The Contrastive Rhetoric: The Distinction in the Use of the Metatext, Preview and Review, in the Result and the Discussion Section by Saudi and Chinese Researchers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1209.21Keywords:
contrastive rhetoric, metatext, research articlesAbstract
The contrastive rhetoric focuses on the impact of the culture of the writers on the language that they use as well as the organization that they adapt. Hence, the current study sheds the light on the similarities and the differences in the way that Saudi and Chinese researchers use the metatexts, the previews and the reviews. The investigation accounts for the frequencies and the relevant percentages of the use of the previews and the reviews in the results and discussion section in Saudi and Chinese research articles. The findings show Saudi and Chinese researchers have similar tendency in applying the metatexts in the research articles. The use of the preview is close with an increase in the Chinese research articles, whereas Saudi researchers adapted the reviews higher than the Chinese researchers. The results are significant for the pedagogical purposes as they provide insight regarding the writing pattern by different linguistic background.
References
Al Fadda, H. (2012). Difficulties in academic writing: From the perspective of King Saud University postgraduate students. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 123-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n3p123
Bland, J. (Ed.). (2015). Teaching English to young learners: Critical issues in language teaching with 3-12 year olds. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Casanave, C. P., & Hubbard, P. (1992). The writing assignments and writing problems of doctoral students: Faculty perceptions, pedagogical issues, and needed research. English for specific purposes, 11(1), 33-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(92)90005-U
Chang, L. (2014). The relationship between metatext and college students’ writing quality. In Proceedings of the 2014 2nd International Conference on Advances in Social Science, Humanities and Management. 2nd International Conference on Advances in Social Science, Humanities, and Management (ASSHM-14). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/asshm-14.2014.30
Connor, U. (1998). Contrastive rhetoric: Developments and challenges. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International Review of English Studies, 33, 105–116.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1989). Writing in a second language: Contrastive rhetoric. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 263–283). New York: Longman.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20.
Kaplan, R. B. (1980). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. In K. Croft (Ed.), Readings on English as a second language for teachers and teacher trainees 2nd ed. (pp. 399–418). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9–21). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kaplan, R. B. (1988). Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes toward a theory of contrastive rhetoric. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across language and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 20, 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.006
Lan, Y., Sung, Y., & Chang, K. (2007). A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning system for collaborative early EFL reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 130-151.
Liebman, J. D. (1992). Toward a new contrastive rhetoric: Differences between Arabic and Japanese rhetorical instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing. 1, 141–166.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish–English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3–22.
Mohan, B., & Lo, W. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 515-534.
Ozdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 141, 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011
Tarrayo, V. (2011). Metatext in results-and-discussion sections of ESL/EFL research: A contrastive analysis of Philippine English, Taiwanese English, and Iranian English. i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching. 1(3), 39-52. 10.26634/jelt.1.3.1594.
