Reconceptualizing China English: an investigation of model argumentative texts by Chinese ELT...
42
Reconceptualizing China English: an investigation of model argumentative texts by Chinese ELT teachers Shi Yongming [email protected] University of Nottingham Ningbo Campus
Transcript of Reconceptualizing China English: an investigation of model argumentative texts by Chinese ELT...
Reconceptualizing China English: an investigation of model
argumentative texts by Chinese ELT teachers
Shi Yongming
University of Nottingham Ningbo Campus
Abstract
It is suggested that China English has been studied from the traditional “users” perspective, where
scholars tend to use its linguistic features to mark the unique identities of its users, while few studies
focus on how English language is actually used in Chinese contexts to fulfil specific local purposes.
This study attempts to address this gap and investigate a particular practice of English language by
local Chinese ELT teachers. The data of this study consists of 15 model argumentative texts selected
from three IELTS exam cracking books authored by local English teachers. By drawing on the
analytical tools based on Systemic Functional Linguistics, this study examines the lexicogrammatical
features of the texts, in terms of the realization of interpersonal meanings. The findings suggest that,
on the one hand, it seems difficult to use particular linguistic features as evidence to pinpoint the
cultural identities of the writers. On the other hand, these linguistic features are arguably more
associated with the “uses” of the language, namely, constructing argumentation texts for pedagogical
purposes. In so doing, the study questions the role of identifying Chinese characteristics played in
conceptualizing China English, and calls for further investigations of the uses of English in various
new local Chinese contexts.
1. Introduction
China English has been studied based on the traditional “user”-based World Englishes paradigm,
where researchers tend to concentrate on the documentation of structural variations, including
phonology, lexis, syntax, and discourse and pragmatics, to mark the distinctive cultural identities of
its users, such as the works of He and Li (2009) and Xu (2006). Some scholars, however, start to
problemtize such approach, questioning the reliability of such linguistic evidence (Mahboob &
Szenes, 2010). In other words, if structural variations are used to mark the distinctiveness of China
English, then those structural features should only be identified in China English. The reality,
however, is that many structural features of China English can be found in other English varieties.
This can be exemplified by the grammatical features such as avoidance of definite article, passive
voice and negative questions identified by Zhang (2003) can also be found in African English, Indian
English and Philippine English (Y. Kachru & Nelson, 2006). In addition, scholars tend to consider
Chinese linguistic and cultural norms as the only contextual variable to explain and predict the
rhetorical features in the new English variety, while overlook the sociolinguistic contexts in which
the language is used, such as its audiences and the communicative purposes (Liang, 2012; You,
2008).
You‟s work (2008), on the other hand, has offered some new perspectives of conceptualizing China
English. In particular, You (2008) suggests, instead of simply documenting Chinese characteristics in
the English language used by the Chinese people, it seems more significant to explore the ways in
which English language is used in particular Chinese contexts for particular audiences. Accordingly,
You (2008) explores the effect of the various communicative contexts on the language users‟ agency
of adopting particular rhetorical strategies, and suggests that these rhetorical strategies are distinctive
from those identified in other studies, and they may not necessarily bear characteristics of Chinese
language or culture. In other words, the shaping of particular rhetorical strategies seems to be related
to the “uses” of the English language in particular contexts, such as sharing experiences and express
feelings in an online forum, which suggest the importance of reconceptualising China English by
investigating how English language is used as meaning-making resources in various local Chinese
contexts (You, 2008).
However, the work is not without its own limitations. Firstly, You‟s (2008) work is more of a study
of stylistic variation (Hasan, 2009), which focus more on the variation of language style of conveying
specific meanings, such as the “scattered style” English for expressing emotional feelings (You,
2008), without examining the writers‟ choices of lexicogrammar. In addition, when examining such
rhetorical strategies, You draws on Hallidayan (1973) concept of the context of situation and culture.
The context model, however, is used in a vague and superficial way, which does not seem to specify
from a linguistic perspective the ways in which computer-mediated contexts activate certain
rhetorical strategies to fulfil the communicative purposes of the language users. It is necessary to
point out that this is not enough if our research purpose is to investigate the meaning-making
potentials of China English, since the study does not recognize the crucial role of lexicogrammar in
bringing about particular meanings (Hasan, 2009), namely, how does a specific context affect the
language user‟s choices of lexicogrammar in constructing specific meanings, therefore forming a
particular language style?
To address this question, Hallidayan Systemic Functinal Linguistics (SFL) has proved to be effective
in exploring the functions of English language in various contexts (Mahboob, 2010; Mahboob &
Szenes, 2010). This is because SFL considers meaning and social variation as playing the central role
in understanding the uses of a language within a specific context (Mahboob & Szenes, 2010) and
theorizes the dialogistic relationship between language and context, in the sense that “linguistic
meaning construes context, and context activates linguistic meaning (Hasan, 1993).” In addition, SFL
consider the text as the object of linguistic analysis, because a text is defined as a selection and
actualization of the meaning potential of its social context, which is further realized in specific
choices of lexicogrammar (Martin & Rose, 2008). In this process, texts also realize the three types of
meanings within a particular type of situation, including ideational, interpersonal and textual
(Halliday, 1978; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). In brief, in the context of the argumentative texts,
ideational meanings (field) refers to the resources construing experiences pertaining to a particular
topic of the text; interpersonal meanings (tenor) are the resources enacting writer‟s attitude and
construing putative readership of the texts, and textual meanings (mode) deals with the linguistic
resources used for organizing information and unfolding a particular text.
Against this background, this study presents an SFL-oriented analysis of a local practice of English
language by Chinese ELT (English Language Teaching) teachers, namely, the model texts of English
argumentation written by Chinese ELT teachers. Apparently, argumentation is widely considered as
an important text type in academic discourse, which is, therefore, usually chosen to test candidates‟
English writing skills in various English language tests, such as TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign
Language) and IELTS (International English Language Test System) (Coffin & Hewings, 2004).
However, when investigating linguistic features of China English, few studies consider
argumentative texts as an important source of data. Meanwhile, studies which do focus on the
English argumentative essay writing (Cai, 1999; Ji, 2011; Wang & Li, 1993), tend to use learner‟
language as research data, where the linguistic features presented may not be stable enough to claim
as the linguistic features of China English. Also, these studies fail to consider the function of
argumentative texts in relation to the putative readers within particular contexts, and such contextual
variables as the function of the text and its putative audience, may contribute to the shaping of texts
by means of particular choices of lexicogrammar (Halliday, 1978).
Accordingly, it is necessary to point out the functions of these model texts. In order to help Chinese
English learners to improve their performance in the writing component of those high-stake tests,
such as IELTS and TOEFL, there are many exam cracking books written by Chinese ELT teachers,
most of which promote the learning strategy of imitating and even memorizing the sample essays
contained in the books (Gu, 2008; Liu, 2011). It seems that Chinese English learners prefer such
learning strategy, as it is a Chinese traditional way of teaching and learning to write (Kachru, 1991;
Quirk, 1990). Therefore, the texts in these test preparation materials are usually crafted by Chinese
ELT teachers as examples of what a high-quality English argumentative text for a particular test
should be, which function as learning targets for language learners. The texts, in other words, are
written, instead of convincing readers of certain viewpoints, for pedagogical purposes. In spite of
their significance, works on such model argumentative text written by Chinese expert English users
are very few.
Therefore, this study aims to address this research gap by investigating the linguistic features of
English model argumentative texts selected from three exam cracking books authored by Chinese
ELT teachers. Since texts in argumentation genre tend to be interactional and such interpersonal
features are crucial in constructing a high-quality argumentative text (Coffin & Hewings, 2004; Ho,
2011), this study focuses on the lexicogrammatical resources that are employed to realize
interpersonal meanings. There are two research questions guiding this study. Firstly, how English
language is used by Chinese ELT teachers to construct interpersonal meanings in model essays?
Secondly, how do the texts‟ lexicogrammatical choices relate to their local purposes?
2. Research Methodology
The research subject of this study consists of 15 texts selected from three commercial IELTS
preparation textbooks. In order to answer the research questions, the analytical tools based on the
Appraisal theory developed by Martin and White (2005) are employed in this study. Further
elaborations in terms of data source and the analytical frameworks are presented in the following
sections.
2.1 Data Source
The source of data consists of three commercial exam cracking books for IELTS (International
English Language Testing System), including Liu‟s (2011)“剑桥雅思最新真题题源详解—写作（学
术类）（第二版）”, Gu‟s (2008) “雅思写作套路剖析与范例大全” and the New Oriental School‟s
(2006)“雅思写作胜经”. In this study, the three books are coded as book One (Liu, 2011), book Two
(NewOrientalSchool, 2006), and book Three (Gu, 2008). According to the prefaces of the books, all
the three books are designed as reference books for IELTS candidates who need guidance on the
writing component of the exam. In particular, book One mainly collects model essays written by
Chinese ELT teachers in response to the latest exam questions, while book Two and book Three are
specifically written for pedagogical purposes, which contain many types of exercises, such as
translation, sentence correction and gap filling, in terms of the use of particular words, sentences, or
even paragraph writing. These exercises aim to help candidates to memorize and imitate particular
choices of lexicogrammar, such as the uses of particular words or sentence patterns, which, according
to the writers of these books, can be critical for candidates to have a high score in IELTS test. In
addition, it is noted that the author of Book Three (Gu, 2008) particularly stresses the importance of
getting rid of Chinese-style English and thus trying to present the model essays that are acceptable
according to the norms of ENL (English as Native Language) speakers.
All these books contain a fairly large collection of argumentative essays on the topics related to
IELTS test, which are written by Chinese ELT teachers without involvement of ENL speakers. This
can be checked by the fact that, if the essays are written by ENL speakers, this feature tends to be
mentioned in the preface as a selling point of the book, such as Fitzgerald and Zhang‟s (2005). As is
suggested by the prefaces of each book, many Chinese ELT teachers are involved in writing the
model texts of book One and book Two, while texts in book Three are all written by the author of the
book. In addition, it is necessary to point out that, while there are two tasks in the writing component
of IELTS, this study only focuses on the model texts in response to the Task 2, which requires
candidates to write an argumentative text. Since each of the books contains model texts for both Task
1 and Task 2, this study selects the specific chapter which provides Task 2 model texts in each book.
To create the data set, three sets of essay were collected from Chapter One in Book One, Chapter
Three in Book Two, and Chapter Three in Book Three, respectively. As a result, 57 texts were
collected from book One, 40 texts from book Two, and 114 texts from book Three. For each book,
texts were numbered and a random number was generated using the website Random.org(for
example, between 1 and 57), and the essay corresponding to that number was selected. This process
was repeated until all 5 essays were chosen in each book. In this way, the selection process is
randomized, so as to avoid researcher‟s sample bias (Wagner, 2010). 15 texts in total were selected
from the three books, which were labelled as B1, B2 and B3. The texts in each book were,
accordingly, labelled as B1T1, B2T2, B3T4, etc. Since the purpose of this study is to investigate the
interpersonal features of a text, the study did not control the topics of the model essays, which are
believed to be more relevant to the construing of ideational meanings (Nakamura, 2009). It is also
necessary to point out that the purpose of this study is not to judge which text is better written, but to
examine the differences in the writers‟ lexicogrammatical choices in relation to the realization of
interpersonal meanings.
2.2 Analytical Framework—Engagement Analysis
For investigating the interpersonal meanings of the texts, the present study adopts the Engagement
analysis, which is based on the Appraisal theory developed within SFL tradition. The Appraisal
framework, mainly developed by Martin and White (2005), consists of three sub-systems, including,
Attitude, Graduation and Engagement. Attitude deals with people‟s feelings towards things or
behaviours. Graduation is the resources for fine-tuning the scale of attitudinal meanings.
Engagement refers to the linguistic resources “by which speakers/writers adopt a stance towards to
the value positions being referenced by the text and with respect to those they address.” (Martin &
White, 2005, p. 92) In this study, the analysis of Engagement resources aims to examine how the
linguistic features which are significant for English argumentation, including audience awareness and
seeking alignment with the putative readers (Ho, 2011; Swain, 2007), are selected by the writers of
these model essays.
The coding system of Engagement is mainly based on the framework created by Martin and White
(2005). In Engagement system, a text contains propositions, which are referred to “something that
can be argued, but argued in a particular way. ” (Eggins, 2005, p.172) The propositions can be
generally divided into “monoglossic” (bare or categorical assertions) and “heteroglossic”(Bakhtin,
1981). According to Martin and White (2005), a monoglossic utterance is characterised as being
factual and objective, which does not acknowledge the existence of alternative positions or
viewpoints, such as extract (a) below, while a heteroglossic utterance invokes or allows for
alternatives, indicating the proposition is only one view against many other possible ones, as in
extract (b).
(a) One of the most conspicuous trends in the 21st
century is a closer connection between countries,
in both economic and cultural aspects. [B3T1]
(b) It seems that in some countries, the locals have become more accustomed to exotic cultures.
[B3T1]
The heteroglossic propositions can be further classified into two broad categories, namely, “dialogic
expansion” and “dialogic contraction”, depending on whether the propositions actively allow for or
fend off the alternative voices(Martin & White, 2005). Both of these two categories contain several
options, including “Disclaim”, “Proclaim”, “Entertain”, and “Attribute”. “Disclaim” and
“Proclaim” construes the meanings which dialogically close up the possibilities of alternative views,
while “Entertain” and “Attribute” refers to the wordings by which the dialogic space is expanded
(see figure 1).
Figure 1: Engagement system(Martin & White, 2005, p. 134)
Drawing on the works of Lee (2008), Coffin and Hewings (2004), Ho (2011), and Eggins (2005),
additional analysis is conducted, in terms of the monoglossic propositions and Entertain resources.
The analysis of the monoglossic propositions aims to provide insights of how monoglossic resources
are used in argumentative texts, by adopting Ho‟s (2011) detailed categorizing scheme of
monoglossic propositions. According to Ho (2011), monoglossic propositions can be divided into the
three categories of “Intra-textual”, “Inter-textual”, and “Narrative”. Inter-textual propositions refer
to the statements which are the “bare assertions” made without any evidence in the text. These
statements are made based on the presuppositions shared between the writer and the readers as
common knowledge or a belief, which is exemplified in extract (a) below. Meanwhile, Intra-textual
propositions are assertions based on the supporting evidence available somewhere within the text,
such as the extract (b) below. Lastly, Narrative propositions refer to the cases where the writer
deploys a narrative style in constructing his or her argument, which is illustrated in extract (c) below.
The sentences in extract (c) simply describe a particular situation in China as an observer, which
contains no explicit argument, but implicitly carries the evaluative value.
(a) One of the most conspicuous trends in the 21st century is a closer connection between countries, in
both economic and cultural aspects. [M: Inter]
(b) Culture is not a disgrace to but an asset of a country[M: Intra]. An indigenous culture can
distinguish one country from others, attracting foreign visitors and yielding high income.
(c) For example, two decades ago, sex was a taboo subject in China, and most Chinese people felt
embarrassed to talk openly about it. Over time the Western culture has permeated into the Chinese
lifestyle, and the Chinese people have broken many of their t ime-honoured traditions.[M: Nar]
(All are extracted from B3T1)
In addition, this study also further specifies the analysis of Entertain resources, which include
evidence-based postulations and modality, draw on the works of Coffin and Hewings (2004), and Ho
(2011). In so doing, it may shed some lights on the rhetorical strategies, by which a writer stresses his
or her own voice and subjective opinions (Coffin & Hewings, 2004). Accordingly, the detailed
coding system for present study is presented in table 1.
Table 1: Engagement coding scheme
Category Code definitions realizations (examples of specific
vocabulary choices)
Monogloss M only the writer‟s voice
Inter-textual M:Inter assumptions made without any evidence from the text
Intra-textual M:Intra assumptions made based on the supporting evidence somewhere
in the text
Narrative M:Nar a narrative style without explicit argument
Heterogloss H alternative positions and viewpoints are considered
Contract H:Ctr closing down the dialogic space for alternative views
Disclaim H:Ctr:Dis directly reject the dialogic alternative
Deny H:Ctr:Dis:Deny negation structures not, no, nothing, never,etc
Counter H:Ctr:Dis: Coun contrastive conjunctions:
counter-expectational
adjuncts:
although, however, but, yet, in
fact
even, only, actually, turn out,
surprisingly
Proclaim H:Ctr:Proc limit the scope of dialogistic alternative
Concur H:Ctr:Proc:Con audiences are assumed to
share the same knowledge
with the writer
affirmative phrases: of course,
naturally, not surprisingly,
admittedly, certainly
leading questions: who doesn‟t
want a high-quality education?
Pronounce H:Ctr:Proc:Pron phrases indicating explicit
authorial interventions or
interpolations
really, indeed, in fact, simply
I‟d say/I contend/insist that, it is
clear/obvious to me, you must
agree that
Endorse H:Ctr:Proc:End „factivity‟ verbs demonstrate, prove, show, point
out, conclude, know, agree
Expand H:Exp opening up for alternative views
Entertain H:Exp:Ent authorial voice is construed as but one of many possible
positions
Postulation H:Exp:Ent:Pos Evidenced-based
postulations, or personal
opinions
it seems, it appears, apparently,
the research suggests, in my
opinion, I think/believe/suspect
Modality H:Exp:Ent:Mod
modal auxiliaries, modal
adjuncts, modal attributes
perhaps, it is probable that, this
may be, must,(see note)
Attribute H:Exp:Attr attributing the proposition to some external source
Acknowledge
H:Exp:Attr:Ack reporting verbs, “quote”
adverbial adjuncts, or
nominalized reported
speech
It is said/believed/claimed that…
X‟s belief/assertion that….
according to X, in X‟s view
Distance H:Exp:Attr:Dist authorial voice is explicitly
distanced from the
attributed material
falsely claim
it is rumoured that…
Note:
“can” and “will” is not coded as Entertain resources when it is used to express the meanings of general truth.
E.g. Steel can resist very high temperatures.
In the evening he will sit all night watching TV. (examples quoted from (Carter & McCarthy, 2006))
2.3 Coding steps
To begin with, the text was divided into units, based on the traditional notion of “sentence”, which
consists of either one single clause (simplex) or a series of related clauses (clause complexes)
(Halliday, 1992). The analysis firstly identified whether the proposition was monoglossic or
heteroglossic, and then both the monoglossic and the heteroglossic propositions were annotated,
according to their respective sub-categories. The results in each text were calculated using basic
statistical techniques, so as to investigate the frequency of instances and proportion of relevant
features in a text. (see table 2)
Table 2: Coding steps of Engagement analysis
Coding steps Text example (extracted from B1T1)
Divide the text into units, according to
the notion of “sentence”.
a. Also, due to their longtime company with children, teachers can
significantly influence social behaviour of children.
b. In many cases, parents can never have the chances to deal with the
problems kids encounter at school.
c. But teachers are professional in this regard and they are also
psychologically trained to cope with many situations that parents
cannot even dream of.
d. Parents can be the most intimate ones to listen to their children‟s
confession, but they can never compare with teachers at school.
Identify monoglossic and heteroglossic
propositions
H M
b. In many cases, parents can
never have the chances to deal
with the problems kids encounter
at school.
d. Parents can be the most
intimate ones to listen to their
children‟s confession, but they
can never compare with teachers
at school.
a. Also, due to their longtime
company with children, teachers
can significantly influence social
behaviour of children.
c. But teachers are professional
in this regard and they are also
psychologically trained to cope
with many situations that parents
cannot even dream of.
Categorize monoglossic propositions a. Also, due to their longtime company with children, teachers can
significantly influence social behaviour of children. [M:Intra]
c. But teachers are professional in this regard and they are also
psychologically trained to cope with many situations that parents cannot
even dream of. [M:Inter]
Label heteroglossic propositions b. In many cases[H:Exp:Ent:Pos], parents can
never[H:Ctr:Dis:Deny] have the chances to deal with the
problems kids encounter at school.
d. Parents can be[H:Exp:Ent:Mod:MV] the most intimate ones
to listen to their children‟s confession, but [H:Ctr:Dis:Coun]they
can never[H:Ctr:Dis:Deny] compare with teachers at school.
Some basic statistical techniques are used to tally the results
Overview
Monogloss instances Heterogloss instances Total Engagement
instances
No. % No. % No.
2 29 5 71 7
Distribution of Monogloss resources
Intra Inter Nar Total monogloss instances
No. % No. % No. % No.
1 50 1 50 0 0 2
Distribution of Heterogloss resources
category Contract Expand
Dis Proc entertain attribute
Deny Coun Conc Pron End Pos Mod Ack
Dis
No. 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Total
No.(%)
3 (60%) 2(40%)
3. Findings
This section reports the findings pertaining to the lexicogrammatical choices of the texts selected
from three books in construing interpersonal meanings. Particularly, the study focuses on the
employment of Engagement resources, including monoglossic and heteroglossic elements. In
argumentation texts, monoglossic propositions are usually presented as facts, since they only include
writer‟s voice, making no reference to other positions, while heteroglossic propositions are presented
in a manner which suggests the existence of other possible views (Martin & White, 2005; Swain,
2007). According to the findings, while all the texts tend to employ more heteroglossic resources
than monoglossic resources, monoglossic propositions actually play an important role in advancing
arguments, which is especially evident in the texts of B1 and B3 (see table 3). In these texts, the
employment of Intra-textual and Inter-textual propositions indicate that writers of these texts are
more likely to impose their opinions on readers, which is most obvious in the usage of Inter-textual
propositions as factual information to support writers‟ viewpoints. Therefore, these texts assume
certain degree of “same-mindedness” between writers and readers.
As to the heteroglossic resources, all the texts use more Expand resources, while the texts in B3
employ almost the same instances of Expand and Contract elements. In particular, formulations of
Entertain seem to be the most frequently used type of heteroglossic resources in all the texts, and
they are usually realized by means of various formulations of Modality. In terms of the
opinion-offering resources, including Pronounce, Postulation, and Acknowledge, and Endorsement,
all the texts seem to rely more on their personal opinions, instead of external materials to advance
their viewpoints. This tendency leads to the fewer instances of Acknowledge, and no formulations of
Distance and Endorsement (see table 5). In the following, findings in terms of the usage of
monglossic and heteroglossic resources are reported respectively.
Table 3: Overview of Monoglossic and Heteroglossic resources
B1
Overview of monoglossic and heteroglossic resources
Monogloss instances Heterogloss instances Total Engagement
instances
No. % No. % No.
32 30 75 70 107
B2:
Overview of monoglossic and heteroglossic resources
Monogloss instances Heterogloss instances Total Engagement
instances
No. % No. % No.
19 16 103 84 122
B3:
Overview of monoglossic and heteroglossic resources
Monogloss instances Heterogloss instances Total Engagement
instances
No. % No. % No.
46 38 76 63 122
3.1 Monoglossic resources
The analysis suggests that monoglossic resources play an important role in advancing arguments in
the texts selected in this study. In particular, texts in B3 employ the highest proportion of
monoglossic resources (38%), which is closely followed by the proportion of B1 (30%). Texts in B2,
on the other hand, employ the lowest (16%).Such findings suggest that writers in B1 and B3 are more
likely to impose their opinions on readers without acknowledging potential objections. Interestingly,
although the aim of B3 is to encourage the norms of ENL speakers in writing argumentative texts, the
writers of B3 seem comfortable with such rhetorical style. However, it is suggested that monoglossic
resources are rarely employed in the argumentation written by ENL speakers (Ho, 2011; Wang,
2008).
Table 4 presents in detail the distribution of monoglossic resources among the three sub-types,
including Inter-textual, Intra-textual and Narrative. Although ENL writers tend to incorporate a
piece of narrative into an argumentative text to increase its persuasiveness (Ho, 2011), Narrative
propositions, compared with other two types of monoglossic resources, are rarely used in the texts of
the three groups, accounting for only 4.35% in B3, 5% in B2, and 6.2% in B3. In contrast, texts from
B1 differ significantly from those of B2 and B3 in the employment of Intra-textual and Inter-textual
propositions. In B1, writers tend to use more Inter-textual (59.4%) propositions than Intra-textual
ones (34.4%). A reverse tendency is seen in the texts of B2 and B3, where more Intra-textual
propositions (54.35% in B3, 53% in B2) than Inter-textual ones (41.3%in B3 and 40% in B2) are
used. A qualitative examination of the uses of the Intra-textual and Inter-textual propositions is
presented below.
Table 4: Distribution of Monoglossic resources
B1:
Distribution of monoglossic resources
Intra Inter Nar Total monogloss
instances
No. % No. % No. % No.
11 34.4 19 59.4 2 6.2 32
B2:
Distribution of monoglossic resources
Intra Inter Nar Total monogloss
instances
No. % No. % No. % No.
10 53 8 42 1 5 19
B3:
Distribution of monoglossic resources
Intra Inter Nar Total monogloss
instances
No. % No. % No. % No.
25 54.35 19 41.3 2 4.35 46
3.1.1 Intra-textual propositions
An Intra-textual proposition refers to the assertion that is supported by the evidence presented
somewhere in the text. While the numbers of Intra-textual propositions vary in the texts of three
Books, they are actually used in predictable ways. To begin with, Intra-textual propositions tend to
be used in the opening paragraph as the first sentence to introduce the essay topic (see extract (a)), or
as the last sentence to indicate writer‟s opinion on this topic (see extract (b)). In many cases, they are
also used in concluding paragraph to summarize the arguments discussed in the text, such as the
extract (c), where the two Intra-textual propositions are used to summarize the previous arguments.
Furthermore, Intra-textual propositions are usually used as topic sentences of a paragraph, such as in
extract (d). Sometimes, the Intra-textual propositions are immediately supported by Inter-textual
ones, such as extract (e) and (f). In these extractions, readers are expected to make implicit
connections between the assertion and the supporting evidence provided, and it is assumed by the
writer that the supporting evidences can justify the assertion. For example, in extract (e), the
Inter-textual proposition is employed as a fact to support the Intra-textual proposition that practical
courses are needed in this ever-developing society, which assumes the putative readers will accept
writer‟s equating practical courses to the business and computer disciplines.
(a) People from different backgrounds hold different attitudes towards the issue.
[M:Intra][B1T5]
(b) A question central to today’s environmental debate is how economic development and
environmental protection interrelate with each other.[M:Intra]It seems to bean
irreversible trend that no economic target can be attained without some sacrifice made to the
environment. [B1T4]
(c) In view of the arguments outlined above, ability grouping is of great value. [M:Intra]. It
fosters a nutritious environment in which talented students can facilitate their learning
process and easily find their pals of the same gift.[M:Intra][B3T2]
(d) In the second place, happiness lies in the struggle to be happy.[M:Intra]People
sometimes go to ext remes and frantically pursue money, power, high social status, etc.,
which are all symbols of success—but never of happiness. Perhaps if they shifted their life‟s
goal from ultimate success to unswerving efforts and to a confidence that they will be
successful one day they‟d be a great deal happier. [B2T4]
(e) In the first place, emphasis on practical courses is demanded by our ever -developing
society.[M: Intra]As society has entered the information age and commercialization is
sweeping across the world, computer and business courses are geared to the social
demand.[M:Inter][B2T2]
(f) It is true that compared with disadvantaged children, child ren from medium or h igh class
families have many more opportunities to attend social functions like balls, banquets, and so
forth, where they improve social skills, learn professional etiquettes and consolidate their
social network.[M:Inter] With a larger social network, they are at an advantage in
problem-solving. [M:Intra][B3T5]
3.1.2 Inter-textual propositions
An Inter-textual proposition deals with the statement that is not supported by the evidence accessible
from the text. This is what Martin and White (2005, p.98) called “bare assertions”, which assume the
reader to take them for granted, since they are obviously true. In many cases, Inter-textual
propositions are used as the supporting evidence for the writer‟s claim. In extract (a) below, an
Inter-textual proposition is used to further elaborate the reason why high school graduates may not be
as successful as the university graduates. This assertion makes no reference to the alternative
possibilities that the knowledge acquired in university may not necessarily bring success in people‟s
lives. To some extent, the writer seems to expect certain “same-mindedness” between him or her and
the putative readers. In other words, the use of Inter-textual propositions usually suggests the writer‟s
assumption that the readers share the background knowledge which is necessary to legitimize the
assertions, such as in extracts (b) and (c). It is suggested that the frequent uses of Inter-textual
propositions may increase the overt assertiveness of a text, such as in extract (d), where the topic
sentence is supported by two Inter-textual propositions. In this paragraph, only the writer‟s voice is
included, and the statements are presented as “facts”, which are assumed to be accepted by the
putative readers.
(a) For example, a high-school level person commonly may not succeed to the extent of a person
who has received a university education. This is not only because of the greater breadth of
knowledge acquired, but also due to a more critical and focused way of thinking that is
imparted and refined during one’s senior education. [B2T1]
(b) Kids have to spend most of their time in schools, together with many teachers in various
disciplines . Their major period at home is their holidays, which is quite negligible
compared with their normal school life . [M:Inter][B1T1]
(c) Brand loyalty is something of the past, and the rise and fall of a brand is
abrupt.[M:Inter] [B3T4]
(d) To begin with, human curiosity is an underlying factor in the growing popularity of
newspapers. As the only species on the planet equipped with extraordinary intelligence,
humans are inveterately curious about the latest events around the globe.[M:Inter]
Therefore, all kinds of news papers pros per in such an age that is gushing with
information, appealing to people’s increasingly strong desire to know more about this
constantly changing world.[M:Inter][B1T3]
3.2 Heteroglossic resources
Heteroglossic resources are broadly divided into two categories, namely Expand and Contract
resources. The Expand resources are used to actively allow for dialogically alternative positions,
while the Contract resources are employed to fend off such alternative positions (Martin & White,
2005). Table 5 summarizes the distribution of heteroglossic resources in the texts of the three books,
and the percentages suggest that Expand resources tend to be more frequently used than Contract
ones, with 66% in B2, 60% in B1, and 51% in B3. It is noted that the numbers of the instances of
Expand resources and Contract resources are actually quite close in the texts of B3 (51% and 49%
respectively). In contrast, the proportions of Contract resources are relatively low, with 40% in B1
and 34% in B2. The following qualitative examination aims to highlight the important patterns in the
employment of the heteroglossic resources.
Table 5: Distribution of Heteroglossic resources
B1:
Distribution of heteroglossic resources
category Contract Expand
Dis Proc entertain attribute
Deny Coun Con Pron End Pos Mod Ack
Dis
No. 14 9 2 5 0 11 29 5 0
Total
No.(%)
30(40%) 45 (60%)
B2:
Distribution of heteroglossic resources
category Contract Expand
Dis Proc entertain attribute
Deny Coun Con Pron End Pos Mod Ack
Dis
No. 9 12 11 3 0 14 42 12 0
Total
No.(%)
35 (34%) 68 (66%)
B3:
Distribution of heteroglossic resources
category Contract Expand
Dis Proc entertain attribute
Deny Coun Conc Pron End Pos Mod Ack
Dis
No. 20 12 4 1 0 5 30 4 0
Total
No.(%)
37 (49%) 39 (51%)
3.2.1 Contract resources
Contract resources include two subsystems, Disclaim and Proclaim elements. Table 6 suggests that
texts of all three books tend to use Disclaim resources much more than Proclaim resources, although
there are some extreme cases, such as B1T3, where no Contract resources are used. This suggests
that writers seem to prefer directly excluding or overruling alternative view points, instead of limiting
the dialogic space of such alternatives. There are two sub-types of Disclaim resources, including
Deny and Counter. Deny elements are employed to directly exclude or reject alternative views, such
as the extractions (a), (b), and (c). On the other hand, Counter elements are used to propose opposing
evidence to overrule the alternative views, which can be illustrated by the extractions of (d), (e), and
(f). The choices between these two types of resources vary in different groups of texts. In B1 and B3,
writers tend to employ more Deny than Counter resources, while the trend is reversed in the texts of
B2.
(a) To date there is no [H:Ctr:Dis:Deny]definite answer to this question. [B3T1]
(b) Not [H:Ctr:Dis:Deny] all genius will inevitably be successful, and similarly not
[H:Ctr:Dis:Deny] all great men are genius in their ch ildhood.[B2T1]
(c) Children, not like the adults [H:Ctr:Dis:Deny], need to be supervised and guided.[B1T2]
(d) As for me[H:Exp:Ent:Pos], however[H:Ctr:Dis:Coun] , countries can[H:Exp:Ent:Mod]
pursue sustainable advancement while focusing on environmental issues.[B1T4]
(e) Therefore, happiness is actually [H:Ctr:Dis:Coun] of one‟s own making. [B2T4]
(f) Low in quality and poor in conditions, some o ld buildings are
actually[H:Ctr:Dis:Coun]posing a danger on users and pedestrians. [B3T3]
Table 6: Distribution of Contract resources
B1:
category No. %
Disclaim Deny 14 46.6
Counter 9 30
Proclaim Concur 2 6.7
Pronounce 5 16.7
Endorse 0 0
Total 30 100
B2:
category No. %
Disclaim Deny 9 26
Counter 12 34
Proclaim Concur 11 31
Pronounce 3 9
Endorse 0 0
Total 35 100
B3:
category No. %
Disclaim Deny 20 54
Counter 12 32
Proclaim Concur 4 11
Pronounce 1 3
Endorse 0 0
Total 37 100
On the other hand, Proclaim resources are used far less frequently, and, within the three subsystems
of Proclaim resources, only Concur and Pronounce formulations are identified in the data. The
following discussion, accordingly, focuses on the usage of these two types of resources. Specifically,
Concur resources are more frequently used in the texts of B2 (31%), than in the texts of B1 (6.7%)
and of B3 (11%). Concur resources are the formulations which overtly position the writer as agreeing
with, or possessing the same knowledge as the putative readers (Martin & White, 2005), such as the
extraction (a). Here the writer‟s use of “we all know” construes for the text the putative audience who
shares with the writer‟s view that people who have an easy and comfortable life may not necessarily
feel happy. There are also some cases, where Concur are used with other Disclaim resources, such as
with Deny in extract (b), and with Counter in extractions (c) and (d). Such usage seems to be a
common rhetorical strategies in argumentative texts (Martin & White, 2005).
(a) We all know[H:Ctr:Proc:Con] people who have a relat ively easy and comfortable life, and
yet are essentially unhappy.[B2T4]
(b) Despite[H:Ctr:Proc:Con] boosting the sales of a product or service, advertising can hardly
[H:Ctr:Dis:Deny] make any product or service dominate the market.. [B3T4]
(c) First of all we must[H:Exp:Ent:Mod] admit that[H:Ctr:Proc:Con] there are qu ite a lot of
successful people who make their fortune with the knowledge they acquire in co llege,
but[H:Ctr:Dis:Coun] there are also cases where there is no connection.[B2T5]
(d) On the other hand, it has to[H:Exp:Ent:Mod] be admitted that[H:Ctr:Proc:Con]
economic progress is actually[H:Ctr:Proc:Pron]accompanied by deteriorat ion of
environment, which is particularly[H:Ctr:Proc:Pron]t rue in some underdeveloped
countries.Nonetheless[H:Ctr:Dis:Coun], when countries become more
economically-developed, they will show more willingness[H:Exp:Ent:Mod]to invest
money back into environmental protection.[B1T4]
As to the Pronounce resources, they are employed more frequently in texts of B1 (16.7%) than in the
texts of B2 (9%) and of B3 (3%). Pronounce refers to the formulations that involve authorial
emphases or explicit authorial interventions (Martin & White, 2005), which can be illustrated by the
following extractions from the data. In extract (a), the formulation “I would say” constitutes the
writer‟s overt intervention into the text by his or her own voice. However, within the 15 texts, such
subjective realizations of pronouncement are quite rare, and pronouncement is usually realized by
means of objective or impersonalized formulations, such as in extracts (b), (c), and (d). In these
extractions, the writer‟s subjective role in making the argument is obscured. It is also noticed that
there are some repeated uses of particular expression in these extractions, where the writers seem to
draw readers‟ attention to the usage of the various formulations of “undeniably”.
(a) The worst one I would say [H:Ctr:Proc:Pron] is that it will isolate people farther and
farther.[B1T2]
(b) There is no denying the fact that [H:Ctr:Proc:Pron]the students better equipped with
practical knowledge are more competit ive in job hunting, while those majoring in history,
geography and the like have few job opportunities. [B2T2]
(c) Man and woman have the physical and mental d ifference, which no one can
deny[H:Ctr:Proc:Pron].[B1T5]
(d) There is no denying that[H:Ctr:Proc:Pron] some old buildings are of aesthetic,
archaeological or architectural values. [B3T3]
3.2.2 Expand resources
Expand resources fall into two general categories: Entertain and Attribute. Entertain refers to the
formulations that are used by the writer to overtly indicate that his or her viewpoint is simply one of
many possibilities, while Attribute is concerned with those lexicogrammatical resources that are used
by the writer to disassociate himse lf or herself from the proposition by attributing it to external
sources(Martin & White, 2005). Table 7 indicates that Entertain resources tend to be much more
used than Attribute resources. Such preference suggests that, compared with referring to external
materials, writers in the three books are more likely to construct the arguments by means of their own
intuitions or subjective views. The following qualitative examination aims to reveal the patterns in
the usage of these two types of Expand resources.
Table 7: Distribution of Expand resources
B1:
category No. %
Entertain Postulation 11 24.4
Modality 29 64.4
Attribute Acknowledge 5 11.2
Distance 0 0
Total 45 100
B2
category No. %
Entertain Postulation 14 21
Modality 42 62
Attribute Acknowledge 12 17
Distance 0 0
Total 68 100
B3
category No. %
Entertain Postulation 5 13
Modality 30 77
Attribute Acknowledge 4 10
Distance 0 0
Total 39 100
3.2.2.1 Entertain resources
Entertain elements are the most frequently employed for expanding dialogic space for alternative
views. In this study, Entertain resources are further categorized into two subsystems, including
Modality and Postulation. As can be seen from table 7, texts from all the three books employ far
more elements of Modality (72% in B3, 64.4 % in B1, and 62% in B2) than Postulation. In particular,
in terms of the Modality resources (see Table 8 below), most of them are realized via modal
auxiliaries, and texts of B3 employ only one instance of modal attributes. Meanwhile, the proportions
of modal adjuncts are quite close in the three groups of texts. The results seems to confirms Ho‟s
(2011) findings that EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers actually lay particular stress on
the teaching of modal verbs in essay writing. Here are specific examples of the deployment of
Modality resources taken from the texts.
(a) An equal number of women and men can be [H:Exp:Ent:Mod] found in a variety of public
occasions, such as offices, social occasions, business, science and so forth.[B1T5]
(b) The baby, for instance, would most likely be [H:Exp: Ent:Mod] pessimistic if he or she
lived in a poor family[H:Exp:Ent:Mod] , where the baby always [H:Exp: Ent:Mod]
received punishment from h is parents.[B2T1]
(c) Some might [H:Exp:Ent:Mod] argue that [H:Exp:Attr:Ack] it
will[H:Exp:Ent:Mod]foster depression or frustration amongst low-achiev ing students
if[H:Exp: Ent:Mod] talented students are arranged with special class and given specialised
instruction.[B3T2]
Table 8 Realizations of Modality
B1 B2 B3
No. % No. % No. %
Modal auxiliaries 24 83 31 74 23 82
Modal adjuncts 3 10 5 12 3 10.8
Modal attributes 0 0 0 0 1 3.6
Conditional modal 2 7 6 14 1 3.6
Total instances 29 100 42 100 28 100
Postulation resources, on the other hand, cover the evidence-based formulations, including “it
seems”, “it appears”, and the formulations which indicate the writer‟s own opinions, such as “in my
opinion”, “I think”. By investigating the usage of Postulation, we may investigate the preferences of
two types of argument support manner, namely, subjective opinions or objective opinions. As can be
seen from table 9 below, Postulation resources tend to be much more employed in the texts of B1
and B2 (11 and 14 instances respectively), than in texts of B3 (only 5 instances). As to the manner of
argument support, it seems that texts in B1 tend to rely on writers‟ subjective opinions to advance an
argument, such as the extractions (a) and (b) below. Texts of B2 and B3, in contrast, are more likely
to rhetorically highlight the objective observations as the foundation of postulating, which is
demonstrated in the extractions (c), (d), (e), and (f).
(a) In my opinion[H:Exp: Ent:Pos], this complex phenomenon can be[H:Exp:Ent:Mod]
boiled down to several key factors, and both its positive and negative aspects need to be
analysed thoroughly.[B1T3]
(b) My view is that[H:Exp: Ent:Pos], when nations try to develop their economies and become
increasingly flourishing in the process, there is still[H:Ctr:Dis:Coun] a lot they can do to
create a more livable environment.[B1T4]
(c) By contrast, it seems that [H:Exp:Ent:Pos] tradit ional courses are out of date.[B2T2]
(d) The most obvious[H:Exp: Ent:Pos] sources are those pursuits that give our lives a
purpose.[B2T4]
(e) It seems that [H: Exp:Ext:Pos] in some countries, the locals have become more accustomed
to exotic cultures. [B3T1]
(f) It is clear that[H:Exp:Ent:Pos] consumers rarely[H:Ctr:Dis:Deny] rely on advertising as
a single source of informat ion before deciding what to buy.[B3T4]
Table 9: Realizations of Postulation
B1 B2 B3
No. % No. % No. %
subjective opinions 8 73 6 43 2 40
objective opinions 3 27 8 57 3 60
Total 11 100 14 100 5 100
3.2.2.2 Attribute resources
In this study, Attribute elements are further divided into the elements of Acknowledge and Distance.
Within these two sub-systems, only Acknowledge resources are employed in the texts of this study.
According to Martin and White (2005), Acknowledge resources are referred to the formulations that
traditionally covered in the literature on reported speech and citation, which are used by the writer to
attribute propositions to external sources. The analysis suggests that Acknowledge resources are far
less frequently used in the texts of the three books, and some of the texts, such as B1T4, B2T4, and
B3T4, employ no Acknowledge elements. This suggests that, in these texts, external materials are not
used to advance arguments. As to the texts which employ Acknowledge elements, writers of all the
texts tend to rely on vague or general sources to support their viewpoints, such as the extractions (a),
(b), and (c) below. In these examples, propositions are attributed to generic groups of people or
things, such as “some opponents”, “one”, and “most newspapers and magazines”, instead of specific
sources. In addition, Acknowledge formulations are usually employed in the introduction paragraph
to introduce the topic, which is illustrated in extractions (d), (e), and (f). In these examples,
Acknowledge elements also are realized as the experientialized interpersonal Themes (Ho, 2011), and
it seems that some of these formulations are recurrent word combinations, such as “Some people
believe that”, which can be identified frequently in many texts of this study.
(a) Some opponents of this strategy argue that[H:Exp:Attr:Ack] special students suffer
socially, in a misguided belief that students would seldom[H:Ctr:Dis:Deny]talk to each
other in an air of professional jealousy. [B3T2]
(b) One may [H:Exp:Ent:Mod] think that[H:Exp:Attr:Ack]personality is
already[H:Ctr:Dis:Coun] shaped once a baby is born[H:Exp:Ent:Mod] , but in fact
[H:Ctr:Dis:Coun]there are many contributing factors.[B2T1]
(c) First of all, most news papers and magazines report [H:Exp:Attr:Ack] actual events in a
detailed way, p roviding not only factual in formation but also deep insights into complex
social and political issues.[B1T3]
(d) Some people are of the opinion that[H:Exp:Attr:Ack] doing job at home is a retrogression,
while there are also quite a few people who are strongly opposed to their opinion .[B1T2]
(e) Some concerned people believe that[H:Exp:Attr:Ack] some change is needed, and that
students should [H:Exp: Ent:Mod]be encouraged to evaluate or even criticize their teachers
so as to improve the quality of education, whereas others fear that[H:Exp:Attr:Ack]such a
practice might [H:Exp: Ent:Mod]give rise to indiscipline and disrespect for teachers.[B2T3]
(f) There is a perception that [H:Exp:Attr:Ack] the children who grow up in an impoverished
family are more capable of solving problems than those from an affluent family.[B3T5]
4. Discussion
This section further interprets the findings from both the “users” and “uses” perspective, and it
suggests that the linguistic features identified in the analysis cannot be used as evidence to mark the
cultural identities of the language users (in this case, users of China English). On the other hand, it
seems that these similar linguistic features are associated more with the uses of the language, namely,
constructing an argumentation genre for pedagogical purposes. The discussion also indicates the
important role of understanding genres and their linguistic features played in investigating the “uses”
of Englishes. In the present study, for instance, the argumentation genre are appropriated, so as to
fulfil the texts‟ local purposes, and such genre appropriation usually are motivated by writers‟
different understandings of the realization of the genre, which may lead to employment of different
linguistic features, such as the uses of academic lexical bundles identified in the analysis. These
aspects are to be discussed respectively as follows.
4.1 “User” and “Uses” perspective
To begin with, the results of the analysis suggest that the texts of the three groups employ many
similar linguistic resources in realizing interpersonal and textual meanings. This seems
understandable, since all the texts belong to the genre of argumentation, and, as is suggested by
Martin and Rose (2008), if texts belong to the same genre, they tend to share a pool of linguistic
resources. Since argumentation genre requires the writer to adopt a stance in relation to the issues
debated in the text and other alternative views on these issues (Martin & White, 2005), it may explain
writers‟ tendency in using more heteroglossic resources than monoglossic ones. In addition, the
frequent employment of modality resources, such as modal verbs and modal adjuncts, may also
related to the functions of modality in the argumentation genre, as it usually indicate the arguability
of propositions (Eggins, 2005). Accordingly, many of these lexicogrammatical resources are
arguably chosen due to the “uses” of the language that it is put to, instead of writers‟ cultural
identities.
On the other hand, it could be argued, from “users” perspective, that some of these linguistic
similarities, seem to indicate the common language and cultural identities of the writers. Firstly, the
Engagement analysis indicates writers‟ preferences of advancing arguments by means of
Monoglossic formulations, such as the employment of Inter-textual propositions as supporting
evidence for the writers‟ viewpoints. Such rhetorical preferences suggest that certain degree of
“same-mindedness” are assumed between writers and readers; namely, readers are expected to
interpret the texts based on the shared background knowledge. This rhetorical style is also identified
by Lee (2004) in the English narratives written by Chinese writers, and is attributed to the
involuntary transference of Chinese language. In addition, the employment of opinion-offering
resources, especially Pronouncement, and Acknowledge, such as “it is necessary that” and “Some
people believe that”, appears to confirm Scollon‟s (1993, 1994) observation that Chinese writers
seem to prefer subtle and ambiguous forms of persuasion, and they tend to reduce their responsibility
for the truthfulness of the propositions in their writings by means of either avoiding authorial
involvement in appraising or attributing their opinions to some vague generic external sources.
However, the rhetorical similarities identified in this study, instead of exclusively belonging to China
English, seem to indicate alternative argumentation styles, which can actually be identified in many
EC countries. For example, apart from Chinese writers, it seems that English texts written by
Japanese, Finnish, or Turkish writers appear to assume readers‟ responsibilities to make sense of the
texts (Hinds, 1987; Mauranen, 1993; Uysal, 2008). Therefore, the findings proves that, while
rhetorical strategies, such as establishing solidarity with readers, may be a socio-cultural construct (Y.
Kachru, 2009), it seems impossible to mechanically correspond a particular lexicogrammatical
choice to a particular English variety (e.g. China English) , and there are, actually, similar linguistic
features shared between different English varieties (Liang, 2012).
4.2 Functions of the texts
One of the interesting findings of this study is that interpersonal meanings tend to be realized in
formulaic ways. In fact, it is suggested that such linguistic features, instead of Chinese language and
culture, are more associated with how these texts are used. As is indicated before, the model texts are
chosen from three commercial exam cracking books, which aims to provide various “test strategies
or tips” which help readers to pass a particular test (in this case, IELTS test) (Gu, 2008; Liu, 2011;
NewOrientalSchool, 2006). The pedagogical characteristics of these texts, accordingly, seems to be
reflected in the frequent usage of formulaic language. This can be illustrated by the employment of
certain fixed lexicogrammatical resources to realize interpersonal meanings, such as “in my opinion” ,
“there is no denying that”, “it seems that” and “it is +adjective +that/to”, and they tend to be
employed at the initial position of a sentence, functioning as interpersonal Themes (Halliday &
Matthiessen, 2004), which tend to appear at the initial position of a sentence.
Furthermore, it is suggested that such multi-words units, as can be seen in extractions below,
constitute a set of fixed forms of expression, or the “lexical bundles” (Biber, Conrad, & Cortes, 2004),
pertaining to the genre of argumentation. According to Hyland (2012), lexical bundles provide
ready-made language frameworks which facilitate the efficient use of language in a particular genre,
without having to generating every word. For example, the findings suggest that fixed wordings are
frequently identified in the first paragraph of the texts, such as “Some concerned people believe that”
in extraction (a), “It seems to be an irreversible trend that” in extraction (b), “there is a widespread
worry that” in extraction (c) below, where readers are, by means of being repeatedly exposed to these
fixed wordings, “primed” (Hoey, 2005) to favour particular wordings for realizing interpersonal
meanings. It could be argued that such savings in processing tends to be valuable especially for
IELTS test-takers, since the IELTS task 2 writing requires test-takers to complete an essay of at least
250 words within around 30-40 minutes. In fact, practising the usage of lexical bundles constitutes an
important strategy for teaching writing in ELT classrooms in EFL countries, such as Vietnam (Ho,
2011), and its usage also leads to the publication of many ELT materials, such as phrasebooks (Wray,
2007).
(a) Some concerned people believe that some change is needed, and that students should be
encouraged to evaluate or even criticize their teachers so as to improve the quality of
education, whereas others fear that such a practice might give rise to indiscipline and
disrespect for teachers. [B2T2]
(b) It seems to be an irreversible trend that no economic target can be attained without some
sacrifice made to the environment. As for me , however, countries can pursue sustainable
advancement while focusing on environmental issues. [B1T4]
(c) One of the most conspicuous trends in the 21st century is a closer connection between
countries, in both economic and cultural aspects. There is a widespread worry that this
will lead to the gradual demise of countries‟ identities. [B3T1]
Another important observation relating to the employment of lexical bundles is its association with
the writers‟ understandings of a particular genre of argumentation (in this case, IELTS task 2 writing).
Hyland (2012) suggests that lexical bundles tend to signal a community-authorized ways of
meaning-making. For example, in the texts of present study, many of the lexical bundles, such as “on
the other hand”, “it is +adjective +that/to”, and “it seems that”, seems to be also commonly used in
academic discourse (Hyland, 2008). Accordingly, employing such academic lexical bundles seems to
indicate writers‟ common belief that IELTS task 2 writing is a type of academic writing, although
studies suggest that IELTS task 2 writing may have more in common with some non-academic
genres, such as newspaper editorial (Moore & Morton, 1999). It is, therefore, interesting to consider
that, if most writers of such model essays consistently employ certain grammatical structures, lexical
bundles, and so forth, they are actually legitimize some particular rhetorical practices, which,
according to the writers‟ beliefs, could help readers to achieve a satisfactory score in a particular test,
such as IELTS. On the other hand, apparently, every writer has his or her particular understandings
of IELTS task 2 writing, which may lead to the lexicogrammatical differences of each text within one
group. To some extent, the texts also seems to reflect writers‟ belief, both communal and individual,
about what kinds of rhetorical strategies are useful to help readers to achieve a satisfactory score in a
particular test, such as IELTS. This also seems to confirm the importance of the agency of the
language user in the shaping of a particular text, as is suggested by You (2008).
5. Conclusion
This study firstly suggests the necessity of complementing traditional conceptualization of China
English, by investigating the ways Chinese people use English to construe meanings for particular
communicative purposes. Against this background, the study presents an investigation of how
Chinese ELT teachers write model essays for IELTS task 2 writing. The findings suggest writers‟
linguistic preferences in construing interpersonal meanings when writing model argumentative texts
for IELTS. From the traditional “users” perspective, these linguistics features could be simply
interpreted as markers which identify the countries or regions of the language users (Mahboob &
Szenes, 2010), such as the users of China English. However, the findings argue that the
lexicogrammatical choices identified do not exclusively belong to the users of China English, and,
instead, they seem to be associated more with the “uses” of the language. In particular, the
argumentation genre is actually appropriated to fulfill local pedagogical purposes. Therefore, from
this “uses” perspective, we can have a better understanding of how the texts create meanings in new
cultural contexts for particular purposes, which is believed to be the purposes of the study of World
Englishes (Mahboob & Szenes, 2010). In addition, this study further suggests that, while the “user”
features of China English are important to consider, it seems more interesting to explore how English
language is used in various fields in China, such as education, media, and business, where English
language is used to serve different local purposes.
On the other hand, it is necessary to point out some limitations of this study, which may be overcome
in future works. In this study, the texts are selected from commercial textbooks for IELTS writing,
and it seems difficult to completely rule out the possibilities that the texts may be edited by the native
speakers of English language. Therefore, the findings of this study cannot be used to make
generalizations about how the Chinese ELT teachers construct argumentation in English language.
Further works are necessary to correlate the findings of this study with the IELTS task-2 model essay
collected from other sources, such as Chinese ELT teachers‟ personal blog on internet. In addition,
the subject of this study is the model IELTS essays, which is an inauthentic type of argumentation. In
other words, the texts are not written to convince readers of particular viewpoints proposed in the
texts. To fully understand the uses of English argumentation in China, we need to investigate
argumentation in real-life contexts, such as editorials in Chinese English newspaper and English
debating contests in China. However, it also might be interesting to investigate the implications of
these model texts produced locally to the writing practices of English language in real-life situations,
such as the tertiary-level English writing by Chinese students when they study in an English-medium
university.
References
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, & Cortes, Viviana (2004). "If you look at...": Lexical bundles in
university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371-405.
Cai, Guanjun. (1999). Texts in contexts: understanding Chinese students' English compositions. In
C.R.Cooper & L.Odell (Eds.), Evaluating Writing: The Role of Teachers' Knowledge about Text,
Learning, and Culture (pp. 279-297). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Coffin, Carol, & Hewings, Ann (2004). IELTS as preparation for tertiary writing: Distinctive
interpersonal and textual strategies. In L.Ravelli & R.Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing:
Contextualising frameworks (pp. 153-171). London: Continuum.
Eggins, Susan (2005). Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd edition ed.). London:
Continuum.
Fitzgerald, Alannah., & Zhang, Chengsi. (2005). 雅思 8 分万能作文. 大连: 大连理工大学出版社.
Gu, Jiabei (2008). 雅思写作套路剖析与范例大全. Beijing: 群言出版社.
Halliday, Michael A. K. (1973). Explorations in the Function of Language. London: Arnold.
Halliday, Michael A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. In M. A. K. Halliday (Ed.), Language
as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning (pp. 108-126): Edward
Arnold.
Halliday, Michael A. K. (1992). Some Lexicogrammatical Features of the Zero Population Growth
Text. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses
of a Fund-raising Text (pp. 372-358). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Halliday, Michael A. K., & Matthiessen, Christian (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar
(3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
Hasan, Ruqaiya (1993). Context for meaning. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Semantic Variation: meaning in
society and in sociolinguistics: Equinox.
Hasan, Ruqaiya (2009). On semantic variation. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Semantic variation: meaning in
society and in sociolinguistics. London: Equinox Publising.
He, Deyuan, & Li, David C. S. (2009). Language attitudes and linguistic features in the 'China
English' debate. World Englishes, 28(1), 70-89.
Hinds, John (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U.Connor & R.Kaplan
(Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Ho, Vu Le (2011). Non-native Argumentative Writing by Vietnamese Learners of English: A
Contrastive Study. Phd Thesis. Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Georgetown
University.
Hoey, Michael (2005). Lexical priming. New York: Routledge.
Hyland, Ken (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific
Purposes, 27, 4-21.
Hyland, Ken (2012). Bundles in Academic Discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32,
150-169.
Ji, Kangli. (2011). The Influence of Chinese Rhetorical Patterns on EFL Writing: Learner Attitudes
Towards This Influence. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1).
Kachru, Braj B. (1991). Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern. English Today, 7(1), 3-13.
Kachru, Yamuna (2009). Academic Writing in World Englishes: The Asian Context. In K. Murata &
J. Jenkins (Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian Contexts: Current and Future Debates (pp. 111-130):
Palgrave Macmillan.
Kachru, Y., & Nelson, Cecil L. (2006). Asian Englishes Today: World Englishes in Asian Contexts.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Lee, Miranda (2004). Rhetoric in English narratives of native speakers and second-language learners.
In N.Kassabgy, Z.Ibrahim & S.Aydelott (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Issues, insights, and pedagogy
(pp. 47-60). Cairo, New York: American University in Cairo Press.
Liang, Jiawei (2012). A critical study of research on China English. Paper presented at the The 18th
Conference of the International Association for World Englishes, Hong Kong/Guangzhou.
Liu, Min (2011). 剑桥雅思最新真题题源详解:写作(学术类). Beijing: 中国人民大学出版社.
Mahboob, Ahmar (2010). World Englishes and Higher Education. Kritika Kultura, 15, 5-33.
Mahboob, Ahmar, & Szenes, Eszter (2010). Construing meaning in World Englishes. In A.
Kirkpartick (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. NY: Routledge.
Martin, Jim R., & Rose, David (2008). Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, Jim R., & White, Peter R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English .
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mauranen, Anna (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts.
English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
Moore, Tim, & Morton, Janne (1999). Authenticity in the IELTS academic module writing test. In
R.Tulloch (Ed.), IELTS research reports (Vol. 2, pp. 64-106). Canberra.
Nakamura, Aki (2009). Construction of evaluative meanings in the IELTS writing: an intersubjective
and intertextual perspective. Phd thesis. Faculty of Education. University of Wollongong.
NewOrientalSchool. (2006). 雅思写作胜经 Beijing: Qunyan Press.
Quirk, Randolph (1990). Language varieties and standard language. English Today, 6(1), 3-10.
Scollon, Ronald (1993). Comulative ambiguity: Conjunctions in Chinese-English intercultural
communication. Working Papers of the Department of English, 5, 55-73.
Scollon, Ronald (1994). As a matter of fact: The changing ideology of authorship and responsibility
in discourse. World Englishes, 13(1), 33-46.
Swain, Elizabeth (2007). Constructing an effective "voice" in academic discussion writing: an
appraisal theory perspective. In A. McCabe, M. O'Donnell & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in
Language and Education (pp. 166-184). London: Continuum.
Uysal, Hacer H.(2008). Tracing the culture behind writing: Rhetorical patterns and bidirectional
transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational context. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17, 183-207.
Wagner, Elvis (2010). Survey Research. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum Companion
to Research Methods in Applied Linguistics (pp. 22-38). NY: Continuum International Publishing
Group.
Wang, Moxi, & Li, Jin (1993). An investigation on English discourse patterns used by Chinese
students. Waiyu Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu [Foreign Language Teaching and Research], 4 , 59-64.
Wang, Wei (2008). Newspaper commentaries on terrorism in China and Australia: A contrastive
genre study. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to
intercultural rhetoric (pp. 169-191). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wray, Allison (2007). Set phrases in second language acquisition. In H.Burger, D.Dobrovol'skij,
P.Kuhn & N.R.Norrick (Eds.), Phraseology: an international handbook of contemporary research
(Vol. 2, pp. 870-881). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
Xu, Zhichang (2006). Rectifying "Chinese English". In A.Hashim & N.Hassan (Eds.), Varieties of
English in Southeast Asia and Beyond. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.
You, Xiaoye (2008). Rhetorical strategies, electronic media, and China English. World Englishes,
27(2), 233-249.
Zhang, Hang (2003). Chinese Englishes: History, contexts, and texts. PhD dissertation. University of
Illinois. Urbana.
