簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 陳姿蓉
Tzu-jung Chen
論文名稱： 中英文寫作之章法及風格比較研究
Rhetorical Conventions in Chinese and English:A Study on Performance and Perceptions
指導教授： 朱錫琴
Chu, Hsi-Chin
馮和平
Feng, Ho-Ping
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 英語學系
Department of English
論文出版年： 2009
畢業學年度： 97
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 96
中文關鍵詞： 寫作模式 、章法 、風格 、直接 、引經據典 、集體自我
英文關鍵詞： contrastive rhetoric, organization, stylistic features, directness, proverbs and other canonical expressions, collective self
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：253  下載：54 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 本研究主要目的為比較台灣大學生的中英文作文及相關寫作觀念的不同。參與本研究的學生為五十四位國立台灣師範大學非主修英語的大一學生。他們被分成四組，每組以不同語言及寫作題目的順序在兩堂課中分別寫出一篇中文作文及英文作文。他們接著在另一天完成寫作觀念問卷(Rhetorical Conception Questionnaire)。這些文章之後以由Wu & Rubin’s (2000) 的研究中發展而來的寫作評分標準就其直接程度(directness)及風格特色 (stylistic features)進行分析。評改完文章及分析完寫作觀念問卷之後，研究者就在對中文論說文文體及自己的中文作文中的直接程度勾選不同的學生另外再進行事後訪談，以獲得進一步的答案。
    研究結果顯示這些學生的中英文文章在各方面並無顯著差異。然而，在寫作觀念上，這些學生可分辨出不同的中英文論說文寫作模式，這些不同點主要在於直接程度(degree of directness)、風格特色(stylistic features)、及組織(organization)上。在直接程度上，這些學生認為中文論說文可以直接或間接的方式寫作，但英文論說文則偏向以直接的方式寫作。在組織上，這些學生認為起承轉合仍是中文論說文所強調的文章結構。此外，在寫作觀念上及此次寫作文章中直接程度的感知，這些學生認為他們在中文的部分有顯著差異，但英文的部分則沒有差異。學生們在寫作表現與寫作觀念的差異顯示出他們的認知過程與知識並不相等。在文章的章法方面，最大的不同在於中文的部分，原因可能是受到他們的語言能力、本次的寫作主題、本次寫作時間的限制、以及在第一節課所寫的英文作文所影響。在風格特色上，學生沒有出現大量的引經據典(use of proverbs and other canonical expressions)，原因為受到他們的語言能力限制及對此特徵的負面觀感。另一方面，這些學生的文章出現大量集體自我意識(collective self)，原因主要為從小受到的教育使然。最後，研究者也就教學及研究方法上提出一些相關建議。

    The present study aims to compare Taiwanese college students’ writing performance and rhetorical conceptions in Chinese and English. The participants were 54 non-English majors in NTNU. They were randomly divided into four groups, and each student in each group wrote a Chinese essay and an English one in different orders of topics and languages in two periods. On the other day, they filled out the Rhetorical Conception Questionnaire (RCQ). The participants’ essays were analyzed in terms of directness and four stylistic features (personal disclosure, use of proverbs and other canonical expressions, collective self, and non-assertiveness) with coding schemes developed from Wu and Rubin’s (2000) study. After analysis of students’ Chinese and English essays and their RCQs, a post hoc interview was implemented to supplement the ambiguity in students’ answers in the RCQ.
    The results showed that there was no significant difference between the participants’ Chinese and English essays on directness and the four stylistic features. However, students could identify different rhetorical patterns in Chinese and English argumentative writing. The differences lay in degree of directness, stylistic features, and organization. For degree of directness, these students considered Chinese argumentative writing was both direct and indirect, whereas English argumentative writing was generally more direct. For organization, these students regarded qi-cheng-zhuan-he as a currently emphasized structure in Chinese argumentative writing. In addition, there was a significant difference between students’ perception of directness in Chinese argumentative writing and their perception of directness in their own Chinese essays, but there was no significant difference between their perception of directness in English argumentative writing and their perception of directness in their own English essays. The discrepancy between the participants’ writing performance and their rhetorical conventions indicated that their cognitive process was not the same as their knowledge. For the directness in their Chinese essays, they were influenced by their language proficiency, the writing prompts, the time limits, the topics, the first essay they wrote, and Westernization. For their little canonical expressions, both the factors of language proficiency and their negative feelings toward fixed patterns were involved. For their copious collective self use, they were mainly influenced by their education. At the end of the thesis, several pedagogical and methodological implications are provided.

    ABSTRACT (CHINESE)………………………………………………………....2 ABSTRACT (ENGLISH)………………………………………………………....3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………........5 TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………….. ..7 LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………….....10 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION………………………………………….....11 Background and Motivation………..........................................11 Purpose and Research Questions……………………………………….13 Definition of Key Terms………………………………………………….13 Transfer…………………………………………………………......13 Contrastive Rhetoric……………………………………………….14 Rhetorical Conventions…………………………………………….14 The Qi-cheng-zhuan-he Structure……………………………….14 The Eight-legged Essay…………………………………………….14 Directness…………………………………………………………....14 Stylistic Features………………………………………………….15 Lack of Personal Disclosure………………………………15 Use of Proverbs and Other Canonical Expressions.....................................15 Collective Self……………………………………………….15 Non-assertiveness…………………………………………….16 Significance of the Study……….………………………………………16 Organization of the Thesis………………………………………………17 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………….....18 The Development of Contrastive Rhetoric Theories…………….18 Contrastive Rhetoric Studies on Chinese and English…………22 Organization……………………………………………………......23 Similarities in Chinese and English Organizational Patterns.........................23 Dissimilarities in Chinese and English Organizational Patterns……………………………………27 Similarities and Differences in Chinese and English Organization Patterns………………………….30 Summary of Chinese and English Organizational Patterns…......................................33 Stylistic Features………………………………………………….34 Lack of Personal Disclosure.………..…….........34 Use of Proverbs and Other Canonical Expressions.35 Collective Self……………………………………………….37 Non-assertiveness………………...……………………….38 CHAPTER THREE: METHOD…………………………………………………...41 The Pilot Study…………………………………………………………....41 Participants………………………………………………………………....42 Instruments……………………………………………………………….....44 Writing Prompts for the Chinese and English Writing Tasks................................................44 Rhetorical Convention Questionnaire (RCQ)……………….45 Post Hoc Interview………………………………………………...46 Design…………………………………………………………………........47 Data Collection Procedures………………………………………………48 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………....49 Coding Process……………………………………………………....49 Inter-coder Reliability for Coding Writing Products…50 Coding Schemes………………………………..................51 Scheme for Directness………………………………………51 Schemes for Stylistic features…………………………52 Personal Disclosure………………………………….52 Use of Proverbs and Other Canonical Expressions................................53 Collective Self……………………………………….53 Non-assertiveness…………………………………...54 Data Analysis for Rhetorical Convention Questionnaire (RCQ)................................................56 Data Analysis for the Post Hoc Interview…………………56 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS…………………………………………………...57 Features in the Writing Products…………………………………….57 Analysis of Directness……………………………………………......57 Analyses of the Four Stylistic Features………………………….59 Analysis of Personal Disclosure……………………………..59 Analysis of Use of Proverbs and Other Canonical Expressions…………………………………………………........59 Analysis of Collective Self…………………………………...60 Analysis of Non-assertiveness………………………………...61 Conceptions of Specific Rhetorical Conventions across Languages…….............................................61 Existence of Culture/Language Specificity……………….62 Differences in Chinese/English Argumentative Writing.62 Specific Rhetorical Features of Chinese/English Argumentative Writing……………………………………….....63 Differences between Perceptions and Actual Practice on Directness................................................65 Summary of Findings……………………………………………………....68 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION..................................70 Insignificant Effect of Rhetorical Conventions on Writing Products……..............................................70 Directness…………………………………………………………....70 Use of Proverbs and Other Canonical Expressions………71 Collective Self……………………………………………………...72 Differences in Rhetorical Conceptions………………………………72 Discrepancy between Writing Products/Process and Conceptions of Rhetorical Conventions………………………………74 Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………77 Methodological Implications…………………………………………...79 Conclusion………………………………………………………………......81 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………....83 APPENDIXES…………………………………………………………………....88 Appendix A: Letter of Consent………………………………………….88 Appendix B: The Chinese Prompts………………………………………89 Appendix C: The English Prompts………………………………………90 Appendix D: Rhetorical Conception Questionnaire………………91 Appendix E: Post Hoc Interview Questions…………………………95 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. The Time Students Began Learning English……………33 Table 2. Design of the Writing Task…………………………………37 Table 3. Data Collection Procedures…………………………………39 Table 4. Pearson Correlation for the Two Raters’ Rating…40 Table 5. Schemes for Stylistic Features………………………….46 Table 6. Means Scores of Directness and Stylistic Features.........................................47 Table 7. ANOVA Results for Directness and Stylistic Features.........................................48 Table 8. The Different Aspects in Chinese/English Argumentative Essays………………………………………….53 Table 9. Characterization of Chinese/English Rhetorical Pattern……......................................54 Table 10. Students’ Perception of Directness in Chinese Argumentative Writing and in Their Own Chinese Writing………………………….......................56 Table 11. Students’ Perception of Directness in English Argumentative Writing and in Their Own English Writing……………………….........................58

    Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 71-94.

    Cahill, D. (2003). The myth of the “turn” in contrastive rhetoric. Writing Communication, 20(2), 170-194.

    Chandrasegaran, A. (2008). NNS students’ arguments in English: Observations in formal and informal contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 237-254.

    Chandrasegaran, A. & Kong, K. M. C. (2006). Stance-taking and stance-support in students’ online forum discussion. Linguistics and Education, 17, 374-390.

    Chang, V. W. (1987). Paragraph structure in Chinese and English: A pilot study. Studies in English Literature & Linguistics (May), 171-188.

    Chen, S. (1992). Pedagogy for discourse structure in ESL academic writing: Developmental factors and the socio-cultural background of L1. Selected Papers from the Eighth Conference on English Teaching & Learning in the Republic of China, 377-391.

    Cheng, T. (1993). Is Chinese thought pattern linear, circular or both? Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ball State University.

    Chou, H-L. (1989). Contrastive rhetoric: Chinese and English. A Collection of Papers Presented in the Sixth Conference on English Teaching & Learning in the Republic of China, 251-269.

    Connor, U. (1987). Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural differences. In U. Connor and R, Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages (pp. 57-72¬). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Connor, U. (2003). Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teaching and research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring teaching dynamics for second language writing (pp. 218-240). New York: Cambridage University Press.

    Connor, U., & Kaplan, R. B. (Eds.), (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Connor, U., & Laucer, J. (1988). Cross-cultural variation in persuasive students writing. In A. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures, (pp. 138-159). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Dunkelblau, H. S. (1990). A contrastive study of the organizational structure and stylistic elements of Chinese and English expository writing by Chinese high school students. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Education, Health, Nursing and Arts Professions, New York University.

    Eggington, W. (1987). Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effective communication. In U. Connor, & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text, (pp. 153-168). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Ellis, R. (2003). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.

    Erbaugh, M. S. (1990). Taking advantage of China's literary tradition in teaching Chinese Students. The Modern Language Journal, 74, 15-27.

    Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1989). Writing in a second language: Contrastive rhetoric. In D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing (pp. 263-283). New York: Longman.

    Gregg, J. (1986). Comments on Bernard A. Mohan and Winnie Au-Yeung Lo’s “Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors.” TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 354-348.

    Helms-Park, R., & Stapleton, P. (2003). Questioning the importance of individualized voice in undergraduate L2 argumentative writing: An empirical study with pedagogical implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 245-265.

    Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Hinkel, E. (1999). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2 academic writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 90-108). Cambridge University Press.

    Hoetker, J., & Brossell, G. (1986). A Procedure for Writing Content-fair Essay Examination Topics for Large-scale Writing Assignments. College Composition and Communication, 37(3), 328-335.

    Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6 (2), 183-205.

    Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning 16, 1-20.

    Kaplan, R.B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revised. In U. Connor & R.B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9-21). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Kirkpatrick, A. (1997). Traditional Chinese text structures and their influence on the writing in Chinese and English of contemporary mainland Chinese students. Journal of Second Language Writing 6(3), 223-244.

    Kirkpatrick, A. (2002). Chinese rhetoric through Chinese textbooks: Uniquely Chinese? In X. Lu, W. Jia & D. R. Heisey (Eds.), Chinese Communication Studies: Contexts and Comparisons (pp. 245-260). Westport, CT: Ablex.

    Kubota, R. (1992). Contrastive rhetoric of Japanese and English: A critical approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto, Canada.

    Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constricted by discourse: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly 33, 9-64.

    Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 7-27.

    Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly 25, 1, 123-143.

    Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly 29, 235-260.

    Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford University Press.

    Liu, L. (2005). Rhetorical education through writing instruction across cultures: A comparative analysis of select online instructional materials on argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 1-18.

    Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English 47(8), 790-806.

    Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 1, 45-60.

    Mohan, B. A., & Lo, W. A-Y. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 3, 515-534.

    Nakamura, H. (1981). Ways of thinking of eastern peoples. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.

    Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 79-81.

    Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996a). Audience and voice in current composition texts: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 21-34.

    Ricento, T. (1986). Comments on Bernard A. Mohan and Winnie Au-Yeung Lo’s “Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors.” TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 565-568.

    Scarcella, R. C. (1984). How writer orient their readers in expository essays: A comparative study of native and non-native English writers. TESOL Quarterly, 18(4), 671-688.
    Seow, A. (2003). The writing process and process writing. In J. C. Richards and W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching (pp. 315-320). Cambridge University Press.

    Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 765-774.

    Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Williams, J. M., and Colomb, G. G. (1993). The case for explicit teaching: Why what you don’t know won’t help you. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 252-264.

    Wu, S-Y., & Rubin, D. L. (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, 148-178.

    Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly 17(2), 165-187.

    Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 341-352.

    下載圖示
    QR CODE