Cohesion in w 2013

ACHIEVING COHERENCE IN PERSUASIVE DISCOURSE: A STUDY OF
CHINESE ESL UNDERGRADUATES IN THE UNITED STATES
A Dissertation
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Weier Ye
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
August 2013

All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
UMI 3592011
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
UMI Number: 3592011

ii
© 2013 Weier Ye
All Rights Reserved

iii
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of English
We hereby approve the dissertation of
Weier Ye
Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
__________________________ _______________________________________
Lilia P. Savova, Ph.D.
Professor of English, Advisor
__________________________ _______________________________________
Sharon K. Deckert, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of English
__________________________ _______________________________________
Gian S. Pagnucci, Ph.D.
University Professor and Professor of English
___________________________ ________________________________________
Jeannine M. Fontaine, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of English, Emeritus
__________________________ _______________________________________
Marlene San Miguel Groner, Ph.D.
Professor of English, Farmingdale State College,
The State University of New York
ACCEPTED
________________________________ ___________________________
Timothy P. Mack, Ph.D.
Dean
School of Graduate Studies and Research

iv
Title: Achieving Coherence in Persuasive Discourse: A Study of Chinese ESL
Undergraduates in the United States
Author: Weier Ye
Dissertation Chair: Dr. Lilia P. Savova
Dissertation Committee Members: Dr. Sharon K. Deckert
Dr. Gian S. Pagnucci
Dr. Jeannine M. Fontaine
Dr. Marlene San Miguel Groner
This study examines how Chinese philosophical values and rhetorical traditions
that contribute to coherence differ from those prevalent in English. It attempts to discover
how six Chinese ESL undergraduate participants demonstrate coherence in their
persuasive writing, and how their practice of, and views toward coherence in writing
change over a semester during which they are exposed to an American college writing
classroom.
Three types of essays were collected for qualitative analysis in this study: a
diagnostic departmental pre-test essay at the beginning of the semester, a final essay
given as a post-test, and two drafts of a CATW (CUNY Assessment Test in Writing)
practice essay that were written for the advanced writing course. In addition, data were
also collected from a background questionnaire, a classroom observation, and two rounds
of interviews during the course of a semester.
The study explored the features of coherence at both local (sentence) and global
(discourse) levels. The knowledge of cohesion and coherence was employed to
investigate how the Chinese learners of English achieved coherence within and beyond
the paragraph level. The study discussed how the participants struggled to learn the
appropriate use of explicit transitions and patterns of development to create a logical flow

v
of ideas, how their writing generally cohered around one controlling idea throughout the
essay, and how they changed their perceptions of coherence in an American university
setting. The findings suggest that the Chinese ESL learners‘ writing quality could be
improved in the Western context through coherence-related classroom instruction,
revision practice, and teacher-student writing conferences, all aimed at helping them to
understand Western notions of coherence while continuing to value their own cultural
traditions.
The study‘s goal is to help both writing instructors and students; it is hoped that
the findings of the study will help instructors to design appropriate writing instruction for
such students, as well as helping the students to become familiar with coherence, in the
process allowing them to get the most out of their college education and their efforts to
improve at writing.

vi
To the memory of my dear mother and father,
who would be very proud if they could see this dissertation.

vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My sincere thanks and appreciation go to my dissertation committee members for helping
me make my dream come true. It would not have been possible for me to successfully
complete my dissertation project if I had not obtained strong support from the committee.
Again, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the ones who have been with me
throughout the journey.
 Dr. Savova, my current dissertation advisor, for her considerable support over the
years, and for giving me full confidence to continue my dissertation project.
 Dr. Fontaine, my previous dissertation advisor, for her wonderful advising and
endless patience. Her profound scholarship has made me the researcher I am
today.
 Dr. Deckert, for her great help and strong administrative support in assisting me
in continuing the dissertation.
 Dr. Pagnucci, for his full support and encouragement.
 Dr. Marlene Groner, for her great mentoring and for her always being there to
answer my questions and to help me improve the manuscript.
I was also incredibly fortunate in seeking help from other members outside of the
dissertation committee. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to them.
 Dr. Regina A. Rochford, my department chairperson at my job, for helping me
obtain the University‘s IRB approval in time, for providing me with a great
opportunity to conduct the classroom observation, and for carefully proofreading
the Classroom Observation chapter.

viii
 Dr. Qisi Zhang, my fellow graduate classmate, for her considerable assistance
with the interview data, and for her precious time and attention to this research
project.
 Professor Frank Kowal, my fellow educator, for closely looking at the textual data.

ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem...............................................................................1
Research Questions........................................................................................4
Rationale ........................................................................................................5
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................11
Western Rhetorical Tradition.........................................................................11
Historical Roots .............................................................................................11
Coherence in Aristotle‘s Philosophical Thought...............................11
Aristotle‘s Syllogism .........................................................................13
Aristotle‘s Rhetoric............................................................................15
Early Modern Influences: John Locke and Alexander Bain..............16
John Locke.............................................................................16
Alexander Bain ......................................................................18
Twentieth Century Developments .................................................................20
Halliday and Hasan‘s Cohesion in English........................................21
Grammatical cohesion ...........................................................22
Lexical cohesion ....................................................................23
Critiques of Halliday and Hasan, and
Developments from Halliday and Hasan...........................................24
Text-based analysis................................................................24
Reader-based analysis............................................................30
Chinese Rhetorical Values.............................................................................38
Historical Foundations...................................................................................38
The Influence of Confucianism .........................................................39
A people-oriented concept.....................................................39
Nature and human interactions ..............................................40
The principles of Li, Yi, and Ren............................................41
Zhongyong.............................................................................42
The Influence of Taoism....................................................................43
The concept of Yin-Yang........................................................43
Buddhist Principles............................................................................44
Memorization.........................................................................44
Wuxing...................................................................................45
Purpose...............................................................................................46
Audience ............................................................................................47
Twentieth Century: Japan and Western Influence.........................................47
Chen Wangdao‘s An Introduction to Rhetoric...................................50
Russian Influence...............................................................................52
The Current Situation.....................................................................................53
Chinese Views of Cohesion and Coherence ......................................53

x
Cultural Thought Patterns..................................................................54
Dialectical Thinking and Intuitive Thinking......................................57
Logical Thinking vs. Intuitive Thinking............................................58
Form-oriented vs. Meaning-oriented .................................................61
Paratactic vs. Hypotactic....................................................................63
Topic-first vs. Topic-delayed.............................................................65
Differences in Paragraph Unity and Structure...................................67
Zhongyong vs. Formal Logic ............................................................70
Persuasion vs. Harmony.....................................................................77
Awareness of Audience vs. Negligence of Audience........................78
Topic-prominent vs. Subject-prominent ............................................78
Confusion about the Western Concept of Coherence........................80
Research on coherence still in its infancy..............................81
Coherence: A fuzzy concept ..................................................81
Cohesion mistaken for coherence..........................................82
English Writing Instruction in China.............................................................83
Over-emphasis on Grammatical Accuracy........................................84
Impact on English Writing Instruction ..............................................86
College English Program in China ....................................................87
Controlled Three-paragraph CET Writing.........................................89
Conclusion .........................................................................................92
3 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................93
Research Approach ........................................................................................93
Research Setting and Research Population....................................................98
Research Setting.............................................................................................98
Sunshine Community College ...........................................................98
Placement for New Students..............................................................99
Language Immersion Program...........................................................100
English Department ...........................................................................100
Beginning Composition for ESL Students.........................................101
Intermediate Composition for ESL Students .....................................101
Advanced Composition for ESL Students .........................................102
Departmental Learning Center...........................................................102
Research Population ......................................................................................103
Methods of Data Collection ..........................................................................104
Diagnostic Essays ..............................................................................105
Final Exam Essays ............................................................................106
CATW Practice Essays .....................................................................107
Classroom Observation......................................................................109
Semi-structured Interviews ...............................................................111
Procedure ......................................................................................................112
Scoring ..........................................................................................................120
Data Analysis ................................................................................................123
Qualitative Coding for Interview Data ..........................................................123

xi
Transcribing the Interviews ...............................................................123
Developing Coding Categories .........................................................124
Qualitative Coding for Classroom Observation Data....................................125
Developing Coding Categories .........................................................125
Qualitative Coding for Written Texts ...........................................................127
The Level of Coherence ....................................................................128
Methods of Scoring Coherence in the Chinese
Students‘ Writing...............................................................................128
Analysis of Cohesive Devices ..........................................................129
The Level of Cohesion.......................................................................130
Methods of Scoring Cohesion in the Chinese
Students‘ Writing ..............................................................................130
4 INTRODUCTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS .............................................132
The Participants .............................................................................................132
Age.................................................................................................................133
Gender............................................................................................................133
Length of EFL/ESL Study .............................................................................133
Time of Last ESL Course ..............................................................................134
Number of Times of Taking the Advanced Composition Course .................135
Year of Arrival in the United States ..............................................................135
Preliminary Remedial ESL Writing Courses Taken......................................136
Location of High School Attended and
Year of High School Graduation ...................................................................136
Previous College Education...........................................................................137
Attitude toward Writing in English................................................................137
Self-description as an ESL Writer .................................................................138
Geographical Area and First Language Spoken ............................................140
Common Themes...........................................................................................140
Negative Attitude toward Writing .....................................................140
Limited Literacy Skills ......................................................................141
The Influence of Family Culture........................................................142
5 TEXTUAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................144
Analysis of Textual Data ...............................................................................144
Scoring Cohesion in the Participants‘ Writings.................................145
Scoring Coherence in the Participants‘ Writings...............................146
Case Study on Writing Analysis: Summary and Short Discussion ...............150
The Diagnostic Essay.........................................................................151
The In-class Exercise/The CATW Practice Essay.............................151
The Final Exam Essay .......................................................................153
Lili Sun...............................................................................................154
Weishan Qian.....................................................................................164
Yiman Zhao .......................................................................................173

xii
Xiaohui Wang....................................................................................183
Gaofeng Wu.......................................................................................188
Hong Lin ............................................................................................196
The 90-minute Timed Essay..............................................................204
Conclusion .....................................................................................................206
Off-topic Claims ................................................................................206
Logical Connections between Ideas...................................................206
Failure to Make a ―Valid‖ Argument.................................................207
Confusing cause and effect....................................................207
Repetition...............................................................................208
6 INTERVIEW DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................211
Interview Data................................................................................................211
An Initial Brief Interview Based on Background Questionnaire...................211
Summary........................................................................................................214
The First Round of Interviews: Participants‘ Responses to
Open-ended Questions...................................................................................214
The Second Round of Interviews: Participants‘ Responses to
Open-ended Questions...................................................................................229
7 CLASSROOM OBSERVATION..................................................................258
Observation Data ...........................................................................................258
The Goal of Conducting the Classroom Observation....................................258
Pre-observation Conference...........................................................................258
Classroom Environment.................................................................................259
Student Characteristics...................................................................................260
Classroom Activities......................................................................................260
Teacher-student Writing Conference.............................................................265
Post-observation Conference .........................................................................266
8 RESPONSE TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS................................................273
The First Research Question..........................................................................273
Western Rhetorical Values on Coherence .........................................273
The influence of Aristotle ......................................................274
The influence of John Locke..................................................274
The influence of Alexander Bain...........................................275
The influence of Halliday and Hasan‘s
text-based model....................................................................275
Reader-based approach ..........................................................276
Pedagogical practices for developing coherence ...................277
Definition of cohesion and coherence....................................278
Coherence features necessary for
effective persuasive writing...................................................279

xiii
The Second Research Question .....................................................................281
Chinese Rhetorical Values on Coherence..........................................281
The influence of the Confucian tradition...............................282
The influence of the Taoist tradition......................................283
The influence of the Buddhist tradition .................................284
The influence of Chen Wangdao‘s
An Introduction to Rhetoric ...................................................286
Current English instruction in China .....................................287
Answering the research question ...........................................288
The Third Research Question ........................................................................294
Chinese Students‘ Perceptions of Coherence ....................................294
Unawareness of coherence in writing....................................295
The basic Chinese essay structure..........................................295
The Chinese way of achieving ―coherence‖—
the turn step............................................................................296
Notional coherence in texts....................................................297
Misconceptions about coherence and grammar.....................299
Ideas flowing and fitting together well ..................................302
Growing awareness of coherence in writing..........................303
The Fourth Research Question.......................................................................304
Chinese Students‘ Textual Practice Regarding Coherence................304
Pronouns ................................................................................305
Conjunctions ..........................................................................306
Other simple transition words................................................306
Presence of the thesis statement, the topic
sentence, and the concluding sentence...................................306
Paragraph organization ..........................................................307
Overall structure.....................................................................307
Purpose...................................................................................307
9 REFLECTIONS, PEDOGOGICAL CONCERNS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ...................................315
Reflections on the Current Study...................................................................315
Chinese versus American/Anglo (and Other) Writers.......................315
Chinese versus Western Rhetorical Views:
Too Rigid a Dichotomy?....................................................................316
Pedagogical Concerns....................................................................................318
Motivation and Attitudes toward Learning........................................318
Comments on Test-driven Education.................................................321
Pedagogical Implications...............................................................................322
The Goal: Is There a ―Right‖ Way to Write? ....................................323
Language and Identity: Treating Students Respectfully....................323
Accepting Both Traditions in the Classroom.....................................325
Suggestions for Future Research ...................................................................327

xiv
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................331
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................369
Appendix A: Features of Cohesion and Coherence.......................................369
Appendix B: Composition Rating Scales—Cohesion ...................................371
Appendix C: Composition Rating Scales—Coherence .................................372
Appendix D: Background Questionnaire.......................................................373
Appendix E: Departmental Diagnostic Sample Test ....................................375
Appendix F: CATW Sample Writing Assignment.......................................376
Appendix G: In-class Writing/CATW Practice Writing................................377
Appendix H: Essays Written on the Final Exam ...........................................379
Appendix I: Essays Written on the Final Exam............................................380
Appendix J: Essays Written on the Final Exam............................................381
Appendix K: CATW Paragraph Editing........................................................382

xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Length of EFL/ESL Study for the Six Participants ...................................................134
2 Year of Arrival in the United States ..........................................................................135
3 Location of High School Attended and Year of High School Graduation ................137
4 Self-Description as an ESL Writer ............................................................................138
5 The Rating of the Participants‘ Essays ......................................................................148

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Good writing is usually characterized by certain grammatical and lexical features
involving syntactic structure, reference, substitution, conjunction, synonymy, etc., all of
which may exert a great influence on a reader‘s understanding of a text. Given the
complexity of the linguistic system involved, it is crucial for students to have a strong
command of language and an understanding of text dynamics if they aspire to become
strong writers. While these can be challenging goals for any writer, they are especially
complicated for second-language writers. In particular, Chinese ESL students have
difficulty precisely assessing their writing errors and resolving fuzzy writing problems.
When they submit their essays, grammatical, lexical, and organizational aspects are
addressed by their instructors, but sometimes only in global terms. A typical example is
―Your sentence construction in this essay is confusing to the reader. Please work with a
tutor in the writing center.‖ It is virtually impossible for a developing writer to translate
such overall feedback into specifics that will help him/her to improve his/her writing.
It is well recognized that a readable text needs strong organization, and that
linguistic forms hold the structure and support the logic of strong writing. If sentences are
not woven together, and if sentences are not consistently well-controlled with effective
variety in structure (CUNY Assessment Test in Writing [CATW], 2010), within a clearly
organized text, the writer will not convey his/her ideas successfully.
This dissertation focuses on both the broad ‗macro‘ and the local ‗micro‘ features
of the developing writing skills of Chinese learners; thus, much will be said about the

2
broad relationships between ideas in the student texts. But linguistic skills have also been
found to be important in supporting textual coherence. To cite one recent proponent in a
growing movement in favor of language awareness in writing, ―language is, after all, one
of the most complicated systems they [students] will ever learn—the rules will be useful
enough to provide a framework for understanding language coherently and
systematically‖ (Honegger, 2005, p. x). According to Honegger, many ESL instructors
have found success teaching grammar in the context of ESL writing because knowledge
of grammar can give ESL students insights into types of writing problems that can be
hard to diagnose.
However, it is not sufficient to teach grammar as it is now taught in a typical ESL
writing class, since many of the discourse-level patterns involved in writing only emerge
in the context of writing extended texts. A ―grammatically correct‖ essay judged only at
the sentence level still may not always read well. When such a situation arises, many
instructors know that the essay is not well written, but cannot clearly explain the reasons
(Suraishkumar, 2003).
Most American classroom teachers would argue that writing a well-organized
English persuasive essay is challenging for Chinese ESL students, particularly in regard
to overall concerns such as coherence. Coherence plays a critical role in writing quality
because it gives the text its full meaning at the semantic level (Cun, 2001). Problems in
this area are a recurring issue in Chinese ESL students‘ writing and constitute a major
obstacle to their success in the American writing classroom. In addition to grammar
issues, Chinese-speaking students often find such comments as ―This essay lacks unity‖
and ―I don‘t follow your point here‖ indicating the instructor‘s inability to understand

3
their writing. Unfortunately, unlike grammatical and lexical errors, which can be
corrected easily, problems in overall coherence are often more challenging to handle as
they involve larger sections of a text, such as a series of sentences or paragraphs. Because
of the difficulty in addressing these issues, students sometimes do not get sufficient
insights into how to improve the overall coherence of their writing. Also, teachers find it
impractical to correct whole sections of a text (Pilus, 1996).
Experts and scholars agree in recognizing the importance of coherence in written
texts. However, the notion of coherence, and the practices that support coherence, may
differ considerably across languages and cultures, judging from several decades of work
in contrastive rhetoric and text linguistics (Zhu, 1992). In other words, culture, to a
greater or lesser extent, may have an effect on how writers write in a foreign language. In
particular, research shows that Chinese ESL students structure persuasive texts
differently as judged by English readers (Connor, 1996), and the way these students
organize their ideas confuses English readers (Liu & Deng, 2005). According to Qiang
and Wolff (2004), even students who score very high in the writing section on China‘s
standardized nationwide College English Test can compose nothing more than
―Dictionary English‖ texts in real communication: this phrase refers to English taught
from a dictionary, which may be technically correct but without sensitivity to the cultural
or environmental context of actual use. With this in mind, the purpose of this study is to
explore how Chinese ESL undergraduates exemplify coherence in their writing, and how
their practice of, and views about coherence in writing change over a semester during
which they are exposed to an American college writing classroom.

4
In the present study, I will focus on persuasive discourse. Considering some
culturally specific factors related to the notion of coherence, particularly from the
perspective of contrastive rhetoric, I will identify features of coherence, drawing the
components of my theoretical framework from a synthesis of multiple sources, including
Halliday and Hasan, 1976; Bamberg, 1983; Chiu, 2004; Carrell, 1982, 1984; Connor,
1984; Connor and Kaplan, 1987; Connor and Johns, 1990; Heinrichs, 2007; Johns, 1986;
Kroll, 1990; Kubota, 1998; Jin and Ban, 2006; Liu and Braine, 2005; Lee, 2002; Seidel,
Rimmele, and Prenzel, 2005; Tanskanen, 2006; Watson Todd, Thienpermpool, and
Keyuravong, 2004; Watson Todd, Khongput, and Darasawang, 2007; Yeh, 2004; and
O‘Reilly and McNamara, 2007.
Research Questions
In this study, I will research the following questions:
1. Western Rhetorical Values on Coherence
What are the coherence features felt to be necessary for effective persuasive
writing in the English language context? What do teachers and scholars say in
defining coherence, and what pedagogical practices for developing coherence are
valued in the English cultural world? How have modern notions of coherence
emerged from classical views, dating back to Aristotle?
2. Chinese Rhetorical Values on Coherence
What rhetorical values regarding coherence have been expressed in Chinese
culture? What do Chinese EFL teachers and scholars say about coherence in the
Chinese cultural context? Again, how are these views of coherence rooted in

5
classical Chinese philosophy or rhetorical traditions? To what extent, and in what
ways, do the Chinese values differ from those prevalent in English?
3. Chinese Students‘ Perceptions of Coherence
What conscious attitudes and views do advanced Chinese ESL students
demonstrate regarding coherence in writing? To what extent, and in what ways,
do these views seem to reflect the values prevalent in either Western or Chinese
rhetorical traditions? When addressing their own writing choices, how do these
students explain the choices they make in terms of organization and linguistic
forms related to coherence? In what ways do their perceptions of coherence
change over the course of a semester in which they receive training in coherence,
in the Western tradition in an American university setting?
4. Chinese Students‘ Textual Practice Regarding Coherence
In what ways do the writings of these students demonstrate coherence? To what
extent are these writings judged as coherent by professional raters? What specific
elements in the writings might be traced to the two traditions (Western and
Chinese)? Do these elements change in the students‘ writing over the course of a
semester?
Rationale
As we know, problems in writing can easily arise from weakness in coherence,
which is an area deserving great attention (Pilus, 1996). I have undertaken the present
study because of the need for Chinese ESL students to be made aware of and to
understand what coherence is and how they should achieve coherence in their persuasive
writing in English.

6
In American colleges and universities, there is an increasing number of Chinese-
speaking students, in addition to many from Asian cultures that share Chinese
philosophical traditions. Newly arrived Chinese ESL students bring with them cultural
values and practices that can cause confusion and frustration in the American
composition class. Today, it is still common for ESL writing teachers to profile Chinese
ESL students for their unfamiliarity or discomfort with persuasion, and in particular with
the classroom conventions and cultural expectations involved in persuasive writing
(Swearingen, 2010). Writing instructors often feel that Chinese ESL students‘
persuasive essays lack persuasive coherence (Connor, 1996). As Johns (1986, p. 247)
observes, this kind of sweeping statement represents ―a feature which appears to cover a
large number of perceived weaknesses‖ such as unawareness of audience, lack of a clear
purpose, lack of personal voice, and delay of arguments. According to Bamberg (1983)
and Abushihab (2008), if writing lacks coherence, it will almost certainly fail to
communicate its intended message to readers.
Why are Chinese ESL students‘ persuasive texts seen as lacking coherence? As I
approached this study, at least three reasons came to mind.
First, in China, correct form is still highly valued over well-developed thought in
current English teaching and learning. One of the most important criteria cited for good
writing in China is that it should be ―correct in expression without significant
grammatical mistakes‖ (You, 2004, p. 103). Even though coherence is discussed in
today‘s scholarly work in China, the focus of teaching is still primarily on grammatically
correct sentences or overt links on the textual surface, with little attention paid to more
global patterns that contribute to meaning-making. The unified whole of a text at the

7
discourse level, therefore, is ignored to some extent as a focus, both in pedagogical
practice and in scholarship. As a result, Chinese students who come to study in American
colleges and universities may continue to work hard on the sentence or within the
paragraph level, unaware of the overall sense of unity in an essay. As I explored Chinese
rhetorical traditions in the course of this study, I found a second element that supports
this local, sentence-based focus. Chinese rhetoric traditionally values beauty of
expressions (idioms, figurative language, pleasing turns of phrase); this again focuses the
writer on specific phrases or lexical choices, not on global organization or coherence.
I was interested, also, in a second possible factor — or rather a set of cultural
factors that might be affecting Chinese ESL students‘ organization of written texts in the
American writing classroom. One version of this more broad or global concern dates
back to Kaplan‘s (1966) work on rhetorical patterns across cultures; although Kaplan‘s
original claims have been widely criticized, including by the author himself, there
remains a potentially valid underlying intuition: that is, the rhetorical patterns valued in
Chinese culture may differ at a deep level, for culturally-based reasons, from those that
students are required to follow in the English-speaking context. Kaplan claimed that the
written discourse structures of each language exhibit certain culturally unique features.
He suggested that ESL writers use the rhetorical conventions of their native language
when writing in English, thus producing ESL texts that are judged as incoherent. Of
course, Kaplan‘s version of this intuition may be stereotyped or oversimplified. But the
underlying phenomena behind Kaplan‘s observations are complex; and in approaching
this study, I felt that, if studied from a careful, detailed perspective, the insights that
Kaplan originally suggested could be refined and elaborated. In other words, the writing

8
problems of Chinese learners could be the outcome of their coming from a culture with
an entirely different system of rhetoric (Matalene, 1985). The area of contrastive rhetoric
will be addressed in Chapter 2, which covers the review of related literature.
As a third and last source of Chinese students‘ writing problems, I turned to the
notion of coherence itself. ―Coherence‖ is an abstract term, and views of coherence can
be diverse and controversial (Dontcheva-Navratilova & Povolna, 2009) because one‘s
judgments regarding coherence are by nature subjective (Watson Todd, Thienpermpool,
& Keyuravong, 2004). What is just as disturbing is that coherence is also challenging for
teachers to conceptualize and present fruitfully in the classroom (Noguchi, 1991). ESL
teachers may believe that they have a sense of what incoherence means, but they often
discuss coherent writing and incoherent writing with their ESL students only in vague
terms (Johns 1986; Pilus 1996). Consequently, Chinese ESL students do not have a clear
understanding of the concept of coherence, and they often fall back on known territory,
focusing only on errors at the sentence level, or possibly on rhetorical patterns taught to
them in the Chinese context, when asked to revise their writing or that of their fellow
students. Due to the elusive nature of coherence, it is obviously difficult to teach or learn
the process of writing with a clear progression of ideas well linked to form a coherent
whole (Chiu, 2004; Connor & Johns, 1990; Watson Todd et al., 2004). It is a widely
accepted belief that students are not likely to improve coherence in writing just by being
told in abstract terms that their writing lacks coherence (Lee, 2002). Added to the other
linguistic and cultural difficulties that Chinese writers face, this abstractness may make
their task of writing coherently in English all the more challenging.

9
To help Chinese ESL students develop coherence in their writing, it is essential
that ESL teachers have a better understanding of what makes a text coherent (Bamberg,
1983; Lee, 2002). To refine my own understanding of coherence and the ways to teach
coherent writing, and to share these insights with readers, I will first conduct a literature
review on these topics, as they appear in scholarly writing on coherence in both English
and Chinese. A review of the modern scholarly and pedagogical literature on coherence
has the potential to provide underlying insights on insufficiently explored sources of
writing problems for Chinese learners. As a valuable secondary result, this review might
provide principles to guide ESL instructors in teaching the concept of coherence
comprehensively, particularly to Chinese developing writers. By reviewing English and
Chinese scholarly work that bears on coherence, this study first attempts to determine
how far and in what way(s) views of coherence differ across the two cultures. I have then
deepened the study on an empirical level by interviewing a group of Chinese ESL
students enrolled in a college writing course that covers coherence, and examining their
writing as it develops over the semester. The empirical portions of the study are intended
to gather student perspectives on coherence, and to examine the writing of a small group
of Chinese ESL undergraduates, to determine how their perceived notions of coherence,
as well as their written practice, compares with the scholarly definitions given in the two
cultures, and how these scholarly works illuminate the perceptions and practice of these
learners.
In Chapter 2, I will present a review of the literature that is relevant to the present
study; some of this material, on Western and Chinese rhetorical values, will be briefly
revisited later in connection with the results in Chapter 8. In Chapter 3, I will discuss the

10
structure and design of the present study. In the subsequent chapters, I will present the
results as follows:
In Chapter 4, I will look at the individual participants‘ personal data. Next, in
Chapter 5 I will perform an analysis of the participants‘ textual data. I will then proceed
to report the results of the interview data in Chapter 6. After that, I will examine
classroom observation data in Chapter 7. In Chapter 8, while summarizing the major
findings of the study, I will provide a response to the research questions. Finally, in
Chapter 9 I will offer some reflections on the topic of the current study, followed by a
discussion of some pedagogical concerns. Then I will provide several implications for
ESL learning and ESL pedagogy, and as a final point, I will make suggestions for future
research.

11
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In this chapter, I will first review the following areas: scholarly work within the
field of composition on modern rhetorical structures in English; a basic overview of
modern Chinese rhetorical values; relevant portions of the literature on contrastive
rhetoric. This review actually constitutes part of the study‘s results, as the research
questions ask for a detailed account of Western and Chinese rhetorical values.
Western Rhetorical Tradition
Historical Roots
Coherence in Aristotle’s Philosophical Thoughts
As pointed out by Lloyd (1999), Aristotle‘s philosophy demonstrated unity and
coherence. The study of coherence, therefore, can be traced back to ancient Greece.
Together with Socrates and Plato, Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) is considered one of the
most important founding figures in Western philosophy. Although rarely read today in
the originals, it is fair to say that the methods of these philosophers set the tone for what
has evolved into modern Western ideas on structuring and expressing ideas. Aristotle‘s
writings demonstrated coherence, and they were also the first to create a comprehensive
system of Western philosophy, encompassing many subjects, including morality,
aesthetics, logic, rhetoric, poetics, science, politics, and metaphysics. More importantly,
his work was wider-ranging and more original than that of any earlier philosopher
(Lloyd, 1999).
In the book Aristotle: The Growth and Structure of His Thought, Lloyd (1999)
discusses Aristotle‘s thought, arguing that there is an important continuity in Aristotle‘s

12
ideas or intellectual development. This shows that coherence has its roots in this great
philosopher‘s works. Lloyd presents an interesting account of how Aristotle used his
technique to help him advance coherent arguments.
First, according to Lloyd, a common method runs through almost all the branches
of Aristotle‘s thought. The first prominent feature of this method is that he considers it
vital to discuss the opinions of what his opponents had to say on the subject before he
tries to solve the problems. He usually starts with a review of previous views to help him
to articulate the problems clearly and to identify the difficulties. ―In the various branches
of physics, for example, he regularly reviews earlier doctrines before setting out his own‖
(Lloyd, 1999, p. 284).
In going on to resolve the difficulties, Aristotle applies two main techniques. He
first uses theoretical arguments by critiquing the theories of other writers. For example,
―he frequently criticizes his opponents for inconsistencies in their arguments,‖ or ―refutes
them by forcing them on to the horns of a dilemma‖ (Lloyd, 1999, p. 285). His second
main argumentative technique is to provide concrete evidence, or what he calls the
―facts.‖ ―In the Politics, for instance, he often refers to the evidence of actual case-
histories under the heading what takes place‖ (Lloyd, 1999, p. 286). Therefore, the use of
concrete evidence and particular examples is a notable feature of Aristotle‘s method, both
in natural science and in other fields.
One important aspect to be noted is that Aristotle appreciates the value of research.
When the evidence was insufficient to support or confirm his preconceived opinions, or
when he could not arrive at a satisfactory solution, he was willing to conduct systematic
research according to certain theoretical assumptions. As Lloyd (1999) put it, ―His own

13
researches were conducted in the light of certain theoretical assumptions and with the
object not merely of describing the phenomena, but also and more especially of
establishing their causes‖ (p. 287).
Aristotle‘s method of argument presentation contains the idea of coherence in
embryonic form, and this method continues to influence today‘s coherent argumentation.
Aristotle is clear about who his audience is and what purpose he is going to accomplish
while advancing his arguments. To achieve his purpose, he closely analyzes his
opponents‘ views and opinions on a subject. To support his central theme, he appeals to
concrete evidence and to particular examples. To develop theoretical arguments, he
critiques his opponents‘ inconsistencies in their arguments. He deploys consistent
arguments; that is, none of his statements conflicts with the others. Because he
understands that inadequate evidence or insufficient facts do not work well, he
―undertakes, where appropriate, detailed researches to ascertain the facts and to help
determine the causes at work‖ (Lloyd, 1999, p. 289). Admittedly, the use of adequate
evidence is one of the crucial factors that contribute to coherence. These are the main
recurrent features of Aristotle‘s method, which reveals the earliest model for presenting
coherent arguments in persuasive discourse.
Aristotle’s Syllogism
Aristotle's logic is important in that it introduces a formal system of thought. This
formalization makes possible a new realm of thought, an ability to answer questions of
logical consequence and proof. A cornerstone of Aristotle's logic is his introduction of
the syllogism.

14
A syllogism is modernly defined as ―a particular kind of argument containing
three categorical propositions, two of them premises, one a conclusion‖ (Kahane, 1990, p.
270). In other words, this syllogism is a kind of logical argument in which one
proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two or more others (the premises); typically,
the syllogism consists of two premises and a conclusion. As a general rule, the syllogism
is expressed as a form of implication: We can see an example of this in Aristotle's famous
―Barbara‖ syllogism, one of 15 patterns identified as valid forms of argumentation:
If all A belongs to B,
and all B belongs to C,
then all A belongs to C.
Applying this pattern, we can get the following example:
Premise 1: If all humans (A‘s) are mortal (B),
Premise 2: and all Greeks (C‘s) are humans (A‘s),
Conclusion: then all Greeks (C‘s) are mortal (B).
In the above sequence, if Premise 1 is accurate, and Premise 2 is accurate, a logical
conclusion is derived from both statements. To prove logical arguments, we must make
sure the statements on which we base the argument are valid.
By introducing the syllogism, Aristotle opened the door to a precise system of
determining logical conclusions based on known facts. Therefore, Aristotle is credited
with the earliest study of formal logic, his conception of which was the dominant form of
Western logic until 19th century advances in mathematical logic. Aristotle‘s syllogism of
three-part deductive reasoning continues to influence today‘s writers in demonstrating
and proving coherent arguments.

15
Aristotle’s Rhetoric
As we know, the earliest form of Western rhetorical traditions also emerged from
ancient Greece. Ancient Greeks such as Aristotle were the first Westerners to
systematically write down notes for how to make speech persuasive to others (Golden,
Berquist, & Coleman, 1997). For this reason, ancient Greece was the birthplace of
rhetoric, which has played a central role in the Western tradition (Conley, 1990).
Rhetoric was viewed as a civic art by several of the ancient Greek philosophers.
Aristotle was one of the first to see this rhetoric in this light. His Rhetoric, as its name
suggests, is an ancient Greek treatise on the art of persuasion, dating from the 4th century
BC. The famous Roman teachers of rhetoric, such as Cicero and Quintilian, frequently
used elements stemming from the Aristotelian system. Thus it can be seen that Aristotle
is generally credited with developing the basics of the system of rhetoric that ―thereafter
served as its touchstone" (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2000, p. 3), influencing the development
of rhetorical theory from ancient through modern times. His Rhetoric is regarded by most
rhetoricians as ―the most important single work on persuasion ever written‖ (Golden,
Berquist, Coleman, Golden, & Sproule, 2007, p. 67).
Many contemporary practices in teaching writing have antecedents in Greek and
Roman rhetoric. In particular, Aristotle‘s three persuasive types of audience appeal—
ethos, pathos, and logos—are the basis for discussion of the writer-reader-subject
relationships in contemporary composition studies (Lindemann, 1995). According to
Huang (2002), ―ethos‖ refers to the character of the speaker perceived by the audience;
―pathos‖ is the appeal to the emotion of the audience, and ―logos‖ means the logical
appeal in a speech. Since rhetoric typically provides heuristics for understanding,

16
discovering, and developing coherent arguments for particular situations, today, courses
such as public speaking, speech, or argumentative writing apply these three fundamental
modes of persuasion, which are often used to teach students about the different ways
available to not only persuade others but to analyze the way in which people persuade
(McCarter, 2010). They are clear devices that students can remember. Appearing in
speech and writing. Aristotle‘s Rhetoric is the tool by which ideas are substantiated
through rhetorical conventions suggestive of coherence.
In brief, Aristotle has had an enormous influence on the development of formal
logic as well as the art of rhetoric. In any current textbook discussing logical reasoning
and coherence, we can find elements of Aristotelian logic and rhetoric, even if they aren't
attributed to the ancient philosopher.
Early Modern Influences: John Locke and Alexander Bain
In the history of modern English, two important figures, John Locke (1632-1704)
and Alexander Bain (1818-1903) exerted a profound influence on modern English
linguistic usage and attitudes.
John Locke. John Locke, an English philosopher and political thinker, is often
classified as the first of the great English empiricists. The fundamental principles of
Locke's philosophy are presented in his greatest work, the two monumental volumes of
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1959), which were written in 1690. The
most important of his goals was to determine the limits of human knowledge. In the
second volume of his book, Locke writes:
Our knowledge, as has been shown, being very narrow and we not happy enough
to find certain truth in everything that we have an occasion to consider; most of

17
the propositions we think, reason, discourse-nay, act upon, are such as we cannot
have undoubted knowledge of their truth….But there being degrees herein, from
the very neighborhood of certainty and demonstration, quite down to
improbability; and also degrees of assent from full assurance and confidence,
quite down to conjecture, doubt and distrust. (pp. 364-365)
According to Locke, what we know is always properly understood as the relation
between ideas. Locke devoted much of the Essay to an extended argument that all of our
ideas—simple or complex—are ultimately derived from experience. In other words, we
have no innate knowledge; the human mind at birth, therefore, is a blank slate on which
experience writes. The consequence of this empiricist approach is that our knowledge is
extremely limited in its scope and certainty. Based on Locke‘s epistemology in his Essay,
when someone needs to express an opinion, he/she must choose his/her words carefully
so as not to allow the words to say more than what we can rationally say we think: writers
and speakers also should say that this is what I think, not what I know. In her book
English: Meaning and Culture, Wierzbicka (2006) argues that Locke‘s ideas concerning
degrees of probability and degrees of assent, and the need to distinguish, in rational
discourse, between what one knows and what one thinks, have exercised an enormous
influence on modern English discourse as well as on the English language. From a
modern Anglo cultural perspective, it is always good to be careful in phrasing what one
wants to say since our knowledge is severely limited.
Viewing language as an imperfect system of significations is another great theme
in Locke‘s Essay. In his second volume (1690/1959), Locke argues, ―It is easy to
perceive what imperfection there is in language, and how the very nature of words

18
makes it almost unavoidable for many of them to be doubtful and uncertain in their
significations‖ (p.104). This inherent capacity of language has its potential to create a
fallacious construct of knowledge and thus could confuse the communication of
observed reality. To prevent such an occurrence in real-world communication and to
accurately represent and communicate truth, Locke suggests more clearly that ―[w]e
should cast off all the artifice and fallacy of words‖ (Shea, 2008, p.42). Locke‘s concern
over the imperfection of language is unquestionably evident here. Not only does he
consider language deficient regarding precise significations, Locke also perceives
language as nothing more than a fallacy and an artifice. Heavily influenced by John
Locke‘s philosophic beliefs, good writing in the nineteenth century was identified with
the writer‘s ability to gain the skills of how to properly use and place words in order to
gain optimum clarity and attention (Ernst, 2000). John Locke‘s pedagogical philosophy,
which has contributed to the emphasis on the cautious and proper use of language, has a
direct relation to attitudes about modern English writing, where the message reiterated
over and again is that any communication should be coherent, convincing, and objective.
Alexander Bain. Modern conceptions of coherence find their roots in the 19th
century (Bamberg, 1983; McCulley, 1985; Lee, 2002), with Scottish philosopher and
educator Alexander Bain‘s (1890) six paragraph rules in his English Composition and
Rhetoric. This text clearly exhibits a strong instructional emphasis on learning the rules
of language. Bain examines between-sentence connections that create cohesive
paragraphs linked together into a larger text by transitions (Bamberg, 1983; Lee, 2002).
He created six rules for effective paragraph-making: (pp. 90-134)
(1) Indicate theme in the opening sentence to limit the scope of the paragraph.

19
(2) Keep unity by avoiding digressions and irrelevant material.
(3) Arrange related topics sequentially.
(4) Maintain explicit reference.
(5) Sustain parallel structure.
(6) Use subordination.
Evidently, even the most cursory examination of today‘s composition textbooks shows
that Bain‘s six rules for paragraph writing are still considered crucial for creating an
effective and coherent paragraph (Arlov, 2010; Langan, 2005; Fawcett 2011; VanderMey,
Meyer, Rys, Kemper, & Sebranek, 2004; Crews, 1992). In fact, Bain (1890) went so far
as to call his rules ―the paragraph laws,‖ asserting that they can be applied to any
composition whose purpose is description, narration, exposition, or persuasion. Bain
notes, ―The paragraph laws are important, not only for their own sake, but also for their
bearing on an entire composition‖ (p. 91) because if writers ―look to the paragraphs…the
discourse will take care of itself‖ (p. 91).
In another book, English Composition and Rhetoric (1887), discussing persuasion,
Bain contributes to our understanding of coherence. In summary, he argues that
persuasive writers and speakers must
(1) Have a clear purpose.
(2) Have a good sense of audience
(3) Have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
(4) Establish clearly the point to be argued.
(5) Work through the feelings of the audience.
(6) Persuade by making use of example and counter-argument.

20
(7) Use either a deductive or an inductive approach. (pp. 212-257)
Obviously, moving beyond the sentence and paragraph level, Bain (1887) treated
the coherence of a piece of persuasive writing as a whole. Even though Bain did not then
proceed to exemplify how a persuasive text is organized as a unified whole, researchers
even today should be able to agree that the elements elaborated in Bain‘s (1887, 1890)
books are very important in defining the features of coherent essays, and indeed
contemporary texts do reflect Bain‘s influence.
Although there is some controversy over Bain‘s work (Bamberg, 1983; Lee,
2002), Bain‘s original formulation of what we call cohesion and coherence is seminal and
has greatly influenced today‘s writing instruction and composition texts. A survey of
current American college writing textbooks shows that the rhetorical instruction provided
dates from Bain, or in any case supports ideas closely related to those of Bain. These
texts include Bailey and Denstaedt (2004), Barnet, Stubbs, and Bellanca (2000), Fawcett
(2011), Goggin and Bullock (2007), McMahan, Day, and Coleman (2011), Mandell and
Kirszner (2007), Nudelman and Troyka (2004), Rosa and Eschholz (2007), Skwire and
Wiener (2005), and Wyrick (2011); in each of these modern expositions, we find that the
rhetoric is still in line with Bain‘s model in relation to issues such as subject, purpose,
audience, thesis statement, topic sentence, unity, support, inductive reasoning, deductive
reasoning, transitions, reference, repetition, and parallel structure. Needless to say, all
these elements are seen as necessary components of cohesive and coherent writing.
Twentieth Century Developments
Little significant research on coherence has been done since Bain, particularly as
it relates to second language pedagogy. Prior to the 1960s, the majority of studies dealing

21
with language learning concentrated on the learner‘s production data at the sentence level
(Bamberg, 1983; Carrell, 1982; Khalil, 1989; Lee, 2002) rather than exploring the
features of extended discourse at the paragraph level and beyond. Unsurprisingly, as Lee
(2002) pointed out, traditional handbooks and writing textbooks also focus on elements
of sentence-level grammar. Hence, many problems with overall coherence remain
unaddressed (Johns, 1986) when students are taught to write using this traditional
approach.
In the 1960s and 1970s, writing researchers shifted their focus of attention away
from sentence structure toward discourse analysis, an analysis of texts that extends
beyond the sentence level and takes into account the communicative constraints of the
situation. The 1970s and 1980s saw discourse analysis embraced by many linguists,
psychologists, and composition specialists around the world. Pioneers in this field include
linguists Michael Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan in England, linguist Nils Enkvist in
Finland, psycholinguist Teun van Dijk in the Netherlands, and three scholars from the
United States: linguist Robert de Beaugrande, applied linguist and contrastive rhetorician
John Hinds, and composition expert Stephen Witte (Connor, 1996). Among these
linguists, the most influential of the resulting textual analysis techniques has been those
developed by Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan in Cohesion in English (1976), which will be
discussed in the following section.
Halliday and Hasan’s Cohesion in English
Known as cohesion theory (Carrell, 1982), Halliday and Hasan‘s work has been
widely cited and used as a foundation or a seminal text. For Halliday and Hasan,
cohesion is a semantic relation between an element in the text and some other element

22
that is crucial to the interpretation of the text (1976, p.8). For text to have texture,
Halliday and Hasan‘s term for coherence, the text must include ties that link its parts
together because it is these ties that form cohesive relations between sentences and
elements in sentences, thus contributing to the coherence of the text (Liu & Braine, 2005).
Halliday and Hasan defined such a tie as ―the term for one occurrence of a pair of
cohesively related items‖ (1976, p.3). In other words, no single element can be cohesive
by itself since grammatical and lexical devices become cohesive only when they are
interpreted in relation to some other element in the text. Halliday and Hasan divided
cohesion into grammatical and lexical cohesion. Grammatical cohesion includes devices
such as reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction, whereas lexical cohesion is
divided into reiteration (repetition, synonymy, among others) and collocation (co-
occurrence of lexical items).What follows is a concise overview of Halliday and Hasan‘s
grammatical and lexical cohesive ties.
Grammatical cohesion. (1) Reference: Reference cohesion occurs when one item
in a text points to another element for its interpretation. For example, there is a pen on the
desk. Go get it. (2) Substitution: Substitution is a grammatical relation, and it is the
replacement of one element by another, as in ―My axe is too blunt. I must get a sharper
one‖ (1976, p.89), or Who painted the wall? – I did, or Do you think she is married? –
Yes. I think so. (3) Ellipsis: If substitution replaces one element with another, ―ellipsis is
the omission of an item‖ (1976, p.89), or a deletion of a word, phrase, clause, or
―something left unsaid‖ (1976, p.142). For example, in
a. You think George already knows? – I think everybody does.
b. Joan bought some bread, and Lily some potatoes.

23
(4) Conjunction: The conjunctive elements are cohesive not in themselves, but they are
cohesive ―by virtue of their specific meanings‖ (1976, p.226). See the following
examples.
a. John left his apartment after he ate breakfast.
b. Jean lost a lot of weight. Consequently, she feels better.
Lexical cohesion. (1) Reiteration: Reiteration refers to the repeated use of a
lexical item, or the use of a synonymous lexical item. Halliday and Hasan (1976) wrote:
I turned to the ascent of the peak. The ascent/climb/task/thing is perfectly easy.
(p.279)
(2) Collocation: Collocation refers to the habitual co-occurrence of individual lexical
items. It covers any instance in which there is ―any pair of lexical items that stand to each
other in some recognizable lexico-semantic (word meaning) relation‖ (1976, p.285). The
follow examples illustrate this point:
You cannot smoke inside the building. You can smoke outside.
The above cohesive ties identified by Halliday and Hasan as available in the
English language help to ensure cohesion in a given text. Cohesion, perceived as the
grammatical and lexical relationship within a text, has been accepted as a useful tool for
discourse analysis; but because coherence is about deeper-level semantic relations
(Canagarajah, 2002), coherence is still quite understandably not fully understood in the
same way by all linguists even today (Dontcheva-Navratilova & Povolna, 2009).
Halliday and Hasan (1976) simply treat cohesion as a linguistic property contributing to
coherence (Carrell, 1982), but they do not explicitly discuss the link between cohesion
and coherence. The publication of Halliday and Hasan‘s Cohesion in English has

24
stimulated a lot of interest among writing and reading researchers concerned with the
effect of cohesion in text (Witte & Faigley, 1981; McCulley, 1985; Tierney & Mosenthal,
1983; Connor, 1984; Carrell, 1982; Bamberg, 1984; 1986; Johns, 1986; Tanskanen,
2006).
While some researchers have been supportive, others have been openly critical of
the concept of cohesion. These researchers have followed and attempted to test the
usefulness of Halliday and Hasan‘s cohesion model and to determine how Halliday and
Hasan‘s cohesion is related to coherence. As a result, two competing theories for the
definition of coherence emerged: one that emphasizes the text itself, and another that
focuses on the reader‘s interaction with the text (Connor, 1996; Johns, 1986). The
concept of coherence, therefore, became defined primarily from these two perspectives,
which will be discussed in the following sections.
Critiques of Halliday and Hasan, and Developments from Halliday and Hasan
Text-based analysis. Witte and Faigley (1981) studied a group of ten out of
ninety freshman essays that had previously been rated holistically by two readers on a
four-point scale. Five of the essays were selected from those given the lowest scores by
both readers while five were selected from those with the highest scores. These ten essays
were analyzed according to errors and syntactic features, as well as the number of
Halliday and Hasan‘s cohesive ties, categorized by type. Witte and Faigley found
correlations between texts rated high on the holistic scale and those containing a higher
percentage of reference and lexical cohesion marks. The higher rated essays had a variety
of lexical collocations as opposed to those rated lower, which tended to rely on simple
repetition. In addition, high-rated essays were longer and contained larger T-units (i.e.,

25
the shortest unit which can stand alone as a sentence), more nonrestrictive modifiers, and
fewer grammatical errors. At the more general level of analysis, the high-rated essays
were much denser in cohesion than the low-rated essays. The better writers used more
varied cohesive ties between individual T-units than did the writers of the lower-rated
essays. Witte and Faigley also reported that both the high- and low-rated essays strongly
favored lexical cohesion.
The authors concluded that the writers of high-rated essays were more capable of
developing and connecting their ideas than the writers of the lower-rated essays. In other
words, the better writers had more high-level cognitive skills that allowed them to extend
the concepts they introduced. The poorer writers, on the other hand, showed a lack of
those skills, frequently repeating ideas with lexical and conceptual redundancy. The
majority of the lexical ties in the low essays were simple repetitions of the same item.
The writers of the low-rated essays did not have an adequate breadth and variety in the
lexical items required to explore and elaborate the concepts they introduced in their
essays. The researchers concluded that this significantly affected their overall writing
quality. In addition to insufficient vocabulary, writers of the low-rated essays displayed a
low level of ability to perceive and articulate abstract concepts with reference to
particular instances.
This study, according to Witte and Faigley (1981), shows that Halliday and
Hasan‘s cohesion model can be usefully applied in developmental studies, and their
analysis reveals that cohesion, as defined by Halliday and Hasan, is an important property
of writing well. While their study showed that the types and frequencies of cohesive ties
affect the stylistic and organizational properties of the texts the students write, their

26
analysis also indicates that although cohesive ties may eventually influence writing
quality in some ways, there is no evidence to indicate that any particular types of
cohesive ties will positively affect writing quality. Moreover, they find that a number of
questions cannot be answered by using counts of linguistic devices such as reference and
repetition among others. Importantly, they claim that the quality of a text ―depends a
great deal on factors outside the text itself, factors which lie beyond the scope of cohesion
analysis‖ (1981, p.199). For Witte, and Faigley, writing quality is defined, in some
degree, as the ―fit‖ of a particular text to its context, which includes the writer‘s purpose,
the discourse medium, and the audience‘s background knowledge and expectations, etc.
Cohesion defines those cohesive devices that link a text together, whereas coherence
defines those underlying semantic relations that allow a text to be understood, a
relationship unexplored by Halliday and Hasan‘s model.
Witte and Faigley argue that cohesion is not the same thing as coherence, saying,
―Cohesion and coherence interact to a great degree, but a cohesive text may be only
minimally coherent.‖ For this reason, they viewed cohesion and coherence as only
partially related and offered some specific reasons why Halliday and Hasan‘s cohesion
model does not account for coherence. They point out that a cohesion-based distinction
between texts rated high and low in quality can be misleading. Besides having explicit
cohesive ties within the text, the text must meet the reader‘s expectations for particular
types of texts, address the reader‘s knowledge of the world, and establish the relationship
among the ideas being developed. Halliday and Hasan‘s theory only addresses cohesive
ties. Just as an exclusive focus on syntax and other formal surface features by writing
instructors will probably not better the overall quality of college students‘ writing, neither

27
is it likely that a narrow emphasis on cohesion will produce significantly improved
writing.
Following Witte and Faigley‘s analysis of cohesion, McCulley (1985) examined
493 essays on persuasive tasks written by native English-speaking high school students
for the National Assessment of Education Progress. This study supports Witte and
Faigley‘s general claim that Halliday and Hasan‘s framework is not a sufficient measure
of textual coherence. McCulley reported that not all cohesive devices identified by
Halliday and Hasan contribute to the writing quality of texts as determined by experts
using holistic analysis. While his study, like that of Witte and Faigley, provides evidence
strongly suggesting that cohesion and coherence are related, McCully concluded that
textual cohesion is only one sub-element of coherence. Along with Witte and Faigley,
McCully found that the lexical cohesive features of synonym, hyponym, and collocation
contribute in significant ways to the measure of writing quality.
In a possibly more critical study, a low correlation was found between the number
of cohesive ties and overall coherence when Tierney and Mosenthal (1983) had two
classes of twelfth graders write essays after viewing filmstrips. Tierney and Mosenthal
analyzed the essays for various cohesive ties and rated the essays in relation to clarity and
general coherence. The instructors‘ rankings of textual coherence were compared to the
cohesive analysis. They found no correlation between the number of cohesive ties and
coherence rankings for essays written. Tierney and Mosenthal concluded that, although a
count of cohesive ties helps identify cohesion in a text, a count of cohesive ties alone
does not necessarily explain what makes a text coherent.

28
Going beyond McCulley (1985) and Tierney and Mosenthal (1983), Reinhart
(1980) argued that the lexical repetition described in Halliday and Hasan‘s work (1976)
―does not function as a cohesive device at all.‖ What she means is that repetition is not
what makes a text cohesive. Reinhart added that lexical repetition is neither a sufficient
nor a necessary condition for text cohesion. Instead, she proposed the following condition
as necessary and sufficient for cohesion:
A text is connected (cohesive) if each adjacent pair of its sentences is either
referentially linked or linked by a semantic sentence connector. (1980, p.168)
That is, a referential link allows a pair of sentences to be cohesive if the topic of the
second sentence or the scene-setting expression is referentially controlled by a referent in
the first sentence. On the other hand, if a text fails to be referentially linked, it can still be
cohesive if its sentences are connected by semantic sentence connectors, which include
markers for semantic relations such as cause and effect, comparison and contrast,
temporal relations, exemplification, etc. According to Reinhart‘s condition for text
cohesion, although two sentences are lexically linked by Halliday and Hasan‘s criteria,
they do not form a cohesive unit if the linking expressions do not have the same referent.
A well-known but extreme example from Enkvist‘s study (as cited in Reinhart, 1980)
clearly demonstrates this point.
I bought a Ford. The car in which President Wilson rode down the Champs
Elysees was black. Black English has been widely discussed. The discussions
between the presidents ended last week. A week has seven days. Every day I feed
my cat. Cats have four legs. The cat is on the mat. Mat has three letters. (p.170)

29
From the text, we see that ―a Ford (=car) and the car in which President …‖ is linked
lexically but not referentially. Although Chinese EFL students may not produce a text
like this, this example may be used to prove a point: ―a text consisting of lexical links
only will not be cohesive‖ (Reinhart, 1980, p.170).
As for coherence, Reinhart expanded on Halliday and Hasan‘s cohesion model,
asserting that for a text to be globally coherent, it must meet three conditions:
connectedness (cohesion), consistency, and relevance. For Reinhart, the first is a
condition of the linear concatenation of sentences in a text; this condition comes closest
to Halliday and Hasan‘s original formulation of cohesion. It claims that each sentence
should be referentially connected to a previous sentence in the text. The second of
Reinhart‘s conditions, consistency, requires that each sentence should be semantically
consistent with previous sentences. That is, they can be all true in the same state of affairs
given our common assumption about the world, rather than being self-contradictory. The
third condition, relevance, encompasses both semantic and pragmatic conditions. Unlike
the second condition, the third condition restricts not only the relations between the
sentences of the text but also the relations between these sentences and an underlying
theme, as well as their relations with the context of the utterance. Abstracting from
Reinhart‘s three conditions, cohesion refers to ―the label for overt linguist[ic] devices for
putting sentences together‖ (p.163), whereas coherence is ―a matter of semantic and
pragmatic relations in the text‖ (p.163). Apparently, then, we may view cohesion as
applying to sentence connectedness, while coherence focuses on semantic structure.
To sum up, text-based coherence started with Halliday and Hasan, who in 1976
introduced the concept of cohesion in Cohesion in English. Subsequent studies have been

30
conducted to test Halliday and Hasan‘s cohesion hypothesis and qualify their claims
about the cohesion model. Researchers have investigated the relationship between the
lexical cohesion of student writing and overall quality or coherence. Among these studies,
Witte and Faigley‘s (1981) pioneering research on college students‘ writing demonstrated
a relationship between cohesion and coherence. Corroborating Witte and Faigley‘s
findings, McCulley (1985) concluded that cohesion is a sub-element of coherence. In
contrast, Tierney and Mosenthal (1983) found no relationship between cohesion and
coherence in the twelfth graders‘ essays. Moreover, Reinhart (1980) asserted that
Halliday and Hasan‘s lexical repetition is not what makes a text cohesive.
Not surprisingly, issues of cohesion and coherence are still under debate.
Nevertheless, the above discussions have revealed that coherence is distinct from and
broader than cohesion, and that cohesion, defined in terms of a set of linguistic features,
is viewed as only one of the factors that create coherence in a text. Therefore, in the
construction of text, the establishment of cohesive relations is a necessary component, but
it is not the whole story. Researchers have noted that cohesive texts are not necessarily
also coherent texts (Connor, 1996). Since texture or coherence involves much more than
merely cohesion, it deserves much more attention.
Reader-based analysis. The past three decades have witnessed a shift from a
static, text-based descriptive approach to a more dynamic, reader-based one, and
coherence is conceptualized as a context-dependent, reader-oriented and comprehension-
based, interpretative notion (Bublitz, 1999). Reader-based studies claim that a text cannot
be considered separately from the reader and that successful use of textual cohesion and
coherence requires an interaction among the reader, the discourse, and the writer (Carrell,

31
1982; Abeywickrama, 2007). This reader-based approach is primarily based on the
schema theory (first used by Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist and philosopher, in 1926
and later developed by Richard C. Anderson, an American eductional psychologist),
which places the reader‘s prior knowledge of the content in the forefront of discourse
comprehension.
Anderson was among the leaders in developing schema theory and applying it to
reading education. According to the schema theory, as pointed out by Chinn and Nguyen-
Jahiel (2010), when readers read texts, they use their prior knowledge to help them make
sense of these texts. Hence, reading comprehension is facilitated when readers have
relevant organized knowledge packets, called schemas, which they can use to interpret
the information. When reading a narrative of a wedding, for example, readers apply their
schema of typical wedding events (prior knowledge of the processional, the vows, the
reception, and so on) and fill the slots in the schema with the details of the particular
wedding described in the narrative (e.g., the details of this particular processional, vow,
reception, and so on). When readers lack relevant schemas, or when they fail to activate
their schemas, they understand and recall less of the new material. Schema theory can
help teachers understand some of the difficulties that students have when reading, and it
suggests that building relevant schemas and activating them can enhance reading
comprehension (Chinn and Nguyen-Jahiel, 2010).
A survey of the views closely associated with the meaningful aspect of writer-
reader interaction includes Witte and Faigley, 1981; Carrell, 1982,1984; Bamberg, 1983;
Connor, 1984; Matalene, 1985; Johns, 1986; Khalil, 1989; Connor and Johns, 1990;
Canavan and Brandon,1990; Knott and Sanders, 1998; Campbell, 1998; Suraishkumar,

32
2003; Watson Todd, Thienpermpool, and Keyuravong, 2004; Seidel, Rimmele, and
Prenzel, 2005; Tanskanen, 2006; O‘Reilly and McNamar, 2007; Abeywickrama, 2007;
Watson Todd, Khongput, and Darasawang, 2007. A selection of the views from the
following individual researchers and teachers are fairly typical of a larger trend toward
the reader-based approach to cohesion and coherence: Carrell (1982 & 1984), Bamberg
(1983), Connor (1984, 1996), Tanskanen (2006), and O‘Reilly and McNamara (2007).
Carrell (1982) openly challenged Halliday and Hasan‘s cohesion theory as a
measure of textual coherence in the light of schema-theoretical views of text reading,
arguing that, ―Cohesion is not coherence.‖ To illustrate Carrell‘s point, I quote from
Honegger (2005), who provides this example of a text:
Grammar is important to all who use language. For example, determiners
precede nouns in English. Also, spoken English includes intonational contours.
Finally, verbs can be identified by looking for words with verbal suffixes. (p. 196)
The main issue with this paragraph is that the sentences are not explaining why grammar
is important to all language users. Despite having cohesive ties, the text does not appear
to meet the needs of any audience because the presentation of ideas in the paragraph
―violates a coherence contract between writer and reader that the writer will provide only
information relevant to the topic‖ (Carrell, 1984, p.162). According to Carrell (1984) and
Fawcett (2011), a coherent paragraph should clearly develop its main topic, using
relevant evidence with all sentences showing their logical relationship to one another.
However, instead of arguing for why it is important to use good grammar, the supporting
details drift away from the topic in the above example. Accordingly, the reader may be
left clueless about grammar‘s importance.

33
From the reader-based perspective, a writer and a reader must share background
knowledge of both content and form. This shared background information, in Carrell‘s
words, is what leads to coherence. Therefore, according to Carrell (1984), without a
reader‘s interacting with the text, and the writer‘s providing of textual cues that go
beyond simple linguistic, cohesive ties, the text may not cohere. In other words, for
anyone who does not have the appropriate background knowledge (i.e., the schema)
corresponding to the text, the text may fail to cohere. Carrell‘s (1982) view of textual
coherence may be seen in an example she provides:
The picnic was ruined. No one remembered to bring a corkscrew. (p. 484)
Although the text lacks an overt linguistic lexical cohesive tie between ―picnic‖ and
―corkscrew‖, the reader‘s prior knowledge of picnics and corkscrews (i.e., schema) is
activated to interpret its meaning, so he/she does not have difficulty understanding this
mini-text; this pattern of interaction with the reader creates coherence. Here, Carrell has
provided a good example of reader-based coherence; this factor can also explain why
many Chinese ESL students often find it hard to read and understand texts that are highly
coherent if they lack the background schemas to make logical connections, or lack the
knowledge of cultural inferences. Therefore, in evaluating text coherence, the
significance of interactions between text and reader is much in evidence.
Carrell‘s view of coherence echoes the interactive model of coherence of
Bamberg (1983), Canavan and Brandon (1990), Connor (1984, 1996), and Tanskanen
(2006). These scholars believe that cohesion and coherence interact with each other and
that cohesive devices help make a text coherent. In other words, cohesion alone is not
sufficient to create coherent text. Both cohesion and coherence work together to make

34
successful communication happen. Coherence is seen as essentially a technique of
connecting ideas smoothly and logically in written communication. In a coherent piece of
writing, a writer leads the reader clearly and logically from one idea to another while
developing his/her thoughts. When the writer weaves ideas skillfully, the reader can see
quickly the relationship of one idea to another and to the central thought of the whole, as
Canavan and Brandon (1990) explained.
Echoing Carrell‘s views, Bamberg (1983) advanced the idea that the reader‘s
prior knowledge or schema---both conscious and implicit---influences the understanding
of a text because the schema helps readers anticipate upcoming textual information such
as clearly stated topic sentences, an obvious organizational pattern, statements of topic
and purpose, and headings that signify divisions of the text, hence enabling the readers to
organize the text into an understandable and coherent whole. Therefore, besides all the
textual cues provided by the writer, Bamberg emphasizes the interaction between text and
reader and its effect on judgments about coherence, stating, ―While reading, readers draw
on their tacit knowledge at the level of the sentence and of the whole discourse by using a
‗top-down,‘ ‗bottom-up‘ strategy.‖ To put this more simply, the process of calling on
both top-down and bottom-up strategies in reading has been called the interactive model,
which stresses both what is on the written page and what a reader brings to it. For
Bamberg, cohesive ties are not sufficient to create coherent text, but are part of what
makes text coherent. She concluded that both cohesion and coherence are important if
writing is to be effective, but overall coherence deserves much more attention than just
local coherence (i.e., cohesion). Bamberg found the following:

35
When we look at coherence in its broadest sense, we become aware that
almost any feature---whether seen locally or over the whole discourse---has the
potential to affect a reader‘s ability to integrate details of a text into a coherent
whole. (p. 427)
Bamberg‘s critical view of the cohesion theory was also echoed in Tanskanen‘s
(2006) analysis of cohesion and coherence. Like many other researchers, Tanskanen
(2006) disputed Halliday and Hasan‘s Cohesion in English for ignoring context, but
overall, Cohesion in English, she maintains, aims at examining the linguistic resources
that can be used to mark cohesion, and has proved to be an indispensible tool. In a short
text, coherence without cohesion is possible, but in longer texts, Tanskanen argues
cohesion plays an important part, especially in real language data, even though several
researchers such as Carrell (1982) and Morgan and Sellner (1980) have disputed the
whole concept of cohesion and hurried to demonstrate that cohesion is not necessary at
all to make a text a unified whole
Tanskanen argues that coherence ―is best studied under the collaboration
framework, which takes into account the writer and the reader‘s cooperation in creating
understanding of a text.‖ In her book Collaborating towards Coherence (2006),
Tanskanen approaches cohesion and coherence from the perspective of interaction and
collaboration. In collaborative processes, cohesive devices serve as signals of
collaboration in which the writer and the reader attempt to successfully interact with each
other. As Tanskanen put it, while the writer attempts to provide the necessary linkage to
lead the reader toward the interpretation of the text, the reader tries to identify this
linkage to arrive at an interpretation. The reader can assume that the writer is making use

36
of cohesive devices that enhance the reader‘s ability to keep up with the discourse. In this
way, the writer and the reader collaborate to keep the communicative process going.
Judging from this, communication is basically a collaborative process. Through an active
interplay between cohesion and coherence, effective communication is achieved; in other
words, understanding takes place because the text coheres through collaboration.
O‘Reilly and McNamara (2007) made a further contribution to coherence as
writing quality by introducing three important factors in understanding discourse from
the perspective of text comprehension. O‘Reilly and McNamara regarded readers‘
domain knowledge, comprehension skill, and text cohesion as vital aspects in
comprehending a text. In their study, 143 American college students‘ general and science
knowledge was measured by multiple-choice and open-ended questions. The study
examined how the reader‘s prior knowledge, the reader‘s comprehension skill, and the
overall text cohesion affect reading comprehension. By text cohesion, O‘Reilly and
McNamara mean the degree to which the concepts, ideas, and relations within a text are
explicit.
Surprisingly, as research indicates, one of the important reasons for students‘
comprehension difficulty comes from the nature of the textbooks themselves; many
textbooks are difficult to understand because important background information is
omitted and relations between concepts are not explicit (O‘Reilly & McNamara, 2007).
In an analysis of text cohesion in social studies texts, Beck, McKeown, and Gromoll,
(1989) found that many texts have structures that are far from optimal in promoting
comprehension or coherence. Beck et al.‘s analysis showed that texts often present too
much information with too little detail, contain loosely connected statements, and have

37
poor integration between sections. Disjointed text structures hinder comprehension so
that the reader is forced to form a disconnected and superficial mental representation of
the material.
O‘Reilly and McNamara‘s (2007) study presents us with two important results.
First, low-knowledge participants significantly benefited from high-cohesion texts if they
were skilled readers. Comprehension skills helped to partially compensate for their
knowledge deficits. High-cohesion texts helped the low-knowledge readers to understand
some relations among ideas in the text, at least enough to raise their performance a little.
That way, learning is improved when students read the high-cohesion text. Second, high-
knowledge readers also benefited from reading the high-cohesion text. They performed
better on the high-cohesion texts because the high-cohesion text makes the connections
among ideas in the text more explicit. This result is congruent with the findings of
Linderholm, Everson, van den Broek, Mischinski, Crittenden, and Samuels (2000) who
found that cohesion particularly benefits comprehension of difficult texts. Therefore, text
cohesion is a major factor in a reader‘s comprehension. Increasing text cohesion can
improve readers‘ comprehension. According to the results, comprehension skill is critical
for both high- and low-knowledge students to help them understand science text. Based
on their findings, the authors predicted that science comprehension in the schools would
be most likely to improve if efforts were made to increase text cohesion.
To conclude, the above review of modern literature has presented two models of
coherence: text-based and reader-based, showing how cohesive ties and perceived
coherence are manifested in written discourse. It is important to stress at this point, as
indicated above in the literature review, that effective writing involves coherence at both

38
levels. Since cohesion is one part of the web of relations that helps to make a text
comprehensible as well as coherent, attention to overall coherence precedes most
concerns about local coherence.
As background for the present study, it will be necessary to provide an overview
of Chinese rhetorical traditions in relation to coherence. The next section below gives a
brief version of this overview
Chinese Rhetorical Values
Historical Foundations
China has enjoyed a rich history. Broadly speaking, of the many schools of
thought, most social and philosophical values are derived from Confucianism that focuses
on benevolence, Taoism that stresses living in harmony with the Tao signifying the
fundamental nature of the universe, Mohism that evolved at about the same time as
Confucianism, Taoism, and Legalism, and that is best known for the concepts of
universal love and no attack, Legalism that emphasizes the need for order above all other
human concerns or strict obedience to the law system, and Chinese Buddhism that refers
collectively to the various schools of Buddhism, many of which integrated the ideas of
Confucianism, Taoism, and other indigenous philosophical systems so that what was
initially a foreign religion came to be a natural part of Chinese civilization. In this sense,
Chinese culture is highly diverse, yet harmoniously blended. Surprisingly, many of the
culture and traditions of China have come down through the ages largely unchanged.
Language scholars, rhetoricians, and educators recognize the interrelationship between
culture and rhetoric (Liu, 2007). In this regard, modern views on writing in China today
are influenced in subtle but deep and far-reaching ways by philosophical traditions with a

39
long history in the culture. For the purpose of the current study, the most related and
important of these are Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist trends. These ancient traditional
values, constantly following ideological coherence, have been explicitly consistent with
the rhetorical principles of modern practice in China.
The Influence of Confucianism
Confucius (551 – 479 BC) has been seen as the dominant Chinese philosopher
both morally and politically, whose teachings have not only profoundly shaped Chinese
culture for 2,500 years (Li, 2004) but have also heavily influenced East Asian cultures for
centuries. Modern Chinese rhetoric can be traced back to the Confucian traditions of
achieving harmony and showing respect for authority, which directly affected China‘s
rhetorical conventions. As a result, Confucius established the Chinese past as an infallible
model for the present.
A people-oriented concept. To put the nation in order, Confucius advocated the
idea of putting people first (Chen, 2007). He pursued an orderly and ideal harmonious
society under prescribed moral principles and cultural norms (Lu, 1998). The
conventional view of Chinese history is that of alternating periods of political unity and
disunity (Fairbank, Reischauer, & Craig, 1989). Since ancient times China has been
involved in numerous wars and battles within the country. Bitter conflicts, serious dissent,
and violent confrontations were never absent in ancient Chinese culture. For Confucius,
seeking harmony is the most valuable principle (Cai, 2006); when the country is at peace,
people will enjoy a good and prosperous life. In achieving harmony, Confucius placed a
great emphasis on an appropriate and artistic use of language. Being keenly aware of the
impact of language on human perceptions and actions, Confucius strongly believed that

40
the correct use of language could help society function in an orderly and moral fashion
(Lu, 1998). A central value of Chinese rhetoric was thereby to achieve harmony with
other human beings, and the correct and aesthetic use of language was virtually
emphasized in the ancient Chinese cultural context.
Nature and human interactions. In addition to seeking harmony with people,
ancient Chinese culture highlighted human beings‘ interactions with nature. Human
beings are not only dwellers in nature, they also adjust nature to meet their needs while
transforming it. For Confucius, to achieve harmony with nature, maintaining social order,
and establishing a hierarchy of human relations is of high priority (Zhu & Hildebrandt,
2000). From here, it can be seen that ancient Chinese culture associated the principles of
man‘s proper behavior with nature, suggesting that harmony with nature can be achieved
only when all people adhere to their position in the hierarchy and conform to nature.
As Yu (2000) and Huang (2002) note, Chinese values largely depend on the
agricultural and hierarchical nature of Chinese society. Historically, China‘s vast
population must get its food supply from a cultivated area. Besides, China‘s economic
life has been labor-intensive, strongly depending on human muscle-power. These basic
economic features made it essential for the Chinese to closely follow the advice of elders
and rely on peaceful cooperation for the irrigation and planting of crops. According to
Becker (1986), people were very careful of changing to new ways of farming because
many people would starve if the new technique did not work out. Thus they preferred
sticking to the old ways. When an unexpected natural disaster such as flood or drought
occurred, villagers would always consult those senior citizens with rich life experiences
for the best practice to survive. Under the strong influence of Confucian teachings, social

41
consciousness, namely knowing one‘s place in a group and acting accordingly, has been
at work for thousands of years. Through historical evolution, China gradually turned into
a hierarchical society in which age was equated with a certain authority; seniority, rank,
and gender (i.e., men over women and a husband over his wife) became the unquestioned
distinctions of superior and inferior (Liu, 2007). The traditional respect for authority is
therefore highly encouraged. In this sense, China is very much a group-oriented society.
The concept of individualism does not exist in China as it does in the West (Fairbank,
Reischauer, & Craig, 1989).
The principles of Li, Yi, and Ren. To help maintain social order and promote
harmony, Confucius advocated a set of pragmatic rules for the daily life behavior of
ordinary people. In Confucian ideals, three principles, Li (礼), Yi (义), and Ren (仁), are
crucial to his moral philosophy and significantly shaped his rhetorical perspectives: 1) Li
can be translated as the proprieties, the rites, or loyalty to the social tradition and respect
for authority, thereby referring to all actions committed by a person to build an ideal
society; 2) Yi was the origin of Li, referring to righteousness, or the moral disposition to
do good. That is, rather than pursuing one‘s own selfish interests one should do what is
right and what is moral; and 3) Ren can be best translated as benevolence or loving others.
Ren is viewed as the virtue of virtues; the other virtues follow from it. Therefore, Ren
reflects Confucius‘s fundamental idea of humanity; it is considered the ultimate guide to
human action. These three Confucian values dictate that individuals must follow an
appropriate way and respect the appropriate ritual in social interaction. In this context,
power relationships (social distinctions of superior and inferior) between Chinese
speakers and audience directly affected their choice of words as well as discourse

42
structures (Fairclough, 1989). Confucian teachings admonish followers to be cautious
about their speech. Straightforwardness in communication is viewed as dangerous
because it is often not regulated by the rule of appropriateness. Confucius warns that
straightforwardness, without the rules of propriety, will often lead to rudeness,
interpersonal conflict, and social disruption (Chen & Chung, 1994).
Consequently, as for Chinese writings, writers since Confucian times have been
wary of the use of language and have regularly used well-known sayings or quotations
from famous scholars or political leaders to indicate politeness and respect (Cai, 1999).
Furthermore, to be seen as elegant, Chinese writing must include established maxims and
citations from the work of well-known Chinese authorities (Leki, 1997). Usually, a
Chinese article with well-known sayings or quotations from the authorities is highly
appreciated. In this way, through the use of a large number of citations or maxims such as
―One who restrains himself in order to observe the rites is benevolent,‖ Confucianism has
increasingly dominated Chinese people‘s inner world generation after generation, thus, to
a great extent, resulting in their introverted disposition, and their valuing self-restraint
under the pressure of provocation, and obedience to authority (Li, 2006).
Zhongyong. In time of conflicts arising between two or more parties, mediation is
often applied. Mediation refers to a way of resolving disputes by which an intermediary
assists the two opposing parties in reaching a mutually satisfactory settlement. It is a
common practice in East Asia to use an intermediary to help people solve a conflict. This
kind of indirect interaction is part of the formality of social life and is considered a way
of avoiding an embarrassing confrontation, a way of ―saving face‖ (Chen, & Chung, 1994;
Liu, 2007). Such conflict resolution may be taken to represent the Chinese concept of

43
Zhongyong (中庸), or the Doctrine of the Mean, a core idea of Confucianism (Chen,
2007). Regarding Zhongyong, Zhang & Baker (2010) observe, ―Chinese people advocate
and encourage the art of achieving balance and harmony in life and in coexistence with
nature. This art is referred to as Zhongyong‖ (p.25). When approaching an issue,
Zhongyong guides people to avoid leaning to either side in order to be free from any bias,
and this goal has been permeating into all aspects of people‘s life. In following
Zhongyong, one has to adhere to moderation in all thoughts, speeches, and activities,
because this will lead to harmony in action, and eventually to a harmonious society.
The Influence of Taoism
Taoism, founded by Laozi, an extraordinary thinker who flourished during the
sixth century B. C. E., has exercised an enormous impact on Chinese rhetorical traditions
throughout Chinese history. In Taoism, the concept of Yin and Yang is prominent.
The concept of Yin-Yang. Taoism can be summarized through the principles of
Yin and Yang. Yin, the darker element, and Yang, the brighter element, are used to
describe how seemingly opposite or contrary forces are interconnected and
interdependent in the natural world (Ma, 2009). Understood in this way, Yin and Yang are
complementary, interdependent opposites, neither of which can exist without the other.
Many natural dualities, such as female and male, life and death, dark and light, black and
white, sky and earth, sun and moon, low and high, cold and hot, water and fire, and so on,
are thought of as physical manifestations of the Yin and Yang concept.
Under the principle of Yin and Yang, everything should be in accord with nature
(Huang, 2002). As Huang further explains, ―Nothing should go to the extreme; otherwise,
it will violate the balance in nature‖ (p. 142). Since the central idea of Yin and Yang is to

44
maintain balance and appropriateness (Lu, 1998), too much talk creates emptiness. As a
result, it is better to maintain moderation (Oliver, 1971). This Yin and Yang principle
echoes the Confucian idea of Zhongyong, the middle of the road. Evidently, both Taoism
and Confucianism emphasize achieving balance to avoid extremes. In persuasive writing,
the Chinese would write favorably about both sides to achieve agreement because the Yin
and Yang idea subtly plays a decisive role in shaping the way people think and say things.
Buddhist Principles
Buddhism initially came to China from India in 67 AD as an educational system,
which focused on memorization of texts. Similar to that of Confucius, the traditional
Buddhist educational system is also based on filial piety (loyalty to authority) (Reagan,
2005). Therefore, to show respect for social conventions, a system with a strong tradition
of memorization has been widely practiced in school across China since ancient times.
Additionally, in Chinese society, the assessment of writing based on test results has been
paramount for hundreds of years. Traditionally, success could be measured by a test-
taker‘s ability to recite appropriate passages from classics as applied to particular
problems, since classics are generally regarded as quintessence of knowledge.
Memorization, therefore, was established early in Chinese history and has continued to
this day.
Memorization. In terms of learning, Chinese students since childhood have
begun to memorize slogans, sayings, or texts such as these classics in the Book of Three
Hundred Tang Poems (an anthology of poems from the Chinese Tang Dynasty (618-907).
However, learning in China is initiated by understanding. On the basis of understanding
as a starting point, the Chinese tend to memorize what has been learned and then

45
internalize its meaning (Marton, Wen, & Nagle, 1996). They then adapt the knowledge to
use in various circumstances. In view of the above-mentioned reasons, the Buddhist
tradition of memorization or rote learning has played an enormous part in shaping the
mind-set of the Chinese people. As a result, instead of developing creativity in writing,
Chinese writers have always liked the idea of memorizing texts as a sign of showing
respect for authority (Duan, 2003) as well as a way of demonstrating their knowledge of
the language (Kohn, 1992). More importantly, learning through memorization in China is
largely based on grasping the meaning of a subject as a necessary initial step rather than
simply fixing information to one‘s memory via sheer repetition. Memorization is said to
allow one to better apply and transfer knowledge gained at one time to other areas at a
later time.
Wuxing. Culturally, in traditional Chinese thinking, great attention is paid to
Wuxing (悟性). The Chinese notion of Wuxing can be approximately translated into
―insight,‖ the capability to understand things without reasoning. It is a way of sensing the
truth without explanations. The Chinese associate Wuxing with intuition; intuitive
thinking in Chinese culture is highly valued. Historically, both Confucianism and
Buddhism constantly stress Wuxing (Li, 2005; Lian, 2006; Yuan & Yang, 2010).
Confucianism emphasizes capturing the central point of a subject as well as its internal
relations by using prior knowledge and experience (Cai, 2006). As said by Confucius, if
too much attention was devoted to rational thinking, the result may turn out to be just the
opposite of one‘s wish, thus often leading to confusion (Hou, 2003). Particularly,
Buddhism teaches that enlightenment (i.e., the state of understanding something clearly)
is achieved through meditation, or mental concentration. This awakening can occur

46
gradually or in a flash of insight (Lian, 2006). According to Yun (2005), since Wuxing is
highly personal, instead of learning from others, one can only rely on oneself to stimulate
the mind and emotions to contemplate the essence of reality. Day by day, the emphasis of
Wuxing has led to a tradition since ancient times of employing an intuitive approach in
academic and real life. For Chinese writing, comprehension, therefore, is achieved via the
reader‘s Wuxing.
However, unlike Western thinking, which advocates logical reasoning, Chinese
intuitive thinking has an obscure nature (Qin, 2009; Zhang, 2009). Today, while Chinese
thinking is considerably influenced by Western thought, which emphasizes accuracy, it is
still associated with the ancient characteristic of obscure thinking (Lian, 2002, 2006).
Traditionally, in the eyes of the Chinese, if a person is intelligent, he/she must have a
special natural ability to understand things. Ancient Chinese books, for example, are very
difficult to understand if one lacks Wuxing because they are full of obscurities, consisting
of implicit expressions and unconnected sentences, and even contain no punctuation.
Only by writing in this obscure way could authors demonstrate their ―profound learning‖
(Yun, 2005). Only those among the few who had good understanding were capable of
grasping the essentials. Once people came to a proper understanding of the gist, they
were said to be able to win rapid promotion in their official career.
Purpose
The Confucian and Buddhist traditions were reflected in the early modern
Chinese writing classroom. In persuasive writing, the writer‘s purpose is the reason why
he/she writes a passage. Unlike Western rhetoric which aims at persuasion, the central
purposes or goals of Chinese writing are to express the views of the group by referring to

47
the tradition and relying on accepted patterns of expression, and to achieve conciliation or
social harmony (Matalene, 1985; Liu, 1996). This principle has been noted by scholars
outside of China, as Lu and Frank (1993) assert that ―Western scholars believe that the
purpose of Chinese rhetoric is to achieve harmony‖ (p. 455). Influenced by this tradition,
to achieve harmony and use beautiful phrasing, Chinese students in the EFL writing
context have been regarding the purpose of their writing as a way of showing their
mastery of the English language rather than attempting to accomplish a specific
communication task.
Audience
Another important and interesting factor involves the notion of audience. How a
writer approaches his/her subject will depend on his/her specific target audience.
Therefore, keeping the writer‘s audience in mind helps the writer know what
information/style/vocabulary to include and what to leave out (Fawcett, 2011). Readers
appreciate the writer‘s presenting a paper in a way that is familiar to them; in turn, they
are more likely to be open to the writer‘s unique perspective. However, in the long
history of the Chinese rhetorical tradition, audience analysis was of little importance; at
least, it was not emphasized. In fact, the audience for writings had been implicitly or
explicitly predetermined exclusively to be the authorities, including top government
officials or important scholars (Duan, 2003). In this cultural context, Chinese EFL/ESL
writers tend to be writer-centered rather than audience-centered.
Twentieth Century: Japan and Western Influence
Early modern Chinese rhetoric began to appear in the late 1800s, when thousands
of Chinese students went to Japan, where Western rhetoric was taught, for study-abroad

48
programs from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. Through Japanese universities, the
Chinese students had their first contact with the Western tradition of humanities and
sciences (Wu, 2009). Japanese professors translated many Western works on rhetoric, but
they conceptualized rhetoric solely as a discipline concerned with belles-lettres (writings
about subjects relating to literature) and literary criticism (the study, evaluation, and
interpretation of literature). The Japanese translated the word rhetoric into the study of
beautiful prose or the study of the written word, debating on whether and how Western
rhetoric could be applied to issues unique to the Japanese language (Tomasi, 2004).
In the 1800s, Japanese literature was identified with tropes and figures, and it
emphasized very refined linguistic and aesthetic awareness (Tomasi, 2004). Stylistic
devices such as metaphor, rhyme, personification, and diction, therefore, were a top
priority in writing in Japan at that time. The Japanese emphasis on the aesthetics of
literary writing exerted a strong influence on Chinese students while they were studying
in Japan.
At the turn of the twentieth century, many young Chinese intellectuals looked to
the West for Western standards as the source for incentives that could build and improve
society and culture (Mao, 2010). It is worth pointing out that in 1911, a royally decreed
school called Qinghua Xuetang (Qinghua Academy) was set up (Zhang, 2005) in China,
in order to prepare Chinese students for studying in the United States, with the aim of
training a group of Chinese leaders. Operated in an American way with English as the
language of instruction (Zhang, 2005), the school gave numerous Chinese youths
exposure to modern Western sciences and culture. Apart from other academic subjects,
skill-based English courses were offered, including reading, composition, and grammar.

49
The May Fourth Movement, also called the New Culture Movement or the
Chinese Literary Revolution (Mohan & Lo, 1985), had a massive impact on Chinese
culture from 1919 to the 1930s. This movement was long seen as a radical intellectual
break with the traditional Confucian ideas and as the seedbed of Western rhetoric and
values. This period saw numerous new publications on rhetoric among its cultural,
educational, and social changes. At that time, a debate arose over whether or not Chinese
prose study and writing should adopt foreign theories, and whether or not foreign
rhetorical theories would benefit Chinese language studies.
Despite nativists' protests, during this early part of the twentieth century, scholars
returning from Japan and the United States integrated Japanese theories and Anglo-
American figures of speech into Chinese writing and appropriated them into a canon of
aesthetics for writing studies (Wu, 2009). Particularly, according to Tang (1923),
Western rhetorical models of definition and classification were introduced with a focus
on the study of figures of speech such as metaphor and diction. However, some Western
notions, such as debate or persuasion, which could challenge the Confucian and Buddhist
traditions, were not easily transmitted to the Chinese audience (Wu, 2009).
In the 1920s, with the efforts of the returned scholars but contextualized within
China‘s deep-rooted Confucian tradition, the Western concept rhetoric was defined in its
narrow sense as the art of effective expression and as the study of that art designated in
Chinese by two separate terms, xiuci and xiucixue (Kao, 1993). Translated from Western
sources (Wen, 2007), the Chinese term xiuci (rhetoric) referred to an art in modern China,
and was closely associated with Chinese writing instruction. This art of rhetoric laid

50
special stress on figures of speech, which were emphasized as the focal points in modern
writing.
Chen Wangdao’s An Introduction to Rhetoric
One typical example of applying this ―rhetoric‖ to writing instruction can be
found in Chen Wangdao‘s (1932) Xiucixue Fafan (An Introduction to Rhetoric); in China
it is compared to Aristotle‘s Rhetoric in the West. To understand modern Chinese
rhetoric, it is necessary to become familiar with Chen Wangdao and his book.
Chen Wangdao was one of the Chinese students who studied in Japan between
1915 and 1920. Later, from 1949 to 1977, he served as president of China‘s prestigious
Fudan University in Shanghai, which has been the main center of the modern Chinese
rhetorical tradition and is also one of the major centers of rhetorical study in the world
(Harbsmeier, 1999). Chen was a prominent nationally recognized Chinese rhetorician in
the early twentieth century. His An Introduction to Rhetoric, published in 1932, was the
first systematic work to establish a completely new and scientific rhetorical system, and it
has been widely recognized as the most important milestone of modern Chinese rhetoric.
Hence, Chen is regarded as the founding father of modern Chinese rhetoric (Harbsmeier,
1999; Wu, 2009; Lam, 2002).
To a certain extent, Chen's rhetorical studies integrated ancient Chinese, Japanese,
and Western rhetorical theories (Lam, 2002). Although Chen‘s book was based on
Japanese sources, which were in turn based on Western rhetorical concepts (Harbsmeier,
1999), his system was developed from his own teaching notes at Fudan University during
the 1920s and was classroom-tested by several professors. Chen‘s text examines both
ancient and modern Chinese writings, covering the definition of rhetoric, features of

51
speech, passive and active forms of rhetoric, figures of speech, rhetorical phenomena, and
styles. However, as Feng (2002) explains, Chinese scholars generally discuss nothing
more than control of language from different perspectives. In exactly the same way,
Chen‘s An Introduction to Rhetoric focused on language use rather than textual features
such as coherence. From this perspective, Wu (2009) claims that modern Chinese rhetoric
has been primarily aesthetic and poetic since it evolved out of the notion of harmony.
Specifically, instead of helping students develop convincing arguments, critical
thinking skills, or a logical progression of thought in their writing that readers would be
able to follow, Chen maintained that the purpose of rhetorical study is to learn models of
language use; in this one important feature, he was adapting an idea from traditional
Chinese culture. Chinese writers, therefore, imitate texts (Liu, 1996) and regard the
purpose of their writing as a way of showing their superior mastery of Chinese classics.
In order to ―beautify writing‖ (Chen, 1932) and add more authority or persuasiveness to
the writing, students often use set phrases and allusions, quote well-known sayings, and
follow patterns rather than focus on making every paragraph, every sentence, and every
phrase contribute to the meaning of the whole piece as judged by Western rhetoric. For
the Chinese, these rhetorical practices embody great cultural values rooted in history
(Peng, 1997) and can be viewed as congruent with China‘s Confucian and Buddhist
traditions, which respect the harmony of the group over the desires of the individual. To
put this more directly, as noted by Chen (2004), ―While Confucianism promotes a
harmonious social order, rhetoric study maintains a harmonious society‖ (p.90).

52
Russian Influence
In the years following 1949, when the People‘s Republic of China was established,
the Russian pedagogical influence on China‘s foreign languages teaching was enormous,
due to political and economic reasons. During the 1950s, most students enrolled in
college were poor in English proficiency (He, 2003). In an effort to teach the students
basic language skills, the former Soviet model of Intensive Reading was strongly
promoted and was believed to be helpful for English learning in China (Wang & He,
2006). This model does not focus on teaching reading skills as its name suggests; it is
really more of a language study method than a form of reading. Chinese students,
therefore, were advised to analyze a text, working on sentence level, and paying attention
mainly to vocabulary, usage, verb patterns, and grammar (Qian, 2009). Always, after
each English lesson, about six to ten separate Chinese-to-English sentences in isolation
were provided as a homework assignment for students to translate with a focus on the use
of verb patterns. Chinese students may have, in a very real sense, never heard of the
fancy term coherence during the period from the 1950s to the 1970s.
James Kohn (1992), who taught English in a Chinese university in the 1980s,
claimed that ―Chinese teachers of intensive reading would encourage students to reread
difficult sentences until they are understood and look up definitions for all unknown
words in a dictionary‖ (p.120), in contrast to American teachers, who might stress the
importance of extracting main ideas or using background knowledge. Kohn (1992)
wondered why ―Americans favor top-down strategies of cognitive awareness in reading,
while the Chinese are following bottom-up strategies‖ (p.121). Not surprisingly, this
―grammar-translation‖ model (Liu, 2010) has been common as an English-teaching

53
method across China for almost 60 years since the 1950s and has played a key role in
China‘s English education (Wang & He, 2006). With the emphasis on this Intensive
Reading method, during the 1950s and 1970s, composition writing was not considered
important, and in fact was practically ignored.
The Current Situation
Chinese Views of Cohesion and Coherence
Since the late 1970s, China has opened its gate to English as the unofficial second
language, and English is viewed as ―the gatekeeper‖ to higher education, employment,
and social status. As Bolton & Tong (2002) indicate, English writing instruction began to
carry weight in the early 1980s as China was increasing its exchanges with the outside
world in many ways. As a central component of the basic language skills, effective
academic writing in English as a foreign language is becoming particularly important
today because Chinese EFL learners in college need to write papers, and some of them
need to send applications to universities outside China for advanced studies (Liu &
Braine, 2005).
As discussed earlier, with the borrowing of ideas from Western rhetoric in the
early twentieth century, one might expect Chinese values associated with writing to be in
agreement with those of Western scholars. Things, however, have not moved in that
direction. In many areas of today‘s writing practices, differences and conflicts still arise.
These may be rooted in the older traditions described earlier, of Confucianism and
Buddhism. Additionally, the pedagogical influence of the Russian Intensive Reading
model cannot be underestimated. Chinese students today may still pay more attention to
the writing of single grammatically correct sentences rather than to the overall meaning

54
and the overall semantic coherence of a passage when it comes to English writing. Most
important of all, a decisive factor that should be taken into consideration is the fact that
culturally influenced thought (or thinking) patterns could considerably influence the way
Chinese students write. In this section, before we go about exploring what Chinese EFL
teachers and scholars actually say about the Western concept of coherence in writing, I
will particularly focus on and explain how thought patterns, from the perspective of
contrastive rhetoric, may influence practical views on writing today.
Cultural Thought Patterns
The mention of thought patterns brings us back to the 1960s. The study of modern
Chinese rhetoric for EFL/ESL writing purposes was first initiated by R. B. Kaplan in his
well-known article, ―Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education‖ (1966). In that
article, Kaplan claimed that Western thought and writing are presented with a drawing of
a straight arrow, whereas the Chinese language is depicted as a spiral turning in on itself.
Even though Kaplan‘s cultural assumption was too overgeneralized because all Chinese
writers do not write all their essays in that non-linear way, there is still some truth
contained in his assertion about cross-cultural differences in writing.
To understand why written discourse is culture specific, we need to consider what
thought patterns are and how they might be said to affect a notion like coherence. In the
past two decades in China, numerous articles have been written on cultural thought
patterns, many of them highlighting Chinese culture (e.g. Wang & Liu, 2001; Lian, 2002;
Li & Zhang, 2002; Qian, 2003; Guo & Wang, 2004; Liu & Zhou, 2004; Deng, 2005; Liu
& Deng, 2005; Xu, 2005; Yang & Cahill, 2008). Studies in contrastive rhetoric have
proposed differences between Chinese and English thought patterns.

55
Among the above-mentioned Chinese scholars, Lian‘s (2002) view of cultural
thought patterns may be of typical significance in the Chinese cultural context. In his
article ―Modes of Thinking,‖ he claims that thought patterns serve as a bridge linking
culture and language; these patterns consist mainly of knowledge, perceptions, methods,
intelligence, feelings, will, languages, and habits, which are correlated. According to Lian,
East Asian (including Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese) and Western thought
patterns exhibit different characteristics. For example, East Asians seek common ground,
prefer to take steady steps or ―compromise,‖ and emphasize harmony, whereas
Westerners seek difference, strive for making changes, and value competition. East
Asians tend to believe that elements in the world are interrelated with one another,
viewing any given phenomenon as non-static. In contrast, Westerners perceive most
objects as independent, so the essence of an object is not affected by factors outside itself.
The Chinese worship the ancient and cherish the past, sticking to traditional ways, while
Westerners are open-minded, looking toward the future. In terms of writing, East Asians
have a great respect for models, whereas Westerners encourage creativity and emphasize
critical thinking. Also, the East and the West may have different views on directness.
When the Chinese state their views, they tend to stay away from being straightforward
and prefer to speak indirectly. In contrast, Americans tend to get straight to the ―bottom
line.‖
Seen this way, thought patterns and cultures are closely tied. Language and
writing are cultural phenomena, and, as a direct consequence, each language has its
preferred rhetorical conventions (Connor, 1996). Wilson (2010) clearly explains her view
on the subtle influence of cultural thought patterns on writing:

56
Any attempt rigorously to eliminate our human perspective from our picture of
the world must lead to absurdity. Just because a foreign student can write a
coherent essay in his native language does not mean that he can do so in English,
nor does that mean that an American [who] can write a coherent essay in English
can do so in another language. (p. 2)
From this point of view, coherence may not be universal, but rather is evolved out of
cultural thought patterns. Thought patterns may affect our cognitive development and
perception of coherence. In other words, what makes a text coherent could depend at least
in part on reader perceptions or cultural expectations, and cultural thought patterns may
affect how one perceives writing as coherent.
This can create problems for Chinese EFL/ESL students, whose essays have to be
written in the unfamiliar (to them) rhetorical styles of the Western culture. Achieving
coherence in English writing does not lie solely in learning vocabulary and grammar of
the English language; however, other important factors are typically overlooked by
writing instructors, as they have not been thoroughly investigated and are not as readily
taught. As a result, developing writers from other cultures are left to fall back on their
original intuitions when it comes to issues like coherence. Chinese students may have a
coherent orientation based on their background and experience, but this orientation may
be perceived to be incoherent to a reader anticipating a different culturally-constrained
demonstration of coherence (Vries, 2002; Wilson, 2010).
The next section presents ten areas where cultural thought patterns may affect
persuasive writing, based on the research of numerous scholars: Shen (1989), Ballard and
Clanchy (1991), Yu (1993), Connor (1996), Cortazzi and Jin (1997), Duan (2003),

57
Timmann (2003), Guo and Wang (2004), Hu (2004), Parselle (2005), Lian (2006), Ye
(2006), Dewey (2007), Jiang (2007), Mu and Carrington (2007), Xing, Wang, and
Spencer (2008), Blunden (2008), Kinnes (2009), Liu and Palermo (2009), Qin (2009),
Zhang (2009), and Liu (2010). For Chinese ESL students, while the ten features may not
represent an exhaustive list of causes for all their writing problems regarding coherence,
to a significant extent, they clearly reflect issues that may affect Chinese students‘ writing.
Dialectical Thinking and Intuitive Thinking
Zhang (2009) argues that traditional Chinese thought patterns exhibit two
characteristic features: 1) dialectical thinking, and 2) intuitive thinking. Fundamentally,
these two ―reasoning‖ systems are closely related and frequently applied in the Chinese
cultural context. Dialectical thinking refers to the ability to view issues from multiple
perspectives and arrive at the most reasonable reconciliation of seemingly contradictory
information (Manzo, 1992). The dialectical approach emphasizes holistic thinking and
the unity of opposites. Regarding holistic thinking, Dewey (2007) maintains that holistic
thinking involves understanding a system by sensing its all-inclusive patterns and
reacting to them. Viewed from the perspective of an English reader, students with holistic
thinking often see a problem from all sides and tend to compose disunified paragraphs
containing many different ideas, according to Dewey. If this characterization is correct, it
is reasonable to assume that the traditional Chinese preference for holistic thinking may
significantly affect Chinese students‘ English writing. In terms of the unity of opposites,
this style is regarded as a way of understanding something in its entirety. As Blunden
(2008) notes, each of the two seemingly opposite parts does its role to complement the
other. They are constantly changing and are therefore inseparable. They are opposites, yet

58
they are one. Following the dialectical principle of the unity of opposites, Chinese writers
may approach a topic by arguing positively about both sides when writing persuasive
essays.
As can be seen from the above discussion, dialectical thinking centers on holistic
strategies. Similarly, intuitive thinking, which was already noted in the earlier section
entitled Wuxing, also emphasizes the holistic approach, and it carries much weight in
Chinese culture. To deepen our understanding of the Chinese intuition, it is very helpful
to contrast it with the Western logical thinking.
Logical Thinking vs. Intuitive Thinking
Human thinking is guided mainly by two culturally-specific classes of cognitive
strategies, that is, logical thinking and intuitive thinking. As far as Western civilization is
concerned, the classical Greeks ―invented‖ logical thinking (Parselle, 2005). Basically,
logical thinking is focused, linear, rule-based, brain-centered, and analytic, dealing with
one thing at a time. It can be taught in the classroom to beginners. However, in ancient
China, instead of developing logical thinking like the Aristotelian formal logic, the
Chinese only acquired intuitive abilities (Lian, 2006). As we may already know, intuition
refers to the ability to understand things by using one‘s feelings rather than by carefully
considering facts, so it has contrastive qualities. Essentially, intuitive thinking, or Wuxing,
is unfocused, nonlinear, experience-based, heart-centered, and holistic, seeing many
things at once. Since intuitive thinking is experience-oriented and heart-centered, it is
hard to teach in the classroom. It is commonly believed that Westerners value logical
reasoning while the Chinese stress intuitive thinking or empirical belief (Qin, 2009). Not
surprisingly, when intuitive thinking conflicts with logical reasoning, Chinese students

59
are likely to turn to an intuitive approach by using their experiential knowledge rather
than applying logical reasoning.
When it comes to Chinese writing, Hu (2004) has presented us with a striking
picture of the traditional Chinese intuition. He claims that Chinese intuitive thinking is
unclear and full of symbolism. Consequently, Chinese writing remains obscure and
highly suggestive, leading readers into reverie. According to Hu, Chinese thinking is
especially good for the production of literature and philosophy rather than the
development of science. To illustrate his point, Hu offers us an impressive example,
explaining that most Chinese books on philosophy are imbued with bits of collective
maxims, which are not written in a systematic way, even though ideas can be penetrating.
Besides, as Hu proceeds to emphasize, there are few connections between the sentences.
More specifically, the widely known The Analects of Confucius was written in the
compact suggestive style, which is not easy to comprehend. Here is an example from The
Analects of Confucius:
君子有九思：视思明，听思聪,
Jun zi you jiu si: shi si ming, ting si cong,
A gentleman have nine thinking: see think clearly, hear think distinctly
色思温, 貌思恭，
se si wen, mao si gong，
Face think mild, appearance think respectful
言思忠，事思敬，疑思问，
yan si zhong, shi si jing, yi si wen,
talk think sincere work think dedicated problem think ask
忿思难，见得思义。
fen si nan, jian de si yi.
Angry think consequence, see gains think righteous.
When translated into English, it might look like this (Cai, 2006):

60
A gentleman concentrates on the following nine things: seeing clearly when he
uses his eyes; hearing acutely when he uses his ears; looking mild when it comes
to facial expression; appearing sedate when it comes to demeanor; being sincere
when he speaks; being conscientious when it comes to his office responsibility;
seeking advice when he is in the face of difficulty; foreseeing the consequences
when he gets angry; asking himself whether it is right when he wants to gain
something. (p. 91)
The Confucian Analects is a collection of aphorisms, which is typical of intuitive thinking.
The connections from idea to idea are highly suggestive. The content is by no means easy
to follow. The Chinese mind developed a language which is very different from that
which evolved in the West. In the above sentence, the word order is determined by the
emotional content rather than by the kind of grammatical rules that dictate structure
rather more rigidly in a language like English. This writing consists of many sentence
fragments separated by commas. Each fragment is short, yet rich in suggestive images.
Much of this imagery, however, is lost when translated into English.
Admittedly, as Zhang (2009) states, due to much attention paid to intuitive
thinking, Chinese students may seriously lack analytical skills, particularly in terms of
reading-response writing, such as the writing of a critical response to a written text.
Likewise, with this considerable emphasis on intuitive thinking, Chinese students may
apparently ignore the importance of effective argumentation, which requires highly
logical reasoning. As analytic thinking involves understanding a system by breaking
down its parts, explaining what they are, and thinking about how they work together to
produce large-scale effects and why they do so (Dewey, 2007), a lack of analytic thinking

61
in writing is indeed a major defect in the traditional Chinese way of thinking (Zhang,
2009), seen through Western eyes.
Form-oriented vs. Meaning-oriented
English seems to strongly stress cohesion of form. The notion of cohesion is
typically defined in terms of Halliday and Hasan‘s grammatical and lexical cohesive
devices. Skilled writers employ cohesive devices effectively to tie a text together and
facilitate comprehension (Canagarajah, 2002). Likewise, as stated by Connor (1996),
connectives work as aids to help readers make connections between what has already
been stated and what is forthcoming. Zamel (1983) echoes Connor in claiming that these
linking ties help make a text appear unified and allow readers to piece together ideas into
a logically coherent whole. As a result, English readers are said to expect those ties to
help achieve coherence as they read. In a sense, meaning, therefore, is achieved through
form, that is, through cohesive ties.
In contrast, Chinese writing would consider surface links optional. Chinese tends
to heavily emphasize coherence of meaning. As Xing, Wang, & Spencer (2008) claim,
Chinese writing places the emphasis more on the whole: it is more synthetic, more
changeable, and there is no clear-cut separation between the parts. Also, Chinese
rhetorical style is not very strict about the need for coherent links between parts. It
relies more heavily on the reader's interpretation. (P.74)
From this view, Chinese appears to be a reader-responsible language (Hinds, 1987). That
is, it is the reader‘s responsibility that decides the relationship between any one part of an
essay and the essay as a whole. In this sense, Chinese is postulated as meaning-oriented
(Huang, 2002). Chinese writers and readers assume that the logical relationship of related

62
ideas between sentences and paragraphs is understood from context. This does not mean
that there are no cohesive ties in Chinese. It is only to say that transition expressions may
be more subtle and require a more active role for the audience. Just because of this trait, a
noticeable feature in Chinese writing is that phrases or sentences may be linked by only a
comma, rather than an explicit transitional or linking term. Instead of saying ―English is
very important, so we must learn it well,‖ Chinese EFL/ESL students, especially those at
a developmental stage, would say ―English is very important, we must learn English
well‖ (Wang, 2008). The reader is then left to supply the cause-effect relationship.
As connectives are optional in Chinese, when Chinese students transfer their
Chinese patterns into English, the resulting text without appropriate connections between
ideas may typically not make much sense to an English reader; at least, such a choppy
text would not be pleasing to read for an English reader. And the English reader would
probably be too annoyed by such an unconnected text to bother working out the
connections. According to Parks, Levernier, & Hollowell (1981), an essential element of
coherence will be missing if a paragraph lacks any sentence connection. In other words,
the closely related ideas in short, choppy sentences may be better understood when they
are well connected into one longer sentence that makes the logical relationship clear. Not
surprisingly, EFL teachers often find that a text written by their Chinese students
frequently consists of a collection of unconnected short sentences, so they conclude that
Chinese students may seriously lack basic transitional skills in their English writing
(Dong, 1999; Guo & Wang, 2004; Yeh, 2004; Jin & Ban, 2006; Zhou, 2007; Wu & He,
2010). These transitional skills refer to the appropriate use of cohesive ties or

63
connectives. To illustrate this property of Chinese, it will be very helpful to have a closer
look at the paratactic feature of the Chinese language.
Paratactic vs. Hypotactic
Putting the above point into Chinese terms, basically, Chinese is content with yihe
[notional coherence], which is strongly influenced by Chinese intuitive thinking, whereas
Western languages like English highlight xinghe [formal cohesion]. To clarify the
relationship of ideas within paragraphs or beyond paragraphs, as noted above, English
more often resorts to overt cohesion, frequently using various cohesive ties. On the other
hand, it is worth emphasizing again that Chinese texts are characterized by a lack of such
function words as coordinating and subordinating conjunctions, conjunctive adverbs,
prepositions, pronouns, and other forms. In the final analysis, Chinese is a paratactic
language, in which clauses are presented independently without linking forms. This can
be distinguished from a hypotactic language like English (Yu, 1993; Jiang, 2007), which
makes rich use of coordinating or subordinating words to show the semantic or pragmatic
relationships between clauses. In Chinese, such relationships are often implied rather than
expressed lexically when they are understood from context.
Historically, Chinese writing rarely employed connectives, and this trait can be
traced back only to about the early 20th
century. At that point, a great number of Western
documents were translated into Chinese; as a result, Chinese underwent a process of
language change called ―Westernization.‖ One consequence of this was that the use of
sentence connectives in Chinese increased greatly. Despite all the changes caused by
Westernization, however, modern Chinese still preserves the features of a paratactic
language. Even now, in contrast to their English equivalents, the use of the Chinese

64
cohesive devices such as or, but, and, so, because, if, after, although, though, even
though, even if, when, with regard to, therefore, conversely, etc. may or may not be
needed, depending on the specific context.
Jiang (2007) provides the following example:
姊妹三个, 从小没娘, 彼此提挈, 感情很好,
Zi mei san ge, cong xiao mei nian, bi ci ti qie, gan qing hen hao,
Sisters three, from childhood no mother, help each other, feelings very good,
一家人都很勤快。
yi jia ren du hen qin kuai.
whole family all very hard-working .
The three sisters have lost their mother since they were young, so they help and
love each other. To survive, the family works hard together.
Grammatically, this is a typical one-clause Chinese sentence with a very loose
structure. The phrases within the sentence are separated by commas. When translated into
English, the Chinese version turns into two distinct English clauses. In fact, since English
requires more explicitness in spelling out the logical connections, there could be different
interpretations of the Chinese sentence. Instead of the connective so, for instance, the
sentence could be read with the conjunction and in place of so. In the translation, we can
see that many elements not expressed in the Chinese sentence are all found overtly in the
English sentences, such as the underlined pronoun they, the possessive adjective their, the
conjunction since, and the coordinative conjunction so. In addition, for the purpose of
cohesion between the English sentences, the transitional phrase to survive is added,
though there is no equivalent in the Chinese version. However, the use of ―they‖ and
―their‖ involves grammatical rules (e.g. a subject is required overtly in English), whereas
the other words ―since‖, ―so‖, and ―to survive‖ are about connectives in discourse, thus
clarifying relationships between ideas. The two phenomena are quite different.

65
From the analysis of the example above, we see that the Chinese paratactic
sentence structure mainly includes sentence fragments, comma splices, and a lack of
connective words or transitions. Paratactic and hypotactic languages structure sentences
in radically different ways (Binnick, 2009); the difference is great enough to be striking,
and to have potentially serious consequences for achieving coherence in writing for
developing Chinese EFL/ESL writers.
Topic-first vs. Topic-delayed
In Western society, students who are in developmental English in writing are very
often advised and encouraged to write with a topic-first pattern to set a clear focus for the
rest of the writing, even though this may not always be the case for more advanced
students. In addition to this, most American writing textbooks usually introduce the main
idea at the beginning of a paragraph, and then follow it with major and minor supporting
details. With the recent borrowing of Western ideas, while this organization may be
valued by some Chinese writers, in essence, as contended by Chu, Swaffar, and Charney
(2002), ―The practice of putting the main thesis of a text before supporting ideas violates
a Chinese reader‘s expectation‖ (p.515). The Chinese rhetorical style prefers indirectness
in writing. To maintain a very polite and humble tone, Chinese writers at various levels
often follow a ―topic-delayed‖ structure (Qian, 2003), which means that Chinese writers
tend to hide their real intent until the last minute (Chen, 2004); they are reluctant to state
their purpose at the outset, since it is an important cultural value for them to avoid being
straightforward. Straightforward language, according to Wang (2008), often intensifies
contradictions and increases tension. When it comes to persuasion in the Chinese context,
Wang (2008) has provided us with a clear explanation of this pattern:

66
Persuasion means to smooth out disagreement or to offer advice. While
convincing somebody, we should pay particular attention to language and
approach a subject in an indirect way, giving him/her a mild hint. Coming straight
to the point may not convince anyone to adopt our views. On the contrary, he/she
would develop an aversion to us. Therefore, in doing persuasion, we must pay
close attention to ways and means, leading him/her on gradually with patient and
painstaking efforts so that he/she will come to understand little by little. (p. 37)
In Chinese culture, such a topic-delayed, gentle ―persuasion‖ as stated above works well.
Jumping to a conclusion in the beginning is therefore viewed as aggressiveness because it
disrupts harmonious relationships between readers and writers. Historically, direct
assertion even invites disaster. Based on the recorded history of the Sui Dynasty (581-618
CE), Gao Ying, a loyal minster of Sui, was beheaded by Emperor Yang of Sui as a
warning to others for having voiced his critical opinions straightforwardly. Gao Ying‘s
frank ―criticism‖ was taken as a serious offence against the Emperor. This example gives
striking historical support for the notion that the Chinese style of communication is
highly suggestive rather than straightforward.
An important structural rule in Chinese writing is to proceed from the surface to
the core (Qin, 2009), suggesting that the writer should come to the point little by little. To
exemplify this point, Shen (1989) figuratively points out that Chinese writers habitually
clear the surrounding bushes before attacking the real target. He then persuasively argues,
―the logic of Chinese composition…is like the peeling of an onion: layer after layer is
removed until the reader finally arrives at the central point, the core‖ (p.463). Evidently,
according to Shen (1989), Chinese writing is like a leisurely paced rural life; people

67
―relax‖ and take their time to chew and taste a topic slowly. Many Chinese writers prefer
to present background information and evidence first and then come up with a final
conclusion as the main claim (Cortazzi & Jin, 1997; Ye, 2006). In fact, even more
important, they may never reveal their point of view or state the conclusion at all, leaving
it to the reader (Jensen, 1998; Wang & Liu, 2001; Liu & Zhou, 2004). For the Chinese,
this ―topic-delayed‖ style of written communication may be highly acceptable; the
Chinese find it perfectly reasonable for a writer to reach his/her topic gradually rather
than abruptly (Shen, 1989); consequently, Chinese readers are able to follow this thought
development comfortably. In contrast, when many English L1 readers encounter this
layer-after-layer ―onion peeling‖ approach, it may seem to them more like ―beating about
the bush‖ than the ―bush-clearing‖ that Shen talks about (Vries, 2002).
Differences in Paragraph Unity and Structure
Good English writing may be characterized by unity that contributes to coherence.
American college writing textbooks, almost without exception, emphatically state that an
effective paragraph makes one main point only and then sticks to that point, developing it
in a variety of ways. This can be related to the ―linear‖ pattern of Western thinking that
shows up in schematic form in Kaplan‘s (1966) heavily criticized diagramming of
cultural types. In fact, Kaplan‘s (1966) ideas may have been expressing some truth about
Oriental writing after all (Shen, 1989), a truth which has been ignored in much work done
later. Assuming the validity of the ―linear pattern‖ concept for Western idea development,
Chinese writing does not follow this ―linear‖ pattern; a Chinese writer may deliberately
make an effort to discuss ―different‖ ideas in a single paragraph, rather than keeping to a
single subject. As pointed out by Xing, Wang, and Spencer (2008), more often than not, a

68
paragraph in Chinese writing does not focus on one main point; many ―different‖ ideas
can be mentioned within one paragraph.
There is some relatively recent support for this contrast. In discussing the
Chinese philosophy of life, Dong (2009) states, ―The linear approach to a problem does
not work [in China]. It is only a spiral way of conducting oneself in society that leads to
success‖ (p.230). Ji, Peng, and Nisbett, (2000); Ji, Nisbett, and Su (2001); and Nisbett,
Peng, Choi, and Norenzayan (2001) add that linear thinking is more acceptable to
Westerners partly because of an analytic thinking style that is prevalent in Western
rhetoric. Western writers focus on a relatively narrow range of objects and environmental
factors and build simple, explicit causal models, while the Chinese prefer a nonlinear
thinking approach because traditional Chinese philosophy lays great emphasis on
―holistic‖ strategies (Zhao, 1999; Li, 2005; Zhang, 2009), where things are considered in
their totality. According to Choi, Koo, and Choi (2007) and Hong (2009), in the holistic
style of Chinese people, attention tends to be oriented toward the relationships between
objects. In a visual display, the Chinese may synthesize diverse elements into a unit
which emphasizes the ―whole.‖ In contrast, the analytic style of Westerners tends to
focus attention more on a central object in the display, factoring out background elements.
Moreover, since holistic thinking leads to the use of a nonlinear approach when talking or
writing, Chinese thought patterns might in fact be properly represented as a zigzagged
line, reminiscent of the kind of diagrams originally used by Kaplan (Wang & Liu, 2001;
Li & Zhang, 2002; Guo & Wang, 2004; Liu & Zhou, 2004; Li, 2005). The Chinese
believe that in reality, life may not follow a linear style because of the complex pattern of
interactions among its many elements. Rather, it is intricate and complex, full of

69
contradictions and struggle; so they look for a broad range of factors related to any given
topic, and as a result are more inclined to assume contradiction, change, and nonlinear
development of ideas (Ji, Peng, & Nisbett, 2000; Ji, Nisbett, & Su, 2001; Nisbett, Peng,
Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). This culturally based psychological trend is well reflected in
Chinese writing.
As noted above, the Chinese tradition particularly values a ―discursive‖ writing
style and regards such a style as necessary (Erbaugh, 1990; Liu & Zhou, 2004).
Accordingly, when dealing with the gamut of pre-existing information to write a
paragraph, Chinese students may try to combine different ideas by providing background
information, listing facts, explaining specific reasons, and offering evidence (Li, 2005);
however, not all of the supporting material may directly relate to the topic. In other words,
as a cultural trend, many of the Chinese prefer to first provide an elaborate context that is
not superficially directly tied to the main theme they will later develop; readers have to
infer the message and make a connection on their own (Mao, 2005); This ―divergence
from a unified topic‖ can come across as very confusing to a Western reader. Expressed
in metaphorical terms, the Chinese are said to often approach a subject by way of
―making a noise in the east while attacking in the west.‖ Superficially, the writer seems to
talk about something that is not the main subject. In effect, he/she simply approaches the
subject by using implicit or more roundabout persuasive strategies (Liu, 2007), which are
considered typical of the rhetorical pattern of Chinese persuasive discourse. To a Western
reader who is used to direct forms of communication, such an orientation of thought
development transferred to English writing may be seen as digressive and incoherent
(Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; Connor, 1996; Timmann, 2003). This is strikingly illustrated

70
in the following example taken from a Chinese EFL student‘s sample composition (Li &
Zhang, 2002).
Topic: Widespread Use of Computers
We are now living in high developing world, and, great changes have taken place.
The computer was born in1946 in America and was named ENIAC by researchers.
Its development is very quick. Especially it has made greater progress recently
and plays a more and more important role in our society. (p.46)
The above writing is not focused on the stated topic or title. Instead of getting straight to
the point, the writer seems to try to cover a range of ideas, including the historical note on
the computer; but this writer only provides peripheral information that appears to be more
or less irrelevant to the topic. To state this more clearly, the writer has not developed the
topic because no supporting details of how computers have become widespread
throughout the world have been offered. According to Schneider and Honeyman (2006),
if a writer says things in a digressing manner, making it difficult for readers to understand
what he/she means, the writer is seen as ‗beating about the bush‘; this can come across as
quite challenging to an English reader, since within the Western context, coherent writing
must be ―well organized, making it easy for the reader to grasp the main idea and follow
the logic of the writer‘s points‖ (Smalzer, 2010, p.126).
Zhongyong vs. Formal Logic
Culturally specific thought patterns influence writing enormously. In the West,
the paragraph discussed above, containing several different ideas, would be completely
undesirable. Likewise, if a writer does not take a clear position on an issue, and instead
agrees with both sides of the issue while applying reason, the resulting ―ambivalence‖

71
could certainly lead to confusion in the English context and bring about a serious
perceived lack of coherence. However, these patterns are perfectly acceptable in Chinese
writing. Thus, the reasons for these phenomena in ESL/EFL writing can be attributed to
Chinese cultural and rhetorical influences.
Qin (2009) asserts that Westerners excel at formal logic while East Asians do well
in Zhongyong (the ―middle way‖), a concept mentioned in the earlier section entitled
Confucian Influence. Since the ancient Greeks, there has been a long Western tradition of
favoring formal logic, which is concerned with the forms that yield valid inference from
valid premises to a conclusion. However, such a tradition has never been common in
China (Nisbet, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). Research in the ESL field in China
suggests that many Chinese EFL students may not follow the claim-justification-
conclusion pattern while composing English persuasive writing. Instead of reasoning in
one direction, the Chinese Zhongyong approach tends to combine the two seemingly
opposing views. This can be traced back to the Chinese Yin-Yang concept discussed in
the earlier section, which can be found in many branches of classical Chinese philosophy.
A further explanation of the Yin-Yang theory will deepen our understanding of the
Chinese notion of Zhongyong.
As Ma (2009) claims, in traditional Chinese philosophy, everything in the natural
world is made up of two opposing aspects, Yin and Yang. In a broad sense, Yang is taken
to represent positives, whereas Yin symbolizes ―good‖ negatives. Yin and Yang can be
regarded as opposing yet complementary forces that blend and unite in order to create
balance (Osgood & Richards, 1973; Nisbet, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). To put it
another way, although Yin and Yang are opposites, they complement each other. At the

72
same time, they are interchangeable. Yin turns into Yang, and Yang turns into Yin, causing
a new Yin-Yang situation to emerge. The concept behind Yin and Yang, therefore,
embodies the Chinese perspective of balance of opposites and continual change (Ma,
2009). It is believed that when Yin and Yang are both equally present, all is calm. When
one is outweighed by the other, there is confusion and disorder.
Working with these ideas, ancient Chinese people recognized that practically all
things could have Yin and Yang qualities. As time went by, the Yin and Yang ―logic‖ was
developed into a system of thought that was applied to numerous areas, in an attempt to
explain complicated phenomena in the universe. Judging from this, the concept of Yin
and Yang is opposed at its roots to the Western formal logic tradition. In the West, people
tend to look at things as black or white, right or wrong. There is separation in the Western
perspective. In contrast, the Chinese view opposites as evolving and cycling. It is thus
clear that the Yin-Yang theory contains rich dialectical thinking, which is heavily
emphasized in the Chinese context. Like the dialectical approach, the Yin-Yang theory
holds that different components are interconnected with one another and with the whole;
hence, the Chinese would avoid taking a one-sided view of an issue and prefer
Zhongyong or the middle way between two extremes when applying reason (Wu, 2001)
As stated in the section Confucian Influence, Chinese people have been
profoundly influenced by the Chinese values of Ren (loving others) and harmony; they
typically prefer negotiation via a ―middle man‖ to help the two parties involved to settle a
conflict privately rather than resort to impersonal courts of law (Liu & Palermo, 2009).
The middle man must treat each party fairly. To support one side between the two is
usually considered ‗going to extremes‘ (Guo & Wang, 2004). This practice can find roots

73
in the Confucian idea of Zhongyong. In Chinese society, the Zhongyong approach
advocated by Confucius represents calling for moderation of one‘s behavior and
maintaining balance and social harmony (Kinnes, 2009; Liu & Palermo, 2009). Although
the Confucian philosophy may contain serious limitations, the current practice suggests
that the central idea of Zhongyong from two thousand years ago is still clearly reflected in
our modern rhetorical principles. In a very real sense, Chinese people are more
comfortable applying their common-sense rules from their tradition and accepting a
decision that is consistent with their feelings (Liu & Palermo, 2009).
Commenting on this, Liu (2010) says that ―the Chinese often follow the principle
of Zhongyong when writing persuasive essays‖ (p.3). This does not mean that the
Chinese prefer to reach a compromise or to take a neutral stand when conflicts occur. A
common belief in Chinese culture holds that everything has its good and bad sides.
Nothing in the world is absolutely right or absolutely wrong; therefore, one should not go
to extremes in judging between good and bad. As for which stand to take on an issue, the
writer may not advance his/her point of view. It is up to the reader to decide which side to
follow because ―Chinese narrative essays stress intricacy with many twists and turns,
whereas persuasive essays emphasize Wuxing, the capability to understand things very
clearly and completely‖ (Liu & Zhou, 2004, p.110). In the Chinese context, this is
perfectly fine. As discussed earlier, Confucianism and Buddhism stress the importance of
Wuxing and assume that readers must be able ―to read between the lines.‖ In Chinese
writing, as Guo and Wang (2004) claim, ―Chinese people are prone to approach a topic
from the perspective of both sides, closely following Zhongyong to avoid leaning to
either side‖ (p.14). Specifically, when commendation is given to someone or something,

74
a writer should always remember to refer to the limitations; similarly, when criticism
against someone or something is offered, the writer should never forget to bring up some
possible merits. In following these cultural principles, Chinese writers tend to avoid a
black-and-white perspective (Qin, 2009). With these Chinese values in mind, when it
comes to the writing of an English persuasive essay, the Chinese may possibly transfer
these values to the English context. Hence, the essay may not just contain arguments that
support the main premise; it could also include arguments that oppose the main premise.
The writer would very often leave the conclusion up to the reader.
In connection with this point, it is important to emphasize is that when writing
opposing arguments, the Chinese EFL writer may successively support or defend
conflicting positions, rather than merely demonstrating that he/she is just aware of both
sides of the issue, as Western rhetoric usually proposes. In other words, instead of having
anticipated the opposing arguments and wishing to criticize them, the Chinese writer
tends to write favorably about both sides.
It is also acceptable for the writer to simply cite the opposing beliefs, however.
Consider, for example, the following sample student paper. It was written for a nation-
wide basic college English writing test in China (Liu, 2010). Instead of taking a black-or-
white approach, the writer has provided us with a typical example of following ―the
Doctrine of the Mean‖ from the perspective of agreeing with both sides.
Essay title: Do ―Lucky Numbers‖ Really Bring Good Luck?
Some people think that certian [certain] numbers will bring good luck to them.
Numbers such as six, eight, sixteen and eighteen are regarded as lucky numbers. There
are also people who think that their success is related to certain numbers.
However, some other people think numbers have nothing to do with their luck.

75
They believe in their own rather than “lucky numbers”. They don't do things according
to certain numbers.
As far as I am concerned, I think it is a person's own business whether he believes
in a certain number or not. The most important thing is that he has done the work by
himself and has done it quite well. As to the belief in numbers, it is their [his] personal
choice. (p.1)
This sample essay received a score of 14 out of a total writing assessment score of
15 reflecting the three evaluative domains of the analytic rubric (expressions of ideas,
passage organization, and language use). The essay received a nearly full score on the
test; therefore, the Writing Test Committee that designed the test distributed this sample
essay across China as a writing assessment scoring model (Liu, 2010). If we look at the
title of the essay, it should be clear enough that the purpose of the writing is to persuade
the audience that a certain view is correct. However, the writer was arguing positively
about both sides.
In the essay, the writer points out that some people believe certain numbers to be
auspicious while others do not regard these beliefs as right. By presenting conflicting
opinions on lucky numbers from both sides in an impartial manner, the writer seems to
imply that each side has its good points and then simply leaves the conclusion to the
reader rather than taking a stand on the issue. With the aim of not offending anyone, or
not imposing one‘s views on others, this ―reader-responsible‖ approach appears to be
much in evidence in the Chinese context. It may be inferred that the Chinese writer is
inclined to agree with both sides, since she does not overtly state a preference. To be
more precise, according to the writer, since both views make sense, either way works,

76
depending on personal choices in terms of beliefs in numbers. For the Chinese, based on
the Chinese EFL writing assessment criteria stated above, it is not surprising that the
essay is highly valued.
As pointed out, this traditional Chinese approach to persuasion may be fairly well
received in the Chinese writing context on account of the Chinese philosophical and
rhetorical conventions; Chinese people would find this ―middle of the road‖ approach
desirable, since this idea has inspired Chinese culture for centuries. Under the subtle
influence of the Confucian Zhongyong, keeping ―balance‖ to save others‘ face seems
more important than anything else. This practice, however, is in sharp contrast with
Western rhetorical values. An English writer is expected to take a clear position on an
issue he/she supports and stick to the same position throughout the essay. Therefore, in
reasoning, the reader is typically presented ideas that might seek to support an opposing
viewpoint, but only to refute these ideas or to minimize their importance. In Western
rhetoric, agreeing with both sides instead of selecting one is seen as vague, and the writer
who uses such an approach is viewed as easily swayed, because to ―flip-flop‖ or switch
one‘s opinion as perceived by Western rhetoric violates the English reader‘s expectations.
Put differently, such an approach may not be seen as having a clear purpose, seen through
Western values. Carrell (1984) argues that ―without a clear purpose, it [the text] lacks
coherence‖ (p.162). The Chinese idea (―since there is truth on both sides, leave the
conclusion to the reader‖) may not lead to an essay that ―fits together‖ well enough for
the essay‘s unity and purpose to be fully understandable to the English reader (Parks,
Levernier, & Hollowell, 2001). This would definitely cause confusion, which, in turn,
would inevitably result in a perceived lack of coherence.

77
Persuasion vs. Harmony
In the framework of Western rhetoric, the purpose of writing must be established: to
explain the writer‘s subject, for instance, or to argue a point. With a clear purpose in
mind, it is believed that the writer will write more effectively. As the title of a text by
Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz, and Walters (2007) puts it, ―Everything is an argument.‖ In the
West, the purpose of rhetoric draws on the Aristotelian dictum, ―State your case and
prove it‖ (Liu, 1996); in this framework, the purpose of writing is typically to persuade
someone that a particular point of view is the correct one; in contrast, the aim of rhetoric
or the purpose of writing in China is to achieve social, ecological, and political harmony
(Lu & Frank, 1993), particularly as sanctioned by the ruling class. Contextualized in the
Chinese cultural setting, to ―persuade‖ is to maintain such harmony. Huang (2002)
contends that ―harmony appeared more important than anything else, because inequality
and injustice in a hierarchical society might be potential forces to create chaos‖ (p. 95).
The strong emphasis on harmony is likely to affect the rhetorical patterns of Chinese
argumentative discourse. For example, in a context where social harmony is critical, self-
expression is typically not acceptable. In such a context, the instinct to survive and
prosper constantly reminds one to inhibit expressing divergent opinions. One‘s career
could be destroyed if his/her writing defies current norms (Erbaugh, 1990). At the other
extreme from innovative, personal experience, Chinese writers try to promote
harmonious relationships by consistently referring back to the sayings of established
authority as a major form of reasoning.
Jensen (1992) points out that ―To preserve social harmony, one must learn how to
save face for another person, how to present uncomfortable truths in an unthreatening

78
way or how to be appropriately ambiguous‖ (P. 155). The idea of saving face for another
person is a good strategy for maintaining social stability. Apparently, Western rhetoric
stresses directness with respect to persuasion; in contrast, Chinese rhetoric encourages a
degree of indirectness to avoid unnecessary conflicts, with the goal of achieving harmony
(Liu, 2007).
Awareness of Audience vs. Negligence of Audience
As stated in the earlier section Audience, Western rhetorical conventions stress that
the way a writer approaches his/her subject depends on his/her audience. In this
framework, audience awareness is a fundamental characteristic of good persuasive
writing (Connor, 1990). To keep the audience in mind makes a difference in what the
writer says and how he/she says it. In contrast, audience analysis has not been an
important issue in China‘s rhetorical tradition (Duan, 2003). In Chinese academic writing,
and consequently in the minds of Chinese students, the audience for most serious writing
is usually considered to consist of authorities—politically and socially important people
since societal harmony is the final goal that the ancient Chinese tried to achieve (Huang,
2002). Yang (2008) claims that for high school students in China today, audience
analysis is seriously ignored in Chinese writing instruction; this trend may well be linked
to the traditional assumptions about audience cited above and earlier.
Topic-prominent vs. Subject-prominent
All languages may prefer the order of old-new information in structuring
sentences. But they have different means of accompanying this. Languages like English
typically use word order to indicate grammatical relationships, so in English, there is
relatively little freedom in word order. English follows the subject-verb phrase structure

79
to make a complete sentence. Unlike a subject-prominent language such as English,
Chinese is a ―topic-prominent‖ language (Li & Thompson, 1981) and often follows the
topic-comment sentence pattern. This refers to any grammatical configuration consisting
of two parts: the topic, meaning what the speaker or writer is going to talk about, which
invariably occurs first, and then the comment, a clause which follows the topic and says
something about it (Xu & Langendoen, 1985; Shi, 2000). Semantically, the topic sets a
framework in naming what the sentence is about (Yeh, 2004). The topic is related to the
comment semantically, and may or may not be grammatically related (Chen, 2009). Any
structure such as a word, a phrase, or a sentence can be used as a topic in a topic
comment sentence; this Chinese structure works very productively.
The following sentence provides a sample example (LaPolla, 2009).
她死了一匹马，便哭个不停。
Ta si le yipi ma, bian kuge bu ting.
She die a horse, then cry without stopping. (literal translation)
The above Chinese sentence means that a horse died for some reason. Therefore,
she was seriously affected by the death of the horse. In the sentence, ―she‖ is the topic,
the center of thought, and is followed by the comment, with the whole being equivalent
to ―Because a horse died, she cried without stopping.‖ Clearly, she has no control over
the horse dying; the topic she is not the doer of any action, nor is she the ‗theme,‘ i.e. the
entity experiencing death. Chinese EFL/ESL students would confuse the subject with the
topic if they translate the idea literally from Chinese when writing in English. Coherence
problems often have to do with logical relationships among ideas; however, they can
sometimes stem from sentence structure and grammar as well. As indicated by the above
example, the idea of going from one culture to another is complicated enough to confuse
an English reader simply because a writer may translate directly from his/her first

80
language (topic-comment) pattern, resulting in a sentence that is grammatically
incoherent in English.
The Chinese language is characterized by this meaning-oriented topic-comment
structure, as compared with the grammar-oriented subject position in English. This topic-
comment construction is argued to be the basic structure in Chinese discourse (Yeh,
2004). The role that the Chinese topic-comment structure plays is very important when it
comes to Chinese EFL/ESL students‘ Interlanguage (developing English) grammar.
In summary, cultural thought patterns are just the way one organizes ideas; they
may be considered as providing a form of underlying structures for knowledge. Chinese
students may possibly lack awareness of the patterns that are expected in Western culture.
I have thus far discussed the divergences in cultural patterns of thinking, namely the
rhetorical value assumptions held by Westerners and the Chinese. I will now turn to an
analysis of how these values are reflected in cohesion and coherence within the
framework of the Chinese context.
Confusion about the Western Concept of Coherence
In recent years, with writing as one of the most important communicative skills,
the notion of coherence seems to have been drawing increasing attention in EFL teaching
in China as a result of the Western influence (Wang & Sui, 2006). The past two decades
have witnessed a great number of publications related to Chinese-speaking ESL/EFL
students‘ writing (Tang & Ng, 1995; Kuo, 1995; Dong, 1999; Li, 2000; Zhang, 2000; Lee,
2002; Chen & Zhang, 2004; Guo & Wang, 2004; Yeh, 2004; Fang & Wang, 2005; Liu &
Braine, 2005; Jin & Ban, 2006; Zhang, 2006; Gao, Zhou, & Wang, 2007; Zhou, 2007;
Gao, 2008; Wang, 2008; Wu & He, 2010; Sui and Chen, 2010). What follows is a brief

81
account of some of the latest developments in the studies of coherence in the Chinese
cultural context. Chinese EFL teachers and scholars‘ views of coherence point to the
following three salient features, which emerged from a survey of the publications listed
above; these will be discussed in turn below.
Research on coherence still in its infancy. Basically, studies have found that
research on coherence has remained on the level of introducing and expounding on
Western theories related to text coherence such as those presented in Van Dijk‘s Text and
Context (1977), Widdowson‘s Teaching Language as Communication (1978), Danes‘s
Functional Sentences Perspective and the Organization of the Text (1974), Halliday and
Hasan‘s Cohesion in English (1976) and Language, Context and Text (1985), and Brown
and Yule‘s Discourse Analysis (1983). In fact, hardly any serious attempts have been
made to test the notions of the current Western theories on coherence and create new
theories or approaches that can be applied to Chinese EFL writing classroom settings.
Coherence: A fuzzy concept. Many Chinese EFL teachers have limited
experience of Western styles of writing. They may have been taught how to write without
reference to coherence. For this reason, Chinese EFL teachers may not clearly understand
what coherence actually signifies in the West, even though they are trying to borrow the
idea of coherence in writing from the West. In fact, coherence is a fuzzy and vague
concept to many of them. As Jin and Ban (2006) state, for many Chinese scholars and
educators, the notion of coherence is not clear enough. Zhang (2006) reflects the theme of
widespread uncertainty when he claims that ―no one can exactly tell what makes a text
cohere‖ (P.13). Chen and Zhang (2004) underscore the same point: ―Although coherence
is the heart of discourse analysis, no one can explain the term in a systematic way due to

82
the complex nature of coherence‖ (p. 420). In short, in the Chinese EFL writing context,
coherence as a concept in China remains an abstract topic (Zhang, 2000), and scholars
who discuss coherence seem to merely scratch the surface.
Cohesion mistaken for coherence. A great number of Chinese scholars tend to
view coherence as one of the most prominent features of good writing (e.g., Kuo, 1995;
Dong, 1999; Li, 2000; Lee, 2002; Chen, 2003; Gao, 2008). Serious problems, however,
occur with the content and clarity of these discussions. Some scholars have used the two
concepts cohesion and coherence interchangeably (Wang & Sui, 2006), thus confusing
the issue(s) they are presenting. Others begin by discussing coherence, and then shift to a
focus on cohesion at the sentence level.
In addition to the above confusion, Chinese scholars tend to believe that when
cohesion is achieved, a text will be coherent. Therefore, they are inclined to advocate the
importance of teaching cohesion (Li, 2000; Shi, 2004; Zhou, 2007) within a paragraph,
holding the conception that the use of cohesive devices can achieve coherence (Sui &
Chen, 2010) in writing for all levels of Chinese EFL learners. In fact, coherence above
the paragraph level is seriously ignored. As Wang and Sui (2006) clearly put it, ―textual
cohesion should be employed more in actual teaching practice as an illustration of how
important it is for students to be able to connect sentences smoothly and logically and,
consequently, create better coherence.‖ The statements of several other researchers
further confirm this: ―Coherence… is fundamentally based on semantic ties, i.e., the use
of cohesive ties‖ (Li, 2000); and ―On most occasions, realization of coherence relies on
cohesion‖ (Jin & Ban, 2006).
Because of the reasons cited above, the Chinese favor a strict linguistic approach

83
to the text, unaware of both overall content structure and factors outside the text itself,
such as the writer‘s purpose as well as the reader‘s background knowledge and
expectations. This observation helps to explain Connor‘s (1984) view that there is much
to be desired in the quality of coherence in ESL/EFL writing. In the West, attention to
overall coherence must come before cohesion at the sentence level, as was suggested in
some of the early critiques and responses to Halliday and Hasan‘s system (Bamberg,
1983).
As can be seen from the above summary, considerable efforts have been made by
Chinese scholars to mainly focus on cohesion, to the exclusion of other factors that
ground and influence coherence. For that reason, coherence in more global terms tends to
be basically overlooked in classroom instruction. What the Chinese are doing and saying
seems to actually go along a different direction from that of the Westerners, at least in
terms of coherence in writing. The following section will discuss rhetorical approaches to
English writing instruction in China.
English Writing Instruction in China
English writing in China does not focus closely on coherence. To refine our
understanding of how Chinese rhetorical preferences and pedagogical practice have
exerted an impact on English writing instruction in China, this study will begin with a
short overview of English instruction. After that, English writing pedagogy in China,
which is associated with grammar accuracy and memorization, will be briefly discussed.
A later section will explore the test-oriented College English Program and its
consequences. Finally, a controlled three-paragraph sample test will be carefully
reviewed.

84
Over-emphasis on Grammatical Accuracy
In China‘s English instruction, grammatical accuracy has been heavily stressed.
The Chinese way of focusing on form rather than content has its significant cause rooted
in classical Chinese philosophy, rhetorical traditions, and predominant pedagogical
practice. The reasons are mainly threefold. First, as discussed in the earlier section
―Differences in Paragraph Unity and Structure,‖ a set of culturally-based values
concerning rhetoric play a role. For instance, with avoiding interpersonal conflicts in
mind and promoting harmony as the goal, Chinese EFL writers are inclined to ―play
around with words‖ and intentionally ―beat about the bush‖ as perceived by an English
reader. On a related point, Chinese communicators prefer to be ―appropriately
ambiguous‖ in ideas; therefore, this naturally leads them to focus more on correct form
than on clarity of message. In fact, the separate desire to enhance ―the beauty of
language‖ may also contribute to this emphasis on grammatical accuracy. These
rhetorical strategies, which could be deemed as ―digressive‖ development or topic delay
in Western rhetoric, may show up in writings by Chinese writers, since these patterns are
valued in their own first language traditions.
Second, due to the linguistic features of Chinese syntax, Chinese may structure
sentences differently from English. Because their first language features a topic-oriented
grammar and favors paratactic constructions (as covered elsewhere in the section entitled
―Paratactic vs. Hypotactic,‖ Chinese students often find it challenging to demonstrate
their ability to get the message across in writing. Of course, as language learners, these
writers also struggle with other issues of grammar and lexicon: ―When they do write,
they find themselves confused with word choice, correct grammatical use…‖ Gao (2007,

85
p.18). For this reason, Chinese educators are constantly busy helping students work at the
sentence level, which is primarily, though not solely, built on accuracy (Wu & He, 2010).
Concern for grammar is necessary for developing writers, and most Chinese EFL writing
instructors would not hold that content should carry more weight than form; at least this
is the case with developing Chinese EFL writers. It is unquestionable that a Chinese EFL
student would be considered a good EFL writer if he/she shows a strong command of
language. To many Chinese students within the Chinese EFL writing context, terms like
―coherence,‖ ―take a stand,‖ ―logical progression of thought,‖ ―beating around the bush,‖
―purpose,‖ ―audience,‖ or ―reader expectations‖ may seem like just so many fancy words,
terms they may not understand well and are not able to translate into specific practices in
their English writing.
Finally, as pointed out earlier, the former Soviet Intensive Reading model of
foreign language teaching has exerted a far-reaching influence on China‘s English
instruction over a long period of time (Wang & He, 2006). Since that long-standing
model deals with language instruction mostly at lexical and syntactical level, teachers
who were educated and grew up in the Chinese EFL context tend to believe that
vocabulary and sentence control are more important than content for Chinese EFL
students‘ English writing. In truth, over the past 30 years, as demonstrated by research on
ESL/EFL writing, Chinese EFL teachers have maintained a common view that linguistic
accuracy is of the utmost importance in teaching writing in China (Connor & Johns, 1990;
Silva, 1997; Wang & Liu, 2001; Panetta, 2001; Wen & Clement, 2003; Qian, 2003; Guo
& Wang, 2004; Qiang & Wolff, 2004; You, 2004; Gu & Liu, 2005; Liu & Deng, 2005;
Bao & Sun, 2010).

86
Impact on English Writing Instruction
As discussed earlier in this chapter, in order for Chinese students to demonstrate
correct usage and write ―elegantly,‖ memorization of texts plays a central role in writing
instruction. There is a strong belief in China that the path to good writing lies in
internalizing others‘ styles (Carson, 1992); this practice is believed by both ESL
instructors and students to be an excellent way to demonstrate one‘s knowledge of the
language. Additionally, Chinese students would never feel satisfied with their English
writing until ―correct‖ forms are provided. They are keenly interested in exact words,
discrete grammatical points, and specific syntactic constructions. At the end of each
semester, students‘ writing is mainly evaluated by their grammar and vocabulary related
test scores (Gao, 2010). Consequently, little attention is paid to coherence in writing.
English writing instruction is therefore seriously impaired.
Since form is overly emphasized, a question arises: Is coherent writing as a
unified whole deliberately ignored in China? In fact, the situation is more complex than
that statement would imply. Surprisingly, a relatively recent official document entitled
―College English Curriculum Requirements‖ [CECR] (2007) issued by Ministry of
Education of the People‘s Republic of China requires college students to write a short
composition, which should be ―complete in content, clear in position, well-organized in
presentation, and coherent in text‖ (p.12). This requirement is listed in the latest version
of English curriculum requirements. Compared with earlier official statements that
focused on correct form, the current requirements have brought about significant
improvements in providing Chinese universities with new guidelines for English writing
instruction. Attention is now expected to be explicitly given to coherence.

87
However, to specify such goals is one thing, while to put them into practice is
quite another. Recently, Bao and Sun (2010) designed a questionnaire concerning
problems existing in English instruction. The questionnaire was completed by college
freshmen in a Chinese university as well as the EFL faculty who teach these students.
The results show that 89% of the students and 90% of the faculty agreed that these EFL
educators strongly emphasized vocabulary, syntax, and grammar teaching in the writing
classroom. This is only a small sample, but to some extent, it amply illustrates that
coherence in the writing classroom is still not greatly valued even today. A possible
explanation of this mismatch could be that it is in bitter conflict with social and political
ideas that are deeply rooted in the Chinese culture. Rather than a deliberate negligence
regarding coherence, these students and instructors are simply continuing in patterns that
are deeply entrenched in their experience.
As writing instruction in China is practically inseparable from the College English
Program, a brief look at this program is vital to a better understanding of how coherence
is generally overlooked.
College English Program in China
In China, English writing instruction at the college level is directly related to what
is called ―College English,‖ which is a nationwide, college-level English language
program covering such areas as grammar, vocabulary, reading, listening, writing, and
translation. When students complete their courses in their program sequence in college,
they need to eventually take an exit exam better known as the College English Test
(CET), a large-scale nationwide standardized examination administered by the National
College English Testing Committee; this exam is sponsored by the Higher Education

88
Department, Ministry of Education of the People‘s Republic of China. The purpose of the
CET is to examine the English proficiency of undergraduate students in China and ensure
that Chinese undergraduates reach the required English levels specified in the above-
mentioned CECR (2007). Scores from this test have generally been accepted throughout
the nation as the standard evaluation of students‘ English proficiency level (Gu & Liu,
2005). Since passing the CET is believed to lead to social and financial success, this has
become the final goal of the College English Program (You, 2004). It stands to reason
that the writing task of the College English Program is ―naturally‖ oriented toward test-
taking rather than meaning exploration or development of creative thought. For this
reason, in preparation for the CET, EFL teachers in this examination system are
predominately concerned about the teaching of grammatically correct English rather than
coherence (You, 2004; Guo & Wang, 2004; Gao, 2007; Wu & He, 2010).
Many contrastive and other studies have been done on student outcomes in
writing among Chinese students (Tang & Ng, 1995; Dong, 1999; Li, 2000; Guo & Wang,
2004; Chen & Zhang, 2004; Yeh, 2004; Li, 2005; Liu & Braine, 2005; Liu & Deng, 2005;
Tao, 2006; Jin & Ban, 2006; Gao, Zhou, & Wang, 2007; Zhou, 2007; Wang, 2008; Wu &
He, 2010). These studies tend to reveal that Chinese students from the College English
Program cannot adequately express their ideas in writing. Prevalent is a common view
that Chinese students‘ English writing features a lack of connectives as well as a high
frequency of repetition for one single sentence pattern. These sentences tend to be
isolated and not logically connected, arguably as a result of negative transfer of the
meaning-oriented, paratactic nature of the Chinese language. As further pointed out by
Qiang and Wolff (2004), even students who score very high in vocabulary and grammar

89
on the national exam CET can often compose nothing more than ―Dictionary English‖ in
real communication (English writing taught from a dictionary); this results in written
forms which may be technically correct in isolation but do not effectively contribute to
the meaning of the whole peace.
Controlled Three-paragraph CET Writing
As we can see, English writing instruction is adversely affected as a direct
consequence of the form-oriented training and test-oriented College English Program.
The following example of controlled three-paragraph CET writing will additionally help
provide a better insight into students‘ academic performance in writing. In the CET,
students are required to write a three-paragraph essay with an opening paragraph, a body
paragraph, and a concluding paragraph. Due to Chinese students‘ low English proficiency
in writing as perceived by Chinese EFL professors, the essay topic is usually provided
with three topic sentences already written either in Chinese or English. Selected for the
China Education Digest (2007), the following example was written by a CET test taker.
An example test
Prompts for student writing often feature a set of three topic sentences, as
provided here; the student is expected to build a three paragraph essay, using one of these
sentences to introduce each paragraph. These topic sentences are reproduced here,
followed by a sample writing response from a student:
Essay title: Women in the Modern World
Writing Prompt: Topic Sentences
(1). Women are playing an increasing part in society today. __________

90
(2). With the changes in their social roles, women‘s position in the family has
been improved as well._________
(3). In spite of these changes, the liberation of women has not been completely
realized._________
Student Response:
Women are playing an increasingly important part in society today. Long age
[ago], women only did something in the kitchen or at home. Now many of them have
serious jobs to serve for people. What men can do so can women.
With the changes in their social role, women‘s position in the family has been
improved as well. Today in the family, the wife often lots [lets] her husband to do
something at home [,] bat [but] ago, only women did something. Men are fonded [fond] of
doing something at home.
In spite of these changes, the liberation of women has not been completely
realized. Sometimes, the matter, the husband hitting has [his]welf [wife], often happened.
In the factory the wonmen [women] to [do] as much as the men, but they are paid less
than the men. Some people have not completely realized the liberation of women.
The above ―essay‖ was completed within 30 minutes as required, but the result
reveals that such rigidly prescribed writing suffers from serious drawbacks, again seen in
a rigidly Western perspective. Chinese learners, of course, face numerous difficulties on
many levels as they learn to write in English. Many of these are rooted in the language
learning process. In addition to confusing spelling and grammatical errors, more
importantly, this writing presents a series of similar sentence structures full of simple
forms which do not seem to be smoothly connected; this style will be perceived by an

91
English reader as monotonous. As we know, the significance of teaching cohesion in EFL
writing has been stressed in Chinese scholarly work, as mentioned earlier. However,
contrary to a possible assumption that simple and obvious transitions could be
appropriately used to convey relationships among ideas, empirical evidence shows that
transitional expressions are rarely used by developing Chinese EFL writers, so
relationships among their ideas are often not clear in their English writing. Such writers
may seriously lack the transitional skills that are so important in English. However, the
patterns they follow are fairly characteristic of the Chinese paratactic construction.
Turning to broader issues of content, there is a minimal development of ideas in
this controlled piece. Many general statements provided by the student are not really
persuasive. Also, not all the sentences are directly related to the topic. Since the topic
sentences for each paragraph are already there, the structure is hard to judge in such a
brief essay. Perhaps even more important from a pedagogical point of view, the student
has not been expected to learn to structure the paragraph progression himself/herself. The
connections between the ideas in the paragraphs cannot be judged either. Moreover, the
whole essay is generally supposed to follow a rigid pattern (e.g. the three paragraphs), so
the writer has no experience in organizing the content of his/her essay, not to speak of
achieving overall coherence. Although this example cannot be expanded to present a full-
scale exposition of the problems of Chinese-speaking writers, it is illustrative of the way
several problems may add up to the perceived incoherence that is the subject of the
present dissertation study.

92
Conclusion
In conclusion, judging by the official curricular policy and scholarly opinions in
China, high value seems to be placed on coherent writing, particularly focusing on
cohesion at the sentence level. However, most Chinese English teachers still seem to
focus on usage and grammar. College level English writing instruction in China still
typically emphasizes correct language form more than global issues such as purpose,
audience, a writer‘s stand on an issue, paragraph unity, and smooth and logical
progression of ideas, all of which contribute to coherence (Lee, 2002). The reason for this
mismatch between what is being said and what is being done is complicated, at least in
part due to the cultural roots of the practices involved. In order to gain a full picture and
arrive at insights on this situation, researchers would need to look at the current problems
that exist, what teachers actually teach, what students do in the writing classroom, and
how students perform on the CET. They also need to be aware of culturally influenced
thought patterns, traditional Chinese rhetorical values, some unique characteristics of the
Chinese language, and the elusive nature of the notion of coherence. Western scholars
contend that Chinese culture, Chinese rhetorical traditions, and Chinese text structures
influence the English writing of Chinese speaking students and cause it to lack coherence
(Kirkpatrick, 2004). It is hoped that the present study will shed some light on the
problems faced by Chinese ESL/EFL writers, drawing on the specific issues highlighted
in this review.

93
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Research Approach
The present study attempted to obtain information about achieving coherence in
persuasive discourse from a variety of data using a combination of analysis methods.
Because qualitative research methodology was especially effective in obtaining culturally
specific information about the values, opinions, behaviors, and social contexts of
particular populations (Willis, 2008), this study was primarily qualitative with a moderate
use of descriptive statistics. Data were collected from the following sources: 1)
background questionnaire; 2) written texts from a departmental pre-test (i.e., a diagnostic
essay), a post-test (i.e., an essay submitted with students‘ final exam); 3) other written
texts as assignments completed for a composition course; 4) classroom observation; and 5)
two rounds of semi-structured interviews.
As a starting point, background questionnaire (shown in Appendix D) was
significant because it provided me with a brief insight into the participants‘ academic
needs and their attitudes in terms of their writing in the English language. The survey
included questions concerning biographical data, EFL study in their native country, years
of ESL college-level study in the United States, past schooling, and their interests and
attitudes regarding the writing of English.
As for the participants‘ written pieces, I used the first set of data, the departmental
―pre- and post-tests‖ to look for any ways in which patterns in Chinese ESL students‘
writing changed regarding coherence over a semester as a result of exposure to
instructions on achieving coherence in persuasive writing. The second source of student

94
writing, consisting of regular writing assignments, provided a very helpful addendum to
the two writing ―tests,‖ allowing me to have a more thorough sense of the participants‘
writing, particularly during its developmental stages (e.g. in drafts). Through the analysis
of all these written texts, I was able to closely examine how the students exemplified
persuasive coherence in their writing tasks. In analyzing their writing, I identified the
ways in which their essays may have demonstrated elements that could be related to the
English view of coherence, or the Chinese view, or both.
The third source of data, classroom observation, was of interest in determining the
nature of the instruction the students received on coherence, as well as how students
responded to their teacher‘s instructions on coherence. In a real sense, classroom
observation provided me with an opportunity to get an idea of whether and how the
instructor covered issues related to coherence. Finally, two rounds of semi-structured
interviews were conducted during the course of a semester when the participants were
enrolled in a composition course that covered issues of cohesion and coherence. The goal
of these interviews was to obtain rich data on the students‘ own views of their writing
practice and their ideas of coherence. I approached the students to find out whether and
how they adapted as they learned to structure their essays, particularly in areas where the
concepts from the two cultures (Chinese and Western) clashed in terms of coherent
persuasive writing. I also explored how they felt about coherence training, what they
actually said about coherence as a cultural phenomenon, how they fostered sensitivity to
cohesion and coherence features in discourse, and how their views on these topics
evolved after receiving instruction related to coherence in their writing class.

95
Observation and interviews can be particularly powerful when they work together.
Just as Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, and Allen (1993) put it, ―The interviews provide leads
for the researcher‘s observations. Observation suggests probes for interviews. The
interaction of the two sources of data not only enriches them both, but also provides a
basis for analysis that would be impossible with only one source‖ (p.99).
For convenience, the main research questions for this study, previously stated in
Chapter One, are again listed here:
1. Western Rhetorical Values on Coherence
2. Chinese Rhetorical Values on Coherence
3. Chinese Students‘ Perceptions of Coherence

96
rhetorical traditions? When addressing their own choices, how do these students
explain the choices they make in terms of organization and linguistic forms
related to coherence? In what ways do their perceptions of coherence change over
the course of a semester in which they receive training in coherence in the
Western tradition in an American university setting?
4. Chinese Students‘ Textual Practice Regarding Coherence
extent are these writings judged as coherent by independent professional raters?
What specific elements in the writings might be traced to the two traditions
(Western and Chinese)? Do these elements change in the students‘ writing over
the course of a semester?
All these questions were specifically answered in Chapter 8. As shown in Chapter
2, the first two questions encompassed an extensive review of available literature on both
Western and Chinese rhetorical values, including the historical roots of each tradition. To
answer the first set of research questions, an in-depth review of the Western classical
tradition and its developments was presented to examine what coherence features were
highly valued in English rhetorical conventions. To answer the second set of research
questions, Chinese classical philosophy, rhetorical traditions, and pedagogical practices
were explored to determine what rhetorical patterns concerning coherence had been
appreciated in Chinese writing, how the Chinese viewed coherence in relation to Chinese
cultural values, and how Chinese rhetorical traditions shaped Chinese views on coherence.
While exploring traditional Chinese cultural and rhetorical values, I contrasted the
English and Chinese traditions, attempting to demonstrate how they affected the Chinese-

97
speaking participants‘ writing today in the two cultures. These results were presented in
Chapter 2; however, they were revised again later in Chapter 8 in connection with a
review of the research questions.
The third and fourth questions involved empirical data, which were obtained via
an initial survey, student texts, interviews, and a classroom observation. To answer
question 4, a 5-point holistic cohesion and coherence scoring scale (ranging from 0 to 4)
was used to assess the level of coherence in the students‘ writing as perceived by
experienced professional raters. Also, individual elements related to coherence were
analyzed in a qualitative examination of the written pieces submitted. To answer question
3, which addressed student perceptions of coherence, semi-structured interviews were
used to analyze how Chinese ESL students felt that they structured their persuasive
coherent writing, to discuss how they looked at coherence, and to explore how their
coherence features might be related to cultural influences. A first round of interviews
assessed the students‘ general views on issues like good writing (including coherence),
while the second deepened that topic, as well as addressing the way the participants
viewed specific choices that they made in their own writing. To further deepen
understandings related to both the third and fourth research questions, a classroom
observation was conducted, in order to help put the students‘ perspectives into context
with the instruction they received in the course of the semester.
In what follows, this chapter will be divided into four sections. The first section
will mainly introduce the setting and population. Next, the chapter will discuss the
primary data collection methods used in this study. Other materials to be used in the
study will also be described. Third, the chapter will detail the procedures to be followed

98
in carrying out the study. The last section of the chapter will be centered on data analysis,
including the scoring method by which the written texts were rated. Regarding the written
work, to identify features that contributed to coherence, an analysis was made following
the frameworks of CUNY Assessment Test in Writing [CATW] (2010), Abeywickrama‘s
(2007) textual cohesion and coherence in ESL learners, and Halliday & Hasan‘s (1976)
work on cohesion theory. As for qualitative coding for interview results and observation
data, I used The University of Texas at Austin‘s [UT] (2010) evaluating programs,
Weston, Gandell, Beauchamp, McAlpine, Wiseman, & Beauchamp‘s (2001) system for
analyzing interview data, Atkinson‘s (1998) methods for interpreting interviews, Bogdan
and Biklen‘s (1998) notions regarding qualitative research for education, Berkowitz‘s
(1997) instructions for analyzing qualitative data, and Erlandson et al.‘s (1993)
observational data analysis procedures.
Research Setting and Research Population
This section will describe the setting for the study and the participants involved in
the study, explaining their role as participants.
Research Setting
With permission and cooperation of the administration and several faculty
members, the study was conducted in a department of a large urban community college in
the Northeastern United States.
Sunshine Community College
Operating within the framework of the urban community college and accredited
by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Sunshine Community College
(SCC) offers post-secondary associate degrees and certificate programs that prepare

99
students for careers and for transfer to four-year institutions of higher learning. The
College includes seventeen academic departments offering the Associate in Arts (A.A.),
the Associate in Science (A.S.), and the Associate in Applied Science (A.A.S.) degrees.
Close to half of the SCC students were born in another country, and 47% speak a
language other than English at home. Nearly 15,000 students are currently enrolled in
associate degree or certificate programs, and another 10, 000 students of all ages attend
continuing education programs on campus. Students graduating with an associate degree
will meet requirements for successful transfer into the upper division of baccalaureate
programs. Ultimately, their goal is to be able to demonstrate mastery of discipline-
specific knowledge, skills, and tools required for entry into or advancement in the job
market in their field, and to be able to communicate effectively through reading, writing,
listening, and speaking.
Placement for New Students
The College Assessment Tests are given to incoming freshmen and non- transfer
students to assess their readiness for college-level course work at the college. Testing
consists of three sections: writing, reading, and mathematics. The assessment test in
writing is a one-hour paper and pencil exam that requires examinees to write a short
essay in response to a prompt. All assessment tests are to be taken prior to registration for
the first semester at the college. The results of these tests are used for purposes of
placement. Based on these test scores, students who need preparatory classes are placed
in a level of remediation.

100
Language Immersion Program
The goal of the Language Immersion Program is to provide intensive, full-time
instruction (25 hours a week) in the English language to learners of English as a second
language who are at a very low proficiency level based on their College Assessment
Tests in reading and writing. These are ESL students whose scores are too low for proper
placement in the College‘s remedial courses. The purpose for attending the Language
Immersion Program, therefore, is to bring their proficiency up to the level of the
College‘s remedial program students.
English Department
The participants of this study were enrolled in the English Department. This
department focuses on English reading and writing remediation programs designed for
both ESL and native English speakers. Entering students need to complete college
preparatory courses prior to their entrance into many credit-bearing courses, including
such foundation courses as English and mathematics. Placement into these remedial or
developmental courses is based upon native English speaking status and ESL student
performance on the College Assessment Tests in reading, writing, and mathematics
mentioned above. For ESL purposes, the remedial courses offered by the English
Department cover such areas as reading, study skills, and composition. They are designed
primarily for ESL students who must raise their level of competence to the standard
requirement for admission to college level courses. They are also open to all students
who wish to improve their reading comprehension, their study skills, and their ability to
write clearly. As for ESL writing, remedial courses are taken in the following sequences:

101
Beginning Composition for ESL Students→ Intermediate Composition for ESL
Students→ Advanced Composition for ESL Students. Based on the results of standard
placement tests, one or more of these courses may be required by the English Department
before a student takes regular college credit courses. Students must pass exams for the
―Exit from Remediation‖ in order to take college-level courses.
Beginning Composition for ESL Students
Beginning Composition for ESL Students is the first course of the writing skills
sequence described above. The objective is to provide the student with a sound
foundation in the basic structure of English through intensive instruction and drill in the
relationship between spoken and written English and in the fundamentals of grammar,
usage, sentence structure, and paragraph development. Students who complete Beginning
Composition for ESL Students successfully will be informed by their instructors whether
to register for Intermediate Composition for ESL Students or Advanced Composition for
ESL Students.
Intermediate Composition for ESL Students
Intermediate Composition for ESL Students is intended for students who are
judged to need additional preparation before taking Advanced Composition for ESL
Students, based on the results of the departmental examination administered in Beginning
Composition for ESL Students. Emphasis is on intermediate grammar, paragraph
development, and writing short compositions. Students must demonstrate competence in
writing a short composition by passing a departmental examination which includes a
writing sample before taking Advanced Composition for ESL Students.

102
Advanced Composition for ESL Students
Advanced Composition for ESL Students is designed for ESL students who have
had some experience in English composition, but who still require remedial work before
taking content area courses. It is also the final course of the sequence for ESL students
with serious writing deficiencies. Emphasis is on advanced grammar, organizing,
coherent progression of ideas, and writing a five-paragraph essay. ESL students who are
enrolled in Advanced Composition for ESL Students may come from four sources. First,
some exit from Intermediate Composition for ESL Students after passing the
departmental examination at the end of the previous semester. Second, some are placed
directly in this advanced composition course based on the performance on the College
Assessment Tests. Third, a few could come from the Language Immersion Program
when their proficiency reaches the entry level of advanced composition. Finally, some
students who do not pass the required exit from remediation test known as the CUNY
Assessment Test in Writing (CATW) will retake this advanced composition course.
When ESL students complete this final remedial writing course, they are then scheduled
to take the Exit from Remediation Test.
For the purposes of the present study, priority was given to students enrolled in
Advanced Composition for ESL Students. In other words, this study focused on the final
course of the sequence for ESL students, that is, Advanced Composition for ESL Students.
Departmental Learning Center
The Learning Center affiliated to the English Department provides support
services to all students enrolled in the remedial courses. For those participants involved in
the current study, the Center was playing an important role in helping facilitate their

103
acquisition of English as a second language. If students are found to write at a relatively
low level, they may often be referred to the Center for tutoring on a one-on-one basis
while writing or revising their essays. Staffed by tutors trained in the Constructivist
learning model, the Center can assist the participants to gain proficiency in writing skills,
English grammar usage, and critical thinking skills, including reading comprehension.
The participants may also regularly go to the Center‘s lab to use online writing programs
to enhance their writing skills, since its wide range of interactive networked software
programs and access to Internet sites enables all students with diverse learning styles to
acquire and improve their technological skills while developing and enhancing their
reading, writing, communication, and critical thinking skills.
Research Population
The current study involved six Chinese (Mandarin)-speaking students above 18
years of age, who were considered to be speakers of English as a Second Language. The
participants come from Mainland China and Taiwan. Among the six participants, two
received elementary and secondary education in their own country. The other four
received secondary education in New York. All were enrolled in the English Department,
more specifically, in the summer session Advanced Composition Course for ESL Students.
At the time of the research, due to the limited number of Chinese ESL students
enrolled in that advanced ESL writing course, random selection of participants was not
possible. The participants, therefore, were chosen through volunteer sampling and
purposive sampling (Lohr, 1999). In other words, there were altogether seven Chinese-
speaking students in this class, but only six were willing to participate when asked or in
response to a letter I wrote addressed to ―potential participants.‖ Both male and female

104
participants were involved in the study; no attempt was made to control for gender or age.
These students had varying language backgrounds and academic fields. They also varied
in age and differed in the amount of time spent learning English as their preparation for
living and studying in an English speaking country. Some participants have lived in the
United States for as long as eight to ten years, and others have just arrived and have never
visited an English speaking country before. These student participants will be more fully
introduced in the next chapter.
Methods of Data Collection
In addition to the questionnaire mentioned earlier which enabled me to have some
background information about the participants, again, data were mainly gathered from
four sources: 1) essay writing, both from a departmental pre-test at the beginning of the
semester, as well as a final exam essay writing as a post-test; 2) two drafts of a CATW
practice essay that were written as a writing assignment for the course; 3) classroom
observation; and 4) two rounds of interviews, during the course of a semester when the
participants were enrolled in a section of Advanced Composition for ESL Students that
covered issues of coherence and cohesion. I had planned to collect a total of 24 essays
(pre-test, post-test, and two drafts of a CATW practice essay as regular composition
course writing). However, one participant did not revise his first essay and failed to
submit his second draft for unknown personal reasons. Therefore, in addition to interview
data and classroom observation data that were collected for qualitative analysis, a total of
twenty-three essays were actually gathered during the semester from the participants;
these essays were analyzed and assessed for the specifics of coherence-related features.
Enkvist (1990) argues, ―We must understand a text, that is, build up a world picture

105
around it, to say that the text is coherent. Conversely, a text strikes us as incoherent if we
cannot build up a plausible scenario around it‖ (p.13). For this reason, an analysis of the
participants‘ written texts was crucial to the present study. It allowed me, with the help of
expert assessors, to decide whether the texts produced by the participants ―make sense,‖
judging from the English view of coherence. The written texts also revealed how the
participants incorporated coherent features into their writing and how these patterns
regarding coherence in their writing possibly changed during a semester as a result of the
Western rhetorical influence. Aside from the use of the essays, interviews with the
participants were an integral part of the study. Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Erlandson et
al. (1993) describe interviews as valuable in qualitative data gathering and analysis.
Interviews allow the researcher and participant to move back and forth in time, thereby
reconstructing the past, interpreting the present, and predicting the future. Obviously, the
interviews made it possible to provide an illuminating insight into what conscious
attitudes and views the participants held about coherence, how their attitudes and views
about coherence developed, and how the participants viewed the relevant choices they
made in their own writing. Atkinson (1998) points out that an interview approach can
help draw out the interviewees‘ feelings about their experience as well as their deep,
reflective thoughts on their learning experiences. In what follows, I will discuss the three
types of essays as well as the interviews.
Diagnostic Essays
For the purpose of the present study, I used a set of diagnostic essays, as a starting
point, to check any coherence features identified in the participants‘ writing as they began

106
the period of the study. These participants‘ essays were graded following the criteria on
0-4 composition rating scales, as shown in Appendix B and C.
During the first class meeting at the beginning of each semester, ESL students
routinely write a diagnostic essay (see Appendix E). Viewed from the Department‘s
perspective, the purpose of this diagnostic essay writing is twofold: first, if a student is
found to be misplaced, the student will be moved from one level to another, or even out
of ESL classes; second, this ―test‖ is supposed to measure the extent to which the
prerequisite courses have covered material relevant to the course.
For the current study, the diagnostic essay was written in response to a prompt
that included brief instructions and a choice of two writing topics. The prompt was
provided by the English Department (see Appendix E). Both of the topics asked students
to compare or contrast two very different opinions. The prompt mentioned either a
school-based issue or a community-based issue, and it described a situation in which
students had a choice between two alternatives. The topics should be familiar to all
examinees, and should be stimulating, fresh, and nonbiased (Brossell, 1983). The
participants chose one alternative, stated their position on the issue defined in the prompt,
and then tried to persuade their audience why their choice was the best one; they had two
class hours in which to write their response to this prompt.
Final Exam Essays
I used the participants‘ final exam essays to examine possible new coherence
features demonstrated in their writing over a semester of coherent writing training. The
participants‘ essays were rated based on the 0-4 composition rating scales (see Appendix

107
B and C); however, the texts were also examined for evidence of coherence-related
strategies.
The final exam essay format and content were similar to that of the CATW exam,
which will be explained in the following section ―CATW Practice Essays.‖ In the English
Department, a student who was ready to pass the advanced composition course should be
able to demonstrate facility in writing analytic, expository, and/or persuasive reading-
response essays of multiple paragraphs (approximately 500 words) that introduce,
develop, and conclude the discussion of an essay‘s topic with unified, logical, and
coherent focus in two class hours. Therefore, the final exam essay measured the student‘s
writing skills in 1) critical response to the reading passage (at 10th
to 12th
grade reading
level) of 250-300 words, 2) development of the writer‘s ideas, 3) structure of the response,
4) sentence and word choice, and 5) grammar/mechanics (CATW, 2010).
CATW Practice Essays
I used CATW practice essays to examine how the participants exemplified
coherence in writing, so it is important to know what CATW means. According to the
CUNY Assessment Test in Writing (CATW) Student Handbook (2010), CATW is a
university-wide standardized reading-response writing test that measures a student‘s
ability to do college-level writing in English. As a ―standardized test,‖ it is given to all
test takers in the same manner and under the same condition; it is scored by trained
readers using standard criteria. Entering first-year students (both native English speakers
and ESL students) in all colleges in the CUNY system take the test to determine their
placement into English composition, ESL, or developmental courses. The CATW exam,

108
in turn, is used to determine when students are ready to exit from developmental writing
courses and move on to college-level courses.
The CATW topics are meant to be familiar and interesting to American high
school graduates. They will come from general knowledge areas like sociology,
technology, and popular culture. Therefore, theoretically, these topics do not require
special knowledge and are suited to the characteristics of test takers (Brossell & Ash,
1984). In the test, students are asked to identify key ideas in the reading passage, write a
summary of the key ideas in the reading, demonstrate critical thinking in response to
these key ideas, write a well-organized essay and show connections between ideas,
support ideas with sufficient, relevant details, demonstrate competence in sentence
construction, sentence variety, and word choice, and demonstrate correct usage, grammar
and mechanics. The CATW exam takes 90 minutes and is given toward the end of the
semester.
Now let‘s return to the topic of how this CATW relates to the current study. Aside
from the emphasis on advanced grammar and organizing and writing a five-paragraph
essay, one of the course objectives of this course Advanced Composition for ESL Students
was to help ESL students to pass the CATW exam so that they would be able to exit from
this remedial course. The students enrolled in this advanced composition course received
training in developing their reading and writing skills; these learning skills taught during
the semester were reflected in the CATW. To prepare students for the CATW exam, the
writing instructor regularly assigned CATW practice assays to students as homework
writing for the course. For this reason, during the course of the semester, the participants
wrote a number of CATW practice essays in response to a 10th
-12th
grade reading-level

109
passage they were given. A sample prompt was given regarding critical response to
writing task and the text (see Appendix F).
Since the logical progression of ideas that supported the writer‘s central focus and
the clarity of ideas throughout his/her writing was one of the key elements emphasized in
the CATW, the Chinese ESL students‘ written response to a reading passage provided me
with direct insight into their ―coherence patterns.‖ I used the participants‘ CATW
practice essays as their regular writing assignments for the course to investigate how they
demonstrated coherence features in their writing, in addition to the evaluation of the pre-
test and post-test samples of the participants‘ writing. All their essays were scored using
the 0-4 composition rating scales (see Appendix B and C), and again, specific features
that were related to coherence were explored in these essays.
Classroom Observation
The goal of conducting classroom observations was to define the nature of the
training the students received on coherence, as well as how the participants acted in
response to their teacher‘ training on coherence. To successfully accomplish this purpose,
I determined when the instructor specifically gave students training related to coherence.
In order to make sure what the instructor‘s objectives for the lesson to be observed were,
I asked for ideas on what to observe and how to focus my observation. Before conducting
the classroom observation, I established a positive climate and a feeling of trust between
myself as the observer and the instructor. After holding a half-an-hour pre-observation
conference with the instructor to establish lesson content and instructional objectives, I
scheduled the observation at a mutually agreed upon date and time, and showed the
instructor how I intended to record data.

110
My primary job during the observation period was to collect evidence
(documentation and verbal statements describing behaviors and events that occurred
during the observation) and notes (information recorded about the setting, activities,
materials, and context), and make the documentation of them as objective and specific as
possible. While spending about three hours observing the class, I kept my eyes, ears, and
mind on the task. Specifically, I started with a narrative of the physical classroom
environment, the activity in progress, the teaching style, and student characteristics,
simply describing what I saw in concrete terms without making judgments. As academic
and social success requires a basic level of compliance, I objectively wrote down events
and behaviors related to the participants regarding compliance to teacher requests,
including quotes of what the instructor and the participants said. I used quotation marks
when not paraphrasing what was being said. I constantly kept these questions in mind
while observing and taking notes: Do the participants understand the coherence-related
concepts? Are they motivated in learning coherence in writing? Do they feel confused
about what they are learning? Are they showing any learning anxiety? What is
particularly effective in the coherence-related instruction? And what specific suggestions
would I make concerning how coherence-related instruction could be improved?
Moreover, I took detailed notes of how the instructor covered issues related to coherence,
as well as how the instructor helped the students develop the ability to organize ideas into
a coherent essay.
With the instructor‘s permission, I scheduled a post-observation meeting with her
shortly after the observation. After the observation, I asked her to help me analyze the
information. I was interested in asking the instructor these questions: Did the students

111
learn what you wanted them to? How do you know if the students have learned what you
intended them to learn? What strategies do you think you have used to help the students
improve coherence? Were the choices of teaching methods or strategies effective? How
do you know? Were the materials related to coherence you used helpful? How do you
know? What special characteristics of the Chinese ESL students in your class are you
aware of? During the post-observation conference with the instructor, I took notes which
were used to answer the above questions so that I was able to use them in the study.
Semi-structured Interviews
In addition to the written texts discussed above to be collected as data, two rounds
of interviews with the participants were conducted. These took the form of semi-
structured interviews, which combines a certain degree of control with a certain amount
of freedom to develop the interview (Erlandson et al., 1993). The interviews were used to
gather descriptive data in the participants‘ own words, so that I could develop insights on
how the participants viewed their writing, including how they thought about or
interpreted elements that related to the issue of coherence in their writing.
After the participants had been contacted and agreed to participate in the study, I
scheduled the first interview. While conducting the interviews, I mainly used English to
communicate with the participants; however, they were encouraged to use Chinese
whenever this helped them to feel comfortable. I occasionally used Chinese and English
interchangeably for data collection. When quoting the participants, I translated some of
their comments if Chinese was used.
Basically, the two rounds of interviews were conducted, at the beginning and
toward the end of the semester. The first interview took place after I had collected and

112
read the participants‘ initial diagnostic essays, and the second interview took place at a
point when other writings were available, which allowed me to discuss specific choices
made by the participants in their writing.
Each interview session lasted about forty-five minutes. I met individually with
each participant in an empty classroom on campus. To protect the participants‘
confidentiality, each participant was given a pseudonym to ensure anonymity. Before the
interview began, I sought the participant‘s permission to use a Sony Digital Voice
Recorder to record the interview for later transcription and analysis, so that accuracy
could be obtained. I assured the participant that the sound recording would be used by me
only. At the same time, as the interview moved on, I listened carefully and attentively,
with the participant‘s permission, taking as many notes as possible to make sure the
interview was on the right track. In other words, I was an attentive and reactive listener
on the one hand and an extensive note-taker on the other. Taking copious notes in
addition to recording proved to greatly enhance the subsequent tasks of transcribing and
interpreting the recorded data (Erlandson et al., 1993).
The semi-structured interviews were guided by basic open-ended questions and
issues to be explored. I had the participant‘s written texts on hand for reference while
conducting each interview, in order to be able to learn the student‘s own views regarding
coherence in his or her writing. Before terminating each interview, I summarized the
major parts for any possible clarification from the participant.
Procedure
For the present study, I first obtained approval from the Institutional Review
Board for the Protection of Human Subjects at the Liberal Arts College of Western

113
Pennsylvania where my doctoral degree was granted, and then proceeded to seek
permission from the Sunshine Community College (where the human subject research
was conducted) Institutional Review Board for Protection of Human Subjects from
Research Risks.
In gathering data, I followed these nine steps.
1. With permission from the chairperson of the English Department, obtained the
contact information of the instructor who taught Advanced Composition for
ESL Students
2. Asked permission of the instructor to pay a brief visit to her class at the start
of the semester to invite participants in the study
3. Collected the diagnostic essays
4. Started the first round of interviews
5. Conducted classroom observation
6. Collected the CATW in-class essays
7. Collected the second draft of the CATW in-class essay
8. Carried out the second round of interviews
9. Collected the final exam essays
To start, I first went to the chairperson of the English Department for contact
information of the instructor who taught Advanced Composition for ESL Students at the
time of the study. After meeting with the instructor in the Department, I gave her ―A
Letter to the Instructor of the Advanced Composition for ESL Students‖ and talked to her
in the office. I concisely introduced the purpose of my study, explaining that the findings
of the study would help the instructor to design appropriate writing instruction for

114
Chinese ESL students, as well as helping the students to become familiar with coherence
in writing, in the process allowing them to get the most out of their college education and
their efforts to improve at writing. With her permission, I scheduled a class visit with the
instructor.
About fifteen minutes before dismissal, I visited the class briefly and spoke to the
whole class. At this point, for the sake of anonymity I made sure that the instructor did
not know which students decided to participate. While I was speaking to the class about
the purpose of the study, the instructor left the classroom. After a brief self-introduction
in class, I gave each of the students ―A Letter to Potential Participants‖ written in both
English and Chinese to ask for participation, explaining the nature and significance of
this study as well as confidentiality for research participants. Since the current study
focused on Chinese-speaking participants, students from other ethnic groups left the room.
Altogether six Chinese learners of English stayed behind and showed interest in the study.
Then I went on to briefly clarify that this study would allow the participants to compare
and contrast two different rhetorical traditions. It would give them the opportunity to
better understand what cultural factors might impede their progress in writing and how
different rhetorical values would profoundly influence writing in their own way. As a
result, the participants would learn how to adjust to the American way of writing in order
to meet English readers‘ expectations.
I emphasized to each of the potential participants that his/her participation in
this study was voluntary. After the six Chinese ESL students claimed that they tended to
participate in the study, I asked them to leave their name, email address, and phone
number for further contact.

115
After each participant had been further contacted and agreed to participate in the
study, I asked each of them to fill out the background questionnaire. To protect
anonymity, I provided each participant with a pseudonym that was located on the top of
the survey. In line with this design, there was no space provided on the questionnaire for
the names of the participants. They were instructed not to write their name anywhere on
the survey.
At the same time they filled out the questionnaire, the participants also completed
the Informed Consent Form. I brought with me two copies of the Informed Consent Form
prepared in advance, which was signed by both me and the participant. One copy was
returned to me, and the other was kept by the participant for his/her personal records. This
ethical release form assured the subjects of complete and permanent anonymity and
guaranteed that neither their current nor future status as the College ESL students would
in any way be affected by their participation in this study. The Informed Consent Form
also stated that the results of this study were used for academic purposes only. If a student
chose to participate, his or her real name, address, or place of work would not appear in
any publication or presentation about the study. The data obtained from the participants
such as the questionnaire, essays, interviews, and classroom observation notes were stored
in a locked file cabinet for three years before they would be destroyed for confidentiality.
To protect the participants‘ confidentiality, I used their pseudonyms in their essays,
classroom observations, and interviews throughout the study.
Finally, I clearly stated that they were free to refuse to answer any question in
the interviews, and were free to withdraw at any time by notifying me. Upon a participant‘s
request to withdraw, all information about him or her would be destroyed, and the

116
withdrawal would neither affect his/her college status nor the relationship between him/her
and me.
When it comes to the collection of the participants‘ written pieces, I collected
four essays from each participant throughout the semester, including a diagnostic essay
that all students enrolled in the advanced composition course wrote as a departmental
pre-test during the first class meeting of the semester, a final exam essay as a post-test
toward the end of the semester, a CATW in-class essay as regular writing assignments for
the course, and a second draft based on the revision of the CATW in-class exercise. As a
rule, it is common practice that students‘ diagnostic essays and final exam essays are not
returned to students; during the semester instructors keep all diagnostic and final exam
essays after grading. After the semester ends, these essays are kept on file in the English
Department. Only CATW practice essays are returned to students as soon as they are
graded.
For this reason, at the third stage, I contacted the instructor for a copy of each of
the participants‘ diagnostic essays. I asked the instructor to leave all the essays on her
desk. To protect anonymity, I then asked a [CUNY] CITI (Collaborative Institutional
Training Initiative) certified professor to select the participants‘ diagnostic essays for me
without the knowledge of the instructor. As soon as I made a copy of each participant‘s
diagnostic essay, I returned all the essays to the instructor‘s desk. Of course, I erased the
participants‘ names on the duplicates of their essays and wrote down their respective
pseudonyms instead.
After having collected the diagnostic essays, an analysis of the written work was
performed by two professional raters with the aim of having a rating of the participants‘

117
writing, which gave some indication of the level of coherence they had achieved in their
writing. These essays were also analyzed for individual elements related to coherence.
Then, at the fourth stage, based on the findings in the participants‘ essays, I spoke to the
participants and started a first round of the semi-structured interviews. As a general rule,
by using clear language I avoided any biased questions and always asked questions that
encouraged the respondents to explain and elaborate on what we were discussing. I
realized that writing good questions was vital to accomplish the interview objectives and
obtain valid responses (UT, 2010). Since questions addressing some concepts may
confuse the participants, I was cautious about word choice. It is possible that the Chinese
ESL students had little knowledge about certain concepts such as paragraph unity, the
purpose of writing, coherence, and cohesion, so I used simple and easy words and
phrases to facilitate their understanding of the questions. Basically, questions for the first
round interview were more general compared with those used for the second round
interview. The following questions were used for the first-round interview.
1. Did you ever have a teacher that helped you a lot with your writing? If so, can
you talk a bit more about this experience?
2. What are the most important elements in Chinese persuasive writing in your
opinion? What have you learned about organizing an essay (for instance,
introduction, body, and conclusion, etc.)? Do you remember your classes in
your home country teaching about this? If so, what were you taught about
―good writing‖?
3. How did you learn English writing in your own country? Please describe your
early English writing experience in school. What features were you taught that

118
a good English persuasive essay must have? Again, what ideas have you
learned about ―good writing‖ in English?
4. What did you think about before writing an essay, either in English or in
Chinese, in your country? Do you feel there was a difference in the way you
wrote in English, as compared with how you wrote in Chinese?
5. When you learned to write in your country, did you think about who would be
reading the essay? Did your teachers encourage you to think of a reason you
might want to write an essay, even if it was a class assignment?
6. Did you learn about coherence in writing in your country? What did your
classes talk about in terms of organizing information, for instance, in a
paragraph? Were you encouraged to draw relationships between ideas in your
writing? If so, in what way?
7. Can you tell me a bit more about your writing about the diagnostic essay that
you wrote in your first class meeting? Did you enjoy it? What came easiest for
you, and what gave you most problems?
The interview started with very general questions here. I just began with some
conversation about their previous English learning experiences related to EFL/ESL
writing that I could use for the study. At the fifth stage, I carried out the classroom
observation which allowed me to obtain in-depth data on how the instructor in her class
helped ESL students achieve coherence, as well as how the participants responded to
American classroom training concerning coherence. Toward the mid-term at the sixth
stage, I started collecting the CATW practice essays from the participants by contacting
them for a hard copy when they submitted their essays to the instructor. Following that at

119
the seventh stage, before the participants took the final, I contacted the participants for a
second round of interviews aiming at deepening the questions raised in the first round
interview. In this second interview, I asked the participants about their experience in their
English class. The specific questions about the participants‘ pieces of writing for the
second interview are as follows.
1. Tell me a little about your advanced English writing class. What kinds of
things do you feel you are learning in the class?
2. How do you feel (comfortable, confused, or resistant) when you are instructed
to write the American way? Do you feel that this is different from writing in
Chinese? If so, in what ways?
3. Are you perfectly able to apply your classroom learning to your writing? Why
or why not? (If not, what problems do you have in trying to do this?)
4. How do you understand the idea of a ―thesis statement?‖ When you write, do
you try to put such a statement into your essay? If so, where do you place it?
Can you comment on the essay we have here from your practice in class?
Does it have a thesis statement? How did you support your central focus?
5. Has your writing class emphasized the idea of ―coherence?‖ If so, how would
you explain what that term, coherence, means?
6. Can you tell me a bit more about your writing of this essay that I have brought
with me? Did you enjoy writing? What did you find easiest and hardest about
your writing? Do you think you used advice drawn from your writing course
when you wrote this? If so, in what way? Can you talk about that in a bit more
detail?

120
7. How did your professor react to this essay? Were you able to make changes
on the basis of what he/she said or wrote as feedback for you? Generally, how
do you regard written comments on your writing? What kind of feedback do
you think helps you best in making your writing better?
8. What do you think the strongest point in this essay is?
9. What strategies do you think you should use to improve your English writing
skills related to coherence in persuasive discourse?
The final stage took place during the last week of classes, which included final
exams. To obtain the participants‘ final exam essays after they completed the post-test at
the end of the semester, I repeated the same procedure as I did when asking the instructor
for the participants‘ diagnostic essays. By examining the participants‘ essays written in
the final exam, I again identified specific elements contributing to coherence had
developed over the course of the semester. Again, a central focus was on determining
how these elements were traced to the English and Chinese views of coherence. Finally,
implications regarding how American writing instructors may help Chinese ESL
undergraduates achieve coherence in persuasive discourse were offered.
Scoring
The participants‘ diagnostic essays and the final exam essays were rated
following a set of holistic rating scales (see Appendix B and C: Knowledge of cohesion
and Knowledge of coherence) developed by Abeywickrama (2007). While Knowledge of
cohesion measured the surface linguistic features that signaled the relationships among
the ideas, Knowledge of coherence evaluated the overall structure of the text. These
rating scales were designed based on criteria that have been found significant in previous

121
studies in assessing coherence and cohesion (Abeywickrama, 2007). The scales ranged
from 0-4 with 0 being No evidence of the ability, with 4 being Complete evidence of the
ability. The ability level was assessed from two perspectives: range and accuracy. For
example, as for Knowledge of cohesion (see Appendix B), the range of cohesive features
was assessed. A full score would be 8, reflecting a 4 on both Knowledge of cohesion and
Knowledge of coherence.
In conjunction with the rating scales, a list of features of coherence and cohesion,
another separate scoring rubric, was provided (see Appendix A). Adapted from Halliday
and Hasan (1976), Bamberg (1983); McCulley (1985); Lee (2002); Abeywickrama, 2007;
and CATW (2010), this scoring rubric was developed following the criteria created by
Goodrich (1996) and Allen (2003); it served as an analytic scoring guide used to assess
the effectiveness of the participants‘ writing samples, which focused on cohesion and
coherence. I will return to this point later in the section Qualitative Coding for Written
Texts.
As mentioned above, to avoid scoring bias, I used two raters. There was at least
adjacency if not complete agreement between Rater 1 and Rater 2‘s scoring. Where there
was a discrepancy of two score levels or more between raters, I would use a third rater to
rescore an essay. To ensure that the participants‘ outcome would not be influenced by the
interlanguage that might be produced by a non-native English-speaking professor who
scored the pre- and post-tests, I invited a native-English speaking professor to rate the
participants‘ essays. Therefore, the scores of the participants‘ diagnostic essays and the
final exam essays were given by both a native-English speaking writing professor and me,
an ESL writing professor in the English Department at Sunshine Community College. In

122
other words, two trained raters evaluated the coherence of the participants‘ essays
according to a set of criteria provided.
We read every essay, and each rater gave a score independently, without
knowledge of the other‘s rating. As stated above, if the two of us were more than two
numbers apart, a third native English-speaking expert rater would be called to examine
the content of the essay again for grading consistency, focusing on the features of
cohesion and coherence. Prior to rating the essays, I ran a norming session to determine
inter-rater reliability that referred to the steps taken to ensure that different faculty raters
assigned the same score for performance on the same assignments (Hayes &
Krippendorff, 2007). We read a set of sample papers, assigned a score, and then
discussed precisely why we had given our scores. To be specific, I used two essays as
guides that reflected the criteria and corresponding score (0-4) in the rating scales. The
other rater was given the rating scales as well as the scoring rubric. Before we scored the
essays, we reviewed the scoring rubric for assessing specific features of coherence and
cohesion that may occur in the participants‘ text structure of writing. After we silently
read the first essay, we individually rated it using the rating scale criteria. When this was
completed, we compared the scores that each of us had given for cohesion and coherence,
and specifically discussed the ratings with each other. If the same score or adjacent level
score was given, we moved on to rate the second essay. In a nutshell, we followed this
procedure while scoring the participants‘ essays.

123
Data Analysis
Qualitative Coding for Interview Data
Transcribing the Interviews
After the first round interview was completed, I transcribed the data quickly, so I
could resolve ambiguities while the interview was still fresh. With the six participants, I
labeled each interviewee‘s data with a number starting from 1 to 6 so as not to mix up
―who is who‖ and transcribed the recorded data under each specific interview question. In
order to focus on content, words like ―um‖ or ―er‖ or ―well‖ were omitted. To make the
interviews more authentic, I occasionally encouraged the participants to use their first
language to carry out the task when necessary, but I translated for overall meaning, not
word for word. The transcription only included complete thoughts and useful information.
While transcribing, I deleted extraneous or redundant expressions and used standard
spelling for words spoken, but did not change the interviewee‘s usage or the meaning. I
transcribed their words and sentences without including my comments to keep the flow
of the interviewee‘s own thoughts, but I shifted some sections of the interview, thereby
keeping similar content together. I transcribed all interviews after going back and re-
listening to the recorded data. I planned the second round interview based on the initial
interview. In other words, I reviewed the first round interview transcripts to refine my
questions when necessary. Also, I noticed and followed up any unexpected data, making
sure to explore further any interview extreme cases-participants who had reported very
positive or very negative experiences.

124
Developing Coding Categories
Coding refers to using labels to classify and assign meaning to pieces of
information. According to Bogdan and Biklen (1998), after data collection a crucial step
in data analysis is to develop a list of coding categories. Marshall and Rossman (1989)
explain that ―data analysis is the process of bringing order, structure, and meaning to the
mass of collected data‖ (p.112). To organize data, I coded it into meaningful categories
by looking for topics and patterns that the data covered, and then used words and phrases
to represent these topics and patterns. For a better understanding of the collected
information, I carefully read all the data several times. Following the guidelines provided
by UT (2010), I developed coding categories in two steps.
In the first step, I generated numerous category codes while reading through
responses, labeling data that were related without concern for the variety of categories. I
wrote notes to myself, listing ideas or diagramming relationships I noticed, and watched
for special vocabulary that the interviewees used because such forms might indicate an
important topic. In the next step, I used focused coding to eliminate less useful codes,
combined smaller categories, or if a large number of responses had been assigned the
same code, subdivided that category. And I tried to identify repeating ideas expressed by
different respondents and organized codes into larger themes.
Berkowitz (1997) has helpfully suggested the following six questions to consider
when coding interview data:
1. What common themes emerge in responses about specific topics? How do
these patterns (or lack thereof) help to illuminate the broader study question(s)?
2. Are there deviations from these patterns? If so, are there any factors that might

125
explain these deviations?
3. How are participants' environments or past experiences related to their
behavior and attitudes?
4. What interesting stories emerge from the responses? How do they help
illuminate the central study question(s)?
5. Do any of these patterns suggest that additional data may be needed? Do any
of the central study questions need to be revised?
6. Are the patterns that emerge similar to the findings of other studies on the
same topic? If not, what might explain these discrepancies?
These questions helped with coding interview data, enabling me to identify
themes and organize codes.
Qualitative Coding for Classroom Observation Data
Developing Coding Categories
Marshall and Rossman (1989) define observation as ―the systematic description of
events, behaviors, and artifacts in the social setting chosen for study‖ (p.97). Hence,
observation helps a researcher to gain a better insight into the here-and-now interworking
of the learning environment via the use of the five human senses. Much was to be gained
by looking, listening, feeling, and smelling rather than talking. At this stage, since the
goal was to explore what specific training in coherence the participants received and how
the participants responded to their teacher‘s instructions on coherence, I kept a detailed
descriptive record of everything related to training in coherence that occurred during the
period of classroom observation, but it was impossible to observe and record everything
that occurred in the class.

126
I began with some common types of coding categories. Following the ideas from
Bogdan and Biklen (1998) and Merriam (1988), I used some of their key elements with
the following checklist of coding categories.
1. Setting/Context codes provide background information on the setting. What is
the physical environment like? What is the context? What kinds of behavior
does the setting promote or prevent?
2. Participant codes describe who are in the scene, how many students, and why
they are there.
3. Activity and interaction codes identify how the participants respond to the
teacher‘s instruction on coherence. What is going on? Is there a definable
sequence of activities related to coherence? How do the participants interact
with the instructor? How do the participants interact with the activity? How
are the participants and activities connected or interrelated?
4. Strategy codes relate to ways the instructor covers issues related to coherence,
including how the instructor maintains students‘ attention and involves
students in learning coherent writing during his/her lecture.
UT (2010) points out that a major step in analyzing observational data is coding
the data into meaningful categories. Bogdan and Biklen suggest first ordering narrative
logs chronologically. To develop coding categories, in much the same way as analyzing
interview data, I first read all the collected data carefully a couple of times and then
employed similar methods to analyze observation results, such as conducting initial
coding and focused coding.

127
Qualitative Coding for Written Texts
Research has shown that while writing English, Chinese speaking ESL students
use certain writing strategies and rhetorical features that are different from those
commonly used in English (Dunkelblau, 1990). To further understand this area and avoid
the danger of stereotyping that comes with any attempt to describe Chinese speaking ESL
writers in terms of their cultural background, I closely examined a total of four essays
written by each of the six participants for the study, thus conducting an in-depth
investigation of these four pieces.
Previous research indicates that coherence problems in writing require attention
at the level of both the whole discourse and the word or sentence. According to Bamberg
(1983), ―When we look at coherence in its broad sense, we become aware that almost any
feature—whether seen locally or over the whole discourse—has the potential to affect a
reader‘s ability to integrate details of a text into a coherent whole‖ (p.427). Therefore, I
used a set of rubrics that assessed coherence at both global (discourse) and local (or
sentence) levels. The rubrics asked raters to focus on all the features listed there to assign
a holistic score for an entire essay. First, we explored in what ways the Chinese speakers‘
writings demonstrated coherence as perceived by English readers. Next, we investigated
whether cohesive devices characteristic of English writing appeared in these Chinese
students‘ writings throughout their texts, and if so, which ones appeared. Traditionally, as
cohesive devices are optional and do not necessarily occur in Chinese writings, or do so
infrequently because meaning structures are often understood from context, it is possible
that essays written by Chinese ESL students may convey the sense that their English
writing, to some degree, lacks transitions, a conclusion drawn by researchers such as

128
Dong (1999), Guo and Wang (2004), Yeh (2004), Jin and Ban (2006), Zhou ( 2007), and
Wu and He (2010).
In the above section Scoring, I briefly introduced the scoring method. In the
following sections, I will again discuss the method of scoring the participants‘ writings
for presence of cohesion and coherence. To measure the level of cohesion and coherence,
both composition rating scales and features of cohesion and coherence were employed.
The Level of Coherence
Drawing upon the holistic Composition Rating Scales (see Appendix C) designed
by Abeywickrama (2007), I identified the level of coherence as one of the following in
terms of accuracy: (4) completely accurate, showing a complete range of explicit
organizational devices; (3) highly accurate with only occasional problems in organization,
showing a wide range of explicit organizational devices at both paragraph and whole
discourse levels; (2) organization clear but could be more explicitly marked, showing a
moderate range of explicit rhetorical organizational devices; (1) organization confusing
or irrelevant to the topic, showing little evidence of deliberate textual coherence; and (0)
not relevant, showing no evidence of knowledge of textual coherence.
Method of Scoring Coherence in the Chinese Students’ Writing
In addition to the rating scales mentioned above, the current study also drew upon
Abeywickrama‘ (2007) rubric of scoring ESL writing for the presence of coherence
features, but expanded his list of coherent features to include those elements observed by
Bamberg (1983), McCulley (1985), Lee (2002), and CATW (2010) that emerged in their
data analysis. The eleven categories were judged valid measures of coherence features
since they had been used and tested by educators and scholars in the field. In connection

129
with the use of the holistic Composition Rating Scales measuring the level of coherence
mentioned above, the following is the list of eleven coherence features that were used in
the study.
1. The opening paragraph is effective in introducing the reader to the subject or
the central idea that the writer will develop throughout the essay
2. All the paragraphs support the central focus and do not digress
3. The writer‘s overall point of view is clear
4. Paragraphs are divided in terms of content relevance
5. Transition is smooth between paragraphs
6. The writer organizes paragraph details according to a discernible plan (e.g.,
time order, addition order, order of importance, order of cause and effect,
order of comparison-contrast) that is well-designed with a smooth and logical
progression of thoughts; therefore, the ideas relate to one another
7. The writer does not shift topics, and the ideas in each paragraph are all
relevant to the topic
8. Ideas mentioned are elaborated
9. No repetition of ideas
10. The writer fully develops paragraphs, effectively using reasons and specific
details and examples from his/her reading and experience to develop ideas
11. The last paragraph gives the reader a definite sense of closure
Analysis of Cohesive Devices
It has been proposed by scholars and educators that Chinese speaking students
seriously lack transitional skills when writing in English, thereby resulting in composition

130
texts lacking coherence. Research and theory in discourse analysis now look at cohesive
devices as part of what makes a text coherent (Bamberg, 1983). Therefore, in addition to
forming smaller discourse units, I examined the extent to which a participant‘s text
appropriately bound together larger chunks of discourse, with an appropriate use of
cohesive devices to connect his/her ideas, supporting details, and examples.
The Level of Cohesion
Following Abeywickrama‘s (2007) holistic Composition Rating Scales (see
Appendix B), I ascertained the level of cohesion as one of the following in terms of
accuracy: (4) completely accurate, showing a complete range of explicit cohesive
devices; (3) highly accurate with only occasional problems in cohesion, showing a wide
range of explicit cohesive devices, including complex subordination; (2) relations
between sentences generally clear but could be more explicitly marked, showing a
moderate range of explicit cohesive devices; (1) relationships between sentences often
confusing, with few markers of textual cohesion; and (0) not relevant, showing no
evidence of knowledge of textual cohesion.
Method of Scoring Cohesion in the Chinese Students’ Writing
To determine what specific cohesive elements in the Chinese students‘ writing
might be traced to the two rhetorical traditions (Western and Chinese), the present study
expanded Abeywickrama‘s rubric of cohesive devices to include those elements observed
by Halliday and Hasan (1976), which have been judged as valid features of cohesive
devices because numerous researchers and educators have used this instrument in the
composition field for over three decades. The following rubric was used with the above-
mentioned Composition Rating Scales for measuring the level of cohesion.

131
1. Pronouns of reference are used accurately
2. Conjunctions are used accurately
3. Ellipsis and substitution are used when needed
4. Lexical repetition is used appropriately
5. Synonymous words and phrases when used are used appropriately
6. Transition words are used judiciously and accurately to link sentences and/or
paragraphs together to convey relationships through the essay
7. Each sentence follows logically from the previous one
Descriptive statistics and results were used to report the findings of all the coherence
features identified in the participants‘ written texts.

132
CHAPTER 4
INTRODUCTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS
The Participants
In May 2011, the participants of this study were enrolled in BE205 Advanced
Composition for ESL Students. Since the Advanced Composition Course for ESL Students
is the final course of the sequence (Beginning, Intermediate, and Advanced), students are
placed in this level based on their previous performance in either the prerequisite courses
or the College placement tests. Throughout the semester, students enrolled in this course
receive strict training in reading and writing. When students successfully complete this
Advanced Composition Course for ESL Students by the end of the semester, they will be
required to take the CUNY Assessment Test in Writing known as CATW to exit from
remedial writing courses; anyone who fails to pass the CATW exam will repeat this
advanced composition course.
As I said earlier in Chapter 3, among those who were taking the Advanced
Composition Course for ESL Students at the time of the study, only six Chinese-speaking
students showed interest and volunteered to participate in the study. Information
regarding the demographic and linguistic dynamics relevant to this study was gathered
via a background questionnaire (shown in Appendix D), and some details were added to
the introduction of the participants later on through an interview. These two research
instruments provided basic information about the participants in several areas: age,
gender, length of EFL/ESL study, time of last taking an ESL course, number of times of
taking the Advanced Composition Course for ESL Students, year of arrival in the United
States, any preliminary remedial ESL writing courses taken, location of high school

133
attended, year of high school graduation, any previous college education received,
attitude toward writing in English, self-description as an ESL writer, geographical area,
and first language spoken. I will cover each of these areas in the paragraphs that follow.
Age
The age of the participants ranges from twenty to thirty. In this study, the
majority were just under twenty-four. This age similarity indicates some common
experience in the participants‘ academic life. Put another way, many of them recently
graduated from high school and could be viewed as traditional undergraduates. However,
there is an exception for the 30-year-old participant, Xiaohui, who was notably older than
the rest of the participants; this participant could be considered a nontraditional student,
and this is worth noting here, since age and culture are issues that could affect the
motivation to learn.
Gender
Both male and female participants were welcome to join the study; however, due
to the enrollment pattern for this section, there was only one female participant in this
study.
Length of EFL/ESL Study
The participants‘ length of formal EFL/ESL learning ranged from seven years of
study to a total of 12 years, including the years of study spent both in and outside the
United States. The response on this item revealed two patterns for the participants: (1)
those who studied English both in and outside the United States, even though the length
of EFL study outside the United States was very different from person to person; and (2)

134
those who studied English only in the United States after immigrating to this country with
their parents when they were young.
Table 1
Length of EFL/ESL Study for the Six Participants
Name
Length of Study
outside United
States
Length of Study
in the United
States
Total Years of
English Study
Lili Sun 11 years 1 year 12 years
Weishan Qian 1 year 6 years 7 years
Yiman Zhao 2 years 5 years 7 years
Xiaohui Wang 6 years 1 year 7 years
Gaofeng Wu Never 8 years 8 years
Hong Lin Never 10 years 10 years
As shown in the table above, two participants had studied English in the United
States for just one year, whereas the rest had studied English in this country for more than
five years. However, the length of EFL/ESL study in and outside the United States did
not reflect the participants‘ English proficiency level. I will return to this point when
going through the interview.
Time of Last ESL Course
As reported in the questionnaire, all the participants without exception last took
an ESL course in spring 2011 at the college where they were studying. They had been
studying English hard and saw ESL courses as a critical step toward their eventual
success in mainstream college classes with native speakers. They had been encouraged to

135
take the English courses in consecutive terms, on the grounds that continuous learning
without interruption accelerates progress, since academic writing poses many challenges
to nonnative speakers in their college studies.
Number of Times of Taking the Advanced Composition Course
Five of the participants were taking this course for the first time, but one
participant, Yiman, reported that this was the third time he was taking the course because
he had failed the CATW writing test twice. Since CATW is a difficult writing test for
nonnative speakers, it is not uncommon for ESL students to repeat this advanced writing
course.
Year of Arrival in the United States
The participants reported the year when they arrived in the United States. Most
had begun formal ESL instruction shortly after they arrived, with the exception of one
participant, Xiaohui, who had lived in the United States for six years before he began
studying English in 2010.
Table 2
Year of Arrival in the United States
Name Year of Arrival in the United States
Lili Sun 2010
Weishan Qian 2005
Yiman Zhao 2005
Xiaohui Wang 2005
Gaofeng Wu 2003
Hong Lin 2001

136
Table 2 demonstrates the year of the participants‘ arrival in the United States.
There was no direct relationship between English proficiency and length of residency in
the United States.
Preliminary Remedial ESL Writing Courses Taken
As indicated in the questionnaire, all the participants had taken the prerequisite
remedial ESL courses Beginning Composition for ESL Students and Intermediate
Composition for ESL Students. This information is important because the participants‘
preliminary experience in the writing courses tells us that they were not considered
novice writers. At least we might assume that they had acquired some familiarity with
coherent writing in their previous writing courses.
Location of High School Attended and Year of High School Graduation
The participants‘ high school experiences were quite disparate. One participant
went to high school in Taiwan, one in Mainland China, and the rest in New York. This
diversity in education may indicate a different level of English proficiency and would
also provide us with varied written data in terms of textual analysis. Since the high school
graduation year of the average participant ranges widely from 2000 to 2010, there is a
considerable diversity in experience in terms of time as well.

137
Table 3
Location of High School Attended and Year of High School Graduation
Name Location of High School Year of Graduation
Lili Sun Taiwan 2005
Weishan Qian New York 2005
Yiman Zhao New York 2009
Xiaohui Wang Mainland China 2000
Gaofeng Wu New York 2010
Hong Lin New York 2009
Previous College Education
Among the six participants, only Lili had completed a four-year college education
in Taiwan from 2005 to 2009; all others were high school graduates.
Attitude toward Writing in English
Lili was the only one who claimed in the questionnaire that she liked English
writing, even though she maintained that she did not enjoy writing. She reported that she
often wrote in English, but only in connection with class assignments. In other words, she
wrote only when she was asked to, though she could do well when asked. That does not
necessarily mean that she enjoyed private story writing or keeping a journal. It could be
assumed that the reason she had a positive attitude toward writing for class assignments
may directly relate to her writing experience in her previous college education in Taiwan.
Interestingly enough, the rest of the participants reported that they did not like to write in
English. In fact, they tried to avoid writing because they disliked it. These attitudes

138
toward writing recall a familiar pattern: those who like writing do well because they
practice often, and they practice because they do well. In contrast, those who dislike
writing often avoid opportunities to improve. However, the next figure reveals one
exception to this pattern, which will be discussed in the next section.
Self-description as an ESL Writer
Table 4
Self-Description as an ESL Writer
Name Self-description as an ESL writer
Lili Sun Inexperienced, nervous
Weishan Qian Inexperienced
Yiman Zhao Have fears about writing
Xiaohui Wang Hate to write
Gaofeng Wu Confident, advanced
Hong Lin Inexperienced, nervous, have fears about writing, hate to write
.
Table 4 indicates that the participants identified themselves as ESL writers in
varied ways. Lili has been in the United States for only one year, so she described herself
as an inexperienced and nervous writer, although, as noted earlier, she reported that she
liked English writing. This is understandable because students with positive attitudes
toward writing may also experience negative feelings such as uncertainly, nervousness,
and a lack of ideas when engaged in actual writing tasks. Weishan simply asserted that he
was inexperienced in writing. As we know, inexperienced writers often move abruptly
from point to point, using conversation strategies in an attempt to connect ideas. They
even go off topic, assuming readers know what they are thinking. At this point, his six-
year ESL learning experience throughout his junior high and high school in New York
still did not seem to have equipped him with necessary writing skills that could help him

139
become a confident writer. Like some other ESL students who graduated from American
high school, Yiman did not treat writing as fun and expressed his fears about writing. His
fears reveal that he still did not know how to write an essay due to a lack of basic writing
skills. Xiaohui finished his high school in 2000 in China, and in 2005 he came to the
United States. It has been noted that he had only one year of formal English education in
the United States during his seven years of stay in the country, even though he had six
years of formal EFL study back in China. Since Xiaohui had limited writing experience
in the Western context, it is not surprising that he hated to write. If a student has negative
attitudes toward writing, it may interfere with his/her success, at least in completing a
writing assignment. No doubt the skill of creating an effective piece of writing is God-
given, but it also requires a lot of motivation, practice, effort, and attention to the subject.
In contrast with the others, Gaofeng expressed his confidence in writing and
identified himself as an advanced writer. He came to the United States in 2003 at the age
of thirteen. Eight years of formal writing practice could have possibly made him a good
writer. However, as reported earlier, he despised the idea of writing. In fact, how students
feel about writing can both affect and reflect how well they can write. Contrary to what
he had claimed, Gaofeng had serious writing problems, which were later identified in his
writing assignments. Finally, when looking at Hong, we find that he considered himself
an inexperienced and nervous writer. Also, he had fears about writing and even hated to
write. While he came to the United States at ten, he still expressed a negative attitude in
relation to writing after studying ESL for ten years in the United States. Writing is an
instrument of reflection. It can be taken as a tool that promotes awareness of the
relationship that students have with other people. Accordingly, we might expect this

140
student to have difficulty producing, developing, or organizing ideas. Of course,
motivational and emotional factors are also closely relevant to good writing. Effective
ESL writers feel at home in the English language and/or are keen to learn the writing
skills required for effective writing.
Geographical Area and First Language Spoken
As expected from the above information presented, one participant comes from
Taiwan, and all the others are from Mainland China. Everybody in this group uses
Mandarin Chinese as their first language. Even though Taiwan and Mainland China share
similar Chinese cultures and values, they differ in socio-economic backgrounds as well as
in formal educational practice, including EFL instruction.
Common Themes
The above description presents a brief account of the basic individual
participants‘ personal data. As a result, some common themes have been identified. To
gain a clearer picture of what leads to the participants‘ limited basic English skills, I will
carry out a brief in-depth analysis of the following issues regarding their attitudes toward
ESL writing, their English literacy background, and their family culture.
Negative Attitude toward Writing
As clearly presented in this chapter, a conspicuous theme that appeared early was
that the participants did not like writing in English. Although their attitude toward writing
does not directly relate to coherence in writing, it provides some insight into why they
wrote the way they wrote. This can be further verified in the next chapter when textual
analysis is performed. In terms of English writing, as they wrote in the questionnaire,
they felt nervous, panicky, and even angry. This seems to suggest that, for these Chinese-

141
speaking students, when Chinese culture and Western culture met in the American
cultural context, according to the evidence based on the Background Questionnaire, the
two cultural worlds may have collided, leading not to understanding, but to confusion and
conflict. Why did it happen this way? A closer look at how the participants were educated
could help us better understand why things happened the way they did.
Limited Literacy Skills
For one thing, the majority of these participants had low literacy skills in their
own country. As described earlier, only Lili and Xiaohui were an exception. Since Lili
had had eleven years‘ experience of English study in Taiwan, she transferred her learning
skills when she studied English in the American writing classroom, even though she
asserted that she was nervous about English writing. In Xiaohui‘s case, his earlier six-
year formal English education in China prepared him for his current academic learning,
but he seemed to be constantly struggling between the two cultures after he came to the
United States. Since the focus in English writing back in China was mainly placed on
translation of isolated sentences, Xiaohui felt overwhelmed while taking the advanced
composition course.
Weishan, Yiman, Gaofeng, and Hong had limited formal schooling in China, but
all had experiences in American middle or high school education. Nevertheless, it cannot
be assumed that these students had mastered English skills during their experiences in
American schools. While living in New York, their home language was Chinese only,
and their circle of friends was also Chinese only. In fact, these linguistically and
culturally different Chinese students had not even achieved basic English proficiency in
reading and writing, possibly as a result of combined factors, such as their lack of

142
exposure to American culture, their limited social circle, their low social self-efficacy,
their introverted personality, their unfamiliarity with the North American culture, their
lack of appropriate study skills or strategies, and their academic learning anxiety. For
example, both Gaofeng and Hong loved to read Chinese classical novels, as they later
claimed during the interviews. As they put it, Chinese novels had a great impact on their
way of thinking when they wrote in English.
The Influence of Family Culture
Moreover, I soon realized that most of the six participants were from low-income
families. One thing that is worth noting is that these students were neither highly
motivated in learning writing, nor did they seem to worry about that. Their parents
themselves did not know English when they came to the United States, and they probably
had no idea how they could help their children with their English studies. Their parents
were struggling to keep their families going, so they did not have time to push their
children to do homework at home. Because of the influence of this family culture, many
of the participants belonged to a population of young people who were not really
interested in earning an American college degree. They wanted to improve their survival
English skills and to start their own business later on.
Gradually, the Chinese students became tired of their possibly confusing or
ineffective study in American high schools. As Hong put it, ―I cut classes and dozed off
in class if I had to go. I never paid attention to the teacher.‖ Consequently, these students
seriously lacked study skills. They did not know how to learn to write, but they all
blamed their poor writing skills on their lack of vocabulary and their limited knowledge
of English grammar, as a result of their Chinese misperception about English learning.

143
According to the instructor, Dr. Fawcett, with whom I had classroom observation
conferences with, ―these Chinese students don‘t know how to learn because they didn‘t
get it in the first language. If they didn‘t get it, it doesn‘t transfer. Lili transfers [she had
high school and college experiences in her first language in Taiwan]. If they don‘t have
the ability in the first language, that‘s an issue, not vocabulary.‖ Dr. Fawcett means that
learning skills transfer, and that these students may not have had the necessary
experiences in their L1, or not have managed to transfer the learning from these
experiences. Like many other American teachers who educate Chinese-speaking ESL
students, Dr. Fawcett is keenly aware where the trouble lies when these Chinese students
do not follow her instructions in her class.
Clearly, these Chinese participants did not like English writing, partly for
practical reasons, because they could survive and make money in numerous Chinese-
operated supermarkets, restaurants, or companies in New York, and partly for more
pedagogically oriented reasons, because most of them had limited literacy skills in both
cultures and faced academic challenges. Since the participants described themselves as
nervous and panicky ESL writers, it must be emphasized that in addition to teaching
learning skills and writing skills, it is important to teach students to take a positive
attitude toward writing and its value. These students need to understand that a positive
attitude often leads them to use a variety of learning strategies that can facilitate writing
skill development in language learning. Next, I will analyze the participants‘ written texts.

144
CHAPTER 5
TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
Analysis of Textual Data
In this chapter, I will perform a selective textual analysis of the participants‘
writings. I will determine how effectively a writer presents his/her ideas by examining the
techniques the writer uses, offering comments on which ones seem to work or not work
and why. To do this, I will first think about how these techniques may affect the writer‘s
intended audience and how they may help to communicate with the author‘s intended
goals. Before proceeding, it is important to remind the reader that the ides of presenting
ideas ‗‖effectively,‖ as evaluated here, is very much a Western notion, and not an
absolute set of values. Also, only one particularly narrow genre of persuasive writing is
being examined here, which further narrows the criteria being used to analyze these
written student essays.
As introduced in Chapter 3, three types of essays were collected for a qualitative
analysis in this study: 1) a diagnostic essay written as the first class writing assignment at
the beginning of the semester; 2) essays written as in-class practice during the semester,
including a first and second draft; and 3) a final essay written as the final exam toward
the end of the semester.
I analyzed a total of 23 essays written by the participants, that is, I analyzed four
essays by each participant (with only one exception, when one student did not provide
one essay): the diagnostic essay, the final essay, and two drafts of an essay written during
the semester. Of these, the diagnostic essays and final exam essays were rated by two
trained raters; it was felt that a comparison of these two types of essays might help us see

145
a clearer and more dramatic picture of the students‘ growth over the term in the
coherence of their writing. I kept the following goals in mind as I worked with these texts:
to identify the ways in which the writings of these participants demonstrated coherence;
to determine the extent to which the two sets of writings just mentioned were judged as
coherent by professional raters; to explore what specific elements in the writings might
be traced to Western or Chinese traditions; and to discover whether these elements
changed in the participants‘ writings over the course of a semester,
Scoring Cohesion in the Participants’ Writings
Essays were rated on a set of criteria for knowledge of cohesion on the
Composition Rating Scales ranging from 0-4 (see Appendix B and the section Qualitative
Coding for Written Texts in Chapter 3). Essays rated 4 (Complete) showed complete
knowledge of cohesion, as well as a complete range of explicit cohesive devices, and a
completely accurate use of cohesive devices; essays that were rated 3 (Extensive) showed
extensive knowledge of textual cohesion, as well as a wide range of explicit cohesive
devices, including complex subordination, and were highly accurate with only occasional
problems in cohesion; essays rated 2 (Moderate) showed moderate knowledge of textual
cohesion, a moderate range of explicit cohesive devices, and generally clear relationships
between sentences, but could be more explicitly marked; essays rated 1 (Limited) showed
limited knowledge of textual cohesion, only a few markers of textual cohesion, and often
confusing relationships between sentences; and essays marked 0 (Zero) showed no
evidence of any knowledge of textual cohesion, as well as no relevancy as far as accuracy
is concerned.

146
Scoring Coherence in the Participants’ Writings
For scoring coherence, in much the same way, essays were rated on a set of
criteria for knowledge of coherence on the Composition Rating Scales ranging from 0-4
(see Appendix C and the section Qualitative Coding for Written Texts in Chapter 3).
Essays rated 4 (Complete) showed evidence of complete knowledge of coherence, as well
as a complete use of accuracy and a complete range of explicit organizational devices;
essays that were rated 3 (Extensive) showed extensive knowledge of coherence, as well
as a wide range of explicit organizational devices at both paragraph and whole discourse
levels, and were highly accurate with only occasional problems in organization; essays
rated 2 (Moderate) showed moderate knowledge of coherence, a moderate range of
explicit rhetorical organizational devices, and clear organization, but could be more
explicitly marked; essays rated 1 (Limited) showed limited knowledge of coherence, little
evidence of deliberate textual coherence, as well as a confusing organization or material
that was irrelevant to the topic; and essays marked 0 (Zero) showed no evidence of any
knowledge of textual coherence, as well as no relevancy as far as accuracy is concerned.
Before we proceed to discuss the participants‘ writing performance, it should be
noted that the diagnostic essay and the final essay are slightly different in requirement.
The participants‘ attitude toward the two essays could also be different. As introduced in
the section Materials of Data Collection in Chapter 3, for the diagnostic essay, students
have two class hours in which to write their responses to a prompt. The prompt provided
briefly describes a topic that contains a choice between the two alternatives. Students‘
writing is evaluated for its ability to 1) address the issue and take a clear position on the
specific proposal he/she supports, 2) organization, 3) development of ideas, 4)

147
competency in basic English sentence structure and word choice, and 5)
grammar/mechanics. In sum, his/her response should conform to the conventions of
standard written American English.
As for the final, it is a reading-response essay. Like the diagnostic essay, the final
takes two class hours and is given toward the end of the term. Students need to read a
passage at 10th
to 12th
grade level and appropriate to high school graduates, decide the
key ideas, write and paraphrase a summary of the passage, and develop the essay by
selecting one key idea from the passage, so the final is a critical response in the form of
an essay. Students‘ writing will be evaluated in five specific domains: 1) critical response
to the passage, 2) development of ideas, 3) organization of the response, 4) sentence
construction and word choice, and 4) grammar/mechanics.
As shown above, the final exam draws more effort from the participants,
relatively. At the very least, the diagnostic and the final differ in the importance the
students must have placed on them. For the diagnostic essay, it is possible that not every
single participant paid enough attention to the first class writing. Previous experience
tells us that many ESL students in the class were not even ready for this short summer
course. Especially, for the Chinese students, cultural conflicts and anxiety about their
writing could be some of the factors leading to demotivation, so some participants may
be still in the dark on this demanding and writing-intensive BE205 Advanced Writing for
ESL Students. Technically speaking, the final could be more demanding to some
participants because they had to show their ability to understand a passage through a
summary and an analysis of the passage, in addition to demonstrating competency in
writing. For the Chinese students, writing a coherent and a critical reading-response essay

148
is very difficult because of their cultural intuitive thinking habits discussed in the section
Logical Thinking vs. Intuitive Thinking in Chapter 2. In particular, for those who received
previous Chinese English education, there was no such thing as critical analysis of a
passage. As discussed in the section Over-emphasis on Grammatical Accuracy in Chapter
2, the instruction focus was predominantly on grammar. However, for the final exam,
after struggling days and nights throughout the semester, the participants had to take it
seriously when reading a passage and writing an organized and a well-developed final
essay in response to the passage in two class hours. All the factors mentioned above
could directly or indirectly affect the students‘ scores received on the two assays they
wrote.
The following table illustrates the two raters‘ judgment regarding the participants‘
performance.
Table 5
The Rating of the Participants’ Essays
Name Diagnostic
essays
Knowledge
of cohesion
Knowledge
of coherence
Final
exam
essays
Knowledge
of cohesion
Knowledge
of coherence
Rater
One
Rater
Two
Rater
One
Rater
Two
Rater
One
Rater
Two
Rater
One
Rater
Two
Lili Sun 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 3
Weishan
Qian
2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2
Yiman
Zhao
1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
Xiaohui
Wang
2 1 2 1 3 3 3 3
Gaofeng
Wu
2 1 1 1 3 2 3 2
Hong
Lin
1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

149
Table 5 shows the rating of the participants‘ essays. By scoring cohesion and
coherence in the participants‘ first class essays and final exam essays judged by two
raters with at least five years of experience teaching writing at the college level, we can
get a general sense of how much of their writings is coherent, although the two raters‘
judgments differed slightly. In the diagnostic essays, almost all the essays were rated
either 1 or 2, indicating that those essays were deemed more or less incoherent.
Apparently, the writers were seen as lacking basic command of both cohesion and
coherence in their writing. For instance, these writers may have assumed that their
readers share context with them, and they may have provided no orientation or little
discernible plan, so that relationships among ideas were unclear. In these first essays,
ideas were seldom elaborated; as a result, the development of ideas was often very weak;
the writers presented multiple ideas within one paragraph; therefore, the main focus for
any paragraph was not clear; few, if any, transitions were correctly used to convey
relationships among ideas; the writers shifted topics or digressed from the topic; the
writers used few cohesive ties such as reference, repetition, etc. to link sentences and/or
paragraphs together. Further complicating the matter, the writers made numerous
mechanical and/or grammatical errors, resulting in interruption of the reading process and
an uneven discourse flow.
In contrast, in the final exam writing, as can be seen in Figure 5 above, most of
the participants‘ essays were rated as better written after they had received training
related to coherent writing, but their writing skills were not conspicuously enhanced as a
whole. In other words, there was still much room for improvement in the areas of central
focus, organization, development of ideas, use of reference, accurate use of transitions,

150
etc. Only two among the six participants stand out as getting consistent ―3‖ ratings. To be
more specific, Lili and Xiaohui demonstrated a relatively wide range of explicit
organizational devices at both paragraph and whole discourse levels that could help
readers to make some integration of the text into a coherent whole; an organizational
structure was evident and competently supported the writers‘ central focus and the clarity
of ideas. These two writers also showed competent control in most sentences to support
the clarity of ideas; effective cohesive devices such as sentence adverbs and conjunctions
were usually used to convey relationships among ideas. At the other extreme, the least
successful participants still used a basic or uneven organizational structure that only
sometimes supported their central focus. These writers obviously needed more work in
creating a well-designed organizational plan, improving skills for idea development, as
well as providing sufficient evidence that can clearly support the topic. For these students,
areas such as the logical progression of ideas, appropriate use of transitions, as well as
pronouns of reference, still needed reinforcement if they are to feel comfortable with
Western expectations in this area. To them, this may suggest that arduous is the path to
rewire their brains to learn. The participants‘ writings will be discussed in some detail in
the following section.
Case Study on Writing Analysis: Summary and Short Discussion
In this section, I present an account of what happened to each of the six
participant‘s writings over the course of the semester. In the first part of the analysis, I
made a summary of each text the participant wrote to provide an overview; I then worked
out some ideas about the student‘s problems related to coherent writing, including the
change of strategies or forms in the participant‘s writing over the term. Finally, I

151
analyzed the elements in the writings that might be traced specifically to either Western
or Chinese rhetorical traditions.
Before we move further, to have a clear idea of what the students were required to
write during the semester, as I explained in the section Qualitative Coding for Written
Texts in Chapter 3, again I will present a brief introduction to the three types of essays the
participants wrote.
The Diagnostic Essay
The diagnostic essay was written in the first day of the class meeting was an in-
class pre-test that measured students‘ ability to write a college-level essay. Students were
given a community-based question, which described a situation involving a choice
between two alternatives (see Appendix E). The prompt asked the student to choose one
alternative and try to persuade the reader why his/her choice was the best one.
The In-class Exercise/The CATW Practice Essay
The in-class exercise is a 90-minute timed essay, aiming at writing CATW
practice essays introduced in Chapter 3. Put differently, the students had to complete the
in-class essay in 90 minutes responding to the ideas a passage presented. The CATW
basically consists of three writing tasks: 1) summarize the passage students were given by
stating the author‘s most important ideas; 2) choose a significant idea from the passage as
a central focus of the entire essay; and 3) support the significant idea with evidence or
examples drawn from the student‘s reading, schoolwork, or personal experience. Using
exercises such as this during the semester, the instructor was training students to write a
college-level essay while preparing them for the CATW exam that occurred at the end of
the semester.

152
Following the writing assessment analytic scoring rubric illustrated in the CUNY
Assessment Test in Writing: Student Handbook (2010), in evaluating students‘ essays,
the instructor focused on six elements of their writing: 1) critical response to writing task
and the text; 2) development of writer‘s ideas; 3) structure of the response; 4) language
use: sentence forms and word choices; and 5) language use (grammar, usage, and
mechanics). To improve students‘ skills in those five domains, the instructor had
students write multiple CATW practice essays in response to different reading passages.
For the purpose of this study, I collected one timed essay completed in class from
each participant, including a revised essay based on the 90-minute timed essay. The
revised one was completed at home without time limit. It is necessary to mention that
unlike the in-class timed essay in which the students wrote under pressure, when students
are writing essays as regular homework assignments or revising their drafts, like many
other fellow students, the participants may get help from tutoring at the Departmental
Learning Center introduced in Chapter 3. Especially, for students who still struggle with
basic writing skills, tutors will assist them to improve English proficiency, including
grammar, critical thinking skills, and even reading comprehension.
The participants wrote this particular in-class CATW practice essay within 90
minutes in response to a reading passage entitled ―Going on a Diet? Start Paying in Cash‖
(see Appendix G). In particular, in preparing for the CATW exam, the instructor asked
her students to follow her guidelines (see Appendix G), indicating that students should be
careful to write
(1) an introduction that contains a summary and a thesis;
(2) two body paragraphs, each of which:

153
a. begins with a topic sentence, which contains the thesis and one point the
student plans to discuss in the paragraph;
b. contains approximate 8-10 sentences of supporting details that must a)
directly relate to the thesis and the point the student is making, b) refer back to
the article about three times, and c) use appropriate transition words and
vocabulary;
(3) a conclusion that summarizes what the student write in one or two sentences;
(4) Students‘ vocabulary and grammar must also be accurate.
The Final Exam Essay
The final exam essay asked students to show their competency in the five
CATW assessment categories mentioned above. The skills taught throughout the
semester were reflected in the final exam, which asked students to write an essay in
response to a reading passage they chose, including ―Achieving a Healthful Digital Diet‖
(see Appendix H), ―Is Multitasking Productive?‖ (see Appendix I), and ―No Junk Food in
Schools! (see Appendix J).
In what follows, I conducted the participants‘ writing analysis using Features of
Cohesion and Coherence (see Appendix A) in the following order: Lili, Weishan, Yiman,
Xiaohui, Gaofeng, and Hong. A total of four essays from each participant were analyzed:
the diagnostic essay, two drafts of the in-class exercise, and the final exam essay. Each
essay consists of two parts: Part One: Overview; Part Two: A Brief Discussion. I first
presented an overview of each essay, and then I conducted a brief discussion of the essay.
Finally, I addressed the in-class timed essay as presenting some problems.

154
Lili Sun
1. The Diagnostic Essay
Part One: An Overview
For the diagnostic essay written in the first class meeting, Lili chose the topic of
―Not to Have Children or Have One Child Only vs. To Have a Large Family‖ (see
Appendix E). In her introductory paragraph, Lili claimed that she ―would prefer to have a
larger family rather than having only one child or none.‖ Then she proceeded to support
her point by saying that children in a bigger family would have more siblings, so they
would not feel lonely. She went on to explain in the second body paragraph that children
with siblings could learn how to share things with brothers or sisters, thereby also
learning how to cope with disputes.
Part Two: A Brief Discussion
While the essay took a position on the issue defined in the prompt, and each of the
two body paragraphs contained a topic sentence that appeared to provide the reader with
direction, it demonstrated significant problems in several areas, making Lili‘s ideas often
hard to follow. In the introductory paragraph below, Lili wrote
The age of the population in the world nowaday, is getting more older than past
twenty years. With the medical technology is developed rapidly, there are much
more elders can survive in this era. However, there is another reason that causes
this problem, which is more people choose to have only one child or even not
have children. Because they think they are too busy building a career or having an
education to take care for a family. As my aspect, I would prefer to have a larger
family rather than having only one child or more.

155
This introduction did not seem to provide relevant background information on the
topic: ―to have only one child or to have a large family,‖ even though Lili attempted to
present an overview. There was hardly any logical connection drawn between the
survival of elders and the preference of having only one child. This reminds us that as a
cultural trend, many Chinese writers prefer to first provide an elaborate context that is not
related to the theme (Mao, 2005). This is clearly a pattern found in many Chinese
writings, but one that is seen as lack of paragraph unity in English (Xing, Wang, &
Spencer, 2008). In the introduction, Lili also failed to introduce the two sides of the issue
clearly presented in the prompt while presenting background information, thus leaving
the reader in the dark on this topic.
Moreover, looking at the later sections of the essay, although simple transition
words such as ―First of all,‖ Furthermore,‖ and ―In conclusion‖ were used to connect
each paragraph, the relationships among ideas were unclear later, as they were in the
introduction. Finally, while the essay had an introduction, a body, and a conclusion that
could be traced to Western rhetoric, support was minimal, especially in the second body
paragraph. Lili failed to offer enough evidence or detailed examples to explain her point,
that children with siblings could learn how to share things with brothers or sisters. In
addition, a pattern of errors in usage and sentence structure significantly interfered with
understanding the writer‘s ideas. For example, toward the end of the paragraph, when she
stated ―As my aspect,‖ it seemed to be an ungrammatical transition, which was intended
as a cohesive device but was hard to follow and could trip up a reader. Generally, when
the development of ideas is inadequate and unclear, an essay will not be judged coherent.

156
Of course, all of the problems discussed above resulted in writing that was seen as
incoherent.
2. The In-class Exercise
a) The first draft
In response to the passage ―Going on a diet? Start Paying in Cash‖ (see Appendix
G), Lili first summarized the key ideas found in the reading passage, and then she
identified one significant idea from the article in the end of the summary paragraph,
saying that ―paying with credit or debit cards lead people to be more likely making
impulsive, vice food purchases than paying with cash.‖ After that, Lili explained why she
felt that idea she had chosen was so significant. As she indicated in the first body
paragraph, when using credit card or debit cards, it was easier to make impulsive,
unhealthy food purchases than using cash because there was usually no limit while
paying with credit or debit cards. Toward the end of the body paragraph, Lili used a
transition word ―Clearly‖ to briefly summarize the paragraph. When moving to the
second body paragraph, Lili pointed out that ―paying with credit or debit cards will lead
buyers to be impulsive, and spend more money on unhealthy food products easily
because the ‗pain of payment‘ keeps bills much lower when paying with cash.‖ She
supported both her body paragraphs with examples. However, because Lili ran out of
time, the second body paragraph was left unfinished, and the essay, as a result, did not
have a concluding paragraph. In considering this, coherence is flawed by the unfinished
essay because the reader may view an unfinished essay as pointless.

157
As explained earlier, the diagnostic essay was the first essay students wrote on
their own at the very beginning of the semester. During the term, after the diagnostic
essay, while writing CATW practice essays, Lili followed the writing directions or
writing tips provided by the instructor (see Appendix G): an introduction containing a
summary and a thesis at the end of the introduction, followed by two body paragraphs
beginning with a topic sentence that contains the thesis and the one point the writer plans
to discuss in the paragraph; followed by supporting details directly relating to the thesis
and the point the writer is making, and a conclusion summarizing what was written.
For the in-class practice essays, the instructor briefly wrote her comments and
suggestions about each piece of writing. In the first in-class draft, Lili demonstrated a
good understanding of the main ideas in the reading passage by discussing the advantages
of using cash instead of credit cards to control shopping behaviors and to stop buying
unnecessary items. She also drew upon a variety of personal resources to evaluate and
extend the argument in the article. For instance, she spoke of her personal shopping
experience in exercising impulse control at a Target store by paying in cash, in
comparison with her cousin‘s failure to control impulsive purchases when paying with
credit. She provided additional evidence, citing her mom‘s experiences curbing
impulsive urges in a supermarket by paying in cash. Therefore, the development of Lili‘s
ideas was detailed and relevant to the central focus of the essay. In a well-designed
progression, Lili moved from a summary of the drawbacks to paying with credit or debit
cards, to more extensive ideas with her discussion of personal experiences and
observations. Transitions such as ―furthermore,‖ ―therefore,‖ ―however,‖ ―clearly,‖

158
―secondly, consequently,‖ etc. used in Lili‘s essay clearly conveyed relationships among
ideas throughout the essay, as, for example, the transition from the introductory
paragraph to the second and to the third paragraph.
Granted that we see the use of many above-mentioned elements contributing to
coherence as a consequence of receiving training in the American writing classroom, Lili
still showed some weaknesses in smooth connections between sentences. For example, in
the first body paragraph, Lili said,
―Although the cash she [my cousin] had couldn‘t afford [cover] what she bought,
she had a credit card that could pay [paid] for all the stuff. [However,] [w]hen we
got home, she felt regret[ful], and had no idea why she bought so many
unnecessary things.‖
In the example above, Lili missed the conjunctive adverb ―However,‖ though this could
be the only place in her essay in which a necessary transition was found missing.
However, recall that such transitions are often seen as superfluous in Chinese writing,
where readers are expected to understand meaning connections from context (Xing,
Wang, & Spencer, 2008; Hinds, 1987) without the use of the conjunctive adverbs like
―however‖ to follow a concession. In contrast, English writers are more likely to use such
links to provide explicit information about the relationship between the two sentences.
An important Western idea about coherence emphasizes such overt sentence connections
as is a reflection of logical progression of ideas.
Besides, as we can see in the following example taken from Lili‘s second body
paragraph, she used a comma rather than a cohesive tie when two independent clauses
were joined.

159
However, when she [my mom] walked to the cashier, she saw the total was higher
than she expected. [Since] [m]My mom didn‘t bring any card with her, she had to
pay with cash.
As a grammar rule in English writing, a comma cannot be used to join two independent
clauses. To clarify the relationship between ideas, two clauses can be joined with a
certain cohesive tie that best expresses the relationship between the two clauses in a
sentence. When a cohesive tie ―since‖ is added to the sentence Since my mom didn’t
bring any card with her, she had to pay with cash, the two clauses clearly relate to each
other in a cause-effect relationship between ideas, and the meaning is therefore fully
expressed.
In Chinese writing, sentence pairs can often be simply separated by commas;
relationships are often implied rather than expressed lexically when they are understood
from context, a concept that may not make much sense to an English reader (Wang,
2008). This characteristic can be traced to the fact that Chinese is a paratactic language,
which considers surface linking forms optional, in contrast to a hypotactic language like
English (Yu, 1993; Jiang, 2007), which makes rich use of cohesive ties to show
relationships between clauses. Since cohesive ties are optional in Chinese, it seems that
Lili simply transfers her Chinese pattern into English. However, as she develops more
writing skills, she will use cohesive ties more effectively to tie a text together and
facilitate comprehension (Canagarajah, 2002).
b) The Second Draft
As Lili felt she had done a good job in writing her first draft, she only made a few
minor revisions regarding word choice, tense, and usage when composing the second

160
draft. In her revision, she completed the second body paragraph as well as the concluding
paragraph. It is worth pointing out that, as in the first body paragraph, Lili finished her
second body paragraph with a conclusion introduced by the word ―Consequently.‖ In the
concluding paragraph, she briefly summarized what had been discussed and brought the
essay back to the central image of the passage, thus making the writing unified and
allowing the reader to piece together ideas into a logically coherent whole.
3. The Final Exam Essay
This is the last essay Lili wrote as her final exam for the semester. She chose the
passage ―Achieving a Healthful Digital Diet‖ (see Appendix H) as her topic. Pointing out
that people should not consume too many empty digital calories, Lili summarized several
major details found in the passage. At the end of the summary Lili stated that ―it was
crucial that younger children should not be entertained with screens provided by their
parents.‖ To create smooth transitions, Lili used ―First of all‖ and ―Another reason…‖ to
introduce a topic sentence for each body paragraph. She then proceeded to offer detailed
personal examples to back up her claims advanced in the topic sentences. While
explaining her reasons and supporting her discussion, Lili also paraphrased or quoted the
author‘s short sentences that supported her thesis. She finished each of her two body
paragraphs with a summary sentence, which was again introduced by a transition word
such as ―Clearly‖ and ―Therefore.‖ After developing her ideas, she restated her thesis and
highlighted the two reasons she explained in the body paragraphs, leading in with the
transition ―In conclusion‖ at the beginning of the concluding paragraph.

161
Consistent with what Lili had done since the beginning of the semester, the final
exam essay continued to follow the professor‗s writing guidelines shown in Appendix G.
However, because of the absence of background information, Lili‘s entire introduction
was confusing at best:
According to the author of the ―Achieving a Healthful Digital Diet,‖ people
should limit their time consuming too much empty digital calories. Moreover,
especially children must be supervised by their parents to see if a website or game
had clear educational value. Also, limiting multitasking and entertainment while
studying is important. Therefore, some experts suggested to focus on the example
set by parents. In my opinion, I think it is crucial that younger children should not
be entertained with screens provided by their parents.
Instead of orienting the reader to the situation by expressing people‘s concern about
constant dependence on the Internet and other digital technology that detract from our
time with family and friends in the real world, the introduction failed to explain the
intricacies that were clarified in the reading passage‘s introduction, so a lack of basic
background information left the reader wondering what the writer was specifically trying
to say. To put it more bluntly, one cannot start off writing an essay before telling the
reader what makes the writer write this essay. This significant phase motivates the reader
to read the essay further. Compared with Lili‘s first day diagnostic essay, which had also
failed to include background information, her final exam essay once again did not
provide the reader with the necessary introductory information which could properly
acquaint the reader with the topic. Even though there is no need to add facts, examples, or

162
graphs in the introduction, this orienting move is necessary to lead a reader into the
writer‘s topic. Since it is essential in English to keep in mind the expectations of the
reader, background information in the introduction is part of what makes a text coherent.
According to Bamberg (1983), good writers are able to take the reader‘s perspective from
the beginning and produce coherent essays.
In addition, the transition words such as ―moreover‖ and ―also‖ within the
introduction were unclearly used because they were not used accurately to convey
relationships among ideas. While Lili made the new sentence relate to the previous one in
a superficial way, the statements she made in the introduction were not judiciously
connected. Lili might take it for granted that as long as she added transition words such
as moreover and also, she would be able to create a smooth connection from one written
idea to the next. To understand the difficulty of achieving coherence in writing, it is
helpful to know that this kind of problem is common for English-speaking students as
well, and they also have difficulties with coherence and cohesive ties. Seen this way,
inclusion of transition words without paying attention to the logical progression of ideas
is not sufficient to make the text coherent (Bamberg, 1983; Connor, 1984; Connor &
Johns, 1990).
Additionally, once again language difficulties lead to potential lapses in perceived
coherence. For instance, pronouns of reference were not accurately used in several
places. As shown in Lili‘s first body paragraph, for example, ―Parents should not give
their children the media devices for entertainment, because it will restrict their interaction
with other people.‖ In the sentence, devices is the antecedent it. Since devices is plural,
the pronoun referring to devices must also be plural. Hence, the pronoun it in the sentence

163
does not agree with its antecedent in number. Such problems with local-level coherence
interfere with the reader‘s attempt to integrate details into a coherent whole. Likewise,
lexical problems could be found; for instance, it is not clear what it would mean for
children to be ―entertained with screens‖ provided by parents. Additionally, the unclear
transition words ―As my aspect‖ could have the opposite effect. During subsequent
interviews, Lili clarified what the expression ―As my aspect‖ meant. In her own words,
―It [As in my aspect] means in my opinion.‖ Therefore, while the ungrammatical
transition is intended as a cohesion device, in this case it is hard to follow and can trip up
a reader.
Later in the essay, Lili produced two strong body paragraphs in terms of
coherence. The personal examples Lili gave not only described a situation and drew a
background picture as to what was taking place, but also related directly to the reasons
Lili was discussing in each body paragraph. Since divergent details were not found, Lili‘s
overall point of view (younger children should not be entertained with digital technology
devices by their parents) was easily identifiable and clear. It is also worth noticing that,
while using combined patterns such as summary, cause/effect, contrast, example, addition,
and concession, Lili applied obvious and correct transitional devices in the body
paragraphs that assisted the reader to process the information and helped the reader
follow the flow of her ideas. Finally, while the conclusion was somewhat brief, it was
clear and appropriate.
As seen from above, while using transition words to help the reader understand
the relationships of ideas, Lili sometimes used them appropriately, but sometimes could
not use them correctly (judged from the standards set in this course) as reflected in her

164
introductory paragraph, which reveals that Lili still lacks strong basic skills for using
transition words.
Weishan Qian
In his diagnostic essay, Weishan selected the topic of ―Not to Have Children or
Have One Child Only vs. To Have a Large Family.‖ As he first stated in the introduction,
many people did not want to have children or to just have one child. He took a stand at
the end of the introduction, saying that ―there are many reasons that people don‘t want a
child. He supported his position by giving an example in the first body paragraph, stating
that young college students were too busy studying to have any children. Following that,
he proceeded to give another example in the second body paragraph illustrating that a bus
driver in a travel company was working so hard that he/she simply didn‘t have time to
have a child. He began his third very short body paragraph by claiming that ―although
many people are choosing not to have children, some of them like to have many kids in
their family, because they think nothing is important family.‖ In his conclusion, he
restated some of the essay‘s contents.
While Weishan was asked to think about both sides of an issue (i.e. one child only
or a large family) presented in the prompt and then choose one side he agreed with, he
did not state the two sides of the issue as expected, thereby failing to include enough
background information to make the context clear for the reader. Furthermore, no

165
transition words were used in the introduction to help the reader identify the relationships
among ideas.
To back up his thesis ―there are many reasons that people don‘t want a child‖
stated in the introduction, Weishan began his first body paragraph by saying ―First, for
example, the students in college.‖ With Weishan‘s thesis in mind, the reader expect that
the supporting paragraph is likely to offer a strong reason to support the thesis and clarify
development for the thesis. Unexpectedly, instead of stating a reason, Weishan began the
supporting paragraph with ―for example‖ in a form of a sentence fragment, which was
quite distracting to the reader. In most cases, the phrase ―for example‖ can be used to
begin a sentence once the topic under discussion has already been sufficiently identified.
Therefore, ―for example‖ usually follows a point raised and provides further clarification
or proof. Secondly, since the reader generally looks to the first few sentences in a
paragraph to determine the subject and perspective of the paragraph, with the absence of
a topic sentence in the paragraph, the reader may not have clear expectations about what
will follow. Moreover, the entire paragraph was comprised of random sentences, and
obviously, there was not a clear focus in the paragraph.
Likewise, in an attempt to explain why people don‘t want children, Weishan
began his second body paragraph with another fragment, an example of a bus driver. As
he wrote, ―second, another example for a businessman who work in a travel company,
and he is a bus driver.‖ Again, Weishan did not have a topic sentence for his new
paragraph. Additionally, ideas in this four-sentence paragraph were not adequately
explained and supported through convincing evidence.

166
As discussed in Chapter 2, Chinese rhetoric views the topic-first structure as
aggressive, so placing the main idea before supporting details violates a Chinese reader‘s
expectation (Chu, Swaffar, and Charney, 2002). According to the Background
Questionnaire, Weishan attended junior high and high school in New York; however, he
was brought up and nurtured in Chinese culture. In particular, Chinese values from his
Chinese family environment have arguably exerted a subtle but considerable impact on
him. Since it is an important cultural value for Chinese people to avoid being
straightforward, it is not surprising to see that he has written a paragraph without a topic
sentence. It is possible that deep down, Weishan was not even aware of the need to write
a topic sentence to reveal the main point of a paragraph and to show the relationship of
the paragraph to his essay‘s thesis. Obviously, Weishan‘s style of writing is pretty much
writer-based, which is not uncommon in Chinese culture. In contrast, English readers
generally look to the first few sentences in a paragraph to determine the subject and
perspective of the paragraph. In Western views, the writer needs to take into
consideration the reader‘s expectations, which is an essential part of what makes a text
coherent (Bamberg, 1983). Admittedly, topic sentences are particularly useful for a
developmental writer like Weishan who has difficulty developing focused, unified
paragraphs.
The third body paragraph was under-developed, containing three sentences at
most, including fragments and a comma splice. While trying to develop his ideas by
providing the reader with more evidence, Weishan actually created contradictory
statements:

167
Although many people are choosing not to have children, some of them like to
have many kids in their family. Because they think nothing is important than
family. They enjoy to have a lot of kids and when they grow up they can get
rewards from their kids.
According to Western rhetorical traditions, since Weishan chose to support a family with
one child only, or even no children at all, his idea should be consistent with that position
throughout the entire essay. However, Weishan went against what he stated preciously
and changed his ideas. He claimed that some people also enjoyed having many children
because their children could take care of them when they grew old. Clearly, an English
reader may view this as an off-topic claim. In Western rhetoric, digressive or
contradictory statements in an argumentative paragraph should be avoided in order to
achieve unity and create coherence in writing. In contrast, coherence in Chinese ideas
goes the other way around. Under the influence of Chinese culture and rhetoric, this
combination of two seemly opposing views is acceptable. Understood this way, it is quite
clear that Weishan agreed with both sides of the issue. This practice can be traced back to
the Confucian philosophy of Zhongyong and the Yin-Yang theory discussed in Chapter 2,
which advise people not to go to extremes in judging between good and bad. Accordingly,
it is up to the reader to decide which side to follow; it is not the writer‘s responsibility to
take a clear, strong position.
Finally, Weishan seemed to struggle with the production of words, phrases, and
sentences. Quite a few fragments and usage errors in the essay did affect the
understanding of the essay and gave the reader no help in integrating them into a coherent

168
whole; even though grammatical errors were not usually considered in theoretical
discussions of coherence, they surfaced repeatedly in the data from the present study.
a) The first draft
Weishan wrote his in-class essay in response to the passage ―Going on a Diet?
Start Paying in Cash.‖ In his opening paragraph, Weishan ―summarized‖ several key
points discussed in the passage. He first stated that people wasted more money and
bought more junk food while using credit cards or debit cards. He then moved on to say
that researchers had learned that people spent more money when they used credit cards or
debit cards. After that, he added that according to research, people were likely to
purchase unhealthy food when they used credit cards or debit cards. He continued to
point out that since paying with cash created the pain of payment, it could reduce the
chance of purchasing junk food. In the end, he identified one important idea from the
passage as the thesis of the essay, asserting that paying with cash could control people‘s
impulsive purchases and keep them from wasting money.
Weishan then went on to explain why that idea was significant, saying that
―paying with cash can control the impulse of purchasing [impulsive food purchases]
instead of wasting money because people can experience the pain of payment.‖ To
support the topic sentence, he used an example of how his brother saved five hundred
dollars toward the end of the week by paying with cash. Weishan is exaggerating here. It
could make more sense if he would say ―saved fifty dollars.‖ In his second body
paragraph, he further stated that ―paying with cash can control the impulse of purchasing

169
instead of wasting money because they [customers] have to think twice before they act.‖
To provide evidence, this time he used an example of how his sister avoided wasting
money on unhealthy food while using cash.
Due to the training Weishan had received in the writing classroom, he began to
use stated topic sentences for his body paragraphs as shown above. Compared with the
relative dearth of connectives in his diagnostic essay, Weishan had also learned to use
more cohesive ties to show the relationships among ideas in his in-class essay; these
included ―in addition,‖ ―also,‖ ―furthermore,‖ ―in fact,‖ ―as a result,‖ ―according to,‖ ―in
contrast,‖ and ―in conclusion.‖ While this may be true, he still had some difficulty using
transitions judiciously and accurately. For example, he wrote in the first body paragraph,
After a week, he realized that he had save[d] five hundreds dollar[s] in a week
compare[d] to when he had a credit card on hand. On the other hand [According
to the passage], paying with cash can save [a] huge amount of money because
they are experiencing the pain when they are paying with dollar bills.
Weishan had been discussing how paying cash could help people avoid over-shopping.
As shown above, the transitional phrase on the other hand should be used to introduce an
opposite idea. But here, rather than contrasting ideas, Weishan was actually restating the
idea exemplified in his example: ―paying with cash can save [a] huge amount of money.‖
From the context, ―According to the passage‖ was just the right fit. Therefore, the
transition on the other hand functioned as a misleading cue.
In addition to the inaccurate use of transition words, Weishan confused the cause
and effect relationship identified in the following:

170
Paying with cash can control the impulsive of purchasing instead of wasting
money because they have to think twice before they act. According to article,
researchers showed people are more likely to purchase unhealthy foods when they
are using a credit or debit card. For example, my sister purchased a lot of snacks
without consideration when she paid with credit card. In contrast, when she
purchased snacks with cash, she had to worry so much such as, health problems,
calories and the expire date. As a result, she can purchase the foods that she is
need when she is using cash instead of wasting money on vice products.
According to Weishan, cash purchases are preferable ―because [shoppers] have to think
twice before they act.‖ In the sentence, the because clause creates an unclear reason that
does not explain why or how paying with cash could control impulsive and unhealthy
food purchases. The causal conclusion was drawn without adequate justification.
Weishan confused the cause with the effect, thereby failing to provide a strong or valid
reason for his second body paragraph.
Moreover, this essay contained a great deal of repetition. In particular, Weishan
did a poor summary because he circled around and around talking about the same thing,
providing a ―summary‖ that only contained the main idea of the reading passage. Again,
in the second body paragraph Weishan used almost the same exact example as in body 1,
except it was his sister who served as an example this time, instead of his brother.
Engaging in a pattern of repetition would not help the reader organize a text into a
coherent whole.

171
b) The Second Draft
Writing is about rewriting. Revision allows a student to go back and retool
his/her essay, adjusting it for clarity as well as coherence. As Bamberg (1983) notes,
students in their first drafting cannot always take the reader‘s perspective, but they can
revise their initial drafts into coherent essays.
As pointed out by the instructor on the first draft, ―Body 2 does not give a reason.
It provides a fact which is a supporting detail. Then your details in body 2 are almost
identical to body 1.‖ With the help of the instructor, Weishan made significant revisions
so as to meet the needs of readers. In addition to a change of the reason previously
written in body 2, he also rewrote the example in body 2 to avoid repetition, including
some other revisions made on words and sentence structures. Consequently, Weishan
used this specific instructor‘s feedback to turn his essay into a more coherent piece.
Weishan chose the passage ―Is Multitasking Productive?‖ (see Appendix I) to
write his response in his final exam essay. Pointing out that people could not perform
well when they did many activities at the same time, Weishan used a couple of
connectives to join several major points found in the passage and briefly summarized the
passage. He then took a position, contending that humans could not handle multitasking
perfectly.
The first reason why humans could not handle multitasking perfectly was that,
according to Weishan, humans could not concentrate on more than one activity at the
same time, which was illustrated by an example of his fellow ESL student who failed to

172
complete his homework assignments while listening to music at the same time. Another
reason he used in body 2 for supporting the thesis, which was a bit too close to the first
reason, was that doing many activities at the same time would overwhelm the brain. By
showing why Peter failed two final exams in math and accounting during the same day,
he attempted to prove how the pressure from the two tasks, which occurred one after
another, caused Peter‘s brain to malfunction.
While the opening paragraph provided a satisfactory introduction, the weak use of
transitions such as ―in addition‖ and ―also‖ within the introduction served to weaken the
entire introduction because the writing did not move reasonably or logically from one
idea to the other.
Overall, the organization of this piece was generally clear enough, and the essay
could be read without difficulty. Weishan also showed an attempt to create a central
focus and to put the related ideas together, but support for the central focus was a bit
weak as a consequence of more or less similar supporting reasons, which not only
confused the reader but also weakened the essay.
Another point to stress is that, again, Weishan had difficulty choosing pronouns
that linked clearly with their antecedents, as shown in the following example: ―humans
cannot concentrate on more than one activity, because it with [will] create a conflict
between activities.‖ It was unclear what the pronoun it referred to. Other examples of
misuse of pronouns of reference were identified in several places.
Looking back, from the time when he first took the diagnostic essay exam to in-
class practice and finally the writing of the final exam essay, Weishan‘s writing skills,

173
undoubtedly, improved, even though his writing still shows many problems related to
coherence. At the beginning, he displayed such problems as relative lack of transitions,
absence of topic sentences, contradictory statements and shift in focus, thin development,
numerous fragments, repetition of information, and overlapping of supporting materials.
After one semester‘s training, he began to use the following in his essay writing: a thesis
statement, stated topic sentences, and an obvious organizational pattern, as well as the use
of transitions. These are all cues that can help the reader organize the details into a
coherent whole, even though Weishan still has much room for improvement in his use of
these elements.
Yiman Zhao
Addressing the prompt, ―Not to Have Children or Have One Child Only vs. To
Have a Large Family,‖ Yiman preferred the idea of having more children; at the end of
the opening paragraph he claimed that ―To have a big family is a good way to have
happiness. He then analyzed the disadvantages of having no children in the first body
paragraph. The second body paragraph discussed the drawbacks of the one child family.
The third body paragraph focused on the benefits of a big family, since ―The big family is
the best choice,‖ according to Yiman. The concluding paragraph was left unfinished
because he ran out of time.
This essay showed a failed attempt to engage the issue defined in the prompt.
Unclear connectedness in ideas, lack of unity in the whole piece, misuse of transitions,

174
and problems in mechanics, usage, or sentence structure were so severe as to make
Yiman‘s ideas very difficult to follow. Specifically, the introduction gave no overview.
While relevant background information and clear context were absent, Yiman did take a
position in the end of the introduction by arguing, ―To have a big family is a good way to
have happiness.‖
However, instead of giving evidence to back up the central focus he just advanced,
Yiman made an off-topic claim in his first body paragraph. He stated that ―If they
[parents] don‘t have a child, they will not learn how to take a good care of children.‖ This
claim had unclear logical relationship to the topic of happiness of a big family as stated
by Yiman, and was therefore straying from the point. The reader may also ask: why
would anyone need child-raising skills if they do not have children or do not plan to have
them? It is not hard to discern, from the perspective of Chinese dialectical thinking
discussed in the section Dialectical Thinking in Chapter 2, that Yiman thought
holistically and applied his Chinese strategy of approaching the topic from multiple
perspectives.
The third body paragraph tried to make a valid point; that is, a large family is
more interesting; but again, multiple ideas were identified, as shown in the following:
Finally, The big family is the best choice. Families come together will be very
happy. The family can take themselves things in pass weeks. The more people in
a family make more exciting. For example. My aunt has a big family. She has
three son and two grand children. Every time we come to a couple‘s wedding,
they get enough people sit in a ten people‘s table. That is so meaningful. The

175
marriage family will thing my aunt take more serious than other people do. Also,
her son are good education, because the have positive compare with each other.
In the paragraph, there were three ideas, but only one supported the thesis:
a) Big family is interesting (good)
b) Aunt has enough family to fill a large table (not good, example is not touted
for the positive feature cited)
c) Cousins have good education (not good, irrelevant)
While the sentences were written in paragraph form, they did not seem to connect well
with one another. They lacked unity because each sentence discussed a different idea.
They also lacked coherence because the sentences did not follow logically into one
another. The example of Yiman‘s writing containing multiple ideas in one paragraph is
again reminiscent of the Chinese ―holistic‖ thinking strategies (Zhao, 1999; Li, 2005;
Zhang, 2009) analyzed in the section Dialectical Thinking in Chapter 2, in contrast to the
Western linear approach to a problem, as claimed in Kaplan‘s early work (Kaplan, 1966).
Since the Chinese are used to synthesizing diverse elements into a unit while
emphasizing the whole, many different ideas can be mentioned within one paragraph
(Xing, Wang, & Spencer (2008). Yiman‘s practice would fit solidly into the Chinese
rhetorical tradition, while it may lead to confusing writing in English.
a) The first draft
In response to the passage ―Going on a Diet? Start Paying in Cash,‖ Yiman
created a satisfactory summary by first stating the main idea ―Consumers who are paying

176
with credit or debit cards, [are] more likely to purchases an unhealthy food.‖ He then
proceeded to state the key points presented in the passage. Finally, Yiman identified one
idea in the passage that he felt significant and claimed that ―I think the most important
point is paying with credit or debit cards can cause consumers purchase and eat more
unhealthy products.‖
To explain its significance, Yiman began with a topic sentence ―Paying with
credit or debit cards can cause consumers [to] purchase more unhealthy products because
those products are not as expensive as a TV.‖ He supported his claim by using an
example of his mother who purchased a lot of junk food while paying with credit. After
that, he moved on to the second body paragraph, indicating that ―Paying with credit or
debit cards can cause consumers [to] to eat more unhealthy food…‖ Owing to time limit,
he had to stop writing, so his essay was not completed.
In his first draft completed in class, incoherence was identified in the following
areas:
a) Yiman repeated the thesis ―Paying with credit or debit cards can cause consumers eat
more unhealthy food‖ throughout his unfinished 275-word essay in almost exactly the
same words five times. Repetition of thesis over and over again can be very distracting
and even irritating to an English reader.
b) Transition words were incorrectly used. For example,
―…paying with credit cards can allow people to spend a big amount of money
because consumers feel that the hardship comes from handing cash over to pay

177
[for] it. However [Moreover], consumers are most likely to purchase on junk food
or unhealthy products with credit or debit cards…‖
Instead of using ―moreover‖ or ―in addition‖ to introduce an additional idea, Yiman
confused the reader by incorrectly using ―however.‖ He could not identify the logical
relationship from sentence to sentence. He was confused about when he should use a
transition to add a similar idea and when he should use a transition to show contrast
between ideas. Clearly, Yiman had difficulty creating coherence through a judicious use
of ―however‖ to signify the logical connection between these two sentences.
c) Off-topic claims repeatedly occurred. Consider the following examples:
1. As mentioned in the topic sentence, his assertion ―Paying with credit…because those
products are not as expensive as a TV‖ was off topic because this statement did not have
much to do with the thesis paying with credit can cause consumers to purchase more
unhealthy foods.
2. ―In the article, the author finds that consumers who shopped with larger baskets are
also [also make] purchase of unhealthy products.‖ This was another example to show his
off-topic claim because the idea of shopping with larger baskets is likely to make
impulsive purchase of vice products was not thematically related to the topic.
The above digressive claims can be very incoherent to a Western reader (Ballard
& Clanchy, 1991; Connor, 1996; Timmann, 2003). Interestingly, as the Chinese tradition
allows a ―discursive‖ writing style (Erbaugh, 1990; Liu & Zhou, 2004), where readers are
expected to infer the connections on their own (Mao, 2005), such diversity is fairly
acceptable in Chinese writing.

178
b) The Second Draft
Following the instructor‘ concise comments on his off-topic claims, Yiman
revised his in-class writing. Generally, this second draft was much better than the first
one in terms of sophisticated word choice and sentence structure, possibly due to help
given to him, even though the organizational structure remained the same.
Compared with that of the first draft, Yiman changed his thesis a little bit, noting
that ―I think the most important point is paying with credit or debit cards not only can
cause consumers to spend more money, but also purchase more unhealthy products.‖ This
thesis suggested an obvious path for development, and two following paragraphs would
logically discuss 1) spend more money, 2) purchase more unhealthy products. Yiman,
however, by starting with ―purchase more unhealthy products‖ and then going on to
discuss ―spend more money,‖ switched the order of his points while developing the
paragraphs, which violated an English reader‘s expectations..
Unlike the irrelevant anecdotes presented in his previous writing, the anecdote of
his mom‘s shopping experience, which he used in the second draft, showed that his sense
of anecdote relevance improved because this detail supported the claim made in the topic
sentence, and the paragraph "hangs together" in a way that was easy for the reader to
understand.
When Yiman developed the second body paragraph from the topic sentence
―Paying with cards usually lead to more spending than in paying in cash because of the

179
absence of the psychological effect---pain of payment,‖ he slipped back into the ―old‖
way of creating multiple ideas in one paragraph. Here is the evidence for other claims:
1. Useless things—―No one likes to give away and squander their money so easily on
something useless or never use again.‖
2. Things that people cannot afford---“[Paying with credit] not only trick people to buy
more useless and extra things than they need, but also allows people to purchase
things that they cannot afford at the moment.‖
As can be seen in the above examples, like many other Chinese writers, Yiman continued
to seek a broad range of factors not directly tied to the immediate paragraph topic and
adopted an approach to nonlinear development of ideas (Ji, Peng, & Nisbett, 2000; Ji,
Nisbett, & Su, 2001; Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001).
Regarding logical progression of ideas, the second draft revealed a clear plan with
some smooth progression of ideas. Transitions like ―moreover,‖ ―as a result,‖ ―as
expected,‖ ―according to,‖ and ―however‖ were accurately used as a result of the training
Yiman was receiving in his writing course, and perhaps because of tutoring if he sought
help with his revision in the Departmental Learning Center.
Yiman used the article ―No Junk Food in Schools!‖ (see Appendix J) for his final
exam. While summarizing the key points from the reading passage, he pointed out that
legislation had been proposed to prohibit junk food from being served in school. As a
result, he believed that children should have better and healthier food choices at school.
He went on to claim in the supporting paragraph that when children had better and

180
healthier food choices at school, they would avoid the risk of disease. In another
paragraph, he also maintained that ―children should have better and healthier food
choices because children and their parents do not have knowledge about the bad effect
from junk food.‖ He concluded the essay by briefly restating what had been discussed in
the essay.
As required in the Writing Directions (see Appendix G), when summarizing the
passage, students were to just state the author‘s most important ideas rather than adding
their own opinions. In considering this, Yiman did not provide a satisfactory summary for
the following reasons:
1. Yiman included some information the article did not say, which was deemed off-topic.
2. The entire introduction lacked clarity. Word choice was often unclear and often
obscured meaning. For example, as Yiman contended, ―The law proposes to prohibit junk
food from being serves in school.‖ Here, ―The law proposes…‖ was vague and damaged
the effect of a meaningful introduction. Another example is ―…the law believes a healthy
eating habit can reduce children‘s obesity.‖ Again, the meaning was obscure because a
law cannot believe something, though one can say ―lawmakers believe…‖
Also, in the first supporting paragraph, sentence structures were confusing to the
reader because subordinating conjunctions were absent. For example,
1. ―[When] Children have better and healthy [healthier] food choices [at school, they]
will get away from the risk of [developing] diseases.‖
2. ―[If] Schools ban unhealthy food [, children] will reduce children [‗s] obesity.‖

181
For one thing, Yiman‘s first sentence simply followed the typical Chinese topic-
comment sentence structure discussed in the section Topic-prominent vs. Subject-
prominent in Chapter 2. Mandarin Chinese is a language in which the subject is not a
structurally definable notion and is often hidden as long as the meaning is clear to the
Chinese reader. The topic-comment sentence is a very productive structure in Chinese.
Again, consider Yiman‘s sentence:
Children have better and healthy food choices will get away from the risk of diseases.
Topic comment
In the sentence, ―Children have better and healthy food choices‖ functions as a
topic, not as the subject of the sentence. ―will get away from the risk of diseases‖ is seen
as the comment. In the topic-comment structure, the topic is related to the comment
semantically, but not necessarily grammatically. Yiman seemed to have literally
translated the sentence from Chinese into English.
By the same token, Yiman‘s second sentence shown below was another example
of following the Chinese topic-comment sentence structure:
Schools ban unhealthy food will reduce children obesity.
Topic comment
In addition, since each of the above two sentences was constructed in a typical
one-clause Chinese sentence, the relationship among the ideas was implied. The two
sentences lacked overt conjunctions such as ―when‖ and ―if‖ to show the logical
connections between ideas. Other interpretations are also possible. Due to its Chinese
paratactic nature, the Chinese language is content with notional coherence and features a

182
lack of function words, whereas the English language frequently uses transitional words
to show the semantic or pragmatic relationships between clauses.
Moreover, in the second supporting paragraph, according to Yiman, ―Children
should have better and healthy food choices because children and their parents do not
have knowledge about bad effect from junk food.‖ First, Yiman had trouble with cause-
effect. The relationship indicated by the conjunction ―because‖ was confusing or did not
exist, so the use of ―because‖ did not make much sense here. Having no knowledge was
not the reason why children should have healthy food in school. The relationship could
be much stronger if we change the because clause to something like ―because nutritious
lunches will make children healthier.‖ Then, in developing the paragraph, Yiman
contradicted what he had just said about parents, claiming that ―Parents try [to] provide
more food to their children because they think school lunches are not good enough to the
children.‖ Clearly, this statement disagreed with the topic sentence stated above.
Furthermore, the anecdote Yiman provided was off topic. As described by Yiman, ―My
mother cooks and food for me every day and forces me to eat, after school.‖ This
description, obviously enough, strayed off the point he was trying to make.
All the evidence shown above suggests that Yiman still has many problems with
coherent writing, especially paragraph unity, which is important because it aids the reader
in following along with the writer's ideas. To achieve coherence, then, a writer should
show how all of the ideas contained in a paragraph are relevant to the main topic. In
terms of transitions, overall, Yiman is doing a better job because some simple and
obvious transitions are used in the second draft to join ideas, although effective use of
transitions throughout the essay still needs improvement.

183
Xiaohui Wang
Xiaohui chose the topic ―Mass Transit vs. Cars‖ (see Appendix E) in the
diagnostic essay. He created a title for his essay: ―The Benefits of Mass Transit.‖ After
briefly mentioning two opposing opinions about the use of cars, Xiaohui took a stance
that he supported the idea of using mass transit in the city. The first two body paragraphs
focused on the disadvantages of using cars. The last body paragraph briefly explained the
convenience of using mass transit.
Under the title of ―The Benefits of Mass Transit,‖ Xiaohui was supposed to
present an overview about the two sides of the issue: the use of mass transit vs. the
consequence of banning cars in Manhattan. However, Xiaohui began by simply
mentioning the benefits of using cars very briefly, rather than introducing the two
different issues presented in the prompt to provide a bridge to help readers make a
transition between their own world and the issue Xiaohui would be writing about.
Xiaohui then proceeded to state that ―but some people argued that cars have so many
negative influence to our city.‖ Immediately following this, Xiaohui jumped to the
conclusion, ―I prefer to use mass transit in our city.‖
Since nothing about mass transition was introduced in Xiaohui‘s opening
paragraph, readers may wonder why the writer decided to use mass transit all of a sudden.
Without helping readers get into the mass transit topic, a vague and unclear introduction
like that would probably create a negative impression of Xiaohui‘s argument. Generally,

184
an introduction is an important road map for the rest of the paper. Since Xiaohui did not
get his readers to see why his topic mattered and how he planned to proceed his
discussion, readers may not care much about what he was saying. An abrupt conclusion
at the end of the introductory paragraph may not make much sense to English readers.
For this reason, with insufficient contextual information provided, Xiaohui‘s introduction
had a serious problem with logical progression in the ideas presented.
In addition, since Xiaohui took the position that he preferred to use mass transit in
the city, the reader expects an explanation related to the benefits of mass transit. However,
in the first and the second supporting paragraphs, Xiaohui shifted his focus, explaining
exclusively how expensive it was to use a car in the city and what problems the use of
cars could cause. In the first supporting paragraph, Xiaohui only mentioned one detail
related to mass transit; that is, mass transit cost $2.25 per ride. Readers did not even
know which city Xiaohui was referring to. Only when Xiaohui moved to the third
supporting paragraph, did he start to explain the convenience of using mass transit, but
this was just a three-sentence-long supporting paragraph. In his one-sentence concluding
paragraph, Xiaohui restated the thesis, noting that, ―To sum up, using mass transit is good
for our city and having more convenience for us.‖
Obviously, the central focus seemed to be the disadvantages of using cars rather
than the benefits of mass transit. Since Xiaohui did not fully examine the central issue of
the essay, evidence that supported the thesis was scarce. In considering this, Xiaohui did
not do a great job engaging his readers with an elaboration on the subject matter, even
though the essay contained a thesis, a topic sentence for each paragraph, and a conclusion.

185
a) The first draft
While summarizing the passage ―Going on a Diet? Start Paying in Cash,‖ Xiaohui
indicated that when people paid with credit, they tended to make unnecessary and
unhealthy food purchases. After stating several key points presented in the passage, he
voiced his opinion that using credit or debit cards to make impulsive purchases could lead
to financial debt and health problems for customers.
Compared with the diagnostic essay, Xiaohui improved his introductory
paragraph; he now created a context for the reader to follow his ideas, even though the
overview was short. In addition, the body paragraphs presented more reasons and specific
details from Xiaohui‘s own experience to develop ideas, but the off-topic issue still
showed up in this in-class practice essay.
Specifically, to support his central claim, Xiaohui first explained that ―using the
credit cards to make impulsive purchases causes the problem to customers because it
causes the financial problem.‖ He used an anecdote of his uncle to illustrate that his uncle
eventually went bankrupt due to his inability to pay off his credit card debt. This example
possibly drifted off the topic of overspending in supermarkets because Xiaohui just
discussed overspending rather than keeping the topic on junk food purchases. In other
words, we do not know what the source of the uncle‘s debt was, so we cannot judge
whether the example is relevant.

186
In his second body paragraph, Xiaohui claimed that using credit to make
impulsive junk food purchases caused health problems for consumers. He gave an
example, illustrating that ―my friend Paul who likes to use cards for shopping, and every
time he shopping, he only buys the junk food instead of healthy food.‖ Here, Xiaohui
intended to emphasize how paying with credit made it more likely for consumers to
spend more money on unhealthy food that eventually led to health problems. However,
he failed to demonstrate what specific junk food his friend bought that resulted in being
overweight for his young age of thirty; ―junk food‖ was a very general, vague, and
abstract term that did not give the reader concrete imagery. Therefore, the example
Xiaohui used was nothing more than repetition of what was stated earlier.
b) The Second Draft
In the revision, Xiaohui improved the overall structure by focusing more on the
central claim. In particular, he tied his uncle‘s example to the impulsive purchases of
grocery and unhealthy food, which brought about his serious financial problems.
Moreover, to avoid repetition, he clearly indicated what kind of specific junk food his
friend Paul purchased that red to his being overweight as well as having high blood
pressure. In addition to these revisions, Xiaohui also used more transitions in different
places to convey relationships among ideas throughout the second draft.
Evidently, the focus on the central claim, logical progression of ideas, and the use
of transitions were still challenging for him, perhaps because he had been through many
years of education outside the United States. Although he may be good in other subjects,
his English proficiency was not very strong. Through revision, he could not only be better

187
helped to understand why his writing was incoherent or incomprehensible but also be
made to see that writing was more than just grammar.
Xiaohui decided on the passage ―Is Multitasking Productive?‖ for his final essay
topic. In his summary of the passage, he first noted that people were not good at
multitasking, and that doing multiple things at once decreased productivity. He then
added that multitasking also exerted a negative effect on learning. Therefore, he
concluded that multitasking negatively impacted humans.
First of all, according to Xiaohui, multitasking reduced productivity. His personal
example of cooking while taking care of a crying baby illustrated that trying to perform
two tasks at the same time resulted in a clash between the two. Also, in his other example
of writing an email to his wife while attending a class, he further demonstrated that
multitasking did have a negative impact on learning.
In Xiaohui‘s final essay, most ideas were competently developed. Also, reasons
and specific details were appropriately used to support and convey his ideas. As
compared to the diagnostic and in-class practice essays, the final essay was better written
because, unlike his previous writings, the final essay exemplified an obvious overall
coherence. For example, the reasons Xaiohui gave directly tied into the topic and point
being made (i.e. multitasking negatively impacts humans). An organizational structure
was evident. As shown in the essay, Xiaohui adequately explained why and how the
details supported his claim ―multitasking reduces productivity and negatively impacts

188
learning.‖ Thus, the argument was arranged in a way that made sense to the reader.
Though simple and obvious, transitional words and phrases were usually used to show
logical relationships between sentences. Finally, and especially relevant here, the final
essay generally cohered around one controlling idea. Apparently, Xiaohui has improved
his writing, in that he is now able to integrate the text into a coherent whole as a result of
his semester-long course, which featured training in the notions of Western rhetoric.
Gaofeng Wu
Gaofeng chose the topic of ―Not Banning Cars from Manhattan‖ (see Appendix E)
for his diagnostic essay. He first presented an overview by introducing the two sides of
the issue at the beginning of the opening paragraph. Then he took a position, arguing that
―I am agree with not banning the cars in Manhattan, and reasonly details will be
explained as following.‖
He began his support by claiming that banning all the cars in Manhattan would
create much inconvenience for those who work and study within the area. He continued
to claim that the pollution worsening was a ridiculous reason for prohibiting all the cars
in Manhattan. He finally concluded that it was not a good idea to ban cars in the city.
The opening paragraph was ineffective due to excessive copying of the
assignment question. Successive paragraphs lacked proper development and were also
weak in their focus on the topic. While Gaofeng‘s point of view was obvious, it was
never fully developed. He often made blanket generalizations. For example, ―It [banning

189
cars in Manhattan] might create hardships for them reaching their destinations…‖ No
further elaboration or explanation was presented. Additionally, no knowledge of
Gaofeng‘s personal experience or no references to reading material was displayed.
Moreover, when developing the first supporting paragraph, Gaofeng made the following
other claims:
1. It [banning cars in Manhattan] might create hardships for them reaching their
destinations and more pressures upon the excessively [busy] public
transportation.‖ In the sentence, ―more pressures upon the excessively public
transportation‖ wandered off the topic because it did not support the specific
point Gaofeng stated in his topic sentence ―banning all the cars in Manhattan
would create much inconvenience for those [who] work and study within the
area.‖
2. ―Even though gas prices is rising and parking spots are getting more difficult
to find, but these are the problems for those individual who drives to decide.‖
Here Gaofeng switched to the other side of the issue. Rather than staying on
the topic to explain why and how banning cars inconvenienced New Yorkers,
he drifted off to discuss other issues.
This reminds us of the non-linear pattern of Chinese thinking for Chinese idea
development as proposed by Kaplan (1966). Although Kaplan‘s ideas have been largely
challenged, it seems that at least some of what he observed in Chinese writing is able to
stand the test of time.
In addition to the digressing issue identified in Gaofeng‘s first supporting
paragraph, his second supporting paragraph was not well developed with the kind of

190
relevant details expected in this persuasive genre. To back up his point stated in his topic
sentence ―pollution worsening is another ridiculous point for prohibiting all the cars in
Manhattan,‖ Gaofeng just made one general statement without elaborating on it,
―Because decreasing the traffic really doesn‘t helps decreasing the amount of pollution in
an effective way.‖ Therefore, he did not successfully provide the reader with adequate
supporting details necessary to explain why pollution worsening was ridiculous, and no
personal examples were offered to enhance his point, thus resulting in weak arguments.
Interestingly, Gaofeng came to the United States in 2003 at the age of thirteen. It
is true that he was born and raised in China, but he has been long enough through
American formal education. While he claims in the background questionnaire (see
Appendix D) that he hates writing, he identifies himself as a confident and advanced
writer. Logically, an advanced writer should know how to write a simple essay that stays
on topic and how to elaborate on his/her points. However, Gaofeng‘s basic writing skills
need to be further enhanced, especially in the above-mentioned two areas.
Admittedly, going off topic and thin development in writing are very complicated
issues, so we cannot simply assign the writing problems of learners to either Chinese or
Western traditions. To be more precise, going off topic in essay writing is not a culture
specific issue; it can happen to both Chinese EFL/ESL students and American students.
However, since the Chinese emphasize holistic thinking, they tend to approach an issue
from different perspectives. In Western rhetoric, an effective paragraph should give the
reader a clear sense of what is being argued or demonstrated without straying off topic.

191
The concluding paragraph, while providing the reader with a sense of closure,
digressed from an overall sense of the writer summing up the essay and misused
transitions:
To sum up, if the purpose is to improve the ongoing terrible traffic conditions in
Manhattan, then banning all the cars within the area is definitely not a good idea.
However, people should have focused on the root of the problem, and come with
a solution that can prevent all the masses in the first place.
Generally, the concluding paragraph represents the writer‘s last chance to say something
important to the reader. Although conclusions can take many forms, depending on how
the writer wishes to complete the essay (Fawcett, 2011), it is a good idea to restate the
main point of the essay ―banning cars is wrong,‖ and recapitulate why it is wrong to ban
cars in Manhattan, because, in doing so, it would give the essay a sense of unity.
However, instead of briefly summarizing the two reasons he discussed in the body
paragraphs, Gaofeng argued that people should focus on the more urgent root problem.
Much to the surprise of the reader, in the entire essay he never mentioned what the root
problem was about, so the reader may easily fail to catch what he means. Next, the
transition words Gaofeng used could be improved here. For example, ―If‖ should be
―even if,‖ because the expression even if maybe more clearly fits the context and could
make more sense to the reader, and the transition ―However‖ sounds confusing and could
be misused, because however acts like a bridge to an idea in the previous sentence; the
correct use of however in a sentence would suggest that the sentence disagrees in a sense
with the preceding idea.

192
a) The first draft
In the passage ―Going on a Diet? Start Paying in Cash‖ (see Appendix G),
Gaofeng summarized the main point by stating that paying with credit or debit cards
makes people more likely to impulsively buy junk foods. After presenting the author‘s
most important ideas, he said that he agreed with the author when the author asserted that
paying with credit made people more likely to be impetuous and rashly purchase
unhealthy food.
The first reason Gaofeng used to support the thesis was that paying with credit
encouraged people to purchase unhealthy food because it created more pleasure than
paying with cash. He explained that customers experienced ―pain of payment‖ when
physically handing over cash, thus reducing the joy of shopping. His personal example of
shopping at the supermarket showed that paying with credit stimulated him to purchase
unnecessary food for his daily life while shopping with cash made him aware of his
economic status, thereby reducing the pleasure of consumption.
Gaofeng also pointed out that people‘s shopping habits had a great impact on their
purchasing decisions. As his personal experience indicated, he had the habit of carrying
credit cards with him rather than cash, so like many other people he preferred to use
credit for shopping, which often triggered impulsive decisions to buy additional products.
Gaofeng got off the topic when developing the second body paragraph. He only
made a general reference when discussing how shopping habits influenced purchasing

193
decisions. His anecdote referred to purchasing decisions in general, not to impulsive
purchases of unhealthy food in particular, which was the controlling idea of the entire
essay. Also, while ideas in body 1 were well-developed and provided related details
about how paying with credit stimulated customers to waste money on junk food, the
presentation of ideas in body 2 was unclear and limited by Gaofeng‘s shift in focus
between shopping habits and purchase of unnecessary products
An overall structure was apparent. The essay used some transitions to convey
relationships; however, coherence was somewhat flawed by Gaofeng‘s wandering off
topic.
b) The Second Draft
In the revision, while most of the writing remained essentially unchanged,
Gaofeng revised the reason presented in the second body paragraph, stating that paying
with credit encouraged people to purchase unhealthy food because eating habits
stimulated them to make such impetuous decisions. But elaboration or explanation was
still scarce, and Gaofeng did not seem to clarify what eating habits exactly meant or
extend his ideas to help the reader clearly understand his point. However, to support his
claim, Gaofeng eventually drew an example from his friend who had an unhealthy eating
habit and was addicted to snacks and cakes. Therefore, his friend was totally seduced by
those unhealthy foods when going to the supermarket with a credit card. This example
illustrated how a bad eating habit encouraged people to waste money on purchase of junk
food when a credit card was used.
Compared with the first draft, the second one is more unified and coherent. While
there is little elaboration of ideas in his second body paragraph, such as adding comments,

194
opinions, explanations, and the writer‘s viewpoint regarding what the author says, the
example of his friend‘s eating habit stays on topic and helps the reader interpret
Gaofeng‘s point.
The revision also reflects competence in the use of complex sentence structure to
show relationships among ideas within a sentence. Obvious transitional words are
correctly used so that Gaofeng‘s ideas generally stick together. These features assist the
reader to understand the logic of how the writer‘s ideas fit together.
In his summary of the passage ―Is Multitasking Productive?‖ Gaofeng remarked
that humans were not skilled at multitasking and further claimed, toward the end of the
summary, that he agreed with the author on this point because the human brain structure
was not built to perform two tasks simultaneously. While trying to explain why the brain
structure was not developed to multitask at once, he offered his personal experience of
his failure to effectively have a phone conversation with a friend while chatting with
another friend online at the same time. Another reason Gaofeng presented to support the
central theme is that multitasking negatively impacted people‘s learning ability. Since
multitasking distracted the learning process of memory consolidation, his personal
example of watching a movie while studying for a psychology test showed the
ineffectiveness of learning in multitasking, which resulted in time wasted due to
insufficient attention as well as frequent ―context switching.‖

195
The opening paragraph was deemed ineffective because most of the summary was
exactly copied from the article rather than paraphrased. As indicated in the thesis ―In my
opinion, the most significant idea is that humans are not skilled at multitasking,‖
Gaofeng‘s opinion did nothing to enrich the introduction. This use of exact wording in
most parts of his introduction reminds us of the writer‘s copying in his diagnostic essay;
in a like manner, he continued this pattern in his final essay by presenting the author‘s
words as his own. Deliberate plagiarism was in no way helping to create coherent writing.
It only served the purpose of cheating as well as showing the writer‘s failure to
understand the reading passage and present its content in his own words.
Moreover, as anticipated, Gaofeng still had a problem with staying on topic. As
we can see in his first body paragraph, he did not give a clear explanation of why the
brain failed to multitask when he said,
Humans are not skilled at multitasking, because our brain structure is not built to
perform two tasks simultaneously. When people attempt to perform an action,
their brain works like a factory that produces so-called neurotransmitter, which is
a messanger [message] sent throughout the body that commands each of your
body parts what to do. As a result, when people are trying to perform multiple
actions at once, their brain will produce more than one kind of output, which may
result in an interference between activities.
Although this text contained lexical ties---conjunctions of ―because‖ and ―when‖ as well
as a transition of ―As a result,‖ the reader would not consider the text as a whole to be
coherent. Gaofeng explained the process that the brain went through to perform a task,

196
but did not relate these supporting details back to the reason provided in the topic
sentence. In other words, the elaboration did not present any reason why Gaofeng
claimed the human brain was not developed to multitask.
Hong Lin
Hong chose the topic of ―Prohibiting Cars from Manhattan‖ when he wrote his
first essay. While presenting an overview by stating two strikingly different views of
banning cars in the city, he argued that the city should prohibit cars because he thought
using mass transit was more efficient than using cars in Manhattan as a result of gas
prices rising, parking problems, pollution worsening, and global warming on the part of
the cars. By way of responding to the opposition, Hong used a counterargument to begin
his second body paragraph, claiming that some people preferred the idea of using cars
because it was more convenient for them to travel to the destinations; however, he
strongly believed that using cars would create undue hardships for those people because
of the traffic and parking problems.
Hong‘s diagnostic essay was not considered an effective one. First of all, a great
deal of information in the opening paragraph was copied from the question itself. After a
brief introduction of the topic, Hong did not state his point of view on the topic in the
opening paragraph until he moved to the first body paragraph shown below:
I believe that the city should prohibits cars in Manhattan. In my view, using mass
transit are more efficient than using cars in Manhattan. Because of the gas prices

197
rising and parking problems, people who taking the mass transit would not worry
about these issues. Nowadays, pollution are getting worsening and global
warming. We have the responsibilities to protect our planet by limiting the use of
cars. I recommend people using the bicycles for travelling. It is beneficial for both
humanities and natures.
Some issues related to the above paragraph are identified as follows:
1. Since Hong clearly stated the reason for banning cars in Manhattan and advocated
the use of mass transit, the reader was likely to expect the benefits of using mass transit.
While it was acceptable to say that gas prices rising, parking problems, and pollution
worsening were the major concerns that may lead to people‘s preference of using mass
transit, it would be much more effectively focused and unified if Hong also explained
how efficient it was to use mass transit, thus directly relating the supporting details to the
proposal being presented.
2. Hong wrote on the topic of using mass transit, but an English reader may perceive
it as going off topic when Hong said, ―I recommend people using the bicycles for
travelling,‖ because this claim ―the use of bicycles for travelling‖ was not directly tied to
the proposal Hong was supporting. This could be another example of how Chinese
EFL/ESL writers deliberately endeavor to discuss ―different‖ ideas in a paragraph, a
practice that is in line with holistic thinking, instead of staying on a single subject (Zhao,
1999; Li, 2005; Zhang, 2009).
3. Hong made general statements only, because no specific details related to the
elaboration of gas prices rising, parking problems, and pollution worsening helped Hong
clarify the main idea in the first body paragraph. Opinions are great, but provided

198
examples can make the argument much stronger. From the perspective of the audience,
the paragraph clearly needs specific and relevant examples from Hong‘s general
knowledge of the subject matter to give readers more of an idea for why they should
believe the writer‘s claim ―using mass transit are more efficient than using cars in
Manhattan‖ in his persuasive writing.
In addition to the above issues, again, Hong failed to adequately support the main
point in the second body paragraph. Consider the following example from Hong‘s writing:
Some people favors using the cars in Manhattan because they think it is more
convenient for them to travel to their destinations. I totally disagree with them. I
believe using cars will create undue hardships for them because of the traffic and
parking in Manhattan. Finding a parking spot is like the chance of winning a
lottery. It will take forever for them to find a parking space.
To support his claim ―using cars will create undue hardships for them because of the
traffic and parking in Manhattan,‖ surprisingly, Hong provided the reader with the same
reason ―traffic and parking in Manhattan‖ mentioned in his first body paragraph, rather
than presenting a new one. Hong, therefore, engaged in a pattern of repetition and
circular thought processes. Moreover, support was minimal; development of ideas was
very weak. There was little use of relevant approaches to development. Apart from all
this, throughout the entire essay, transitions were rarely used between and within his
paragraphs to establish relationships between ideas and to create a logical progression of
those ideas.

199
Finally, the concluding paragraph showed redundancy, as it copied or repeated a
great deal of the opening paragraph. With so much repetitive information contained, the
writing could be perceived as boring by the reader.
a) The first draft
While summarizing the passage ―Going on a Diet? Start Paying in Cash,‖ Hong
maintained that people seemed to spend more money on junk food with credit or debit
cards. After paraphrasing a couple of key points identified in the article, Hong identified
one significant idea from the passage to be developed in the rest of the essay, and he
argued that ―I believe paying in cash can limit consumers from spending on vice
products.‖
To explain why the idea mattered in the supporting paragraph, Hong began by
asserting his claim ―Paying in cash can limit consumers from spending [on] vice products
because people don‘t feel pain when they using credit or debit cards.‖ An example from
his friend Jorge shopping at the grocery store revealed that people tended to use more
money to buy ―vice‖ products when paying with credit, whereas they felt the ―pain‖ of
payment when paying in cash, which led to their buying less junk food.
To further expound the significant idea, Hong proceeded to make another claim
―Paying in cash can limit consumers from spending [on] vice products because paying
with credit or debit cards are more convenient than paying in cash. By using his mom‘s
example at the grocery store this time, Hong was trying to stress that credit or debit cards
were the reason people spent more money on unhealthy products.

200
While Hong began with a summary, moved to the significant idea, developed the
central focus with reasons and evidence, ended with an example, and concluded with
referring back to the significant idea, the essay was still seen incoherent, mainly in two
ways.
First, compared with the diagnostic essay in which Hong hardly applied any
transitions, this in-class essay used more transitions, such as ―in addition,‖ ―however,‖
―also,‖ ―because,‖ ―therefore,‖ and ―when,‖ to convey relationships among ideas. On the
surface of it, a logical progression of ideas seemed to be created. However, the meaning
was obscure when Hong said,
1. Paying in cash can limit consumers from spending [on] vice products because
people don‘t feel pain when they [are] using credit or debit cards.
Taking a closer look at the because clause, the reader cannot quite make it out. Hong
used the above statement as a topic sentence for his first body paragraph, but this
sentence does not work as a topic sentence as is. Hong was confusing two ideas:
a). Paying with credit or debit cards encourages spending.
b). Paying in cash inhibits buying unhealthy products.
To get the message across to the reader, we may rewrite the sentence. Possibly, the
connection while could be made to show the contrast between the two ideas:
Paying with credit or debit cards encourages spending, while paying in cash inhibits
buying vice products.

201
2. In contrast, consumers seem to have concerns when they paying in cash
because it eliminates the pleasure of shopping when consumers handing over
their money.
Again, this sentence is confusing. The confusion stems from a lexical choice — i.e. the
word ―concerns.‖ In fact, it is not a ―concern‖ that people have when they pay with cash;
what is at issue here is an experience, or a consequence of using cash. We may rewrite
the sentence as follows:
a) In contrast, paying in cash takes away the pleasure of shopping because
buyers feel the “pain of payment” when handing over cash. Alternately:
b) In contrast, paying in cash eliminates pleasure because buyers are then made
conscious of the real cost of the items.
Apparently, both of the sentences from Hong‘s writing were trying to establish
relationships, but both garbled the essential meaning. Either a confused cause/effect
(paying in cash/paying with credit) or a cause/effect coupled with a combination
of multiple time relationships (concerns/paying/eliminates/handing over) leaves the
reader unclear about the causal relationship of the two to each other. If students do not
use subordination for clear transitions between ideas, the point of the sentence will get
lost, thereby damaging coherence as a whole.
Secondly, the reason, evidence, or examples were not relevant to the central focus.
Consider the following examples:
1. Paying in cash can limit consumers from spending vice products because
paying with credit or debit cards are more convenient than paying in cash.
Nowaday credit cards are global and generalized. People are more likely

202
purchasing with cards. Also they enjoy the experience in card payments
because bills are sent to home and they can finish their payment until the end
of the month. As a result, people are having less cash and more money in the
bank. Therefore, consumers are having concerns and making decision when
paying in cash.
It seems that Hong was making off topic claims here when he noted ―paying with credit
or debit cards are more convenient than paying in cash;‖ ―they enjoy the experience in
card payments…;‖ and the rather confusing, ―…people are having less cash and more
money in the bank.‖ Hong was clearly digressing from the central focus he was trying to
support.
2. For instance, when mom goes to the grocery store, her shopping cart were
filled with the vice products, by the time when she was at the check out, she
found out she left her card at home. As a result, she only bought a few dairies
with her cash because she was addicted to credit cards payment and she
doesn‘t have enough cash. This indicates, credit and debit cards are the reason
that people spending money on vice products.
The above anecdote was not relevant to the thesis because accidently leaving the credit
card at home and carrying insufficient cash did not help to prove the point that paying by
cash inhibited the impulsive purchase of vice products. A persistent problem that Hong
was struggling with seems to be his perceived habit of digressing.
b) The Second Draft
As stated earlier in Chapter 3, for some personal reason, Hong did not revise his
first draft and therefore missed submitting a second draft.

203
By focusing on a couple of main points of the passage ―Is Multitasking
Productive?‖ (see Appendix I) Hong briefly created his summary. He first stated that
humans could not concentrate on two activities at the same time, and multitasking also
impoverished learning. He then claimed that the most significant idea in the passage was
that humans were not skilled at multitasking, which became the central focus of his essay.
To develop this idea, he asserted that ―people cannot multitask because humans
cannot focus on more than one activity at a time.‖ He elaborated his point by describing a
car accident of his friend Jorge who lost focus while talking on his cell phone and driving.
After that, he made another claim ―People cannot multitask because it distracts us
between different tasks,‖ which was supported by his personal example of dropping out
of the advanced class in middle school as a result of playing games on his phone while
studying in class.
To support the thesis statement ―humans are not skilled at multitasking,‖ what
Hong needed to do was to provide valid reasons and evidence to prove why “humans are
not skilled at multitasking.‖ However, he was creating circular reasoning when he said
―People cannot multitask because humans cannot focus on more than one activity at a
time‖ The reason given in the topic sentence, in fact, simply repeated the thesis statement
in different terms rather than explaining why people were incapable of multitasking.
Since circular reasoning involves repetition of concepts while writers explain them, it is a
special case of lack of coherence.

204
Hong repeated the same problem of creating circular reasoning in his second body
paragraph when he stated ―People cannot multitask because it distracts us between
different tasks.‖ While the pronouns it and us were vague because of lacking antecedents,
Hong was trying to say that multitasking distracted them from effectively completing one
task. Like the circular thought processes that occurred in the first topic sentence, the
reason provided in the second topic sentence was again problematic because it involved
forming a vicious circle of words or concepts which had the same meaning.
As shown in the background questionnaire (see Appendix D), Hong identifies
himself as an inexperienced and nervous writer. He is afraid of writing and hates writing.
All this may account for his limited writing skills, even though he arrived in the United
States at the age of ten.
To put it briefly, after having been trained for a semester, Hong, to a certain
degree, gradually improved his performance in terms of transitions and staying on topic.
However, Hong still engages in a pattern of repetition, which could happen to any
students regardless of their cultural and educational backgrounds.
The 90-minute Timed Essay
Before we complete Chapter 5, a few comments on the required timed essay may
be necessary, since the writing process cannot fully unfold in a timed essay. As described
earlier, the in-class essay is a timed essay. The participants had to complete their essays
within 90 minutes. As the CATW exam is a 90-minute written essay, which determines
exit from developmental writing courses and students‘ readiness for college-level writing
and discipline content courses, the advanced composition course instructor has to train
ESL students to complete a reading-response CATW practice essay within 90 minutes.

205
For the 90-minute essay, the participants had to read, reflect upon, organize information,
and respond to the complexities of the reading passage in ways that were thoughtful,
insightful, and articulate. This created many problems for the participants. Lili did not
complete the in-class essay because she ran out of time. For those who struggle with
timed essays, they commonly have difficulty starting and then as a result they struggle to
finish. To help the students write a coherent reading-response essay, the instructor,
therefore, trained the students to plan the time wisely, answer the right question, collect
their thoughts, and even leave time to revise. However, the participants did not do a
satisfactory job for the first timed essay because they wrote the in-class essay under
pressure. That is why Dr. Fawcett commented that most of her students did the in-class
writing poorly, especially in the areas of central focus, transitions, development of ideas,
staying focused, logical arguments, and repetition of ideas or arguments identified in the
in-class writing discussed in Chapter 5. Compared with the revised essay based on this
timed essay, most participants clearly improved coherence in these areas regarding the
overall essay structure, relevance, topic sentences, transitions, and supporting details
because they did their writings without time pressure. Therefore, there is a big difference
between a timed essay and an essay without time limit.
Writing a coherent timed essay is an important skill college students need to
master. The same writing skills that are applied in a prepared essay are applied in a timed
essay. The difference is that the writer needs to use these skills in a prescribed amount of
time.

206
Conclusion
As has been indicated, an analysis of textual data from the participants‘ diagnostic
essays, in-class practice essays, and final exam essays reveals that elements contributing
to coherence changed in their writings over the course of a semester. As a whole, the
students improved their coherence in writing, but as a cultural issue, problems such as
off-topic claims, misuse of transitions, and repetition still remain in their writings.
Therefore, Chinese ESL students need constant reinforcement so as to firmly establish
good writing habits. To help the reader see the picture more clearly, I will briefly
highlight and analyze several themes that emerged in Chapter 5.
Off-topic Claims
In contrast to the notion of paragraph unity, in which one paragraph is about only
one main topic, multiple ideas were identified in one paragraph in the participants‘
writings. Their essays are seen strayed off the point to varying degrees, according to
Western rhetoric. Undeniably, it is very challenging to Chinese learners of English to stay
―focused‖ while writing. However, it must be noted that during the interviews to be
discussed in Chapter 6, these students argued that they stayed on topic, even though their
professor claimed that their writing was off the point. To them, even if an idea was only
related to the main point or tied to the point in a devious way, it would be acceptable,
presumably drawing on ideas from the Chinese context.
Logical Connections between Ideas
Another important common theme that emerged was the participants‘ inability to
provide what an experienced English reader would see as logical connections between
ideas. In analyzing the participants‘ writings, the most troublesome ones that caught my

207
attention were actually linguistic and involved the use of reference pronouns and
conjunctions, which challenged the participants most as they tried to link the ideas in
their texts.
1). Problems with Reference Pronouns
2). Absence of Explicit Transitions As a Result of Paratactic Structure
3). Misuse or Overuse of Transitional Forms
4). Absence of Overt Transitions As a Result of Topic-comment Structure
Failure to Make a “Valid” Argument
Solid progression, as defined in the English cultural context, makes an essay easy
to understand. To an English reader, point A should naturally follow point B and so forth
on at many levels. Some patterns were determined in the participants‘ writings, where
this naturally progression is disturbed or does not exist. In this sense, some of their
writings failed to make an argument judged as valid in the persuasive genre being
considered.
Confusing cause and effect. According to the CATW writing directions, students
are required to develop the essay by identifying one significant idea in the reading
passage and then explain in the body paragraphs why the idea selected is significant.
As discussed in the above textual data analysis, the causal reasoning, however, is quite
difficult for the participants. To many participants, what happens just happens, so the
logical fallacy judged by Western standard is likely to be committed when they
assume that one event must cause another just because the events occur together.
Additionally, the participants confused the actual cause with the effect. They had
trouble determining the actual cause and the actual effect, so they provided unclear or

208
invalid reasons for their claims. Typically, Chinese writing does not have to explicitly
apply the cause-effect pattern for argumentation, which seems truly challenging to the
Chinese, judging from the essays analyzed in the present study.
Repetition. Repetition of ideas was identified from time to time in the
participants‘ writings. Without providing more supporting details to bolster their claims,
they simply repeated by turning around variants of the same point without making any
forward movement. When the reader feels that he/she is being told the same thing again
and again, or the same point is being made twice, bad repetition occurs. The reasons for
repetition could be posited as being primarily twofold. Even though my coverage of
Chinese rhetoric does not discuss valuing repetition, repetition, as a cultural issue, could
be first linked to the Chinese way of non-linear or circular thinking. To better understand
why the Chinese prefer repetition (Liu & Zhang, 2012), it is helpful to revisit the Chinese
culture again.
As discussed in Cultural Thought Patterns in Chapter 2, Chinese culture is
featured with a non-linear or circular thinking pattern, which significantly affects
everyday life. Very interestingly, for the Chinese, quite a lot of concepts have a circular
nature. One typical example is the Chinese Yin-Yang fish symbol in the shape of a circle,
the heart of Chinese culture. The circle gives a sense of non-stop continual movement:
Yin constantly changes into Yang and back into Yin again. The black and white swirls
represent how everything works in nature, suggesting that the same things happen over
and over again. The idea of doing something for somebody else in exchange of nothing is
less common in China than in the West. The reason behind it is that the favor is circular,

209
and it has to come back to the person who did it, which echoes the Western idea of ―one
good turn deserves another.‖
Writing reflects one‘s thinking, and thinking in circles tends to result in verbosity
and repetition (repetition for rhetorical purposes is not discussed here). Chinese students
have problems repeating themselves in essay writing. As L1 transfer occurs in second
language acquisition, repetition is unavoidably reflected in Chinese EFL/ESL writing.
According to Liu and Zhang (2012), most Chinese learners of English tend to repeat
ideas on either sentence or paragraph level. When repetition occurs, miscommunication
in the cross-cultural context follows.
Secondly, Chinese students are rote learners discussed in Memorization in
Chapter 2. Rote learning is based on repetition. The usual Chinese response to a text is to
repeat it rather than analyze it. Since Chinese rhetoric relies on repeated assertions rather
than logical proofs, follows patterns, and discourages originality (Matalene, 1985),
Chinese students are very good at repeating ideas. Nevertheless, that is not the case when
writing in English. What counts is the message a writer conveys. If the writer does not
provide any new information, the sentences or the paragraphs lack any coherence
meaning.
In English persuasive writing, repetition of ideas is considered the kiss of death,
and students who keep repeating will receive a failing grade. Teachers see repetition as
evidence of either poor organization or insufficient knowledge, a way of filling a page
when the writer does not have enough to say. The emphasis here is that repetition creates
circular reasoning, so the arguments in such essays risk being flawed. Apparently, when
repetition occurs in persuasive essay writing, coherence is damaged, if not destroyed.

210
To sum up, the Chinese participants have trouble with many writing issues. In the
real situation, these themes are not so bounded, but relate to the participants‘ overall
situation. The above discussion presents the frequently recurrent coherence-related
writing problems encountered by the participants.

211
CHAPTER 6
INTERVIEW DATA ANALYSIS
Interview Data
This chapter deals with the results of interview data. Two rounds of semi-
structured interviews with six participants were conducted in July 2011 in a classroom of
the College‘s English Department convenient to the participants. Each participant was
interviewed individually twice, using both English and Chinese depending on the
participants‘ choice. Each interview lasted about 45 minutes. With the permission of the
participants, the interviews were recorded and some notes were taken during the
interviews.
The first round of interviews, which I have broken down into two parts (labeled
Part 1 and Part 2 below), was conducted at the beginning of the semester. Part 1 confirms
and discusses a few responses from the participant background questionnaire (see
Appendix D). Part 2 deals with participant responses to open-ended questions about how
the participants interpret components related to coherent writing. Toward the end of the
semester, the second round of interviews was conducted. In what follows, the results of
the two rounds of interviews are presented. The questions are presented in italics and the
participant responses have been summarized for each question.
An Initial Brief Interview Based on Background Questionnaire
In the first part of the first interview, I asked a few questions to confirm key
information given by the participants from the questionnaire, particularly in terms of their
attitudes about English writing and their assessment of their abilities as writers. The
detailed information is presented in the following sections. Preliminary

212
1. Do you like to write in English?
Lili said that she liked to write in English, but her writing was only related to
homework assignments. Apart from homework, she said that she did not write anything
else. Among the four English skills, she claimed, ―My weakness is writing.‖ Weishan and
Yiman both said that they did not like English. They thought that besides grammar
problems, their vocabulary was limited, but Yiman added that ―Chinese and English are
different.‖ He described his problems with writing: ―I wrote something, but the teacher
don‘t [didn‘t] understand the meaning because [of] the sentence structure.‖ Likewise,
both Xiaohui and Hong said they disliked the idea of writing in English because they did
not know ―what to write and how to write.‖ On a similar note, Gaofeng said that he did
not like writing because ―I don‘t know where to start and how to express myself.‖
2. How would you describe yourself as an ESL writer?
When writing in English, Lili said that she was ―nervous.‖ While she had earned a
bachelor‘s degree in psychology back in Taiwan, she had never written an English
paragraph. What she had written as homework assignments had only been separate
sentences, for instance translation from Chinese to English. In fact, she had not started to
write English essays until she had come to the United States one year earlier. As a result,
as she claimed in the questionnaire, she described herself as ―an inexperienced ESL
writer.‖ Weishan also claimed that he was ―an inexperienced ESL writer‖ and expressed
a sense that ―English writing is different from Chinese writing.‖ He said that he did not
understand what English writing was about, and he attributed his confusion to English
grammar. Yiman said that he had fears about English writing in addition to a lack of
experience in writing. Before coming to the US, he had two years of English study in

213
China, but only learned some very basic grammar and simple words like ―apple.‖ While
learning English in junior high in China, he said ―I am [was] not a good student,‖ ―I did
not pay enough attention‖ because he felt that grammar confused him. Since coming to
this college, he had taken this advanced writing course three times. When asked why he
was repeating three times, he said ―I failed twice because I did not pay attention in class.‖
He emphasized his difficulty with grammar again, saying, ―I don‘t know how to write a
sentence‖ because adjectives and nouns were confusing.
Xiaohui said that he hated to write because he didn‘t know how to write.
Although he had studied English in China for six years, he had focused on grammar only
and had never written an essay. Therefore, he had no idea what to write or how to
approach essay writing. Gaofeng described himself as a confident and advanced ESL
writer, explaining, ―I‘m not worried about writing an essay. I‘m good at organizing ideas.
I had ideas in my head. Since he identified himself as a confident and advanced writer, I
asked him why he said in the questionnaire that he did not like English writing, since this
answer seems to contradict his claim to be confident and able as a writer. He responded,
―Because it is difficult. When I write an essay, it‘s a mess.‖ Since he confessed that his
essay writing was a mess, he could not be a confident or an advanced writer. Hong
described himself as an inexperienced and nervous ESL writer. Also, he said that he was
scared of writing and even hated to write. He proceeded to explain that he had been a
high school dropout in New York ―cause I have [had] too many absences. I barely go
[went] to classes.‖ He had failed his writing section when he took the GED (General
Equivalency Diploma) test. When it comes to writing, he said, ―I struggle about writing.
My mind is blank. I cannot think of anything.‖

214
Summary
The participants‘ responses to the two questions stated in the questionnaire indicate
that among the six participants, only one student liked to write in English, whereas the
rest of them did not like English writing. The reasons why the majority of the participants
did not like writing seemed to be varied, but one thing is for sure: they are nervous about
their writing skills, thereby lacking confidence in writing. Their concerns ran the full
range of issues, ranging from grammar all the way to broader concerns such as topic
choice and organization, though they seemed somewhat more aware of the sentence-level
issues that had, for many of them, been the main focus in their learning of English.
The First Round of Interviews: Participants’ Responses to
Open-ended Questions
As discussed above, the first part of the first interview confirmed and elaborated on
responses from two key questions from the questionnaire. This section will deal with the
results of the second part of the first interview. The results will be presented under
headings that consist of the main interview questions involved; topics to be covered here
largely focus on the participants‘ early learning experiences, their knowledge about
persuasive writing in their first language, their views of writing in both Chinese and
English, their awareness of audience and purpose in their writing, their awareness of
coherence in writing, and their comments on the diagnostic essay they wrote in the first
class meeting.
1. Did you ever have a teacher that helped you a lot with your writing? If so, can you
talk a bit more about this experience?
All the six participants responded that none of them received much help from
their previous writing teachers. Of the six Chinese students, Lili, Xiaohui, Weishan had

215
similar English learning experiences. They said that they did not get much help with their
English writing from their English teachers. According to Lili, she was a college graduate
in Taiwan with a major in psychology, but she did not have any previous English essay
writing experiences in Taiwan. As for Xiaohui, he was a high school graduate in China
and had received formal English education for six years before he came to the United
States. He claimed that his English teachers were only interested in grammar instruction.
Weishan highlighted that even teachers in this college focused on his language use and
grammar. Therefore, Lili, Xiaohui, and Weishan were all impressed by their teachers‘
emphasis on sentence structure and grammar.
To be more specific, Lili said ―I haven‘t met a teacher who taught me a lot in
writing.‖ She also claimed that she had written only sentences, including sentence
translations, and had very rarely written a whole paragraph in her memory, so she felt her
writing was very weak. Xiaohui shared similar views of grammar learning experiences.
He recalled that ―In China, we don‘t write essays. We write a short paragraph, not an
essay. We focus only on grammar. They [his English teachers] don‘t care the paragraph
makes sense or don‘t make sense. They don‘t care. They care only about grammar.‖
Similarly, Weishan said that he did not meet a teacher in China who could give him help
in writing. He went on to emphasize that in the past he did not learn much either while
taking the intermediate composition course and the advanced composition course. At the
college level, Weishan claimed that the writing teachers ―only fixed grammar, sentence
structure, vocabulary, spelling, but didn‘t explain well.‖ In contrast, he praised his
current class: ―the teacher teaching me now helps me a lot,‖ because ―the teacher told us
to use transition words‖

216
Weishan makes a good point here. Teaching transitional words is important to
Chinese learners of English because they tend to misuse transitions or simply omit them.
They have a lot of trouble identifying relationships among ideas. Teaching them earlier in
their learning stages to use simple transitions such as ―for this reason‖ and ―however‖
could help them provide logical organization and improve the connections between
thoughts.
Obviously, Lili, Xiaohui, and Weishan did not have a teacher who helped them a
lot with their writing, according to them. What they had learned seems to have been
primarily about grammar and sentence structure.
In contrast, Yiman‘s case differed considerably from the above three participants.
Based on the information he provided in the background questionnaire, he has been
repeating this course for three times, even though he had been through high school in
New York. He said that he had fears about writing. However, he claimed that both his
high school and college teachers helped him a lot with his writing. ―They fixed my
sentence;‖ ―They give me the better vocabulary to use in the sentence;‖ and ―They
showed me the structure to write an essay.‖ He continued to explain that a professor in
this college forced him to write essays. ―When she asked you to write an essay, you
need[ed] to write well. Otherwise, she wouldn‘t accept it. She wouldn‘t even read and
return to me right away. You must follow her structure. If not, she won‘t accept.‖ Yiman
means that his current professor was strict and had rules for the class to follow to ensure
that the students were learning. From this perspective, he felt that his professor was
helping him a lot with his writing.

217
Since Yiman has received so much help from American teachers both in high
school and in college, one might ask, ―why does Yiman keep repeating the course and is
still unable to exit from the remedial/ESL writing course? The reasons are complicated.
In this matter, Gaofeng and Hong have similar circumstances.
Both Gaofeng and Hong had come to the US when they were elementary school
students. Surprisingly, their experiences did not seem richer or more varied than the
participants who had learned English in China, in spite of the fact that they had spent the
better part of a decade in the U.S. Gaofeng said that he had learned some basic
communication skills in an ESL class when he was a middle school student. While in
high school, he had learned grammar and vocabulary but did not remember anything in
relation to essay organization, so he said that he did not get much help from writing
teachers. Even worse was Hong who said that he did not learn anything about writing
because he did not like writing. Hence, he completely forgot what writing teachers had
taught him. This result is puzzling, since one would expect the extra time in English-
speaking society to have given these students an advantage. However, their academic
performance is not that promising. According to Huang and Brown (2009),
―Confucianism meets Constructivism in North American universities and our classrooms
are failing to meet the educational expectations of Chinese students‖(p. 643). It seems
that the ESL middle and high school education may have some drawbacks or may not be
focused on helping students to succeed in American classrooms.
2. What are the most important elements in Chinese persuasive writing? What have you
learned about organizing an essay (for instance, introduction, body, and conclusion,
etc.)? Do you remember your classes in your home country teaching about this? If so,
what were you taught about “good writing?”

218
Both Lili and Xiaohui stated that evidence was important in Chinese persuasive
writing, but neither of them mentioned logical arguments. First, Lili said ―I think you
have to give evidence, supporting details. We use contrast and comparison. Actually, I
think both Chinese and English are the same thing. Introduction, and then you got the
body, which means, the supporting details, then, finally the conclusion. For introduction,
our teacher [in Taiwan] says that we can use the kai-men-jian-shan (i.e., come straight to
the point) method. Another way is ask a question. You can answer the question in the
body. In the second body paragraph, you discuss about the topic, and the following
paragraph like the third paragraph you will provide some example. One body could be
your view, and another body would be example. There is another way too. One point in a
paragraph, and another point in another paragraph.‖ For Lili, what was considered ―good
writing‖ in Taiwan was that ―First of all, you have to attract the reader‘s attention.‖ She
was taught to focus on cuo ci (i.e., diction/choice of words). In terms of good writing, she
said that the most important thing was ―I think, xiu-ci-ji-qiao (i.e., rhetorical devices) and
the word use, such as bi-yu (i.e., metaphor/simile), and kua-zhang (i.e., hyperbole).‖
In terms of essay organization, what Lili described seems to be what is valued in
Western rhetorical traditions, so she transferred much of what she learned in Chinese to
English. Writers like her are struggling with language competency issues, the use of
transitions, and understanding reader expectations. However, when it comes to good
writing in persuasive discourse, there is a big difference between Chinese and English.
By ―attract the reader‘s attention,‖ Lili suggests that good Chinese writing depends
heavily on figures of speech as well as the use of maxims, proverbs, idioms, etc. to make

219
the writing ―beautiful‖ and attractive. Of course, coherence and logical arguments do not
seem to be the focus in the Chinese context.
Xiaohui‘s response differs slightly from Lili‘s, but it is similar in many ways.
Unlike the multiple body paragraphs described by Lili, Xiaohui said that a Chinese
teacher taught him to follow a three-paragraph structure introduction, one body, and one
conclusion when he wrote a Chinese persuasive essay. In particular, he added that he
learned what was called zong-fen-zong (i.e., introduction, body, and conclusion). ―Zong,‖
according to Xiaohui, means that the author introduces the topic in the introduction;
―Fen‖ refers to an explanation in the body; and finally Zong is the conclusion. Like Lili‘s
description, Xiaohui presented a basic persuasive essay structure that basically follows
the pattern of an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Xiaohui emphasized that ―using
idioms‖ was considered good writing because ―idioms were powerful and they could
seize the reader‘s attention.‖ This response is consistent with Lili‘s description of good
writing. The use of ―beautiful‖ language seems to be the focus of persuasive writing for
both of these participants.
Weishan, in contrast, stated that ―I forgot how to write Chinese essays.‖ As
mentioned earlier, he did not finish elementary school in China before moving to the
United States. Likewise, Yiman claimed that he did not remember what he learned in
middle school, saying that ―I did not remember we have learned that [persuasive writing].
It [persuasive writing] was beyond my ability. In junior high school [in China], we just
wrote very simple writing.‖ However, he does hint at having developed an early
awareness of cultural differences: ―In my memory, my teachers did not teach me the way
Americans are doing here like introduction, body… My teachers in China did not teach

220
that way. They taught us to catch the key point, and then develop focusing on this key
point.‖ I learned that [organization] in the after-school class. They taught in the same way
what to write in the first paragraph, what in the second paragraph, and then summarize.
Quite similar.‖ Judging from this, Weishan and Yiman may have acquired most of their
persuasive writing skills in the United States, since they did not remember what they
learned in China.
Gaofeng and Hong both reported that since they came to the United States when
they were still elementary school students, they had no school experience of Chinese
persuasive writing, so they did not have ideas about what good Chinese writing was
about. Gaofeng did say that he kept a journal when he was younger, though he had not
felt the need for guidance with such informal writing: ―That‘s just like free writing.‖
Hong explained that he had learned some Chinese history and poems at the college when
taking a Chinese class. Like Gaofeng, Hong did not remember anything about Chinese
writing, not to mention what was considered ―good Chinese writing.‖
3. How did you learn English writing in your own country? Please describe your early
writing experience in school. What features were you taught that a good English
persuasive essay must have?
None of the six participants reported any learning experience with English
persuasive writing back in their own country. Lili said that unlike Chinese writing,
English learning in Taiwan was only involved in ―sentence translation, or maybe a mini-
paragraph.‖ ―They provide a topic and a short paragraph in Chinese. Then you translate it.
It‘s not like we need to have an introduction, the body and conclusion. We just need to
write a very short paragraph. I think 120 words.‖ She further explained that students had
to take an English writing test in Taiwan when going to college. The one- hundred-and-

221
twenty-word paragraph was required by the college entrance exam. When asked what
was emphasized in writing a good English paragraph, she said that they focused on
―grammar thing, word usage, sentence structure, tense.‖ However, in addition to grammar,
she explained that one of her teachers, unlike the others, had taught her transition words
too; transition words were not often taught in Taiwan. In a similar vein, Xiaohui said that
when he learned English in China, he only paid attention to grammar and vocabulary.
In contrast to what Lili and Xiaohui had learned about English writing, Weishan‘s
experience was much more minimal. He said that he had only learned the twenty-six
English letters of the alphabet. ―I just studied ABC in the 4th
grade.‖ Likewise, Gaofeng
and Hong had no relevant memories about writing in English, since they were too young
to learn English essay writing in China. Gaofeng mentioned that he learned some basic
vocabulary as well as the basic structure of a sentence, such as ―How are you?‖ and ―May
name is…,‖ whereas Hong indicated that he had totally forgotten what he had learned in
China.
Yiman‘s English learning experience in China, however, was different. In
addition to learning some basic vocabulary, he said that during his two years of study in
junior high, ―the teacher gave you a picture with questions such as ‗what do you think he
is doing?‘ and you write like five sentences, a little paragraph. Yiman then gave an
example of what he wrote, saying that ―Sunday morning, Xiaoming or something is
walking on the street…‖ Given Yiman‘s earlier claims, however, it is safe to conclude
that these simple exercises in description did not include instruction on relationships
between ideas, or on paragraph organization.

222
4. What did you think about before writing an essay, either in English or in Chinese, in
your country? Do you feel there was difference in the way you wrote in English, as
compared with how you wrote in Chinese?
As stated before, nobody in the group had written any English essays. What they
had written in English had only consisted of sentences or sometimes a short paragraph.
Weishan, Gaofeng, and Hong all said that they had not experienced any essay writing in
either their first or second language back in China. They had even forgotten what they
had done in Chinese writing if there had been any, so they had nothing to report and
compare with when asked about their writing in the two languages.
When it comes to Chinese essay writing, only Lili, Yiman, and Xiaohui could offer
some writing experience. Lili said that before writing Chinese essays, ―I have to think
how I start my introduction, the topic, how I can develop the topic, how I develop my
body paragraph, and how to connect the bodies. In terms of the difference in the way she
wrote between Chinese and English writing, Lili said that she focused more on essay
organization as well as rhetorical devices in Chinese writing, while in English writing
grammar and word usage were more important than anything else.
Yiman offered more extensive comments, which suggested (in a different way)
that language issues were blocking his ability to think of essay organization in English, or
to apply the principles he had learned in Chinese writing when writing in English. In his
opinion, Chinese and English writing were ―totally different in several ways.‖ First, in
Chinese writing, he said that he ―think of some examples related to the topic before
writing,‖ and ―nothing more.‖ When he wrote in English, he said that because he had a
lot of difficulty with grammar and vocabulary, he had a hard time thinking. As a result,
he said, ―I did not think‖ and wrote whatever he could when he wrote in English, but he

223
mostly wrote separate sentences. Second, he said that ―in Chinese writing, we use a lot of
idioms‖ to refine the writing style because the teachers love that. Finally, Chinese
sentence structure was different from that of English because English sentences had
inverted order which made it hard for him to write.
Xiaohui spoke in similar terms, which made it feel as if the form of English
instruction had actually undermined his ability to utilize what he had learned in Chinese
about writing. Before writing a Chinese essay, Xiaohui explained that, like Yiman, he
thought about ―how to organize a paragraph. ―I need to decide which direction I should
go to before I go to details. That‘s why it is called zong-fen-zong (introduction, body, and
conclusion). I need to know where to go first and how to end.‖ In English writing, in
contrast, Xiaohui said that the teacher did not care about how to organize the writing
because grammar was most important. In junior high, he stated that he learned to do
multiple choice questions and never wrote any English till he moved to high school,
where he began to write some English sentences, but still focused on grammar and did
not move on to study paragraph or essay organization.
5. When you learned to write in your country, did you think about who would be reading
the essay? Did your teachers encourage you to think of a reason you might want to
write an essay, even if it was a class assignment?
To answer these questions, Weishan, Gaofeng, and Hong did not report much,
since they moved to the United States at a younger age, as noted earlier. Among the three
participants, only Weishan identified a reader, and minimally, he said that in his memory
the teacher was the only reader when he wrote. In much the same way, Lili, Yiman, and
Xiaohui expressed similar ideas, and they all said that only the teacher would be the
reader, and especially for a final test or a college entrance exam, only teachers would

224
read what they wrote. Yiman even said that he did not care who would be reading his
writing. Xiaohui pointed out that his teachers had never explained to students who would
be the reader.
Aside from those views about who would be the reader, participants also briefly
touched on other notions, such as the reason or goal for writing. Lili said that while she
did occasionally write Chinese persuasive essays in Taiwan, teachers did not encourage
students to think of a reason for an essay topic. In any case, they had done more
descriptive and narrative writing rather than persuasive writing. Yiman added he did not
remember if the teacher ever encouraged him to think of a reason for a topic. Then
Xiaohui commented that the teacher did not care about reasons; once again, he felt that
the only thing the English teachers cared about was grammar.
6. Did you learn about coherence in writing in your country? What did your classes talk
about in terms of organizing information, for instance, in a paragraph? Were you
encouraged to draw relationships between ideas in your writing? If so, in what way?
In answering this question, the participants were split into two groups. Lili,
Yiman, and Xiaohui claimed that they knew something about what coherence was,
whereas Weishan, Gaofeng, and Hong were absolutely ignorant of it. Lili said that she
learned about coherence and reiterated some of what she had earlier said about patterns.
For instance, she described how she was taught qi-chen-zhuan-he (meaning introduction-
development-turn-conclusion) in Chinese writing. ―I think that‘s coherence,‖ said Lili.
Interestingly, she emphasized one important difference, as she commented on the third
part of this pattern. In doing so, she showed a sophisticated understanding of one
difference between Chinese and English rhetorical patterns. ―We use ‗zhuan‘ (turn),
which is usually the ‗opposite‘ way, to highlight the point. We use contrast.‖ She

225
continued: ―Americans don‘t understand us. They think it‘s irrelevant, but it‘s a common
practice in Chinese writing.‖ That is a good point. In the Chinese context, it is common to
further support one‘s views by turning to the reverse side of the argument, hence winning
over readers. However, this ―turn‖ step may suggest a non-linear pattern as perceived by
an English reader, thus possibly failing to contribute to coherence.
Lili went on to show that she was aware of the relative lack of transition words
expected in Chinese, and of the fact that the English notion of ‗coherence‘ did not seem
to be stressed in Taiwan. ―In Chinese, we don‘t need to make connections between
sentences, but my teacher, only [one] teacher, taught us to use transitions to connect ideas
in English writing.‖ In addition, she continued, she realized that in English, ―You cannot
talk too much and get off topic.‖ Lili‘s response implies that Chinese and English
rhetorical values seem to be in subtle conflict, and that the differences are likely to
confuse Chinese learners of English.
Both Yiman and Xiaohui said that they had learned about coherence in Chinese
writing. For example, Yiman said, ―I remember, the teacher told us about chen-shang-qi-
xia‖ [i.e., a connecting link among ideas between the preceding and the following], but he
added that he did not know much beyond that. Cheng-shang-qi-xia literarily means
―continue from the above and introduce the following.‖ This Chinese concept echoes the
notion of coherence in the English context. Most Chinese-speaking students should know
this concept because it is a common Chinese expression, especially in the writing area. It
often reminds people of the connections between ideas. Paradoxically, how to
demonstrate these connections in Chinese writing may not be explicitly taught or
emphasized in the writing classrooms in China, again possibly as a result of Chinese

226
intuitive thinking. Therefore, most Chinese students do not have these writing skills.
Yiman may have an obscure sense of making connections among ideas in writing, but
cheng-shang-qi-xia is an elusive concept to him, so he does not know how to clarify this
point, not to mention applying this writing skill.
Xiaohui seemed to know more about coherence than Yiman. He first spoke about
chronological order, which can be important in narrative: ―I remember the time order or
something like what I did in the morning, in the afternoon, in the evening. In time order,
you must start with the morning, and then go to the evening.‖ In terms of organizing
information, he said that you could use ―zong-fen-zong‖ (introduction, body, and
conclusion) as discussed above. Like Lili, he was aware of a cultural difference in the
idea of going ―off topic‖: ―In Chinese writing,‖ he proceeded to say, ―completely
digressing was not allowed, but digressing a little bit was ok.‖ However, when it comes
to English writing, he did not complete the analogy. Instead, he reverted to the theme that
organization did not seem to matter in his early English writing. He said, ―I really don‘t
remember how to organize information in a paragraph. I just remember we translated
sentences from Chinese into English.‖
Finally, when asked if they learned about coherence in writing in China, Weishan,
Gaofeng, and Hong all said that they did not know anything about it.
7. Can you tell me a bit more about your writing of the diagnostic essay that you wrote
in your first class meeting? Did you enjoy writing it? What came easiest for you, and
what gave you most problems?
When talking about what Lili wrote in the diagnostic essay, she felt like she was
not good at writing. Especially, she explained that she was not sure about the word usage
in that piece of writing. Actually, what could really bother a reader of her essay was not

227
simply her problems with word usage and some confusing sentence structures she created,
but the unclear relationships between ideas as well as a problem with the main idea focus
as a result of the lack of paragraph unity and her inaccurate use of transitions discussed in
Chapter 5. She did not mention any of these organizational issues in her concerns about
her writing ability. Like Chinese learners of English, she felt that grammar, sentence
structure, and vocabulary are more important than anything else.
Weishan said that the topic for the diagnostic essay was pretty easy, so he did not
have a hard time writing the essay, but he felt that grammar was the most challenging
part, such as the past perfect tense and missing of an ―s‖ in a plural form. He was not
aware of more serious issues until I asked about his contradictory statement and other off-
topic claims. He explained that he had never learned how to organize a paragraph or an
essay. He did not realize that his claims were off topic; he simply wrote on and on once
he began to write in English.
In a similar way, Yiman said that although nothing seemed easiest for him, he
found it okay to write this essay because he thought he had chosen an easy topic. When I
asked him what gave him the most problems, he replied, ―When I write, I don‘t have
confidence in sentence, grammar. I have difficulty with building sentences.‖ In fact, his
writing had many serious problems such as unclear central focus, inaccurate use of
transitions, and digression; but he mistakenly thought that his main problems were just
grammar issues. Once again, the theme from the previous section re-emerges; as the
participants reflect on their writing, they again feel that, to become effective writers in
English, they need only master the sentence-level grammatical forms that they had been
taught to focus on as English learners.

228
Xiaohui felt that he did quite a satisfactory job in his first essay; like the previous
participants he was unaware of major problems in his writing. In his mind, ―as long as
grammar is ok, it [writing] is alright.‖ He actually made many general statements with
little elaboration in his essay, and he was not able to use transitions to connect ideas
between sentences, but he did not realize that he had problems in these areas, or generally
with logical progression of ideas.
In contrast to other participants, Gaofeng did offer comments about the essay
content. He said that he had used brainstorming to organize information, so he thought
organizing his ideas was quite easy for him, whereas finding details to support his point
was the hardest part. Indeed, his essay was not well developed. In addition, his writing
involved many issues related to incoherence, such as inaccurate use of transitions, unclear
central focus, and digression. At this point, like other participants, he was not aware of
these serious issues in writing. Finally, he did not realize that he had excessively copied
the information from the prompt.
Hong also went beyond sentence grammar, but in a negative statement. He said
that he did not know how to construct an essay because he had ―no idea about the essay
structure,‖ which was the hardest area for him. He also said that ―I struggled how to start
the essay. The starting part is difficult. Once I start writing, I can free write.‖ Because he
preferred to ―free write,‖ he felt that the body paragraphs were easy. Owing to his
difficulty starting the essay, he had copied a lot of information from the prompt.
In our conversation, I mentioned that constant free writing without a clear plan of
organization would result in digression. ―Who cares?‖ he responded, ―as long as it
focuses on the main idea.‖ When asked why he failed to give examples from his general

229
knowledge, his reading, or personal experience to support his claim as required by the
writing directions, he replied quite simply, ―I don‘t like giving examples.‖ Also, the
thesis statement was absent in his writing, so he did not even follow the prompt to take a
position he decided to support. What was worse, there were different ideas included in his
paragraph that made it difficult for the reader to follow. In his own words, when asked
about this, he again showed little concern, replying simply again, ―That‘s because I free
write.‖
To sum up, what has been stated above is taken from the first round interview.
Next, the second round interview data will be presented.
The Second Round of Interviews: Participants’ Responses to
Open-ended Questions
The second round interview was conducted when the class moved to the second
half of the semester; the aim was to have a closer look at how the participants were
feeling, what they were experiencing in the American writing classroom, and how they
were progressing with regard to improving coherence in their writing. As previously, the
data presented here will be organized under the main questions covered in the interview.
1. Tell me a little about your advanced English writing class. What kinds of things do
you feel you are learning in the class?
A common theme about what the participants learned from this writing class was
identified. Lili, Weishan, Xiaohui, Gaofeng, and Hong all claimed that they learned how
to use transition words to help idea organization in their essay writing. Besides, Yiman
and Gaofeng said they learned how to keep a paragraph focused as they wrote. More
specifically, Lili responded that the most important thing she learned in the writing class
was the essay structure. Although she learned about the introduction, body paragraphs,

230
and conclusion before in a lower level writing class, her professor now strongly
emphasized structure, including idea organization, the writing of the topic sentences, and
the details needed to support the main idea. Lili added that ideas in her earlier writings
might have been too general; other teachers had said that some parts in her writing were
weak and more details were needed to support the topic sentences. She admitted that this
was a problem for her. While taking this course, she felt like she had improved a little,
but not as much as she needed, because she still could not elaborate on her ideas.
What impressed Weishan most was the experience of writing a summary in
response to others‘ texts. He felt like he was learning how to use his own words to write a
summary step by step. He was also learning to use transition words to organize ideas
while doing the summary. In addition, he mentioned that in the introduction, he learned
to state the thesis statement, and in the body paragraphs, he needed to give reasons and
examples to support the key ideas. Yiman said that the most important thing he learned in
the class was that when he wrote a body paragraph, he would state the main idea and then
support it without going off topic. He went on to explain that before he took this course,
he never thought there was a problem with being off topic. Now he understood that the
reader would feel frustrated if his writing was off topic. To help him stay on the topic, he
now believed that writing a topic sentence was very helpful. To focus on the topic, he
needed to use related details.
According to Xiaohui, he had gained a better understanding of how to organize an
essay after taking this writing class. To illustrate his point, he said that he had learned
how to use transition words to help his ideas flow naturally. He proceeded to state that he

231
had learned about transitions before, but had never included them in his writing. ―So they
are [were] useless; but now I am clear they are important,‖ he said.
Gaofeng claimed that he had learned a lot from the writing class. ―My grammar
was improved. I learned how to write an essay smoothly.‖ Expanding on the phrase,
―write an essay smoothly,‖ he pointed out that he ―learned to use transition words.‖ He
also learned ―how to focus on the main idea,‖ saying, ―You have to demonstrate your
idea clearly.‖ As for Hong, he cited a broader range of new learning, asserting as a
summary statement that he learned ―how to pass the writing test.‖ In particular, to pass
the test, he had to learn many different things in the class, in areas including sentence
structure, transition words, grammar, topic sentences, and the thesis statement.
Undoubtedly, the participants have more or less improved their writing in
different ways, including focus and unity. Especially, they have come to understand the
importance of using transitional expressions for coherent writing.
2. How do you feel (comfortable, confused, or resistant) when you are instructed to
write the American way? Do you feel that this is different from writing in Chinese? If
so, in what way?
As for how the participants feel about writing the American way, their responses
were quite different. First, Both Lili and Weishan were of the same mind, maintaining
that they loved to write the American way.
Lili was a motivated student. She explained that ―I feel comfortable because I can
learn something new. However, if the topic is hard, I feel confused. Once I get through it,
I will feel good.‖ The stark difference between Chinese writing and American writing, in
Lili‘s view, was the writing of the topic sentence for a body paragraph. ―For American
way,‖ Lili continued, ―each body paragraph needs a topic sentence. But in Chinese way,

232
rather than use a topic sentence to begin a paragraph, we sometimes use an example to
start the body paragraph. At least [we] don‘t emphasize writing a topic sentence.‖ In
terms of a paragraph structure, Lili noted that in American writing, each body paragraph
presents one main idea. In addition to a topic sentence, Lili indicated that at the end of the
paragraph, a mini-conclusion summarizing the paragraph was necessary. In contrast, Lili
claimed that in Chinese paragraph writing, there was no need for a topic sentence. There
could be several ideas included in the paragraph because the Chinese consider the topic in
its totality. Therefore, ―The writer may provide several different ideas in one paragraph,‖
and it is the task of the reader to determine how these ideas relate to each other or to the
guiding overall theme. When it comes to essay writing, Lili explained that Chinese
writing usually followed the traditional qi-cheng-zhuan-he (qi for introduction, cheng for
development, zhuan for transition, and he for conclusion) model to organize an essay. At
first sight, considering the phrases in translation, this looks like an acceptable format for a
Western essay. However, Lili elaborated, in a way that showed the difference in the two
approaches. When moving to the third part of the essay, Chinese writers are encouraged
to change to another way of developing their ideas. To make her point clear, Lili offered
an example of how the Chinese describe an apple in writing:
In the development paragraph, you may say an apple, how good that is. But in the
transition paragraph, you may say, you may use another fruit to compare with the
apple, to show what is better. This is just one of the methods that I can think of
right now. The teacher will suggest at the beginning, but not everyone follows
these rules.

233
Lili‘s illustrations reveal that Chinese writers prefer to use the strategy of divergent
thinking to generate ―different‖ ideas about a topic, which is apparently culture specific,
since the English/Western strategy favors staying on the path toward one main point of
view.
Weishan expressed the same opinion as Lili‘s about how he felt when instructed
to follow the American writing pattern, reporting that ―I like to write in the American
way, but it‘s difficult for me.‖ Basically, he was saying that he was doing ok in writing,
except for his serious grammar issues, because his professor had pointed out that his
grammar was terrible. His point was that his poor grammar skills in areas such as tense
agreement and the use of pronouns inhibited him from expressing his ideas freely, even
though he may not be aware that he had many other more serious writing issues related to
the American way of writing. As for the difference between English writing and Chinese
writing, he did not offer much; since he moved to the United States in his early teens, he
did not feel able to comment on differences, even if they had affected his writing through
his cultural upbringing.
When asked about how the other four participants felt while learning to write the
American way, Yiman, Xiaohui, Gaofeng, and Hong held identical views that they all felt
confused, to varying degrees, about the American way of writing. Although Yiman did
not remember what Chinese writing was exactly about, he spoke of his confusion about
the Western idea of being ―specific.‖ As he was accustomed to the use of general
vocabulary words (possibly as a result of his stress on intuitive thinking), his professor
often failed to understand what he exactly meant. As Yiman explained in his example, ―I
wrote on the Face book. I say on Facebook, the distance between countries can disappear.

234
The teacher then said I should explain why the distance disappears and how it
disappears.‖ Here, Yiman means that what he wrote made sense to him; however, it
would be obscure to an American audience. Yiman took it for granted that his reader
would certainly understand his point when he wrote ―the distance between countries can
disappear.‖ It was not quite necessary for him to present everything explicitly; it was up
to the reader to figure out what his message implied. He wrote this only from a writer-
focused perspective. Quite possibly, he may have never thought about developing an
audience-focused perspective in writing. Clearly, nurtured in the Chinese culture of
intuitive thinking, the idea of being specific confused him. Consequently, he had
difficulty providing enough statements of appropriate depth and specificity to convey his
ideas in the way expected for persuasive writing in this course. Since his family lives in
the Chinese community, he is comfortable with Chinese thought only, which departs so
greatly from the American way of thinking.
Xiaohui also claimed that he was confused about the American way of writing on
similar grounds, saying ―the logical thinking style confused me. We only do emotional
thinking.‖ In his mind, only the traditional Chinese way of intuitive thinking works.
According to Xiaohui, his unfamiliarity with logical thinking made his writing unclear to
an English reader. He further explained that in English writing he had to use linking
terms that were unfamiliar to him: ―because‖ to show cause and effect; ―when‖ or ―after‖
to establish time relationships; ―if‖ to indicate a conditional situation. But this was
difficult for him in actual writing. ―In Chinese writing,‖ he continued, ―we don‘t have to
do that kind of [linking]. If we do it, we do it differently.‖ What Xiaohui means is that
English writing uses these transitions of logic to show logical relationships within and

235
between paragraphs. In contrast, since Chinese writing is reader responsible, it does not
have to use transition words to signal a reason, concession, or time. The reader is
expected to figure out the relationships among ideas, often with the help of the context. In
his example, Xiaohui said,
In Chinese we may choose whether to use the transition words or not, but in
English, they emphasize using them. When I plan to write something, I need to
think about the Chinese sentences first. Then I translate them into English. It
makes sense to me, but I found that the professor[s] don‘t understand what I
exactly mean.
Here, since the use of transition words in Chinese writing is optional, Xiaohui presented
his insight into Chinese students‘ inability to use transitional terms to convey logical
relationships among ideas, as a result of the traditional Chinese tendency toward intuitive
thinking.
In terms of the differences between Chinese and English essay organization,
Xiaohui expressed another interesting insight as to the cultural differences he was
struggling with:
Although Chinese writing has an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion,
the content and sentence structures are different. For example, Chinese writing
also has an introduction, but that introduction may not relate to what you‘re going
to say. The author provides information that has nothing to do with the theme. An
American essay only uses a few sentences to bring the reader into the context and
then gets straight to the point without talking rubbish. In contrast, Chinese writing
likes to beat about the bush.

236
Xiaohui is saying that, in contrast to the American way of being concise and to the point,
Chinese writing, even in the writing of the introductory paragraph, allows diverse
elements that appear to be more or less irrelevant to the topic. This reminds us of the
Chinese way of holistic thinking discussed in the section Dialectical Thinking and
Intuitive Thinking in Chapter 2, which allows one to approach a subject by trying to
provide peripheral information, rather than focusing directly on one‘s main point.
Gaofeng said that ―I feel comfortable but a little bit confused about how to present
my ideas.‖ Gaofeng‘s point is that he was confused when what made sense to him did not
make sense to his professor. In his own words, ―When we talk about something like
‗trust,‘ Americans don‘t get it.‖ Gaofeng did not go further to offer a detailed example of
what the cultural difference was in this case, but I can tell he was a little frustrated when
his professor did not understand the message he tried to get across. Evidently, culture
plays a significant role in people‘s way of thinking. Since Gaofeng said that he loved to
read classical Chinese literature and watch Chinese movies while residing in the United
States, the non-linear cultural thought patterns common in traditional Chinese culture
may continue to subtly influence how he thinks and writes. He was not even aware that
he was ―beating about the bush‖ in ways that could be perplexing to an American reader.
In Hong‘s case, he was not only confused but also resistant to the American way
of writing. He said that he was confused because Americans were confused about his
writing. In clarifying his point, he explained,
[The professor thinks] I‘m always off the topic. I thought I am on the topic
because this is the way Chinese literature is. I don‘t like the American way ‗cause

237
they (Americans) don‘t like the way I write. In American way it is direct. I like
the Chinese way because it is more interesting. It makes you think more.
Hong was still having a hard time acculturating himself to the American way of writing,
even though he moved to the United States when he was very young. It seems that he still
does not quite understand the rhetorical values that are different from his own.
As indicated above, half of the participants feel comfortable about their learning in
the new culture although they have some difficulty in different ways. The other half feels
confused about writing the American linear way. As some of them claimed, unlike the
American structure that is featured with the linear ―introduction-body-conclusion‖ pattern,
the Chinese way of ordering claims and information is likely to follow the ―turn‖ step in
another direction, which deliberately makes the reader think deeper. Cultural literacy
experiences challenge students studying in a different academic milieu, even if they have
absorbed another milieu only quite early in life. The Chinese-speaking participants‘
perceptions of differing literacy practices reveal how the differing values in different cultures
have impacted their English academic writing.
3. Are you perfectly able to apply your classroom learning to your writing? Why or why not?
(If not, what problems do you have in trying to do this?)
Among the six participants, only Hong said no to this question, contending, ―I am
lazy, so I didn‘t learn much. Since I didn‘t learn much, I didn‘t have enough writing skills.
I didn‘t have much to apply.‖ All other participants provided more nuanced answers to
this question. Lili, Weishan, Yiman, Xiaohui, and Gaofeng thought they could apply
what they learned to their writing, although none of them felt perfectly able to do so.
To begin with, Lili claimed, ―I think I can apply what I am learning because I
have learned the American way of writing, but I‘m not sure if I‘m perfectly able to apply

238
what I have learned to my writing.‖ According to Lili, the reason why she was not sure
was because sometimes she was felt to be off topic in Western terms. Weishan stated that
―I understand 80% of what the professor said, so I apply 80% of what I learned to the
writing.‖ However, he still felt he had a problem that could not be solved in his English
writing, namely the problem of repeating: ―When the professor said I am repeating, I
don‘t understand what is considered repeating.‖ In some sense, his way of thinking is so
unconsciously influenced by Chinese culture that he was not even aware of repeating the
same point recurrently.
Yiman thought that he could apply everything the professor taught him, although
he felt somewhat under pressure to conform to notions that he felt were at odds with his
own views. He said,
If you don‘t follow the way she [the professor] wants, she doesn‘t accept [your
essay]. So I write what she wants. When I wrote my essay on Facebook, I wanted
to write two ideas, but she said you could only have one idea, so I included only
one idea. I have no choice.
Yiman‘s response seems to suggest that he follows the American way of writing simply
because he is forced to, rather than that he is working hard to adapt his writing style to
the mainstream academic discourse patterns in his new culture. Apparently, like many of
the participants, Yiman is still not really aware of what Western rhetorical values are.
Xiaohui hints at a similar theme of coercion, combined with confusion over what
is expected of him:

239
Basically, I could apply what the professor taught us to my writing, but I have
some other problems which persecute me. I thought I did quite well, but my
professor said no. I have difficulty referring back to the thesis statement.
Xiaohui‘s point is that, although he could present his ideas following the professor‘s
instructions in some way, he was in no way perfectly able to apply his classroom learning
to his writing. In particular, he found it hard to keep his paper focused, judging from his
further remarks about feedback from his instructor.
Gaofeng, too, expressed a similar ambivalence to that of the other participants. He
believed, on a general level, that he could do as he was instructed in his writing; but at the
same time, he had problems, including the very understandable problem of identifying
the boundary between one main idea and another:
I understand the concept, so I just follow the steps. But I‘m sometimes confused
when I write a topic sentence because I couldn‘t find a good reason for a different
paragraph. Sometimes the reason in one paragraph overlaps with another
paragraph. The two reasons are close.
Gaofeng felt that he was able to apply what he learned. However, like many of his fellow
classmates, the topics he offered in different paragraphs were close to each other, which
led to the problems of repetition and overlap. In strong persuasive writing in the
English/Western mode, every paragraph needs to present a unique reason supporting the
position being taken; therefore, circular, repetitive, or overlapping reasons can be a
serious issue contributing to incoherent writing.
Evidently, aside from Hong who seemed to be rather negative in terms of
applying his classroom learning to his writing, the rest of the participants all claimed that

240
they could use, if not everything, some of their classroom learning to improve their
writing skills. At the same time, Lili, Yiman, Xiaohui, and Gaofeng were also aware that
they still had difficulty staying focused on writing. In Weishan‘s case, he was struggling
when it comes to repetition.
4. How do you understand the idea of a “thesis statement?” When you write, do you try
to put such a statement into your essay? If so, where do you place it? Can you
comment on the essay we have here from your practice in class? Does it have a thesis
statement? How did you support your central focus?
In answering this question, only Xiaohui was confused, in particular about the
difference between a thesis statement and a topic sentence. The other participants were all
quite sure that the thesis statement refers to the main idea of the entire essay, an idea that
is supported with textual evidence, and an idea that is preferably placed at the end of the
introductory paragraph. As Yiman put it, ―The thesis statement is what you‘re going to
write for the whole essay.‖ After showing where they placed the thesis statement, rather
than going into details, they all briefly explained in much the same way how they
supported the thesis statement, pointing out that the body paragraphs came after the
introduction, and each body paragraph began with a topic sentence with one reason in
support of the thesis statement. They then connected the reasons, descriptions,
explanations, and examples to the thesis statement. As Hong vividly described it, ―The
thesis statement is like the head, and paragraphs are like the body. I have two body [parts]
to explain the thesis. Each body [part] appl[ies] one reason.‖ Weishan added another
point: in the body you write a topic sentence and give one reason to explain why the
thesis statement is true.‖
Obviously, judging by what they responded, we see that as developmental writers,
all the participants would have a thesis statement preferably placed at the end of the

241
introductory paragraph. We also see that most participants do not seem to have much
difficulty understanding the notion of a thesis statement that serves as the central focus,
or a summary of the argument they will present in the rest of the paper. However, they
only demonstrated a superficial understanding, particularly in their writing practice. As
for establishing such a clear focus before they start to write, it can be very hard for these
Chinese students. Then supporting this central focus with reasons and evidence, or
crafting their writing into a coherent, unified whole, is even more challenging to them. In
fact, they did not explain clearly how they would support their central focus. As
identified in their writing, they often shifted their focus when they wrote.
5. Has your writing class emphasized the idea of “coherence?” If so, how would you
explain what that term, coherence, means?
None of the participants seemed to know what the term ―coherence‖ referred to;
but their answers clearly suggested that the idea of coherence had been emphasized to
some extent throughout the course, though without the overall term ―coherence‖ having
stuck in the students‘ minds. From different perspectives, they indicated that coherence
refers to the overall sense of unity and logical relationships among ideas, even though
nobody mentioned other important elements such as cohesion, which refers to the
specific linguistic forms that contribute to coherence in a text as experienced by a reader.
As explained in Lili‘s response, the instruction they were receiving in this course was
aimed at helping them develop coherent writing, even if the technical term ―coherence‖
was not used or did not stay in the students‘ minds: ―The professor didn‘t give the
definition of coherence, but I know what she said is related to coherence. Coherence
means that in your essay you follow only one topic and support it. You‘re not off topic.
You use transitions to make the connection smooth.‖

242
It should be noted that through the instructor‘s emphasis on coherent writing,
most participants had enhanced their awareness of coherence, which was reflected in
their writing, including using transitions to improve logical progression of ideas, avoiding
irrelevant details, and cohering around one controlling idea in an essay, even though they
still have many problems with coherence in their essays.
6. Can you tell me a bit more about your writing of this essay that I have brought with
me? Did you enjoy writing it? What did you find easiest and hardest about your
writing? Do you think you used advice drawn from your writing course when you
wrote this? If so, in what way? Can you talk about that in a bit more detail?
Except Gaofeng, who did not seem to have much trouble in developing body
paragraphs, providing supporting detail for body paragraph development challenged most
participants. Most participants responded in some detail to this question.
Lili said that she enjoyed her writing and found the conclusion easiest, but writing
the summary of a reading passage took much painstaking effort and time because she had
to state the author‘s most important ideas in summarizing the passage rather than
reporting minor details. She had much difficulty summarizing the author‘s key ideas.
Also, in developing the body paragraphs, what seriously challenged her was to provide
sufficient and relevant supporting detail. She was aware that the development she was
able to provide was thin and weak.
Weishan stated that he also enjoyed his writing because he thought the topic
―Going on a Diet? Start Paying in Cash‖ was easy. The easiest part for him was the thesis
statement. What he means is that the writing of the thesis statement took him least effort,
compared with the writing of the other parts of the essay. In contrast, the hardest tasks for
him were the writing of the summary and the supplying of supporting details. ―I spent a
lot of time to write the summary and to think about examples in the body paragraphs.‖

243
Weishan also claimed that his professor‘s lectures were helpful, regarding writing the
thesis statement, writing strong topic sentences, using transition words, achieving
paragraph unity, and giving an example to help support the controlling idea. But he
emphasized that he had not been clear about all these issues before taking this class.
Therefore, when writing his essay, he did his best to follow what his professor taught in
class.
Yiman thought that the first body paragraph was the easiest to write because he
was able to come up with a good reason to explain why the idea he identified in the
reading passage was especially significant. However, he found it very difficult to provide
a distinctly different reason and distinctly different supporting details for his second body
paragraph to support his claim. In fact, in addition to his sense that he had to repeat his
supporting arguments, he also had serious problems with off-topic details and logical
progression of ideas.
There was considerable variation in the responses to this item. Xiaohui found the
summary was the easiest part to write, whereas the hardest parts were the writing of the
thesis statement and the supporting details. In contrast, Gaofeng believed that writing
supporting details to explain the main idea was the easiest task for him. He did not have
trouble ―pulling ideas together.‖ According to him, the hardest part was sentence
structure and grammar, returning to a point that featured prominently in responses to
earlier questions in the interview process.
Like many of his fellow students, Hong noted that he did not enjoy his essay
writing; he stated this emphatically in his assertion, ―I hate writing.‖ Still, he was able to
identify different levels of difficulty in the writing process. What he claimed came

244
easiest for him was the beginning of the first sentence in the introduction, since he just
followed the template created by the professor as in the example of ―According to the
article ‗……,‘ author X ……‖ The conclusion was also very easy for him because he
said (not entirely clearly), ―It is basically restating the thesis statement because one or
two sentences are okay for the CATW test.‖ He continued to identify ―the body‖ as the
―hardest part‖ in the writing process. Hong then explained what was the hardest for him
in more detail:
First, I had difficulty finding appropriate reasons for the body paragraphs, and
then developing paragraphs with supporting details was another big challenge.
Especially, if I‘m not familiar with the topic, it is hard to give reasons. I can‘t
write well. I have the problem of connecting ideas. I use poor sentence structures.
They are confusing to the professor. That is why she sometimes gave comments
such as ―nonsense‖ or ―not clear‖ while grading my paper.
While writing his essay, Hong cited the professor‘s advice as he understood it:
First, he said, ‗start with according to,‘ and then summarize the reading passage
and state the thesis in the end of the introduction. In the two different body
paragraphs, you give one reason to each body and then support it. Give examples.
The first sentence of each body states the reason. Then you talk about it. Write
twelve sentences at least.
As for the use of the professor‘s advice drawn from the writing course, every participant
had a slightly different perception, but all of them claimed that while composing their
essays, they tried to follow the professor‘s instructions in the following important ways:

245
 Stating the author‘s most important ideas in their own words while practicing
summarizing strategies
 Writing a thesis statement by identifying one key idea in the reading passage
they intend to discuss in the body paragraphs
 Writing an effective topic sentence for each body paragraph by giving one
strong reason that explains why the idea they have chosen is so significant.
 Using appropriate transitions that convey the correct meaning to make smooth
connections among ideas
 Providing each supporting detail that is directly related to the key idea they
are discussing and the specific point they stated in the topic sentence
 Writing multiple drafts for each assignment
As can be seen from the above, when discussing their essay writing about how
they followed the writing instructions drawn from this writing course, most participants
contended that the one that challenged them most was to write sufficient and relevant
supporting details. The reasons for their inability to adequately develop their ideas are
manifold, involving logically connecting ideas, providing distinctively different reasons
and sufficient details for different paragraphs, offering relevant examples, avoiding off-
topic claims and repetition, etc. Just as Xiaohui put it, writing an effective essay is
demanding, and it does not happen in one or two days.
7. How did your professor react to the essay? Were you able to make changes on the
basis of what she said or wrote as feedback? Generally, how do you regard written
comments on your writing? What kind of feedback do you think helps you best in
making your writing better?

246
In considering feedback, a brief discussion will focus on the following three
aspects: what feedback the participants received, how they responded to the feedback,
and what kind of feedback the participants thought could help them most.
In Lili‘ in-class essay, her professor commented that ―You ran out of time because
your introduction was too long. Don‘t write more than 4 key ideas. Otherwise this was
good.‖ What the professor means is that Lili‘s essay did not have a concluding paragraph
as a result of a lengthy summary that took too much of her time. Therefore, Lili received
a failing grade ―R‖ for this in-class essay.
While revising what she wrote, according to Lili, she followed the professor‘s
requirements and revised the introduction, the body, and the conclusion separately. When
she finished revising the introduction, she submitted it; after she got the feedback from
the professor, she revised it again. She then began to revise the body in the same way as
she did with the introduction, based on a set of comments from the professor. Finally, she
wrote the conclusion and again revised it following the professor‘s advice. When all was
done, she put everything together and made what she deemed to be the necessary changes.
After that, she submitted the entire essay, and once again revised it when the professor
returned it with comments. By doing so, she followed the professor‘s advice to make all
the necessary changes during the whole revision process. When her final draft was
submitted, the professor checked and rated it again. Lili finally received a satisfactory
score for this essay. However, revising her writing at each stage was a painstaking
process. Lili described her own perspective on the process:
I thought I followed the professor‘s instructions when I wrote the summary, but
the professor‘s comments on my summary said the main idea was not there. I felt

247
confused and kept reading her comments and the original passage again and again
and can‘t [couldn‘t] get what the professor wanted. It almost drove me crazy
because I thought I did summarize the main idea. Then [I wondered,] what part
was the main idea of the passage? I tried to follow her advice and use my own
understanding to change it. I had difficulty to get the main idea of the passage. I
was also confused about key ideas and less significant ideas. I put much detail in
the summary, so the introduction was longer than the body. When the professor
pointed out that specific details are [were] not necessary, I removed them. I
changed my summary several times. The professor said I needed to add more
details and examples to the body. So I followed the professor‘s advice to develop
the body paragraph more thoroughly by giving facts and examples. The professor
want[ed] me to use transitions, so I used more transitions when revising to signal
the reader what I am [was] going to say to make the paragraph more convincing.
Finally, I was able to follow the professor‘s comments. I feel [felt] comfortable
eventually.
Two sets of considerations are relevant here. First is the perspective of the writer, Lili‘s
own viewpoint. When asked about her view of the professor‘s written comments, Lili
said that she was confused at the beginning, but she accepted her professor‘s reaction,
saying ―I accept it. Just accept it. I mean I will think about what she wrote and what she
said. I want to improve my weaknesses in writing. My English is not very well. She is a
professor. I think I will follow her comments.‖ As for what kind of feedback helped her
best in making her writing better, Lili‘s own words are to be noted: ―I think the best one

248
is to give more detailed comments and offer examples rather than comments like
‗unclear‘.‖
Lili prefers detailed comments from her professor to assist her in making her writing
better. However, when she composed her essays, she was writer-centered rather than
reader-centered. In other words, Lili did not provide sufficient detailed information in the
supporting paragraphs to help the reader follow her point. For this reason, her professor
advised her to revise her writing to be more reader friendly. As a plain truth, writing is
incoherent if it lacks facts, anecdotes, or examples. Incoherent writing is inconsiderate to
the reader. From the reader‘s point of view, strong writing should be reader-centered and
easy to follow.
Lili is not alone in having problems with a serious lack of supporting details that
explain, describe, analyze, or otherwise help the reader. To varying degrees, other
participants also wrote limited details while supporting the topic. They seem to favor
writing that is not specific. However, when the participants are given feedback that is not
specific (that is ‗writer-centered‘ and not ‗reader-centered‘), they realize that non-specific
feedback creates problems for them. In the final analysis, these Chinese students did not
keep readers in mind when they wrote essays.
After taking this writing course, Lili seemed to have a better understanding of why
details and examples are so important. She commented:
In Chinese writing, we want to talk about things vaguely, such as poems in
China‘s Tang Dynasty. In America, you have to be very specific. But in Chinese
essays, we can be vague, and we can imagine what the writer is talking about. But
in America, we have to assume the reader knows nothing about what you are

249
writing. So you have to provide the reader more details to make the reader
understand you.
In responding to Weishan‘s essay, his professor wrote these comments: ―Body 2
does not give a reason. It provides a fact which is a supporting detail. Then your details in
body 2 are almost identical to body 1.‖ The professor was saying that when Weishan
wrote in his topic sentence ―Paying with cash can control impulsive food purchase
because consumers have to think twice before they act,‖ he treated a fact ―consumers
have to think twice before they act‖ as a reason. In other words, a reason should be a
persuasive piece of evidence rather than a fact. Also, he used the same exact example as
body 1 except the fact that it was his sister instead of his brother. Weishan received a
failing grade ―R‖ for his in-class essay, but he stated that he agreed with the professor
and then exactly followed what the professor told him, saying,
When she told me what should be included in the summary, what should be in the
body, I just write what she told me. That helps. What she told me was important
because before she told me, I didn‘t know how to write the summary and what
should be included in the body such as topic sentence, details, and examples, and
a summary sentence for the body paragraph.
Yiman received written feedback from the professor containing a number of
negative phrases, such as ―repetition of thesis‖ in the summary, ―wrong use of transition,‖
―This is an absurd statement and it is off topic,‖ ―anecdote not relevant,‖ ―off topic claim,
and ―ideas not connected‖ throughout the essay. As a result, this essay also received an
―R‖ grade as unsatisfactory. I discussed the professor‘s written comments with Yiman
and asked him if he could make changes following the professor‘s feedback. He said yes,

250
though his further comment addressed consequences, rather than the helpfulness of the
feedback. ―…because I will get a B if I don‘t follow her advice. She said that if you don‘t
follow this [the feedback], you won‘t [be given the invitation to] take the [CATW] test.‖
This kind of motivation works effectively for students who are not highly motivated
intrinsically. Although he did not finish the second body paragraph for his in-class
exercise, he made changes based on what the professor said to him.
For example, while his first body paragraph discussed why paying with credit or
debit cards could cause customers to purchase more unhealthy food, his second body
paragraph also talked about why paying with credit or debit cards could cause customers
to eat unhealthy products. The ideas in the two paragraphs are repetitious, as his professor
pointed out. To follow the professor‘s advice, he first rewrote the thesis statement as
follows: ―I think the most important point is paying with credit or debit cards not only
cause consumers to spend more money, but also purchase more unhealthy products.‖
After that, he accordingly revised the topic sentences. Therefore, the point made in each
body paragraphs was clear and unique rather than repetitious. He admitted that he
benefited from the professor‘s comments. In terms of what kind of feedback helped him
most, he said ―more details,‖ meaning that the more detailed comments were the most
helpful. He added, ―She gave me examples of how to connect sentences. She wrote
sentences for me. She used ‗on the other hand‘ to show me how to connect ideas. She
also revised my sentences.‖
As for Xiaohui, the feedback he received included ―In body 1 your example drifts
off the topic of overspending in supermarkets and just discusses overspending on credit
cards. This is wrong. Body 2 is repetitive and too short.‖ The professor meant that

251
Xiaohui should keep to the topic of grocery and food purchases in the supermarket rather
than discuss job loss and failure to pay off the credit card debt. Other comments included
―Repetition. Tell me specifically what junk food he buys but don‘t repeat.‖ The professor
crossed out ideas that were repeated. Xiaohui, too, received a failing grade for his in-class
essay. To improve his writing, Xiaohui tried to follow whatever the professor asked him
to do:
Sometimes, if the details did not relate to the topic, I followed the professor‘s
advice and revised the details. If she said ‗Need more details here,‘ I then
provided more details. If she said ‗Nonsense,‘ I crossed the sentence out and
changed the sentence.
However, sometimes Xiaohui was confused about the professor‘s comments and unsure
of how to follow her directions. He continued, still talking about his professor‘s feedback:
But sometimes I have no idea how to change. I know something is wrong, but I
don‘t know what‘s wrong. For example, when the professor said ‗You need to
refer back to the author,‘ I understand I now need to refer back, but I don‘t know
how to refer back. I know that one sentence must be connected with another
sentence, but when the professor asked me to join the ideas, I just cannot. Nobody
taught me those things before. It‘s not the kind of writing you can improve in one
day or two.
Xiaohui remarked that the comments that could help him best were ― when the professor
directly pointed out my mistake such as comma splices and provided the right transition
words to make two sentences less choppy, I can do better next time.‖

252
Gaofeng was the only one who did not receive an ―R‖ grade for his essay. On his
essay, unlike that of the other participants, the professor did not provide much feedback.
The only advice for this essay focused on word choice, usage, and a few grammar issues.
In his revision, according to Gaofeng, he not only polished his essay structure, he also
used the professor‘s advice on improving his sentence structure and grammatical
problems such as pronoun forms and subject-verb agreement. He felt comfortable in
using the professor‘s advice. He said what worked best for him were the comments that
could help him make sure the details wouldn‘t go off topic, as well as some of the
grammar corrections.
With regard to Hong‘s essay to which the professor gave an ―R‖ grade, two places
were marked ―unclear‖: one in the introduction and one in the body paragraph. The
professor also crossed out almost half of the body paragraph because they were ―off-topic
claims.‖ In the example Hong provided, the professor again wrote ―not relevant to the
thesis. Like Yiman, Hong explained that he revised his writing by following the
professor‘s suggestions because he wanted to pass the CATW test. He found the
professor‘s comments useful, so ―I changed the way she wants it.‖ As for what feedback
helped him best, he remarked,
Any kind of feedback as long as it helps, such as grammar mistakes. Because she
already corrected them, I don‘t have to change the way she corrected. Feedback
like giving more details and examples are good. Feedback that includes specific
transitions like giving ‗in contrast, in comparison‘ can make stronger sentences. I
like specific examples ‗cause in that way I can understand easily.

253
Clearly, the participants were willing to revise their essays the way the professor
suggested. Everybody read the comments carefully and did their best to make changes
following the professor‘s feedback, even though they could get confused at the beginning.
For all practical purposes, most of the participants considered the professor‘s comments
helpful rather than questioning the usefulness of teacher commentary. As for which type
of feedback they found most helpful regarding coherence in writing, it is most helpful
when the students understand what is wrong, why it is wrong, and how they should fix
the problems. Therefore, specific examples of how to connect ideas, specific directions of
how to improve off-topic claims, specific comments about topic sentences, content
problems, and development or depth of ideas would help most. Finally, as a suggestion, it
might be a good idea to give both positive and negative feedback rather than just focusing
on the negative.
8. What do you think the strongest point in this essay is?
Based on what the participants said, their opinions about their own strong points
were quite different. Of the six participants, Lili, Gaofeng, and Yiman seem to be quite
confident about what they have written.
Lili claimed that the strongest point for her essay was that ―the overall structure is
clear.‖ When asked what her clear overall structure was, she very briefly explained her
understanding:
The first paragraph is the introduction. The second paragraph gives one reason to
support my thesis statement; the third paragraph uses another reason for that
central focus. The last paragraph is the conclusion. All this makes the reader easy
to understand my essay.

254
While Lili did not clarify how she ordered her claims and information, in her mind each
of her individual paragraphs did what it was supposed to do. Although her in-class essay
was not well written in terms of structuring her ideas, like her other classmates she kept
revising until her professor was happy. At this point, her final draft was considered
satisfactory regarding structural and organizational aspects. In similar fashion, Gaofeng
was also quite confident about what he wrote, although he was unaware of his off-topic
issue when he developed his second body paragraph. He believed that ―The body
paragraphs are clearly written ‗cause I know I focused on the main idea. I convinced
myself as I read it. Yiman simply said that the strongest point for his essay was the fact
that his essay was ―well organized‖ because ―I have an introduction, the body, and a
conclusion.‖
In contrast, other participants found it difficult to elaborate on the organization of
their essays. Weishan was not quite sure about what his strongest point in his essay was;
however, he made a claim that ―I gave a good example in my body paragraph.‖ He was
referring to his first body paragraph example of how his brother saved money by using
limited dollar bills to purchase food instead of paying for his food with a credit card.
When asked why he thought that example was well chosen and presented, he replied in a
very vague way, ―I just guess,‖ unable to elaborate further. To him, the example he used
in his first body paragraph helped him support the specific claim he stated in his topic
sentence (i.e., Paying with cash can control impulsive purchases because people can
experience the pain of payment). For that reason, he even copied the same exact example
when he wrote another reason for his second body paragraph.

255
In the same vain, like Weishan, Hong also claimed that the example given in the
body paragraph was the strongest point in his essay. His reason was that ―‘Cause it‘s self-
experience. So it‘s stronger.‖ Actually, the example he provided in the second body
paragraph was ―not relevant to the thesis,‖ as his professor commented. To back up the
thesis (i.e., Paying with cash reduces the purchase of unhealthy food products since
physically handling over a dollar bill increases the pain of payment), he cited an example
that his mom bought fewer vice products at the grocery store as a result of insufficient
cash with her because she happened to leave her credit card at home. Hong took it for
granted that his mother‘s example related to the thesis he was discussing. In Hong‘s view,
as long as the example was drawn from personal experience, it would certainly work well.
He may have never seriously doubted that it must be directly tied to the thesis he was
supporting
Xiaohui commented that his strongest point was the thesis statement, but he
continued, expressing some frustration at that very aspect of his writing and admitting
that he had felt obligated to copy another student‘s thesis statement, unable to come up
with his own phrasing:
I actually don‘t like this essay. The professor said that I‘m totally out of topic. I
fixed it several times, but she still said it was off topic. I just don‘t get how I
improve my writing. The teacher put on the board a thesis statement of another
student and said ‗This is a perfect thesis.‘ And I used the guy‘s thesis statement.
So this is actually not my word. I didn‘t like this essay.
From here, we can see that Xiaohui was so frustrated that he even felt resistant to his
professor‘s comments. Because he had never been informed in his previous education

256
about off-topic writing, he just could not understand what on earth ―to stay on topic‖
meant. Given this frustration, it was not hard to understand why he started to feel
negative about everything he wrote.
As discussed above, according to Lili, Gaofeng, and Yiman, provided that an essay
has a clear beginning-middle-ending, it has achieved a good organizational structure.
However, in their essays, they do have problems identified related to logical presentation
of ideas. They may not be fully aware of the importance of focus, logical connections
from sentence to sentence, and presentation of ideas when they said that their essays were
well organized. On the other hand, Weishan, Hong, and Xiaohui were not sure about their
strengths. While Weishan and Hong claimed that they had presented good examples, they
were not aware of the real issues behind their own claims. Problems like off-topic writing,
irrelevant examples, and repetitious presentation of ideas will seriously affect the logical
development of ideas, thus significantly weakening the arguments.
9. What strategies do you think you should use to improve your English writing skills
related to coherence in persuasive discourse?
The six participants‘ responses more or less reflect their understanding of the
abstract concept of coherence at different levels.
Lili explained her goals in general terms, citing both essay organization and
language-related improvement, specifically mentioning the strategy of reading her
writing aloud:
I will include a good introduction, body and a conclusion. Forming a clear, good
thesis statement, using transition words, using correct grammar are all important
skills that will make my essay coherent. After you finish each paragraph, you
should reread it to see if it is smooth and makes sense. A strategy the professor

257
told us is you can read out loud. Because sometimes when you are writing, you
won‘t notice that it is weird. But after you read it out loud, because you‘re
listening too, you can find that a point is weird. It doesn‘t make sense. I think this
is my strategies.
To improve coherence in English writing, Weishan simply indicated that he
would practice more. He would include a lot of details in his writing and use transition
words to make everything connected.
Yiman mentioned that he would ―find more transition words and more vocabulary
words to use in his essay writing in the future. Also, he said that he had to think clearly,
using good examples and strong explanations. Xiaohui still seemed to be struggling in
understanding the notion of coherence. He asserted that he would use time order and
spatial order as well as transitional words as his writing strategies. Gaofeng stated that he
would practice more, and get used to the American way of writing by going straight to
the point. He would try to link all ideas together by using transition words. Lin Hong
noted that he would state the thesis clearly and give strong reasons and strong examples
to support his claims. He emphasized one reason for one paragraph only and would not
include two different reasons in the same paragraph. What was most important, as he
pointed out, was that ―I will stay on topic.‖
In brief, the second round interview has provided us with an in-depth investigation
of how the participants‘ perceptions of coherence changed as a result of receiving
training related to coherence in the Western rhetorical tradition.

258
CHAPTER 7
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION
Observation Data
The Goal of Conducting the Classroom Observation
The purpose of conducting the classroom observation was to define the nature of
the training that the students received on coherence, as well as to gain some insight into
how the participants acted in response to their teacher‘s explanations of coherence. Since
there was only one advanced composition writing class for ESL students enrolled for the
summer session, only one classroom observation was conducted. Prior to the observation,
I contacted the instructor to schedule a specific date and time for the classroom
observation. The classroom observation was completed after the first round of interviews
was conducted. In addition, I participated in pre- and post-observation conferences with
the instructor.
Pre-observation Conference
To determine the instructor‘s instructional objectives regarding coherence in
writing, I engaged in a brief pre-observation conference with the instructor before the
classroom observation started. The instructor was an associate professor of
developmental reading and writing. Her pseudonym was Karin Fawcett. She earned her
Doctorate in Education and her MS in TESOL. She has authored a number of research
articles and developmental reading and writing textbooks based on her classroom
teaching experience. As explained by Dr. Fawcett, the purpose of this course was to assist
her students in reading, understanding, evaluating, critiquing, and writing at the college
level. She indicated that the students had done an in-class writing the day before, but

259
most of them had performed inadequately. First, the students did not present a good
understanding of the main idea in the reading passage. Second, the supporting details
provided in their writing strayed off the topic. Many of their ideas were unclear.
Transitions were either not clear or redundant. She explained that few students followed
her instructions, but that this was a common experience. Some asked her questions in
class and even sent many emails requesting help. However, many other students did not
have the learning skills, and some were just not working at improving their writing. She
said, ―These kids‘ parents are struggling in restaurants or nail stores seven days a week,
so the kids don‘t have parents at home to help them develop responsible attitudes. If their
parents [were] home and [were] saying: ‗go to school,‘ ‗do your homework,‘ the young
kids [would] do better.‖ Since most students did not follow her instructions, during this
class, she was asking her students to complete the following exercises.
a) The first was to recall the topic of the reading passage: using credit to grocery
shop in supermarkets.
b) The next was to practice including the topic in the paragraph and to add
transitions.
c) The third was to discuss and evaluate a sample defective body paragraph in which
a learner disregarded what she taught in class by providing a list of reasons for
using cash in shopping
Classroom Environment
Located on the third floor of the College‘s campus classroom building, the
classroom was well-lit and equipped with air-conditioning. It was a fine day that morning.
With big windows facing the south, the classroom was spacious enough to hold up to

260
forty-five students. In the classroom there were about forty desks and chairs. Twenty-one
ESL students with different languages and cultural backgrounds were comfortably seated
in the classroom facing the long white chalkboard. However, the physical layout was
casual; students could sit anywhere. The teacher‘s desk was in front of the students.
Student Characteristics
Twenty-one ESL students enrolled in this advanced composition class. The
students‘ ages ranged from 18 to 35. There were nine male students and twelve female
students. About twelve students seemed to come from Asian countries, but only seven
students were Chinese speaking. The reason why they were taking this course was clear:
they wanted to learn to write a well-organized persuasive essay so that they could pass
the difficult CATW exit exam. I noticed that the six Chinese-speaking participants were
paying close attention to the instructor‘s lecture. I understand that they faced many
cultural changes and challenges as they attempted to master college-level writing in an
American writing classroom. With the instructor‘s words still ringing in my ears, I was
aware that they did not follow what the instructor had taught in class. Most of the
participants were struggling, even though they had experiences in American high schools.
Classroom Activities
The summer session was intensive, and it ended very quickly. Since the CATW
exam was challenging, Dr. Fawcett had strict rules for this class. She demanded that her
students write in certain specific ways to make sure they were on track. However, she
admitted earlier in the pre-observation conference that although a few students knew
what they were doing, most of them did not know how to learn to write. To help them
enhance their writing skills, Dr. Fawcett created some classroom learning activities

261
closely related to the students‘ in-class reading-response essays, aiming to draw attention
to some serious writing issues in her students‘ writing.
Among the activities, three were directly related to training in coherence. These activities
include addressing off-topic issues, teaching transitions, and using transition words.
In the first place, Dr. Fawcett began by talking about off-topic material in her
student essays. After briefly going over the importance of identifying the topic of a
reading passage, Dr. Fawcett asked the whole class to recall what the topic was: ―First
everyone, what is the topic of the article that you read, ‗Going on a Diet? Start Paying in
Cash?‖
―Using credit or debit cards,‖ a couple of students responded.
―Using credit cards for shopping,‖ added a student.
―Using credit cards for what kind of shopping?‖ Dr. Fawcett asked.
―Using credit cards for grocery shopping,‖ some students answered.
―Right, using credit cards for grocery shopping in supermarkets is the topic of the
reading passage,‖ Dr. Fawcett confirmed the answer.
―However,‖ Dr. Fawcett continued, ―some of you wrote about saving money. Is
that the topic?‖
―No,‖ the students almost answered in concert.
―Ok,‖ Dr. Fawcett said, ―some of you wrote about using credit instead of cash but did not
talk about junk food purchase. Is that the topic?‖
―No,‖ the students replied.
When this activity was completed, Dr. Fawcett indicated that a student wrote a
thesis statement by claiming, ―When consumers pay with a credit or debit card, they are

262
more likely to purchase unhealthy products.‖ According to Dr. Fawcett, writing this idea
gave the student his central focus, which he should support with reasons and evidence in
the rest of his response. As Dr. Fawcett emphasized, ―The thesis clearly defines what the
essay is about, so the student needs to explain why using a credit card can encourage
customers to spend more money on unhealthy products in supermarkets.‖ ―However,
instead of developing the central focus in his supporting paragraph, the student did not
follow Dr. Fawcett‘s instructions and wandered off the subject. To help the class better
understand how a body paragraph should have a topic sentence that provides a supporting
idea for the thesis and indicates to the reader what the paragraph will discuss, Dr. Fawcett
distributed the following student paragraph in class:
There are several advantages of using cash for shopping. People feel
uncomfortable when they have to take money out of their wallets in public
because of the pain of payment. Second, when people carry less cash, they won‘t
overspend on unnecessary items. Third, paying in cash doesn‘t result in interest
payments, and it saves consumers money. Fourth, many stores require a minimum
amount purchase when credit cards are used. If people use cash, they don‘t have a
minimum. Fifth, some stores only accept cash, and when customers pay with cash,
they sometimes get a discount. Therefore, paying by cash is better than paying by
credit.
After reading the paragraph with the class, Dr. Fawcett asked the students to determine
the topic sentence, which was placed at the beginning of the paragraph. Rather than
relating the topic sentence to the thesis that could help strengthen the coherence of the
essay, Dr. Fawcett pointed out that the student wrote a list of reasons for using cash when

263
doing shopping. Obviously, the student did not address the issue or answer the question.
The topic sentence ―there are several advantages of using cash for shopping‖ does not
provide a reason or insight directly related to the thesis of the essay, so the connection
between the topic sentence and the thesis is weak. Moreover, as the topic sentence
controls the paragraph, each supporting detail addressed the advantages of using cash,
and failed to explain why customers made impulsive purchases of unhealthy foods when
using a credit card, thus digressing from the central idea and resulting in incoherent
writing.
While Dr. Fawcett was explaining this concept, the six participants listened
attentively without asking any questions. To most of them, the notion of staying on topic
was challenging because of complicated cultural issues. Rather than ignoring what Dr.
Fawcett taught in class, they seem more to be having trouble understanding what the
instructions mean and how they can apply the ‗rules‘ being presented in class. Thus, this
training was helpful to the Chinese students. However, it must be noted that it takes time
to rewire their brains in the fundamental techniques needed to revise the ways that they
see relationships between a claim and supporting details. After all this clarification, Dr.
Fawcett asked the students to explain what was done incorrectly in this body paragraph.
It is obvious that many students came to understand that the topic sentence
provided in the above sample paragraph failed to relate back to the central focus of the
paper. Dr. Fawcett emphasized that ―some people say that Asian students mainly need
vocabulary and grammar, but that‘s not the issue. Many students don‘t know how to
learn.‖ What she suggests is that many Chinese ESL students especially struggle with
essay topics or questions that are given on tests. They don't follow the instructor's

264
directions, thus falling off topic - at times they do not even respond to the question being
asked, which exactly happened to Lin Hong, Yiman, and Xiaohui when they wrote their
in-class essays.
After addressing the off-topic issue, Dr. Fawcett proceeded to discuss transitions.
To make sure the students understood why transition words were necessary and what
transitions should be used to connect sentences, the instructor asked the class to complete
a transition word exercise by responding to the multiple-choice questions about transition
words. Under each question, the students were asked to select a letter a, b, c, d, e, or f that
corresponded with the correct answer. Dr. Fawcett explained the common transition
words and their purposes in writing when she elicited responses from the students. As I
walked around the classroom while the students were performing the exercise, I found
this type of exercise did not seem to be challenging to the six participants. To highly
motivate students, to substantially enhance connections between thoughts, and to
considerably improve logical organization, it would be a good idea if instructors teach
transition words in context using authentic material.
After the activity, Dr. Fawcett distributed another handout to each student, asking
them to complete a paragraph with appropriate transitions or vocabulary corrections (See
Appendix K). She stated that this paragraph was taken from a student‘s essay. The class
was divided into different groups, so the students could work with one another. Dr.
Fawcett first read the text to the class and then said: ―Now you can add transition words.‖
Although the Chinese students were familiar with the content, to insert an appropriate
transitional word or a phrase from idea to idea to indicate a shift in direction was still
quite challenging because they did not completely comprehend how ideas were logically

265
related to each other due to the influence of the Chinese paratactic structure. If the
previous exercise was just reciting things they had learned, here they had to apply the
principles, which is harder. This exercise was thought-provoking and helpful. Dr. Fawcett
circulated around the classroom to help individual students in need.
Not surprisingly, most of the Chinese students, I discovered, were confused as to
what transition words should be used. Especially, they could not quickly identify the
relationships among the ideas of cause and effect, addition, or contrast. These Chinese
students clearly lacked previous experiences in contextualized coherence-related learning
activities. They had difficulty providing the right word or a phrase to link the sentences
together to move the text along. This reveals that it may not be challenging to complete a
transition exercise in isolation; however, when the Chinese students were challenged to
provide transitions in authentic contextualized communication, they found it hard to
accurately use transition words to help create coherence. Recall again that such links in
Chinese written discourse are often obscure or simply missing, and the reader is expected
to supply the relationships without using such signposts. By performing this exercise, the
participants acquired a better understanding of how transition words and other minor
vocabulary revisions made the paragraph clearer because they had to carefully ponder the
logical relationship among ideas. As pointed out by Dr. Fawcett after the class, ―These
transitions allowed my students to connect one thought to the next, so that the paragraph
was easy to read and understand.‖
Teacher-student Writing Conferences
When the classroom activities were completed, all the students were instructed to
revise their in-class essays based on the comments and suggestions provided by their

266
professor. While the students were revising their essays, Dr. Fawcett called every student
up to her desk in turn, so that she closely worked with each student on a one-on-one basis.
When I approached Dr. Fawcett‘s desk, I found that the professor-student writing
conference was necessary. Such a conference was an opportunity to establish better
communication between the professor and each individual Chinese participant. The
conference focused on the revision of the in-class essay, including a discussion of ideas
presented in the essay, clarification of the confusing points, grammar errors, and
mechanics. While the participants explained the choices they made regarding digression,
connections between sentences and ideas, and other writing issues, Dr. Fawcett learned
what they thought about. They interacted closely with each other. Obviously, the
participants were actively involved in the discussion with the professor.
Post-observation Conference
Right after the observation, I had a post-observation meeting with Dr. Fawcett. To
help analyze the information, I asked her five questions, and she responded accordingly.
The following brief sections present my main questions and the instructor‘s response.
1. Did the students learn what you want them to? How do you know?
Dr. Fawcett said, ―Some did. Some didn‘t.‖ She frequently examined the
students‘ writing. According to the instructor, if the students employed basic sentence
structures and basic grammar, basic organization, topic sentences, and relevant
supporting details identified in their writing, they basically understood and learned what
she wanted them to.

267
2. What strategies do you think you have used to help the students improve coherence?
Dr. Fawcett said that she tried to emphasize to the students that their writing had
to flow logically from idea to idea. She compared it to listening to music that was
chopped up and disconnected because of a defective CD or record. She emphasized how
they must employ transitions and use them correctly, not just throw one in. A lot of
students struggled with using the transition that had the best meaning. For example, if
they used ―however‖ when they were expressing a result or consequence, she explained
to her students that ―however‖ signaled a contrast, so they needed a different type of
transition. Thus she had attempted to help them reconsider their choices to figure out
what type of word they needed, and then to select the correct word.
She also tried to show the students how the use of adverbial clauses could create
transitions by doing the following activities. For instance,
―I feel sick and have a sore throat. I go to my doctor‘s for a strep test.‖ She would model
the transition for her students by adding the subordinate conjunction ―when‖ at the
beginning of the sentence:
―When I feel sick and have a sore throat, I go to my doctor‘s for a strep test.‖
―I wake up. I make my bed. I go downstairs. I make my coffee and breakfast.‖ She would
do the same to the following sentence by adding connectives that would clarify the
relationship between the ideas expressed:
―As soon as I wake up, I make my bed. Then I go downstairs, and make my breakfast.‖
She explained that students frequently neglected to realize how every thought had to
relate directly to their thesis and topic sentences and that one thought must gracefully
connect to the next, so she reminded her students that ―the key to this learning was to

268
only discuss your thesis and topic sentence, nothing else, and to use transitions and
adverbial clauses.‖
3. Were the choices of your teaching strategies effective? How do you know?
Dr. Fawcett found that if she simply taught her students about transitions and
adverbial clauses and then just pointed out how they could use them to enhance their
writing, they did not initially transfer this learning. So instead, she highlighted texts that
needed these techniques and asked the students to correct them. Little by little, she began
to see her students use these techniques. She said that the more advanced students
actually became graceful writers, which, she thought, was evident in their writing, and
they became proud of their ability too. She indicated that it not only showed in their
writing but on their faces when they sat with her and reviewed their papers individually.
4. Were the materials related to coherence you used helpful? How do you know?
Dr. Fawcett claimed that it was helpful to use authentic students‘ sentences or
paragraphs related to coherence as an example in classroom discussion because the
students could come to understand why they were wrong and learn how to improve them.
She also explained that although she taught her students these techniques by using her
CATW book exercises and her grammar textbook activities and lessons, what really
made the difference was when she corrected their writing and got them to become aware
of the need to make their writing cohesive. It should be noted that this instructor had
written a CATW guidebook and a grammar book to help students improve their writing.
In particular, her CATW book provided many guidelines for coherence in writing such as
transitions and logical layout of an essay. ―Books and materials developed the concept,‖

269
she added, ―but teachers had to get the students to transfer this knowledge into their
everyday writing.‖
5. What special characteristics of the Chinese ESL students in your class are you aware
of?
Dr. Fawcett indicated that the Chinese students often mixed up the passive with
the active voice and made errors in the use of articles and subject-verb agreement, but she
did not worry too much about those things. She stressed that they had trouble with cause
and effect like ―When one event happens, it results in another.‖ Dr. Fawcett means that
the Chinese students are confused about or are not used to the American English cause-
effect rhetorical pattern or conventions. To the mind of a Chinese writer, what happens
just happens. Sentences like ―Wang Ping failed to pass the CATW exit exam. She did not
work hard enough‖ are perfectly acceptable in the Chinese context. The Chinese writer
puts a lot of responsibility on the reader to figure out this connection. Under many
circumstances, Chinese students may have difficulty composing a clearly indicated
cause-effect pattern as a result of intuitive thinking. The relationship in Chinese writing
from sentence to sentence is not as clear as what an English speaker takes for granted. As
discussed earlier, Chinese writing is relatively obscure and reader responsible; given this
cultural background and the cognitive habits it nurtures, it is easy to see why the Chinese
ESL students just may not bother to go out of the way to think about what the cause is
and what the effect is. Many of the basic rhetorical patterns an English speaker may take
for granted can be challenging or even confusing to a Chinese-speaking student. They are
simply a matter of convention. It is a habit of mind.

270
Moreover, Dr. Fawcett maintained that the Chinese students overused or misused
transitions, indicating, ―The Chinese rely on transitions, even though they are
inaccurate.‖ She believed that transitions were overused in her students‘ writing, which
indeed is a valid point. Since transitions in Chinese thinking are purely optional, Chinese
students are likely to run into the extreme of overusing them when they are taught to use
transitions in English writing. They excessively bring transitions into their essays,
without fully understanding their function, on the mistaken assumption that peppering
their writing with these transitions can help strengthen their writing. In fact, many
Chinese students may not realize that overuse of transitional words and phrases can
weaken the writing and even become annoying to the reader. An important point to
highlight here is that the problem is twofold. The Chinese students may not really
comprehend the meaning each transition conveys; but at the same time, they may place
undue reliance on transitions, assuming that frequent use of these forms is a hallmark of
good writing in English. Consequently, they fail to organize transitions according to the
kinds of relationships they convey; or they may resist expressing these relationships
overtly, as this is strongly disfavored in Chinese writing. On a deeper level, as a cultural
issue, Chinese students may prefer not to even carefully figure out the logical connections
between sentences and ideas when they write in Chinese, a habit they transfer into their
English writing practice. Thus, they end up applying transitions even when the
relationship between words and ideas is not clear or does not exist. Hence, they seriously
misuse transitions, possibly as a result of a complex interplay of factors. To make things
worse, when they often misuse the transitions, this misapplication can lead to
misunderstandings. For example, in his in-class exercise, Weishan used the phrase ―on

271
the other hand‖ to express the idea of ―in addition‖ rather than introduce a different point
of view. While it is challenging for English-speaking novice writers to learn to use
transitional words and phrases effectively, the Chines student‘s situation is greatly
complicated by both linguistic and cultural issues.
Another striking characteristic the professor noted was that the Chinese students
did not focus. ―They are writing about kids getting into trouble using credit cards, but
they soon started to tell me about their father. The father is their [example of a] ―kid.‖
They don‘t have connections. This sort of thing particularly happens to the Chinese
students.‖ Her analysis really hit home. In Chinese culture, people tend most often to
think and write in ways that are nonlinear. They creatively link A and B together to
prolong their writing without providing a sense of continuity. Most Chinese would think
this non-linearity deserves careful pondering, thus making the reading a playful
experience. Without exaggerating, experience with Chinese reading tells us that the more
eloquently a writer can ―digress,‖ from the perspective of holistic thinking, the more
respect is given to his/her writing. To a Western reader, this is basically nonsensical,
because continuity is the key to coherence, which is in turn highly valued. As Dr. Fawcett
indicated, ―In America, time is money, so we get right to the point.‖ In fact, the Western
system of logic condemns irrelevance. As we know, English speakers admire writing that
―gets to the point.‖ They do not want to be thrown for a loop. In other words, they do not
want to be confused by the writer who has ―gone off the track.‖ As a result, since the
Chinese students have to acquire literacy practices in English that are not familiar to them,
their learning load is double compared to that of a non-literate person learning in his/her

272
first language. This task in ESL learning is not easy, but it is our job to explain to ESL
students why we do things the way we do.
The above discussed features of Chinese student writing, presented by their
instructor, certainly don't cover all the bases, but they do touch on some of the major
coherence issues cropping up in Chinese students‘ papers.

273
CHAPTER 8
RESPONSE TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study has explored critical aspects of both Western and Chinese rhetorical
values on coherence that might exert a substantial impact on Chinese learners of English.
This section will provide a response to the research questions. To give effective answers,
I will briefly summarize the results of the study.
The First Research Question
The first research question is stated as follows:
Western Rhetorical Values on Coherence
To begin with, to provide an appropriate response to this research question, it is
necessary to briefly go over what I presented earlier in literature review. I will first
address the last part of the question, and will then gradually move back up to the first part
of the question. I would like to explore the reasons first before I answer the rest of the
smaller questions. Therefore, I will first again summarize the enormous influence of
Aristotle, John Locke, and Alexander Bain and how they have exercised a great impact
on today‘s notion of coherence. Next, I will briefly review two models of coherence
which started from Halliday and Hasan‘s text-based model of (1976) Cohesion in English
and developed in the context of recent reader-based approaches. After that, I will address

274
pedagogical practices for developing coherence in today‘s writing classroom. When this
is completed, I will provide a definition of cohesion and coherence. Finally, I will present
the coherence features necessary for effective persuasive writing in the English context
The influence of Aristotle. Coherence has its roots in Aristotle (384 BC – 322
BC) whose philosophy serves as a strong early example of unity and coherence (Lloyd,
1999). As Lloyd asserts, Aristotle‘s philosophical thoughts demonstrate an important
continuity. Since he has a clear sense of subject, audience, purpose, consistency, and the
use of concrete evidence when advancing his arguments, his way of argument
presentation proposes the earliest model for presenting coherent arguments in persuasive
discourse, which continues to have a significant impact on today‘s coherent writing
(Lloyd, 1999). In addition, Aristotle‘s logic, especially his theory of the syllogism, has
had an unparalleled influence on the history of Western thought. In particular, today‘s
attempts to comprehend the features of persuasive writing continue to rely on Aristotle‘s
three modes of persuasion in any given situation: ethos (the argument depends on the
character of the speaker and influence the perception of the audience), pathos (the
emotion of the audience is appealed to), and logos (reason itself is what persuades the
audience). In fact, in the American writing classroom, students today learn about the
different types of appeals that give power to weaker arguments.
The influence of John Locke. Aside from Aristotle‘s enormous influence on
today‘s notion of coherence, John Locke (1632-1740) has also exercised significant
influence on coherence in modern persuasive discourse. In writings such as the widely
read An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke emphasized the cautious
and proper use of language and believed that because of the limits of human knowledge,

275
when we voice our opinions, we must choose our words carefully and never allow the
words to say more than what we can rationally say. According to Ernst (2000), in the
nineteenth century, John Locke‘s pedagogical philosophy heavily influenced how a
writer should appropriately structure ideas to gain persuasion, coherence, clarity, and
attention (Ernst, 2000).
The influence of Alexander Bain. Under the influence of Aristotle and John
Locke, Alexander Bain (1818-1930) is another important figure in the history of modern
English; Bain plays a decisive role in further developing the conception of coherence
(Bamberg, 1983; McCulley, 1985; Lee, 2002). As introduced in the section Early
Influences: John Locke and Alexander Bain in Chapter 2, Bain‘s (1887, 1890) early
model of coherence in persuasive discourse, discussed in his two-volume seminal book
English Composition and Rhetoric, covers issues such as subject, purpose, audience,
transitions, statements, topic sentences, unity, support, inductive and deductive reasoning,
transitions, reference, repetition, and parallel structure. Scholars today continue to apply
these important elements elaborated in Bain‘s books to define the features of coherence
in English. Our contemporary composition textbooks clearly reflect Bain‘s notion of
coherence.
Based on Bain‘s model of coherence, the developments in the twentieth century
have set the tone for refining the concept of coherence. A review of modern literature has
presented two models of coherence: text-based and reader-based, with the former focused
on the text itself and the latter on the reader‘s interaction with the text.
The influence of Halliday and Hasan’s text-based model. Text-based
coherence started with Halliday and Hasan, who in 1976 presented the cohesion model in

276
Cohesion in English. Halliday and Hasan divided cohesion into grammatical and lexical
cohesive ties, arguing that these ties form a semantic relation between an element in the
text and some other element crucial to the interpretation of the text, thereby contributing
to coherence, as discussed in the section entitled Halliday and Hasan’s Cohesion in
English in Chapter 2.
Since then, cohesion, the linking of sentences together using surface ties (Connor,
1984), had been accepted as a useful tool for discourse analysis. However, scholars find
that this model does not clearly illustrate the link between cohesion and coherence.
Subsequent research has been conducted to test the usefulness of Halliday and Hasan‘s
cohesion model. Consequently, studies report that Halliday and Hasan‘s model of
cohesion is not a sufficient measure of coherence. In other words, these cohesive ties
alone do not necessarily make a text coherent (Witte and Faigley, 1981; McCulley, 1985;
Tierney and Mosenthal, 1983); there is now broad agreement among composition
researchers that overall coherence involves much more than cohesion.
Reader-based approach. For a text to be globally coherent, researchers have
examined the relationship between the lexical cohesion of student writing and overall
coherence. As a result, in the past thirty years a more dynamic and reader-based approach
has emerged. Researchers who are supportive of this reader-based approach to cohesion
and coherence include Carrell (1982 & 1984), Bamberg (1983), Connor (1984, 1996),
Tanskanen (2006), and O‘Reilly and McNamara (2007), to name a few. According to
these researchers, for anyone who does not have the relevant background knowledge
corresponding to the text, the text may fail to cohere; so a writer and a reader must share
background knowledge of both content and form for coherence to be achieved. The

277
shared background information is what leads to coherence. To put it another way, a text
cannot be considered separately from the reader; the successful use of textual cohesion
and coherence requires an interaction among the reader, the discourse, and the writer.
Although the recent focus has been placed on the interaction between reader and
text, Carrell (1984), Johns (1986), Bamberg (1983), Canavan and Brandon (1990),
Connor (1984, 1996), and Tanskanen (2006) agree that since cohesion and coherence
interact with each other, both cohesion and coherence work together to create a text as a
coherent whole. Some scholars even use the term ―local coherence‖ to replace the
concept of cohesion (Bamberg, 1983). As Bamberg (1983) claims, in considering
coherence in its broader sense, almost any feature, including cohesive ties and overall
perceptions of coherence, can affect a reader‘s ability to integrate details of a text into a
coherent whole. In practice, the following will briefly address what writing instructors are
actually doing in the English writing classroom.
Pedagogical practices for developing coherence. To help students develop
coherence, pedagogical practices lay emphasis on teaching students to achieve coherence
through order, through controlled patterns in forms, such as repetition of words and
pronouns, synonyms and substitutions, and transitions, and to become aware of concepts
such as unity, organizational structure, audience, purpose, thesis statement, topic sentence,
and supporting sentences (Fawcett, 2011; Arlov, 2010) because these elements of
coherence are highly valued in the English cultural world. However, as pointed out by
Johns (1986), numerous ESL writing textbooks, as well as non-ESL textbooks, today
present sentence-level grammar in a discourse context and teach students to write topic
sentences and thesis statements and to provide supporting details without teaching or

278
emphasizing the multitude of coherence features discussed in recent literature. English
writing textbook writers do not realize what students really need, in terms of coherence.
For example, most of the current writing textbooks lack the needed breadth and depth of
coherence coverage.
Additionally, writing instructors jump around too much when teaching writing,
without being aware that they need to repeat the emphasis on coherence in writing, and
that students need to continuously go over and over to strengthen coherence in their
writing. Consequently, students can hardly identify the logical relationships between
sentences, which lead them to misuse transitions. Because today‘s textbooks fail to
provide sufficient introduction to the depth and variety of coherence elements necessary
for effective persuasive writing (John, 1986), students often engage in a pattern of
repetition without being aware of why. Also, students frequently make off-topic claims
without realizing that this is not the way to write in the English cultural world.
Considering this, pedagogical practices for developing coherence must be enhanced.
Then an important issue arises: what is coherence all about, and what do teachers and
scholars say in defining coherence? The following section will answer this question.
Definition of cohesion and coherence. This review of literature indicates that the
definition of coherence varies. There are at least two competing orientations: one that
focuses on the text itself and one that stresses the reader‘s interaction with the text
(Connor & Johns, 1990). For the purpose of this study, drawing upon the definition
provided by Abeywickrama (2007), this study defines cohesion and coherence as follows:

279
 Cohesion: the intersentential property of texts, the surface-structure linguistic
features that signal connections between sentences and tie together the semantic
relations in a text (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; van Dijk, 1980).
 Coherence: The organization of discourse with all elements present and fitting
together logically (Hinkel, 2004); ideas sticking together, the overall discourse
level unity, the linking together of meanings in texts or how well the text hangs
together to provide the global quality of text structure (Bamberg, 1984); when a
writer leads the reader clearly and logically from one idea to another while
developing his/her thoughts, the reader can see quickly the relationship of one
idea to another and to the central thought of the whole (Canavan & Brandon,
1990).
The above views of cohesion and coherence provide a general picture of what
makes a text a unified whole. The important point to be noted again is that although
effective writing involves coherence at both levels, attention to overall coherence must
precede most concerns about cohesion (Bamberg, 1983). Finally, in the English context,
the following coherence features are deemed as necessary for effective persuasive writing.
Coherence features necessary for effective persuasive writing. Sources from
Halliday and Hasan (1976), Bamberg (1983), McCulley (1985), Lee (2002),
Abeywickrama, 2007, and CATW (2010) identify the following features as leading to
overall coherence:
 Cohesion
(a) Pronouns of reference are used accurately
(b) Conjunctions are used accurately

280
(c) Ellipsis and substitution are used when needed
(d) Lexical repetition is used appropriately
(e) Synonymous words/phrases when used are used appropriately
(f) Transition words are used judiciously and accurately to link sentences and/or
paragraphs together to convey relationships throughout the essay
(g) Each sentence follows logically from the previous one
 Coherence
(a) The opening paragraph is effective in introducing the reader to the subject or the
central idea that the writer will develop throughout the essay
(b) All the paragraphs support the central focus and do not digress
(c) The writer‘s overall point of view is clear
(d) Paragraphs are divided in terms of content relevance
(e) Transition is smooth between paragraphs
(f) The writer organizes paragraph details according to a discernible plan (e.g., time
order, addition order, order of importance, order of cause and effect, order of
comparison-contrast) that is well-designed with a smooth and logical progression
of thoughts; therefore, the ideas relate to one another
(g) The writer does not shift topics, and the ideas in each paragraph are all relevant to
the topic
(h) Ideas mentioned are elaborated
(i) There is no repetition of ideas
(j) The writer fully develops paragraphs, effectively using reasons and specific

281
(k) The last paragraph gives the reader a definite sense of closure
With a review of literature, the above findings have provided answers to the first
research question. In what follows, I will address the second research question.
The Second Research Question
The second research question is stated as follows:
Chinese Rhetorical Values on Coherence
To answer the second question, the influences of the Confucianism, Taoism, and
Buddhism will be first again summarized in order, following a similar organization of the
same topics in Chapter 2. Next, I will summarize the influence of Chen Wangdao‘s An
Introduction to Rhetoric in the Chinese cultural context. Then current English instruction
in China will be briefly discussed. All the above mentioned influences have been
addressed in Chapter 2. Having reviewed this material, I will address each part of the
second question in order.
Modern rhetorical principles regarding Chinese writing can be traced back to
ancient Chinese philosophical traditions. Chinese rhetorical values emerged mainly from
three traditions: the Confucian tradition of filial piety and loyalty to the social tradition
and to authority, the Taoist tradition of Yin and Yang, and the Buddhist tradition of rote

282
learning. The central idea of the three pillars of Chinese thought is characterized by the
notion of harmony.
The influence of the Confucian tradition. Since ancient times, China has been
involved in numerous battles. Serious dissent and violent confrontations were never
absent in ancient Chinese culture. To achieve harmony, Confucius, the dominant ancient
Chinese philosopher, ideally promoted an appropriate and artistic use of language. When
conflicts arise, Confucianism advocates Zhongyong, the middle of the road, discussed
Chinese Rhetorical Values in Chapter 2. The goal of Zhongyong is to maintain balance
and harmony. The guiding principle, therefore, is that one should never act in excess. As
a result, the Confucian tradition can be said to have influenced the Chinese rhetorical
values in the following important ways:
 Straightforwardness in communication is not encouraged.
 Chinese writers use indirect, even irrelevant, sentences to support their topics in
their writings (Duan, 2003)
 To maintain a very polite and humble tone, Chinese writers at various levels often
follow a ―topic-delayed‖ structure (Qian, 2003).
 Chinese writers may never reveal their point of view or state the conclusion at all,
leaving it to the reader.
 In the Chinese cultural context, persuasion means to smooth out disagreement and
achieve harmony (Wang, 2008).
 In persuasive writing, following the principle of Zhongyong, Chinese writers try
to show no partiality to either side, avoiding taking one-sided view of an issue.

283
 Since the Chinese rarely consider writing as a means of persuading others,
audience analysis is not a central issue in the Chinese rhetorical tradition.
 For the Chinese, the purpose of their writing is often to demonstrate the beauty of
the language and eulogize the ruling class.
The influence of the Taoist tradition. The central principle of the Taoist
tradition focuses on Yin and Yang discussed in Chinese Rhetorical Values in Chapter 2.
The Taoist visual Yin (black) and Yang (white) shape represents the interaction of two
energies as well as the balance of opposites in the universe. Yin and Yang cause
everything to happen. If one of them dominates, the other is negatively impacted and vice
versa. They are never at rest, but constantly changing and complementing each other. The
influence of the Yin and Yang idea over the Chinese rhetorical tradition can be
summarized as follows:
 Originating from the Yin and Yang concept, Chinese culture is featured with a
non-linear or circular thinking pattern. Chinese circularity manifests itself in the
prevailing viewpoint of combing the two opposites and enclosing them (Zuo,
2001). When approaching an essay topic, the Chinese would prefer to talk around
it in circle-like discussions until a mutually agreeable solution is found.
 In persuasive writing, much like the Confucian idea of Zhongyong, the Chinese
like to balance the Yin and Yang, avoiding stark contrasts. As a general rhetorical
approach, while writing persuasive essays, the Chinese value a strategy that
supports both sides or argues positively about both sides to seek common ground
in order to be free from any bias (Wu, 2001).

284
 Chinese students especially struggle when it comes to repetition. As might be
expected, the more they write, the more they repeat themselves. The study reports
that the participants repeated the same point over and over again using different
wording. The tendency toward repetition is closely related to Chinese thinking in
circles as well as rote learning, which is, in turn, based on repetition.
 The Chinese thought patterns are typical of dialectical thinking, emphasizing
holistic strategies (see Chapter 2).
 Holistic strategies allow the Chinese to view issues from multiple perspectives
(Zhao, 1999; Li, 2005; Zhang, 2009). Consequently, Chinese writers often see a
topic from all sides and tend to compose dis-unified paragraphs containing many
different ideas. Such a spiral way of idea presentation or a ―discursive‖ writing
style is well accepted in the Chinese context (Erbaugh, 1990; Liu & Zhou, 2004;
Dewey, 2007; Dong, 2009).
The influence of the Buddhist tradition. Throughout the ages, Buddhism,
originally from Central Asia, has gradually become an important part of the Chinese
culture. In fact, it has exerted a great influence on Chinese philosophical ideas. In
particular, the Buddhist tradition of memorization has played a powerful role in shaping
the mind-set of the Chinese people. As a result, the Chinese memorize texts as a sign of
showing respect for the authority (Duan, 2003) as well as a way of demonstrating their
knowledge of the language (Kohn, 1992). Additionally, one major characteristic of the
Buddhist tradition centers on the idea of Wuxing or intuitive thinking (see Chapter 2). It is
worth noting that both Confucianism and Buddhism highlight intuitive thinking. As
claimed by Confucius, if too much attention was devoted to rational thinking, the result

285
may turn out to be just the opposite of one‘s wish, thus often leading to confusion (Hou,
2003). In contrast to the Western logical reasoning, traditional Chinese culture highly
values intuition. Chinese people understand or look at things by using feelings rather than
by carefully considering facts. The emphasis on intuitive thinking has led to a tradition
since ancient times of employing intuitive approaches in academic and real life. For
Chinese writing, comprehension, therefore, is achieved via the reader‘s intuition. To put
it briefly, the results of the influences of the Buddhist tradition are summarized as follows:
 As a result of memorizing texts, Chinese students‘ writings may be filled with
somebody else‘s ideas, so Chinese students seldom express their own voices in
their writings.
 Since Chinese students are used to the way they memorize texts, they do not
know how to break down an abstract idea into elements for critical analysis. The
result of this presents considerable challenges to the Chinese learners of English
when they compose reading-response essays in the American writing classroom.
 Because intuitive thinking is overemphasized, Chinese students tend to do what
they feel or think is right, so they seriously lack critical or analytical thinking
(Zhang, 2009).
 Chinese writing is writer-centered and highly suggestive. Chinese students would
creatively link A and B together to prolong their writing without providing a
sense of continuity.
 When writing, Chinese students often make broad generalizations and skip over
details that could be very important to the English reader. Therefore, Chinese
writing is not audience-focused; it is reader-responsible, leaving readers to

286
construct meaning rather than expecting the writer to have done so and expressed
the result in the language of the text.
 Chinese is more paratactic (see Chapter 2) and is postulated as meaning-oriented
(Huang, 2002).
 Traditional Chinese intuitive thinking may be strongly related to the paratactic
nature of the Chinese language. Just as the Chinese paratactic sentence structure is
loose and flexible, the logical relationship of related ideas between sentences and
paragraphs is understood from the context. Readers are then left to make their
own connections by the Chinese paratactic syntax.
 Chinese writing considers surface linguistic features, particularly transitions and
overt discourse markers, optional and relies heavily on the reader‘s interpretation.
 Under the heavy influence of intuition, Chinese writers do not have to bother
themselves to think about the logical relationships from sentence to sentence and
from idea to idea. This creates a lot of difficulty for Chinese learners of English
because they have difficulty establishing the relationship between two sentences,
such as the relationship of the subordinate clause with the main clause in a
sentence. In particular, for instance, a cause and effect relationship challenges
Chinese EFL/ESL students (see Conclusion in Chapter 5).
 Chinese students clearly lack transitional skills in their English writing and
frequently misuse transitions.
The influence of Chen Wangdao’s An Introduction to Rhetoric. Chen Wangdao
(1891-1977) is regarded as the founding father of modern Chinese rhetoric (Harbsmeier,
1999; Wu, 2009; Lam, 2002). It is believed that modern Chinese rhetoric started with

287
Chen Wangdao‘s An Introduction to Rhetoric (see Chapter 2). The book was the first
systematic account of rhetoric and was published in 1932. Chen‘s An Introduction to
Rhetoric focused on language use rather than organization, unity, and logical progression
of ideas. His book explores both ancient and modern Chinese writings, covering the
definition of rhetoric, passive and active forms of rhetoric, figures of speech, rhetorical
phenomena, and styles. According to Chen (1932), the purpose of rhetorical study is to
learn models of language use and beautify writing. Therefore, Chen has mainly adapted
ideas from traditional Chinese culture. As Wu (2009) explains, modern Chinese rhetoric
has been primarily aesthetic and poetic since it evolved out of the notion of harmony.
Under the dominant influence of Chen‘s An Introduction to Rhetoric, Chinese
writers regard the purpose of their writing as a way of showing their superior mastery of
Chinese classics and frequently use set phrases and maxims, quote well-known sayings,
and imitate texts. As noted by Chen (2004), ―While Confucianism promotes a
harmonious social order, rhetoric study maintains a harmonious society‖ (p. 90).
Current English instruction in China. Rooted in Chinese culture and influenced
by the former Soviet Intensive Reading model of foreign language teaching (see Chapter
2), English instruction centers on analyzing a text, working on sentence level forms, and
paying attention mainly to vocabulary, usage, verb patterns, and grammatical accuracy
(Qian, 2009). In order for Chinese students to demonstrate correct usage and write
―elegantly,‖ memorization of texts plays a central role in writing instruction. At the end
of each semester, students‘ writing is mainly evaluated by their grammar and vocabulary
related test scores (Gao, 2010). Consequently, little attention is paid to coherence in
writing.

288
Answering the research question. I now return to answer the second research
question.
a) What rhetorical values regarding coherence have been expressed in Chinese
culture?
In terms of the rhetorical values regarding coherence that have been expressed in
Chinese culture, the above summary of the Chinese rhetorical values and practice
demonstrates that very few rhetorical values regarding coherence in Chinese culture have
been found, since Chinese culture and actual classroom practice heavily focus on the
sentence-level control of language, and coherence in English writing does not seem to be
the main focus. Indeed, some cognitive factors valued in Chinese society even mitigate
against coherence in the Western sense. Evidently, coherence in the Chinese English-
instruction classroom is not greatly valued. It should be noted that although the College
English Curriculum Requirements [CECR] (2007) issued by Ministry of Education of the
People‘s Republic of China (see Chapter 2) require that short essay writing should be
―complete in content, clear in position, well-organized in presentation, and coherent in
text‖ (p.12), this phrasing seems to be a mere formality on the practical level in many
educational institutions in China. To specify such goals is one thing, while to put them
into practice is quite another. According to Bao and Sun (2010), a questionnaire
distributed in China‘s large university clearly indicates that English instructors put a
heavy emphasis on vocabulary, syntax, and grammar when teaching writing. Of course,
such linguistic elements do have their place in the second language learning context. But
combined with and tempered by social and political ideas deeply rooted in the old

289
traditions of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, they lead to the current mismatch
between official pronouncements and actual classroom practice.
b) What do Chinese EFL teachers and scholars say about coherence in the Chinese
cultural context? Again, how are these views of coherence rooted in classical
Chinese philosophy or rhetorical traditions?
Since few Western rhetorical values regarding coherence have been found in the
history of Chinese writing practice, a question arises: do Chinese EFL teachers and
scholars say anything about coherence in the Chinese cultural context? The following
summary reveals what they do and say. In fact, as one might expect, the Chinese EFL
teachers and scholars‘ views of coherence can be seen as firmly rooted in the classical
Chinese philosophical tradition summarized above. Although this topic has been
addressed in the section Chinese Views of Coherence and Cohesion in Chapter 2, it must
be revisited here in order to answer this question.
1) Research on coherence in China has remained on the level of introducing and
explaining Western theories related to text-based coherence such as those presented in
Van Dijk‘s Text and Context (1977) and Halliday and Hasan‘s Cohesion in English. In
fact, no serious attempts have been made to test the notions of the current Western
theories on coherence as a unified whole and create new theories or approaches that can
be applied to Chinese EFL writing classroom settings. This pattern recalls the official
government statement cited above, and leaves the impression that attention to coherence
has remained as a superficial level, rather than being incorporated deeply into Chinese
ideas on writing.

290
2) Many Chinese scholars seem to be aware that coherence is one of the most
prominent features of good writing (e.g., Kuo, 1995; Dong, 1999; Li, 2000; Lee, 2002;
Chen, 2003; Gao, 2008), but their perceptions of the notion of coherence are unclear.
Some scholars have used the two concepts coherence and cohesion interchangeably
(Wang & Sui, 2006), thus confusing the issue(s) they are presenting. Others begin by
discussing coherence, and then shift to a focus on cohesion at the sentence level. In short,
coherence as a concept in China remains an abstract topic (Zhang, 2000), and scholars
who discuss coherence seem to merely scratch the surface.
3) Many Chinese EFL teachers have limited experience of Western styles of
writing. They may have been taught how to write without any thought for coherence. For
this reason, many Chinese ESL teachers may not understand what coherence actually
signifies in the West, even though they are trying to borrow the idea of coherence from
the West. In fact, coherence is a fuzzy and somewhat vague concept to many of the
Chinese scholars, and this is made even more problematic by the essential complexity of
the concept to begin with. As Jin and Ban (2006) state, ―the notion of coherence is not
clear enough.‖ Zhang (2006) reflects the theme of widespread uncertainty when he
claims that, ―no one can exactly tell what makes a text cohere‖ (P.13). Chen & Zhang
(2004) underscore the same point, ―Although coherence is the heart of discourse analysis,
no one can explain the term in a systematic way due to the complex nature of coherence‖
(p. 420).
4) In addition to the confusion cited above, or perhaps as a way of coping with it,
Chinese scholars have tended to take a kind of default position, that when cohesion is
achieved, a text will be coherent. Therefore, they are inclined to advocate the importance

291
of teaching cohesion (Li, 2000; Shi, 2004; Zhou, 2007) within a paragraph, holding the
belief that the use of cohesive devices can create coherence in writing for all levels of
Chinese EFL learners. As Wang & Sui (2006) clearly put it, ―textual cohesion should be
employed more in actual teaching practice as an illustration of how important it is for
students to be able to connect sentences smoothly and logically and, consequently, create
better coherence.‖ The statements of several other researchers further confirm this:
―Coherence… is fundamentally based on semantic ties, i.e., the use of cohesive ties‖ (Li,
2000); and ―On most occasions, realization of coherence relies on cohesion‖ (Jin & Ban,
2006). What the Chinese EFL teachers and scholars say about coherence tends to remain
at the level of cohesion. Therefore, the discussion of coherence above the paragraph level
in the Chinese cultural context is seriously ignored; an important underpinning of
cohesion is also missing in a pedagogy that looks too closely at cohesive ties, ignoring
the deeper organization that these ties are supposed to support or express. In fact, what
the EFL teachers focus on in the actual classroom is often still mainly sentence-level
grammar, sentence translation, and vocabulary. They are not even teaching cohesion, let
alone coherence. Because of this, the Chinese favor a strict linguistic approach to the text,
unaware of both overall content structure and factors outside the text itself, such as the
writer‘s purpose as well as the reader‘s background knowledge and expectations. This
observation helps to explain Connor‘s (1984) view that there is much to be desired in the
quality of coherence in ESL/EFL writing. In the West, it is now accepted that attention to
overall coherence must come before cohesion at the sentence level, as was suggested in
some of the early critiques and responses to Halliday and Hasan‘s system (Bamberg,
1983).

292
As can be seen from the above discussions, Chinese scholars mainly focus on the
discussion of cohesion, and Chinese EFL teachers in the memorization and test-oriented
education system are predominantly concerned about the teaching of grammatically
correct English rather than either cohesion or overall coherence (You, 2004; Guo &
Wang, 2004; Gao, 2007; Wu & He, 2010). Consequently, when writing persuasive essays,
Chinese students under this system cannot adequately organize and express related ideas
in writing. Apparently, the Chinese way of focusing on form rather than coherence has its
roots in the classical Chinese philosophies of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism
discussed above. In the Chinese cultural context, harmony has been emphasized over
coherence. Once again, the three pillars of Chinese thought are centered on the value of
harmony. This point cannot be overemphasized. Since Chinese rhetorical traditions have
evolved out of the notion of harmony, Chinese rhetoric has primarily focused on control
of language and beautifying writing.
c) To what extent, and in what ways, do the Chinese values differ from those
prevalent in English?
What the Chinese EFL teachers and scholars are doing and saying seems to
actually go along a different direction from that of the Westerners in terms of
philosophical values contributing to coherence. The following shows the Chinese values
and the Western values differ greatly in important ways.
 While Westerners value linear thinking, the Chinese prefer intuitive thinking and
circular thinking. Instead of developing logical thinking as in Aristotelian formal
logic, the Chinese have only acquired dialectical thinking abilities and highly
value the Yin and Yang idea.

293
 English stresses cohesion of form, but Chinese is meaning-oriented. As we know,
English resorts to overt cohesion, frequently using various cohesive ties to
establish the logical relationship from ide a to idea; however, the Chinese
paratactic sentence structure and topic-comment sentence patterns downplay
cohesion of form and consider surface links optional or even unnecessary, so
Chinese writing remains obscure and highly suggestive when assessed in the light
of Western values.
 English favors a topic-first pattern for the overall organization of a paragraph or
essay, but the practice of putting the main idea of a text before supporting ideas
violates a Chinese reader‘s expectation (Chu, Swaffar, & Charney, 2002).
Straightforwardness in the Chinese cultural context is discouraged. Chinese
rhetoric values indirectness in writing. The real intent of the writing can (or even
should) be implied or simply left to the reader.
 Strong writing in English culture emphasizes unity that contributes to coherence.
In contrast, Chinese writing prefers a discursive style and may deliberately make
an effort to discuss ―different‖ ideas in a single paragraph (Erbaugh, 1990; Liu &
Zhou, 2004; Xing, Wang, & Spencer 2008; Dong, 2009), rather than keeping to a
single subject; this can be seen as a result of, or at least as related to, Chinese
holistic thinking.
 In the West, people excel at formal logic while Chinese do well in Yin and Yang
or Zhongyong, the ―middle way.‖ The Chinese do not follow the Western claim-
justification-conclusion pattern when writing ―persuasive‖ essays. Chinese

294
writing is more likely to favorably support both sides of a topic, seeking common
ground, keeping balance, and achieving harmony.
 Western rhetorical values emphasize that audience awareness is a central
characteristic of strong persuasive writing, but audience analysis is ignored in
Chinese writing instruction, since the audience has traditionally been seen as
made up of politically and socially important people (Huang, 2002; Duan, 2003).
For Chinese writers, with the Confucian idea of respect for authority in mind,
people in power are somehow the people worth writing for, and societal harmony
is the final goal that the Chinese try to achieve.
Taking all these different rhetorical values into consideration, the Chinese view of
coherence is quite different from that of Westerners. The above discussion has answered
the second question. Now I will move to the third research question.
The Third Research Question
The third research question is stated as follows:
Chinese Students’ Perceptions of Coherence
rhetorical traditions? When addressing their own writing choices, how do these
students explain the choices they make in terms of organization and linguistic
forms related to coherence? In what ways do their perceptions of coherence
change over the course of a semester in which they receive training in coherence,
in the Western tradition in an American university setting?

295
a) What conscious attitudes and views do advanced Chinese ESL students
rhetorical traditions?
As for the participants‘ perceptions of coherence in writing, their initial responses
during the first round interview and their subsequent answers during the second round
interview differ noticeably. Therefore, I will address these separately.
Unawareness of coherence in writing. To begin with, during the first round
interview, when asked about coherence in writing, nobody seemed to be clear on what the
term coherence specifically referred to, for the simple reason that coherence in writing
had not been emphasized in their experience in the Chinese language context or in their
earlier English studies. When the participants had begun to learn English as a foreign
language, the instructional emphasis had always been on control of the English language
and grammatical accuracy rather than on coherence such as focus and organization. Of
the six participants, only three of them knew something about coherence (see Chapter 6).
The basic Chinese essay structure. Both Lili and Xiaohui explained their
understanding of coherence in terms of organizing information, and referring to concepts
they learned in the Chinese context. Lili discussed the Chinese qi-cheng-zuan-he
structure (qi for introduction, cheng for development, zhuan for turn, and he for
conclusion), and Xiaohui pointed out the zong-fen-zong persuasive essay structure (see
Chapter 6). Much like what Lili described in the qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure, the zong-
fen-zong structure consists of an introduction, several body paragraphs (not just one
paragraph as Xiaohui claimed in the interviews), and a conclusion. Both patterns follow

296
variants of an introduction-body-conclusion structure. The difference between the qi-
cheng-zhuan-he structure and the zong-fen-zong structure is that the latter does not have
the ―turn‖ step. Here we may find that the basic Chinese essay structure resembles an
English essay format used in the English cultural context. For the past decades, Western
ideas have been introduced into the Chinese context. Not surprisingly, the Chinese are
adopting Western style writing to some extent.
It is true that as one of the commonly used pedagogical strategies both in Taiwan
and Mainland China, high school students are trained to compose their expository essays
by following this qi-cheng-zuan-he four-part structure. Especially, this four-part structure
serves as a guideline for the national unified college entrance examination essays, even
though it may not be the only structure. In fact, zong-fen-zong is another Chinese
argumentative essay structure especially used by Chinese high school students for
preparing for the national college entrance examination.
The Chinese way of achieving “coherence”—the turn step. At first sight,
comparing both Chinese and English academic writing patterns, Chinese rhetoric seems
to share similar rhetorical values and practices with Western rhetoric, yet Cahill (2003)
reports that Western scholars argue that the third step, zhuan, of the four-part Chinese qi-
cheng-zhuan-he represents a ―turn,‖ which exemplifies the nonlinearity and indirectness
of Chinese rhetoric. It is this kind of structure that might have inspired Kaplan‘s (1966)
idea of the flow of Chinese ("Oriental") discourse as a spiral. As Cahill (2003) further
claims, his investigation into Chinese rhetoric on this structure shows that the "turn" is
not a rhetorical move of circularity or digression as commonly assumed in the English-

297
language scholarship, but rather serves as the occasion to further develop an essay by
alternative means.
In 2004, Junjing Zhao and Yingkui Liu published a book Sixty Brilliant Ideas for
a Perfect Score on the College Entrance Examination Essay intended for China‘s high
school graduates preparing for the college entrance examination. In their book, they
explain that the common text structure for an expository essay is the qi-cheng-zhuan-he
pattern.
Westerners might have difficulty understanding the ―turn‖ step in the qi-cheng-
zhuan-he structure. This ―turn‖ may suggest a non-linear pattern as perceived by an
English reader, thus failing to contribute to coherence. In Chinese rhetoric, however, in
order to add more persuasion to the point, it is common to further support one‘s views by
changing the direction of the argument or turning to the reverse side of the argument,
hence winning over readers. Probably, this is the Chinese way of achieving ―coherence‖
in the Chinese language context.
Since this ―turn‖ step is so strongly advocated in the Chinese context, students
exposed to it are likely to transfer this Chinese writing style into the English context. The
Chinese learners of English in this study were puzzled when their first-class diagnostic
essays were judged to be incoherent. Many of the participants take it for granted that
what they wrote makes sense to them.
Notional coherence in texts. In addition to Lili‘s view about coherence, Yiman
and Xiaohui also expressed their perceptions of coherence when they recalled their past
learning experiences in China. Both claimed that they had learned about coherence in
Chinese writing. When asked about how much they know about the notion of coherence,

298
Yiman said, ―I remember, the teacher told us about cheng-shang-qi-xia.‖ Literarily,
cheng-shang means ―continue from the above,‖ and qi-xia means ―introduce the
following.‖ This is all what Yiman knew about coherence when he was in China leaning
Chinese writing. Cheng-shang-qi-xia is a Chinese idiom representing a writing skill
which is especially applied to Chinese writing, emphasizing the connection between two
parts of a piece of writing. While studying in middle school in China, Yiman learned both
Chinese and English; however, he may not have a strong literacy background for his lack
of interest in school. Therefore, he indicated that he could not explain more beyond that
point. In his memory, Yiman knows that coherence may mean something like transitions,
but he definitely lacks this writing skill and is unable to apply it to his writing.
Both Chinese and English cultures appreciate connections from idea to idea;
however, the idea of cheng-shang-qi-xia in the Chinese cultural context does not exactly
reflect the kind of connection that is valued in the English language context. In Chinese
writing, cheng-shang-qi-xia may only refer to implicit connections among ideas. As for
how sentences or paragraphs should be joined, it still remains a relatively vague idea; at
least Chinese writing skills do not clearly emphasize this point as a result of notional
coherence or intuitive thinking.
A dramatic difference regarding coherence between the two rhetorical traditions
lies in the perception about what is considered logical progression of ideas. As Chinese is
meaning-oriented (Huang, 2002), Chinese writing seldom emphasizes the use of
transitions to convey relationships among ideas. The logical relationship of related ideas
between sentences and paragraphs is understood from the context. Western rhetorical
tradition and Chinese rhetorical tradition each understand ―clarity‖ or the ―logical

299
progression‖ in their own ways. In the English context, a well-designed essay
organization clearly demonstrates a logical progression of ideas from paragraph to
paragraph and from sentence to sentence that coheres around the writer‘s central focus
throughout the essay, thus contributing to coherence. To demonstrate coherence to help
the reader follow the writer‘s ideas, the writer ties all the relevant information in his/her
writing so that connections the writer has made in his/her own mind are obvious to the
reader. For the Chinese, and specifically for the six Chinese participants, in contrast, they
do not have a specific audience in the mind. What they know is a simple and general
essay structure. Under the overwhelming influence of intuitive thinking, ideas may be
seen as ‗connected‘ without conscious motivation, and explicit transitions are optional. It
is the reader‘s responsibility to figure out the connections among the ideas. Consequently,
they certainly do not know transitions well and therefore lack transitional skills.
b) When addressing their own writing choices, how do these students explain the
choices they make in terms of organization and linguistic forms related to
coherence?
Interestingly enough, when asked about why they made their choices in terms of
organization and linguistic forms related to coherence, most of the Chinese participants
attributed their frequent off-topic claims, their lack of transitional skills, and other writing
problems to poor English grammar skills.
Misconceptions about coherence and grammar. In discussing the diagnostic
essay with Lili, when asked about her problems with main idea focus, paragraph unity,
misuse of transitions identified in her essay, she touched on these issues lightly, saying
that multiple ideas in one paragraph and repetition of ideas are culture specific. Instead of

300
fully explaining why these problems occurred in her writing, she emphasized that unlike
Chinese writing in which she focused on essay organization, in English writing she had to
think more about sentence structures and vocabulary because grammar and word usage
were more urgent to her.
Weishan stated that since he had never written an essay nor learned paragraph
organization, he simply kept on writing, unaware that he wandered from the subject.
However, he thought that grammatical form was the most challenging part when he wrote
his essay, citing problems with the past perfect tense. Weishan added that even in New
York, his previous writing teachers ―only fixed grammar, sentence structure, vocabulary,
spelling.‖
Yiman had serious problems with unclear central focus, digression, and inaccurate
use of transitions, but he downplayed these problems. According to Yiman, the reason
why he wrote like that was all because of his grammar issues. He believed that the
grammar gave him the most problems, saying, ―When I write, I don‘t have confidence in
sentence, grammar. I have difficulty with building sentences.‖
Xiaohui was frustrated when talking about his failure to indicate the logical
relationship between sentences, elaborate on many of his general statements, and keep
focused on the topic. However, he did not realize that he had so many serious problems in
these areas. He mistakenly believed that he did a good job in his diagnostic essay except
for his grammar, so he claimed that as long as English grammar was ok, writing would be
all right. However, when I pointed out his writing problems identified in his writing, he
changed his tone, explaining that he was impressed by his English teacher‘s emphasis on
sentence structure and grammar in China. He remembers that he focused on grammar

301
when he learned English in China. He had only learned to do multiple choice questions,
sentence translation, and short paragraph writing, so he said that he knew nothing about
how to organize ideas. ―The teacher did not care about how to organize the writing
because grammar was most important,‖ Xiaohui explained.
As for Gaofeng, his writing had many problems with inappropriate use of
transitions, unclear central focus, and digression, but he was not aware of these serious
issues in writing. He insisted that essay organization was easy for him since he kept
reading Chinese classical novels. He noted that he should focus more on sentence
structures and grammar such as subject verb agreement.
It seems that Hong‘s case was an exception regarding his writing problems.
Rather than attributing his serious digression to poor grammar skills, he simply does not
care about his writing. Clearly, he has an attitude problem. In high school, he learned
free-writing; therefore, he just continued to free-write even after he attended college. He
was proud of his free-writing when we discussed his diagnostic essay. Because he
preferred free writing, he was ignorant of his serious off-topic issues and unclear idea
organization. He definitely hates any serious academic writing, arguing, ―I have no idea
about the essay structure.‖ When asked about why he made so many off-topic claims, he
snickered, ―Who cares?‖ His indifferent attitude toward writing may account for his weak
writing skills. Obviously, he does not have academic writing skills because he does not
want to learn writing. And his frustrating encounter with very different criteria that he
feels he cannot understand have further lessened his interest in developing as a writer.
The above discussion reveals that as the Chinese students reflect on their writing,
most of them attribute their confusion about coherence in English writing to grammar and

302
vocabulary. Since coherence and logical arguments are not seen as an important focus in
the Chinese context, they think that, to become strong writers in English, they only need
English sentence-level grammar skills and vocabulary. Like the official government
statement cited above, and like the Chinese scholars, they speak of coherence; but they
have never been led to explore that notion on a deep level in their own writing. For many
of them, grammar, word choice, and sentence structure had been the main focus in their
learning of English. At this advanced ESL writing level, though their instructor
emphasized organization and coherence-related factors, they still hold on to the idea that
sentence structure, word usage, and grammar are more important than anything else;
therefore, in their mind, issues of language usage are blocking their ability to think of
essay organization and logical arguments.
c) In what ways do their perceptions of coherence change over the course of a
semester in which they receive training in coherence, in the Western tradition in
an American university setting?
Ideas flowing and fitting together well. Finally, before addressing this sub-
question, I will return to complete the first part of the third research question, that is, the
participants‘ perceptions of coherence in writing. During the second round interview,
when asked again about how much they know about coherence in writing, the six
participants all agreed that coherence is something that makes the writing ―flow‖ so that
the reader can follow the writer‘s ideas easily. After receiving some training in writing,
the participants‘ responses to coherence in writing can be briefly summarized as follows:
a) one clear central focus for the entire essay, b) well-organized paragraphs, c) the use of

303
transitions to connect sentences, d) and no off-topic claims, all of which contribute to the
type of coherence that is highly valued in the Western rhetorical traditions.
Growing awareness of coherence in writing. Compared with their initial
responses during the first round interview, the participants‘ perceptions of coherence had
changed considerably over the course of a semester. Before they received training in
coherence, half of the participants had never heard of the term, let alone using the
concept to inform their ability to produce coherent essays. Although Lili, Yiman, and
Xiaohui stated that they learned something about coherence in the Chinese cultural
context, their knowledge of coherence was incomplete; their understanding of coherence
was shallow. Only one participant had learned a little bit about transition words in
Taiwan. Their ideas of essay structure and organization were very basic and not clear
enough. What they knew about coherence only remained at the superficial level, nothing
more than coherence through chronological order in a narrative, a basic essay structure of
the introduction-body-conclusion pattern, and a little knowledge of simple transitions.
After being exposed to the training in coherence in the American writing classroom, all
the participants‘ awareness of coherence had increased. To them, coherence now means
that everything in their writing should be logically laid out and connected, and an
effective essay should generally cohere around one central focus, well-organized
paragraphs with strong topic sentences and sufficient supporting details, and no
discursive claims, even though some of them, like Yiman, still viewed grammar and
vocabulary as more important than other things in practice.

304
After a discussion of the participants‘ attitudes and views regarding coherence,
the third research question has been answered. At this point, I will address the final
research question.
The Fourth Research Question
The fourth research question is stated as follows:
Chinese Students’ Textual Practice Regarding Coherence
extent are these writings judged as coherent by professional raters? What specific
elements in the writings might be traced to the two traditions (Western and
Chinese)? Do these elements change in the students’ writing over the course of a
semester?
a) In what ways do the writings of these students demonstrate coherence?
To answer this question, I will revisit Chapter 5 in which I discuss coherence
issues as identified in the participants‘ writings. From these, I will first go into more
detail about coherence as demonstrated in the participants‘ writings.
After being exposed to training in the Western rhetorical tradition, the writings of
many of the participants revealed the following coherence features:
 Pronouns--yes
 conjunctions—yes
 Simple transition words between sentences and paragraphs—yes
 Thesis statement—yes
 Topic sentence—yes
 Concluding sentence---yes

305
 Paragraph organization---yes
 Basic overall structure: introduction-body-conclusion—yes
 Purpose--yes
The findings of this study show that the basic cohesion and coherence features
listed above are identified in the participants‘ writings, although many other cohesion and
coherence elements are not developed in their writing, such as ellipsis and substitution,
lexical repetition, and synonymous words/phrases. Moreover, broad evidence of attention
to reader orientation (overall coherence and ease of understanding), unity, and continuity
in writing are weaker in these writings. In what follows, I will briefly discuss each
coherence feature identified in the participants‘ writings.
Pronouns. As Halliday and Hasan (1976) note, reference cohesion occurs when
one item in a text points to another element for its interpretation. The participants did use
pronouns to take the place of nouns to help ensure cohesion in a given text. Since the use
of pronouns to refer to nouns in previous sentences was not so noticeable when the
participants took the diagnostic test at the beginning of the semester, after one-semester
training, at least their awareness of using pronouns to help achieve coherence were
developed. However, it must be pointed out that while using pronouns, many of the
participants used them incorrectly (as discussed in Chapter 5), so that the noun-pronoun
relationships were sometimes unclear. For example, Lili and Hong produced sentences
that used pronouns without clear noun antecedents, thus creating faulty or vague pronoun
reference problems. Therefore, the Chinese students should use pronouns such as it, they,
you, and us more carefully when using them.

306
Conjunctions. Likewise, the participants also used conjunctions as cohesive ties
to reflect various types of syntactic cohesion. In their writings, conjunctions such as when,
after, before, since, because, and although were often used to help basic clauses and
sentences ―hold together,‖ for instance, clarifying the relationship of a subordinate clause
to a main clause in a complex sentence, thus relating the ideas expressed in clear ways.
Other simple transition words. Sentence-level transitions are also identified,
which help a reader understand the relationship between main clauses in the text.
Transitional words and phrases such as however, second, third, another, therefore,
clearly, furthermore, in addition, and as a result discussed in Chapter 2 were frequently
used to make a paragraph or a larger unit of text more organized and comprehensible,
even though the participants sometimes overused or misused the transitions.
Presence of the thesis statement, the topic sentence, and the concluding
sentence. In addition to the use of the above three elements contributing to
coherence, the thesis statement, the topic sentence, and the concluding sentence at the end
of a paragraph were also included in the participants‘ writing. Their instructor, Dr.
Fawcett, constantly reminded the students to include these components in their persuasive
writing. By writing a specific thesis statement, a significant idea the participants were
required by the CATW Writing Directions to locate in the reading passage, the
participants developed their response by focusing on the significant idea, thereby giving
themselves and the reader a clear idea of what persuasive evidence would follow. The
topic sentences in their persuasive paragraphs were basically connected with the thesis,
and each supporting detail and any information the participants provided roughly, if not
very directly, related to the significant idea and the specific point they stated in their topic

307
sentences. Before ending the paragraph, the participants wrote a concluding sentence to
close the paragraph so that the reader was not left expecting more. They have become
aware that paragraphs that stand alone often have a concluding sentence at the end.
Paragraph organization. Some discernible plans regarding paragraph
organization were identified. For example, while developing a paragraph, the participants
presented paragraph organizational patterns or combined patterns to organize ideas by
using furthermore…, because…, although…, on the other hand, to sum up, etc. It is
clear that organizational patterns of summary, importance, addition, cause and effect,
comparison-contrast, example, and description were often used to support and convey the
participants‘ ideas throughout the paragraph.
Overall structure. A basic overall structure was also clearly identified in the
participants‘ writings; it signified the clarity of division into introduction, justification,
and conclusion. As required by the CATW instructions, in the introductory paragraph, the
participants used their own words to craft a summary of the author‘s main points
identified in the reading passage. The introduction then ended with a significant idea
chosen from the passage that provided a claim to be developed in the body. The body
paragraphs then followed the plan set up in the introduction. Finally, a conclusion
signaled the end of the essay by referring back to the significant idea and indicating why
this idea was important. Although most of the participants‘ concluding paragraphs were
short, they left the reader with a final thought.
Purpose. Basically, the purpose of the writing was relatively clear. In the
introduction, the participants introduced their summary of the author‘s key ideas in the
reading passage and established the central focus of the discussion by preparing the

308
reader for the significant idea. Then in the body paragraphs, by persuading the reader
why that idea mattered, they offered reasons and evidence.
Evidently, the above results show that some of the cohesion and coherence
features are identified in the participants‘ writing after a semester‘s training in the
American writing classroom. Although the list of possible features was incomplete, and
the coherence strategies were imperfectly applied, there was strong evidence of progress
over the course of a single semester.
b) To what extent are these writings judged as coherent by professional raters?
As discussed in Chapter 5, two trained raters with at least five years of experience
teaching writing classes at the college level rated the participants‘ diagnostic essays
written in the first class meeting and final exam essays at the end of the semester. In the
diagnostic essays, almost all the essays were considered incoherent.
In contrast, as seen in Figure 5 in Chapter 5, compared with the diagnostic essays,
most of the participants‘ final exam essays were judged as better written and more or less
coherent, even though many of the participants still had serious problems with coherence
in writing. The trained raters evaluated the coherence of the Chinese students‘ essays
based on a set of criteria; the same score or adjacent level score was given. It must be
noted again that if there were differences of more than two points for the two raters, it
was agreed that a third professional native English-speaking rater would be called to
rescore an essay. Overall, the participants‘ progress in achieving coherence was fairly
noticeable. However, only Lili and Xiaohui among the six participants stand out as
getting consistent ―3‖ ratings. The rest of the participants‘ writings, to a considerable

309
degree, were still rated as incoherent. The following features were identified in the
writing of the two participants whose texts were judged as relatively coherent.
 Introduction—the writings began with a good summary of the author‘s key ideas
in their own words and then smoothly moved to the thesis, the significant idea
they identified in the reading passage.
 Thesis statement—the two participants introduced their main response to the
author‘s significant idea (the thesis) in one sentence at the end of the introduction,
so that the thesis became the controlling idea for the entire essay.
 Topic sentence—each of the supporting paragraphs began with the topic sentence
that supported the thesis statement by providing concrete supporting evidence or
examples.
 Concluding sentence—the two participants ended each of their supporting
paragraphs with a restatement of the topic sentence, in different words, which
provided a neat way to give the paragraph a closure, and reminded the reader of
the main point.
 Paragraph development—paragraphs were divided in terms of content relevance.
The two participants provided distinctly different reasons for paragraphs that
proved why the key idea chosen was significant. No repetition was found.
 Unity—the details such as facts and examples provided throughout the supporting
paragraphs supported the thesis statement. No off-topic claims were identified.
 Patterns of organization—the writings took different rhetorical patterns such as
patterns of cause-effect, addition, example, importance, or a mixture of patterns.

310
 Transitions—transitional words and phrases such as sentence adverbs and
conjunctions were frequently used to convey relationships within paragraphs and
between paragraphs.
 Conclusion—a short conclusion was added in the end by referring back to the
thesis statement. The main points discussed in the supporting paragraphs were
briefly restated.
Generally, both raters judged these elements as prominent features contributing to
coherence (see Features of Cohesion and Coherence in Appendix A). According to
Bamberg (1983), McCulley (1985), Lee (2002), Abeywickrama (2007), and CATW
(2010), these features can provide an important predictor of quality writing. With the
presence of all these coherent features, the reader will find it easy to follow the writers‘
ideas. Compared with the other four participants, Lili and Xiaohui displayed more
coherence features in their writings; however, we can conclude that only two out of the
six participants had developed enough coherence in writing to have their texts seen as
overall coherent and comprehensible from the reader‘s point of view. Many of the other
participants seem to need more work in the area of coherent writing.
c) What specific elements in the writings might be traced back to the two traditions
(Western and Chinese)?
Due to the substantial difference between the two cultures, hardly any elements
presented above could be traced back to both the Chinese and the Western rhetorical
traditions, even though Chinese writing also values a general sense of ―unity,‖ and
advocates an introduction-body-conclusion structure, both of which are reminiscent of
English writing practice. However, the Chinese and the Westerners understand unity and

311
structure in quite different ways. In other words, almost exclusively, the above elements
are associated with Western writing. As a result of the influences of China‘s
Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, the Chinese view of coherence is seen radically
different from those valued in the West. When writing in English, the Chinese
overemphasize grammatical accuracy so as to achieve ―beautiful writing,‖ whereas
Westerners stress unity, consistency, and logical progression of ideas to enhance
persuasion. The participant‘s tendency to go ―off topic‖ (viewed through Western eyes)
can be said to be rooted in the Chinese idea of the ―turn,‖ in which a writer deliberately
veers away from his/her original focus for the sake of emphasis, breadth, and
inclusiveness. However, more generally, there seem to be differences in what counts as a
―connection‖ between ideas, and this was almost certainly at the root of some cases
where the participants‘ writing seemed to digress when judged in the light of the Western
need for specific logical connections.
It must be pointed out that in stark contrast to what Chinese teachers of English
do in the Chinese cultural context, Dr. Fawcett, the instructor of the advanced
composition course, focused on the big picture rather than grammar throughout the
semester while teaching. She believes that Chinese students‘ major writing problems are
not grammar, not vocabulary. She feels that many Chinese students lack the appropriate
learning skills important for coherent writing. As she argues, the Chinese students do not
know how to learn writing. They attribute their writing problems to grammar and
vocabulary. To help her students learn writing skills, she emphasized coherence in
writing. At the same time, she also pointed out or sometimes even corrected grammar
errors in her students‘ writing because she understands that linguistic mastery plays a role

312
in strong writing. Following her instructions, the Chinese participants had been gradually
shifting their focus from grammar to coherent writing over the course of the term;
meanwhile, they also improved grammar skills.
d) Do these elements change in the students’ writings over the course of a semester?
After being exposed to training in coherence in the American writing classroom,
elements related to coherence changed considerably over the course of the semester. The
improvement of the elements contributing to coherence was verified by examining the
participants‘ diagnostic essays, timed in-class and revised essays, and final exam essays.
1) The diagnostic essay
First, in the diagnostic essays, all the participants‘ writings were regarded as
incoherent because few elements related to cohesion and coherence were identified.
Confusing pronoun reference occurred frequently. The participants often misused
transitions or rarely used them to provide a connection between sentences or to indicate a
shift in ideas. Therefore, the relationship among the ideas was confusing to the reader.
Body paragraphs did not directly relate to the thesis advanced in the introduction; thin
development, repetition of ideas, and off-topic claims were often identified.
2) Timed in-class and revised essays
However, as the semester moved on, the participants‘ writing improved gradually.
As analyzed earlier in Chapter 5, the participants did not do a satisfactory job for their
timed in-class essays. Their instructor, Dr. Fawcett, asked them to revise their writing in
the areas of development of ideas, repetition of ideas, transitions, off-topic claims, central
focus, etc. Following the instructor‘s comments on the essays, the participants carefully
reviewed their writing. After their revisions, their essays improved. For example, in her

313
in-class essay, Lili failed to elaborate on the idea of the ―pain of payment‖ caused by the
use of cash. Therefore, she added more details to further develop her argument in her
revision. In Weishan‘s in-class exercise, he recycled his brother‘s credit card shopping
example when writing his second supporting paragraph. To avoid repetition, Weishan
rewrote the example to enhance persuasion. Yiman had many problems with logical
progression of ideas in his in-class essay. To provide continuity of his ideas, he used
transitions to make logical connections from idea to idea. In Xiaohui‘s in-class writing,
his uncle‘s anecdote of going bankrupt digressed from the topic. To stay focused,
Xiaohui revised the anecdote and tied it to grocery and food purchases to improve its
relevance. Similarly, in his in-class essay, Hong‘s whole second supporting paragraph
wandered off the thesis ―paying in cash can limit consumers from spending on vice
products,‖ so he rewrote the paragraph to make it relevant to the central focus.
3) The final exam essay
Finally, in much the same way, the participants improved coherence in varying
degrees in their final timed essays, particularly in the areas of central focus, the writing of
strong topic sentences, elaboration on ideas, relevance, non-repetition of ideas, transitions
between paragraphs and sentences, and overall essay structure, all of which contribute to
coherence, even though many of the participants are still struggling in these areas. This
suggests that they need constant reinforcement in these areas. For the Chinese learners of
English, this is an ongoing process. Clearly, the participants improved coherence in
writing after they received training throughout the course of a semester.
All in all, this study has examined four areas: Western rhetorical values on
coherence; Chinese rhetorical values on coherence; the Chinese students‘ perceptions of

314
coherence; and the Chinese students‘ practice regarding textual coherence. The findings
confirm that the concept of coherence is a vast and complicated one. While the
Westerners focus on coherence in writing, the Chinese overemphasize English
grammatical accuracy. The Western and the Chinese views of coherence differ
enormously as a result of political reasons as well as different rhetorical traditions. Under
the heavy influence of Chinese culture, the Chinese participants in this study were
struggling in the American writing classroom. To achieve coherence in writing, they have
to rewire their brains to adapt themselves to the American writing styles. Despite all the
difficulties they face, a welcome change has taken place. After one semester‘s training in
coherence, although the Chinese participants still face many challenges in the way they
write, they have improved coherence in their writing.

315
CHAPTER 9
REFLECTIONS, PEDOGOGICASL CONCERNS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
As demonstrated in the previous chapters, the participants‘ Chinese rhetorical
perspectives seemed to radically affect their organization of writing. In many cases,
however, the situation is not nearly so clear cut. For this reason, it is quite necessary to go
beyond the study to reflect some of the critical issues. With this starting point in mind, in
this chapter, I will offer some additional reflections on topics that are critically important
to the current study. Some of these involve factors in the present study itself, while others
involve pedagogical issues. I will then discuss some implications for ESL learning and
ESL pedagogy. Following that, I will conclude the chapter by providing several
suggestions for future research.
Reflections on the Current Study
It is important, in thinking back on the present study, to realize that the categories
defined here are not nearly as hard-and-fast as they may seem, judging from the text.
Chinese versus American/Anglo (and Other) Writers
As members of my dissertation committee pointed out quite emphatically, many
of the issues found in developing Chinese writers are identical to those faced by English-
speaking students. Indeed, problems with global coherence are quite universal, and are
likely to affect developing writers regardless of their first language. While this was
noted in passing several times in the present text, it is worth underscoring again here.
The cultural differences highlighted in my research, and offered in relation to the writing
challenges faced by Chinese ESL writers, are clearly only a part of the overall picture.

316
However, I strongly believe that they are a valid part of the picture, that they may well
be further complicating the picture for Chinese ESL students, and that they should be
taken into account by those who design writing programs for Chinese-speaking learners.
Chinese versus Western Rhetorical Views: Too Rigid a Dichotomy?
Chinese and Western rhetorical views such as circularity and linearity were
presented in the current study, for the sake of clarity, as if the two traditions contained
little or no overlap. This is not always the case. Since nothing in the world is absolute,
rhetorical values, in the final analysis, are no exception. While there are clearly
distinctive aspects of cultural traits as exemplified in the study, there exist similarities
between the two rhetorical conventions. As Gu (2008) so rightly points out, ―Rhetorical
difference, no matter how great it is, however, is only one side of the coin. Rhetoric, as a
separate branch of learning, has many things in common in Chinese and Western
traditions‖ (p. 44). In reality, even within either of these cultural contexts, there is
considerable variation. There are Chinese writers who stake out clear positions and link
them to evidence. From a historical perspective, according to Lu (1998), Chinese writers
adopted the Western style of persuasion when needed or when they were prepared to take
a calculated risk. Likewise, there are English-speaking persuasive writers who may
choose to present both sides of an issue, or to think intuitively, or to delay presenting
their point of view.
One can cite specific cases where the seemingly widely different Chinese and
Western cultures share common beliefs and rhetorical values. In particular, some current
Western-based pedagogical approaches to critical thinking and writing seem to
incorporate the kinds of values that our study has associated with traditional Chinese

317
thinking. For instance, Kiefer (2012) advocates the view that arguments don‘t always
have to assume that readers make a yes/no decision; instead, many arguments should
build toward consensus. This approach to argumentation is also well defined within the
Western tradition in a style called Rogerian argument, which is introduced to students in
The Aims of Argument: A Text and Reader (Crusius & Channell, 2010) and Patterns for
College Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and Guide (Kirszner & Mandell, 2007). Rogerian
argument refers to a conflict resolution technique based on finding common ground
rather than a polarizing debate, which can result in ―frequent ill will and hostility‖
(Kirszner & Mandell, 2007, p. 562). Instead of aggressively refuting opposing viewpoints,
Rogerian argument emphasizes points of agreement and develops along quite different
lines than traditional strategies of argument often do. A slightly closer look reveals that
the Chinese Zhongyong model and the American Rogerian model substantially contribute
to the same end—both seek common ground. At this point, convincing arguments would
largely depend on what assessment tools we use when we assess students‘ writing skills.
Therefore, with the growth of globalized economy, the ease of modern communication,
and the influence of mass media (Zuo, 2001), I would argue that an increase in
universality and a reduction in discrepancy between the Chinese and Western rhetorical
strategies could be an inevitable trend.
Moreover, if one goes beyond the narrow area of one particular academic version
of persuasive writing, one can find even more similarities between the cultures. This
study has excluded many genres in which there may well be closer agreement between
writers from the two cultures as to what ‗good writing‘ entails. These other genres may
range widely, from scientific writing, where a similar range of tight constraints surely

318
holds in both cultures, to creative writing and poetry, where indirect expression,
figurative language and intuitive thinking surely prevail in both cultures. Logical
connections are not the exclusive ―property‖ of the West, nor is appreciation for beautiful
linguistic expression limited to Chinese or non-Western writers. This dissertation has
focused narrowly on one particular genre, because mastery of this persuasive genre is
viewed as important to achieving academic success in English cultural contexts.
It is also true that informal spoken English, unlike formal written academic
English, often involves the kind of content that repeats and wanders ‗off topic,‘ and is
often intuitive or feeling-oriented, not just logical and linear by a long way. A whole
research tradition focusing on conversational styles and strategies shows that, in the
spoken realm at least, virtually all communication in English follows the kind of
organization we have here identified as typically Chinese.
Pedagogical Concerns
The present study raises vital issues on which it will be valuable for me to reflect,
and help instructors become attentive to matters of motivation and attitudes toward
learning as well as teaching to the test involved in teaching and learning.
Motivation and Attitudes toward Learning
One of the first, and most consistent, sets of findings in the present study involved
emotional issues, rather than cognitive understandings. As pointed out immediately in the
original questionnaire given to the participants, most of the students disliked, feared, or
even hated writing. They later expressed other emotions: anger at feeling they were
―forced‖ to use methods that felt intuitively uncomfortable to them; frustration at not
understanding teacher feedback; confusion when they had trouble understanding notions

319
like ―wandering off topic.‖ A striking and unexpected finding was that years spent in
American education, far from helping students, seems to have contributed to their
alienation and discouraged them from learning.
Long experience with education, especially in the last half century, has shown
how important motivation is in the learning process. Given this, it is worth looking again
closely at the root situation in which these students find themselves, since understanding
that situation may lead us to understand (and be better able to solve) the problems of
these students.
Over the past 30 decades, many Chinese immigrants, who hardly know any
English, have flocked to New York in search for new beginnings and better lives.
Following their parents, most children in these families are often ill-prepared for school.
Their parents maintain strong family connections to China and adhere to a traditional
Chinese way of life. These Chinese children face difficult barriers and immense pressure
getting accustomed to the new land. In many cases, rather than adapting to the new
culture, many of them attend American schools with the hopes of learning survival
English, primarily to start their own business in future; since they do not see the value of
learning about their new situation, they show little interest in learning more about the
West. Naturally, this will lead them to feel unmotivated to learn about the unfamiliar new
ideas involved in being seen as an effective writer in English. Most of the Chinese
participants in the current study were brought up in this family environment, where they
may have felt isolated from the surrounding Anglo culture and unmotivated to learn more
about it.

320
Not so long ago, Danling Fu wrote a book An Island of English: Teaching ESL in
Chinatown, which is an account of her work as a literary consultant in a middle school in
New York City‘s Chinatown. In her book, Fu (2003) claims that teachers and
administrators need to respect Chinese children‘s home culture and language; further, this
respect should help them enter the new culture, further their education, and forge their
new identity in this new world, rather than simply allowing them to maintain their unique
culture and language. The author makes a valid point, because these Chinese children‘s
goals (business, succeeding in life, learning, etc.) will be better met if they know what to
expect in the new environment, and if they are able to be open to the new ways of
thinking and acting in the new culture.
After all, the Chinese children‘s sense of responsibility for learning is also an
important determiner of school success. Here as elsewhere in education, the old saying
holds: we can lead a horse to water, but we cannot make it drink. Unfortunately, the
―water‖ needed in this case may not even be readily available: writing instructions in
New York City high schools do not focus on the teaching of coherence. Our secondary
education systems are not equipped to handle and address the needs identified in this
study. High schools tend to focus only on free-style writing, development of oneself, and
creativity. As long as students can express their ideas and communicate effectively, they
are good to go. As a result, many Chinese-speaking New York City high school graduates,
who cannot connect with these pedagogical messages, are not ready for college-level
coherent writing once they complete their high school requirements. These young people
need to avail themselves of tutoring and other extra help, joining special clubs focused on
reading and writing.

321
Since many Chinese learners of English cannot write coherent essays upon
entering college, it is of great importance to increase learner motivation and create a
classroom setting in which Chinese ESL students understand that coherence is an
important attribute of overall essay quality in the Western context; instructors must
employ constructive pedagogical ideas to teach their students to find ways to achieve
coherence so that the reader can follow along with their argument.
Comments on Test-driven Education
This study examined the advanced writing class for ESL students. This class has
as its goal to teach to a particular kind of very narrow test—one that actually asks for
only one narrow kind of writing, and requires that students read, think, and write an essay
responding to a passage while following a set of instructions in a one-time, limited period
to measure their ability to do college-level writing in English. Few strong writers ever
produce a text in this pressured way, in one timed sitting. Instead, they use a whole range
of useful strategies for writing, including brainstorming, collaboration, revising and
editing. They can also take the time to consult references where needed, so as to have at
hand the kind of evidence that they wish to use as support for any given point—evidence
that one does not typically have in memory, to support decisions about public transit
policy or public shopping habits. Finally, they use feedback from peers or colleagues as
guides in revising their work.
It is impossible to apply these skills properly in the context of a 90-minute timed
‗test‘ situation. Quite often, presented with an unfamiliar topic, or asked to summarize an
article whose main idea is not very clear, it is likely to lead to failure for many ESL
students. Most ESL students have problems with time management; but in addition, they

322
are being asked to perform a writing task under conditions that are very poorly conducive
to good writing. Given these factors, it is perhaps no surprise that the CUNY-wide
CATW test has a low passing rate for ESL students, based on the data released in 2011.
This reflection points to a limitation of the present study; it is not clear how a
semester‘s experience with a more process-oriented class might yield very different
results, and might lead to more focused insights on the value of the different activities
and strategies involved in learning to write.
In a broader sense, this also raises questions about the best way to evaluate
writing: whether educators should consider alternatives to tests like the CATW—for
instance, a writing portfolio—as evidence of developing writing skills. Many writing
instructors, at various levels and in a range of contexts, use such portfolios, and the
advantages of this choice are many. Students have a chance to reflect on themselves as
writers, to take control of their own production, to evaluate their work and present their
best writing, and more, depending on the structure of the portfolio design. The title of a
chapter by Peter Elbow and Pat Belanoff, in the collection called Situating Portfolios,
published in 1997, refers to the growth in portfolio use as an explosion, already in the
1990s. As we head farther into the twenty-first century, and as educators realize how
deeply evaluation procedures influence both pedagogy and student learning, it is worth
considering a wide variety of evaluation (and thus pedagogical) methods for ESL
students such as those in the present study.
Pedagogical Implications
In the following section, I will provide several implications for ESL learning and
ESL pedagogy.

323
The Goal: Is There a “Right” Way to Write?
Much of this dissertation has focused on the needs of a group of participants who
intend to lead their lives in America; thus, the assumption has been that they need to
adopt Western notions about coherence and good writing. However, many Chinese and
other international students educated in the United States actually go back to their home
country to take on professional lives there. For Chinese writers who return to China, it
may be counter-productive to have absorbed a view of writing that sees Western
rhetorical values as ―right‖ and Chinese ones as ―wrong.‖ Rather, such writers may need
to be able to write with their Chinese readers‘ preferences in mind, for balance, indirect
expression, and a certain degree of reader-responsible organization. To best serve the
needs of all students, this must be kept in mind; in the next two sections below, I will
elaborate further on how the right balance might be sought. At the very least, it would
seem that a moderate approach would be called for, in which the students are encouraged
to be open to Western practice, without imposing that practice as the only possible
―correct‖ choice. At best, it would be wise to emphasize to developing writers that they
may be called to write in different contexts, both Eastern and Western, and that the best
approach would be a flexible one, taking into account the needs of each context in which
they may write in the future.
Language and Identity: Treating Students Respectfully
A considerable body of research, by researchers such as Bonny Norton (2000), to
mention only one, has led to a growing sense that one‘s language very closely defines
who one is, or how one sees one‘s identity. This tradition goes back to John Gumperz‘s
seminal text, Language and Social Identity (1983). In the decades that followed the

324
Gumperz‘s text, increasing attention has been paid to the treatment of non-standard
English varieties and their speakers in the classroom. In this context, it has become clear
to many that students learn best, and adapt forms of the standard variety best, if their own
―home‖ language is respected for its value in their lives. A recent attention-getting title,
Lisa Delpit‘s The Skin That We Speak (2003), points to the political importance of
respecting varieties of language other than the main ―standard‖ forms traditionally
recognized in the classroom. A serious review of language and identity is well beyond the
scope of the present study. However, it is clear that insights by Norton and dozens of
others on the development of identity in second-language learners are relevant in
reflecting on the present study and its results.
In today‘s globalizing and multilingual world, English has become a language far
more used by multilinguals than native English speakers. Even if the goal is clearly to get
Chinese students to be open to Western ways of thinking and writing, they do not have to
be told that their way is ‗wrong‘ or faulty in some deeply universal way. Again, the
analogy to non-standard English varieties could be made here: when educators teach
students whose ―home‖ language is non-standard, there has been a shift in how these
home languages are treated: where these forms used to be simply labeled as ‗wrong‘ or
full of errors, they are often now accepted. Students are taught that their original language
is fine for the contexts where it should be used (home, social events, etc.); they do not
have to give up the language that has supported their sense of who they are….they just
have to learn another language, the one that is expected in formal academic writing.
A similar approach could go a long way toward reducing Chinese students‘
resistance and confusion. That is, Western thought patterns could be presented in a way

325
similar to how the standard is often now presented to non-standard speakers: namely as
something new for them to add to what they already know—not as something ‗better‘ to
replace the ―wrong‖ ways of thinking and writing that they bring to the writing/English
class. This raises the whole area of what it means to be multi-lingual, able to function
well in more than one cultural context. It is important for people to see writing as a matter
of making choices between different opinions, not seeing only one option as always
‗right.‖ Danling Fu‘s book, discussed earlier in the section on motivation, is highly
relevant here.
Accepting Both Traditions in the Classroom
As a line extends and a circle rotates (Zuo, 2001), generally speaking, there is a
contrast between Chinese and Western cultures, especially in this one area of formal
CATW persuasive writing. So how should it be viewed? In particular, given my
comments in the previous sections, it is clear that a writing instructor teaching Chinese
ESL students must make practical choices. Could the two rhetorical notions be integrated
somehow? A common belief in Chinese culture holds that the moon of the West is not
rounder, and the sun of the East has its spots as well (Zuo, 2001). A most recent eye-
catching title, Connecting Rather Than Colliding: When American and Chinese
Rhetorical Styles Meet in the University Classroom by Karen Shea (2011), indicates a
trend toward a shift of teaching and learning styles in the cross-cultural classroom, which
may satisfy the best interest of both the students and their professors. As Shea maintains
in her article,
―Misunderstandings may form a rift between the students, who write according to
their own Eastern rhetorical upbringing, and the professors, who assign and assess

326
the writing based on their Western rhetorical tradition. As a result, many
professors are looking for ways to bridge the gap; having a mutual understanding
of the rhetorical traditions behind the American and Chinese styles of writing is a
step in the right direction‖ (p. 1).
Shea seems to suggest that, in a multicultural world, one needs to stand in the other side‘s
position more, actively promoting cultural awareness and diversity. To say the least, the
linearity-versus-circularity difference between Western and Chinese cultures, for instance,
is just a matter of degree; each has its own merits, and best of all, they complement each
other. Chinese learners of English bring with them to their English writing splendid
Chinese culture and its rich rhetorical traditions with a history of several thousand years.
Therefore, to more effectively communicate in this cross cultural context, while Chinese
learners of English continue to sharpen their understanding of Western rhetorical patterns
and particularly increase audience awareness, it would be a creative approach for
instructors to ―embed others‘ wisdoms into one‘s own culture without alienating them‖
(Gao, 2012, p. 251) and accept both traditions in the classroom as part of a rich world
where many genres and ways of thinking are valid, which will certainly contribute to
coherence in writing in a ground-breaking way.
To avoid slipping to a black or white perspective, I argue that, based on the idea
of collaborative learning (Shea, 2011), appreciating the Chinese and Western rhetorical
notions would require writing instructors to have some knowledge of Chinese rhetorical
practices. By getting familiar with Chinese rhetorical styles, ESL and mainstream
educators should view the cultural and rhetorical differences as rich resources for Chinese
students, and not as sources of deficits; in fact, teachers in a ―mixed‖ classroom can

327
compare and contrast the Western and Chinese rhetorical notions, potentially enriching
the experience of both Chinese and Western students. Again, to compare the two
traditions is not to judge which one is superior but to promote a clear understanding of
how the two writing styles change, develop, and mutually benefit each other. By
honoring both rhetorical strategies and critically analyzing a variety of arguments about
the two cultures, students, rather than creating confusion, will eventually develop the
ability to clearly articulate their own views, to logically appraise the arguments of others,
and to produce innovative and effective texts so that an English reader would find it easy
to follow. On a practical level, if American students are asked to write (as practice) an
essay in the Chinese rhetorical style, they will enrich their knowledge, gain new
perspectives on writing, and learn to respect this other tradition; at the same time, the
Chinese students in such a class will feel valued, and will feel that their background is
respected. In addition, the students may well have fun, and become better friends as a by-
product of such exercises. One of my doctoral faculty members shared with me a story
about a classroom experience she had, where inner-city non-standard and mainstream
students were both enrolled. An African-American student in the class not only shared
aspects of his culture, talking about the cultural history and value of rap music; he also
led the mainstream students (and the professor) in a step-by-step exercise on how to write
their own rap lyrics. As she notes, the hands-on experience changed the tone of the class,
and deeper mutual understandings between the two groups developed.
Suggestions for Future Research
Much work could still be done on the linguistic and logical forms that were the
focus of the present study. For instance, this study did not look at varieties of textual

328
organization. One way to achieve logical flow from idea to idea is to use cohesive
devices appropriately. However, strong writers are also able to reinforce a logical
progression of ideas without using transition words and phrases. Becoming familiar with
such patterns is even more challenging to all developing writers, particularly ESL
students. A way of further exploring this possibility would be to investigate how
sentences establish implicit logical connections that could help the reader follow the way
the explanation/description/discussion/analysis/argument is going on (Santa Rosa Junior
College, 2007). In tandem with this basic research, it would follow that classroom
research could be done on how to best make students aware of these ―unmarked‖
connections, and how to help them learn to integrate the relevant strategies in their own
writing.
A recurrent theme in this study was that students had little or no training in
coherent writing, either in China or earlier in the United States. I have suggested that
training in cohesive ties and logical relations could be introduced early in a learner‘s
experience with English. Much further study is needed here, to examine how such
suggestions might be implemented, as well as whether, and in what ways, the overall
situation is developing for writing instruction both in China and in the United States.
ESL/EFL teacher training programs might be examined, for instance, along with a
number of other possibilities (such as qualitative study of many kinds of classroom
situations).
On the broader cultural level, the present study raises many questions. In
particular, the results presented here suggest directions for future research. On the one
hand, scholars could conduct large-scale studies of students from different backgrounds

329
to confirm or deepen my sense that coherence problems are common for people,
regardless of factors such as their cultural backgrounds and years of English learning. On
the other hand, studies of other ethnic groups could be done, to identify similarities and
differences in writing problems and support my claims that elements of culture must play
a role in learning how to write in a new language. With the dozens of cultures involved,
many such studies would be needed before a broader understanding of cultural influence
emerges; ultimately, it might become possible to tease apart the ‗universal‘ problems that
all students face, as compared with the cultural factors that either help to alleviate, or
worsen the challenges involved in learning to write effectively. The global situation of
English today, and the widespread need for writing skills in English across cultures,
provides an excellent laboratory setting for both types of study.
My earlier remarks on the study‘s context also lead to suggestions for further
research. The mode of instruction has played a large part in the current study, and studies
in different contexts are needed. For instance, as noted above, it is doubtful that
preparing students to write timed in-class essays under pressure could provide a fair and
accurate assessment of writing development. Therefore, one area that needs further
research would be to look more closely at the effects of teaching-to-this kind of pressured
test, as compared with a more fluid situation where writers engage in a full set of
activities to prepare an essay. Likewise, studies should be done similar to this one, but in
a situation where process or post-process pedagogy is used. A separate study might assess
more closely the use of portfolios, which was suggested above; at what level of language
learning should these be introduced? Can they be used in some form even with

330
beginning writers? What effect(s) would they have on the writing development of
students such as the participants in this study?
The present study‘s disturbing results on the participants‘ experiences in
American high schools call for further examination. Why do high schools seem to be
failing students like the participants in this study? Would light be shed on this question
through qualitative research on high school cultures, teacher and student attitudes, and
similar topics? Could K-12 ESL programs be studied for their efficacy, their goals, and
for the kinds of experience that international students seem to be having in these
programs? Could pilot programs be established, for instance with Chinese-speaking
counselors, to help Chinese students make the adjustment to the American school system
and expectations, and could these be studied?
Of course, a related question arises with regard to the family context. I have
speculated that these students‘ parents may be absorbed with the family‘s financial needs,
their own work, and their own cultural and linguistic challenges, and that these may not
leave them the time or opportunity to help their children adapt to the American culture or
the American school situation. Qualitative study is needed, to examine this situation more
closely: to learn what family situations are like for students like my participants, and
perhaps to study the possibility of having volunteer outreach programs to help families
feel more connected to their children‘s school experience.
In short, there is still much to be done. I hope to be part of the effort, as I join with
both colleagues and my future students in a continued effort to provide them with the best
learning experience possible.

331
References
Abeywickrama, P. S. (2007). Measuring the knowledge of textual cohesion and
coherence in learners of English as a second language (ESL) (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles.
Abushihab, I. (2008). The role of lexical cohesion and coherence in promoting reading
comprehension. Ekev Academic Review, 12(35), 333-342.
Allen, M. (2003). Using scoring rubrics. The California State University. Retrieved from
http://www.calstate.edu/itl/sloa/links/using_rubrics.shtml
Answers.com. Collectivism. Retrieved from http://www.answers.com/topic/collectivism
Arlov, P. W. (2010). A guide to paragraphs and short essays (4th
ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Atkinson, R. (1998). The life story of interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bailey, R. E., & Denstaedt, L. (2004). Destinations: An integrated approach to writing
paragraphs and essays. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bain, A. (1887). English composition and rhetoric: A manual. New York, NY: D.
Appleton.
Bain, A. (1890). English composition and rhetoric. Part First: Intellectual elements of
style (Enlarged ed). New York, NY: D. Appleton.
Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1991). Assessment by misconception: Cultural influences and
intellectual traditions. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Second language writing in
academic contexts (pp. 122-134). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bamberg, B. (1983). What makes a text cohere? College Composition and
Communication, 34(4), 417-429.

332
Bamberg, B. (1984). Assessing coherence: A reanalysis of essay written for the National
Assessment of Educational Progress 1969-1979. Research in the Teaching of
English, 18(3), 305-319.
Bao, J., & Sun, J. (2010). English grammatical problems of Chinese undergraduate
students. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 48-53.
Barnet, S., Stubbs, M., & Bellanca, P. (2000). The practical guide to writing: With
readings and handbook (8th
ed). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Gromoll, E. W. (1989). Learning from social studies
texts. Cognition and Instruction, 6(2), 99-158.
Becker, C. B. (1986). Reasons for the lack of argumentation and debate in the Far East.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 75-92.
Belmonte, I. A., & McCabe-Hidalgo, A. (1998). Theme-Rheme patterns in L2 writing.
Didactica, 10, 13-31.
Berkowitz, S. (1997). Analyzing qualitative data. In J. Frechtling, L. Sharp, & Westat
(Eds.), User-friendly handbook for mixed method evaluations (pp. 1-19).
Retrieved from http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/REC/pubs/NSF97-
153/CHAP_4.HTM
Binnick, R. (2009). Altaic hypotaxis and the expression of rhetorical relations. Toronto
Working Papers in Linguistics (TWPL), 34, 1-8.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2000). The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical
times to the present (p. 3). New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin's.

333
Bloch, J. (2001). Plagiarism and the ESL students: From printed to electronic texts. In D.
Belcher, & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-
writing connections (pp. 209-228). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan
Press.
Blunden, A. (Ed.). (2008). Glossary of terms. Maxists Internet Archive. Retrieved from
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/u/n.htm
Bodde, D. (1991). Chinese thought, society, and science: The intellectual and social
background of science and technology in pre-modern China. Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawaii Press.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction
to theory and methods (3rd
ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bolton, K., & Tong, Q. S. (2002). Introduction: interdisciplinary perspectives on English
in China. World Englishes, 21(2), 177-180.
Brossell, G. (1983). Rhetorical specification in essay examination topics. College English,
45, 165-173.
Brossell, G., & Ash, B. H. (1984). An experiment with the wording of essay topics.
College Composition and Communication, 35, 423-425.
Brostoff, A. (1981). ―Next to‖ is not ―connected to.‖ College Composition and
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Brueffee, K. A. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: A
bibliographical essay. College English, 48(8), 773-90.

334
Bublitz, W. (1999). Introduction: Views on coherence. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E.
Ventola (Eds.), Cohesion in spoken and written discourse (pp.1-7). Amsterdam/
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Bullock, R., & Goggin, M. D. (2007). The Norton field guide to writing with readings.
New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Burnaby, B., & Sun, Y. (1989). Chinese teachers‘ views of western language teaching:
Context informs paradigms. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 219-238.
Cai, G. (1993, March-April). Beyond bad writing: Teaching English composition to
Chinese ESL students. Paper presented at the College Composition and
Communication Conference, San Diego, CA.
Cai, G. (1999). Texts in contexts: Understanding Chinese students‘ English composition.
In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: The role of teachers’
knowledge about text, learning, and culture (pp. 279-298). Urbana, IL: The
National Council of Teachers of English.
Cai, X. (Ed.). (2006). Confucius says. Beijing, China: Sinolingua.
Cahill, D. (2003). The Myth of the "Turn" in Contrastive Rhetoric. Written
Campbell, B. (1998). Coherence in the expository essays of intensive ESL students: A
textual analysis of topical development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. (pp. 46-
84). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

335
Canavan, P. J., & Brandon, L. (1990). Paragraphs and themes. New York, NY:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Carson, J. (1992). Becoming literate: First language influences. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 1, 37-60.
Carrell, P. L. (1982). Coherence is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 479-488.
Carrell, P. L. (1984). Comments on Patricia Carrell‘s ―Cohesion Is Not Coherence.‖ The
author responds. TESOL Quarterly, 18(1), 161-168.
Chen, B. (2007). 中庸的思想 [The spirit of the Doctrine of the Mean]. Beijing, China:
SDY Joint.
Chen, C., & Zhang, Y. (1998). A perspective on the College English Teaching Syllabus
in China. TESL Canada Journal/ La Revue TESL du Canada, 15(2), 69-74.
Chen, G. H., & Chung, J. (1994). The impact of Confucianism on organizational
communication. Communication Quarterly, 42(2), 93-105.
Chen, H., & Zhang, S. (2004). Coherence in discourse: A perspective from speech act
theory. Foreign Language Teaching and Research (bimonthly), 36(6), 420-427.
Chen, P. (2009). Topic and topic-comment structures in first language acquisition of
Mandarin Chinese. In Y. Xiao (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st North American
Conference on Chinese Linguistics: (Vol.1, pp. 165-177). Smithfield, RI: Bryant
University.
Chen, W. (1932). 修辞学发凡 [An introduction to rhetoric] (1st
ed.). Hong Kong, China:
Daguang Chubanshe.
Chen, X. (2003). Cohesion and coherence. Journal of Xinzhou Teachers University, 19(2),
84-86.

336
Chen, Y. (2004). Impact of cultural differences on rhetoric. Journal of Shenyang Institute
of Aeronautical Engineering, 21(6), 90-91.
Chen, Z. (2007). 与孔子对话:论儒学的现代生命力 [A dialogue with Confucius: On
modern vitality of Confucianism]. In Y. Zhu (Ed.), 孔子的社会和谐理论及其生
命力 [Confucian theory of harmonious society and its vitality] (pp. 219-234).
Shanghai, China: Shanghai Lexicographical.
China Education Digest. (2007). 四六级写作典型错误分析-英语作文 [An analysis of
typical writing errors in CET Band-4/6]. Retrieved from
http://www.eduzhai.net/yingyu/606/691/yingyu.html
Chinn, C., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2010). Anderson Richard C (hase) 1934-: Bibliography.
Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/anderson-richard-
chase-1934-/#A
Chiu, Y. F. (2004). Coaching a student to develop coherence based upon topical
structure analysis: A case study. Journal of Second Language and Learning,
2(2), 154-170.
Cho, J. H. (1999). A study of contrastive rhetoric between East Asian and North
American cultures as demonstrated through student expository essays from Korea
and the United States (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bowling Green State
University, Bowling Green, OH.
Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic
thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 691-705.
Chu, H. J., Swaffar, J., & Charney, D. H. (2002). Cultural representations of rhetorical
conventions: The effects on reading recall. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 511-541.

337
Chu, Y. (2011). 中国人的思维批判 [Criticism of the Chinese people‘s thinking]. Beijing,
China: People‘s Press.
Conley, T. (1990). Rhetoric in the European tradition. Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press.
College English Curriculum Requirements (Rev. ed.). (2007). Retrieved from
http://w.hxk.cn/edoas/website18/95/info34295.htm
College English Teaching Syllabus (Rev. ed.). (1999). Shanghai, China: Shanghai
Foreign Language Education Press.
Connor, U. (1984). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language
students‘ writing. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language
writing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teachers of writing in
multicultural classrooms. In C. Severino, J. C. Guerra, & Johnnella. E. Butler
(Eds.), Writing in multicultural settings (pp. 198-209). New York, NY: The
Modern Language Association of America.
Connor, U., & Farmer, M. (1990). The teaching of topic structure analysis as a revision
strategy for ESL writers. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research
insights for the classroom (pp. 126-139). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.

338
Connor, U., & Johns, A. M. (Eds.). (1990). Coherence in writing: Research and
pedagogical perspectives. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages.
Connor, U., & Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1997). Communication for learning across cultures. In D.
McNamar & R. Harris (Eds.), Overseas students in higher education: Issues in
teaching and learning (pp. 76-90). New York, NY: Routledge.
Crews, F. C. (1991). The random house handbook (6th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Crews, F. C. (1992). The critics bear it away: American fiction and the academy. New
York, NY: Random House.
Crusius, T., & Channell, C. (2010). The aims of argument: A text and reader. (7th
ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Cun, A. (2001). Coherence in discourse. The scientific journal of humanistic studies, 1,
62-67.
CUNY Assessment Test in Writing: Student Handbook. (2010). New York, NY: Office of
Assessment/Office of Academic Affairs, the City University of New York.
Danes, F. (1974). Functional sentences perspective and the organization of the text. In F.
Danes (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective (pp. 106-128). Prague:
Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences.
Delpit, L., & Dowdy, J. K. (Eds.). (2002). The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language
and culture in the classroom. New York, NY: The New Press.

339
Deng, L. (2005). A study of the writing process approach and its implication for college
English writing. Retrieved from http://www.cenet.whu.edu.cn
Department of Higher Education of the Ministry of Education. (2007). College English
Curriculum Requirements. Beijing, China: Higher Education Press.
Dewey R. (2007). Cognitive styles. Retrieved from
http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch07_cognition/analytic_vs_holistic_thinkin
g.html
Ding, W., Wu, B., Zhong, M., & Guo, Q. (2009). A handbook of writing. Beijing, China:
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Dita, S. (2009). Physical and topical structure analysis of professional writing in inner,
outer, and expanding circles. TESOL Journal, 1, 95-118.
Dong, F. (2009). 成方成圆 [The conduct of life]. Beijing, China: Popular Literature and
Art.
Dong, J. (1999). 大学生英语写作中语篇衔接与连贯的错误分析 [Error analysis of
cohesion and coherence in college students‘ English writing]. Foreign Language
Teaching, 20(1), 83-86.
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O., & Povolna, R. (Eds.). (2009). Coherence and cohesion in
spoken and written discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge
Scholars.
Du. H. (2002). An investigation of college English teaching in four universities in
China. International Education Journal, 3(2), 71-84.
Du. H. (1998). 中国精神 [The spirit of China]. Wuchang, Hubei: Changjiang Literature
and Art.

340
Duan, G. (2003). Analysis of the hyperrhetorical features of English websites created in
China. Retrieved from
http://www.auburn.edu/duangui/home.htm
Dumanig, F. P., Esteban, I. C., Lee, Y. P., & Gan, A. D. (2009). Topical structure
analysis of American and Philippine editorials. Journal for the Advancement of
Science and Arts, 1(1), 63-71.
Dunkelblau, H. S. (1990). A contrastive study of the organizational structure and stylistic
elements of Chinese and English expository writing by Chinese high school
students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York,
NY.
Elbow, P., & Belanoff, P. (1997). Reflections on an explosion: Portfolios in the ‘90s and
beyond. In K. B. Yancey & I. Weiser (Eds.), Situating portfolios: Four
perspectives (pp. 21-33). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Emmitt, M., & Pollock, J. (1997). Language and learning: An introduction for teaching
(2nd
ed.), Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.
English Team of Advisory Committee for English Majors in Institutions of Higher
Learning. (2000). Syllabus for English majors of institutions of higher learning.
Shanghai, China: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Enkvist, N. E. (1990). Seven problems in the study of coherence and interpretability. In
U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing (pp. 12-28). Alexandria,
VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Erbaugh, M. S. (1990). Taking advantage of China‘s literary tradition in teaching Chinese
students. The Modern Language Journal, 74(1), 15-27.

341
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic
inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ernst, E. (Ed.). (2000). Monographs in engineering education excellence. Columbia, SC:
The College of Engineering and Information Technology, University of South
Carolina.
Fairbank, J. K., Reischauer, E. O., & Craig, A. M. (1989). East Asia: Tradition &
transformation (Rev. ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London, UK: Longman.
Fang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2005). An impact of Chinese traditional rhetoric on Chinese
students‘ English writing. Journal of Sichuan College of Education, 21(11), 21-22.
Fawcett, S. (2011). Evergreen: A guide to writing with readings (9th
ed.). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Feng, G. (2002). On coherence in English and Chinese rhetorics. Fujian Foreign
Language, 73(3), 22-26.
Flewelling, J. (1994). The teaching of culture: Guidelines from the national core
French study of Canada. Foreign Language Annals, 27(2), 132-134.
Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing.
College English, 41(1), 19-37.
Fu, D. (2003). An island of English: Teaching ESL in Chinatown. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

342
Fu, S. (2007). Teaching writing to English majors at the tertiary level in China ─
Reflections on material development and teaching methodology. In J.
Radwanska-Williams (Ed.), The first international conference on English
discourse and intercultural communication (Vol. 1, pp. 26-38). Macao, China:
Macao Polytechnic Institute.
Gaetz, L., & Phadke, S. (2009). The writer’s world: Essays. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Gao, F. (2010). What‘s wrong with current Chinese college English assessment system?
Reform or not? International Education Studies, 3(1), 34-47.
Gao, J. (2007). Teaching writing in Chinese universities: Finding an eclectic approach.
Asian EFL Journal, 20, 17-35.
Gao, L. (2012). Examining argumentative coherence in essays by undergraduate students
of English as a foreign language in Mainland China and their English speaking
peers in the United States (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida
International University, Miami, FL.
Gao, W. (2008). Informational segmentation and text coherence. US-China Foreign
Language, 6(3), 7-10.
Gao, Y., Zhou, A., & Wang, M. (2007). The application of theme/rheme coherence
device in discourse teaching under cognitive framework. Cross-cultural
Gocsik, K. (2005). ESL student writing issues. Retrieved from
www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/tutor/problems/esl.shtml

343
Goggin, M. D., & Bullock, R. B. (2007). The Norton field guide to writing with readings.
New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Golden, J. L., Berquist, G. F., & Coleman, W. E. (1997). The rhetoric of Western thought
(6th
ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Golden, J. L., Berquist, G. F., Coleman, W. E., Golden, F., & Sproule, J. M. (Eds.).
(2007). The rhetoric of Western thought: From the Mediterranean world to
the global setting (9th
ed., pp. 67). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Goodrich, H. (1996). Understanding rubrics. Educational Leadership, 54 (4), 14-18.
Green, C. F., Christopher, E. R., & Jacquelyn, L. (2000). The incidence and effects on
coherence of marked themes in interlanguage texts: A corpus-based enquiry.
English for Specific Purposes, 19, 99-113.
Gu, J. (2008). Rhetorical clash between Chinese and Westerners. International
Communication Studies, 17 (4), 44-51.
Gu,W., & Liu, J. (2005). Test analysis of college students‘ communicative competence
in English. Asian EFL Journal, 7(2), 117-132.
Guan, Y. (2008, November). A perspective of Chinese rhetorical strategy. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 94th Annual Convention, TBA, San
Diego, CA.
Gumperz, J. J. (1983). Language and social identity. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Guo, L., & Wang, H. (2004). 试析中国学生英语写作中的错误类型及成因 [An
analysis of the error types and their causes in Chinese students‘ English writing].
Sino-US English Teaching, 1(5), 9-18.

344
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, England:
Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: A social semiotic
perspective. Melbourne, VIC: Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2000). An introduction to functional grammar. (2nd
ed.). Beijing,
China: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Han, Z. (2000). Easy way to learn Chinese classical allusions (English-Chinese). Beijing,
China: New World Press.
Harbsmeier, C. (1999). Chinese rhetoric. T’oung Pao, 85, 114-126.
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability
measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77-89.
He, J. (2005). Applying post-process theory in university EFL writing classes in China.
Retrieved from http://www.english.iup.edu
He, Q. (2000). English language education in China. Beijing, China: Foreign Language
Teaching and Research Press.
He, Q. (2009, March). Collaborative teaching of English writing in a Chinese
university. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 53rd Annual Conference
of the Comparative and International Education Society, Francis Marion Hotel,
Charleston, South Carolina.
He, Z. (2003).办好英语专业之我见 [My view on the English major]. Journal of Foreign
Languages, 2, 46-50.
Heinrichs, J. (2007). Thank you for arguing. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

345
Heisey, D. R. (Eds.). (2000). Chinese perspective in rhetoric and communication.
Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Henry, D. J. (2011). Writing for life: Paragraphs and essays (2nd
ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R.
B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-52).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary
and grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hoenisch, S. (2009). Topical structure analysis of accomplished English prose
(Unpublished master‘s thesis). The City University of New York, New York, NY.
Honegger, M. (2005). English grammar for writing. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Hong, J. (2009). A contrastive study of cultural diversity of learning styles between
China and the United States. International Education Studies, 2(1), 163-166.
Hou, C. (2003). 论悟性 [On Wuxing]. Philosophy Study, 1, 27-31
HSES. (2000). High School English Syllabus (Rev. ed.). Beijing, China: People‘s
Education Press.
Hu, X. (2004). 中国人的思维之弱 [Weaknesses of the Chinese way of thinking].
Retrieved from http://survivor99.com/pscience/paper/p54.htm
Hu, Z. (2000). 功能主义纵横谈 [Issues on functional linguistics]. Beijing, China:
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

346
Huang, B. (2002). A comparison of Greek and Chinese rhetoric and the influence on
later rhetoric (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University, Lubbok,
TX.
Huang, G. (2002). Hallidayan linguistics in China. World Englishes, 21(2), 281-290.
Huang, J., & Brown, K. (2009). Cultural factors affecting Chinese ESL students‘
academic learning. Education, 129(4), 644-653.
Jafarpur, A. (1991). Cohesiveness as a basis for evaluating compositions. System, 19(4),
459-465.
Jensen, J. V. (1992). Values and practices in Asian argumentation. Argumentation and
Advocacy, 28, 153-66.
Jensen, J. V. (1998). Teaching East Asians rhetoric. The Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 18,
136-149.
Ji, L., Nisbett, R. E., & Su, Y. (2001). Culture, change, and prediction. American
Psychological Sciences, 12(16), 450-456.
Ji, L., Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, control, and perception of relationships
in the environment. Journal of Personality and Psychology, 78, 943-955.
Jiang, H. (2007). Parataxis VS. Hypotaxis in Chinese and English. Retrieved from
http://little8.com/2010/07/09/parataxis-vs-hypotaxis-in-chinese-and-english
Jiang, Q., & Zhang, L. (2007). The use of well-known sayings and aphorisms in
persuasive essays. 中学语文 [Middle & High School Chinese], 12, 117.
Jin, Q., & Ban, Y. (2006). Coherence and text understanding. International Forum of
Teaching and Studies, 2(4), 41-50.

347
Johns, A. M. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and
suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 247-265.
Johns, A. M. (1980). Cohesion in written business discourse: Some contrasts. The ESP
Journal, 1, 36-44.
Johnson, D. P. (1992). Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English.
RELC Journal, 23, 1-17.
Kahane, H. (1990). Logic and philosophy: A modern introduction. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth. .
Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., & Lentz, L. (2008). Coherence marking, prior knowledge, and
comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse
Processes, 45, 323-345.
Kao, K. (1993). Recent studies of Chinese rhetoric. Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles,
Reviews (CLEAR), 15, 143-154.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language
Learning, 16(1), 1-20.
Kaplan, R. B. (2001). Forward. In C. G. Panetta (Eds.), In contrastive rhetoric
revisited and redefined (pp. vii-xx). Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence.
Kessler, E. R. (2010). Reflect, inform, persuade: College writing for today. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Khalil, A. (1989). A study of cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL college students‘
writing. System, 17(3), 359-371.

348
Kiefer, K. (2012). What is Rogerian argument? Retrieved from
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/com5e1.cfm
Kinnes, T. (2009). The doctrine of the mean. Retrieved from
http://oaks.nvg.org/sa3ra6.html
Kirkpatrick, A. (1997). Traditional Chinese text structures and their influence on the
writing in Chinese and English of contemporary Mainland Chinese students.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(3), 223-244.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2004). Some thoughts on the Chinese learner and the teaching of writing.
The East Asian Learner, 1(1), 6-15.
Kirszner, L. G., & Mandell, S. R. (2007). Patterns for college writing (10th
ed.). Boston,
MA: Bedford/St. Martin‘s.
Knott, A., & Sanders, T. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their
linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics,
30,135-175.
Kohn, J. (1992). Literacy strategies for Chinese university learners. In F. Dubin & N. A.
Kuhlman (Eds.), Cross-cultural literacy: Global perspective on reading and
writing (pp. 113-125). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.
Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of Japanese and English L1 essay organization:
Differences and similarities. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54 (4), 475-
507.

349
Kuo, C. (1995). Cohesion and coherence in academic writing: From lexical choice to
organization. RELC Journal, 26(1), 47-62.
Lam, A. (2002). English in education in China: Policy changes and learners' experiences.
World Englishes, 21(2), 245-252.
Langan, J. (2005). College writing skills (6th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
LaPolla, R. J. (2009). Chinese as a topic-comment (Not topic-prominent and not SVO)
language. In J. Xing (Ed.), Studies of Chinese linguistics: Functional approaches
(pp. 9-22). Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press.
Lautamatti, L. (1987). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified
discourse. In U. Connor, & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages:
Analysis of L2 text (pp. 87-114). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lee, I. (2002). Helping students develop coherence in writing. English Teaching Forum,
40(3), 32-39.
Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: a classroom inquiry. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 11, 135-159.
Leki, L. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing
pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 123-143.
Leki, L. (1997). Cross-talk: ESL issues and contrastive rhetoric. In C. Severino, J. C.
Guerra, & Johnnella. E. Butler (Eds.), Writing in Multicultural Settings (pp. 209-
219). New York, NY: The Modern Language Association of America.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference
grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

350
Li, D., & Zhang, H. (2002). 从思维差异看中国学生英语写作中的失误 [Reflections on
the faults in English writing by Chinese students with thinking differences].
Shangdong Foreign Language Education, 89(4), 43-46.
Li, G. (2005). Cohesion and coherence: Theory and application (Unpublished master‘s
thesis). Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin, China.
Li, S. (2005). 中西思维模式差异对大学生英语学作中的语篇组织的影响 [Influences
of the discrepancies in Chinese and Western thought patterns upon discourse
organization of college students‘ English writing]. Foreign Languages Education,
26(2), 52-55.
Li, X. (1996). Good writing. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Li, X. (2004). An analysis of Chinese EFL learners‘ beliefs about the role of rote learning
in vocabulary learning strategies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
of Sunderland, Sunderland, North East England.
Li, X. (2006). An analysis of the barrier on cross-cultural communication between
Chinese and Western philosophies. Cultural Studies, 8, 148-149.
Li, Z. (2000). Improving students‘ writing abilities in a semantic coherence perspective.
Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 23(3), 51-54.
Lian, S. (2002). Modes of thinking. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 155(2), 40-
48.
Lian, S. (2006). Chinese and Western thought patterns: Wuxin and rationality. Foreign
Languages and Their Teaching, 208(7), 35-39.
Lian, S. (2010). Contrastive studies of English and Chinese. Beijing, China: Higher
Education Press

351
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lindemann, E. (1995). A rhetoric for writing teachers (3rd
ed.), New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., van den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., &
Samuels, J. (2000). Effects of causal text revisions on more- and less-skilled
readers' comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition and Instruction,
18(4), 525-556.
Liu, D., & Zhang, S. (1999). Acquisition of culturally loaded words in EFL. Foreign
Language Annals, 32(2), 177-188.
Liu, H., & Deng L. (2005). 英汉思维模式差异对大学英语写作的影响 [Influences of
different English and Chinese thinking modes upon college English writing].
Journal of Xi’an International Studies University, 13(1), 78-80.
Liu, I., & Li, D. (2010). Reading into a new China: Integrated skills for advanced
Chinese. Boston, MA: Cheng & Tsui.
Liu, J. J. (2010). English writing in public high schools in China and America: A
comparison analysis. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture,
30, 45-54.
Liu, J., & Palermo, G. B. (2009). Restorative justice and Chinese traditional legal culture
in the context of contemporary Chinese criminal justice reform. Asia Pacific
Journal of Police & Criminal Justice, 7(1), 49-68.
Liu, K., & Zhou, Y. (2004). 英汉思维模式差异对中国学生 EFL 写作的影响 [The
influence of the differences in Chinese and English thought patterns on Chinese
students‘ EFL writing]. Foreign Language Research, 120(5), 107-111.

352
Liu, L. (2005). Rhetorical education through writing inspiration across cultures: A
comparative analysis of select online instructional materials on argumentative
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 1-18.
Liu, L., & Zhang, Y. (2012). A contrastive analysis of repetition strategies employed in
Chinese EFL writing and Chinese-English translation. Intercultural
Communication Studies, XXI (2), 111-130.
Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by
Chinese undergraduates. System, 33, 623-636.
Liu, W., & Lu, Y. (2008). Research on EFL writing strategy using SRP: An empirical
study in DUT. The Asian EFL Journal, 10(2), 51-83.
Liu, Y. (1996). To capture the essence of Chinese rhetoric: A anatomy of a paradigm in
comparative rhetoric. Rhetoric Review, 14(2), 318-335.
Liu, Y. (2007). Cultural factors and rhetorical patterns in classical Chinese argumentation.
Intercultural Communication Studies, 16(1), 197-204.
Liu, Y. (2010). A summary of basic college English writing. Retrieved from
http://www.xdf.cn/ky/kt/201011/12569824.html
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1999). Aristotle: The growth and structure of his thought. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Locke, J. (1959). An essay concerning human understanding (Vol. 1). New York, NY:
Dower.
Locke, J. (1959). An essay concerning human understanding (Vol. 2). New York, NY:
Dower.
Lohr, S. L. (1999). Sampling: Design and analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.

353
Lu, X. (1998). Rhetoric in ancient China, fifth to third century B.C.E.: A comparison
with classical Greek rhetoric. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Lu, X., & Frank, D. A. (1993). On the study of Ancient Chinese rhetoric/Bian. Western
Journal of Communication, 57(4), 445-463.
Lunsford, A. A., Ruszkiewicz, J. J., & Walters, K. (2007). Everything’s an argument.
(4th
ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin‘s.
Luo, L. (2001). Reflections on syllabus for English teaching of non-English major
graduates in China. CELEA Journal (Bimonthly), 29(6), 69-72.
Ma. B. (2009). 古方术研究导引 [An introduction to studies in ancient arts of medicine
and astrology]. Lanzhou, Gansu: Gansu People‘s Press.
Manzo, A. V. (1992, December). Dialectical thinking: A general approach to critical and
creative thinking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading
Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Mao, L. (2005). Rhetorical borderlands: Chinese American rhetoric in the making.
College Composition and Communication, 56(3), 426-469.
Mao, L. (2010). Introduction: Searching for the way: Between the whats and wheres of
Chinese rhetoric. College English, 72(4), 329-349.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Marton, F., Wen, Q., & Nagle, A. (1996). Views on learning in different cultures:
Comparing patterns in China and Uruguay. Anales de psicologia, 12(2), 123-132.
Matalene, C. (1985). An American writing teacher in China. College English, 47(8), 798-
808.

354
Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Contrastive Rhetoric in Context: A Dynamic Model of L2 Writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 45-60.
McCarter, M. M. (2010) Aristotle‘s influence on Toulmin. Retrieved from
http://voices.yahoo.com/aristotles-influence-toulmin-5823834.html
McCulley, G. (1985). Writing quality, coherence, and cohesion. Research in the
Teaching of English, 19, 269-282.
McMahan, E., Day, S. X., Funk, R., & Coleman, L. (2011). Literature and the writing
process (9th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Melendez, J. (2008). The topic-comment linguistic structure of Chinese. Retrieved from
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/580505/thetopiccommentlinguisticst
ructure_pg2.html?cat=4
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Middle Kingdom Life. (2007). Foreign teachers guide to living and working in China.
Retrieved from http://middlekingdomlife.com/guide/foreign-teacher-salary.htm
Mohan, B. A., & Lo W. A. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and
developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 515-534.
Moran, C. (1991). We write, but do we read? Computers and Composition, 8(3), 51-61.
Morgan, J. L., & Sellner, M. B. (1980). Discourse and linguistic theory. In R. J. Spiro, B.
C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension
(pp. 165-200). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mu, C., & Carrington, S. (2007). An investigation of three Chinese students‘ English
writing strategies. TESL-EJ, 11(1), 1-23.

355
Murphy, T. (2001). The emergency of texture: An analysis of the function of the nominal
demonstratives in an English interlanguage corpus. Language Learning &
Technology, 5(3), 152-173.
NCETC National College English Testing Committee (Rev. ed.). (2006). The testing
syllabus for College English test – Band 4[大学英语四级考试考试大纲]. Beijing,
China: Higher Education Press.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of
thought: Holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310.
Noguchi, R. R. (1991). Grammar and the teaching of writing: Limits and possibilities.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational
change. Harlow, England: Longman/Pearson.
Nudelman, J., & Troyka, L. Q. (2004). Steps in composition (8th
ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Oliver, R. T. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient India and China. Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse University Press.
O‘Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good
texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes,
43(2), 121-152.
Osgood, C. E., & Richards, M. M. (1973). From Yang and Yin to and or but. Language,
49(2), 380-412.

356
Panetta, C. G. (2001). Understanding cultural differences in the rhetoric and composition
classroom: contrastive rhetoric as answer to ESL dilemmas. In C. G. Panatta,
Contrastive rhetoric revised and redefined (Rev. ed., pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Parks, A. F., Levernier, J. A., & Hollowell, I. M. (1981). Structuring paragraphs: A
guide to effective writing. New York, NY: St. Martin‘s Press.
Parks, A. F., Levernier, J. A., & Hollowell, I. M. (2001). Structuring paragraphs and
essays: A guide to effective writing (5th
ed.). New York, NY: Bedford Books.
Parselle, C. (2005). Analytical and intuitive thinking. Reference and Education, 16, 190.
Peng, T. C. (1997). Chinese idioms and cultural values. Chinese American Forum, 12(3),
28-29.
Pilus. Z. (1996). Coherence and students‘ errors: Weaving the threads of discourse.
English Teaching Forum, 34(3), 44- 49.
Pinker, S. (1995). Why the child holded the baby rabbits: A case study in language
acquisition. In L. R. Gleitman, & M. Liberman (Eds.), Language: An invitation to
cognitive science (2nd ed. Vol. 1, pp. 107-133). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.),
Radical pragmatics (Vol. 3, pp. 223-255). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Purgason, K. B. (1982). Understanding and using learner strategies in teaching EFL in
China: Notes on teaching English language and literature in the People’s
Republic of China. Unpublished manuscript, Tientsin Teachers College at Tianjin.

357
Qian. D. (2003). 影响写作的若干因素以及教学对策 [Several factors affecting writing
and pedagogical implications]. Foreign Language School, Dalian University of
Technology, China. Retrieved from
http://fld.dlut.edu.cn/TeachAndReasch/TR_disp.asp?id=86
Qian, W. (2009). Intensive vs. extensive reading. Retrieved from
http://www.chinasona.com/Learn-English/Learn-English/Intensive-Reading-vs.-
Extensive-Reading
Qiang, N., & Wolff, M. (2004). English or Chinglish. Retrieved from
http://www.usingenglish.com/esl-in-china/english-or-chinglish.pdf
Qin, P. (2009). Fifty thinking differences between Easterners and Westerners 东方人与
西方人的 50 个思维差异. Harbin, Heilongjiang: Harbin Press.
Ramasawmy, N. (2004). Conjunctive cohesion and relational coherence in students’
compositions (Unpublished master‘s thesis). University of South Africa, Pretoria,
South Africa.
Rao, Z. (1999 ). Modern vs. traditional. English Teaching Forum, 37(3), 27-29.
Rao, Z. (1996). Reconciling communicative approaches to the teaching of English with
traditional Chinese methods. Research in the teaching of English, 30(4), 458-471.
Reagan, T. G. (2005). Non-Western educational traditions: Indigenous approaches to
educational thought and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reinhart, T. (1980). Conditions for text coherence. Poetics Today, 1(4), 161-180.
Ricento, T. K. (1987). Aspects of coherence in English and Japanese expository prose
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

358
Rosa, A., & Eschholz, P. (2007). Models for writers: Short essays for composition (9th
ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin‘s.
Ryshina-Pankova, M. V. (2006). Constructing coherent and cohesive textual worlds in
advanced foreign language learner writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
Schneider, A. K., & Honeyman, C. (2006). The negotiator’s field book. Washington, DC:
American Bar Association.
Schneider, M., & Connor, U. (1990). Analyzing topical structure in ESL essays. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 411-427.
Schneider, M. L., & Fujishima, N. K. (1995). When practice doesn't make perfect: The
case of a graduate ESL student. In D. Belcher, & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic
writing in a second language: Essays on research & pedagogy (pp. 231-265).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Seidel, T., Rimmele, R., & Prenzel, M. (2005). Clarity and coherence of lesson goals as
a scaffold for student learning. Learning and instruction, 15(6), 539-556.
Shea, E. P. (2008). How the gene got its grove: Figurative language, science, and
rhetoric of the real. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Shea, K. (2011). Connecting rather than colliding: When American and Chinese
rhetorical styles meet in the university classroom. English as a Second Language
Faculty Publications & Research, 1-17. Retrieved from
http://scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/esl_fac/1

359
Shen, F. (1989). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning
English composition. College Composition and Communication, 40(4), 459-466.
Shi, A. (2004, April). The importance of teaching cohesion on a textual level—A
comparison of test scores before and after teaching. Translation Journal, 8(2).
Retrieved from http://www.bokorlang.com/journal/28edu1.htm
Shi, D. (2000). Topic and topic-comment constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Language,
76(2), 383-408.
Shu, D. F. (1997). Linguistics studies in China‘s foreign languages circle since 1990:
Major interests and trends. 外国语 [Journal of Foreign Languages], 1, 10-16.
Silva, T. (1997). Differences in ESL and native-English speaker writing: The research
and its implications. In C. Severino, J. C. Guerra, & Johnnella. E. Butler (Eds.),
Writing in multicultural settings (pp. 209-219). New York, NY: The
Modern Language Association of America.
Simpson, J. (2000). Topical structure analysis of academic paragraphs in
English and Spanish. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 293-309.
Skwire, D., & Wiener, H. S. (2005). Student’s book of college English: Rhetoric,
readings, and handbook (10th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Smalzer, W. R. (2010). Write to be read: Reading, reflection, and writing (2nd
ed.). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Snow, D. (2008). Learning English: A text book for English teachers. Retrieved from
http://www.amityfoundation.org/page.php?page=1435
Santa Rosa Junior College. (2007). Online writing lab: Paragraph coherence. Retrieved
from http://www.santarosa.edu/~jroyal/paragraphs/coherence/coherence.html

360
Sui, D., & Chen, Z. (2010). Analyzing the macro coherence in English writing and
implications for the teaching of English writing. Sino-US English Teaching, 7(12),
7-10.
Sun, G. (2000). Acquiring English tense and aspect: Effects of differences and
similarities between L1 and L2. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 10,
69-89.
Suraishkumar, G. K. (2003). Improving coherence in technical writing. Retrieved from
http://www.che.iitb.ac.in/faculty/gks/teaching/coherencepaperwebpage.pdf
Swearingen, C. J. (2010). Response [Response to Introduction: Searching for the Ways:
Between the Whats and Wheres of Chinese Rhetoric]. College English, 72(4),
424-429.
Tang, E., & Ng, C. (1995). A study on the use of connectives in ESL Students‘ writing.
Hong Kong Journals online, 7, 105-122. Retrieved from
http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/10/1000093.pdf
Tang, Y. (1923). 修辞格 [Figures of Speech]. Shanghai, China: The Commercial Press.
Tanskanen, S. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English
discourse. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Tao, Y. (2006). A discussion of English argumentative writings of non-English majors.
Journal of Yangzhou University (Higher Education Study Edition), 10(4), 94-96.
Taylor, G., & Chen, T. (1991). Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive
discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied
Linguistics, 12(3), 319-335.

361
Tierney, R. J., & Mosenthal, J. H. (1983). Cohesion and textual coherence. Research in
the Teaching of English, 17, 215-230.
Timmann, P. (2003). Writing papers in the United States—A guide for foreign students.
Retrieved from http://exam.tigtag.com/Gre/main/13407.shtml
Tomasi, M. (2004). Rhetoric in modern Japan: Western influences on the development
of narrative and oratorical style. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Turner, D. (2007). Writing topic sentences. The Writing Center of University of Ottawa.
Retrieved from http://www.writingcentre.uottawa.ca/hypergrammar/partopic.html
UT University of Texas at Austin. (2010). Evaluating programs. Retrieved from
http://utexas.edu/academic/ctl/assessment/iar/programs/plan/method/
interview.php
van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics
of discourse. New York, NY: Longman.
van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructure: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in
discourse, interaction and cognition. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanderMey, R., Meyer, V., Rys, J. V., Kemper, D., & Sebranek, P. (2004). The college
writer: A guide to thinking, writing, and researching. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Vries, K. D. (2002, August). Writing ―clearly‖: Differing perceptions of clarity in
Chinese and American texts. Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Contrastive and Translation Studies Between Chinese and English. East China
Normal University, Shanghai, China.
Wang, B. (2004). A survey of research in Asian rhetoric. Rhetoric Review, 23(2), 171-81.

362
Wang, C. (1992). Paragraph organization in English and Chinese academic prose: A
comparative study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of
Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA.
Wang, H., & Sui, D. (2006). Measuring coherence in Chinese EFL majors‘ writing
through LSA (Latent semantic analysis). Asian EFL Journal, 10, 1-24.
Wang, L. (2008). 能言善辩的心理学 [A silver tongue: Verbal communication from the
perspective of psychology]. Beijing, China: New World Press.
Wang, P., & Liu. (2001). 中西思维差异与大学英语学作 [Discrepancies in Chinese and
Western thinking and college English writing]. Foreign Language World, 85(5),
66-72. Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, China.
Wang, S. (2008). Pragmatic coherence in the English writing of Chinese college students.
US-China Foreign Language, 6(3), 1-7.
Wang, X. (1994). Writing concepts in Chinese writing instruction. Issues in Applied
Linguistics, 5(2), 211-219.
Wang, X. (2007). Adapting communicative language teaching approach to China‘s
context. Sino-US English Teaching. 4(10), 29-33.
Wang, X. (2009). Second language theories and their influences on EFL in China.
English Language Teaching, 2(4), 149-153.
Wang, Y. (2008). The application of theme-rheme theory in English composition
teaching. Cross-cultural Communication, 4(2), 106-108.
Wang, Y., & He, X. (2006). Intensive reading: Fifty years of English teaching in China.
CELEA Journal (Bimonthly), 29(1), 79-83.

363
Watson Todd, R., Khongput, S., & Darasawang, P. (2007). Coherence, cohesion and
comments on students‘ academic essays. Assessing Writing, 12 (1), 10-25.
Watson Todd, R., Thienpermpool, P., & Keyuravong, S. (2004). Measuring the
coherence of writing using topic-based analysis. Assessing Writing, 9, 85-104.
Weir, C. (1988). Academic writing – Can we please all the people all the time? In P. C.
Robinson (Ed.), Academic writing: Process and product (ELT Documents 129,
pp. 17-34). London, England: Modern English Publications/British Council.
Wen, K. (2007). An investigation on contemporary Chinese and Western rhetoric.
Journal of Fujian Normal University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition)
6(147), 65-72.
Wen, W., & Clement, R. (2003). A Chinese conceptualization of willingness to
communication in ESL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16(1), 18-38.
Weston, C., Gandell, T., Beauchamp, J., McAlpine, L., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, C.
(2001). Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a coding
system. Qualitative Sociology, 24(3), 381-400.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and culture. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2010). Chinese classics. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_classics

364
Willis, J. W. (2008). Qualitative research methods in education and educational
technology. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Wilson, K. (2010). Everything Japan. Retrieved from http://yumenome.wordpress.com
Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College
Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204.
Wu, G. (2001). Chinese-English dictionary (new century edition). Shanghai, China:
Shanghai Jiaotong University Press.
Wu, H. (2009). Lost and found in translation: Modern conceptualization of Chinese
rhetoric. Rhetoric Review, 28(2), 148-166.
Wu, H., & He, H. (2010). The problems in and solutions to English writings for non-
English majors at college level. Journal of Shanghai Second Polytechnic
University, 27(2), 169-172.
Wyrick, J. (2011). Steps to writing well with additional readings (8th
ed.). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth.
Xiao, Y. (2008). Applying metacognition in EFL writing instruction in China. Reflections
on English Language Teaching, 6(1), 19-33
Xing, M., Wang, J., & Spencer, K. (2008). Raising students‘ awareness of cross-cultural
contrastive rhetoric in English writing via an E-learning course. Language
Learning & Technology, 12(2), 71-93.
Xu, L., & Langendoen, D. T. (1985). Topic structures in Chinese. Language, 61(1), 1-
27.

365
Xu, Y. (2005). 英汉语篇模式差异对英语写作的影响 [Influences of discrepancies in
Chinese and Western discourse organization on English writing]. Sino-US
English Teaching, 2(1), 72-79.
Yang, B. (2008). The analects (Confucius, Trans.). Beijing, China: Zhonghua Book
Company. (Original work published 475 BCE)
Yang, L. (2008). 写作教学亟待重视读者意识的培养[Awareness of audience in writing
instruction needs prompt attention]. Retrieved from
http://www.ruiwen.com/news/40648.htm
Yang, L., & Cahill, A. (2008). The rhetorical organization of Chinese and American
students‘ expository essays: A Contrastive rhetoric study. International Journal of
English Studies, 8(2), 113-132.
Ye, T. (2007). Magical effect of allusions and idioms on persuasive writing. Chinese
Teaching and Research, 11, 18-19.
Ye, W. (2006). A study of the argumentative discourse of Mandarin-speaking ESL
students and native English speaking students: Differences and similarities.
Unpublished manuscript. Indiana University of Pennsylvania at Indiana.
Ye, W. (2006). Plagiarism in China and second language socialization. Unpublished
manuscript. Indiana University of Pennsylvania at Indiana.
Yeh, C. (2004). The relationship of cohesion and coherence: A contrastive study of
English and Chinese. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 243-260.
You, X. (2004). ―The choice made from no choice‖: English writing instruction in a
Chinese university. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 97-110.

366
You, X. (2005). Conflation of rhetorical traditions: The formation of Modern Chinese
writing instruction. Rhetorical Review, 24(2), 150-169.
You, X. (2008). Rhetorical strategies, electronic media, and China English. World
Englishes, 27(2), 233-249.
Yu, A. C. (2000). Enduring change: Confucianism and the prospect of human rights.
Lingnan Journal of Chinese Studies, 2, 27-70.
Yu, N. (1993). Chinese as a paratactic language. El Two Talk, 1(1), 1-15.
Yu, X. (2009). The negative transfer of mother tongue in non-English majors‘
compositions from the perspective of syntax. Asian Social Science, 5(9), 137-141.
Yuan, Y., & Yang, Y. (2010). The cultural basis and feasibility of the post-quake ―bare-
foot psychotherapist.‖ Schweizer Archiv Fur Neurologie und psychiatrie [Swiss
Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry], 161(8), 316-318.
Yun, M. (2005). 中国人的悟性[The Chinese Wuxing]. Retrieved from
http://gb.cri.cn/3601/2005/01/14/882@423245.htm
Zamel, V. (1983). Teaching those missing links in writing. ELT Journal, 37(1), 22-29.
Zeng, D. (2005). The process-oriented approach to ESL/EFL writing instruction and
research. Teaching English in China, 28(5), 66-77.
Zhang, D. (2000). On text coherence. Foreign Language Teaching and Research
(bimonthly), 32(2), 103-109.
Zhang, D. (2006). A study of the macro-principles of text coherence. Foreign Language
and Their Teaching, 211(10), 7-13.
Zhang, D. (2009). 文化与哲学 [Culture and philosophy]. Beijing, China: Renmin
University of China Press.

367
Zhang, H., & Baker, G. (2010). 像中国人一样思考 [Think like Chinese]. Beijing, China:
China Industry and Commerce United Press.
Zhang, L. (2005). Teaching writing in English as a foreign language: Mainland China.
In M. S. Shum & L. Zhang (Eds.), Teaching writing in Chinese speaking areas
(pp. 29-45). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Zhang, Y. (2004). A study of English writing by native Chinese freshmen:
Teaching English requires the teaching of culture(s). Asian EFL Journal, 6(4),
131-157.
Zhao, J. & Liu, Y. (2004). 高考作文满分 60 招 [Sixty brilliant ideas for a perfect score
on the college entrance examination essay]. Changsa, Hunan: Hunan Education
Press.
Zhao, X. (1999). A contrastive analysis of Chinese and Western cultures as well as
Chinese and English writing styles. Shandong Foreign Language Education,
3(76), 69-72.
Zheng, P. (2003). 从英语精读课到综合英语课的转变看英语教学的发展
[Developments in English teaching: From Intensive Reading to Integrated English
Skills]. Education Exploration, 5, 74-75.
Zhou, X. (2007). Application of English cohesion theory in the teaching of writing to
Chinese graduate students. US-China Education Review, 4(7), 31-37.
Zhu, H. (1992). Cohesion and coherence in Chinese ESL writing (Unpublished doctoral
Dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

368
Zhu, Y., & Hildebrandt, H. W. (2000). Culture and classical rhetoric: Comparing
persuasive orientation. Retrieved from
http://marketing.byu.edu/htmlpages/ccrs/proceedings01/papers
Zuo, B. (2001). Lines and circles: West and East. English Today, 67(17), 3-8.

369
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Features of Cohesion and Coherence
Cohesion
1. Pronouns of reference are used accurately
2. Conjunctions are used accurately
3. Ellipsis and substitution are used when needed
4. Lexical repetition is used appropriately
5. Synonymous words/phrases when used are used appropriately
6. Transition words are used judiciously and accurately to link sentences and/or
paragraphs together to convey relationships throughout the essay
7. Each sentence follows logically from the previous one
Coherence
1. The opening paragraph is effective in introducing the reader to the subject or
the central idea that the writer will develop throughout the essay
2. All the paragraphs support the central focus and do not digress
3. The writer‘s overall point of view is clear
4. Paragraphs are divided in terms of content relevance
5. Transition is smooth between paragraphs
6. The writer organizes paragraph details according to a discernible plan (e.g.,
time order, addition order, order of importance, order of cause and effect,
order of comparison-contrast) that is well-designed with a smooth and logical
progression of thoughts; therefore, the ideas relate to one another

370
7. The writer does not shift topics, and the ideas in each paragraph are all
relevant to the topic
8. Ideas mentioned are elaborated
9. There is no repetition of ideas
10. The writer fully develops paragraphs, effectively using reasons and specific
11. The last paragraph gives the reader a definite sense of closure

371
Appendix B
Composition Rating Scales—Cohesion
Knowledge of Cohesion
Level of ability Description
0 Zero
No evidence of knowledge of textual cohesion
Range: zero
Accuracy: not relevant
1 Limited
Limited knowledge of textual cohesion
Range: few markers of textual cohesion used
Accuracy: relationships between sentences often confusing
2 Moderate
Moderate knowledge of textual cohesion
Range: moderate range of explicit cohesive devices used
Accuracy: relationships between sentences generally clear but
could be more explicitly marked
3 Extensive
Extensive knowledge of textual cohesion
Range: wide range of explicit cohesive devices including
complex subordination used
Accuracy: highly accurate with only occasional problems in
cohesion
4 Complete
Evidence of complete knowledge of cohesion
Range: complete range of explicit cohesive devices used
Accuracy: completely accurate use of cohesive devices

372
Appendix C
Composition Rating Scales—Coherence
Knowledge of Coherence
Level of ability Description
0 Zero
No evidence of knowledge of textual coherence
Range: zero
Accuracy: not relevant
1 Limited
Limited knowledge of coherence
Range: little evidence of deliberate textual coherence
Accuracy: organization confusing or irrelevant to topic
2 Moderate
Moderate knowledge of coherence
Range: moderate range of explicit rhetorical organizational
devices
Accuracy: organization clear but could be more explicitly
marked
3 Extensive
Extensive knowledge of coherence
Range: wide range of explicit organizational devices at both
paragraph and whole discourse levels
Accuracy: highly accurate with only occasional problems in
organization
4 Complete
Evidence of complete knowledge of coherence
Range: complete range of explicit organizational devices
Accuracy: completely accurate use

373
Appendix D: Background Questionnaire
All information collected for this study will be kept confidential and used only by the
researcher. Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary, and you are under no
obligation to fill out this form or to give consent for the information to be used in this
dissertation research.
Part One
Please complete the following part.
1 Today‘s Date: Day__________ Month__________________ Year_________
2 Your Gender: Male___________ Female___________
Part two
3 Age: _______________
4 How many years have you studied English as second language (ESL)?
#________ years in my native country #_________ years in the United States
5 When was the last time you took an ESL course?
Year: _______ Place: __________________
6 How many times have you taken this advanced composition course?
___first time I‘m taking the course
___second time I‘m taking the course
___third time I‘m taking the course
7 What year did you come to the United States?
___________________
8 What writing courses have you taken in the past?
___ (beginning) ___ (intermediate) ___ (advanced)
9 Where did you go to high school?
________________________

374
10 What year did you graduate from high school? _____________
11 Have you had any college education before coming to this college?
___No ___Yes:
If yes, please give the dates of attendance
12 Do you like to write in English?
___No ___Yes
If yes, how much writing do you do in English? What kinds of writing do you do?
(a) ______I enjoy writing in English, and I sometimes write private stories or
paragraphs;
(b) ______I often write in English, but only in connection with class assignments;
(c)______ I keep a journal and write something about everything.
13 How would you describe yourself as an ESL writer?
Check all that apply:
____Confident ____Advanced ____Inexperienced ____Nervous
____Have fears about writing ____Hate to write
Part Three
Please write the answers to the following questions:
14 What city/town/village do you come from?
_______________________________________
15 What is your first language? ________________________
Thank you very much for your time and your cooperation!

375
Appendix E: Departmental Diagnostic Sample Test
Diagnostic Essay Topics
Choose ONE of the following topics and write a complete essay expressing and
supporting your opinion.
A. With gas prices rising, traffic increasing, pollution worsening and parking getting
more difficult, some New Yorkers are demanding that the city prohibit cars in
Manhattan. They want all commuters to use mass transit: subways, buses, taxis,
ferries, or bicycles. Others feel that banning cars would create undue hardships for
people traveling to work, medical appointments, daycare centers and other
destinations, especially at night and in bad weather.
What is your opinion? Write an essay expressing your view and supporting it with
examples from your general knowledge, your reading, information you have
gained from the media, and your personal experiences or those of others.
B. Nowadays, many people choose not to have children or to have only one child.
They say they are too busy getting an education and building a career to take time
for a family. Other people want larger families. For them, a career cannot replace
the lifetime rewards of family relationships.
What is your opinion? Write an essay expressing your view and supporting it with
examples from your general knowledge, your reading, information you have
gained from the media, and your personal experiences or those of others.

376
Appendix F: CATW Sample Writing Assignment
Is Music a Good Tool for Health?
Prompt
Research has shown that music has a profound effect on your body and mind. In
fact, there‘s a growing field of health care known as music therapy, which uses music to
heal. Those who practice music therapy are finding a benefit in using music to help
cancer patients, children with attention problems, and others. Hospitals are beginning to
use music therapy to help with pain management, depression, to promote movement, to
clam patients, to ease muscle tension, and other benefits. This is not surprising, as music
affects the body and mind in many powerful ways.
For example, research has shown that music with a strong beat can stimulate
brainwaves to synchronize with the beat. Faster beats bring sharper concentration and
more alert thinking. Slower beats promote a calm, meditative state. Even after you‘ve
stopped listening, the change in brainwave activity that music causes can continue, which
means that music can bring lasting benefits to your state of mind.
In another example, research shows that breathing and heart rate may be affected
by the changes music can bring. This may mean slower breathing, slower heart rate, and
an activation of the relaxation response, among other things. This is why music and
music therapy can help prevent the damaging effects of chronic stress, thereby aiding not
only relaxation, but also health. Music can also be used to bring a more positive state of
mind, helping to keep depression and anxiety under control.
With these and other benefits, it‘s no surprise that music therapy is growing in
popularity.
____________________________
Adapted from “How and Why Is Music a Good Tool for Health?” by Elizabeth
Scott, M.S. About.com Guide. Updated November 22, 2009.
http://stress.about.com/od/tensiontamers/a/music_therapy.htm.
Writing Directions
Read the passage above and write an essay responding to the ideas it presents. In your
essay, be sure to summarize the passage in your own words, stating the author‘s most
important ideas. Develop your essay by identifying one idea in the passage that you feel
is especially significant, and explain its significance. Support your claims with evidence
or examples drawn from what you have read, learned in school, and/or personally
experienced. Remember to review your essay and make any changes or corrections that
will help your reader follow your thinking. You will have 90 minutes to complete your
essay.

377
Appendix G: In-class Writing/CATW Practice Writing
Going on a Diet? Start Paying in Cash
Prompt
Paying with credit or debit cards makes people more likely to make impulsive,
unhealthy food purchases, according to a new study in The Journal of Consumer
Research.
Previous research has found that paying with credit can encourage people to
spend more money because physically handing over a dollar bill increases the so- called
―pain of payment,‖ which takes away from the pleasure of consumption.
There is a piggy joke to be made here somewhere. It turns out paying with a card
can also make consumers likely to spend more money on ―bad‖ things in particular, like
junk food.
―When consumers encounter vice products — such as cookies, cakes and pies —
the emotive imagery and associated desire trigger impulsive purchase decisions,‖ the
authors write. But ―pain of payment can curb the impulsive responses and thus reduce the
purchase of such vice products.‖
In part of their study, the authors looked at the shopping behavior of a random
sample of 1,000 single-member households who normally shop at chain stores. The
authors looked at what these households purchased over a six-month period on each visit
to the store, and how they paid for their items. Most of the households switched between
card and cash payments on different trips (but the researchers did not randomly assign
one form of payment versus another, so there may be some other lurking variables at
play).
In this analysis, consumers were significantly more likely to purchase unhealthy
foods like cakes and cookies when using a credit or debit card. Interestingly, consumers
who shopped with larger baskets were also ―more susceptible to impulsive purchase of
unhealthy products,‖ the authors found. The date of the shopping trip also made a
difference:
Consumers shopping on weekends are less likely to be impulsive. This could be
because of the shopping list effect: weekend shopping trips tend to be based on shopping
lists, and therefore purchases on such trips are less susceptible to impulsive urges.
_________________________
Adapted from The New York Times, October 19, 2012 by Catherine Rampell
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/going-on-a-diet-start-paying-in-cash/?pagewanted=print

378
Writing Directions
Read the passage above and write an essay responding to the ideas it presents. In your
essay, be sure to summarize the passage in your own words, stating the author‘s most
important ideas. Develop your essay by identifying one idea in the passage that you feel
is especially significant, and explain its significance. Support your claims with evidence
or examples drawn from what you have read, learned in school, and/or personally
experienced. Remember to review your essay and make any changes or corrections that
will help your reader follow your thinking. You will have 90 minutes to complete your
essay.
Be careful to write
1 an introduction that contains a summary and your thesis.
2 two body paragraphs and each:
a. begins with a topic sentence, which contains the thesis and the one point you
plan to discuss in the paragraph.
b. has approximately 8-10 sentences of supporting details that a.) must
DIRECTLY relate to the thesis and the point you are making, b.) refer back to
the article about three times, and c.) use appropriate transition words and
vocabulary.
3 a conclusion that summarizes what you wrote in one or two sentences.
4 Your vocabulary and grammar must also be accurate.

379
Appendix H: Essays Written on the Final Exam
Achieving a Healthful Digital Diet
Prompt
Think of the Internet and other digital technology as food. Limit the intake of
empty digital calories, and do not consume too much over all. That is the advice of
experts who study children‘s use of media and who have some tips for parents and
children on how to use technology in more healthful ways.
Michael Levine, executive director of the Joan Ganz Cooney Center, which
studies media and learning, said parents should take the time to assess whether a Web site
or game had clear educational value. Then, he suggested, tip the balance so that 50
percent of a child‘s computer time is spent on activities that teach. ―The primary use of
technology by young people is for entertainment,‖ he said. ―There needs to be a more
balanced diet.‖
Vicky Rideout, a researcher who has overseen studies on media and health for the
Kaiser Family Foundation, said it was crucial to limit multitasking and entertainment
while studying. ―Don‘t have the instant-messaging function open. Don‘t
have Facebook open,‖ she said. ―Put that challenge out to the kids.‖
Some of the expert advice focuses on the example set by parents. ―What kind of
role model are you?‖ asked Liz Perle, editor in chief of Common Sense Media, which
helps families navigate a media-saturated world. ―Are you constantly on your BlackBerry,
play online games regularly — are you addicted to Facebook, too?‖
Ms. Perle urged parents of younger children not to constantly entertain them with
screens, like giving them the iPhone to quiet them in a restaurant. And older children
should be given basic phones for talking and texting, not smartphones that can be loaded
with applications. Eventually, Ms. Perle said, older children must take responsibility. She
suggested they ask questions like those asked by people with addictions: ―Who is in
control? Me, or the technology? Is the game calling the shots?‖
_____________________________
From The New York Times, November 21, 2010 by Matt Richtel
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brainside.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

380
Appendix I: Essays Written on the Final Exam
Is Multitasking Productive?
Prompt
New research has indicated that humans are not skilled at multitasking.
Multitasking refers to the simultaneous use of several different media, such as watching
television, surfing the Internet, playing video games, text messaging, and reading or
writing e-mails at the same time. Thus, multitasking requires people to switch their
attention from task to task rapidly. However, scientists contend that the human brain is
not wired to perform two tasks simultaneously. According to Earl Miller, a professor of
neuroscience at MIT, humans cannot focus on more than one activity at a time because
when the brain attempts to process two tasks at once, this demand creates a conflict that
causes interference between the two activities. For instance, if a person is speaking on the
telephone and answering an email, these two activities require verbal communication and
written words, but trying to produce both types of output at the same time results in a
clash between the two.
To test this theory, Daniel Weissman and other researchers at the University of
Michigan used an MRI scanner to photograph multitaskers‘ brains as they performed
different activities concurrently. The researchers discovered that even simple tasks could
overwhelm that brain if a subject tries to perform more than one at a time. For instance, if
a woman is looking for two cars, one red and the other black, she must continually switch
between the two colors in her mind. However, after she performs this task many times,
she will become confused, overwhelmed and unproductive. In fact, recent studies
indicated that multitasking reduces productivity by 20 to 40 percent.
Moreover, Russell Poldrack, a psychology professor at the University of
California, has determined that multitasking negatively impacts learning. If a person
learns while multitasking, that learning is less flexible and more difficult to retrieve. As a
result, when students send text messages while they are in a classroom, they reduce their
ability to learn.
_____________________________
From The Keys to the CATW, Second Edition, 2011 by Regina A. Rochford

381
Appendix J: Essays Written on the Final Exam
No Junk Food in Schools!
Prompt
In an attempt to reduce childhood obesity, legislation has been proposed to forbid
junk food from being served in schools. These new regulations would ban sugary and
fried foods from school cafeterias and vending machines nationwide. As a result, schools
will only serve nutritious foods so that children can make healthy choices. Several cities
and states have already passed laws to remove certain drinks and snacks from schools‘
vending machines, and they are proposing modifications to school lunch menus, too.
Presently, most school lunches are quite unhealthy. They consist of hot dogs,
pepperoni pizza, cheeseburgers, French fries, and sugary flavored milks. Many of these
meals contain more than half a day‘s worth of sodium and fat. However, this new law
would require schools to offer more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat milks. It
is hoped that the introduction of nutritious, plant-based foods at a young age will
establish healthy eating habits and reduce the children‘s risk of developing Type 2
diabetes, cancer, strokes, and heart disease.
Although the National Parent Teachers Association and other health groups
support this law, others are unenthusiastic. Civil rights activities believe these new laws
interfere with parental rights because what a child eats is a private family matter. In
addition, the American Beverage Association contends that this law is ineffective in
managing weight problems because obesity is a complex issue that results from lack of
exercise, excessive calories, fast food, and heredity. Moreover, many parents object to
this legislation because they believe overeating is rooted in patterns established at home,
not school. Therefore, they claim that serving healthy food at school will not prevent
children obesity.
___________________________
From The Keys to the CATW, Second Edition, 2011 by Regina A. Rochford

382
Appendix K: CATW Paragraph Editing
Complete the Paragraph with the Appropriate Transitions or Vocabulary Corrections.
Using credit or debit cards to make impulsive purchases on _________________
can cause serious financial issues for consumers. According to the article, paying with a
credit card can encourage people to spend more money in ___________________. The
article says overspending occurs because consumers _____________________________.
_________________ because consumers don‘t have to worry about how much money is
in their wallets, they will buy items they don‘t even need. Then when the bill arrives, they
only pay the minimum amount due. ______________________, credit card users
gradually build up more and more debt until they cannot afford to pay it off and have
major financial problems. For instance, my uncle loves to shop in ___________________
with his credit cards. _____________________, he accumulated more than $20,000 in
debt just by purchasing _______________________ ______________________ he
recently lost his job, __________________ he cannot even make the minimum payments
each month. ____________________ using credit cards to make impulsive ___________
purchases can result in financial problems, __________________ consumers should use
cash when they shop.

Cohesion in w 2013

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Cohesion in w 2013 (20)

More from Walaa Abdelnaby (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Cohesion in w 2013