Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigates the potential use of the argument-counterargument structure in English L2 essays written by Indonesian EFL learners. It examines whether L2 proficiency affects the use of opposing views in their essays, and measures whether there is a correlation between the use of the rhetorical structure and the participants’ overall essay quality. In order to achieve this purpose, the study asks participants to write an English argumentative essay and measures their English L2 proficiency. The researcher also requests that the participants write in Indonesian (L1) and uses the data to measure whether there is consistency in terms of the use of the argument-counterargument structure in their L1 and L2 essays. The results show that the majority of the students developed a one-sided model of argumentation in their L1 and L2 essays by focusing only on how to state their main claim and providing relevant justification for it. The students’ relatively low L2 proficiency was found to be one of the possible factors behind their inability to include other-side views in their essays. In addition, the participants’ use of rhetorical features affected the overall quality of their essays. Pedagogical implications of these findings will be discussed.

Keywords

Argument-counterargument structure rhetorical feature L2 proficiency writing as dialogic process

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arsyad

(1999) The Indonesian and English argument structure: a cross-cultural rhetoric of argumentative texts. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 22(2): 85–102.

Bereiter

Scardamalia

(1987) The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Berrill

(1992) Issues of audience: egocentrism revisited. In: Andrews

(ed.) Rebirth of Rhetoric: Essays in Language, Culture, and Education. London: Routledge, 81–101.

Budiharso

(2006) The rhetoric features of English and Indonesian essays made by EFL undergraduate students. TEFLIN Journal 17(2): 157–86.

Cahyono

(2000) Rhetorical strategies in the English and Indonesian persuasive essays of Indonesian university students. Montreal: Concordia University.

Čmejrková

Daneš

(1997) Academic writing and cultural identity: the case of Czech academic writing. In: Duszak

(ed.) Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 41–61.

Connor

Lauer

(1988) Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In: Purves

(ed.) Writing Across Languages: Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, 138–59.

Cook

(1992) Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning 42(4): 557–91.

Crammond

(1998) The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication 15(2): 230–68.

10.

Cumming

(1994) Writing expertise and L2 proficiency. In: Cumming

(ed.) Bilingual Performance in Reading and Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 173–221.

11.

Djiwandono

(1996) Tes Pengajaran Bahasa. Bandung: Penerbit ITB.

12.

Ede

Lunsford

(1984) Audience addressed/audience invoked: the role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication 35(2): 155–71.

13.

Fahnestock

Secor

(1990) A Rhetoric of Argument. New York: McGraw-Hill.

14.

Gárate

Melero

(2004) Teaching how to write argumentative texts at primary school. In: Rijlaarsdam

Bergh

Hvd

Couzijn

(eds.) Effective Learning and Teaching of Writing: A Handbook of Writing in Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 323–37.

15.

Govier

(1996) Writers, readers, and arguments. In: Berril

(ed.) Perspectives on Written Argument. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 73–90.

16.

Grabe

Kaplan

(1996) Theory and Practice of Writing. London: Longman.

17.

Grosjean

(2008) Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

18.

Hartfiel

Jacobs

Zinkgraf

. (1985) Learning ESL Composition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

19.

Hinds

(1987) Reader versus writer responsibility: a new typology. In: Connor

Kaplan

(eds.) Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 141–52.

20.

Hinkel

(1999) Culture and second language writing. In: Hinkel

(ed.) Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 71–73.

21.

Hoey

(2001) Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.

22.

Kamimura

(1996) Composing in Japanese as a first language and English as a foreign language: a study of narrative writing. RELC Journal 27(1): 47–69.

23.

Kobayashi

Rinnert

(2007) Transferability of composing competence across languages: from L2 to L1. Report for Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), Research Code 16520343. Available at: Hiroshima University Institutional Repository website: http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/metadb/up/kaken/16520343.pdf

24.

Kroll

(1978) Cognitive egocentrism and the problem of audience awareness in written discourse. Research in the Teaching of English 12(3): 269–81.

25.

Kuntjara

(2004) Cultural transfer in EFL writing: a look at contrastive rhetoric on English and Indonesian. K@ta 6(1): 1–13.

26.

Leitão

(2000) The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development 43(6): 332–60.

27.

Multon

(2010) Interrater reliability. In: Salkind

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 627–29.

28.

O’Keefe

(1999) How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: a meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. In: Roloff

Paulson

(eds.) Communication Yearbook 22. London: SAGE Publications, 209–49.

29.

Qin

Karabacak

(2010) The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System 38(3): 444–56.

30.

Rusfandi (2013) Transfer of L2 English rhetorical structures of writing to L1 Indonesian by Indonesian EFL learners. PhD dissertation, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

31.

Spaan

(2000) A Student’s Guide to MELAB. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

32.

Stemler

(2007) Interrater reliability. In: Salkind

Rasmussen

(eds.) Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 484–86.

33.

Thompson

(2001) Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22(1): 58–78.

34.

University of Muhammadiyah Purwokerto (2005) Satuan acara perkuliahan. Purwokerto: Universitas Muhammadiyah.

35.

Wolfe

Britt

(2008) The locus of the my side bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning 14(1): 1–27.

36.

Wolfersberger

(2003) L1 to L2 writing process and strategy transfer: a look at lower proficiency writers. TESL-EJ 7 (2): 1–13.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.40 MB

Argument-Counterargument Structure in Indonesian EFL Learners’ English Argumentative Essays: A Dialogic Concept of Writing

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material