thesis a lot. I am also thankful to the participants in this study: the 54 NTNU students. Without their consent of participation and cooperation, this thesis could not have been completed. I am especially grateful to the students who were willing to answer the post hoc interview questions and give me warm encouragement. I also received great assistance from many other people when I was dealing with the data. For the rating process, I am greatly obliged to Ai Wang. She also gave me a lot of constructive opinions and warmth to see me through the difficulties I had encountered in finishing my thesis. I am also thankful to Guan-ying Leu for giving me suggestions for presenting the results and supported me with her empathetic 5.

(6) understanding on my way to completing my thesis. In regard to assistance on statistical methods, I am especially indebted to Professor Sieh-hwa Lin in the Research Center for Psychological and Educational Testing in NTNU. His patience and professional knowledge greatly benefited me. I am also thankful to Zhi-hao Liu for giving me valuable advice on statistics. My thanks also extend to the students and teachers who had participated in my pilot study, and my colleagues and students. I am grateful for their cooperation and assistance. Most of all, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my family for their patience and toleration on me during the thesis writing process. Particularly, I hope to show my utmost appreciation to a special member in my family. Without this person’s unfailing companionship and emotional support, I could not have overcome all the hardships in finishing my study.. 6.

(7) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT (CHINESE)………………………………………………………. ABSTRACT (ENGLISH)………………………………………………………. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………….. TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………….. LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………. 2 3 5 7 10. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………... Background and Motivation………........................................................... Purpose and Research Questions………………………………………… Definition of Key Terms…………………………………………………. Transfer…………………………………………………………....... 11 11 13 13 13. Contrastive Rhetoric……………………………………………….. Rhetorical Conventions……………………………………………. The Qi-cheng-zhuan-he Structure…………………………………. The Eight-legged Essay……………………………………………. Directness………………………………………………………….. Stylistic Features…………………………………………………... Lack of Personal Disclosure…………………………………. Use of Proverbs and Other Canonical Expressions………….. Collective Self……………………………………………….. Non-assertiveness……………………………………………. Significance of the Study……….……………………………………….. Organization of the Thesis………………………………………………... 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 17. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………….... The Development of Contrastive Rhetoric Theories…………………….. Contrastive Rhetoric Studies on Chinese and English…………………... Organization……………………………………………………...... Similarities in Chinese and English Organizational Patterns... Dissimilarities in Chinese and English Organizational Patterns………………………………………………………. Similarities and Differences in Chinese and English Organization Patterns………………………………………... Summary of Chinese and English Organizational Patterns…... 18 18 22 23 23. Stylistic Features………………………………………………….... 34. 27 30 33. 7.

(8) Lack of Personal Disclosure.………..…….............................. Use of Proverbs and Other Canonical Expressions………….. Collective Self……………………………………………….. Non-assertiveness………………...…………………………... 34 35 37 38. CHAPTER THREE: METHOD………………………………………………… The Pilot Study…………………………………………………………... Participants………………………………………………………………. Instruments………………………………………………………………. Writing Prompts for the Chinese and English Writing Tasks……… Rhetorical Convention Questionnaire (RCQ)…………………….... 41 41 42 44 44 45. Post Hoc Interview……………………………………………….... Design………………………………………………………………….... Data Collection Procedures………………………………………………. 46 47 48. Data Analysis…………………………………………………………….. 49 Coding Process…………………………………………………….. 49 Inter-coder Reliability for Coding Writing Products…………......... 50 Coding Schemes………………………………................................ Scheme for Directness……………………………………….. Schemes for Stylistic features……………………………….. Personal Disclosure…………………………………... 51 51 52 52. Use of Proverbs and Other Canonical Expressions….. Collective Self………………………………………... 53 53. Non-assertiveness…………………………………..... Data Analysis for Rhetorical Convention Questionnaire (RCQ)….. Data Analysis for the Post Hoc Interview………………………….. 54 56 56. CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS………………………………………………….. Features in the Writing Products………………………………………… Analysis of Directness……………………………………………... Analyses of the Four Stylistic Features……………………………. Analysis of Personal Disclosure……………………………... Analysis of Use of Proverbs and Other Canonical Expressions…………………………………………………... Analysis of Collective Self…………………………………... Analysis of Non-assertiveness……………………………….. Conceptions of Specific Rhetorical Conventions across Languages…….. Existence of Culture/Language Specificity……………………….... 57 57 57 59 59 59 60 61 61 62 8.

(9) Differences in Chinese/English Argumentative Writing…….. Specific Rhetorical Features of Chinese/English Argumentative Writing………………………………………. Differences between Perceptions and Actual Practice on Directness........ Summary of Findings…………………………………………………….. 62. CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION Insignificant Effect of Rhetorical Conventions on Writing Products……. Directness………………………………………………………….. Use of Proverbs and Other Canonical Expressions………………... Collective Self…………………………………………………….... 70 70 70 71 72. Differences in Rhetorical Conceptions…………………………………... Discrepancy between Writing Products/Process and Conceptions of Rhetorical Conventions………………………………………………...... Pedagogical Implications………………………………………………… Methodological Implications…………………………………………...... Conclusion………………………………………………………………... 72. REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………... 83. APPENDIXES…………………………………………………………………... Appendix A: Letter of Consent…………………………………………………. Appendix B: The Chinese Prompts……………………………………………... Appendix C: The English Prompts……………………………………………… Appendix D: Rhetorical Conception Questionnaire…………………………….. Appendix E: Post Hoc Interview Questions…………………………………....... 88 88 89 90 91 95. 63 65 68. 74 77 79 81. 9.

(10) LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11.. The Time Students Began Learning English……………………….... Design of the Writing Task…………………………………………... Data Collection Procedures………………………………………...... Pearson Correlation for the Two Raters’ Rating……………………... Schemes for Stylistic Features………………………………………. Means Scores of Directness and Stylistic Features………………...... ANOVA Results for Directness and Stylistic Features……………… The Different Aspects in Chinese/English Argumentative Essays……………………………………………………………....... Characterization of Chinese/English Rhetorical Pattern…….............. Students’ Perception of Directness in Chinese Argumentative Writing and in Their Own Chinese Writing………………………….. 43 47 49 50 56 57 58 63 64 66. Students’ Perception of Directness in English Argumentative Writing and in Their Own English Writing………………………................... 68. 10.

(11) CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION. Background and Motivation Writing in a second language has long been viewed as a challenging task. ESL/EFL student writers have to struggle with orthography, vocabulary, syntax, and the rhetorical organization. Among all these components, the rhetorical organization poses the greatest challenge to ESL/EFL learners. As Mohan and Lo (1985) suggested, the competence in the discourse structure developed late not only in L2 writing, but also in L1 writing. ESL/EFL learners’ constant writing difficulty in English rhetorical organization has induced a large amount of contrastive rhetoric research. For the organizational structures in Chinese and English, incongruent results can be observed in previous studies. Based on research results, three major propositions were adopted according to the similarities or differences between the two languages. Researchers who believed in the first proposition claimed both Chinese and English writings were similar in that they were both direct in their thought progression (Cahill, 2003; Dunkelblau, 1990; Erbaugh, 1990; Kirkpatrick, 1997; Kirkpatrick, 2002; Mohan & Lo, 1985). However, other researchers contended for absolute organizational differences between Chinese and English (Chang, 1987; Chen, 1992; Kaplan, 1966; Matalene, 1985). According to these scholars, English writers progressed their thoughts in a direct way, while Chinese writers illustrated their ideas in an indirect way (Gregg, 1986; Kaplan, 1966; Matalene, 1985). These scholars tended to attribute Chinese writers’ indirectness to the influence of the traditional qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure. The third proposition was held by researchers maintaining both organizational similarities and differences between the two languages. For example, Chou (1989), Erbaugh (1990), Liu (2005), and Wu and Rubin (2000) contended Chinese writing had the qualities of both 11.

(12) directness and indirectness. Stylistic features, opposite to the controversies over the rhetorical organization, are an area where more agreement was reached in Chinese-English contrastive rhetoric. Unlike the overall organizational structure of a text, these features were identified mainly at a more local level of the text. Among these features, the ones examined in the present study include lack of personal disclosure (Wu & Rubin, 2000), use of proverbs and other canonical expressions (Dunkelblau, 1990; Erbaugh, 1990; Matalene, 1985; Wu & Rubin, 2000), collective self (Triandis, 1994; Wu & Rubin, 2000), and non-assertiveness (Wu & Rubin, 2000). They were chosen because they were frequently identified as Chinese culture-specific writing conventions (Dunkelblau, 1990; Erbaugh, 1990; Matalene, 1985; Triandis, 1994). Though a multitude of contrastive studies on Chinese and English writing have been conducted, the results can not be readily applied to the EFL learners in Taiwan for the following reasons. First, most of the existing studies were done with immigrant learners in the U.S., i.e. an ESL context. There are in fact fewer studies conducted in EFL contexts. Consequently, the results obtained from the American immigrant participants can not be held to account for Taiwanese students’ problems in organizing their texts. Second, most of the previous studies examined only students’ writing in English. These researchers’ generalization of the Chinese writing patterns based on students’ English writing is thus problematic. Third, there are comparably fewer studies that investigated the genre of argumentative writing, which in fact is an important genre for college students, since its organizational pattern can highly reflect students’ strategies in arranging their thoughts. Prompted by lack of research and problematic methodologies in previous studies, the current study attempts to compare and contrast the rhetorical structure and the stylistic features in EFL students’ argumentative writings in their L1 and L2. Since students’ use of rhetorical 12.

(13) conventions is closely related to their rhetorical conceptions and writing process, the study also attempts to probe into students’ writing conceptions and process.. Purpose and Research Questions The main purpose of the present study is to investigate the rhetorical organization and stylistic features in students’ Chinese and English argumentative writings. Along with their writing performance, students’ perception on rhetorical conventions will also be probed into. Three specific research questions are proposed: 1. What are the differences between the participants’ Chinese and English argumentative essays in terms of directness and stylistic features? 2. Do the participants perceive differences between Chinese and English argumentative rhetorical conventions in terms of directness and stylistic features? If yes, what are their perceptions for Chinese and English argumentative essays? 3. Is there a difference between students’ perception of directness in Chinese and English argumentative rhetorical conventions and their perception of directness in their own Chinese and English writings?. Definition of Key Terms In this study, several key terms are constantly mentioned, and their definitions are provided in the following section.. Transfer Transfer is “the process by which the learner’s L1 influences the acquisition and use of an L2” (p. 140, Ellis, 2003). It is often called interference (Lightbown & Spada, 1999). In the present study, transfer refers to any identifiable influence from the Chinese rhetorical convention on the students’ English writing. 13.

(14) Contrastive Rhetoric Contrastive rhetoric compares and contrasts any writing aspect across languages. In the present study, the foci of the reviewed contrastive rhetoric studies are on the organizational structures and writing features between Chinese and English.. Rhetorical Conventions Rhetorical conventions can be defined as the agreed norms of writing in a certain culture or language. As contrastive rhetoric, this thesis taps into rhetorical conventions on organizational structures and some specific writing features.. The Qi-cheng-zhuan-he Structure The qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure is a traditional Chinese organizational pattern. Using this structure, the writer writes “about” the topic instead of “on” the topic in the “qi” part. Then the writer progresses the ideas without directly discussing the central idea in the “cheng” part. In the “zhuan” part, the writer shifts to another topic which is not related to the central topic. Finally, in the “he” part, the writer draws a conclusion, and this can well be the first time that the thesis statement appears.. The Eight-legged Essay The Eight-legged Essay is a regulated exam style of the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368-1911) in China. It has very rigid requirements on the organization, approximately paralleling the one in the qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure.. Directness It is a general conception that an essay is direct when its thesis statement is placed in the early parts (Kaplan, 1966; Matalene, 1985; Wu and Rubin, 2000). In the 14.

(15) present study, the degree of directness served as the indicator of organizational patterns and was determined by the location of the thesis statement.. Stylistic features Stylistic features refer to the elements or characteristics of the traditional writing style in a language. These rhetorical devices are mostly “stylized linguistic embellishments used merely to give the text a sense of elegance and pithiness” (p. 37, Dunkelblau, 1990). In the present study, four stylistic features were examined: lack of personal disclosure, use of proverbs and other canonical expressions, collective self, and non-assertiveness.. Lack of Personal Disclosure Personal disclosure reveals “emotions, individual accomplishments, and autographical details” (p. 155, Wu & Rubin, 2000). In the present study, students’ personal disclosure was evaluated by their use of first person singular pronouns and personal anecdotes.. Use of Proverbs and Other Canonical Expressions This feature involves use of any canonical fixed patterns in a language, including proverbs, idioms, maxims, and literary allusion.. Collective Self Collective self contains any “cognition about group social entity,” “moral qualities that guide a person in his relationship with each other,” and “virtues that uphold group solidarity” (p. 161, Wu & Rubin, 2000). In the present study, students’ use of collective self was gauged by their use of first person plural pronouns as well 15.

(16) as their expressions of humaneness and collective virtues.. Non-assertiveness Non-assertiveness refers to tentativeness conveyed in writing. In the present study, this was indicated by students’ use of hedges, such as “almost,” “maybe,” and “could.”. Significance of the Study The present study can contribute to the field of ESL/EFL writing methodologically and pedagogically. From a methodological perspective, the coding scheme used in the current study can serve as a useful tool for analyzing argumentative texts in future research. This coding scheme, modified from Wu and Rubin’s (2000) scheme, is more powerful in that it makes cross-comparison among each writing feature more effective by placing the analysis methods for directness and stylistic features in the same system, unifying the analysis units for stylistic features, and giving a value to essays with no thesis statement. Hence, the present coding scheme is more fruitful for future researchers to analyze Chinese students’ argumentative writing in Chinese and English. From a pedagogical perspective, the present study can provide an understanding of Taiwanese EFL learners’ writing problems in rhetorical conventions. The results of the present study suggested students’ writing performance and conceptions were not consistent, especially on the organizational patterns. Hence, they need explicit instructions on rhetorical organization both in Chinese as well as in English. Stylistic differences should also be taught explicitly. These can be practiced through process writing teaching. The English textbook writers in Taiwan need to put emphasis on the Chinese/English rhetorical conventions when they compile English 16.

(17) writing textbooks. Teachers should also develop teaching approaches to help students work on the English rhetorical conventions.. Organization of the Thesis This thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter One presents the background and motivation, purpose and research questions, definitions of terms, and significance of the study. Chapter Two reviews the literature of contrastive rhetoric development and Chinese-English contrastive rhetoric studies on organization and stylistic features. Chapter Three reports the results of a pilot study and specifies the participants, the design, the instruments, the data collection, and the data analysis. The findings are subsequently presented in Chapter Four. Chapter Five discusses the findings, the pedagogical and methodological implications, and the limitations of the study as well as concludes the whole thesis in the final section.. 17.

(18) CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW. In this chapter, the general development of contrastive rhetoric will be introduced. It is followed by a review of Chinese/English contrastive rhetoric studies, particularly in the aspects of organization and stylistic features.. The Development of Contrastive Rhetoric Theories Kaplan’s seminal and pioneering research in 1966 is viewed as the impetus of contrastive rhetoric. Taking a neo-Whorfian hypothesis, Kaplan analyzed the paragraph structures in the English compositions written by six hundred college students in the U.S., whose first languages included West Asia languages, East Asia languages, and American and European languages. Based on his analysis of the students’ essays, Kaplan proposed five types of “doodles” to portray the paragraph patterns in the English, Semitic, Oriental, Romance, and Russian languages. Among these patterns, typical English expository writing was depicted as linear and direct. However, the “doodles” for the other four languages were more circuitous and complicated. Semitic writing was portrayed as rich in a complex and intricate parallelism, with a multitude of coordinators within sentences. Oriental writing was characterized by indirection in a doodle of circular and gyratory lines. As for Romance writing, it was described as allowing “much greater freedom to digress or to introduce extraneous material” (Kaplan, 1966, p.12). Displaying much digressive subordinate elements and parallelism, Russian writing was illustrated in a doodle similar to Romance writing. Among these doodles, “Oriental writing” (including Chinese) was especially different from other four languages in its circular and gyratory doodle. Kaplan (1966) identified it as “an approach by indirection” (p. 10): 18.

(19) In this kind of writing, the development of the paragraph may be said to be “turning and turning in a widening gyre.” The circles or gyres turn around the subject and show it from a variety of tangential views but the subject is never looked at directly. Things are developed in terms of what they are not, rather than in terms of what they are. (p. 10) Thus, Kaplan made an assumption that people from different cultures had different rhetorical preferences and that there were L1 interferences with linguistic patterns and rhetorical conventions. This assumption was seriously challenged by other researchers for two different reasons. First, Kaplan lumped a great deal of sub-languages in each of the four main language group. These four main language groups in reality contained 20 different sub-languages, some of which only had very few samples. For example, there were samples of only three Hebrews, three Laotians, one Malaysian, one Vietnamese, two French students, two Africans, and one Swiss student. His categorization ignored “linguistic and cultural differences in writing among different languages” (Connor, 2003, p. 223). Second, Kaplan only examined ESL students’ English writing and made inferences about the rhetorical conventions for students’ L1 only based on their English writing. Kaplan’s procedures were problematic. To understand students’ L1 writing conventions, researchers need to analyze directly their L1 writing. Despite the above discernible flaws, Kaplan’s (1966) study was still highly enlightening to the development of contrastive rhetoric. His basic assumptions that cultural differences existed and that they would cause interference in learners’ L2 writing were espoused by a bulge of proponents during the 1970s and 1980s (Connor, 1996; Grabe & Kaplan, 1989). In the 1980s, contrastive rhetoric expanded to a great extent with the advance in text linguistics and discourse analysis (Connor, 1987; Connor & Laucer, 1988; Grabe & Kaplan, 1989; Hinds, 1987; Leki, 1991). Generally speaking, its basic frameworks had received “increasing support, granted not always 19.

(20) in the manner originally proposed” (Grabe & Kaplan, 1989, p. 267). The contribution of Kaplan and his adherents was their advocation of the negative transfer. However, their theory received great criticism from researchers who proposed the possibility of positive transfer. For example, Mohan and Lo (1985) contended that positive transfer was more likely to occur: they maintained that rhetorical similarities in L1 and L2 might facilitate writing in L2. Leki (1995) also indicated the occurrence of positive transfer. There were other researchers who had observed transfer in the opposite way around. Ricento (1986) suggested that “proficient bilingual writers are strongly influenced by the organizational patterns of their second language” (p. 567). Eggington (1987) exemplified that bilingual Korean scholars with a good command for English expository displayed a linear structure in their Korean writing, which was atypical to the Korean rhetoric. Eggington then inferred that L2 learners would apply newly-learned rhetorical patterns to their L1 writing. Another criticism to the traditional contrastive rhetoric theory was Kaplan’s fixed, deterministic, and prescriptive view of culture and language (Kubota & Lehner, 2004; Leki, 1991; Matsuda, 1997; Zamel, 1997). Researchers contended that this labeling of students by their L1 backgrounds (Spack, 1997; Zamel, 1997) led to a cultural dichotomy between the East and the West (Kubota, 1999), and promoted the superiority of Western writing (Kubota & Lehner, 2004). In this vein, traditional contrastive rhetoric was considered to have disseminated colonialism (Kubota & Lehner, 2004; Matsuda, 1997), in which English learners’ L1 was regarded as deficit, and thus needed to be assimilated to the Eurocentric norm (Connor, 2003, Kubota & Lehner, 2004). These traditional contrastive rhetoric concepts failed to reveal the dynamic feature of language (Kubota & Lehner, 2004; Matsdua, 1997), and perpetuated “static binaries between English and other languages” (Kubota & Lehner, 20.

(21) 2004, p. 7). In response to these critiques, contrastive rhetoric researchers had developed several new directions. Kaplan himself had made a modification on his original claim by stating that different conventions of writing were actually learned, not acquired, to avoid the total attribution of rhetorical differences to language transfer (Kaplan, 1987). Other researchers began to investigate the political and historical contexts of writing and consider factors other than rhetorical patterns, such as purpose, task, topic, and audience (Leki, 1991). In her 1996 book, Connor systematically introduced several new contrastive rhetoric directions, including concerns about “contrastive text linguistics,”. “the. study. of. writing. as. a. cultural-educational. activity,”. “classroom-based studies of writing,” and “contrastive genre-specific studies” (p. 224). Connor (2003) continued to introduce the new currents of contrastive rhetoric by emphasizing the blurring of the English norm and standard to preserve learners’ cultural and linguistic identities. Furthermore, Connor (2003) advocated to meet the needs of “other marginalized groups” (p. 236), for example, the needs of feminists and African Americans. To demolish the “static” writing model in traditional contrastive rhetoric, Matsuda (1997) established a dynamic model of L2 writing. Matsuda’s model made innovation in three aspects. First, the context of writing in his model involved both the writer’s and the reader’s backgrounds, rather than only the L1 reader’s background. Second, the shared discourse community was located at the overlapping part of the writer’s and the reader’s backgrounds, and the reader could also actively enlarge the shared discourse community by getting accustomed to the writer’s background. Third, the interaction between the writer and the reader could transform the backgrounds of both sides. 21.

(22) Similarly, to enrich the conceptual foundation of traditional contrastive rhetoric, Kubota and Lehner (2004) put forward critical contrastive rhetoric by incorporating postmodernism, poststructuralism, postcolonialism, and critical pedagogy. With postmodernism, Kubota and Lehner demolished the fixed cultural binaries in traditional contrastive rhetoric. They advocated the concept of “rhetorical hybridity” (Kubota & Lehner, 2004, p. 20). Namely, learners were faced with an interplay of their L1 and the newly-learned L2. Hence, it was inappropriate to apply a static view on L2 writing in traditional contrastive rhetoric, which was lacking in an interplay between learners’ L1 and L2. With poststructuralism, Kubota and Lehner accentuated that different cultural and linguistic discourses competed with each other for power in a dynamic struggle. English did not enjoy the superiority solely. With postcolonialism, Kubota and Lehner (2004) defied the assimilationist and cultural deficit theory, and pinpointed the danger of “essentializing the Self and the Other in the discourses of colonialism”. (p.. 18).. Furthermore,. Kubota. and. Lehner. (2004). took. a. “counter-hegemonic” (p. 20) position in pedagogy. Instead of dictating any pedagogical approaches, they were inclined to explore “rhetorical possibilities” and “pluralization of rhetorical norms” (Kubota & Lehner, 2004, p.20). On the whole, with these researchers’ continuous efforts, contrastive rhetoric had undoubtedly made a great contribution in raising awareness on different rhetorical organizations in different languages.. Contrastive Rhetoric Studies on Chinese and English Since Kaplan’s 1966 study, studies comparing organizational patterns and stylistic features in English with those in other languages have bountifully appeared (Dunkelblau, 1990; Scarcella, 1984; Wu & Rubin, 2000). Such studies were placed as “a sub-discipline of the field of contrastive analysis” (Dunkelblau, 1990, p.20). To suit 22.

(23) the present purpose of comparing rhetorical patterns in Chinese and English, contrastive rhetoric studies that investigated organizational patterns and stylistic features in the two languages will be focused on in the following parts.. Organization Many researchers had studied the overall organizational patterns in Chinese and English, and there were mainly three propositions. Researchers who believed in the first proposition contended for organizational similarities rather than differences across languages (Cahill, 2003; Dunkelblau, 1990; Kirkpatrick, 1997; 2002; Mohan & Lo, 1985). On the contrary, scholars who believed in the second proposition argued for absolute organizational differences across languages (Chang, 1987; Chen, 1992; Kaplan, 1966; Matalene, 1985). Proponents for the third proposition asserted both similarities and differences, maintaining that the two rhetorical patterns shared more similarities than differences (Chou, 1989; Erbaugh, 1990; Liu, 2005; Wu & Rubin, 2000).. Similarities in Chinese and English Organizational Patterns Some researchers held the view that there were actually organizational similarities rather than differences between Chinese and English (Cahill, 2003; Dunkelblau, 1990; Kirkpatrick, 1997; 2002; Mohan & Lo, 1985). After tracing the origins of the qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure and the Eight-legged Essays and examining writing instructions in contemporary Chinese textbooks, Kirkpatrick (1997) concluded that the organizational pattern of the traditional Eight-legged Essay was unlikely to affect modern mainland Chinese writing and there was in fact more Western influence in the organizational structure of the contemporary Chinese writing. Kirkpatrick also asserted for similar Chinese and 23.

(24) English organizational patterns based on the methods suggested for writing beginnings and endings in Chinese textbooks, which were similar to those in Western writing. Kirkpatrick predicated that three of the four common methods for beginning Chinese expository essays resembled the ones in English writing. These three methods for beginning a Chinese expository essay were: (a) kai-men-jian-shan, (b) “show clearly the object and scope of the discussion to come,” and (c) “explain the background and motivation for the piece” (Kirkpatrick, 1997, p. 238). Among these methods, kai-men-jian-shan, meaning to use a “direct beginning to draw attention to the main point of the article” (Kirkpatrick, 1997, p. 238), was particularly similar to the use of a topic sentence in an English expository paragraph. For the methods to end Chinese expository essays, Kirkpatrick (1997) also emphasized that the two common methods, (a) “summarizing or reiterating the main point of the text” and (b) “to end with a concrete and striking image” (p. 239), were similar to those in English writing. Based on these, Kirkpatrick claimed that Chinese writing and English writing were similar in terms of the strategies for writing the beginnings and endings. Besides, he maintained that the three components emphasized in Chinese expository, “the thesis, the grounds of the arguments, and the proof or the evidence” (p. 241) and the two basic types of reasoning, inductive and deductive, were also important in Western expository rhetoric. Kirkpatrick (2002) further corroborated his claim on organizational similarities between modern Chinese and English after examining advice on argumentative writing in Chinese textbooks. He found that the guidelines on paragraph structures all followed the linear pattern, which was in fact characteristic of the English organizational patterns. He commented that Chinese textbooks actually revealed instructions more of the contemporary Anglo-American style rather than of the traditional Chinese style. Thus, he concluded that Chinese writing did not differ from 24.

(25) English writing in the general textual organization. Mohan and Lo (1985) also maintained that the Eight-legged Essay was not a currently influential genre, and that Chinese writing and English writing were both direct. Through their examination on Chinese classical texts and modern works on Chinese composition instructions, they were unable to find evidence that Chinese and English organizational patterns were significantly different. Thus, language transfer was more likely to be positive. To explore the differences in English essays written by English-speaking and Chinese-speaking students, they conducted a comparison of composition practices in Hong Kong and British Columbia and their perceptions of learning experience. The students in Hong Kong reported the writing instruction focus was on the accuracy at the sentence level, and they also located their writing problems at this level. Hence, Mohan and Lo suggested that the deviant organization in Chinese students’ English writing was due to developmental rather than transfer factors. From this comparison of the composition instructions and students’ learning experience, Mohan and Lo (1985) asserted that “organization develops late and can be influenced by appropriate composition practices” (p. 515). Cahill (2003) examined Chinese and Japanese scholarship on their specific qi-cheng-zhuan-he and ki-sho-ten-ketsu structures and offered an alternative view of the “turn” (or zhuan and ten) part. In his concept, the “turn” part was an alternative means to develop an essay further, and it was not a circular or digressive rhetorical move as it had long been looked upon as. Namely, the “turn” part was actually a section to facilitate the progression of ideas, not a part causing confusion and incoherence to English speakers. Therefore, Cahill (2003) concluded that there was actually “greater similarities in essayist literacy” (p. 170) across Western and Eastern languages. However, in reality, though “turn” serves its function for Chinese speakers, it is still the part that causes most confusion to English speakers. Thus, Cahill’s claim 25.

(26) for the facilitating role of the “turn” part needs further examination. To pinpoint the organizational patterns in the Chinese and English essays written by Chinese students, Dunkelblau (1990) analyzed Chinese and English expository essays on two similar topics written respectively by 39 Chinese LEP high school students in the New York City. She concluded that her Chinese students’ Chinese and English essays were not indirect and they were both similar to typical English writing in the organization. Although the above researchers all claimed that Chinese writing was as direct as English writing, the manners of topic progression might be different. For example, after examining 20 modern published Chinese expository essays, Chou (1989) indicated that although the Chinese paragraphs did have topic sentences, many of these topic sentences were left alone without supporting sentences. Thus, she concluded that the nature of a Chinese topic sentence was different from that of an English topic sentence, and the degree of topic development in a Chinese paragraph was equally different from that in an English paragraph. Moreover, the data in the above studies contending for organizational similarity were of various types. Kirkpatrick (1997; 2002) and Mohan and Lo (1985) drew their conclusions through the data of manuals or instructions, Mohan and Lo (1985) also captured their assertion through didactic excerpts from classical works, Dunkelblau (1990) through students’ Chinese and English writing, and Cahill (2003) through Chinese and Japanese scholarship. To get the whole picture of Chinese writing, materials of literature on Chinese writing from the ancient times and contemporary professional writing or editorials are necessary. Only through data from abundant sources can one define the organizational structure in a language. In addition, the above studies were all conducted in the ESL pedagogical context in other countries (Cahill, 2003; Dunkelblau, 1990; Kirkpatrick, 1997; 2002; Mohan 26.

(27) & Lo, 1985). To see if these researchers’ findings can be applied to students in Taiwan, a study specifically conducted on Taiwanese students is needed. These researchers (Cahill, 2003; Dunkelblau, 1990; Kirkpatrick, 1997; 2002; Mohan & Lo, 1985) contending for organizational similarities between Chinese and English seemed to notice only the directness in Chinese writing and neglected the possibility that Chinese writing could also be indirect. It cannot be ignored that many students with high English proficiency still exhibit the impact from Chinese writing in their English writing. Hence, these scholars’ views just show a partial picture, and need further examination. Contrary to these researchers, there were even more studies indicating indirectness in Chinese students’ Chinese or English writing (Chang, 1987; Chen, 1992; Kaplan, 1966; Matalene, 1985). In the following part, studies which unraveled organizational differences will be reviewed.. Dissimilarities in Chinese and English Organizational Patterns Opposite to the above researchers, other researchers contended for organizational distinctions across languages (Chang, 1987; Chen, 1992; Kaplan, 1966; Matalene, 1985). The pioneering study on the rhetorical dissimilarity between Chinese and English writing is Kaplan’s study in 1966. With his famous “doodles” for the paragraph structures in different languages, Kaplan claimed that English writing was linear and direct, whereas Oriental writing (with Chinese included) was digressive and indirect. Many scholars attributed the indirectness in Chinese writing to the impact from two Chinese traditional structures: the qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure and the Eight-legged Essay. For the qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure, Kirkpatrick (1997) applied the definition given by the Dictionary of Chinese Rhetoric (DCR):. 27.

(28) A common logical belles-lettres structure and sequence. Also the epitome of a common structural pattern for a variety of texts, ancient and modern. ‘Qi’ is the opening or beginning, ‘cheng’ continues or joins the opening to the next stage. ‘Zhuan’ is the transition or turning point…, ‘he’ is the summary or conclusion (p. 229). In this traditional four-part structure, a Chinese writer did not talk about the topic directly in the qi part, and digressed from the topic in the zhuan part. The Chinese writer’s delaying the thesis statement and digressing from the topic made Chinese writing indirect to Western readers. As for the Eight-legged Essay, as cited by Kirkpatrick (1997), DCR defined it as a regulated exam style of the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368-1911) in China. Kirkpatrick (1997) commented this text type tests “the candidates’ knowledge on the Confucian classics” (p. 232). It had very rigid principles on the form: the number of sentences in each part was strictly regulated and careful and neat parallelism was required. There were eight parts in this essay type: (a) “breaking open the title,” (b) receiving the title,” (c) preliminary discourse,” (d) “the beginning legs,” (e) “the minor legs,” (f) “the central legs,” (g) “the latter legs,” and (h) “grand conclusion” (Kirkpatrick, 1997, p. 232-233). This structure paralleled the qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure, with each part in qi-cheng-zhuan-he developed into two sub-parts in the Eight-legged Essay. The main theme of the essays was delayed until the 5th part, “the minor legs.” Therefore, as the qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure, the Eight-legged Essay was also very indirect in topic progression. Some researchers identified the influence from these two traditional Chinese writing styles on modern English writing written by Chinese students. For example, based on her writing teaching experience in China, Matalene (1985) elucidated that the Western rhetoric valued logical argument, namely, inductive and deductive reasoning. The Chinese rhetoric, on the other hand, emphasized following patterns 28.

(29) and imitating forms, such as the Eight-legged Essay or the qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure. Matelene (1985) stated that her Chinese students followed a standard pattern: “an opening description of a specific incident, a look back at the usually unfortunate history of the issue or practice, an explanation of the current much improved state of affairs, and a concluding moral exhortation” (p. 800), which paralleled with the indirect qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure. Matelene (1985) also stated that “Chinese writers delayed their claims until later paragraphs and concluded their essays with unconnected assertions” (p. 802). After analyzing the second paragraph of a Chinese student’s English essay, Matalene (1985) reported that “the connection between the sentences are not explicitly signaled but are almost all left up to the reader” (p. 801), and thus Chinese students’ English writing was often regarded as indirect. Chen (1992) also claimed that Chinese and English speakers wrote differently based on a matrix analysis of the discourse structure of the excerpts from The Analects of Confucius and Mencius and of the introduction to Bertrand Russell’s Autobiography. He found that Chinese writing exhibited a parallel structure in the discourse matrix. There was only one level of supporting points, all of the same nature, which indicated the Chinese writer’s meandering around the topic. Thus, Chen concluded that Chinese writing was indirect. On the contrary, there was more than one level of support in the English passage. The supporting details included reasons, qualifications, or examples, which were all of different nature. This made English writing linear and direct. He further accentuated that early and explicit instructions could avoid the influence of developmental factors and that understanding of the nature of different discourse structures could help teachers design suitable activities to eliminate the transfer factors. To investigate whether there was a specific paragraph structure in a language and 29.

(30) whether this would bring about interference when people constructed a paragraph in another language, Chang (1987) asked 21 English-speaking college students and 10 Chinese-speaking graduate students to unscramble sentences of two articles in English. The Chinese students in addition had to unscramble the Chinese translations. With a statistical analysis on the sentence ordering, Chang found that the English group showed more agreement than the Chinese group, which he interpreted as the existence of a certain English paragraph structure in the native English speakers’ intuition, and as the lack of such a structure in the Chinese subjects’ conception. Chang attributed the source of this difference to the students’ language proficiency. In general, the above researchers attributed the organizational distinctions between Chinese writing and English writing to the impact of the two traditional Chinese rhetorical patterns (the qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure and the Eight-legged Essay), especially the qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure. The proposition on rhetorical differences seemed be the mainstream of contrastive rhetoric studies. However, the data used in these studies were of different types: There were excerpts from classical Chinese and English works (Chen, 1992), students’ English writing (Kaplan, 1966; Matalene, 1985), and unscrambling tasks (Chang, 1987). These researchers may also neglect the possibility that Chinese writing can be direct as many researchers had proved (Dunkelblau, 1990; Kirkpatrick, 1997; 2002; Mohan & Lo, 1985). Since the studies contending for absolute organizational similarities or dissimilarities may not be the compendium of Chinese writing and English writing, a review on studies recognizing both rhetorical similarities and dissimilarities in Chinese and English is needed and will be presented in the following section.. Similarities and Dissimilarities in Chinese and English Organization Patterns There were also some other researchers who had found both similarities and 30.

(31) dissimilarities in Chinese and English rhetorical patterns (Chou, 1989; Erbaugh, 1990; Liu, 2005; Wu & Rubin, 2000). To assess the degree of directness in writing by students with different backgrounds, Wu and Rubin (2000) analyzed Chinese and English argumentative essays written by 40 Taiwanese freshman college students and English argumentative essays written by 40 U.S. college students. Their results showed that the Taiwanese students’ Chinese essays were overall more indirect than the U.S. students’ English essays. However, on closer observation, the Taiwanese students’ Chinese writings revealed individually different degrees of directness: about half of them were in fact very direct. This evidence suggested both directness and indirectness could be seen in the Taiwanese students’ Chinese essays. These results thus demolished the concept that Taiwanese students were totally dependent on the traditional qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure. Besides, Wu and Rubin were not able to see any significant difference in the degree of directness in the comparison between Taiwanese students’ Chinese writing and English writing. Chou (1989) also claimed both similarities and differences between Chinese and English, and that the two languages were more similar than different. By inspecting 20 published Chinese expository essays written by professional writers from Central Daily News in 1986, Taiwan Daily News in 1982, and Oversea Digest Semimonthly in 1985, Chou found that half of the essays followed the qi-cheng-zhuan-he pattern, the traditional Chinese writing style, but the rest half followed the qi-cheng-he pattern, which was similar to the English Introduction-Discussion-Conclusion pattern. This implied that both directness and indirectness were common in Chinese writing. Liu (2005) compared selected online instructional manuals on argumentative writing provided by educational institutions, publishers, or produced by college professors for American and Mainland Chinese school writers. He found both 31.

(32) similarities and differences in organizational strategies of Chinese and English argumentative rhetorical patterns. According to Liu (2005), both Chinese writing and English writing followed a three-part structure. English argumentative writing was characterized by the Introduction-Body-Conclusion structure. In a similar vein, Chinese argumentative writing was comprised of “raising the question,” “analyzing it,” and “solving the problem,” corresponding to the syllogism in English argumentative essays. Although Chinese and English argumentative essays did not seem to differ in the global organization, Liu emphasized that they were different in the organization of supporting points. Different from the linear way of organizing supporting ideas in the English pattern, the Chinese pattern was featured by pingxing (parallel) and dijin (progressive) ways of arranging supporting points, which belonged to nonlinear topic development. Besides, ancient Chinese rhetorical theories (e.g. the Eight-legged Essay) and a spiral diagram were found among the suggested forms of Chinese argumentative writing, which corresponded to Kaplan’s “doodles” (1966). All the evidences suggested that both directness and indirectness could be seen in Chinese writing, but generally, Chinese writing was more indirect. Erbaugh (1990) also proposed that Chinese writing was both direct and indirect. After reviewing classical and modern conceptions and beliefs on Chinese writing, Erbaugh (1990) argued that Chinese writers also stressed “posing an issue, then developing it by using examples and counter-examples” (p. 18) as English writers did. However, Erbaugh also delineated that Chinese writers considered “the duller the beginning, the more brilliant the final illumination” and “’getting straight to the bottom line’ would be dismissed as too rudely inept to merit consideration” (p. 18), which implied Chinese also valued indirectness, a way opposite to English writers’ desired directness. Hence, Erbaugh’s (1990) study in fact manifested that Chinese writers allowed both directness and in directness. 32.

(33) This section reviewed the studies that examined the discourse of organization in Chinese and English, mainly on expository and argumentative essays. Based on the discussion of similarities and dissimilarities found in various studies, it seems appropriate to claim that Chinese writing is both direct and indirect, but English writing tends to be direct.. Summary of Chinese and English Organizational Patterns From a review of the studies that compared and contrasted organizational structures of Chinese and English writing, it can be seen that the distinction among the three proposition is the degree of directness in Chinese organizational structures. There were researchers claiming that Chinese writing was characteristic of directness (Cahill, 2003; Dunkelblau, 1990; Kirkpatrick, 1997; 2002; Mohan & Lo, 1985). However, there were also researchers claiming absolute directness in Chinese writing (Chang, 1987; Chen, 1992; Kaplan, 1966; Matalene, 1985). The researchers insisting absolute directness or indirectness in Chinese writing seemed only to see a partial picture. Perhaps they were influenced or restricted by the data they examined. Researchers professing both directness and indirectness in Chinese writing (Chou, 1989; Erbaugh, 1990; Liu, 2005; Wu & Rubin, 2000) seemed to have considered both the aspects of directness and indirectness in Chinese writing, and hence their arguments are more persuasive. For English writing, an overwhelming agreement was that it was basically direct. In spite of the controversies over the organizaitonal similarities and dissimilarities across languages, contrastive rhetoric researchers had reached more agreement in the aspect of stylistic features. In the next section, some common stylistic features distinguishing Chinese from English will be listed and discussed.. 33.

(34) Stylistic Features There are various stylistic features in different types of Chinese writing. This study focuses on argumentative writing. In argumentative writing, many stylistic differences between Chinese and English have been observed. Among them, four important features are discussed in the following part. These stylistic features include lack of personal disclosure, use of proverbs and other canonical expressions, collective self, and non-assertiveness (Dunkelblau, 1990; Erbaugh, 1990; Matalene, 1985; Triandis, 1994; Wu & Rubin, 2000).. Lack of Personal Disclosure Personal disclosure demonstrates individual feelings, achievements, or details. In Wu and Rubin’s (2000) study, there were two indicators of personal disclosure: the use of first person singular pronouns (“I,” “my,” me”) and personal anecdotes (personal stories or experiences). Chinese students’ writing was deemed as lacking in personal disclosure, opposite to writing by English speakers (Matalene, 1985; Wu & Rubin, 2000). In Wu and Rubin’s (2000) study, there was no significant difference between the Taiwanese students’ and the U.S. students’ use of first person singular pronouns, but the U.S. students applied significantly more personal anecdotes than the Taiwanese students. In the comparison between Chinese and English essays written by Taiwanese students, Wu and Rubin found that their English essays exceeded their Chinese ones in the frequency of first person singular pronouns. On the other hand, the use of personal anecdotes in the Taiwanese students’ Chinese and English essays was equally low. Wu and Rubin speculated that it might be due to the instructions that these students had received and their own English language proficiency. With these two factors, the students’ exhibition of first person singular pronouns and personal 34.

(35) anecdotes did not necessarily reflect their thought. From her English teaching experience in China, Matalene (1985) also professed that her Chinese students tended to resort to authority, instead of supporting their ideas with their personal voice or experience. In a similar vein, though examination of 192 online English forum postings of Singaporean secondary school students, Chandrasegaran and Kong (2006) only found a small proportion of the data revealing personal experience. Other researchers also had proposed the notion that L2 writing by learners from collective cultures like Chinese were lacking in individualized voice (Atkinson, 1997; Hinkel, 1999; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999; Ramanathan & Kaplan, 1996a). On the contrary, some researchers claimed there was ample personal disclosure in Chinese students’ English writing. For example, through the examination of 48 Chinese-speaking college students’ English argumentative essays in Canada, Helms-Park & Stapleton (2003) found their writing included occasional use of first person singular pronouns and they identified “a fairly strong sense of individuality” in their writing.. Use of Proverbs and Other Canonical Expressions This feature includes use of any fixed pattern, such as proverbs, idioms, maxims, and literary allusion. Many scholars considered canonical use a distinguishing feature between Chinese and English. For example, Erbaugh (1990) disclosed Chinese writers’ emphasis on canonical use through her examination on China’s literary tradition. Wu and Rubin (2000) and Dunkelblau (1990) examined this feature in students’ Chinese and English writings. After their analysis on the students’ essays, Wu and Rubin (2000) found that the Taiwanese students’ Chinese essays significantly 35.

(36) exceeded the U.S. students’ English essays in this feature. On the other hand, the canonical use in the English essays written by Taiwanese students was found to be extremely low. Wu and Rubin (2000) provided two explanations for such low canonical use. The first one was due to the Taiwanese students’ training. That is, they might have been taught not to use too many fixed patterns in English writing. The other explanation was due to the Taiwanese students’ language proficiency. Since they applied much canonical use in their Chinese writing, they might similarly have wanted to apply such use in their English writing. However, their limited English language proficiency might have prevented them from doing so. Dunkelblau (1990) examined the feature adopting different terms: “set phrases,” “reference to authority,” and “literary references.” “Set phrases” included “chengyu” and “yanyu.” “Chengyu” refered to the Chinese four-character idioms, which were “colorful, suggestive in meaning” (p. 235). “Yanyu” stood for “common sayings or proverbs that have been transmitted to written language from the oral language of the people” (p. 236) and were often rich in moral judgment and value of advice giving. On the whole, Dunkelblau found more canonical use in her Chinese students’ Chinese writing than in their English writing. Based on her teaching experience in China, Matalene (1985) stated that Chinese students lacked in self-expressiveness in their English writing, and tended to resort to fixed patterns to maintain social harmony. However, their use of fixed patterns was regarded as clichés by English speakers. Similarly, Chandrasegaran (2008) found use of authority citation in their examination of excerpts from Singaporean secondary school students’ online English forum and a Singaporean master student’s English academic essay.. 36.

(37) Collective Self According to Wu and Rubin (2000), there were three indicators of collective self: first person plural pronouns, humaneness, and collective virtues. First person plural pronouns (“we,” our,” “us”) reflected “cognition about group social entity” (p. 161). Humanness included “all those moral qualities that guide a person in his relationship with each other,” such as “benevolence; caring, loving, or commiserating with others; showing kindness or assistance to others” (p. 161). Collective virtues involved appeals to “virtues that uphold group solidarity” (p. 161), such as concepts of responsibility, loyalty, or filial piety. In their comparison between the Taiwanese students’ Chinese essays and the U.S. students’ English essays, Wu and Rubin (2000) found no significant difference in the use of first person plural pronouns, but the Taiwanese students’ Chinese essays exceeded the U.S. students’ English essays in the use of humanness and collective virtues. On the other hand, in the comparison between their Taiwanese students’ Chinese and English essays, Wu and Rubin (2000) found no significant difference in their use of humanness, but there were more use of first person plural pronouns and collective virtues in their English essays. Erbaugh (1990) and Nakamura (1981) also pinpointed the resort to tradition and history in Chinese writing. Many other researchers had also claimed copious collective self use transferring from Chinese writing to English writing by Chinese students (Chen, 1992; Kaplan, 1966; Matalene, 1985). For example, Scarcella (1984) found that most Asian students, including Taiwanese, preferred to use sentences containing the feature of collective self as an attention-getting device, based on the analysis of orienting skills in English expository essays by native and non-native (Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, and Romance) English-speaking college students. Chandrasegaran (2008) also found appeals to values like patriotism in excerpts from Singaporean secondary school 37.

(38) students’ online English forum and a Singaporean master student’s English academic essay. Nevertheless, not every researcher found use of collective self in Chinese students’ writing. For example, Dunkelblau (1990) did not find certain words or phrases indicating collective self, such as historical contexts, in her Chinese students’ Chinese and English writing, although she had recognized this feature as a Chinese stylistic feature.. Non-assertiveness Non-assertiveness refers to tentativeness conveyed in writing. It is usually indicated by the use of hedges, such as “almost,” “maybe,” and “could.” Many researchers claimed that Chinese writing generally applied more hedges than English writing. Thus, Chinese writing seemed nonaggressive and lacking in assertiveness to English readers. For example, Matalene (1985) indicated her Chinese students’ difficulty in being assertive in their English writing. In Wu and Rubin’s (2000) study, there were six sub-categories of hedges: “deintensifiers (e.g., ‘only’), proximals (e.g., ‘almost’), modal adjuncts (e.g., ‘maybe’), auxiliaries of possibility (e.g., ‘could’), perceptual verbs (e.g., ‘like’), and egocentric sequence (e.g., ‘I think’)” (p. 162). After their analysis of the students’ essays, Wu and Rubin reached a conclusion that there was no significant difference in the Taiwanese students’ Chinese essays and the U.S. students’ English essays, and that there was equally no significant difference between the Taiwanese students’ Chinese and English essays in assertiveness. Taiwanese students exhibited non-assertiveness in both languages, but not to a great degree. However, the definitions of hedges applied by Wu and Rubin (2000) are problematic. The identification of hedges should be made by taking into consideration the contexts in which they occur, as Hyland and Milton (1997) commented about 38.