Skip Navigation

Applied Linguistics 1991 12(3):319-336; doi:10.1093/applin/12.3.319
© 1991 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (22)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by TAYLOR, G.
Right arrow Articles by TINGGUANG, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Articles

Linguistic, Cultural, and Subcultural Issues in Contrastive Discoure Analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese Scientific Texts

GORDON TAYLOR and CHEN TINGGUANG

Monash University Melbourne
Central South University of Technology Changsha

Empirical studies designed to test Kaplan's thesis that discourse structure varies widely with ‘culturo-linguistic systems’ have provoked wildly conflicting results. This lack of agreement is due in large measure to certain assumptions being made about the relation between a language system and a culture, to the nature of the questions being asked, and to a certain amount of disarray in the methodology of studies mounted to test the claim. To overcome these problems, this paper focuses on the likely sources of variability in discourse structure by comparing the introductions to papers written in variety of related disciplines by three groups of physical scientists: Anglo-Americans writing in English, Chinese writing in English, and Chinese writing in Chinese. We find that there is, indeed, an underlying rhetorical structure common to all language groups and disciplines, but that there are systematic variations from this structure. Some variations characterize the discipline rather than the language or nationality of the writers. Others show strong differences between western and Chinese scientists, irrespective of language. The nature of these variations indicates the futility of broad generalizations about the connections between discourse structure and ‘culturo-linguistic systems’, a finding that courses in English for academic purposes should heed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Written CommunicationHome page
D. Cahill
The Myth of the "Turn" in Contrastive Rhetoric
Written Communication, April 1, 2003; 20(2): 170 - 194.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Business CommunicationHome page
Yunxia Zhu
Rhetorical Moves in Chinese Sales Genres, 1949 to the Present
Journal of Business Communication, April 1, 2000; 37(2): 156 - 172.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Written CommunicationHome page
R. KUBOTA
A Reevaluation of the Uniqueness of Japanese Written Discourse: Implications for Contrastive Rhetoric
Written Communication, October 1, 1997; 14(4): 460 - 480.
[Abstract]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.