Cover not available

Article published In: English Text Construction
Vol. 8:1 (2015) ► pp.65–87

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Argument structures in Chinese university students’ argumentative writing

A contrastive study

Published online: 10 July 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.8.1.03liu
Situated within a Systemic Functional Linguistics genre paradigm, this study adopted a function-based linguistic approach to examine the argument structures in English writing produced by Chinese university students of English as foreign language (EFL). Their English writing was contrasted with three other sets of argumentative essays in order to explore differences and similarities in the use of argument structures. The four sets of essays were produced by three groups of university students: native English- and Chinese-speaking university students and Chinese university EFL students. Participants’ interviews and questionnaire responses were also collected. The study found that most native English-speaking participants used an analytical arguing strategy, while most Chinese-speaking university participants preferred a hortatory argument structure both in their English and Chinese writing. It was also found that Chinese participants’ English writing was influenced by both English and Chinese.
References (53)
Atkinson, Dwight. 2004. Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (4): 277–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2006. Toward a writing pedagogy of shuttling between languages: Learning from multilingual writers. College English 68 (6): 589–604. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coffin, Caroline. 2004. Arguing about how the world is or how the world should be: The role of argument in IELTS tests. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (3): 229–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connor, Ulla. 2002. New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly 36 (4): 493–510. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (4): 291–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connor, Ulla & Janice Lauer. 1988. Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In Writing across Languages and Cultures: Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric, Alan Purves (ed.). California: Sage, 138–159.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connor, Ulla & Peter McCagg. 1983. Cross-cultural differences and perceived quality in written paraphrases of English expository prose. Applied Linguistics 4(3): 259–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connor, Ulla, Ed Nagelhout & William Rozycki (eds.). 2008. Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publising Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian. 1991. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning 42 (4): 557–591. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, Linell. 1999. Doing Culture:Cross-cultural Communication in Action. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd edition). New York and London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1989. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinkel, Eli. 2002. Second Language Writers’ Text: Linguistic and Rhetorical Features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirose, Keiko. 2003. Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2): 181–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holyoak, Stephen & Alison Piper. 1997. Talking to second language wrjters: Using interview data to investigate contrastive rhetoric. Language Teaching Research 1 (2): 122–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson. 2000. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2003. Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (1): 17–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005a. Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education 16 (4): 363–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005b. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 16 (3): 148–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
IELTS. 2013. IELTS Task 2 Writing Band Descriptors. ⟨[URL]⟩ (Last accessed on 4 February 2013).
Jarvis, Scott & Aneta Pavlenko. 2008. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York and London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johns, Ann. 2011. The future of genre in L2 writing: Fundamental, but contested, instructional decisions. Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (1): 56–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaplan, Robert. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning 16 (1–2): 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Hiroe & Carol Rinnert. 2008. Task response and text construction across L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (1): 7–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kubota, Ryuko. 1998. An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing 7 (1): 69–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Xiaoming. 1996. “Good Writing” in Cross-cultural Context. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “Track (dis)connecting”: Chinese high school and university writing in a time of change. In Writing and Learning in Cross-national Perspective: Transitions from Secondary to Higher Education, David Foster & David Russell (eds.). Urbana, Ill. Mahwah, N.J.: National Council of Teachers of English, Lawrence Erlbaum, 49–87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liebman, Joanne. 1992. Toward a new contrastive rhetoric: Differences between Arabic and Japanese rhetorical instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 1 (2):141–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Xinghua & Clare Furneaux. 2014. A multidimensional comparison of discourse organization in English and Chinese university students’ argumentative writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 24 (1): 74–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Yameng. 1996. To capture the essence of Chinese rhetoric: An anatomy of a paradigm in comparative rhetoric. Rhetoric Review 14 (2): 318–335. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loi, Chek Kim & Moyra Sweetnam Evans. 2010. Cultural differences in the organization of research article introductions from the field of educational psychology: English and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 421: 2814–2825. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Jim. 1989. Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education 20 (1): 10–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Jim & David Rose. 2008. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsuda, Paul & Dwight Atkinson. 2008. A conversation on contrastive rhetoric: Dwight Atkinson and Paul Kei Matsuda talk about issues, conceptulizations, and the future of contrastive rhetoric. In Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, Ulla Connor, Ed Nagelhout & William Rozycki (eds.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 277–298. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maxwell-Reid, Corinne. 2010. Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): The influence of studying through English on Spanish students’ first-language written discourse. Text & Talk – An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies 30 (6): 679–699. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. The challenges of contrastive discourse analysis. Written Communication 28 (4): 417–435. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohan, Bernard & Winnie Au-Yeung Lo. 1985. Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly 19 (3): 515–534. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
NEEA. 2008. Syllabus for National College Entrance Examination (Subject of Chinese). Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Odlin, Terence. 2003. Cross-linguistic influence. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Catherine Doughty & Michael Long (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell, 436–486. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pavlenko, Aneta & Scott Jarvis. 2002. Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics 23 (2): 190–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reichelt, Melinda, Natalie Lefkowitz, Carol Rinnert & Jean-Marie Schultz. 2012. Key issues in foreign language writing. Foreign Language Annals 45 (1): 22–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silva, Tony. 1993. Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 Writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly 27 (4): 657–677. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uysal, Hacer Hande. 2008. Tracing the culture behind writing: Rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational context. Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (3): 183–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Weijen, Daphne, Huub van den Bergh, Gert Rijlaarsdam & Ted Sanders. 2009. L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (4): 235–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varghese, Susheela & Sunita Abraham. 1998. Undergraduates arguing a case. Journal of Second Language Writing 7 (3): 287–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Wenyu & Qiufang Wen. 2002. L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (3): 225–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woodward-Kron, Robyn. 2002. Critical analysis versus description? Examining the relationship in successful student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1 (2): 121–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. The role of genre and embedded genres in tertiary students’ writing. Prospect 20 (3): 24–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Shi (石雨晨), Yuchen & Kalypso Iordanou
2025. A Dialogic Approach to Enhancing Argumentative Writing From Multiple Texts. ECNU Review of Education 8:2 ► pp. 530 ff. DOI logo
Xia, Lingling & Lu Liu
2025. The Evolution of Bianzheng in Modern Chinese Argumentation: From Reasoning to Correlation. Argumentation 39:2 ► pp. 313 ff. DOI logo
Wei, Xing
2023. On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition. In Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo
Sibarani, Berlin & Betharia Pandia
2020. Variations in Reasoning in Javanese and Bataknese Students’ Argumentative Writing: A Study on the Relation between Ethnicity and Reasoning. European Journal of Educational Research volume-9-2020:volume9-issue1.html ► pp. 385 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue