See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235672357

Argumentation across L1 and L2 Writing: Exploring Cultural Influences and

Transfer Issues

Article in Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

63 2,178

1 author:

Hacer Hande Uysal

Hacettepe University
25 PUBLICATIONS 586 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hacer Hande Uysal on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Argumentation acroos L1 and L2 Writing:
Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues

Argumentation across L1 and L2 Writing: Exploring Cultural

Influences and Transfer Issues
Hacer Hande Uysal
Gazi University, Turkey
[email protected]

Abstract
Scholars suggest that what constitutes an effective argumentation is culturally
driven and L1 specific rhetorical or argument patterns may influence written
argumentation in a second language. The present study, thus, explores the argument
preferences of people from the same cultural background across their L1 and L2
texts within a cultural-educational framework. First, participants are given a survey
regarding their previous writing instruction that serves as the “small cultural context”
to contextualize the findings; then, they write argumentative essays both in their
L1 and L2. The texts are analyzed mainly in terms of argument structures based
on Toulmin’s (1958) model of reasoning, Hinkel’s (1997; 2005) indirectness devices,
Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals, and language style. Then, stimulated recall interviews
are conducted to learn the reasons behind the participants’ use of detected patterns
and their transfer. The results indicate common patterns used in both similar and
dissimilar ways across L1 and L2, influenced by cultural as well as various other
factors.

Keywords: Contrastive rhetoric, argumentative writing, transfer, writing

instruction, second language writing

Resumen
Hay expertos que sugieren que una argumentación eficaz se basa en la influencia
cultural y retórica de patrones argumentativos de la lengua nativa, que influyen en
la creación de textos argumentativos en una segunda lengua. Este estudio explora
las preferencias de personas con un mismo bagaje cultural al construir textos
argumentativos escritos en su primera y segunda lengua.dentro de un marco cultural-
educacional. Primero se les entrega a los sujetos una encuesta para saber cual ha
sido su preparación anterior para la escritura, lo que permite una aproximación a su
contexto cultural, necesario para contextualizar los resultados de la investigación.
Después, los participantes escriben ensayos argumentativos en su primera y segunda
lengua. Los textos se analizan a base de las estructuras argumentales del modelo

Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 133

 vial n_9 - 2012

de argumentación de Toulmin (1958), los planteamientos de Hinkel y la retórica

de Aristoteles, y métodos estilísticos. Finalmente, se lleva a cabo entrevistas
estructuradas para conocer los motivos por los cuales los participantes utilizaron
cada patrón argumentativo y para comprobar si existe transferencia. Los resultados
indican que los participantes han utilizado patrones comunes usados de modos tanto
similares como disimilares en sus L1 y L2, lo que indica una influencia cultural así
como la existencia de varios otros factores.

Palabras claves: Retórica de contraste, escritura argumentativa, transferencias,

estructura, escritura en L2.

1. Introduction

1.1 Argumentation across Cultures

It has been reported in intercultural communication (IC) literature that
argumentation and reasoning vary across cultures, even sometimes causing cross-
cultural miscommunication and pragmatic failure (Fisher, 1980; Glenn, Withmeyer &
Stevenson, 1977; Thomas, 1983; Walker, 1986). Similarly, contrastive rhetoric (CR)
research has suggested that what is considered as effective writing differs from one
culture to another, and conventions of writing are often shaped and passed to new
generations through formal education in each society (Connor, 1996; Hinkel, 1994;
Kadar-Fulop, 1988; Purves, 1988).

The findings of intercultural communication and CR studies have provided

evidence for the existence of different argument patterns across cultures. For example,
in terms of directness, it was claimed that arguments are more direct in Germany,
Italy, Greece, France, (Tannen, 1998), and Northern European countries (Beltran,
Salo-Lee & Maestro, 2002; Vasko, Kjisik & Salo-Lee, 1998) compared to those in
the USA, while they are even more indirect in collectivist cultures such as Korean,
Japanese, and Chinese for maintaining good relationships, harmony (Dillard &
Marshall, 2003; Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988), and pragmatic space (Cavallaro,
2005). The Japanese were found to be more cautious and ambiguous in writing
with their use of qualifiers such as ‘maybe’ or ‘probably’ (Hazen, 1986), rhetorical
questions, disclaimers and denials, ambiguous pronouns, and the passive voice in
greater frequencies than Americans (Hazen, 1986; Hinkel, 1997; 2005; Okabe, 1983).
However, strategic use of hedging is also reported to be a common argument strategy
in Anglo-American scientific texts to “protect the writer from the commitment of
the truth-value of the proposition” (Hinkel, 1997: 364; Hyland, 1996) to distinguish

134 133-159
 Argumentation acroos L1 and L2 Writing:
Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues

the fact from the possible; and to develop writer-reader relationship by functioning as
direct appeals to the reader (Hyland, 1995, 1998; Lewin, 2005).

In terms of argument orientation and argument structures, Americans were

observed to prefer a practical and scientific orientation, absolutism, and factual
concrete evidence whereas Japanese were found to prefer a more humanistic aesthetic
orientation and situationalism with lesser degree of warrants and backing and with
more subjective evidence (Okabe, 1983). The Japanese were also found to accept
a wider range of information as meaningful evidence than did Americans (Hazen,
1986; Kamimura & Oi, 1998; Okabe, 1983). Similarly, Taiwanese were found to use
fewer claims and data, shallower levels of reasoning, and less diversity of argument
structures; yet, more appeals to humanness than did the Americans (Cheng & Chen,
2009). Chinese students were also observed to use fewer uses of counterargument/
rebuttal claims and data (Qin & Karabacak, 2010).

With respect to thinking patterns, logic, and organizational structure, Americans

were claimed to prefer “hard-mind logic” with analytic thinking patterns and rational
appeals while Japanese tended to use soft, “heart-like logic” employing affective appeals
and presenting things in a holistic manner (Kamimura & Oi, 1998; Okabe, 1983:
32). As for other cultural groups, Connor & Laurer (1988) found that the number of
data, warrants, and emotional appeals were lower in American compositions when
compared to compositions written in the UK and New Zealand compositions. In
addition, the pattern situation + problem + solution + evaluation was not used as
consistently in the Finnish and German students’ compositions as it was in the British
and American students’ compositions (Connor, 1987). The main claim was also more
predominantly delayed in Finnish compared to that in British and German texts
(Tirkkonen-Condit & Lieflaner-Koistinen, 1989).

Elaborative versus succinct language style was another feature that was claimed
to differ across cultures as an indicator of uncertainty tolerance versus uncertainty
avoidance and high-versus low-context dependence, respectively (Gudykunst &
Ting-Toomey, 1988). While elaborative language use with frequent metaphors,
idioms, clichés, set phrases, or proverbs was found in Arabic (Ostler, 1987), Turkish
(Enginarlar, 1990) and Chinese texts (Matalene, 1985); Finnish communication was
reported to be an example for succinct style in which only what is exactly necessary is
said (Lewis, 2005).

Most cross-cultural studies on writing and argumentation, however, have also

been criticized especially for their conceptualization and treatment of cultures as
national entities (big culture) which resulted in stereotyping, overgeneralizations, and
prejudices about cultures and rhetorical patterns (Leki, 1991, 1997); for disregarding

Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 135

 vial n_9 - 2012

universal similarities between Western and Eastern texts (Cahill, 2003) and variations
within the same linguistic or cultural societies (Comfort, 2001; Corbett, 2001); for
considering transfer from L1 as only negative (Kubota, 1998), and for encouraging
replacement of L1 with L2 writing conventions by idealizing the English writing norms
(Kubota & Lehner, 2005).

1.2 Transfer of L1-specific cultural patterns to second language writing

Because writing is considered as a cultural phenomenon, it is suggested that once
this cultural schema is formed in L1, it would influence writing in a second language
(Connor, 1996; Kadar-Fulop, 1988; Kaplan, 1966; Purves, 1988). For example, Kaplan
(1966), analyzing 600 ESL student essays, found common organizational patterns
displayed by each cultural group such as direct linear, parallel constructions, indirect,
digression, and concluded that L2 writing is largely influenced by transfer of L1
rhetoric. However, such studies comparing only ESL texts were often criticized for
not providing direct evidence for transfer, but simply assuming that patterns found in
L2 were caused by L1 rhetoric (Martin, 1992; Matsuda, 1997), and for ignoring other
variables such as low L2 proficiency or the difficulties of writing in a second language
(Mohan & Lo, 1985).

The best approach to understand any transfer across L1 and L2 is suggested

to be the within-subject analysis of L1 and L2 texts as it offers the most direct and
appropriate evidence by controlling the subject variable (Kubota, 1998). In terms of
specifically argumentative writing, few studies compared the L1 and L2 argumentative
essays written by the same individuals in terms of mainly organizational structures such
as “claim + justification + conclusion” (Enginarlar, 1990; Choi, 1988) or macro-level
rhetorical pattern and the placement of thesis (Hirose, 2003; Kubota, 1998; Uysal,
2008a; 2008b). However, pragmatic aspects of writing such as argument structures and
reasoning, which are vital components of academic discourse (Nemeth & Kormos,
2001; Pera, 1994), and which often cause problems of persuasiveness, acceptability,
and reasonableness for L2 writers (Rocci, 2006), were not investigated in these studies.

In addition, previous studies were mainly text-based, not asking writers about their
textual decisions, which make it difficult to understand whether any common patterns
found were actually cultural. Moreover, most of these studies used a homogeneous
group of subjects in terms of L2 level and L2 writing knowledge and used the same
topics in L1 and L2 essays, making it hard to claim that similarities found were due
to transfer. Finally, most studies examined the texts in isolation, but not in relation to
the cultural/educational contexts.

136 133-159
 Argumentation acroos L1 and L2 Writing:
Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues

New directions in CR, on the other hand, suggest that CR needs to study both
L1 and L2 writing, observe or interview L1 and L2 writers, examine influences of
L1 writing development through quantitative as well as qualitative methods, and
become more context sensitive, exploring how writing is tied to social structures of
a given culture (Connor, 1996, 2002). Considering these suggestions and limitations
of previous research, the present study focuses on the pragmatic aspects of texts
across L1 and L2 using within-subject comparisons to obtain direct evidence for
any transfer; it incorporates a heterogeneous group of subjects writing on different
topics; it goes beyond textual analysis with stimulated recall interviews to explore
the reasons behind the texts; and explains the results in relation to a “small cultural
context” – the previous writing instruction in L1 and L2 (Holliday, 1994; 1999). The
present study is part of a larger study exploring the relationship among culture and the
organizational structures (Uysal, 2008a; 2008b), the writing processes (Uysal, 2008b),
and argumentation in Turkish writers’ L1 and L2 writing. This article reports on the
exploration of particularly the argumentative patterns in the essays.

2. Study

2.1 Participants
Eighteen Turkish native speaker adults (ten female, eight male) who live in the US
were selected among volunteers. To make an assumption that the participants have
acceptable writing knowledge and skills in their L1, only participants who hold at least
B.A. degrees from Turkish universities were chosen. These participants constituted a
heterogeneous group in terms of their knowledge and experience in English and in
English writing. Among these, eleven participants had formal writing instruction in
both Turkish and English, and seven participants had received writing instruction
only in Turkish. The participants’ English language skills varied from low to high.
Thirteen participants were currently in a graduate program or post-doctoral research
position in an American university, and the others were housewives having attended
ESL programs or were planning to apply to a graduate program (See appendix 1 for
information about participants). This heterogeneity (L2 level, writing instructional
background, disciplinary background, gender) was considered during both quantitative
and qualitative analyses.

2.2 Data Collection

Multiple data collection methods, both quantitative and qualitative, were used to
provide in-depth information and to increase the validity of the findings through data

Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 137

 vial n_9 - 2012

triangulation. The data was collected through three data sources. First, a background
questionnaire adapted from Martin (1992) and Liebman (1992) was distributed to
participants to elicit information about their previous L1 and L2 writing instruction
for contextualizing the findings. Second, in a week, a total of thirty-six argumentative
essays were generated by the participants in Turkish and English in different orders to
counterbalance the effect of writing order on writing performance. Participants wrote
on different topics in Turkish and English to prevent them from simply translating
from L1, which would have potentially compromised claims about transfer. The topics
were selected among the essay prompts of the TOEFL Test of Written English (TWE)
test as Lee et.al, (2004) and Breland, et al, (2004) found that TWE topics have an
acceptable level of comparability. The Turkish essay topic was: “When people succeed,
it is because of hard work. Luck has nothing to do with success. Do you agree or
disagree with the statement above? Argue your position to convince a Turkish reader
by using the strategies that you think are appropriate.” The English topic was: “When
people move to another country, they should adopt the customs and the lifestyles
of the new country to succeed. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above?
Argue your position to convince an American reader by using strategies that you think
are appropriate.” And third, audio-taped stimulated recall (retrospective) interviews
were conducted to collect data about the reasons behind the textual choices and to
see any links between the patterns in L1 and L2 and the previous writing instruction.
Retrospective interviews were chosen as they were found to be effective and less
disruptive to make reports of thinking, revealing not only what happened, but also
why it happened (Gass & Mackey, 2000; Greene & Higgins, 1994). Retrospective
interviews were administered in two days after the writing activity as suggested by
Bloom (1954).

2.3 Data Analysis

Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyze the texts and the
interviews. The texts were examined based on a simplified version of Toulmin’s (1958)
model of reasoning and argumentation, Hinkel’s (1997, 2005) indirectness devices,
Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals, and some language features to form a potential framework
for the analysis. However, no strict codification schemes were pre-established so as not
to close down or restrict the text analysis due to the exploratory nature of the study.
The argument structures subjected to analysis were as follows:

I. Toulmin’s model of argumentation (claims, qualifiers, evidence, and rebuttals):

1. Analysis of the claims: First, openly and explicitly stated main and sub-claims
were counted. The claims were identified as a position, assertion, or a thesis statement

138 133-159
 Argumentation acroos L1 and L2 Writing:
Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues

put forward to be argued for (Connor &Lauer, 1988: 144). Then, claims were analyzed
in terms of their degree of force or the number of qualifiers they included. The
analyses were mainly based on Hinkel’s (1997; 2005) categorization of indirectness
and hedging markers as well as intensifiers and overstatements. First, the occurrences
of each device in claims in each essay were counted and then the percentages were
calculated by dividing the sum of the occurrences for each device into the total word
count in the main and sub-claims; for example, 4 occurrences of downtoners in the
claims of 40 words in one essay is calculated as 4/40 = 10%. The same computation
was done separately for each of the indirectness devices and for each of the 36 Turkish
and English essays of all participants. Non-parametric statistical comparisons of L1
and L2 essays were employed through the Mann-Whitney U Test to see whether L1
and L2 are similar or different in terms of the frequency of each device. The analyses
included the following features:

a) Indirectness markers:
Point of view distancing (e.g. I believe/ think, I would like to think…),
Downtoners (e.g. at all, almost, hardly, mildly, nearly, partly, slightly, somewhat,
only, as good/well as, enough, at least, merely….),
Diminutives (e.g. a little, a few, a bit, virtually…),
Discourse understatements (e.g. fairly, pretty/quite/rather+ adjective, not (too
bad..),
Disclaimers and denials (e.g. not mean to/imply/say, x is not y, not even, no way,
not + adjective/verb/noun/adverb….),
Hedging (e.g. may, can, likely, possibly, seemingly, about, in a way, kind of, more
or less, most, by some/any chance, hopefully, perhaps, in case of, as is well known, as
people say, apparently, basically, according to, actually, relatively, probably..),
Vagueness and ambiguity (a lot of, approximately, around, many/much, number
of, x or so, several, aspects of, seldom, usually/often/occasionally/sometimes,), good/bad,
and so on, who knows…, whatever (pron) do(es), some…),
Syntactic markers and structures (conditional tenses (If/unless) and the passive
voice),
b) Assertive devices such as intensifiers and overstatements (e.g. all, every,
every-prominals, none, no one, nothing, forever, extremely, absolutely, altogether, always,
by all means, completely, definitely, enormously, entirely, greatly, never, severely, strongly,
too+adjective, terribly, totally, very, certainly, for sure, indeed, no way ….) as well as other
assertive features (e.g. must/should/have to…) were counted.
2. Analysis of the evidence: The frequencies and types of evidence used (e.g. facts,
personal experience, citations of authority, analogies, anecdotes….) were analyzed.

Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 139

 vial n_9 - 2012

3. Analysis of the rebuttals: Rebuttals, which were defined as statements that are
challenging or questioning the claim by presenting exceptions, different perspectives,
opposite arguments and evidence to demonstrate the flaws of the opposite position,
and then explaining why it should be rejected (Faigley & Selzer, 2006; Wood, 2006),
were determined.

II. Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals: Use of ethos, pathos, and logos was also examined
and the frequency counts of each type of appeal were calculated. Faigley and Selzer’s
(2006) following descriptions for rhetorical appeals were used in analyzing the appeals:
Ethos: use of persuasive reasons and examples coming from the trustworthiness
and credibility of the writer as the authority himself,
Pathos: use of persuasive reasons and examples derived from a community’s
most deeply and emotionally held values to invoke emotional response,
Logos: use of reasons and examples emerging from intellectual reasoning
based on facts and rational evidence.
III. Rhetorical Questions: A tendency of participants to use questions in the essays
was observed during the text analysis. Therefore, the frequency and the functions of
the questions asked by participants were also examined.

IV. Elaborated versus succinct language use: The number of figurative or adorned
language use (e.g. metaphor, sayings, clichés, proverbs…) was also noted (The
repetitions of the same figurative lexical features were not counted).

The texts were first analyzed by the researcher, but to reduce subjectivity, the
texts were also analyzed by two other coders independently. Then, the two coders
and the researcher came together, compared the coding sheets, and negotiated on
the initial disagreements. The other coders were two native English speaker PhD
candidates who have been teaching rhetoric classes and tutoring in the writing center
in an American university for several years. The percentage of agreements among the
coders was 92% for finding main claims, 95% for finding sub-claims, 95% for finding
evidence, and 92% for finding rhetorical appeals. Raters reached full agreement in
terms of finding rebuttals and questions.

After the text analysis, stimulated recall interview results were transcribed and
qualitatively analyzed by grouping the articulated reasons into emerging themes to
see which factors had influenced the participants’ writing choices. The background
questionnaire about the cultural context was analyzed through frequency analysis of
the items marked. Then, the survey and the interview results were compared with
common textual patterns to see any links between previous writing education (small
cultural context) and the patterns.

140 133-159
 Argumentation acroos L1 and L2 Writing:
Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues

3. Results
First, in terms of personal variables, no significant differences in the patterns
among participants according to gender (except that females used disclaimers &
denials more in Turkish than in English, p<0,05), discipline of study, L2 level, and
previous writing instruction was found in the quantitative analysis. In the qualitative
analysis, on the other hand, L2 level, writing instructional background and discipline
of study had some influence on some patterns which will be discussed in detail in the
related sections below.

3.1. Similarities across L1 and L2 essays

3.1. 1. Explicit statements of claims and the use of indirectness devices

In terms of claims, all participants openly and explicitly stated their main and
sub-claims (65 claims in Turkish, 77 in English) in both L1 and L2. The participants
showed a strong tendency to use assertive devices such as intensifiers and overstatements
as well as indirectness devices such as disclaimers and denials and hedging devices in
both essays (See table 1). The Mann-Whitney U test also revealed that the frequencies
of indirectness devices were mostly similar in both essays (Please see Appendix 2 for
the statistical results).

Table 1. Participants’ preferences of directness and indirectness devices in L1

and L2.
Turkish English
N: 18 % N: 18 %
Assertive devices 18 100 16 89
Disclaimers, denials 16 89 13 72
Hedging 13 72 15 83
Point of view distancing 10 56 9 50
Downtoners, understatements, dimunitives 10 56 6 33
Vagueness, ambiguity 9 50 13 72
Passive 6 33 3 17
Conditionals 4 22 4 22
Participants’ explicitly stating their claims in their essays was directly linked to
the previous educational context. For example, in the survey, the feature “clarity of
main ideas,” was found to be strongly emphasized in both Turkish (89%) and English
classes (82%). In the interview, participants also said that they remembered both
Turkish and English teachers valuing clarity and explicitness in their writing.

Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 141

 vial n_9 - 2012

3.1. 2. Use of evidence

All eighteen participants supported their arguments with plenty of evidence in

both their L1 and L2 essays, and a total of 130 pieces of evidence were counted.
Participants used similar frequencies of evidence examples in their Turkish (N=66)
and English essays (N=64). In terms of evidence types, regardless of their L2 level and
writing instructional background, participants demonstrated a common preference
towards particularly assertions based on real-life situation, hypothetical situations, and
anecdotes.

Table 2. Common types of evidence in Turkish and English essays.

Turkish English
N= 66 % N= 64 %
Assertions based on real life situations 20 30 31 48
Hypothetical situations 21 32 17 27
Anecdotes 11 17 8 13
Citations of others 5 8 1 1.6
Analogies 4 6 2 3
Facts 2 3 1 1.6
Assertions based on personal experiences 2 3 1 1.6
Assertions that cannot be argued 1 1.5 3 5
Examples of the common evidence types can be seen as follows:
1. Assertions based on real-life situations:
“…A typical example is in Turkey, people like to visit their friends during working hours,
whereas in US, people really like to work and concentrate on their jobs during the working hours and
spend the night out after work relaxing.” (Erdem, English essay)
2. Hypothetical situations:
“Let’s imagine a student who has a very important exam. Imagine that this student missed the
exam that he has been studying for weeks just because the alarm clock did not go off…..” (Irem,
Turkish essay)
3. Anecdotal example:
“Ahmet and Burak were PhD students at the same university... Ahmet started his PhD
one year later than Burak. Burak’s professor suggested Ahmet’s professor to conduct a study
like “donating money to the poor” four years ago. When Ahmet started to the program, right
at that time, Ahmet’s professor gave this to Ahmet as a project.
The experiment was not a difficult one. After he worked for one year Ahmet discovered an
unknown biological mechanism. His invention became the cover for “ Science” journal. Later he
repeated this experiment on another biological system, when this also produced a successful result,

142 133-159
 Argumentation acroos L1 and L2 Writing:
Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues

he published his second “Science” article, graduated and started a postdoctorate in a very good
university. On the other hand, Burak, although he worked harder than Ahmet, could publish his first
article just recently, and will graduate soon.” (Ali, Turkish essay)
The survey and interview results indicated that writing education as well as
some other factors influenced the frequency and types of evidence examples. In
the survey, the item “using good examples and details to illustrate main ideas” was
marked extensively as an emphasized feature in both Turkish (78%) and English
writing classes (82%). Similarly, for the open-ended survey question about “effective
ways of making an argument,” giving examples was the most commonly mentioned
way in both Turkish (72%) and English classes (80%). Parallel to these findings, all
participants used numerous examples to illustrate their ideas. The stimulated recall
interview about evidence types revealed that participants seemed to have developed
a shared belief that using examples based on real-life situations is an effective method
in convincing readers. English classes, where general real-life examples or factual and
more concrete examples were preferred to personal examples, were also mentioned
by four participants as the reason for their frequent use of real-life examples. One
participant also said that because the English topic was related to her area of study,
she used evidence from what she read in articles in classes.

Hypothetical examples, on the other hand, were found to be used as a compensation

strategy when a real-life example cannot be found. One participant also said that he
was probably influenced by texts in economy in which a simple imaginary situation
is presented to refute an opposite argument. Anecdotal evidence was used mostly
because of its perceived effectiveness and practicality. Previous writing experiences
such as writing narratives; reading experiences such as reading articles in physics in
which stories are invented to explain experimental findings; and the formality of the
topic (mentioned by 4 participants) were found to be the other factors behind the use
of anecdotes.

3.1.3. Use of rebuttals

Rebuttal was a common strategy used by 61% of the participants. Ten rebuttals
were found in Turkish and nine rebuttals were found in English essays. Similar to this
finding, in the survey for the open-ended question asking the major ways to persuade
an audience according to Turkish and English writing teachers, refuting the opposite
claim was the second most commonly mentioned way (28% for Turkish and 40% for
English). In the interview, participants said that especially in English, rules related to
rebuttals were very clear and the opposite idea should be presented in argumentative
essays all the time, but they did not recall such specific instruction in Turkish.
However, as the participants who did not receive any English writing education also

Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 143

 vial n_9 - 2012

used rebuttal, this means this strategy exists in Turkish argumentation as well, but
might not be specifically emphasized in classes.

3.1. 4. Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals

Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals were used similarly by 89% of participants across

their Turkish and English essays. Especially, ‘logos’ was extensively used by 72% of
participants in both their essays. Because analysis of this category took longer time
than expected, no questions were asked in the interview related to rhetorical appeals.
Seventeen participants (94%) used logos in their Turkish essays as a primary appeal,
and twelve participants (67%) used logos as the primary appeal in their English essays.
Ethos was also observed in two participants’ (11%) English essays as the primary appeal.

Table 3. Similar essays by participants in terms of rhetorical appeals in Turkish

and English.
Names of the participants Turkish essay English essay
1.Sebnem Logos, ethos Logos
2.Ali Logos, pathos Ethos, pathos
3.Okan Logos, ethos Logos
4.Sedat Logos, ethos Logos
5.Sinem Logos Logos, pathos
6.Merve Logos Logos
7.Esen Logos, pathos Logos, ethos, pathos
8.Erdem Logos Logos
9.Berk Logos Logos
10.Irem Logos Logos
11.Ufuk Logos Logos, pathos
12.Zafer Logos, ethos Logos, ethos
13.Banu Logos Logos
14.Taner Logos,ethos Ethos, logos
15.Leyla Pathos, ethos Ethos, logos
16.Nevin Logos Ethos

3.2. Differences across L1 and L2 essays.

3.2.1. Assertiveness devices

Although the majority of the participants used assertiveness devices in both

their essays, the frequency of assertiveness devices was found to be significantly more

144 133-159
 Argumentation acroos L1 and L2 Writing:
Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues

frequent in Turkish essays (p<.001) than that in English essays according to the Mann-
Whitney U test (Please see Appendix 2). The results did not correlate exactly with the
previous writing education. While participants did not recall any specific instruction
on indirectness, hedging, or assertiveness markers in Turkish, four participants recalled
that in English writing classes, “avoiding passive voice,” “using short clear sentences,”
and “being open and assertive while writing ideas,” were specifically mentioned. In a
similar way, passive voice was used less in the English essays; yet, the English essays
included more vagueness markers and hedging, but not assertive devices conflicting
with the specific instructions of English writing teachers. Confidence of writing in L1
and writing for a Turkish audience, on the other hand, were mentioned as the main
reasons for the use of more assertive devices in L1 than that in L2.

3.2.2. Evidence types

Within-subject analysis of each participant’s essays revealed differences across L1

and L2. For example, while seven participants (38%) used one or more examples based
on real-life events in both their essays, only five participants (28%) used hypothetical
situations, and 3 participants (17%) used anecdotes in both essays. Citing or quoting
authority and analogies seemed to be preferred more in Turkish whereas real-life
examples were preferred more in English essays. Similarly, citing others was found to
be stressed especially by Turkish teachers as an effective argument strategy. In the
interview, participants said that they remember Turkish writing teachers often telling
them to explain their point by supporting it with famous people’s words, for example
Ataturk’s sayings (the founder of the Turkish Republic). English classes, on the other
hand, emphasized the use of more real-life, factual and more concrete examples
instead of personal examples and citations of authorities.

3.2.3. Rhetorical questions

The data indicated a tendency among participants to ask questions as a

rhetorical strategy to support their claims especially in Turkish (35 questions by 61%
of participants), but not in English (6 questions by 33% of participants) (see appendix
2 for statistical results). Within-subject analysis showed that only 6 participants
(33%) used questions in both their essays. From the interviews, it was found that
these questions often functioned as direct appeals to the audience to help raise the
readers’ interest and to create a sense of suspense, to provoke thoughts/doubts to refute
the opposite argument, to make a point, or to strengthen the argument. In terms of
the reasons, eight participants said that they believe questions are more convincing,
natural, easier, and effective to help raise readers’ interest. Participants also seemed to
be influenced by the encouragement of Turkish teachers to ask questions especially
to create suspense or raise interest; however, asking questions was not something

Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 145

 vial n_9 - 2012

encouraged in English. Six participants also said that this might be related to their
previous reading experiences with especially Turkish editorials (four participants) in
which authors often ask questions as if they are talking to the reader. One participant
also said he likes reading the works of philosophers such as Nietzsche in which
questions are valued as objective while answers are subjective and not real. Interview
results revealed that the audience had the most influence in lower frequencies of
questions in English essays. For example, some participants said they intentionally
avoided using questions in English essays because they were writing for an American
audience and thought Americans would not appreciate it.

3.2. 4. Elaborated language style

A tendency to use more literary language, such as clichés, figurative language, and
metaphors was observed in sixteen participants’ essays (89%), especially in Turkish. A
total of 47 as opposed to 12 instances of adorned language were counted in Turkish
and English essays respectively, and used by only 6 participants (33%) in both essays
(see appendix 2 for statistical results). The analysis for this category was done only by
the researcher as translating such language would result in loss of meaning. In terms
of the reasons, the survey item “using beautiful language” was marked by (67%) for
Turkish classes, and (55%) for English writing classes as an emphasized writing feature
and except for two, all participants who marked this feature used such language in
their essays. Interviews revealed that especially previous literary experiences such as
reading old Turkish literature pieces and fiction, and writing poems had an influence
on use of such language in the Turkish essays. As for the reasons of not using such
language in L2, the major reason articulated was participants’ lack of such vocabulary
and phrases in English as it was their second language.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

In general, despite the differences in their L2 level, previous L2 writing history, and
topics, participants’ texts demonstrated some common argument patterns especially in
L1 essays. These patterns were similar to both stereotyped English and Confucian or
Arabic argument traditions parallel with Turkey’s geographical and cultural position
right in the middle of the East and West. Similar and dissimilar uses of the common
patterns across L1 and L2, on the other hand, were found to be influenced by cultural
as well as various other factors such as audience, L2 level, disciplinary background,
and previous reading experiences.

In terms of similarities or a possible transfer across languages, L1 and L2 essays

were similar for most categories such as explicit statement of claims, use of similar

146 133-159
 Argumentation acroos L1 and L2 Writing:
Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues

frequencies of indirectness devices and hedging, the extensive use of examples, rebuttals,
and the use of Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals. This result pointed to a possibility of bi-
directional transfer as most patterns were traced to both L1 and L2 instructional
contexts. For example, the common use of explicit and clear claims, rebuttals, and
having plenty of examples in the essays were features emphasized in English as well as
in Turkish writing classes as major ways of making an effective argument. This may
also indicate that as a result of globalization, some writing patterns are getting more
homogeneous among cultures and because Turkey has been under a strong Western
influence for years, many stereotyped Anglo-American argument elements may be
shared by the Turkish participants.

As for the dissimilarities, differences were found in the uses of assertiveness devices,
some evidence types, rhetorical questions, and adorned or elaborated language across L1
and L2, and cultural educational factors played an important role in these differences.
For example, use of adorned language, questions, certain types of evidence (e.g. quoting
citations of authority) which were used more frequently in Turkish essays were also
mostly encouraged in Turkish writing classes, but not in English. Adorned language
use was also previously reported by Enginarlar (1990) to be a possible cultural feature
of Turkish writing and writing has been described in the Turkish curriculum as “an
art, not science” (Girgin, 2003:83-84). Therefore, the participants’ tendency to use
a more literary and adorned language in Turkish might have cultural grounds. Use
of questions as a rhetorical strategy in Turkish essays seems to be another culturally
driven preference. Questions were also reported to be common in Turkish editorials
by Uysal (in press). In this respect, Turkish participants’ preferences were more similar
to Asian and Arabic traditions than Western and Anglo-American argumentation
because use of adorned language, questions, citations and anecdotes as evidence were
suggested to be rhetorical characteristics of traditional Chinese discourse (Matalene,
1985; Scollon & Scollon, 1991) and observed in the essays of Korean, Japanese,
Indonesian, and Arabic students (Hazen, 1986; Hinkel 1997; 2002; Ostler, 1987).
Assertive markers and overstatements—another common pattern found especially in
Turkish essays, were also observed in Arabic rhetoric (Sa’addeddin, 1989). However,
it is important to note that adorned flowery language is disapproved by English and
Northern European cultures which prefer a simple and straightforward language due
to their low-uncertainty tolerance (Hendriks et al, 2005). Use of questions, on the
other hand, differ across genres and disciplines in Anglo-American academic writing.
For example, while questions are discouraged for being too personal, and for expressing
hesitation, uncertainty, and indirectness (Hinkel, 1997) especially in hard sciences,
they are frequently used in Anglo-American conference proposals (Uysal, 2011) and
research articles in social sciences with various strategic argument functions (Hyland,
2002).

Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 147

 vial n_9 - 2012

Although cultural context was linked to the aforementioned patterns and their
dissimilar use across languages, culture was not the mere reason for the dissimilarities
across L1 and L2 writing. For example, the confidence in L1 writing resulted in more
extensive use of assertive markers in L1 and limited L2 vocabulary caused lower
frequency of adorned language in L2. Moreover, previous reading experiences with
Turkish texts such as editorials or discipline-specific articles also had an impact on
the patterns of asking rhetorical questions, adorned language style, certain evidence
types such as anecdotes and hypothetical situations, providing support for the strong
relationship between reading and writing (Grabe, 2003; Krashen, 1984; Leki, 2001).
Half of the participants also stated that they took the audience into consideration
while writing, and from their accounts it was evident that some of their writing
choices were informed by the audience as well as by their discipline-specific practices.
For example, it was found that participants consciously avoided questions in English
essays because they thought it would not be approved by the American audience and
they chose certain evidence types with the influence of the established argument
practices in their own profession (e.g. use of hypothetical situations to support a case
in economics, and anecdotes to explain experiments in physics).

The findings regarding the relationship among reading practices, audience

concerns and discipline-specific experiences and participants’ writing choices provided
further support for the socio-cultural views of writing. As Hyland (2001) suggests,
reading experiences shape people’s rhetorical conceptions and influence writers’
construction of the audience because these “texts are also written to be understood
within certain cultural contexts;” thus, they represent “the shared group values and
beliefs through their routine rhetorical operations” (Hyland, 1997: 19). The results
pointing out to participants’ employment of different strategies for different audiences
also reinforced the claims of the social constructivist theories of writing which view
writing as an activity shaped by different purposes in different social contexts and
influenced by the constraints of the relationship between reader and writer (Halliday,
1994; Hyland, 2003; Nystrand, 1986, 1989).

5. Implications of the Study

The findings of this study provided support for the claims of intercultural
communication and contrastive rhetoric research regarding the existence of shared
argument patterns in texts of individuals coming from similar cultural backgrounds
and the relationship between culture and written argumentation. However, besides
culture, various other factors such as previous reading habits, audience, and L2 level
were also discovered behind the use of these patterns across L1 and L2. Thus, this
study once again emphasized the complexity involved in second language writing.

148 133-159
 Argumentation acroos L1 and L2 Writing:
Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues

In terms of future Intercultural communication and CR research, first, the study

confirmed that cultural background affects not only organizational textual features, but
also pragmatics and argument structures; thus, future CR studies should focus more
on the use of these features across cultures. Second, in terms of the methodology of
research, this study put forth that only by qualitative methodologies such as stimulated
recall interviews, can we exactly understand which observed patterns in texts stem
from cultural influences and which patterns stem from other factors. Third, to explore
transfer issues, a within-subject research design should be adopted because it would be
very misleading to compare L2 essays of different language groups as developmental
factors in L2 proficiency and many other factors might play a role in the shape of
L2 essays. Finally, while investigating transfer from L1 to L2 and vice versa, further
research should group the subjects according to their L2 proficiency, and L2 writing
education history, and have subjects write on different topics to better understand how
these various factors are interacting with each other during any possible transfer of
cultural patterns across writing.

When it comes to pedagogical implications, as pragmatic conventions of hedging

and argumentation acquired in ones’ first language are likely to transfer into and
influence writing in a second language, this situation may cause problems in terms
of inappropriate pragmatic performance, misunderstandings and even socio-pragmatic
failure in cross-cultural communication (Zegarac & Pennington, 2000:166; Thomas,
1983). Such cross-cultural conflicts or socio-pragmatic failure especially in international
academic contexts often cause disadvantages for non-native speakers (NNS) such as
having difficulties in the writing component of international tests of English or publishing
in English academic journals, which are often evaluated according to English Native
Speaker (NS) criteria of persuasiveness. Therefore, awareness raising activities in ESL/
EFL writing classes on cultural differences between L1 and L2 argumentation are very
important for students to be able to meet reader expectations by avoiding negative
transfer of the conflicting structures from L1, but at the same time to be able to use any
conducive L1 pragmatic features in L2 writing by code-meshing (Canagarajah, 2006).

Unfortunately, this study revealed that participants received almost no instruction

on the pragmatics of writing such as hedging, indirectness or assertiveness markers,
and rhetorical questions in their previous writing classes except for some suggestions on
avoiding passive voice and ambiguity in English. Structuring of argument, reasoning,
organization, relating text to audience, use of appropriate degree of persuasiveness,
hedging and directness, on the other hand, are suggested to play a key role in success of
argumentative writing in English (Flowerdew, 1999; Swales, 1990). For example, Hyland
(1997) claims that hedges play a critical role on the credibility and effectiveness of an
argument especially in making claims and drawing conclusions whilst exaggeration,
overstatements or broad generalizations, flowery language, and overuse of rhetorical

Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 149

 vial n_9 - 2012

questions, which were found in L1 essays of Turkish participants as well as Asian

and Arabic writers, are discouraged in written English academic discourse (Hinkel,
1997). Therefore, any ESL/EFL academic writing instruction should include explicit
teaching of the effective pragmatic argument features to help students establish a
balance between hedging and toning down the claims and being clear and assertive. In
addition, instruction should include more detailed and systematic explanations of what
constitutes an appropriate argument, effective evidence, proper rhetorical appeals, and
rebuttals in English or Aristotelian argument so that students can better function in
English academic discourse community and publish their future work in international
scientific journals (Hyland, 1995).

Nevertheless, while teaching English argument conventions, what students bring

from their L1 writing can also be used as a resource so that English conventions would
become an additive rather than a subtractive force (Kubota & Lehner, 2004). This
study found that adorned language use, questions, and anecdotal examples are rooted
in L1 culture; however, these may also be used to enrich students’ academic writing and
to add creativity as long as these features are used in right amounts without causing
interference in communication. For example, Hyland (2002) suggests that strategic use
of questions as direct appeals to engage the audience in the discussion with the purpose
of getting attention, framing and organizing the discourse, creating a niche, expressing
an attitude or counterclaim, setting up a claim, and pointing forward to further research
are effective argument strategies frequently used in Anglo-American articles in social
sciences. Thus, use of questions with appropriate functions can be integrated into
L2 writing as well. In addition, in the present study, a few participants stated that in
academic writing, they often use stories to explain their points or experimental findings,
which implies that using the L1 strategy of telling anecdotes may also be conducive for
the English academic writing. Yet, it is important to establish a balance between the
use of L1 and L2 writing strategies according to task or disciplinary requirements and
audience expectations. Therefore, students should be taught when it is appropriate to
implement their L1 strategies and when not to create a balance between expressive,
literary or more emotional writing which is encouraged by certain L1 cultures, and a
more objective scientific writing in English. This would also contribute to negotiate the
norms, to add more creativity and diversity to written academic discourse to establish
“World Rhetorics” (Kachru, 1995), and to prevent the loss of various cultural rhetorical
richnesses in the current dominance of English in the academia.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Michael Everson, Carol Severino, Leslie Schrier, Anne
DiPardo, and Kathy Heilenman for their feedback at the earlier stages of this study. I

150 133-159
 Argumentation acroos L1 and L2 Writing:
Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues

thank Jane Hanson for her help with the Spanish abstract. I also thank the anonymous
reviewers, and VIAL’s editors Rosa Alonso and Marta Dahlgren for their valuable
feedback on an earlier version of this paper.
References

Beltran, L, L. Salo-Lee, J. Maestro. 2002. European peripheries in interaction: The

Nordic countries and the Iberian peninsula. Madrid: Universidad de Alcala Publications.
Bloom, B. 1954. “The thought processes of students in discussion.” In S. J. French
(ed.) Accent on teaching: Experiments in general education (pp.23-46). New York: Harper.
Breland, H., Y. Lee, M. Najarian and E.. Muraki. 2004. “An analysis of TOEFL
CBT writing prompt difficulty and comparability for different gender groups.” TOEFL
Research Reports. RR: 76.
Cahill, D. 2003. “The myth of the “turn” in contrastive rhetoric.” Written
Communication, 20: 170-194.
Canagarajah, A. S. 2006. “The place of world Englishes in composition:
Pluralization continued.” College Composition and Communication, 57 (4): 586-619.
Cavallaro, J. October, 2005. Refractions on indirectness: Writing conference as
prism. Paper presented in the 9th International pragmatics conference by International
Pragmatics Association. Riva del Garda, Italy.
Cheng, F. And Y. Chen. 2009. “Taiwanese argumentation skills: Contrastive
rhetoric perspective.” Taiwan International ESP Journal, 1(1): 23-50.
Choi, Y. H. 1988. “Text structure of Korean speakers’ argumentative essays in
English.” World Englishes, 7: 129-142
Comfort, J. 2001. “African-American women’s rhetorics and the culture of
Eurocentric scholarly discourse.” In C. G. Panetta (ed.) Contrastive rhetoric revisited
and redefined (pp. 91-104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Connor, U. and J. Lauer. 1988. “Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student
writing.” In A. Purves (ed) Writing across Languages and Cultures: Issues in Contrastive
Rhetoric. (pp. 138-159). Newburry Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Connor, U. 1987. “Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural
differences.” In U. Connor & R. Kaplan (eds) Writing across languages: Analysis of L2
text (pp. 57-71). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
_______. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language
writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
_______. 2002. “New directions in contrastive rhetoric.” TESOL Quarterly, 36:
493-510.

Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 151

 vial n_9 - 2012

Corbett, J. 2001. “Contrastive rhetoric and resistance to writing.” In C. G. Panetta

(ed) Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined (pp.31-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Dillard, J. P. And L. J. Marshall. 2003. “Persuasion as a social skill.” In J. O.
Greene & B. R. Burleson (eds). Handbook of communication and social interaction skills
(pp. 479-514). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Enginarlar, H. 1990. A contrastive analysis of writing in Turkish and English of
Turkish high school students. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Hacettepe University,
Turkey.
Faigley, L. and J. Selzer. 2006. Good Reasons: Designing and Writing Effective
Arguments. New York: Pearson Education.
Fisher, G. 1980. International Negotiations: A cross-cultural perspective. Boston:
Intercultural Press.
Flowerdew, J. 1999. “Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of
Hong Kong.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (2): 243-264.
Gass, S. M. And A. Mackey. 2000. Stimulated recall methodology in second language
research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Girgin, Y. 2003. The development of the curriculum with general and specific goals for
primary and junior high secondary level Turkish lessons from first days of the Republic to
today. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
Glenn, E., D. Withmeyer and K. Stevenson. 1977. “Cultural styles of persuasion.”
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1: 52-66.
Grabe, W. 2003. “Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives
on research and practice.” In B. Kroll (ed.) Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language
Writing (pp. 242-262). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Greene, S. and Higgins, L. 1994. “Once upon a time: The use of retrospective
accounts in building theory in composition.” In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.) Speaking about
Writing: Reflections on Research Methodology (pp.115-140). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B. & Ting-Toomey, S. 1988. “Verbal communication styles.”
In W. B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey & E. Chua (eds) Culture and interpersonal
communication (pp. 99-117). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward
Arnold.
Hazen, M.D. 1986. ‘The universality of logic processes in Japanese argument.” In
F. Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, A. Blair, & C. Willard (eds) Argumentation: Analysis and
Practices (225-237). Dordrecht-Holland: Foris Publications.

152 133-159
 Argumentation acroos L1 and L2 Writing:
Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues

Hendriks, B., R. Le Pair. F. Meurs, H. Korzilius and S. Damen. 2005. Does style
matter? A cross-cultural study into the influence of differences in style dimensions
on the persuasiveness of business newsletters in Great Britain and the Netherlands.
Proceedings of the Association for Business Communication 7th European convention.
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Hinkel, E. 1994. “Native and nonnative speakers’ pragmatic interpretations of
English texts.” TESOL Quarterly, 28: 353-376.
______. 1997. “Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing.” Journal of Pragmatics
27: 361-386.
______. 2002. Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
______. 2005. “Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing.”
Applied Language Learning, 15: 29-53.
Hirose, K. 2003. “Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the
argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students.” Journal of Second Language Writing,
12 (2): 181-209.
Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
______. 1999. “Small Cultures.” Applied Linguistics, 20 (2): 237-264.
Hyland, K. 1995. “The author in the text: Hedging in scientific writing.” Hong
Kong Papers in Linguistics and language teaching, 18: 33-42.
______.1996. “Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles.”
Applied Linguistics, 17(4): 433-454.
______. 1997. “Scientific claims and community values: Articulating in an
academic culture.” Language and Communication, 17(1): 19-31.
______. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
______. 2001. “Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles.”
Written Communication, 18(4): 549-574.
______. 2002. “What do they mean? Questions in academic writing.” TEXT,
22: 529-557.
______. 2003. Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Kachru, Y. 1995. “Contrastive rhetoric in World Englishes.” English Today, 41 (11):
21-31.
Kadar-Fulop, J. 1988. “Culture, writing, and curriculum.” In A. Purves (ed)
Writing across Languages and Cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp.25-50). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 153

 vial n_9 - 2012

Kamimura, T. & K. Oi. 1998. “Argumentative strategies in American and

Japanese English.” World Englishes, 17(3): 307-323.
Kaplan, R. B. 1966. “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education.”
Language Learning, 16: 1-20.
Krashen, S. 1984. Writing: Research, Theory and Applications. Laredo: Beverly Hills.
Kubota, R. 1998. “An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese
university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric.” Journal of Second Language
Writing, 7: 69-100.
Kubota, R. & A. Lehner. 2005. “Response to Ulla Connor’s comments.” Journal
of Second Language Writing, 14: 137-143.
Lee, Y., H. Breland and E. Muraki 2004. “Comparability of TOEFL CBT essay
prompts for different native language groups.” TOEFL Research Reports. RR: 77.
Leki, I. 1991. “Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric.” TESOL Quarterly, 25:
123-143.
______. 1997. “Cross-talk: ESL issues and contrastive rhetoric.” In Severino, C.,
Guerra, J.C. and Butler, J.E. (Eds) Writing in Multicultural Settings (pp. 234-244). NY:
The Modern Language Association of America.
______. 2001. “Reciprocal themes in ESL reading and writing.” In T. Silva and P.
Matsuda (eds) Landmark Essays on ESL Writing (pp. 173-190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Lewin, B.A. 2005. “Hedging: An exploratory study of authors’ and readers’
identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts.” Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 4: 163-178.
Lewis, R. D. 2005. Finland, cultural lone wolf. Boston: Intercultural Press.
Liebman, J. 1992. “Toward a new contrastive rhetoric: Differences between Arabic
and Japanese rhetorical instruction.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 1: 141-165.
Martin, J. E. (1992). Towards a theory of text for contrastive rhetoric: An introduction
to issues of text for students, practitioners of contrastive rhetoric. American University
Studies: Series XIII, vol.19. NY.
Matalene, C. (1985). “Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in
China.” College English, 47(8): 789-808.
Matsuda, P. K. 1997. “Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2
writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 6: 45-60.
Mohan, B., & W. A. Y. Lo. 1985. “Academic writing and Chinese students:
Transfer and developmental factors.” TESOL Quarterly, 19: 515-534.

154 133-159
 Argumentation acroos L1 and L2 Writing:
Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues

Nemeth, N. & J. Kormos. 2001. “Pragmatic aspects of task-performance: the case

of argumentation.” Language Teaching Research, 5: 213-240.
Nystrand, M. 1986. The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity
between writers and readers. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
______. 1989. “A Social-interactive model of writing.” Written Communication,
6: 66-85.
Okabe, R. 1983. “Cultural assumptions of East and West: Japan and the United
States.” In W. B. Gudykunst (ed) Intercultural Communication Theory: Current
Perspectives (pp. 21-44). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Ostler, S. E. 1987. “English in parallels: A comparison of English and Arabic
prose.” In U. Connor & R. Kaplan (eds) Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text
(pp.169-185). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Pera, M. 1994. The discourses of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Purves, A.C. 1988. “Introduction.” In Purves, A. (ed) Writing across Languages
and Cultures: Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric (pp. 9-21). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Rocci, A. 2006. “Pragmatic inference and argumentation in intercultural
communication.” Intercultural Pragmatics, 3: 409-442.
Qin, J. & Karabacak, E. 2010. “The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL
university argumentative writing.” System, 38 (3): 1-13.
Sa’addeddin, M.A. 1989. “Text development and Arabic-English negative
interference.” Applied Linguistics, 10 (1): 36-51.
Scollon, R. & S. W. Scollon. 1991. “Topic Confusion in English-Asian Discourse.”
World Englishes, 10 (2): 113-125.
Swales, J. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. 1998. The Argument Culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. NY:
Random House.
Thomas, J. 1983. “Cross-cultural pragmatic failure.” Applied Linguistics, 4(2): 91-
112.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. & Lieflander-Koistinen. 1989. “Argumentation in Finnish
versus English and German editorials.” In M. Kusch & H. Schroder (eds) Text
Interpretation Argumentation. Papers in Textlinguistics (pp. 173-181). Hamburg: Helmut
Buske Verlag.

Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 155

 vial n_9 - 2012

Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Uysal, H. H. 2008a. “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(3): 183-207.
______. 2008b. The interplay between culture and writing: Rhetorical and process
patterns in L1 and L2 argumentative writing within a cultural context. Saarbruecken-
Germany: VDM Verlag Aktiengesellschaft.
______. in press. “Cross-cultural pragmatics of reading: The case of American
and Turkish students reacting to a Turkish text.” The Reading Matrix,
______. 2011. Indirectness, hedging, and overstatements in the conference
proposals of English NS and NNS scholars. Paper presented in 2nd International
PRISEAL Conference: Publishing and Presenting Research Internationally. University
of Silesia: Sosnowiec, Poland.
Vasko, V., H. Kjisik & L. Salo-Lee. 1998. Culture in Finnish development
cooperation. Helsinki: The Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Department for International
Development Cooperation and SAFA.
Walker, G. B. 1986. “Communicating across cultures: Argument and
International Negotiation.” In F. Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, A. Blair, & C. Willard
(eds) Argumentation: Analysis and Practices (pp. 238-250). Dordrecht-Holland: Foris
Publications.
Wood, N. 2006. Perspectives on argument. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zegarac, V. & M. Pennington. 2000. “Pragmatic transfer in intercultural
communication.” In H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport
through talk across cultures (pp.165-190). NY: Continuum International Publishing.

156 133-159
 Argumentation acroos L1 and L2 Writing:
Exploring Cultural Influences and Transfer Issues

Appendix 1
Name English level (Length of stay in the US, Formal writing Education-vocation
length and quality of English instruction instruction in L2
in Turkey, self-evaluation etc.)
Ayse Five years of English instruction in a None B.A. in Embroidery
vocational high school in Turkey (3 hours Teaching, currently a
a week), three months of ESL course in the housewife.
US, has been in the US for 5 years, ranks her
English 5 out of 10.

Sebnem Went to an English medium high school in None (skipped B.A. in English literature,
Turkey, stayed in Britain for 2 years, has been the preparatory MA in Cultural
in the US for 2 years, ranks her English 9/10. class where writing Studies from Britain,
instruction was currently Ph.D. student
given) Communication Studies in
the US.

Ali Went to an English medium junior high Yes B.A. in Physics, Ph.D. in
school and then a science high school in Physics from an American
Turkey, published several articles in English, University, currently a
ranks his English 8/10. post-doc researcher.

Okan Went to a general high school, but then an Yes (both in B.A. in Physics, currently a
English medium university in Turkey, has Turkey and in the Ph.D. student in Physics in
been in the US for 4 years, and took ESL US) the US.
classes for 1 year.

Sedat Went to a general high school, but then an None (skipped the B.A. in Psychology and
English medium university, ranks his English preparatory class) Biology, currently Ph.D.
level 9/10. student in Psychology

Sinem Went to a general high school, but then went Yes B.A. in Physics, currently
to an English medium university, has been in Ph.D. student in Physics in
the US for 1.5 years, ranks her English 7/10. the US.

Merve Graduated from an English medium high Yes B.A. in Electrical-

school and university, has been in the US for Electronic Engineering,
three months, ranks her English 7/10. has just applied for MA in
computer sciences.

Esen Went to an English medium high school and None B.A. in Physical
partly English medium university, has been in Engineering.
the US for a month, ranks her English 6/10.

Erdem English medium high school and university, Yes B.A. in Economics and
has been in the US for 1,5 years, ranks his Mathematics, currently
English as 8/10. Ph.D. student in
Economics in the US.

Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 157

 vial n_9 - 2012

Berk Went to an English medium high school and Yes B.A in Economics,
a university in Turkey, has been in the US for currently PhD student in
1, 5 years, ranks his English as 9/10. Economics in the US.

Irem Attended an English medium high school Yes B.A. in Economics, Ph.D
and University, has been in the US for three student in Economics in
months, ranks her English as 5/10. the US.

Ufuk Attended a general high school and a Turkish Yes B.A. in Electrical-
medium University, went to ESL classes for Electronic Engineering,
three semesters in the US, has been in the US Ph.D. student in Physics in
for 3,5 years, ranks his English 8/10. the US.

Zafer Attended a general high school, English Yes B.A and M.A in English
major in the university, has been in the US Language Education,
for 3,5 years, ranks his English as 10/10. Ph.D student in Foreign
Language Education in US.

Banu Attended a general high school and Turkish None B.A. in Agricultural
medium university, has been in the US for Engineering. Currently a
one year. Attended to several short-term ESL housewife.
classes in churches, ranks her English as 5/10.

Taner Attended a general high school and a Turkish Yes (as a part B.A in Science Education.
medium university. Attended to a TOEFL of TOEFL Ph.D student in Science
preparation course for a year in Turkey, has preparation Education in US.
been in the US for 4,5 years, ranks his English program and has
as 6/10. been going to a
Writing Center in
the US)

Derya Attended a religious high school in Turkey, None B.A. in Theology, currently
has been in the US for 2 years, attended ESL a housewife.
classes in churches for a few months, ranks
her English as 5/10.

Leyla Went to a general high school and a Turkish Yes (as part B.A in Biology Education,
medium university, Attended a TOEFL of TOEFL Ph.D. student in Science
preparation course for a year in Turkey, has preparation Education in US.
been in the US for 4 years, ranks her Englishprogram, has been
as 5/10. going to Writing
Center in the US)
Nevin Went to a general high school and a Turkish None B.A. in Agricultural
medium university. Has been in the US Engineering, M.A. in
for 1,5 years. Attended two ESL classes at Plant Protection and
college, ranks her English as 4/10. Entomology, currently a
housewife
Note: In general and vocational high schools in Turkey, English is taught only for 3-4 hours a week, but in English
medium high schools it is taught for at least 8 hours a week following a preparation class in which English is taught
for 24 hours a week.

158 133-159
 Appendix 2
The Mann-Whitney U test results for indirectness and assertiveness devices,
rhetorical questions, and adorned language.

T=Turkish essay E=English essay

Variables Groups N Mean Rank U Z

T 18 25.6
Assertive words 34.5 -4.035**
E 18 11.4
T 18 20
Point of view distancing 136.5 -0.853
E 18 17
T 18 22
Disclaimers/denials 100.5 -1.954
E 18 15
T 18 19.6
Hedging 142.5 -0.621
E 18 17.4
T 18 21.5
Downtoners/dimunitives 107.5 -1.939
E 18 15.5
T 18 17
Vagueness/ambiguity 136 -0.857
E 18 20
T 18 20.6
Passive 124 -1.659
E 18 16.4
T 18 18.8
Conditionals 157 -0.230
E 18 18.2
T 18 20.5
Rhetorical questions 126 -2.088*
E 18 16.5
T 18 24
Adorned language 64 -3.202**
E 18 13
**2-tailed p<0.01
* 2-tailed p<0.05
Note: Rhetorical questions and adorned language use were proportioned to the total word count in the essays of
each participant.
View publication stats