Discourse Markers In Chinese And American College Students' Argumentative Writings

Contrastive studies have produced equivocal evidence in rhetorical styles acrossChinese and English language discourse. Previous research concerningChinese-English contrastive rhetoric (CR) has generally supported the hypothesis thatChinese texts tend to be indirect, whereas English texts tend to be direct in theirrhetorical style; that Chinese students tend to demonstrate an "indirect" style in theirESL writing; and that Chinese students seem to avoid free expression of personalviews and feelings (Connor, 1996:39-40). Moreover, in terms of relative writer/readerresponsibility, "Communicative responsibilities between text writer and reader is seento effect a reader responsibility in eliciting meaning in Chinese culture and language,with a writer focus in English-speaking cultures" (Hinds, 1987). However, otherresearch, such as the one conducted by Mohan and Lo, found evidence that does notsupport the 'direct' versus 'indirect' dichotomy. According to Mohan and Lo (1985),the studies that have investigated indirectness in L1 and L2 writing have largely beenimpressionistic judgment, and few have examined the actual usage of indirectnessstrategies in written discourse. Against Hinds, Wong (2002) concludes, " Chinesewriters are cognizant of their responsibility toward their readers and take uponthemselves the responsibility of engaging their readers in the argumentative process".A study that involves texts of L1 writing of two languages and cultural backgrounds would provide insight into some unexplored questions in Chinese-English CR. By examining both L1 student writings in Chinese and English, this paper first is an attempt in eliminating some stereotypes concerning use of discourse markers (called discourse connectives in some study) in Chinese students' L2 writings and rhetorical conventions in Chinese.Starting from an investigation of discourse markers (henceforth DMs), this paper also tries to work from a local discourse level apart from the 'direct' versus 'indirect' dichotomy. The purpose is to try to extend the CR debate beyond the simple "direct/indirect" binary which has dominated research hitherto.Specifically, the present paper investigates the use of DMs in argumentativewritings written by English and Chinese college level students in their respective native language (LI) from a functional-communicative perspective, taking Contrastive Rhetoric as framework. DMs are analyzed considering their number and typology using quantitative methods. The objective of this study is to find similarities and differences in the use of DMs by Chinese- and English- speaking college level writers. With this comparison the author hopes to know whether any of the two groups use DMs more frequently, and the types of DM they use. Halliday's taxonomy of adjuncts (circumstantial, modal and conjunctive adjuncts) and his framework for analysis are borrowed in the quantitative analysis of DM frequencies. A modified RST (rhetorical structure theory) is adopted in analyzing the types of DM used in Chinese and American student compositions.The research questions that the author attempts to answer are:1. Is there any significant difference in the number of DMs between the argumentative texts in English and the texts in Chinese?2. Are there similarities and differences in the function of DMs used in the English texts and texts in Chinese?3. Are there differences in rhetorical style, reflected by this DM study, between Chinese and English?The study reveals that there is no significant difference in the number of DMs (including conjunctive and modal DMs) used in argumentative texts between Chinese and American students. The lack of necessary use of DMs in Chinese student's ESL essays cannot be accounted reflection of writing conventions in Chinese, as some previous studies have indicated. The study also indicates that there may exist similarities and differences in the type of DMs used in Chinese texts and English texts. The impact of necessary pedagogical implications to the teaching of both languages is made after the discussion.