Argument Features in Novice L2 Writing. A Contrastive Approach

Article Sidebar

Open / Download PDF
Published: Jun 15, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47743/lincu-2018-1-0117
Keywords:
academic writing English language composition contrastive studies argument

Main Article Content

Marinela Burada
Transilvania University of Braşov, Romania

Abstract

This paper reports findings derived from a contrastive investigation of argumentative EL (English) essays composed by non-native university students with different cultural and educational backgrounds. While the texts under analysis here have not originally been intended for comparison and contrast, approaching them in this manner made a lot of sense when a general rating revealed that, overall, one group of students fared considerably better than the other in terms of negotiating the intended message and achieving their persuasive aim, despite their being at earlier stages in their EL acquisition. The investigation has been intended for diagnostic purposes and has therefore been targeted at three problem areas in which inter-group performance discrepancies were the most conspicuous: the ways in which text writers signal their intentions and engage with the reader, the level of commitment to the thesis they advocate for, and the kind of evidence they advance in order to support it.

Article Details

How to Cite
Burada, M. . “Argument Features in Novice L2 Writing. A Contrastive Approach”. Linguaculture, vol. 9, no. 1, June 2018, pp. 107-26, doi:10.47743/lincu-2018-1-0117.
Issue
Vol. 9 No. 1 (2018)
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Author Biography

Marinela Burada, Transilvania University of Braşov, Romania

Marinela Burada is a professor in the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics at Transilvania University of Brașov, Romania. Her teaching and research work relate to areas falling within the ambit of Linguistics, Academic Literacy, and Lexicography. Her publication record includes articles, book chapters, and monographs, among which The Place and Role of Latin Elements in the History of the English Language (in Romanian, 2001), a diachronic study on the role of Latin in the development of English, Rhetorical Features in Student Persuasive Writing. Towards a Contrastive Approach (2002), a booklength exploration of the specificities of academic composition in keeping with the ecology of writing, and Research and Practice in Lexicography (with Raluca Sinu, 2016) a detailed account of metalexicographic issues such as the anatomy, classification, and evaluation of dictionaries in the wake of the digital era.

References

Ädel, A. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2006. Print.

Browne, N. M., and Keeley, S. M. Asking the Right Questions. A Guide to Critical Thinking. (8th ed.). USA: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2010. Print.

Coffin, C., Curry M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis T., and Swann, J. Teaching academic writing. New York: Routledge, 2003. Print.

Connor, U. Contrastive Rhetoric. Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing. Cambridge University Press, 1996. Print Glassner, A. “Evaluating arguments in instruction: Theoretical and practical directions”. In Thinking Skills and Creativity 24. Elsevier, 2017. 95–103. Print.

Govier, T. A Practical Study of Argument (7th edition). USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.

Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R.B. Theory and practice of writing. New York: Longman, 1996. Print.

Groarke, L, “Informal Logic”. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/logic-informal/>. Groarke, L. “Going Multimodal: What is a Mode of Arguing and Why Does it Matter?”. In Argumentation. Springer, 2015. 29:133–155. Print.

Hitchcock D. “Informal Logic and the Concept of Argument”. In: On Reasoning and Argument. Argumentation Library, vol 30. Springer, Cham 2017. 447-475. Print.

Hurley, P. J. A Concise Introduction to Logic. (7th edition) Wadsworth Publishing, 2000. Print.

Hyland, Ken “Metadiscourse: Mapping Interactions in Academic Writing”. In Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 2010. 125-143. Print.

Johnson, R. H. “More on Arguers and Their Dialectical Obligations”. OSSA Conference Archive. Paper 65. 2001. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA4/papersandcommentaries/65. Johnson, R. H. and Blair, J. A. Logical Self-Defense. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2006. Print.

Kuhn, D. and Udell, W. “Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument”. In Thinking & Reasoning, Taylor and Francis Group. 13 (2), 2007. 90 – 104. Print.

Stapleton, P. and Wu, Y. “Assessing the quality of arguments in students’ persuasive writing: A case study analyzing the relationship between surface structure and substance”. In Journal of English for Academic Purposes 17, 2015. 12-23. Print.

Strongman, L. Academic Writing. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013. Print.

Tadros, A. “Predictive categories in expository writiting”. In M. Coulthard (ed.) Advances in written text analysis. London/N.Y.: Routledge, 1994. 69-82. Print.

Toulmin, S. E. The uses of argument (updated edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print.

Wingate, U. “‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about”. In Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11, 2012. 145–154. Print.