Article published In: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 27:1 (2004) ► pp.72–88
A contrastive analysis of letters to the editor in Chinese and English
Published online: 1 January 2004
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.27.1.06wan
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.27.1.06wan
Abstract
This study examines similarities and differences between English and Chinese letters to the editor on newspapers from the perspectives of contrastive rhetoric and genre theory. Generic structures, rhetorical structures, and logico-semantic relations of 20 letters to the editor (10 in Chinese and 10 in English) were examined in detail. Findings of this study include: 1) there was often an editor’s preview (i.e. a brief introduction to the letters written by editors) in Chinese letters to the editor in this study; 2) Appeals to values and needs were used to support their claims in Chinese letters to the editor, whereas English writers employed evidence to do this. The study suggests that ‘evidence’ and ‘appeals to values and need’ are deeply rooted in the two cultures and societies, and hence find their place in the writers’ texts; 3) consequential and additive logico-semantic relations were often used in both the Chinese and the English letters, however, consequential relations were more frequently used in the Chinese letters to the editor than in the English ones. All the findings are discussed in relation to the different writing styles and the socio-cultural values of each culture.
References (32)
Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butt, D., Fahey, R., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2000). Using Functional Grammar. (2nd ed,) Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.
Cahill, D. (1999). Contrastive rhetoric, Orientalism, and the Chinese second language writer. PHD dissertation unpublished Chicago: University of Illinois.
Cai, G. (1993). Beyond bad writing: Teaching English composition to Chinese ESL students. Paper presented at the college composition and communication conference, San Diego, CA.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gerot, L. & Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Gold Coast, QSL: AEE Publishing.
Hamp-Lyons, L. & Zhang, B. W. (2001). World Englishes: Issues in and from academic writing assessment In Flowerdew & Peacock (Ed.) Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 101-116). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ho, D. Y., & Chiu, C. (1994). Component ideas of individualism, collectivism, and social organization: An application in the study of Chinese culture. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagiteibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.). Individualism and collectivism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language learning 161:1-20.
(1972). The anatomy of rhetoric: Prolegomena to a functional rhetoric. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
(1987). Cultural thoughts patterns revisited. In U. Connor & R.B. Kaplan. (Ed) Writing across language: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 9-21). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
(1988). Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes toward a theory of contrastive rhetoric. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 275-304). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
(2000). Contrastive rhetoric and discourse analysis: Who writes what to whom? When? In what circumstances? In S. Sarangi & M. Coulthard (Ed.), Discourse and social life. London: Longman.
Kirkpatrick, A. (1993). Information sequencing in modem standard Chinese. ARAL 16(2): 27-60.
(1995). Are they really so different? The ‘Chinese’ genre of university entrance essays. Open Letter. 5(2): 43-52.
(1996). Topic—comment or modifier—modified?‘ Information structure in modern standard Chinese. Studies in Language. 20(1): 93-113.
Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly 25(1): 123-143.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(1993). Genre and literacy-modelling context in educational linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 131: 141-172.
(1997). Analysing genre: functional parameters. In Frances Christie & J. R. Martin (Ed.). Genre and institutions (pp.3-39). London and New York: Continuum.
(2001). Language, register and genre. In A. Burns & C. Coffin (Ed.). Analysing English in a global context (pp. 149-166). London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Martin, J. R., Christie, F., & Rothery, J. (1987). Social processes in education: A reply to Sawyer and Watson (and others). In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 46-57). Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American teacher in China. College English 47 (8): 789-808.
Scollon, R. (1991). Eight legs and one elbow. Stance and structure in Chinese English compositions. Paper presented at International Reading Association, Second North American Conference on Adult and Adolescent Literacy, Banff.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Al-Ali, Mohammed Nahar & Badra Hadj Djelloul
2025. The role of multimodality and intertextuality in accentuating humor in Algerian Hirak’s
posters. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 35:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Liu, Donghong
2019. Comparative rhetoric and emic approaches to Chinese persuasive strategies in hotel discourse. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 29:2 ► pp. 168 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.