Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied LinguisticsVol. 24:2 (2001) ► pp.17–34
What are they getting at? Placement of important ideas in lengthy Chinese newstext
A contrastive analysis with Australian Newstext
When reading lengthy expository texts, Australian-born (Aus) learners of Modern Standard Chinese (MSC) as a second language (L2) often find it difficult to elicit the main points being expressed by the text author. Contrastive rhetoric studies attribute this to the differing stylistic patterns of argumentation between L1-English and L1-MSC discourse. This explanation, however, is far from universally accepted, with many studies refuting such conclusions. This study seeks to contribute to the debate by applying a more rigorous analytic framework, the Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) framework, to lengthy newstext, so as to explicate the lower level, more local features of Chinese discourse that may lead to the problems faced by L2 learners of MSC. Results reveal that local level placement of clauses differs between Australian and Chinese newstexts. Pedagogical implications are discussed, namely the benefits of promoting awareness of such cross-cultural variation within the language classroom.
References
Backlund, I.
(1988) Grounds for prominence. On hierarchies and grounding in English expository text. Studia Neophilologica 601:37–61. 
Bateman, J. A. and K. J. Rondhuis
(1997) Coherence relations: towards a general specification. Discourse processes 241:3–49.
Baumann, J. F.
(1986) Effect of rewritten content textbook passages on middle grade students’ comprehension of main ideas: making the inconsiderate considerate. Journal of Reading Behavior 181:1–21.
Callow, K. and J. C. Callow
(1992) Text as purposive communication: a meaning-based analysis. In W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson (eds) Discourse description: diverse linguistic analyses of a fundraising text. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Clyne, M.
(1987) Discourse structures and discourse expectations: implications for Anglo-German academic communication in English. In L. E. Smith (ed.) Discourse across cultures: strategies in world Englishes. New York, Prentice Hall.
(1994) Inter-cultural communication at work: cultural values in discourse. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U.
(1994) Text linguistics and the study of contrastive rhetorics. In S. Cmejrkova, F. Danes and E. Havlova (eds), Writing vs speaking: language, text, discourse, communication. Tubingen, GNV Gunter Narr Verlag.
(1996) Contrastive rhetoric: cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
de Beaugrande, R.
(1991) Linguistic theory: the discourse of fundamental works. London, Longman.
Fox, B.
(1987) Discourse structure and anaphora in written and conversational English. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Freebody, P. and R. C. Anderson
(1986) Serial position and rated importance in the recall of text. Discourse Processes 91:31–36.
Goldman, S. R., E. U. Saul and N. Cote
(1995) Paragraphing, reader and task effects on discourse comprehension. Discourse Processes 201:273–305.
Grabe, W. and R. B. Kaplan
(1996) Theory and practice of writing: an applied linguistic perspective. London, Longman.
Hatch, E.
(1992) Discourse and language education. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hinds, J.
(1987) Reader versus writer responsibility: a new typology. In U. Connor and R. B. Kaplan (eds) Writing across languages: analysis of L2 text. Reading, Massachusetts, Addison Wesley.
(1990) Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Thai. In U. Connor and A. M. Johns (eds) Coherence in writing: research and pedagogical perspectives. Alexandria, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Hoey, M.
(1991) Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, R. B.
(1989) On written text. Anglo-American Studies 91:117–27.
Kieras, D. E.
(1985) Thematic processes in the comprehension of technical prose. In B. K. Britton and J. B. Black (eds) Understanding expository text: a theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text. Hillsdale, New Jersey, LEA Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kies, D.
(1990) Indeterminacy in sentence structure. Linguistics and Education 21: 231–58.
Kirkpatrick, A.
(1993) Information sequencing in Modern Standard Chinese. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 16,2: 27–60.
(1995) Chinese rhetoric: methods of argument. Multilingua 14,3:271–95.
(1996) Topic — comment or modifier — modified? Information structure in Modern Standard Chinese. Studies in Language 20,1:93–113.
Knott, A. and R. Dale
(1994) Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 181:35–62.
Krzeszowski, T. P.
(1990) Contrasting languages: the scope of contrastive linguistics. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.
Leki, I.
(1991) Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly 251:123–43.
Lorch, R. F. Jr
(1989) Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review 11:209–34.
Lotfipour-Saedi, K. and F. Rezai-Tajani
(1996) Exploration in thematization strategies and their discoursal values in English. Text 161:225–49.
McGregor, W.
(1991) Discourse analysis and intercultural communication. Australian Journal of Communication 18,1:13–29.
McKoon, G., R. Ratcliff, G. Ward and R. Sproat
(1993) Syntactic prominence effects on discourse processes. Journal of Memory and Language 321:593–607.
Mann, W. C. and C. M. I. M Matthiessen
(1991) Functions of language in two frameworks. Word 421:231–49.
Mann, W. C. and S. A. Thompson
(1986) Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes 91:57–90.
(1988) Rhetorical Structure Theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 81:243–81.
Mann, W. C., C. M. I. M. Matthiessen and S. A. Thompson
(1992) Rhetorical Structure Theory and text analysis. In W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson (eds) Discourse description: diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Matthiessen, C.
(1992) Interpreting the textual metafunction. In M. Davies and L. Ravelli (eds) Advances in systemic linguistics: recent theory and practice. London, Pinter.
Mauranen, A.
(1993) Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: a textlinguistic study. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang.
Meyer, B. J. F.
(1992) An analysis of a plea for money. In W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson (eds) Discourse description: diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Mohan, B. A. and W. A. Y. Lo
(1985) Academic writing and Chinese students: transfer and development factors. TESOL Quarterly 191:515–34.
O’Brien, T.
(1995) Rhetorical structure analysis and the case of the inaccurate, incoherent source-hopper. Applied Linguistics 161:442–82.
Sanders, T. and C. van Wijk
(1996) PISA - a procedure for analyzing the structure of explanatory texts. Text 161:91–132.
Sanders, T. J. M., W. P. M Spooren and L. G. M Noordman
(1992) Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 151:1–35.
Scollon, R. and S. Scollon
(1997) Point of view and citation: fourteen Chinese and English versions of the ‘same’ news story. Text 17,1: 83–125.
Tai, J. H. Y.
(1985) Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. In J. Haiman (ed.) Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Tai, J. H. Y
(1993) Iconicity: motivations in Chinese grammar. In M. Eid and G. Iverson (eds) Principles and prediction: the analysis of natural language: papers in honor of Gerald Sanders. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Taylor, G. and T. Chen
(1991) Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discour[s]e analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied Linguistics 12,3: 319–36.
Thompson, S. A. and W. C. Mann
(1987) Rhetorical Structure Theory: a framework for the analysis of texts. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 11:79–105.
Tomlin, R. S.
(1985) Fore ground-background information and the syntax of subordination. Text 51:85–122.
Tomlin, R. S., L. Forrest, M. M. Pu and M. H. Kim
(1997) Discourse semantics. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as structure and process. London, Sage.
Tyler, A.
(1994) The role of syntactic structure in discourse structure: signaling logical and prominence relations. Applied Linguistics 151:243–62.
Tyler A. and Bro, J.
(1992) Discourse structure in nonnative English discourse: the effect of ordering and interpretive cues on perceptions of comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 141: 71–86.
Uhlirova, L.
(1993) Parts of the sentence: evidence of their communicative significance in text structure. Quantitative Linguistics 521:263–70.
van den Broek, P. and T. Trabasso
(1986) Causal networks vs. goal hierarchies in summarizing text. Discourse Processes 91:1–15.
van Dijk, T. A.
(1980) Text and context: explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London. Longman.
Wang, X.
(1994) Writing concepts in Chinese writing instruction. Issues in Applied Linguistics 51:211–29.
Wong, S. L C.
(1988) What we do and don’t know about Chinese learners of English: a critical review of selected research. RELC Journal 191:1–20.
Young, L. W. L.
(1994) Crosstalk and culture in Sino-American communication. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Cited by
Cited by 5 other publications
da Cunha, Iria & Mikel Iruskieta
2010. Comparing rhetorical structures in different languages: The influence of translation strategies. Discourse Studies 12:5 ► pp. 563 ff. 
Lee, Sook Hee
2014. Argument structure as an interactive resource by undergraduate students. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 9:3 ► pp. 277 ff.
Taboada, Maite & William C. Mann
2006. Applications of Rhetorical Structure Theory. Discourse Studies 8:4 ► pp. 567 ff.
Zhang, Liang, Yuan Jia & Aijun Li
2014. The 9th International Symposium on Chinese Spoken Language Processing, ► pp. 265 ff.
Zhang, Liang, Yuan Jia & Aijun Li
2016. 2016 10th International Symposium on Chinese Spoken Language Processing (ISCSLP), ► pp. 1 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.