Examining Argumentative Coherence in Essays by Undergraduate Students of English as a

311 Pages·2016·4.52 MB·English

Florida International University
FIU Digital Commons
FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School
2-16-2012
Examining Argumentative Coherence in Essays by
Undergraduate Students of English as a Foreign
Language in Mainland China and Their English
Speaking Peers in the United States
Lianhong Gao
Florida International University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at:http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd
Recommended Citation
Gao, Lianhong, "Examining Argumentative Coherence in Essays by Undergraduate Students of English as a Foreign Language in
Mainland China and Their English Speaking Peers in the United States" (2012).FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations.Paper 559.
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/559
This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected].
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
Miami, Florida

EXAMINING ARGUMENTATIVE COHERENCE IN ESSAYS BY
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN
MAINLAND CHINA AND THEIR ENGLISH SPEAKING PEERS IN THE UNITED
STATES

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
by
Lianhong Gao

2012
To: Dean Delia C. Garcia
College of Education

This dissertation, written by Lianhong Gao, and entitled Examining Argumentative
Coherence in Essays by Undergraduate Students of English as a Foreign Language in
Mainland China and Their English Speaking Peers in the United States, having been
approved in respect to style and intellectual content, is referred to you for judgment.
We have read this dissertation and recommend that it be approved.

_______________________________________
Teresa Lucas

_______________________________________
Benjamin Baez

_______________________________________
Kyle Perkins

_______________________________________
Eric Dwyer, Major Professor

Date of Defense: February 16, 2012

The dissertation of Lianhong Gao is approved.

_______________________________________
choose the name of dean of your college/school Dean Delia C. Garcia
choose the name of your college/school College of Education

_______________________________________
Dean Lakshmi N. Reddi
University Graduate School

Florida International University, 2012
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
At this moment of finishing a dissertation project, I feel really content with what I
have accomplished. I remember all my goals illustrated in my personal statement in the
application package. I planned to learn knowledge about how to conduct research; I
wanted to know more about bilingual education, especially how to teach bilingual
courses in Chinese higher education; I expected to know the complexity of educational
administration and how to conduct studies of educational policies; I wanted to know the
updated teaching methods of college English, assessment of language learning, what
coherence was and why teaching vocabulary was so important; I also wanted to know
how to develop EFL curricula and syllabi. Now, I have got what I wanted about
educational research, administration, and language learning and teaching principles, or
even more than I expected. Having achieved these goals, I hold, deep in my heart, the
gratitude for the help that I have been given by the people around me.
The major professor, Dr. Eric Dwyer, has been providing sufficient support for
my dissertation project, being so patient and encouraging, reviewing the drafts again and
again, linking my conceptual frameworks with paragraphs, sentences, phrases and
graphics. During this process, the contrasting rhetorical preferences have been made so
obvious that I like to present my ideas in sequential conceptualized frameworks while he
linked these less coherent frameworks into a smooth flow of meaning. Dr. Benjamin
Baez and his suggestion about the macro-structure of the dissertation refined the
beginning chapter, especially his reminder to give equal attention to both Chinese and
U.S. students’ English writing since this was a comparative study. As a result, the
research purpose of the study was elevated from focus on Chinese college students’
iii
English writing to college English intercultural rhetoric. Dr. Kyle Perkins reminded me of
the importance to have hypotheses specified in the study since a dissertation is expected
to include three types of knowledge: theoretical, procedural and empirical. Statements of
hypotheses are part of procedure knowledge and it’s necessary to have them included in
the statistical testing procedures. He also guided me into the assessment horizon of
writing, from which I got to know direct writing assessment, holistic writing assessment
and analytical writing assessment. The last category, analytic assessment, is what my
study was related to. From him, I also got to know that analytic assessment is good for
giving feedback. Dr. Teresa Lucas’s question about the relationship between concepts
and theories informed me of the importance of illustrating how theories were formulated
and their relationship with concepts. When I found the answer from the book about the
foundations of grounded theory, I realized how essential the knowledge was for a
doctoral student. Her reminding of mentioning how to do self-revision in the section of
implications was also helpful to refine the composing of the dissertation.
Dr. Linda Bliss and Dr. Isadore Newman informed me of all the knowledge
concerning educational research. The process of generating knowledge with research
methods and empirical data was always exciting to me. Dr. Patricia Barbetta’s grandma’s
theory aroused so much warmth from deep in my heart and her help with applying for the
funding of data collection and dissertation writing was also greatly appreciated. Caprila
Armeida’s step-by-step reminders of all the procedures were so important to my progress,
as to be cherished too.
I am also thankful for my husband. He has set a good academic example for me
and his encouragement and care in the past decade have been the most valuable in my life.
iv
Some weblog writer said that our parents had asked us to be persistent in our work, but
were we persistent in our love? The writer felt so regretful that we sometimes failed to do
so. This persistent love for and from my husband has been derived not from the flowers
and other gifts exchanging but the affectionate bonds nurtured in the common life shared
by both of us. The last but not the least important, I am also thankful for my little
daughter, who, with her intelligence, hard work and thoughtfulness, inspired me to be
persistent and carry through this substantial dissertation project.
Finally, I would like to deliver my acknowledgement to the participants in this
study who actually inspired a revised section of my teaching philosophy: students are not
empty containers for teachers to fill in with knowledge, but full containers of prospect
knowledge awaiting teachers to activate them. Once activated, knowledge will be
overflowing from the students’ minds, which must be such an exciting experience that
has been attracting more and more people to the profession.

v
ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION
EXAMINING ARGUMENTATIVE COHERENCE IN ESSAYS BY
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN
MAINLAND CHINA AND THEIR ENGLISH SPEAKING PEERS IN THE UNITED
STATES
by
Lianhong Gao
Florida International University, 2012
Miami, Florida
Professor Eric Dwyer, Major Professor
I conducted this study to provide insights toward deepening understanding of
association between culture and writing by building, assessing, and refining a conceptual
model of second language writing. To do this, I examined culture and coherence as well
as the relationship between them through a mixed methods research design. Coherence
has been an important and complex concept in ESL/EFL writing. I intended to study the
concept of coherence in the research context of contrastive rhetoric, comparing the
coherence quality in argumentative essays written by undergraduates in Mainland China
and their U.S. peers. In order to analyze the complex concept of coherence, I synthesized
five linguistic theories of coherence: Halliday and Hasan’s cohesion theory, Carroll’s
theory of coherence, Enkvist’s theory of coherence, Topical Structure Analysis, and
Toulmin’s Model. Based upon the synthesis, 16 variables were generated. Across these
16 variables, Hotelling t-test statistical analysis was conducted to predict differences in
argumentative coherence between essays written by two groups of participants. In order
vi
to complement the statistical analysis, I conducted 30 interviews of the writers in the
studies. Participants’ responses were analyzed with open and axial coding. By analyzing
the empirical data, I refined the conceptual model by adding more categories and
establishing associations among them.
The study found that U.S. students made use of more pronominal reference.
Chinese students adopted more lexical devices of reiteration and extended paralleling
progression. The interview data implied that the difference may be associated with the
difference in linguistic features and rhetorical conventions in Chinese and English. As far
as Toulmin’s Model is concerned, Chinese students scored higher on data than their U.S.
peers. According to the interview data, this may be due to the fact that Toulmin’s Model,
modified as three elements of arguments, have been widely and long taught in Chinese
writing instruction while U.S. interview participants said that they were not taught to
write essays according to Toulmin’s Model. Implications were generated from the
process of textual data analysis and the formulation of structural model defining
coherence. These implications were aimed at informing writing instruction, assessment,
peer-review, and self-revision.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

CHAPTER I ........................................................................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
THE RESEARCH CONTEXT ................................................................................................ 3
A MODEL OF COHERENCE FOR ARGUMENTATION ........................................................... 4
A CONCEPTUAL MODEL .................................................................................................. 5
PURPOSES OF THIS STUDY ............................................................................................... 6
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY .......................................................................................... 8
RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................................................. 11
OVERVIEW OF METHODS ............................................................................................... 14
ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................ 14
DELIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................. 15
DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER II ..................................................................................................................... 20
DEFINING COHERENCE ............................................................................................... 20
DEFINING COHERENCE ................................................................................................... 20
COHERENCE IN STUDENTS’ ENGLISH COMPOSITIONS .................................................... 29
CONTRASTIVE AND INTERCULTURAL RHETORIC ............................................................ 38

CHAPTER III ................................................................................................................... 43
THE RESEARCH CONTEXT: ........................................................................................ 43
CULTURAL CONVENTIONS, ENGLISH WRITING, AND COHERENCE ............... 43
THE UNDERPINNING THEORIES FOR CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC ...................................... 44
CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC IN CHINESE AND ENGLISH CONTEXTS ................................... 51
CHINESE STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGLISH WRITING IN U.S. UNIVERSITIES .................. 75
COHERENCE IN CROSS-CULTURAL CONTEXTS ............................................................... 85
SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 88

CHAPTER IV ................................................................................................................... 89
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ........................................................................ 89
RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................................................ 90
PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS ........................................................................................ 95
METHODOLOGY FOR RESEARCH QUESTION 1 ................................................................ 97
METHODOLOGY FOR RESEARCH QUESTION 2 .............................................................. 109
METHODOLOGY FOR RESEARCH QUESTION 3 .............................................................. 117
SYNOPSIS ..................................................................................................................... 117

viii
CHAPTER V .................................................................................................................. 119
STATISTICAL EXAMINATION OF DIFFERENCES IN ARGUMENTATIVE
COHERENCE ....................................................................................................... 119
COHESIVE DEVICES ..................................................................................................... 121
TOPICAL STRUCTURE ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 126
TOULMIN’S MODEL ..................................................................................................... 129
SYNOPSIS ..................................................................................................................... 132

CHAPTER VI ................................................................................................................. 134
CULTURAL, RHETORICAL, AND LINGUISTIC FACTORS ................................... 134
CULTURAL FACTORS ................................................................................................... 136
RHETORICAL FACTORS ................................................................................................ 169
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THREE FACTORS ............................................................ 187
CORRELATIONS AMONG THE 16 VARIABLES ................................................................ 192
SYNOPSIS ..................................................................................................................... 201

CHAPTER VII ................................................................................................................ 203
QUANTITATIVE INFERENCES, QUALITATIVE CONCLUSIONS AND
PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS ..................................................................... 203
QUANTITATIVE INFERENCES AND QUALITATIVE CONCLUSIONS .................................. 204
IMPLICATIONS FOR ENGLISH WRITING INSTRUCTION ................................................... 206
IMPLICATIONS FOR ENGLISH WRITING ASSESSMENT ................................................... 215
IMPLICATIONS FOR SELF-REVISION AND PEER-REVIEW ............................................... 217

CHAPTER VIII .............................................................................................................. 221
DISCUSSIONS OF THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONTRASTIVE
RHETORIC, ARGUMENTATIVE COHERENCE AND METHODOLOGICAL
ISSUES .................................................................................................................. 221
THE RELATIONSHIP OF EFL WRITING AND THE SOCIAL DISCOURSE ........................... 221
RHETORICAL FEATURES IN ESSAYS BY U.S. BILINGUAL ENGLISH SPEAKING COLLEGE
STUDENTS .................................................................................................................... 226
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEORIES OF ARGUMENTATIVE COHERENCE, SECOND LANGUAGE
WRITING AND CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC ...................................................................... 229
DISCUSSION ABOUT RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS .............................................. 235
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH STUDIES .......................................................... 246

EPILOGUE ..................................................................................................................... 249
DISCRIMINATION OR INTEGRATION? --- MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION FROM COLLEGE
ENGLISH INTERCULTURAL RHETORICAL PERSPECTIVE ................................................ 250
DISCIPLINARY ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY: COLLEGE ENGLISH RHETORIC .............. 254

LIST OF REFFENCES ................................................................................................... 256

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 272

ix