Table Of Contents
Discourse structures
'Writer-' v. 'reader-responsible' writing
A study of writing in Japanese led Hinds (1987) to distinguish between two types of languages: those which regard it as the writer's responsibility to ensure that the message of the text is clear to the reader, and those where it is the reader's responsibility to discern the writer's meaning, however complicated or elliptical the text. This distinction aligns broadly with Hall's (1976) distinction between 'high- and low-context' cultures.
In these terms, Japanese writing is typically 'reader-responsible', whereas the norm for academic English in Australia and allied cultures is 'writer-responsible'. One way we ensure this is by utilising predictable generic structures, well-established by convention, for the reports and reseach papers that we write and publish. Such conventions are coming to be adopted in China, partly as a result of the training Chinese academics have received in overseas universities; but formal training in them has yet to become widespread even in universities in China, let alone in secondary education. (Several students mention that they first became aware of Western writing conventions when preparing for the IELTS test or taking a bridging course on arrival in Australia.)
'Deductive' v. 'inductive' argument structures
Several of the students interviewed comment on the stress we place here on the formal structure of written assignments. By the same token, they observe that the way we expect an argument to be presented differs from what they are used to. In part this is a matter of greater concern in Australia with careful and explicit contextualisation, including definitions of terms ('writer responsibility' combined with academic rigour).
What about things like the structure of a written piece like introduction, body?
No. I mean, perhaps in China not that much been emphasise. I think in China, I can write anything I want to. As long as it's interesting and the others find it interesting it's alright; the structure sometimes is not that important.
— Lucy
I think here they require quite clear the structure, such like you have to have the introduction and body and conclusion. But in China I think we directly write our article. We don't need to to summarise, have content table, or something like that...
— Anne
A very interesting thing is, that you like the paragraph – short paragraph, short paragraph, one by one; but we Chinese, if we write a paper, not too many words, we usually write three or four paragraphs totally: just there is the introduction, the body – a long [one], and the conclusion. I think the Australian teachers, you want to make it clear; you want to see the relation between the first and the second ... That maybe is more easy for the reader....
— Nana
English and Chinese are different in that English is what is called 'writer-responsible'. That is, an article is divided into paragraphs, and in each paragraph the first or last sentence is a topic-sentence indicating what the paragraph is about. Now that I'm aware of this, I try to utilise this in my writing...
— Daniel
In Australia, the first sentence in the paragraph, you must give the topic sentence. In China, not really. You can go around and around and [then] go to the point. Australians are very directly – "in this paragraph I'll discuss what", blablabla. In China maybe you can talk about in 2 or 3 sentences and then you go to the point. Maybe it's just a different way to express.
— Gerry
In Accounting Theory, for example, if we are asked, for example, "Is the Australian accounting standard a positive method?", normally we will say, "I think it is positive", and [explain] why it is positive. But according to the Australian style, we have to say,
- What is the Australian accounting standard?
- What is "positive"?
- Is the Australian accounting standard positive?
- Why is it positive?
So we [Chinese] ignore points 1 to 3, and begin with step 4: I would just say, "yes, it is positive", and then explain why. But in due course I realised that I have to use the Australian structure, and that if I use my structure in an exam, I may lose marks.
— Keith
But a number of comments focus on the difference between what applied linguists refer to as:
- a 'deductive' argument structure - i.e., a presentation which begins by asserting a thesis, and then develops a justification for it; and
- an 'inductive' argument structure - one which proceeds by expounding a number of relevant facts and considerations, and only in the conclusion (if at all) stating explicitly the thesis that these are intended to justify.
In both English and Chinese writers can and do adopt either structure according to the needs of the situation. But in academic writing in English the 'deductive' argument structure has become the standard style; whereas in Chinese writing (and other forms of public communication see Young 1982, 1994) the cultural tradition favours 'inductive' argument structures.
The write essay here is a little more, like – maybe more formal.
So, more informal in China?
Not informal but – the system is different I think. Even the way of writing have to learn how to write here. Like, when I was learn[ing] how to write IELTS essays, in the book they differentiate different way of writing. In Australia, they got some – evaluative writing.
And in China, not?
In China they got as well but the main point that different ... Chinese language they tend to be not that clear [i.e., explicit]. Good essay might probably is make you thinking, think inside, and not point out what is about, like, in Australia, clearly introduction, and ...
So, the structure is different?
Yeah; it might be good essay in China but not good in Australia. Because of the culture, they tend to be not express clearly.
— Sandy
What about the actual organization of an essay? Is that done the same way in Chinese as we do it in English?
Mmm - some of them is similar, but - mmm - I think the big difference is, all the Chinese article is, they want you say your opinion. It's not depend - like, you do all the research, you should support your opinions from others - some people has already published a book, he has already got a opinion, you said, OK, I get this opinion to support my opinion from the book. But, Chinese article, you don't need like this, you just say your opinion; this is your opinion...
And if you're writing an argumentative essay, where would you state your opinion in the essay - at the beginning or at the end?
Mmm. I think it's through all the article. But at the end. Especially at the end you should say, this is my opinion. Here it's like, from the beginning, the first sentence, you should say, this is my opinion, and say, this is the reason, one, two, three - like this; yeah, it's totally different.
— Pearl
The Chinese writing style, is it the same?
It's totally different logic. In English, you must write your opinion in the first sentence but in Chinese, you always hide [it] in the end. It's a different logic. They show how you think, the process how you think, and finally you know: oh – he agree, or disagree. But in English it's not like that.
Is that something that you are actually taught to write essays like that either at high school or at university?
Teachers did never say they want you put your opinion in the end. But - they never push you put your opinion in the first; but I think it's the whole culture.
— Grace
The problem for Australian teachers expecting 'deductively' organised writing from their students is that an 'inductively' organised text can seem to have little or no recognisable structure; the relevance of information adduced may be unclear, and what the writer intended to be support for an argument may be read as no more than exposition or descriptive detail.
The problem for most Chinese students is to learn to present their arguments in a form that is readily accessible to their teachers. And while they have in general been well-schooled in sentence-level grammar, even the most sophisticated still have to acquire for themselves the subtleties of linking propositions to form coherent English discourse.
I wrote to my lecturer, saying that I'd found the assignment very difficult, and asked him to give me some feedback.... He said the latter part of the assignment was quite well-written, and showed that I had the ability to do quite well, [but that] the argument was weakened because there weren't sufficient linkages holding it together.
— Daniel
One of my problems is ... the structure. It seems I can't structure - organise my essays, and the teacher said all the writing is messy: they are – one part, one part, one part – they are separate, not follow on effectly.
And when she said that to you, could you see that? Could you agree with that?
At first I can't. I think it's very clear, I tell everything about the topic, I also do much research, and I can't see [the problem]; but when I see some examples, I see my essay is very worth to get the failed – it's too bad, too bad, it's very very – bad!
— Nana
Download a printable version of this page (.doc ~10Kb)Problems? Questions? Comments? Please provide us feedback.
In his book Beyond Culture ( 1976), Edward Hall posits a continuum between two styles of communication:
Cultures, he argues, differ in the extent to which they favour one style over the other; "Hall's descriptions of both the low- and high-context styles of communication provide a general characterization of U.S. and Chinese styles of communication, respectively" ( Gao & Ting-Toomey 1998, p. 4).