Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 19:1 (2019) ► pp.133–161

Chinese rhetoric

Modality patterns and the question of indirection in written arguments

| Lingnan University, Hong Kong
This study investigates the question of Chinese indirection as a result of the use of modality expressions, which is conventionally believed to be the hallmark of Chinese rhetoric (e.g. Young, 1994; Bond, 1991; Powers and Gong, 1994). The present research compares and contrasts the degree of assertiveness as reflected in the patterns of modality in two corpora of expert Chinese and English argumentative writing on the same controversial subject. Corpus evidence shows that contrary to expectations, the Chinese writers are significantly more assertive than the English in arguing their case. The frequency of use and distribution patterns of intensifiers present both quantitative and qualitative evidence for the rhetorical differences, which may be accounted for culturally.
Keywords: degree of assertiveness, modality expressions, rhetorical sequences, Chinese indirection, Chinese/English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Stereotypical image of Chinese indirection
    • 1.2More recent research findings
    • 1.3Research questions
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Corpora
    • 2.2Operationalization of the concept of modality for data analysis
    • 2.3Computation of data
  • 3.Findings
    • 3.1Relative assertiveness
    • 3.2Use of maximizers
    • 3.3Differences between emphatic nouns in the expert Chinese and English corpora
    • 3.4Qualitative description of distribution patterns of strengtheners versus softeners
      • 3.4.1Interlacing of strengtheners and softeners in English
      • 3.4.2Density pattern of strengtheners in Chinese relative to English
      • 3.4.3Ascending versus descending strength
      • 3.4.4Emotive strategy in Chinese rhetoric
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 19 June 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16022.yeu
References (23)
References
Aijmer, K. 2002. Modal Adverbs of Certainty and Uncertainty in an English- Swedish Perspective. Language and Computers, 39(1): 97–112.Google Scholar
ADSA (Alberta Debate and Speech Association) 2006. Step-by-Step Guide to Debate. Alberta: ADBA.Google Scholar
Bloor, T. 1998. Conditional Expressions: Meanings and Realizations in Two Genres. In Linguistic Choice Across Genres: Variations in Spoken and Written English, A. Sanchez-Macarro and R. Carter (eds), 47–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bond, M. 1991. Beyond the Chinese Face: Insights from Psychology. Hong Kong; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, L. 2007. Native and Non-native Scholars’ Authority in Research Articles. Paper presented at 17th International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning held in Hawaii.
Dorgeloh, H. 1997. Inversion in Modern English: Form and Function. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garret, M. 2001. Asian Challenge. In Alternative Rhetoric: Challenges to the Rhetorical Tradition, L. Gray-Rosendale and S. Gruber (eds), 295–314. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd Edition) London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hoye, L. 1997. Adverbs & Modality in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hu, Z., Brown, D., and Brown, L. 1982. Some Linguistic Differences in the Written English of Chinese and Australian students. Language Learning and Communication 11: 39–49.Google Scholar
Kubler, C. 1985. A Study of Europeanized Grammar in Modern Written Chinese. Taipei: Student Book Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Martin, J. and White, P. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, D., Poon, W., Rogerson-Revell, P., Scollon, R. and Scollon, S., Yu, B., and Yung, V. 1993. Contrastive Discourse in English & Cantonese News Stories: A Preliminary Analysis of Newspaper, Radio, and Television Versions of the Lan Kwai Fong New Year’s News Story. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong Department of EnglishGoogle Scholar
Myers, G. 1996. Strategic Vagueness in Academic Writing. In Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues, E. Ventola and A. Mauranen (eds), 3–18 Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, P. 1997. Hedging Strategies in Written Academic Discourse: Strengthening the Argument by Weakening the Claim. In Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, R. Markkanen and S. Hartmut (eds), 21–41. New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milton, J. and Hyland, K. 1997. Assertions in Students’ Academic Essays: A Comparison of English NS and NNS Student Writers. In Language Analysis, Description and Pedagogy, Proceedings of International Conference Organized by Language Centre HKUST, 1999, 147–161.Google Scholar
Noor, R. 2001. Contrastive Rhetoric in Expository Prose: Approaches and Achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2001): 255–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. 1971. Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China. New York: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Powers, J. and Gong, G. 1994. East Asian Voice and the Expression of Cultural Ethos. In Voice on Voice: Perspectives, Definitions, Inquiry, K. B. Yancey (ed.), 202–225. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wu, S. and Rubin, D. 2000. Evaluating the Impact of Collectivism and Individualism on Argumentative Writing by Chinese and North American College Students. Research in the Teaching of English, 351(November): 148–178.Google Scholar
Yates, J. and Lee, J. 1996. Chinese Decision-Making. In The Handbook of Chinese Psychology, M. H. Bond (ed.), 338–351. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Young, L. 1994. Crosstalk and Culture in Sino-American Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar