Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 23, No. 0, pp.1194-1215
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Jan 2023
Received 04 Nov 2023 Revised 02 Dec 2023 Accepted 13 Dec 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.23..202312.1194

Analyzing Rhetorical Structure Development in Korean EAP Students from an Intercultural Rhetoric Perspective: A Corpus-based Genre Study

Ji Yoon Hong ; Hyunsook Yoon
(First author) Lecturer, Dept. of English Education, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. my-sun6@hanmail.net
(corresponding author) Professor, Dept. of English Education, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. hsyoon3@hufs.ac.kr


© 2023 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study examines the evolution of academic writing among Korean graduate students in terms of rhetorical structure from an intercultural rhetoric perspective. It analyzes four distinct corpora produced by Korean L1 experts, English L1 experts, and English L2 students at two different academic stages, aiming to identify differences in rhetorical structure between English and Korean using move analysis. Initially, it compares introductions in research articles (RAs) authored by experts in English and Korean. Subsequently, it investigates how writings by the same Korean graduate students at different academic levels compare to those produced by expert groups. The study employs quantitative analysis across these corpora and supplements this with qualitative insights drawn from interviews with Korean authors, rhetoric specialists, and Korean L2 students to ensure accurate interpretation. Results indicate that even lower-level Korean graduate students' writings, as L2 writers, exhibit a closer alignment with English rather than Korean rhetoric. The findings advance our understanding of how IR and EAP students' developmental processes unfold in terms of rhetorical structure, highlighting their hybrid nature. This study sheds light on the relatively unexplored area of English L2 writers' acquisition of rhetorical structure within the RA genre and suggests pedagogical implications for EAP genre-based writing.

Keywords:

Intercultural rhetoric (IR), English for Academic Purposes (EAP), move analysis, rhetorical structure, L2 development

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2023.

References

  • Atkinson, D. 2004. Contrasting rhetoric/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3(4), 277-289. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.002]
  • Atkinson, D. and U. Connor. 2008. Multilingual writing development. In C. Bazerman, ed., Handbook of Research on Writing: History, Society, School, Individual, Text, 515-532. New York: Erlbaum.
  • Baker, W. 2013. Interpreting the culture in intercultural rhetoric: A critical perspective from English as a lingua franca studies. In D. Belcher and G. Nelson, eds., Critical and Corpus-based Approaches to Intercultural Rhetoric, 22-45. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Braun, V. and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77-101. [https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa]
  • Canagarajah, S. 2013. From intercultural rhetoric to cosmopolitan practice: Addressing new challenges in lingua franca English. In D. Belcher and G. Nelson, eds., Critical and Corpus-based Approaches to Intercultural Rhetoric, 203-226. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Chen, M. and J. Flowerdew. 2018. Introducing data-driven learning to PhD students for research writing purposes: A territory-wide project in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes 50, 97-112. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.11.004]
  • Cheng, A. 2007. Transferring generic features and recontextualizing genre awareness: understanding writing performance in the ESP genre-based literacy framework. English for Specific Purposes 26, 287-307. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.12.002]
  • Choi, Y. H. 1988. Text structure of Korean speakers’ argumentative essays in English. World Englishes 7(2), 129-142. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1988.tb00226.x]
  • Connor, U. 2002. New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly 36, 493-510. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3588238]
  • Connor, U. 2004. Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3, 291-304. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003]
  • Connor, U. 2008. Mapping multidimensional aspects of research: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, and V. Rozycki, eds, Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, 299–315. [https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169.19con]
  • Connor, U. 2011. Intercultural Rhetoric in the Writing Classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.3488851]
  • Cotos, E., S. Huffman and S. Link. 2015. Furthering and applying move/step constructs: Technology-driven marshalling of Swalesian genre theory for EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic purposes 19, 52-72. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.004]
  • Cotos, E., S. Link and S. R. Huffman. 2017. Effects of DDL technology on genre learning. Language, Learning and Technology 21(3), 104-130.
  • de Bot, K., W. Lowie and M. H. Verspoor. 2011. Introduction. In M. H. Verspoor and K. de Bot, eds., A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development: Methods and Techniques, 1-4. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.00toc]
  • Dong, J. and X. Lu. 2020. Promoting discipline-specific genre competence with corpus-based genre analysis activities. English for Specific Purposes 58, 138-154. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.01.005]
  • Eggington, W. 1987. Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effective communication. In U. Connor and R. Kaplan, eds., Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text, 153-138. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Feng, H. 2008. A genre-based study of research grant proposals in China. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout and W. V. Rozycki, eds., Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, 63-86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169.07fen]
  • Harwood, N. and G. Hadley. 2004. Demystifying institutional practices: Critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 23, 355-377. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.08.001]
  • Hinds, J. 1983. Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text 3, 183-195. [https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1983.3.2.183]
  • Hinds, J. 1990. Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor and R. Kaplan, eds., Writing across Languages: Analysis of Second Language Text, 141-152. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Hirano, E. 2009. RA introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English for Specific Purposes 28, 240-250. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.02.001]
  • Hyland, K. 2007. Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy, and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 16(3), 148-164. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005]
  • Johnstone, B. 2008. Discourse Analysis. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Jou, Y. 2017. Hidden challenges of tasks in an EAP writing textbook: EAL graduate students’ perceptions and textbook authors’ responses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 30, 13-25. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.001]
  • Kanoksilapatham, B. 2007. Rhetorical moves in biochemistry RAs. In D. Biber, U. Connor and T. Upton, eds., Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure, 73-119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28.06kan]
  • Kanoksilapatham, B. 2015. Distinguishing textual features characterizing structural variation in research articles across three engineering sub-discipline corpora. English for Specific Purposes 37, 74-86. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.008]
  • Kaplan, R. B. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning 16(1), 1-20. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x]
  • Kim, Y. and E. Lee. 2008. A genre-analytic study of Korean RA introductions with a focus on content analysis. Bilingual Research 36, 43-67. [https://doi.org/10.17296/korbil.2008..36.43]
  • Kubota, R. 2010. Critical approaches to theory in second language writing: A case of critical contrastive rhetoric. In T. Silva and P. Matsuda, eds., Practicing Theory in Second Language Writing, 191-208. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
  • Kubota, R. and A. Lehner. 2004. Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing 13, 7-27. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.003]
  • Lee, S. 2001. A contrastive rhetoric study of Korean and English research paper introductions based on Swales’ move analysis. Journal of the Applied Linguistics Association of Korea 17, 23-53.
  • Lim, J. M. H. 2017. Writing descriptions of experimental procedures in language education: Implications for the teaching of English for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes 47, 61-80. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.05.001]
  • Lin, L. and S. Evans. 2012. Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. English for Specific Purposes 31, 150-160. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.10.002]
  • Loi, C. K. 2010. RA introductions in Chinese and English: A comparative genre-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purpose 9, 267-279. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.09.004]
  • Lu, X., J. E. Casal and Y. Liu. 2020. The rhetorical functions of syntactically complex sentences in social science research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 44, 1-16. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100832]
  • Matsuda, P. K. and D. Atkinson. 2008. A conversation on contrastive rhetoric: Dwight Atkinson and Paul Kei Matsuda talk about issues, conceptualizations, and the future of contrastive rhetoric. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout and W. Rozycki, eds., Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, 277-298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169.18mat]
  • McEnery, T, R. Xiao and Y. Tono. 2006. Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. New York: Routledge.
  • McIntosh, K., U. Connor and E. Gokpinar-Shelton. 2017. What intercultural rhetoric can bring to EAP/ESP writing studies in English as a lingua franca world? Journal of English for Academic Purposes 29, 12-20. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.09.001]
  • Meunier, F. and D. Littré. 2013. Tracking learners’ progress: Adopting a dual ’corpus cum experimental data approach. The Modern Language Journal 97(S1), 61-76. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01424.x]
  • Moreno, A. I. 2008. The importance of comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout and W. V. Rozycki, eds., Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, 25-41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169.04mor]
  • Moreno, A. I. 2013. Intercultural rhetoric in language for specific purposes. In C. A. Chapelle, ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 2783-2788. Oxford/Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0558]
  • Moreno, A. I., and J. M. Swales. 2018. Strengthening move analysis methodology towards bridging the function-form gap. English for Specific Purposes 50, 40-63. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.11.006]
  • Mur Dueñas, P. 2011. An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 3068-3079. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002]
  • Park, E. S. 2006. A genre analysis of introduction in Korean theses based on the CARS+3 model. Journal of Korean Language Education 17(1), 191-210.
  • Peters, S. 2011. Asserting or deflecting expertise? Exploring the rhetorical practices of master’s theses in the philosophy of education. English for Specific Purposes 30(3), 176-185. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.02.005]
  • Ryu, H. 2006. Rhetorical patterns in Korean college students' English expository writings. English Teaching 61(3), 273-292.
  • Shehzad, W. 2008. Move two: Establishing a niche. Ibérica 15, 25-50.
  • Sheldon, E. 2011. Rhetorical differences in RA introductions written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10, 238-251. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004]
  • Sheldon, E. 2019. Knowledge construction of discussion/conclusion sections of research articles written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 37, 1-10. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.002]
  • Soler-Monreal, C. 2015. Announcing one’s work in PhD theses in computer science: A comparison of Move 3 in literature reviews written in English L1, English L2, and Spanish L1. English for Specific Purposes 40, 27-41. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.07.004]
  • Swales, J. M. 1981. Aspects of Article Introduction. Birmingham, UK: University of Aston Language Studies Unit.
  • Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Swales, J. M. 2004. Research Genres: Exploration and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827]
  • Thewissen. J. 2013. Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: Insights from an error‐tagged EFL learner corpus. The Modern Language Journal 97(S1), 77-101. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01422.x]
  • Upton, T. and M. Cohen. 2009. An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as example. Discourse Studies 11(5), 585-605. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609341006]
  • Upton, T. and U. Connor. 2001. Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes 20(4), 313-329. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00022-3]
  • Verspoor, M. H., W. Lowie and M. van Dijk. 2008. Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal 92, 214-231. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00715.x]
  • Vyatkina, N. 2013. Specific syntactic complexity: Developmental profiling of individuals based on an annotated learner corpus. The Modern Language Journal 97(S1), 11-30. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01421.x]
  • Wang, W. and C. Yang. 2015. Claiming centrality as promotion in applied linguistics research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20, 162-175. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.002]
  • Xu, M, C. Huang and X. You. 2016. Reasoning patterns of undergraduate theses in translation studies: An intercultural rhetoric study. English for Specific Purposes 41, 68-81. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.09.002]
  • Yang, R. and D. Allison. 2003. Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes 22, 365-385. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1]
  • Yayli, D. 2011. From genre awareness to cross-genre awareness: A study in an EFL context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10, 121-129. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.02.001]
  • You, X. 2013. The arts of swelling places: Building ethos in an online community. In D. Belcher and G. Nelson, eds., Critical and Corpus-based Approaches to Intercultural Rhetoric, 47-71. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Yuldashev, A., J. Fernandez and S. L. Thorne. 2013. Second language learners’ contiguous and discontiguous multi‐word unit use over time. The Modern Language Journal 97(S1), 31-45. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01420.x]
  • Zhang, H. and X. Lu. 2013. Variability in Chinese as a foreign language learners’ development of the Chinese numeral classifier system. The Modern Language Journal 97(S1), 46-60. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01423.x]