Dialectics versus polemics in Chinese rhetoric: A study of indirection in Chinese and Chinese ESL argumentative writing as compared with English argumentative writing

L. Yeung
{"title":"Dialectics versus polemics in Chinese rhetoric: A study of indirection in Chinese and Chinese ESL argumentative writing as compared with English argumentative writing","authors":"L. Yeung","doi":"10.1515/caslar-2019-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study investigates Chinese indirection in argumentative writing. It examines whether there is a fundamental difference between Chinese and English rhetoric in their preferred method of argument, as suggested by instructional materials on how to argue effectively (Liu, Lu. 2005. Rhetorical education through writing instruction across cultures: A comparative analysis of select online instructional materials on argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 14. 1–18). A comparative analysis of 90 argumentative essays respectively written by expert Chinese and English writers, and advanced Chinese ESL learners reveals that while the English essays tend to adopt a polemical style that persuades by defeating opposing arguments, a significant proportion of the Chinese essays show a dialectical style which examines opposing positions without taking sides and yet rising above them to resolve conflicting issues. A significant number of Chinese ESL writing follow a similar dialectical pattern although not as frequently as their expert writers. A cultural explanation is attempted to account for the phenomenon. It is also argued that the dialectical model, while subsuming earlier rhetorical models adopted for analyzing Chinese writing, may hold the key to studying Chinese differences from the English in written arguments.","PeriodicalId":37654,"journal":{"name":"Chinese as a Second Language Research","volume":"8 1","pages":"29 - 55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/caslar-2019-0002","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese as a Second Language Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2019-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract This study investigates Chinese indirection in argumentative writing. It examines whether there is a fundamental difference between Chinese and English rhetoric in their preferred method of argument, as suggested by instructional materials on how to argue effectively (Liu, Lu. 2005. Rhetorical education through writing instruction across cultures: A comparative analysis of select online instructional materials on argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 14. 1–18). A comparative analysis of 90 argumentative essays respectively written by expert Chinese and English writers, and advanced Chinese ESL learners reveals that while the English essays tend to adopt a polemical style that persuades by defeating opposing arguments, a significant proportion of the Chinese essays show a dialectical style which examines opposing positions without taking sides and yet rising above them to resolve conflicting issues. A significant number of Chinese ESL writing follow a similar dialectical pattern although not as frequently as their expert writers. A cultural explanation is attempted to account for the phenomenon. It is also argued that the dialectical model, while subsuming earlier rhetorical models adopted for analyzing Chinese writing, may hold the key to studying Chinese differences from the English in written arguments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
汉语修辞中的辩证法与论战:汉语与汉语ESL议论文写作的间接性研究
摘要本研究探讨了议论文写作中的汉语间接性。正如关于如何有效辩论的教学材料所建议的那样,它考察了中英文修辞在他们喜欢的辩论方法上是否存在根本差异(刘,陆.2005)。通过跨文化写作教学进行修辞教育:对精选的议论文在线教学材料的比较分析。第二语言写作杂志14。1-18)。通过对90篇由中英文专家和中国高级ESL学习者分别撰写的议论文的比较分析,发现英语论文倾向于采用通过击败对立论点来说服的辩论风格,相当一部分中国散文表现出一种辩证的风格,即不偏袒任何一方地审视对立的立场,但却超越它们来解决冲突问题。相当多的中国ESL写作遵循类似的辩证模式,尽管不像他们的专业作家那样频繁。试图用文化解释来解释这种现象。此外,辩证模式在包含早期用于分析汉语写作的修辞模式的同时,可能是研究书面辩论中汉语与英语差异的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Chinese as a Second Language Research
Chinese as a Second Language Research Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Chinese as a Second Language Research (CASLAR) focuses on research on the acquisition, development, and use of Chinese as a Second Language. It supports scholars and researchers from different linguistic fields, and serves as a forum to discuss, investigate, and better understand Chinese as a Second Language. Each issue (2 per year) of the journal publishes three papers in Chinese and three papers in English; summaries are always provided both in Chinese and English. We are especially interested in publishing articles and research papers that investigate how empirical findings of CSL research can advance and develop better Chinese language teaching methodologies, explore the implications of CSL research for theoretical developments and practical applications, focus on the acquisition and use of varieties of CSL, study the nature of interaction between native speakers and non-native speakers of Chinese, address major issues of second language acquisition from the perspective of CSL, analyze the ways in which language is both shaped by culture and is the medium through which culture is created.
期刊最新文献
Curriculum design in teaching Chinese characters to American students: when and what? Top-down Chinese as a second language reading strategies The relationship between parental involvement and children’s language acquisition “把” 字句中情态动词的位置 韩国企业员工汉语自主学习研究
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1