1887
Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This study examined and compared the rhetorical structure of argumentative texts written by three groups of university students: 1° twenty Indonesian texts written by Indonesian native speakers (I.I); 2° ten English texts written by Indonesian native speakers (I.E); and 3° ten English texts written by English native speakers (A.E). Following the argumentative text analysis model developed by Tirkkonen-Condit (1984 and 1986) and Connor (1990), the data were analysed using top-down and bottom-up analysis techniques at macro organisational text level. The results indicated that the text organisational structures of argumentative texts in English and in Indonesian were different in respect of the frequency of occurrence of sections—introduction, evaluation and conclusion— and of the sub-sections of refutation, sub-claim, and induction within the problem section. Cultural differences between English and Indone-sian may have played a crucial role in the text rhetorical differences. Also, the I.E. text features are more similar to those of the A.E. texts than to those of the I.I. texts. The study indicates that the Indonesian students need to study the conventions of rhetorical structures and text features of English argumentative texts in order to be able to write good argumentative texts in English.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.22.2.06ars
1999-01-01
2019-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ——— (1996) Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge, CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ——— (1990) Linguistics/Rhetorical Measures for International Persuasive Student Writing. Research in the Teaching of English24/1: 67–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ——— (1997) Writing Expository Essays in Chinese: Chinese or Western Influences?In Z. Golebiowski and H. Borlland (eds) Academic Communication Across Disciplines and Cultures. Melbourne, Victoria University of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ballard, B. and J. Clanchy
    (1984) Study Abroad: A Manual for Asian Students. Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysian Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Birk, N. and G. Birk
    (1967) Persuasion by Logical Argument. In L.E. Glorfeld , T.E. Kakones and J.C. Wilcox (eds) Language Rhetoric and Idea: A Unified Approach to Composition. Columbus, Ohio, C.E. Merrill Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chessel, P. and H. Birnstihl
    (1978) Essay Writing: A Guide (2nd ed.). Malvern, Victoria, Sorrett Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Choi, Y.H.
    (1988) Text Structure of Korean Speakers’ Argumentative Essays in English. World Englishes7/2: 129–142. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.1988.tb00226.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1988.tb00226.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Connor, U.
    (1987) Argumentative Patterns in Student Essays: Cross-cultural differences. In U. Connor and R.B. Kaplan (eds) Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Connor, U. and J. Lauer
    (1985) Understanding Persuasion Essay Writing: Linguistic/Rhetorical Approach. Text5/4: 309–326.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Eggington, W.G.
    (1987) Written Academic Discourse in Korean: Implications for Effective Communication. In U. Connor , and R.B. Kaplan (eds) Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hatch, E.
    (1992) Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge, CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hatch, E. and A. Lazaraton
    (1991) The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Boston, Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hinds, J.
    (1983) Contrastive Rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text3/2: 183–195.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kaplan, R.B.
    (1972) The Anatomy of Rhetoric: Prolegomena to a Functional Theory of Rhetoric. Philadelphia, PA, Centre for Curriculum Development.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Keraf, G.
    (1992) Argumen dan Narasi. Jakarta, Gramedia.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kirkpatrick, A.
    (1994) Contrastive Rhetorics and the Teaching of Academic Discourse. Paper presented atRELC Singapore Conference, April 18-20 1994.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Levin, G.
    (1966) A Brief Handbook of Rhetoric. New YorkHarcourt, Brace and Word.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Liddicoat, A. J.
    (1997) Communicating Within Cultures, Communicating Across Cultures, Communicating Between Cultures. In Z. Golebiowski and H. Borlland (eds) Academic Communication Across Disciplines and Cultures. Melbourne, Victoria University of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Mohan, B.A. and W.A.Y. Lo
    (1985) Academic Writing and Chinese Students’ Transfer and Development Factors. TESOL Quarterly19/3: 515–534. doi: 10.2307/3586276
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586276 [Google Scholar]
  20. Rottenberg, A.T.
    (1988) Elements of Argument. New York, St. Martins Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Rubin, D. , R. Goodrum and B. Hall
    (1990) Orality, Oral-based, and the Academic Writing of ESL Learners. Issues in Applied Linguistics1: 56–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Tirkkonen-Condit, S.
    (1984) Towards a Descriptive of Argumentative Text Structure. In R. Hikam and M. Rissanen (eds) Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference for English Studies. Publications of the Research Institute of the Abo Akademi Foundation.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Toulmin, S.E. , R. Rieke and A. Janik
    (1979) An Introduction to Reasoning. New York, Macmillan (2nd ed. 1984).
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Wyrick, J.
    (1987) Steps to Writing Well. Orlando, Florida, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.22.2.06ars
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error