Text Relations And Patterns

This study is to explore how similarities and differences between English and Chineserhetorical conventions affect second/foreign language writing through contrastive analysis oftext relation theories (particularly Rhetorical Structure Theory by Mann and Thompson, 1978,Clause Relation by Winter, 1971, and Lexical Relation by Hoey, 1991, and the basicminimum discourse pattern by Hoey, 1983,following Winter 1971), on English, Chinese andEFL (i.e. English as a Foreign Language) texts. The materials used for analysis in currentresearch are mostly academic in nature, as it is generally believed that academic writings arethe most popular and commonly-used text type to second/foreign language learners.The paper starts with problem-raising through three related investigations, in ChapterOne, particularly concerning how native speakers and non-native speakers of English rateEFL texts written by Chinese speakers especially in regard to their comprehensibility,acceptability and appropriateness, how English is at variance with Chinese in discoursepatterning, and how Chinese learners construct English texts particularly in terms of thesequencing of ideas or ordering of sentences. Based on the investigations, questions for thecurrent research and accompanying hypotheses were set up, which are as follows.1) To what extent are English texts at variance with Chinese texts at all levels frommacro-rhetorical structures to intersentential and lexical realizations?2) Is there a minimum discourse pattern underlying both English and Chinese texts? Arethere variations in the two types of texts respectively?3) To what degree does an EFL text resemble a Chinese text and an English textrespectively in terms of text relations?4) To what degree does an EFL text approximate a Chinese text and an English text interms of minimum discourse pattern?Hypothesis One:English texts, which tend to be deductive, differ from Chinese texts, which tend tobe inductive, in terms of the surface realizations of text, particularly at the level ofmacro-rhetorical structure or information organization. Nevertheless, both Englishand Chinese texts rely heavily on the use of conjuncts, subordinators and lexicalrepetitions to achieve semantic relations between clauses and clause complexes.Hypothesis TwoNotwithstanding the existence of the minimum discourse pattern problem-solutionin English and Chinese texts, the former are more characterized by a canonicalconcession pattern and the latter, a cause-result pattern.Hypothesis Three:EFL texts written by Chinese speakers reflect both Chinese and English textualfeatures in terms of the use of text relations. However, they are more approximateto the first language in macro-rhetorical organization and are more assimilated tothe target language in terms of realization of discourse by using conjuncts,subordinators as well as repetition of lexis.Hypothesis Four:EFL texts written by Chinese speakers will be the direct and indirect expressions ofthe acculturated Chinese rhetorical convention, particularly in terms of theminimum Chinese discourse pattern cause-result.The goals of the current research are: to clarify the relationships between English andChinese and see how the two languages are at various in rhetorical organizations and howthey resemble each other in terms of basic minimum discourse patterns;to locate the extent towhich the first language rhetorical convention exerts effect on EFL writings;and to contributeto the understanding of language as discourse as well as discourse-oriented teaching,particularly in terms of the teaching of writing as a second/foreign language.Taking functional grammar, contrastive rhetoric, and relation theories as a theoreticalframework (which can be found in Chapter Two), two types of analysis were mainlyconducted;one is, in Chapter Three, contrastive analysis of English, Chinese and EFL texts ofthe same genre (i.e. book prefaces), focusing on the divergent realizations of text relations atboth macro-and micro-discourse levels. The other is, in Chapter Four, the analysis onpresumably the most basic minimum discourse pattern (i.e. problem-solution) in both Englishand Chinese texts,whereby convergent features are explored. The analysis of divergent andconvergent features between English and Chinese texts leads to the discussion of such issuesas linguistic and non-linguistic effects on EFL writing and text generation processes, thedynamic nature of language from a discourse-based view of language, the teaching andlearning of writing as pattern languages and as genre-based process, as well as the techniquesused to realize genre-based teaching of process writing, etc. which are found in Chapter Five.Generally speaking, this research can be regarded as belonging to the category ofcontrastive rhetoric which started with R. Kaplan (1966), who initiated the idea that rhetoricalstructures are different across languages. His 'doodle' pictures, (as he himself later so referredto), illustrating how languages vary in terms of rhetorical organizations, have caused heateddebates and controversial arguments among linguists, particularly among contrastiverhetoricians. One of the issues is concerned with the causes of linear and non-linear textualpatterns recognized in Oriental and English texts. Alptekin (1988), for example, attributes thenon-linear rhetorical pattern of Chinese to the fundamentals of the ancient Chinese worldviewthat the human world moves in a cyclical pattern and the universe is devoid of a fixed startingpoint, etc. Others, like Cai (1999), traces the modern Chinese argumentative textual pattern tothe Chinese rhetoric tradition of Baguwen (the eight-legged essays). Still others (e.g. Mohanand Lo, 1985) argue that Chinese writers resemble writers in English in the way that they bothregard directness and openness as the virtue of texts, thus claiming that there is no basis forarguing for rhetorical differences between English and Chinese. However, we, as teachers ofEnglish, often hear native speakers' complain that Chinese students write 'illogical' and'incoherent' English texts and we, too, have often experienced perplexities when confrontingEFL compositions written by Chinese students. Why do students start essays with a long andwinding introduction before they get to the point of what they want to say, even though theyknow that they are supposed to be direct in composing both English and Chinese texts? Whatmakes them write as they do?Through a comprehensibility questionnaire and a sentence reordering test, it is found thatChinese students at advanced English level seem to have a good perception of what anEnglish text should be, but still feel uncomfortable in using appropriate techniques inconstructing English texts, and the most difficulty lies in the recognition of relevantconjunctive, lexical and implicit elements that can be used to realize semantic relationsbetween clauses, sections and paragraphs.In order to answer the questions and confirm or verify the previously mentionedhypotheses, contrastive analysis was conducted between English, Chinese and EFL texts inthe light of relation theories, particularly in terms of Rhetorical Structure Theory of Mann andThompson (1978), referring to macro-discourse relations, Clause Relation of Winter (1971),inter-sentential/clausal relations, and Lexical Relations of Hoey (1991), intersentential andcross-sentential relations realized through statistical analysis of lexical links and bonds.After detailed analyses, coupled with graphic illustrations of text samples (i.e. fourprefaces of academic books), the paper confirms the first hypothesis that English texts tendto be deductive, while the Chinese (as well as the EFL texts), inductive, ranging from textgeneral information organizations to specific inter-sentential and clausal combinations intolarger discourse segments. Through the analysis of the realizations of clause relations, it isfound that both English and Chinese texts use plenty of conjuncts and subordinators toconnect clauses/sentences, which again confirms the second part of Hypothesis One.In terms of the minimum discourse patterns in English and Chinese texts, HypothesisTwo is also confirmed in that both languages tend to use problem-solution as the basicminimum discourse pattern in constructing texts, though the actual realization of the patternin Chinese discourse is cause/circumstance-consequence and in English concession. Thisdiscovery suggests that English and Chinese might not be two polarities of difference but onthe same continuum of disparity, or rather they are simply varieties of the same discoursepattern. Of course, this statement needs further proof and exploration.Hypothesis Three, concerning features of EFL texts, is partly confirmed and partlydenied. EFL texts written by Chinese learners display conspicuous L1 features of beinginductive in information organization of text. However, EFL texts do not use as manycohesive devices as found in either standard English texts or Chinese texts, especially in termsof lexical repetition. In this regard, the EFL texts seem neither like the target language nor thefirst language, but display unique features particularly in that not any lexical relation orlexical bonds can be established across any two sentences. Possible reasons are discussed interms of the transferability of cross-linguistic and rhetorical patterns, as well as all sorts ofknowledge necessary for EFL writing practices.Statistical analysis of lexical links/bonds has led to other interesting and appealingdiscoveries, for instance, the dichotomy of being deductive and inductive in English andChinese text organizations. The tree-like diagrams formed by lexical chains present strikingdifferences between English and Chinese texts: one is an upside down tree with the firstsentence as the root, and the branches hanging from it;the other is a growing-upward tree, butwith the first or two sentences wrenched off, totally separated from the trunk, others tangledin one way or another.In terms of the effect of the minimum pattern of the first language on EFL writing,Hypothesis Four is confirmed in the way that Chinese learners of English tend to follow acause/circumstance-result pattern in organizing text. They put plenty of irrelevant social andcontextual information at the beginning as a kind of background or motivation for the topic,which is delayed to the very end of the text.In order to find why Chinese students write the way they do in English, the paper thenexplores the rhetorical conventions in English and Chinese, as well as the literacy educationin current Chinese secondary schools and the theoretical explanations of discoursecomprehension difficulties from the perspective of functional linguistics. Literacy traditionsacross the two languages seem to reveal that the characteristics of the first language definitelyaffect the second language writing in terms of both process and product. However, thetraditional Chinese rhetoric convention to exposition qi-cheng-zhuan-he seems not in strikingcontrast to the topic-oriented writing model found in English. However, what currenteducation testing systems, particularly the National Entrance Examination to Colleges, seemto have encouraged and contributed to the generally-practiced 'indirect' and 'implicit' way oforganizing information in text. Thus, the paper argues that the combination of epistemological,rhetorical and pedagogical traditions, together with the impact of language transfer, can beconsidered as the key to the understanding of why learners make structural and organizationalerrors.In terms of writing in a second/foreign language, the paper claims that ES/FL writing is avery complicated process whereby the writer has to struggle between the two languagesystems as well as the knowledge bases necessary to construct texts. Social and cognitivereasons explain why L2 learners exhibit particular writing preferences. Functional grammarmight partly explain why EFL texts are difficult to comprehend;that is, the obligatorydiscourse elements in English texts are taken by the Chinese as optional, and the implicitnessChinese people are inclined to use in information transmission leads to additionalcomprehension difficulties to native English speakers. However, what ES/FL learners writedoes not necessarily prove that they think in the similar way.