Intercultural Communication Studies on Argumentative Discourse: Chinese vs. English
Poster Number
33
Introduction/Abstract
This study is mainly devoted to an intercultural communication study of English and Chinese argumentative writing. It makes use of several relevant approaches adopted in contrastive rhetoric as its analytical framework and lays its theoretical basis on modern argumentation research. The study aims to examine both the homogeneous and the heterogeneous features of English and Chinese argumentative discourses in light of some important factors conductive to these features, including culture, rhetoric, thought patterns, reasoning strategies, etc. It presents an exploratory study of the interrelationships among both English and Chinese fundamental modes of traditional thinking, linguistic features, rhetorical patterns, modes of argumentation that are relevant to the understanding of contemporary argumentative discourse. It discusses in great detail several important alternatives to logical reasoning, such as the Toulmin, the Perelman, and the Pragma-dialectic approaches, which offer ways for writers to improve their understanding and interpretation of reasoning processes. These models open the composition study to more contextual, multi-disciplinary models of logical reasoning, and help readers to understand writers’ argumentative strategies more fully. The study focuses upon valuing and applying these alternatives, exploring how they interact with traditional ways of reasoning, and proposing a framework for measuring the strength of reasoning in argumentation. This framework of measurement incorporates Toulmin’s model, Perelman’s theory of argumentation, and other elaborative modern theories together with the traditional logical reasoning approaches.
This study argues that some relevant and typical features should be analyzed in the practical writing of argumentative discourse so as to offer effective tools for teaching and learning argumentative strategies. Based upon the close examination and detailed analyses of 120 English and Chinese argumentative essays respectively, this study shows that Chinese preferences for proverbs, analogies, and inductive reasoning, as indicated by some of the previous research, are still influencing the formulation of ethical and logical appeals in contemporary Chinese argumentative discourse. The use of canonical expressions and proverbs remains characteristic of Chinese rhetorical devices. Additionally, both direct and indirect essay structures are observable in contemporary Chinese argumentation. In contrast, Western modes of thinking and the emphasis on the values of freedom, democracy, and individualism that are deeply ingrained in American culture are important in the rhetorical premises in contemporary American argumentation. Therefore, the U.S. writers observed in this study rarely adopt these reasoning strategies, which are typical among the Chinese writers.
The study offers a diachronic as well as a synchronic intercultural study of some important factors, which have exerted extensive influence on the construction of both English and Chinese argumentative discourses. Apart from proposing a comprehensive framework for the measurement of argumentative discourse, the exploration of rhetorical patterns in English and Chinese argumentative discourse may enrich the study of contrastive rhetoric and provides a basis for effective cross-cultural communication in both academic and socio-cultural settings.
Key Words：contrastive rhetoric; English and Chinese argumentative discourses; multi-dimensional measurement of argumentation
Purpose
In particular, this study is conducted to address the following research questions:
1. Are there any substantial differences evident in terms of the rhetorical
organization between the two cultural groups?
2. Do Chinese writers differ distinctly in locating the theses from American
writers? To what degree do Chinese writers exhibit indirectness by delaying their
thesis statement until later in texts as usually believed by many contrastive rhetoric
researchers?
3. What are the preferred patterns for logical reasoning in each group involved in
this study? Are there any other kinds of strategies?
4. In order to achieve success in argumentation, which persuasive appeals are
preferred on each side?
5. How do Chinese as well as English writers guarantee the strength of argument,
as indicated by the Toulmin’s DWC Model?
6. Are there any statistically significant differences in terms of references and use
of canonical expressions between these two groups? Is the amount of canonical
expressions greater than that of American writers? Do Chinese writers use more
proverbs, quotations, allusions, etc. than American writers in argumentative writing?
7. For the interpretation of the argumentative texts, who is supposed to be more
responsible, the writer or the reader? Is there any difference between the two
groups?
8. Are there any obvious differences in terms of audience adaptiveness between
the two groups? Which group of writers shows a greater degree of concern for
reciprocality or interactiveness in argumentative writing?
Evidence from research in contrastive rhetoric indicates that all linguistic, cultural, and historical backgrounds have exerted influence on the organizational structures of ESL(English as a Second Language) texts. A fairer comparison, as Hinds (1983) notes, would have been between compositions by English native speakers and by non-native speakers in their own native language, which would allow one to disambiguate possible native-language transfer from developmental factors encountered in learning a second language.
Thus, to determine whether there are preferred rhetorical organizations in Chinese writing, it is necessary to examine Chinese compositions written in Chinese. This explains the reason as well as the necessity to examine English argumentative discourse written in English and Chinese argumentative discourse written in Chinese respectively. In general, people always have held and always will hold different views. Although this may result in countless misunderstandings and disagreements, it is a wonderful phenomenon since it provides us with a fresh world, diverse of ideas, feelings, attitudes, positions, and experiences. The study of argumentation is useful in contributing to our understanding of humanity as multifarious. Argumentation is both a common and an integral aspect in our lives. Argumentation is present in virtually all our verbal communication. Both oral and written argumentative discourses are indeed the integral parts of our daily routine. We engage in argumentative practices, when we advance arguments in defense of certain assertions or actions or when we react to arguments put forward by others.
Argumentation can teach us how to express our views effectively. It can teach us to respect opinions and thoughts other than our own. It provides us with a means of listening and interpreting others. It can help us mediate discussions between interlocutors as well as enhance the mutual communication between different cultures. Argumentation, as a mode of discourse, exists both in the English and in the Chinese rhetorical traditions. Argumentation in English is firmly rooted in the Greek rhetorical tradition while argumentation in Chinese found its roots in traditional Chinese philosophies including Confucianism, Taoism, Buddism and Mohism. It is not surprising therefore to presume rhetorical similarities as well as differences to be existent between English and Chinese argumentation. The purpose of this study is to explore the discourse strategies adopted by Chinese and English writers in pursuing argumentation in modern Chinese and English texts. The discourse strategies will be analyzed in terms of features of argumentation that could be tracked in the text data examined.
The general objective of the contrastive rhetorical study of English and Chinese argumentation is to develop a multi-dimensional measurement system for determining the validity of argumentation in view of its points of departure, presentational layout, persuasive appeals, strength of reasoning, and audience awareness, and to implement the application of these criteria in the production, analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse so as to enhance one’s capability in writing and reading argumentative discourse and also to promote cross-cultural communication between the two different cultures of English and Chinese.
Method
This study adopts a qualitative research method in combination with a quantitative data analysis of some typical features in English and Chinese argumentative discourses. It is mostly a qualitative research based on the objective analyses of some authentic data, i.e. argumentative discourses taken from the online resources of the most famous Chinese and American newspapers.
All together there are 120 argumentative essays collected and used for data analysis in this study, including 60 English and 60 Chinese articles chosen from relevant corpus respectively. All the texts are analyzed with SPSS, and the data are treated statistically by way of AntConc. The design of the study permits examination of both similarities and differences in English and Chinese argumentative texts. The data used in this study for analysis are argumentative texts selected through objective sampling. All of them are taken from the major English and Chinese news online resources including New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Seattle Times, Peoplenet.com, and Xinhuanet.com. To determine the effectiveness of the genre in this study, a text is considered argumentative in nature if it contains a position statement or a premise whereby the writer seeks to defend or refute through certain kind of reasoning.
This study performs ANOVA (separate univariate analyses of covariance) tests comparing U.S. writing in English with Chinese writing in Chinese on each of the nine continuous variables. The independent variable is language/nation, i.e. U.S. writers writing in English vs. Chinese writers writing in Chinese. This procedure uses ANOVA with the language factor treated as a repeated measure for different variables. This type of ANOVA (L1 vs. L1) is relatively rare in contrastive rhetorical study, henceforth exhibits the value and importance of this research.
Results
1. Homogeneity of English and Chinese Argumentation
Among all the aspects observed in this study, it can be clearly seen that the U.S. and the Chinese writers share many similarities in their argumentative writing. Both groups of writers demonstrate the ability to organize the information well in their writing. Most writers assume the responsibility on themselves to ensure the clarity of meaning. In terms of the strength of argument, both groups do well in using claims and warrants in argumentation. In order to achieve persuasiveness in argumentative writing, most writers tend to adopt ethos as an important device to appeal to the readers’ assent. They pay enough attention to the adherence of their audience in order to produce effectiveness in their argumentation.
2. Heterogeneity of English and Chinese Argumentation
As revealed by the results in this study, there are obvious differences between the U.S. and the Chinese writers in argumentative writing. In term of discoursal progression, the U.S. writers enjoy a much higher frequency to adopt the linear progress, while there is a great number of Chinese writers who prefer either the spiral or somewhat mixed patterns.
With regard to the thesis position, the U.S. writers seem to be more willing to state out their theses directly right at the beginning of the discourse, while the Chinese writers are inclined to put off their thesis statement till or near the end of the discourse, though it is not a rare case for some Chinese writers to state out their theses at the beginning just like their U.S. counterparts. In the choice of reasoning strategy, the U.S. writers are clearly accustomed to deductive reasoning or otherwise inductive. In contrast, many Chinese writers prefer inductive reasoning, and some even adopt the quasi-inductive way of reasoning as described by Hinds. To ensure the strength of argument, the Chinese writers tend to use more versified data. In adopting the persuasive appeals, the U.S. writers are inclined to use logos more frequently than the Chinese writers, while the Chinese writers seem to enjoy a higher frequency to use pathos in their argumentative writing. Another typical intra-group difference can be shown by the use of canonical expressions. Owing to the cultural and rhetorical tradition, the Chinese writers prefer to cite from proverbs, allusions, and others forms of canonical expressions, which could hardly be found in the writings of the U.S. writers.
3. Pedagogical and Practical Implications of the Study
This study is an attempt to enrich the contrastive study of English and Chinese argumentative writing. It brings together information about English and Chinese cultural concepts, traditional ways of thinking, modes of argumentation, and patterns of rhetoric as evidenced in the sample texts of both cultures with the purpose of advancing knowledge and understanding of the English and Chinese argumentative texts. It offers a multi-dimensional framework of measurement for argumentation and provides composition classroom as well as professional writers with a clear picture of argumentative writing in light of a contrastive study of two distinct cultures. More attention should be given to the examination of certain underlying factors, which affect the construction of argumentative discourse in different cultures. Knowledge of different rhetorical patterns, ways of thinking, modes of argumentation, and so on between the two cultures may provide certain basis for writers on either side to assimilate better the positive aspects of the rhetoric and culture of the other side. A contrastive study of the languages, cultures, thought patterns, logical reasoning, and rhetorical patterns between these two countries can help analyze contemporary Chinese and English argumentation. It can offer helpful instruction for writing argumentative essays, reading and understanding argumentative discourses.
This exploratory study yields new perspectives on the contrastive rhetorical study of argumentative writing in different cultures and also on the effective rhetorical practices among international communicators. It also provides a basis for intercultural communicators to reinforce their argument by gaining some new insights into the rhetorical patterns of the other. It is of great help to the better adapting of the rhetorical strategies adopted in the argumentative/persuasive discourses by the writers in one culture to the audience of the other culture.
To sum up, this study holds that argumentative discourse is an extremely important division of communication. Since we communicate with each other at some point or another, the study of argumentation has its significance. A multi-dimensional examination of argumentation can encompass a variety of different tools to help us in both communicating, and more specifically arguing with each other. It can instruct us how to express our views effectively. This contrastive study of argumentative writing can stress the importance of respecting opinions and thoughts other than our own. It provides us with a means of understanding and interpreting argumentation.
Significance
This study outlines the fundamental traditional modes of thinking, rhetorical patterns, and modes of argumentation that are considered relevant to the understanding of contemporary English and Chinese argumentative discourses. An integration of perspectives is adopted in this study so as to achieve the intended effect in understanding and explaining some complex homogeneous and heterogeneous features of the two distinct cultures, rhetorics and ways of constructing and interpreting argumentative discourse.
Research on argumentative writing cross-culturally is significant in the field of CR. So far, little has been known cross-culturally about this genre. Hence, there is an urgent need to look closely at this typical genre of argumentation. The study attempts to provide a comprehensive study of some typical features of English and Chinese argumentative discourses so as to provide a satisfactory measurement system for good argumentative writing in the two distinctly different cultures of English and Chinese. Moreover, this study also attempts to provide the research field of contrastive rhetoric with a new outlook and to broaden this particular research field in applied linguistics.
Culture invariably plays a vital role in the rhetorical patterns of either country. The purpose of a comparative study of rhetorics of two distinctly different origins is to enhance the understanding of the rhetorical premises and patterns of different cultures. This study attempts to lay bare how the fundamental tenets of philosophy, deep cultural beliefs, and values internalized in the thought patterns of people of a particular culture influence the patterns of rhetoric of that culture. Recognizing and understanding the underlying modes of thinking and reasoning that constitute the deep culture of a given society is of primary importance. Argumentative discourses often involve convictions that evoke distinctive elements of a culture. Without considering the essential modes of thinking and cultural premises of the East and the West, one can hardly achieve a real understanding of the argumentative discourses of either side. Although some past studies have provided descriptions of differences of philosophical and socio-cultural backgrounds between them in regard to their influences on the rhetorical practices of the two sides, inadequate attention has been given to the study and analysis of the influence of the origins of the different mindsets on the contemporary argumentative discourses of the respective party.
The study adopts the major CR approach as its analytical framework, modern argumentation research as its theoretical basis, taking into careful consideration the multi-folded factors which have exerted influence on the formation of the rhetorical features in both Chinese and English argumentative discourses. Based on the objective results obtained from a quantitative analysis of authentic data, this study attempts to build a multi-dimensional framework of measurement to evaluate the strength and quality of argumentation cross-culturally in light of an integrated study of the rhetorical features examined in the dynamic process of argumentative writing.
Location
Library and Learning Center, 3601 Pacific Ave., Stockton, CA 95211
Format
Poster Presentation
Intercultural Communication Studies on Argumentative Discourse: Chinese vs. English
Library and Learning Center, 3601 Pacific Ave., Stockton, CA 95211
This study is mainly devoted to an intercultural communication study of English and Chinese argumentative writing. It makes use of several relevant approaches adopted in contrastive rhetoric as its analytical framework and lays its theoretical basis on modern argumentation research. The study aims to examine both the homogeneous and the heterogeneous features of English and Chinese argumentative discourses in light of some important factors conductive to these features, including culture, rhetoric, thought patterns, reasoning strategies, etc. It presents an exploratory study of the interrelationships among both English and Chinese fundamental modes of traditional thinking, linguistic features, rhetorical patterns, modes of argumentation that are relevant to the understanding of contemporary argumentative discourse. It discusses in great detail several important alternatives to logical reasoning, such as the Toulmin, the Perelman, and the Pragma-dialectic approaches, which offer ways for writers to improve their understanding and interpretation of reasoning processes. These models open the composition study to more contextual, multi-disciplinary models of logical reasoning, and help readers to understand writers’ argumentative strategies more fully. The study focuses upon valuing and applying these alternatives, exploring how they interact with traditional ways of reasoning, and proposing a framework for measuring the strength of reasoning in argumentation. This framework of measurement incorporates Toulmin’s model, Perelman’s theory of argumentation, and other elaborative modern theories together with the traditional logical reasoning approaches.
This study argues that some relevant and typical features should be analyzed in the practical writing of argumentative discourse so as to offer effective tools for teaching and learning argumentative strategies. Based upon the close examination and detailed analyses of 120 English and Chinese argumentative essays respectively, this study shows that Chinese preferences for proverbs, analogies, and inductive reasoning, as indicated by some of the previous research, are still influencing the formulation of ethical and logical appeals in contemporary Chinese argumentative discourse. The use of canonical expressions and proverbs remains characteristic of Chinese rhetorical devices. Additionally, both direct and indirect essay structures are observable in contemporary Chinese argumentation. In contrast, Western modes of thinking and the emphasis on the values of freedom, democracy, and individualism that are deeply ingrained in American culture are important in the rhetorical premises in contemporary American argumentation. Therefore, the U.S. writers observed in this study rarely adopt these reasoning strategies, which are typical among the Chinese writers.
The study offers a diachronic as well as a synchronic intercultural study of some important factors, which have exerted extensive influence on the construction of both English and Chinese argumentative discourses. Apart from proposing a comprehensive framework for the measurement of argumentative discourse, the exploration of rhetorical patterns in English and Chinese argumentative discourse may enrich the study of contrastive rhetoric and provides a basis for effective cross-cultural communication in both academic and socio-cultural settings.
Key Words：contrastive rhetoric; English and Chinese argumentative discourses; multi-dimensional measurement of argumentation
