IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/eltjnl/v6y2013i9p67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Structure Analysis of English Argumentative Writings Written by Chinese and Korean EFL Learners

Author

Listed:
  • Cui Zheng

Abstract

This study employed Kamimura and Oi (1996)’s classification of the organizational patterns of the argumentative essay structure- Thesis Statement (TS), Background Information (BI), Reservation (R), Hesitation (H), Rational Appeals (RA), Affective Appeals (AA) and Conclusion (C). 178 essays, 84 written by Chinese EFL learners, 84 written by Korean EFL learners, and 10 written by English native speakers, were coded and analyzed via NVivo. The results show that Chinese and Korean EFL learners prefer the direct deductive expressions in their English argumentative writings, which is different from Kaplan’s (1966) findings. No significant difference exists in the essay structure among Chinese and Korean EFL writers’ writing and the English native speakers’ writings. The only difference lies in the contents of the rational and affective appeals, which are still strongly influenced by the cultural and social background. The results indicate that Chinese and Korean EFL writers, especially most of the university students are able to handle the structure of English argumentative writings with plenty of writing practice and teachers’ instruction.

Suggested Citation

  • Cui Zheng, 2013. "A Structure Analysis of English Argumentative Writings Written by Chinese and Korean EFL Learners," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 6(9), pages 1-67, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:6:y:2013:i:9:p:67
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/29642/17580
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/29642
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:6:y:2013:i:9:p:67. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.