Argumentative strategies in American and Japanese English

Datos Bibliográficos

ID2254775
AutoresTaeko Kamimura (Senshu University, autor de correspondencia), Kyoko Oi (0000-0003-4751-6373, autor de correspondencia)
Año1998
Volumen17
Número3
Páginas307-323
Fecha de publicación1998-11-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaWorld Englishes (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0883-2919 • E-ISSN: 1467-971X
EditorialWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/1467-971x.00106
OpenAlexW2073049896
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas10

This study examines the differences between argumentative strategies in English used by American and Japanese students. Two groups of English essays on capital punishment written by American and Japanese students were analyzed in terms of organization patterns, rhetorical appeals, diction, and cultural influences. It was found that the Japanese students used an organizational unit called 'reservation' more frequently and that this gave the impression of circularity to their essays. The American students employed more 'rational' appeals than the Japanese students, who by contrast used more affective appeals than the American counterparts. The types of diction preferred by the American students (such as 'should,' the + superlatives,' and 'I believe') functioned as 'emphatic devices' while those preferred by the Japanese students (such as 'I think' and 'maybe') acted as 'softening devices.' Finally, the American students tended to exhibit cultural tokens such as references to 'counseling,''Biblical references,' and 'the tax payer's standpoint'; the Japanese students, on the other hand, tended to point out the suffering of the victim's family and friends and concrete incidents, trying to evoke empathy in the reader's mind

American English · Argumentative · Capital punishment · Diction · Empathy · Linguistics · Rhetorical question · Sociology · Discourse Analysis in Language Studies · EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Psychology · Social Psychology