Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study investigates the question of Chinese indirection as a result of the use of modality expressions, which is conventionally believed to be the hallmark of Chinese rhetoric (e.g. Young, 1994Bond, 1991Powers and Gong, 1994). The present research compares and contrasts the degree of assertiveness as reflected in the patterns of modality in two corpora of expert Chinese and English argumentative writing on the same controversial subject. Corpus evidence shows that contrary to expectations, the Chinese writers are significantly more assertive than the English in arguing their case. The frequency of use and distribution patterns of intensifiers present both quantitative and qualitative evidence for the rhetorical differences, which may be accounted for culturally.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aijmer, K.
    2002 Modal Adverbs of Certainty and Uncertainty in an English- Swedish Perspective. Language and Computers, 39(1): 97–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ADSA (Alberta Debate and Speech Association)
    ADSA (Alberta Debate and Speech Association) 2006 Step-by-Step Guide to Debate. Alberta: ADBA.
  3. Bloor, T.
    1998 Conditional Expressions: Meanings and Realizations in Two Genres. InLinguistic Choice Across Genres: Variations in Spoken and Written English, A. Sanchez-Macarro and R. Carter (eds), 47–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.158.06blo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.158.06blo [Google Scholar]
  4. Bond, M.
    1991Beyond the Chinese Face: Insights from Psychology. Hong Kong; New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, L.
    2007 Native and Non-native Scholars’ Authority in Research Articles. Paper presented at17th International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning held in Hawaii.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dorgeloh, H.
    1997Inversion in Modern English: Form and Function. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.6 [Google Scholar]
  7. Garret, M.
    2001 Asian Challenge. InAlternative Rhetoric: Challenges to the Rhetorical Tradition, L. Gray-Rosendale and S. Gruber (eds), 295–314. Albany: SUNY Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Halliday, M.
    1994An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd Edition) London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hoye, L.
    1997Adverbs & Modality in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hu, Z. , Brown, D. , and Brown, L.
    1982 Some Linguistic Differences in the Written English of Chinese and Australian students. Language Learning and Communication1: 39–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kubler, C.
    1985A Study of Europeanized Grammar in Modern Written Chinese. Taipei: Student Book Co. Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Martin, J. and White, P.
    2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  13. Li, D. , Poon, W. , Rogerson-Revell, P. , Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. , Yu, B. , and Yung, V.
    1993Contrastive Discourse in English & Cantonese News Stories: A Preliminary Analysis of Newspaper, Radio, and Television Versions of the Lan Kwai Fong New Year’s News Story. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong Department of English
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Myers, G.
    1996 Strategic Vagueness in Academic Writing. InAcademic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues, E. Ventola and A. Mauranen (eds), 3–18Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.41.04mye
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.41.04mye [Google Scholar]
  15. Meyer, P.
    1997 Hedging Strategies in Written Academic Discourse: Strengthening the Argument by Weakening the Claim. InHedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, R. Markkanen and S. Hartmut (eds), 21–41. New York: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110807332.21
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807332.21 [Google Scholar]
  16. Milton, J. and Hyland, K.
    1997 Assertions in Students’ Academic Essays: A Comparison of English NS and NNS Student Writers. InLanguage Analysis, Description and Pedagogy, Proceedings of International Conference Organized by Language Centre HKUST 1999, 147–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Noor, R.
    2001 Contrastive Rhetoric in Expository Prose: Approaches and Achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2001): 255–269. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00136‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00136-8 [Google Scholar]
  18. Oliver, R.
    1971Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China. New York: Syracuse University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Powers, J. and Gong, G.
    1994 East Asian Voice and the Expression of Cultural Ethos. InVoice on Voice: Perspectives, Definitions, Inquiry, K. B. Yancey (ed.), 202–225. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , and Svartvik, J.
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Wu, S. and Rubin, D.
    2000 Evaluating the Impact of Collectivism and Individualism on Argumentative Writing by Chinese and North American College Students. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(November): 148–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Yates, J. and Lee, J.
    1996 Chinese Decision-Making. InThe Handbook of Chinese Psychology, M. H. Bond (ed.), 338–351. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Young, L.
    1994Crosstalk and Culture in Sino-American Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519901
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519901 [Google Scholar]
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