Chinese rhetoric : Modality patterns and the question of indirection in written arguments

Lorrita YEUNG

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

Abstract

This study investigates the question of Chinese indirection as a result of the use of modality expressions, which is conventionally believed to be the hallmark of Chinese rhetoric (e.g. Young, 1994; Bond, 1991; Powers and Gong, 1994). The present research compares and contrasts the degree of assertiveness as reflected in the patterns of modality in two corpora of expert Chinese and English argumentative writing on the same controversial subject. Corpus evidence shows that contrary to expectations, the Chinese writers are significantly more assertive than the English in arguing their case. The frequency of use and distribution patterns of intensifiers present both quantitative and qualitative evidence for the rhetorical differences, which may be accounted for culturally.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)133-161
JournalLanguages in Contrast
Volume19
Issue number1
Early online date19 Jun 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2019

Fingerprint

rhetoric
evidence
writer
expert

Cite this

@article{3bb58a5067af4d98b59320ebf09eff40,
title = "Chinese rhetoric : Modality patterns and the question of indirection in written arguments",
abstract = "This study investigates the question of Chinese indirection as a result of the use of modality expressions, which is conventionally believed to be the hallmark of Chinese rhetoric (e.g. Young, 1994; Bond, 1991; Powers and Gong, 1994). The present research compares and contrasts the degree of assertiveness as reflected in the patterns of modality in two corpora of expert Chinese and English argumentative writing on the same controversial subject. Corpus evidence shows that contrary to expectations, the Chinese writers are significantly more assertive than the English in arguing their case. The frequency of use and distribution patterns of intensifiers present both quantitative and qualitative evidence for the rhetorical differences, which may be accounted for culturally.",
author = "Lorrita YEUNG",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1075/lic.19.1",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "133--161",
journal = "Languages in Contrast",
issn = "1387-6759",
publisher = "John Benjamins Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

Chinese rhetoric : Modality patterns and the question of indirection in written arguments. / YEUNG, Lorrita.

In: Languages in Contrast, Vol. 19, No. 1, 01.2019, p. 133-161.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Chinese rhetoric : Modality patterns and the question of indirection in written arguments

AU - YEUNG, Lorrita

PY - 2019/1

Y1 - 2019/1

N2 - This study investigates the question of Chinese indirection as a result of the use of modality expressions, which is conventionally believed to be the hallmark of Chinese rhetoric (e.g. Young, 1994; Bond, 1991; Powers and Gong, 1994). The present research compares and contrasts the degree of assertiveness as reflected in the patterns of modality in two corpora of expert Chinese and English argumentative writing on the same controversial subject. Corpus evidence shows that contrary to expectations, the Chinese writers are significantly more assertive than the English in arguing their case. The frequency of use and distribution patterns of intensifiers present both quantitative and qualitative evidence for the rhetorical differences, which may be accounted for culturally.

AB - This study investigates the question of Chinese indirection as a result of the use of modality expressions, which is conventionally believed to be the hallmark of Chinese rhetoric (e.g. Young, 1994; Bond, 1991; Powers and Gong, 1994). The present research compares and contrasts the degree of assertiveness as reflected in the patterns of modality in two corpora of expert Chinese and English argumentative writing on the same controversial subject. Corpus evidence shows that contrary to expectations, the Chinese writers are significantly more assertive than the English in arguing their case. The frequency of use and distribution patterns of intensifiers present both quantitative and qualitative evidence for the rhetorical differences, which may be accounted for culturally.

U2 - 10.1075/lic.19.1

DO - 10.1075/lic.19.1

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 19

SP - 133

EP - 161

JO - Languages in Contrast

JF - Languages in Contrast

SN - 1387-6759

IS - 1

ER -