Argument structures in Chinese university students’ argumentative writing: a contrastive study

Full text not archived in this repository.

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Liu, X. and Furneaux, C. (2015) Argument structures in Chinese university students’ argumentative writing: a contrastive study. English Text Construction, 8 (1). pp. 65-87. ISSN 1874-8775 doi: 10.1075/etc.8.1.03liu

Abstract/Summary

Situated within a Systemic Functional Linguistics genre paradigm, this study adopted a function-based linguistic approach to examine the argument structures in English writing produced by Chinese university students of English as foreign language (EFL). Their English writing was contrasted with three other sets of argumentative essays in order to explore differences and similarities in the use of argument structures. The four sets of essays were produced by three groups of university students: native English- and Chinese-speaking university students and Chinese university EFL students. Participants’ interviews and questionnaire responses were also collected. The study found that most native English-speaking participants used an analytical arguing strategy, while most Chinese-speaking university participants preferred a hortatory argument structure both in their English and Chinese writing. It was also found that Chinese participants’ English writing was influenced by both English and Chinese.

Altmetric Badge

Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/53208
Identification Number/DOI 10.1075/etc.8.1.03liu
Refereed Yes
Divisions Interdisciplinary Research Centres (IDRCs) > Centre for Literacy and Multilingualism (CeLM)
Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Literature and Languages > English Language and Applied Linguistics
Publisher John Benjamins
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar