05-Taiwanese argumentation skills-Contrastive rhetoric perspective_Fei-Wen Cheng, Yueh-Miao Chen

23 Taiwanese argumentation skills: Contrastive rhetoric perspective Fei-Wen Cheng, Yueh-Miao Chen National Chiayi University, National Chung-Cheng University Abstract Argumentative writing is a fundamental writing style across various EAP and ESP writing tasks. Despite its importance, no second language writing research has examined how Taiwanese students compose this genre based upon a well-established theoretical model of Western argumentation. The goal of this study is to bridge this gap by building upon Stephen Toulmin’s (2003) model of argument to examine the use of English argumentation features. Participants included 40 Taiwanese and 39 US college freshmen writers. Writing samples collected included 119 essays, 80 of them were composed by Taiwanese participants (40 Chinese and 40 English texts) and 39 by American students. The findings indicate that Taiwanese student arguments are less extended and complex, and display a limited range and quantity of argumentative structure in comparison to American arguments. Yet, both Taiwanese and American students are weak at handling oppositional structures, an essential trait differentiating Chinese and English rhetoric. Equally important, Taiwanese students, when composing Chinese texts are able to construct certain argument features in a way similar to American students. This illustrates that culture may not necessarily account fully for the argument features manifested in Taiwanese writing of English. Other factors, such as L2 language proficiency and developmental factors, also play a mediating role in the use of argument structures. Keywords: argumentative writing, contrastive rhetoric, Toulmin’s model, second language writing, genre 1. Introduction English argumentative writing, based on Aristotelian rhetoric, has the goal of convincing an audience (Connor, 1996) in a situation where there exists a conflict Taiwan International ESP Journal, Vol. 1: 1, 23-50, 2009 24 between the beliefs and attitudes of the writer/speaker and the reader/audience (Hinkel, 2002). This rhetorical tradition emphasizes articulation of one’s stance, justification of one’s position and ideas, a logical progression of one’s ideas, and refutation of opposing arguments to defend one’s claim (Connor, 1996; Hinkel, 1994 & 2002; Matalene, 1985; Oliver, 1971). These discourse practices are embedded within a larger socio-cultural context that encourages individual self-expression, creativity and critical thinking. In contrast, the goals of Chinese rhetoric under the influence of Confucian philosophy and classical Chinese rhetoric are to achieve general harmony, to express the views of the group, and to promote social cohesion (Becker, 1986; Hinkel, 2002; Kaplan, 1966 Matalene, 1985). To achieve these purposes, Confucian persuasion includes employing various indirect modes of expression to suggest one’s claim, supporting one’s ideas with appeals to history, to tradition, and to authority rather than one’s own individual opinions or beliefs, relying on accepted patterns of expression, and avoiding any contentious forms of argument (Hinkel, 2002; Matalene, 1985; Oliver, 1971; Scollon, 1991). Furthermore, since the social values and practices under the influences of Confucian culture emphasize group harmony and conformity, Asian students in general are portrayed as deficient in critical thinking abilities (Atkinson, 1997; Fox, 1994), skills essential to composing effective English argumentative writing. Qualities such as conformity run counter to the spirit of critical thinking since critical thinking involves individualistic and adversarial practices(Atkinson, 1997). Given these socio-cultural differences, previous L2 writing research has characterized several writing features manifested in Chinese-speaking students’ English/Chinese writing and assumed these features are transferred from Chinese rhetorical traditions (Hinkel, 2002; Kaplan, 1966; Matalene, 1985; Scollon, 1991; Shen, 1989). This presumed rhetorical transfer often leads to ineffective English writing due to its incongruence with Anglo-American rhetorical traditions. Often, these researchers examine features of general essay framework: location of thesis statement (Shen, 1989; Wu & Rubin, 2000), lack of self-expression (Gregg, 1986; Bloch & Chi, 1995), or the general macro-level Chinese organizational pattern qi-cheng-zhuan-ho (Cai, 1993; Kaplan, 1966; Matalene, 1985). These features are generalized as Chinese rhetorical Fei-Wen Cheng, Yueh-Miao Chen 25 practices across all genres. Although the above studies do provide insight into how Chinese-speaking students may transfer these general rhetorical strategies to their English argumentative writing, several important rhetorical features associated with Western argumentation have never been examined, such as the negotiation process. Negotiation process in argumentative discourse refers to the way one deals with opposing views (Golder & Coirier, 1994). By addressing opposition, a writer can continue to present a claim as being valid and acceptable even under circumstances that might refute or undermine its strength (Crammond, 1998; Golder & Coirier, 1994; Ramage, Bean, & Johnson, 2001). Research in L2 writing has been hindered by the lack of utilizing a well-established theoretical model of Western argumentation to examine how Taiwanese students compose this genre. Thus, there is no accurate picture of how Taiwanese students compose English argumentative writing and how effective their English argumentation is. The purpose of the current project is to take a genre approach, drawing upon Stephen Toulmin’s (1958 & 2003) model of argument (as elaborated in Crammond, 1998), to examine closely how Taiwanese students employ diverse structures to defend the validity of their thesis in their English writing, and to what extent culture exerts influence over a Taiwanese student’s ability to compose effective argumentative writing. 2. Toulmin’s model Toulmin (1958 & 2003) analyzed arguments in terms of six functional elements and their relationships: (a) claim, (b) data, (c) warrant, (d) backing, (e) qualifier, and (f) rebuttal (Toulmin, 2003, pp. 90-94). A claim refers to the conclusion to be argued for and data denotes the facts or the premises drawn upon as the basis for the claim (p. 90). Toulmin introduced the concept of warrant, which serves as the bridge to justify how the claim is derived from the data (p. 91). Backing refers to facts, authorities, or explanations used to strengthen or support the warrant (p. 91). Qualifiers refer to modals, such as probably, possibly, perhaps (p. 92). By qualifying or narrowing the TIESPJ, Vol. 1: 1, 2009 26 claim, a qualifier serves as an indication that the claim is not absolute or universal. A rebuttal specifies the conditions which might defeat the major claim (p. 94). Toulmin’s model is suited to analyzing structural variations in argumentative writing because of its broad acceptance and wide application. First of all, his model is developmentally appropriate for the analysis of general L2 argumentative essays at ESL/EFL college levels since standards for this type of writing are general enough to cover the basic structures underlying various types of argumentative discourse. Although several theories of argumentation, such as Walton’s (1996) argumentation schemes, and van Eemeren & Grootendorst’s (1992) pragma-dialectics have been proposed in contemporary history of Western rhetoric, these alternatives to Toulmin’s model all assume a level of sophistication beyond the ability of L2 college students and lack broad acceptance in pedagogical and research contexts. In addition, the rhetorical elements specified in Toulmin’s model can predict and explain the textual quality of students’ argumentative/persuasive writing (McCann, 1989; Connor, 1990; Knudson, 1992; Ferris, 1994; Crammond, 1998). Furthermore, several researchers (Knudson, 1992; Yeh, 1998; Cheng, in press) have adapted Toulmin’s model to design instructional programs for native-English or ESL/EFL learners and have reported improvements in student writing in terms of an increase in the use of Toulmin’s rhetorical elements. 3. Purpose of the study The goal of this study is to describe Taiwanese students’ ability to compose English argumentative writing. To gain a comprehensive understanding of cultural effects on rhetorical features, a cross-language and cross-nationality comparison design has been adopted. By comparing Taiwanese students’ English writing not only with their own Chinese writing but also with the argumentative texts of their American counterparts, we should be able to ascertain whether certain rhetorical features are culture-typical styles, patterns induced by language proficiency, or other potential factors. Specifically, this study addresses the following concerns: Fei-Wen Cheng, Yueh-Miao Chen 27 1. How do Taiwanese students employ diverse argument structures to justify their claim in their English writing as compared to their American counterparts? 2. How do Taiwanese students employ diverse argument structures to justify their claim in their Chinese writing as compared to their American counterparts? 3. How do Taiwanese students employ diverse argument structures to justify their claim in their English writing as compared to their Chinese writing? 4. Method 4.1 Participants Participants included 40 Taiwanese and 39 US college students. The Taiwanese participants were freshman English majors in Taiwan, who have received one-semester of instruction on English expository writing at a college level, but have yet to receive any instruction on English argumentation. An equal number of US freshmen enrolled in a required composition class in a large comprehensive university participated in the present study. The number of participants recruited for this study was restricted because of the heavy workload involved in the textual analysis. 4.2 Instrument: Writing prompts Given that the Taiwanese students were required to compose two essays, in order to avoid collecting contaminated data, writing prompts for two different topics were designed so that students would not respond to the same topic twice. The Taiwanese students and US students were assigned the following prompts. In the first prompt (Topic 1), participants were given a hypothetical rhetorical situation describing a foreign student studying in the US. The student had to go back to his hometown in Africa during the school year since his father was ill and his relatives insisted he should stay and take over the family business. However, this student was torn in the conflict between family obligations and his personal pursuits. Participants were TIESPJ, Vol. 1: 1, 2009 28 asked to give their opinions about whether they agreed or disagreed that this African student should give up his studies and go back to help his family. This writing prompt was adapted from an ESL textbook, Identity by Shaules, Tsujioka & Lida (2003, p.6). The second prompt (Topic 2) presented a controversial issue involving the famous long-necked women on the Thai/Myanmar border. Participants were given background information about the Padaung tradition, which requires women to stretch their necks by wearing brass coils, and about the impact of tourism on this tradition and the lifestyles of these women. Participants were asked to argue whether tourists should or should not visit these long-necked women. This writing prompt was adapted from an ESL textbook, NorthStar Building Skills for the TOEFL iBT, Intermediate by Beaumont (2005, pp. 96-97). 4.3 Data collection In total, the writing samples collected included 119 essays, 80 of them composed by the Taiwanese participants and 39 by American ones (See Table 1). Taiwanese participants composed in-class essays on both topics, with order of topic and language (Chinese or English) counterbalanced. American participants wrote only on one of the topics, half randomly assigned. The American participants composed only one 50-minute English essay in their freshmen composition class, half randomly assigned one of the topics. To prevent topic and treatment order effects, half of the Taiwanese participants composed Chinese essays first and the English essays the following week, and vice versa. Also, half of the participants wrote the Chinese essays on the first topic and the English essays on the second topic, and vice versa. Their essays were hand-written in class, generally within a 50-minute class period. The writing samples were collected at the beginning of the second semester of their freshmen year, before they received any instruction on English argumentation. Thus, the participants have general knowledge about how to compose an English essay ensuring researchers that their Chinese and English texts were analyzable using specific criteria based on English argumentation. Also, their lack of knowledge Fei-Wen Cheng, Yueh-Miao Chen 29 about English argumentation prevents their transference of these rhetorical elements to their Chinese writing so that the data is not contaminated for the purpose of exploring cultural effects on their English argumentative writing. Table 1 Student written texts by topic and language Taiwanese students American students N= 20 N= 20 N= 20 N= 19 Topic 1: 20 Chinese essays Topic 2: 20 English essays Topic 1: 20 English essays Topic 2: 20 Chinese essays Topic 1: 20 English essays Topic 2: 19 English essays 4.4 Data analysis All participant texts were subjected to the following analyses before conducting any statistical analysis. Step one: Identifying argument substructures. To examine student texts, the six major elements in Toulmin’s model— claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttals— are further elaborated in the present study. Note that Toulmin’s model has been criticized for its weakness as an analysis model since its applicability to analyzing full-length arguments is problematic (Fulkerson, 1996; Inch & Warnick, 2002). Thus, Toulmin’s model was modified in this study for the purpose of developing a model that can deal with the range of argument structures that may be encountered in English argumentation. Following Crammond’s study (1998), four structural elaborations are added to Toulmin’s model: data backing, constraint, countered-rebuttal and alternative solution. First of all, the backing element is further elaborated in the present study to include not only backing for the warrant but also backing for the data. Second, qualifier is expanded to include not only modality but also constraint, which refers to conditions under which claim will apply. Thirdly, in addition to reservation (refers to Toulmin’s rebuttal), two more oppositional structures are added: countered-rebuttal and alternative solution. This elaboration of Toulmin’s model is represented in Table 2. TIESPJ, Vol. 1: 1, 2009 30 Table 2 Comparison of rhetorical elements in Toulmin’s model and in the present study Elements in Toulmin’s model Elaborated elements in present study Operational definition/ Participants’ examples (Italics) Claim claim The conclusion to be argued for. If I were the African student, I would quit school and go back to take care of my father and take over my family business like him. Data data Facts or premises drawn upon as the basis for the claim. At this period, going back assisting his father’s business is more essential than finishing his study. Warrant warrant General assumption used to connect the claim and the data, such as moral principles and cultural values. Family is more important than personal pursuit. Backing backing (including warrant backing and data backing) Explanations, the background or context, examples and authorities used to support the warrant or data. At this period, going back assisting his father’s business is more essential than finishing his study. *He still has the opportunity to finish his study.* (data backing) Qualifier modality constraints Modal terms I strongly recommended him to go back. Conditions under which the claim will apply He only need to go back to help his father if he were the only son in his family. Rebuttal reservation countered- rebuttal Conditions under which the claim will not apply. He should go back but not under the pressure of his family. Opposing views that challenge the writer’s claim and the writer’s refutation to the opposing views Some people may claim that we should stick to our dream instead of sacrificing it for our family. Although pursuing goal is important, a person’s biggest responsibility is not to himself but to his family. alternative solution A possible solution to the problem statement that is under consideration other than the claim advanced by the writer Tourists can help this tribe in another way. They can donate money to set up school. Among these argument substructures, claim and data are considered to be the backbone of every argument while other elements are regarded as optional structures. All writing samples (See Appendix A for a sample of argument diagram drawn by the Fei-Wen Cheng, Yueh-Miao Chen 31 researchers based upon a Taiwanese participant’s English essay) were subjected to an analysis of argument substructures and argument chain (consisting minimally of a claim-data complex). Identification of arguments was based on semantic structures and linguistic elements that typically signal the presence of supporting data as suggested in Crammond (1998). Moreover, when the connection between claim and data is not explicitly linked by conjunctive devices, the present researchers made judgments about the writer’s intent by inferring arguments based on knowledge of reasoning structures. For further analysis, all argument structures were subjected to double-coding, assigning two labels to one substructure. For example, data was also double-coded as claim when it is followed by backing. This double-coding can facilitate the analysis of argument chains. Two independent raters established inter-rater reliability with the first author in terms of these argument structures. The three raters coded the same 30 essays (38%) of a randomly selected sample comprised of the written texts in English. On the analysis of various argument structures, the inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.73 to 0.98. Step two: Analyzing structural complexity. To explore the extent to which students develop and elaborate their arguments, the following features were analyzed for each text (See Table 3). The quantitative measure of argument size is the total number of argument chains (Each argument chain consists of claim and data) to be found in a text. Depth measure includes the longest argument chain in an argument structure presented in a text. Elaboration is measured on two accounts: the maximum variety (how many different types) of optional substructures a participant incorporates into an argument structure and the total number of optional structures. Table 3 Quantitative measures for overall textual variables Argument features Quantitative measure Size Total number of an argument (a Claim-Data Complex, labeled as “Argument 1, Argument 2...” in the Appendix A) per text Substructures The number of each argument substructure (i.e. claim, data, warrant, reservation, etc.) used in each text Depth The number of a Claim-Data Complex presented in the longest argument chain per text Elaborations 1) Maximum variety (how many different types) of optional substructures2) Total number of optional substructures TIESPJ, Vol. 1: 1, 2009 32 After completing the textual analyses as illustrated above, two types of MANOVA and one repeated measures ANOVA were undertaken for the present design. Significant MANOVA effects were followed up by separate univariate ANOVAs for and of the dependent variables. All textual features, acting as depen