Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing: Cognitive and Metacognitive Perspectives 9789819976362, 9789819976379

Citation preview

Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing

Xing Wei

Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing Cognitive and Metacognitive Perspectives

Xing Wei School of Foreign Studies University of Science and Technology Beijing Beijing, China

ISBN 978-981-99-7636-2 ISBN 978-981-99-7637-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore Paper in this product is recyclable.

Acknowledgments

I extend my deepest gratitude to my Ph.D. supervisors, Prof. Wenxia Zhang and Prof. Lawrence Jun Zhang, for their unwavering guidance during my doctoral research. Their insights and expertise have been influential in the completion of this work. I am indebted to Prof. Hongchen Xu from Beijing Language and Culture University and Prof. Qian Guo from Tsinghua University for their invaluable suggestions, which have played a significant role in refining and enhancing this manuscript. Furthermore, I want to thank my colleagues and peers who have been integral to this journey. My heartfelt thanks go to Xiaolin Wang, Yi Yan, and Yong Wu for their support and encouragement. I am also deeply grateful to Congmin Zhao and Renqing Yuan for their selfless assistance in the collection and analysis of data. This book is sponsored by the research grant from The Ministry of Education, P. R. China: The Humanities and Social Sciences General Project of The Ministry of Education (Project No.: 23YJC740073), “Metacognitive Regulation and Teaching Strategies for the Transfer of Chinese Rhetoric in English Writing of Chinese Learners.”

v

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Research Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Significance of the Study of L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer . . . . . . . . 1.3 Organization of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 6 8 9

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Notions of Rhetoric and Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Fundamentals of Rhetoric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Integration of Rhetoric Into Writing Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Rhetorical Knowledge Applied to Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Reconsideration of L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Studies on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Contrastive Rhetoric Paradigm for Investigating Rhetorical Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Theories on Metacognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Notions of Metacognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Metacognition in Second Language Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Metacognition in L2 Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Metacognition and Interlingual Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Measures of Metacognition in L2 Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Remarks on the Previous Relevant Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 13 14 16 18 23 24 25

3 Theoretical Framework for L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Overview of the Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The Text Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The L2-Writer Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 The Reader Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36 57 59 62 63 66 71 74 75 76 89 89 90 91 92 vii

viii

Contents

3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93 93

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Mixed-Methods Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3 Methods of Obtaining the Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.4 Research Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Research Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Overview of Corresponding Evidence and Analysis Methods . . . . . 4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95 95 96 98 99 100 114 118 122 123

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Overview of the Data Collected in the Study in Phase I . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Writing Performance in English and Chinese Writing Tests and English Writing Task I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features in English Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features in the Category of General Rhetorical Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features in the Category of Rhetorical Construction for Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features in the Category of Rhetorical Techniques for Achieving Discourse Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Frequency of the English Argumentative Essays with Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Validation of Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Background of Validation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Descriptive Statistics and Univariate Normality Test . . . . . . 5.4.3 Construct Validity and Composite Reliability of Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Results Based on the Data of Writing Tasks I and Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Results Based on the Rhetorical Evaluation of English Writing Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Results Based on the Data of Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire and Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire . . . . . . . .

127 127 128 129 130

134

138 141 143 144 144

145 146 152

165

Contents

ix

5.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 6 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Overview of the Data Collected in the Study in Phase II . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Analyses of Retrospective Verbal Report and Stimulated Recall Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Relevant Information of Case Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Results Based on Retrospective Verbal Report and Stimulated Recalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive, and Metacognitive Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Distribution of L1-to-L2 Transfer in L2 Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Associations Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer Manifested in L2 Composing Processes and L2 Writer-Related Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Association of L2 Writers’ Perception of L2 Writing Difficulty with L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transferring Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Associations of L2 and L1 Writing Proficiency with L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transferring Processes . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Effects of L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer on L2 Writing . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Relationship Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and the Relevant Metacognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Relation Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and the Metacognitive Knowledge about L1-L2 Rhetorical Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 Relation Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and General Writing Metacognitive Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.3 Relation Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Its Concurrent Metacognitive Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Conclusion and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Summary of Major Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 Theoretical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.2 Methodological Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.3 Pedagogical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Limitations and Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

177 177 178 180 181 192 192 193 193

195

195 198 201 206

207 212 213 216 217 221 221 223 223 225 227 228 229

x

Contents

Appendix A: Writing Background Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Appendix B: Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Appendix C: Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Appendix D: The Questions in Retrospective Verbal Report (RVR) and Stimulated Recalls (SRs: SR I and SR II) . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Appendix E: Chinese Yilunwen Writing Rubric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Appendix F: The Percentages of the Lowerand Higher-Proficiency EFL Writers Who Chose “4” or “5” for Items in Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2

Framework of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data types and the corresponding collection methods . . . . . . . . . . The frequency of the characteristic Chinese rhetorical features that are also exhibited in Chinese writing samples . . . . . . Five-factor structure of Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire . . . . . . .

90 97 143 147

xi

List of Tables

Table 2.1

Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3

Table 5.4 Table 5.5

Table 5.6

Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10

The characteristic Chinese rhetorical features that demonstrate the difference between Chinese and English argumentative essay writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dimensions of PWRQ items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On-line survey information for questionnaire design . . . . . . . . . Triangulated data, data sources, data analysis approaches, and forms of evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The aspects involved in the rhetorical evaluation by native English-speaking evaluators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overall frequency of the English texts with characteristic Chinese rhetorical features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of the English texts with characteristic Chinese rhetorical features in the highly, moderately, and lowly rated English essays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Internal consistency reliability of MKCERDQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The prediction of the three categories of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes with perception of English writing difficulty and English and Chinese writing scores as the predictors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The prediction of the variables of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes with perception of English writing difficulty and English and Chinese writing scores as the predictors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of scores in PWRQ among the highly, moderately, and lowly rated English writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of feedback or comments on characteristic Chinese rhetorical features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical negative comments on the effect of ISCO upon an exemplified excerpt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical negative comments on the effect of TEAA upon exemplified excerpts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58 104 111 118 129 141

142 145

148

150 153 154 154 155 xiii

xiv

Table 5.11 Table 5.12 Table 5.13 Table 5.14 Table 5.15 Table 5.16 Table 5.17 Table 5.18 Table 5.19 Table 5.20 Table 5.21 Table 5.22 Table 5.23

Table 5.24

Table 5.25

Table 5.26

Table 5.27

Table 6.1

List of Tables

Typical negative comments on the effect of ISRDUa upon exemplified excerpts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical negative comments on the effect of ISRDUb upon an exemplified excerpt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical negative comments on the effect of DCSCPAa upon exemplified excerpts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical negative comments on the effect of DCSCPAb upon exemplified excerpts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical negative comments on the effect of PPA upon an exemplified excerpt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical negative comments on the effect of ECHSa upon an exemplified excerpt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical negative comments on the effect of ECHSb upon an exemplified excerpt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical negative comments on the effect of MPICa upon an exemplified excerpt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical negative comments on the effect of MPICb upon an exemplified excerpt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical negative comments on the effect of ERQTa upon exemplified excerpts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical negative comments on the effect of ERQTb upon an exemplified excerpt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical negative comments on the effect of ERSP upon an exemplified excerpt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between the categories of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes and MKCERD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The prediction of the categories of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes with MKCERD as the predictors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The prediction of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes in the category of The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric with MKCERD as the predictors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The prediction of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes in the category of The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on the Construction of Arguments with MKCERD as the predictor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The prediction of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes in the category of The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on Text Organization with MKCERD as the predictors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . English writing background information of the representative case participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

156 157 158 160 160 161 161 162 163 163 164 165

166

167

169

171

173 180

List of Tables

Table 6.2 Table 6.3

Table 6.4

Table 6.5 Table 6.6

Table 6.7 Table 6.8

xv

The influence of Chinese rhetoric in the H and L groups’ English writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Metacognitive skills co-occurring with Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer in the H and L groups’ English writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Metacognitive awareness involved in Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer and negative evaluation of this transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Metacognitive activities identified in SR based on video-recorded pausing behaviors in Jiang’s case . . . . . . . . . The composing activities affected by Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer together with the involvement of concurrent metacognitive skills in Jiang’s case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Metacognitive activities identified in SR based on video-recorded pausing behaviors in Yang’s case . . . . . . . . . The composing activities affected by Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer together with the involvement of concurrent metacognitive skills in Yang’s case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

182

183

185 186

188 189

191

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Research Background Writing is a multifaceted subject of study that examines the final written product, which comprises linguistic units organized deliberately, and the intricate process of meaning-building and communication. This process involves the generation, organization, and translation of ideas into conventional textual forms. To achieve effective communication, writers engage in a harmonious interplay of textual, cognitive, and metacognitive activities throughout the writing process. These activities concern the activation and interaction of various types of writing knowledge within writers’ cognitive processes (Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2016). Second language (L2) writing, as opposed to first language (L1) writing, is a “simultaneously cognitive, social, and intercultural activity” that involves retrieving knowledge about the content, process, genre, and target language in the bilingual or multilingual mind (Zheng, 2017, p. 142). Due to the direct relationship between a mother tongue and the conceptual system, the L1 of bilingual writers takes a dominant position in L2 composing processes until they reach the advanced or native-like level of L2 proficiency. During L2 writing development, L2 writers are inclined to follow the patterns established by the writing expertise developed during their L1 literacy training and practice (see, e.g., De Silva & Graham, 2015; Zhang, 2013). The organization of writing activities can be considered a conventional response to writing tasks (Kroll, 1990). As a result of the limitation on L2 writing competence, the composing processes in L2 writing are inevitably affected by L1 writing rules or conventions. Such cross-language influence results from the transfer of L1 knowledge related to various aspects of the language system in the L1, such as semantics, syntax, and discourse. In other words, the occurrence of transfer involves the application of different kinds of knowledge, skills, or strategies previously acquired in the L1 to L2 learning (Raimes, 1987). Based on the concept of knowledge transfer (Gick & Holyoak, 1987; Haskell, 2001; Zarei & Rahimi, 2014), we can assume that the

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Wei, Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9_1

1

2

1 Introduction

activation and processing of L1 writing knowledge (i.e., the previously acquired knowledge) play an instrumental role in L2 writing activities. Concerning the kind of knowledge that is transferred, the cases of transfer can be divided into semantic transfer, syntactic transfer, discourse transfer, etc. This book focuses on the rhetorical transfer from an L1 to an L2 (or L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer) occurring at the discourse level of L2 writing, as well as a specific cognitive factor relevant to this transfer—metacognition. The key concepts and an overview of related studies will be explained below to clearly lay the groundwork for the research presented in the ensuing chapters. Since the advent of contrastive rhetoric (Kaplan, 1966), rhetorical transfer across languages has been a topic drawing sustained attention in English as a second language/English as a foreign language (ESL/EFL) writing research (e.g., Hirose, 2003; Mohan & Lo, 1985; Kubota, 1998; Liu & Huang, 2021; Saffari et al., 2017) as well as in the studies on adaptive transfer (e.g., DePalma & Ringer, 2011; Rinnert et al., 2015), and intercultural rhetoric (e.g., Connor, 2004; Ene et al., 2019; McIntosh & Connor, 2023). This topic is particularly important for foreign language (FL) writing instruction in an acquisition-lacking environment, where L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer can easily occur if the rules or norms of L2 rhetoric are not particularly considered. As Polio (2017) put it, “writing conventions in the L2 might not be made explicit and students are left to draw on their L1 discourse knowledge” (p. 268). In the L1 educational and cultural contexts, the influences of the pre-existing L1 rhetorical schemata of foreign-language (FL for short) writers are inevitable in L2 writing (Taft et al., 2011; Uysal, 2008). It is a question worth exploring how these influences can be understood and harnessed to facilitate the development of L2 writing competence. However, we still lack systematic and detailed knowledge about how L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer functions as a cognitive activity and acts on L2 writing through the agency of L2 writers. Therefore, this book aims to investigate this transfer further. The knowledge relevant to rhetorical transfer is either discourse or rhetorical knowledge (Rinnert et al., 2015; Uysal, 2008). Since rhetoric represents the communicative effects intended by discourse producers, rhetorical knowledge can be regarded as a key component of writing knowledge that counts for much in the writing process. Indeed, knowledge of rhetorical processes is necessary for writers to express their ideas and achieve the objectives of writing. However, rhetorical knowledge lags behind writing knowledge in relation to surface features. For example, as noted by Kaplan (1988), “students with excellent control of sentence structure are not necessarily able to compose text” (p. 276). This limitation is inevitable if it is not seriously addressed, in that “there is no reason to assume that the non-native English speaker will be aware of the set of conventions in English” (p. 294). As such, the occurrence of rhetorical transfer across languages is natural and reasonable, as it serves as a common way to compensate for the weakness in L2 rhetorical competence. Take, for example, the common experience of Chinese EFL students using English rhetoric. English rhetoric is difficult for Chinese students who want to master English writing skills. In teaching practice, it is often found that no matter how capable Chinese students are of producing splendid content, utilizing precise and authentic words, and constructing grammatically correct sentences in English

1.1 Research Background

3

writing, they are often caught constructing English discourse with a Chinese flavor, which may affect the adequacy or effectiveness of English written communication if Chinese rhetoric is not properly understood by target readers. In a study by Zhang (2001), it was found that their English writing was characterized by the Chinese L1 rhetorical organization rooted in their years of Chinese literacy experiences. Actually, it also holds true for many Chinese students studying in U.S. colleges, as the role of their L1 literacy knowledge is dominant in their writing. The above finding reflects the exhibition of the L1 mode of rhetorical thoughts in L2 composition. Sheldon (2011) pointed out that L1 rhetorical habits influence the schemata of L2 writing and that L1 rhetorical patterns can be transferred to L2 discourse (see also Zhang, 2013, 2016). Holyoak and Piper (1997) argued for the inevitability of the influence of L1 rhetorical patterns on non-advanced L2 writers, asserting that “faced with an L2 writing task and uninstructed in the required rhetorical structure, even the most cognitively developed learner has no alternative but to fall back on patterns familiar from the L1” (pp. 137–138). In fact, the role of L1 cultural and logical patterns is pervasive in the discourse organization of L2 written production, which brings about the cross-language influence of L1 habitual thinking or cognitive resources. Although rhetorical transfer has given rise to a serious concern in L2 writing research, most attention has been drawn to its manifestations in L2 written products. Few studies have examined the underlying mechanism responsible for its occurrence, specifically the way its occurrence is connected with students’ lack of L2 rhetorical knowledge and their dependence on L1 rhetorical patterns and relevant composing activities. According to the theoretical considerations of cross-linguistic influence (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008; Kellerman, 1979, 1983, as cited in Gass, 1988, p. 391), rhetorical transfer can be classified as a category of mental activity performed by learners and a psycho-cognitive phenomenon in L2 production. The constraints of such crosslingual transfer lie not just in the structural relationship between the source and target languages but also in the decision-making processes or habitual actions in language production of L2 users, which are supported by the role of integrated cognitive capacities (Odlin, 2003; Yu & Odlin, 2014). It must be noted that this transfer does not function in a mechanical way but rather via a cognitive mechanism underlying L2 acquisition (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). As such, Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008) advocated further research into the nature of transfer by looking beyond the level of language representation. Particularly important is the central role of learners in leading to the transfer at the cognitive level. Scholars in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) have recognized that the learner himself or herself makes the transfer possible as a “transferor” (Lobato, 2006, p. 444) or as an agent who interacts with the environment (Larsen-Freeman, 2013). Interlingual transfer of L1 knowledge is likely to exhibit idiosyncratic patterns as an “individual-level phenomenon” (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008, p. 208). To determine the individual differences in L1-to-L2 transfer, it is necessary to explore the mentalistic nature and cognitive dynamics of L2 learners underlying learners’ L1 knowledge transfer in L2 use in transfer studies (e.g., Odlin, 2003; Uysal, 2008).

4

1 Introduction

The mental situation in which the transfer takes place is different in terms of the presence of consciousness. As pointed out by Möhle and Raupach (1989), the transfer in L2 development is either conscious or intuitive (see also DePalma & Ringer, 2011). On the one hand, cross-language influence depends on the individual judgment or perception held by language learners regarding whether the relationship or distance between two languages permits interlingual transfer. The accuracy of this judgment or perception is affected by the subjectivity linked to individual variations (Odlin, 2003). It is possible that learners would exploit the L1 cognitive or intellectual resources of their own accord when needed in L2 learning or use (Cummins, 2008; Forbes, 2019; Kellerman, 1979; Siegel, 2003; Yan, 2010). In this case, learners can consciously recognize the object, process, or outcome of the transfer. This category of transfer works as a problem-solving approach to the deployment of language strategies in facilitating L2 production. It functions in association with the core attributes of the language use strategy, namely consciousness and transferability. Consciousness means that the motivation for strategy use stems from the initiative of learners in approaching the target for tasks by utilizing the resources available to them. This feature corresponds with the concept of language learning strategies, specifically, the processes “consciously selected by learners to assist them in learning and using language in general, and in the completion of specific language tasks” (Cohen, 2014, p. 118). As a result, the agency of learners is responsible for the individual management and control of these strategies. Transferability indicates that strategies are transferrable in that they can produce favorable outcomes in different situations. Conscious transfer from an L1 can thus be a strategic behavior in L2 settings. The relevant L1 resources are transferred from one task or situation to another among the goal-oriented activities proactively undertaken by learners (De Silva & Graham, 2015). On the other hand, the transfer might be classified as an automatic or procedural process that adheres to the habitual modes of thinking of an L1 (Bartelt, 1993; Cohen, 2014; Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). In other words, the transfer becomes a reflex to language environments of an L2 free from the influence of the conscious mind, and it is triggered by the habitual performance in their L1. Accordingly, cognitive involvement is the critical factor interacting with interlingual transfer and should not be taken for granted (Verhoeven, 1994). Because L2 learners’ agency is the primary driving force behind interlingual transfer, it has received a lot of attention in discussions about learning or knowledge transfer (e.g., DePalma & Ringer, 2011; Larsen-Freeman, 2013, 2019; Rinnert et al., 2015). The theoretical works on adaptive transfer (e.g., DePalma & Ringer, 2011), intercultural rhetoric (e.g., Atkinson, 2004; Connor, 2004) and translingual writing (e.g., Canagarajah, 2013) stress the importance of L2 writers’ agency in their L2 writing practices. Such agency is concerned with the decision-making and goaloriented action of L2 writers during their L2 writing process, which is regarded as a vital factor in dynamic or transferor-oriented rhetorical transfer (e.g., Bhowmik, 2016; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012; Kubota & Lehner, 2004; Larsen-Freeman, 2013; Rinnert et al., 2015). As a form of mental operation, the transfer of L1 writing knowledge or skills is intricately linked with the agency of L2 writers, which is central to their awareness of language or cultural resources and deliberate use of

1.1 Research Background

5

these resources during L2 writing (Bhowmik, 2016; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2016; Rinnert et al., 2015; Sun & Ge, 2020). This book focuses on a crucial component of agency—self-consciousness (see Bhowmik, 2016; Negretti, 2012; Peacocke, 2009), an important topic that is under researched in L2 writing studies. The key to the difference in the mental condition of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer lies in contrastive rhetorical awareness, i.e., the awareness of the similarity or difference between L1 and L2 rhetoric, which is clarified by contrastive rhetoric studies. It is reasonable to consider that the conscious management and exploitation of L1 rhetorical resources and cross-lingual rhetorical transfer are related to learners’ contrastive awareness of L1 and L2 rhetorical patterns or styles in their L2 writing. Such self-consciousness determines whether L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer is a writing strategy based on the deliberate use of L1 rhetorical knowledge or an automatic process that adheres to the habitual patterns followed by L1 production (DePalma & Ringer, 2011; Weigle, 2005). Given this relationship, it is necessary to focus our attention on the contrastive rhetorical awareness of learners about their writing (i.e., self-consciousness) in different languages, which is related to the individual characteristics of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. To sum up, self-consciousness involving contrastive rhetorical awareness is an important factor in L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, which allows us to see the positive role of L2 writers in this transfer. This self-consciousness can be explained by the concept of metacognition, which will be detailed below. The concept of metacognition was proposed by Flavell (1976), referring to a person’s knowledge about their own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them (p. 232). Brown (1980) defined metacognition as “the deliberate conscious control of one’s own cognitive actions” (p. 453). Also, Schraw and Dennison (1994) asserted that metacognition denotes “the ability to reflect upon, understand, and control one’s learning,” consisting of two key components, namely knowledge of cognition and control of cognition (p. 460). Metacognition can provide an accurate and detailed account of the different cognitive states underlying the occurrence of knowledge transfer. Thus, through this concept, whether the knowledge transfer occurs for strategic purposes or not can be distinguished. Both Macaro (2006) and Stathopoulou (2015) regarded metacognition as a defining feature of strategical behaviors since the deployment of strategies cannot be separated from the awareness of a goal and learning situation. More specifically, strategy refers to the utilization of cognitive resources under the control of metacognitive awareness of language performance, different from those unintentional or habitual activities without conscious perception and control. With the aid of metacognitive awareness, unconscious L2 learning can be moved back to consciousness from automaticity (Oxford, 2017) so that L2 learners are capable of “understanding and controlling their cognitive processes,” “monitoring strategy use,” and “orchestrating various strategies” to promote progress in L2 acquisition (Anderson, 2002, p. 2). For example, it helps learners notice, evaluate, or predict problems encountered in L2 production and seek solutions to solve or avoid them. In writing, the instrumental role of metacognition is mainly defined by three specific functions. First, it enables L2 learners to deliberately address the demand for stimulating and coordinating complex

6

1 Introduction

mental activities to fulfill task goals in language activities. Second, it assists students in perceiving whether the outcomes of L2 writing can be facilitated by the skillful “avoidance of L1 mental resources” (Macaro, 2006, p. 329). Finally, it also gives learners a lens to see the gap between what is required for accomplishing language tasks and what is available in their mental inventory. In brief, it orients the learners toward a better repertoire of writing-related knowledge and helps them organize their language activities in a goal-directed and effective way. The lack of metacognitive quality and capacity, however, may render language activities less cognitively under control. In terms of writing, limited metacognition is likely to make the composing activities of writers less strategic, that is, less intentional or deliberate, so the writing process may become tough with the increased risk of worsening the quality of written products. The pervasive role of metacognition in writing was reduced to metacognitive dynamics permeating the writing experience at every level (Negretti, 2012, p. 145). Based on the concept of metacognition, the feature of writing transfer as a strategical and noticeable language production can be distinguished from that of a routine and unconscious language activity that is entirely derived from habitual patterns. The positive role of metacognition in knowledge transfer has been confirmed by research in psychology, education, and applied linguistics (e.g., Brand et al., 2003; Leat & Lin, 2003; Zhang, 2001). Metacognitive awareness contributes to skilled knowledge transfer and is considered a quality that distinguishes between highachieving and low-achieving learners (Azevedo, 2009; Schoonen et al., 2011; Schraw, 2009; van Gelderen et al., 2004). However, little is known about the relationship between L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and relevant metacognition. This book aims to examine the occurrence, characteristics, and effects of L1to-L2 rhetorical transfer and its relationship with the relevant metacognition in L2 writing in the case of Chinese EFL students based on the data collected using mixed methods. Its ultimate purpose is to promote the understanding of the cognitive mechanism and dynamic nature of rhetorical transfer across languages, which can have implications for L2 writing research and pedagogy. The metacognition under consideration is investigated as a mental inventory of L2 learners and as a cognitive operator during their L2 writing process, which is relevant to the mental operation of L1-toL2 rhetorical transfer. Regarding the type of L2 writing, this book is focused on L2 argumentative essay writing, a most challenging mode of academic writing for L2 student writers.

1.2 Significance of the Study of L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer The research reported in this book revolves around L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and its relationship with the relevant metacognition in L2 writing. This is an important topic concerning the development of the L2 writing competence of FL learners in

1.2 Significance of the Study of L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer

7

an acquisition-insufficient environment. Though this topic has been addressed in a handful of studies, little is known about the cognitive mechanism of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, so there is a need to further the understanding of how this transfer functions as a cognitive activity and acts on L2 writing via L2 writers’ agency. This book aims to investigate the occurrence of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer from textual and cognitive perspectives and examine one of the components of L2 writers’ agency involved in this transfer, namely, metacognition, in the case of Chinese EFL students. It has both theoretical and practical significance, which can be explained as follows. First, this book contributes to the understanding of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, a complex mental activity of L2 learners. In an FL learning environment, L2 learners lack the opportunity for L2 discourse production, and their dependence on their L1 rhetorical knowledge during L2 writing development is inevitable. Thus, L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer becomes an important topic in L2 writing research and pedagogy. To date, this transfer has been widely recognized as a textual phenomenon in L2 writing. However, an in-depth understanding of it as a mental activity co-occurring with the L2 writing process is still lacking, which has more to do with its cognitive mechanism. In view of this limitation, this book emphasizes the central role of the agency of L2 writers in L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and adopts a transferor/actororiented approach to studying this transfer (Larsen-Freeman, 2013), from which the cognitive complexity of this transfer can be further resolved. By incorporating such a dynamic perspective, it is expected to further the understanding of interlingual rhetorical transfer as a conscious or intuitive process for meaning making that can be monitored and controlled. Second, this book is expected to inform EFL writing instruction regarding the focus on the rhetorical dimension. Concerning L1 writing development, the awareness and control of rhetorical aspects of students’ writing, including “discourse strategies and competence in organizing larger units of discourse coherently,” are behind the development of vocabulary or sentence-level skills (Mohan & Lo, 1985, p. 522). It is even more so for EFL writing, which involves the complex interaction of language and thinking in both native and foreign languages. The importance of rhetorical organization has been increasingly recognized and emphasized in L2 writing studies, but this trend has not been fully embraced in L2 writing pedagogical practices. It is commonly observed that English learners devote considerable attention to morphosyntactic and lexical aspects of their English writing at the expense of rhetorical concerns (Zhang, 2016). It puts their English writing at risk of deviating from English rhetorical conventions and probably increases the psychological distance from readers with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds by generating an essay that is unnatural or unacceptable. Writing is the process of text construction to communicate the writer’s thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs to readers through a textual medium. This attribute determines that writing functions as an indirect mode of communication without immediate response or feedback from readers. In such a non-face-to-face mode, rhetoric, the way of expression or the art of discourse, which is devised by taking into consideration the

8

1 Introduction

readers’ reactions, feelings, and cognition, is the key to the success of written communication. Rhetoric is a vital element in the concept of writing or writing composition; it is usually derived from the writers’, especially effective writers’, intention to communicate well with readers during the composition process (Flower, 1979). From this perspective, this book might inform the focus of EFL writing teaching and highlight the need to find measures to raise students’ awareness of their knowledge of rhetorical conventions and rhetorical competence in preparation for effective and rewarding written communication. Third, this book introduces a novel view of interlingual transfer. As shown by previous studies (e.g., Chen, 2020; Liu & McCabe, 2018), there is a prevailing negative view that this transfer impedes L2 development, especially among EFL teachers with the expectation of “native” performance in foreign language learning countries, as shown by previous studies. Furthermore, this view is reflected in questions concerning how to overcome the influence of the Chinese L1 way of thinking constantly posted online. However, this view overemphasizes the negative effect or interference of L1-to-L2 transfer. The fact is that learners can harness this transfer to facilitate their L2 production (DePalma & Ringer, 2011; Kubota, 1998; Rinnert et al., 2015). According to the research on the relationship between knowledge transfer and metacognition (e.g., Azevedo, 2009; Schoonen et al., 2011; Schraw, 2009; van Gelderen et al., 2004), it can be assumed that the positive effect of interlingual transfer is associated with learners’ agency, or more specifically, their metacognition. In this sense, a focal point of this book, i.e., the relationship between L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and metacognition, involves a pedagogical approach to promote FL students’ transfer of L1 rhetorical knowledge for its positive contribution to L2 writing. The presence of metacognition makes transfer work as a self-regulated activity, which has potentially positive effects on L2 writing. Therefore, it is likely that the influence of L1 rhetorical knowledge can be utilized or avoided as mental resources in L2 writing situations as a result of the active role of L2 writers. It may replace the stereotypical view of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer as an interference that needs to be avoided or resisted. As suggested by James (1996), harnessing the cognitive mechanism of transfer is beneficial to the acquisition of an L2 or FL. Overall, in view of the role of metacognition, students would likely be found to positively make this transfer compatible with L2 writing situations and consciously evade its interference.

1.3 Organization of This Book This book consists of eight chapters. Chapter 2 reviews the relevant theories and studies in relation to L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and metacognition. This chapter first conceptualizes L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer by referencing the ideas of rhetoric, composition, L2 writing, and educational psychology. Then it provides an overview of contrastive rhetoric studies to clarify the issues of rhetorical transfer yet to be explored, especially the cognitive dynamics of this transfer related to L2 writers’ metacognition. Following the contrastive rhetoric approach, it summarizes

References

9

the characteristic features of composition rhetoric in Chinese argumentative essay (yilunwen) writing, which rarely exist in its English counterpart. The literature on the measure of metacognition in L2 writing is also reviewed to promote methodological considerations. Based on the literature reviewed in Chap. 2, Chap. 3 proposes a theoretical framework for L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer research consisting of the dimensions of the text, L2 writer (transfer agency), and the target reader (or the L2 essay evaluator). This framework emphasizes the central role of L2 writers’ agency, providing textual, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives in studying the occurrence of rhetorical transfer. Chapter 4 centers on the methodological aspects of the research reported in this book, including mixed-methods design, research instruments, research procedure (pilot study and two phases of the formal studies—Phases I and II), and a summary of the corresponding evidence and analysis methods employed in the current research. Chapters 5 and 6 report the results of the studies on Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer and relevant metacognition. Based on multiple data sources, these results indicate interlingual rhetorical transfer, including its text representation, cognitive processes, and relation to metacognitive knowledge and skills. Chapter 7 is devoted to the interpretation and discussion of Chinese L1-toEnglish L2 rhetorical transfer from textual, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives, focusing on the textual manifestations of characteristic Chinese L1 rhetorical features, the mental or cognitive activities related to this transfer, and the influence of metacognition on these activities. Chapter 8 formulates the conclusion by summarizing the major results and discussing their theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical implications. This chapter ends with suggestions for future studies.

References Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. ERIC Digest, April 2002. Center for Applied Linguistics. Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 277–289. Azevedo, R. (2009). Theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and instructional issues in research on metacognition and self-regulated learning: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 87–95. Bartelt, L. (1993). Rhetorical transfer in Apachean English. In S. M. Gass., & L. Selinker. Language transfer in language learning (rev. ed.) (pp. 101–108). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bhowmik, S. K. (2016). Agency, identity and ideology in L2 writing: Insights from the EAP classroom. Writing & Pedagogy, 8(2), 275–308. Brand, S., Reimer, T., & Opwis, K. (2003). Effects of metacognitive thinking and knowledge acquisition in dyads on individual problem solving and transfer performance. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 251–261. Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453–481). Lawrence Erlbaum.

10

1 Introduction

Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(1), 40–67. Chen, C. (2020). A study on positive transfer of native language and second language teaching methods. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(3), 306–312. Cohen, A. D. (2014). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd ed.). Routledge. Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 291–304. Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In J. Cummins & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 5. bilingual education (2nd ed.n, pp. 65–75). Springer Science+Business Medi. DePalma, M. J., & Ringer, J. M. (2011). Toward a theory of adaptive transfer: Expanding disciplinary discussions of “transfer” in second-language writing and composition studies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 134–147. De Silva, R., & Graham, S. (2015). The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency levels. System, 53, 47–59. Ene, E., McIntosh, K., & Connor, U. (2019). Using intercultural rhetoric to examine translingual practices of postgraduate L2 writers of English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 100664. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Lawrence Erlbaum. Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, 41(1), 19–37. Forbes, K. (2019). The role of individual differences in the development and transfer of writing strategies between foreign and first language classrooms. Research Papers in Education, 34(4), 445–464. Gass, S. M. (1988). Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: The role of language transfer. In S. Flynn & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 384–403). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1987). The cognitive basis for knowledge transfer. In S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning (pp. 81–120). Academic Press. Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning. Academic Press. Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 181–209. Holyoak, S., & Piper, A. (1997). Talking to second language writers: Using interview data to investigate contrastive rhetoric. Language Teaching Research, 1(2), 122–148. James, C. (1996). A cross-linguistic approach to language awareness. Language Awareness, 5(3–4), 138–148. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16(1–2), 1–20. Kaplan, R. B. (1988). Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes toward a theory of contrastive rhetoric. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 275–304). Sage Publications. Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where we are now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2(1), 37–57. Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2012). Understanding L2 writing development from a multicompetence perspective: Dynamic repertoires of knowledge and text construction. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 Writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 101–134). Walter de Gruyter. Kroll, B. M. (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge University Press. Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1–L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 69–100.

References

11

Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 7–27. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013). Transfer of learning transformed. Language Learning, 63(s1), 107–129. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2019). On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 61–79. Leat, D., & Lin, M. E. I. (2003). Developing a pedagogy of metacognition and transfer: Some signposts for the generation and use of knowledge and the creation of research partnerships. British Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 383–414. Liu, D., & Huang, J. (2021). Rhetoric construction of Chinese expository essays: Implications for EFL composition instruction. SAGE Open, 11(1), 1–10. Liu, X., & McCabe, A. (2018). Attitudinal evaluation in Chinese university students’ English writing: A contrastive perspective. Springer. Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: History, issues, and challenges for future research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 431–449. Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 320–337. McIntosh, K., & Connor, U. (2023). Intercultural rhetoric research in an internationalizing world. In R. Horowitz (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of research on writing (2nd ed., pp. 283–298). Routledge. Mohan, B. A., & Lo, W. A. Y. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 515–534. Möhle, D., & Raupach, M. (1989). Language transfer of procedural knowledge. In H.-W. Dechert, D. Möhle, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language production (pp. 195–216). Narr. Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: Longitudinal study of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation, evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29(2), 142–179. Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 436–486). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Oxford, R. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context (2nd ed.). Routledge. Peacocke, C. (2009). Mental actions and self-awareness (II): Epistemology. In L. O’Brian & M. Soteriou (Eds.), Mental actions (pp. 192–214). Oxford University Press. Polio, C. (2017). Second language writing development: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 50(2), 261–275. Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37(3), 439–468. Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2016). Multicompetence and multilingual writing. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 365–386). De Gruyter. Rinnert, C., Kobayashi, H., & Katayama, A. (2015). Argumentation text construction by Japanese as a foreign language writer: A dynamic view of transfer. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 213–245. Saffari, N., Noordin, S. M., Sivapalan, S., & Zahedpisheh, N. (2017). Transfer of mother tongue rhetoric among undergraduate students in second language writing. International Education Studies, 10(11), 23–32. Schoonen, R., van Gelderen, A., Stoel, R. D., Hulstijn, J., & de Glopper, K. (2011). Modeling the development of L1 and EFL writing proficiency of secondary school students. Language Learning, 61(1), 31–79. Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 33–45. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475.

12

1 Introduction

Sheldon, E. (2011). Rhetorical differences in RAAL introductions written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 238–251. Siegel, J. (2003). Substrate influence in creoles and the role of transfer in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(02), 185–209. Stathopoulou, M. (2015). Cross-language mediation in foreign language teaching and testing (Vol. 43). Multilingual Matters. Sun, Y., & Ge, L. (2020). Enactment of a translingual approach to writing. TESOL Quarterly. https:// doi.org/10.1002/tesq.609 Taft, M., Kacanas, D., Huen, W., & Chan, R. (2011). An empirical demonstration of contrastive rhetoric: Preference for rhetorical structure depends on one’s first language. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(4), 503–516. Uysal, H. H. (2008). Tracing the culture behind writing: Rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 183–207. van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first-and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 19–30. Verhoeven, L. T. (1994). Transfer in bilingual development: The linguistic interdependence hypothesis revisited. Language Learning, 44(3), 381–415. Weigle, S. C. (2005). Second language writing expertise. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in second language teaching and learning (pp. 128–149). Palgrave Macillan. Yan, H. (2010). The role of L1 transfer on L2 and pedagogical implications. Canadian Social Science, 6(3), 97–103. Yu, L. M., & Odlin, T. (2014). Introduction. In L. M. Yu & T. Odlin (Eds.), New perspectives on transfer in second language learning (pp. 1–16). Mulilingual Matters. Zarei, G. R., & Rahimi, A. (2014). Learning transfer in English for general academic purposes writing. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1–12. Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268–288. Zhang, L. J. (2013). Second language writing as and for second language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(4), 446–447. Zhang, L. J. (2016). Reflections on the pedagogical imports of western practices for professionalizing ESL/EFL writing and writing-teacher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(3), 203–232. Zheng, L. (2017). Teaching EFL writing: An approach based on the learner’s context model. TESOL Journal, 8(1), 142–165.

Chapter 2

On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

This chapter reviews the literature on rhetorical transfer, writing metacognition, and their relationship. It first discusses the conceptualization of rhetorical transfer across languages and then elaborates on the contrastive or comparative rhetoric paradigm for the study of this transfer (Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer in this review), as well as the major research perspectives and approaches adopted in previous transfer studies. It also highlights the development of contrastive/intercultural rhetoric research led by the increased attention to the bilingual/multilingual background of L2 writers, their reuse or reshaping of previously acquired writing knowledge in a new context, their individual differences manifested by varying “small cultures,” and their agentive role in transferring the knowledge in their current repertoire for meaning construction. Besides asserting that the cognitive mechanism of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer is an under-researched issue, it further argues that the theories of metacognition provide a key entry point to the study of this issue. This chapter then shifts the focus to the notion of metacognition, its relationship with interlingual transfer, and the methods for the study of L2 writing metacognition.

2.1 Notions of Rhetoric and Writing To gain an accurate understanding of rhetorical transfer, it is necessary to inquire into the importance of rhetorical knowledge in writing. This section aims to shed light on the essential role rhetoric plays in shaping written communication and its profound impact on writing in various languages. Rhetoric is an essential component of writing that defines the nature of written communication. It bestows upon writing a goal-oriented and writer-responsible nature, ensuring that written texts serve their intended communicative purposes effectively. The importance of rhetoric in writing has been highly emphasized in the research areas of rhetoric, composition, and writing. Particularly in the realm of

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Wei, Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9_2

13

14

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

second language (L2) development, the acquisition of rhetorical competence emerges as a crucial aspect of honing L2 writing skills. To thoroughly grasp the concept of rhetorical knowledge, this section will draw from a comprehensive range of literature on rhetorical theories, analyzing how rhetoric interconnects with the art of writing. By doing so, it aims to offer a detailed and precise understanding of the crucial role that rhetorical knowledge plays in shaping the process and outcome of written communication.

2.1.1 Fundamentals of Rhetoric Rhetoric emerged as a distinct subject of formal studies within the Western academic world, dating back to ancient Greece. Aristotle, in his treatises “Organon” and “Rhetoric,” and laid the groundwork for what came to be known as ancient or classical rhetoric (Zhang, 2004). In his definition, rhetoric was characterized as “the faculty of observing, in any given case, the available means of persuasion” (Aristotle, trans., 1952, as cited in Kinneavy & Eskin, 2000, p. 434). In its early stages, the study of classical rhetoric primarily aimed to enhance the effectiveness of verbal presentation for persuasion in public contexts. It played a key role in Western education for centuries, training individuals like writers, lawyers, historians, politicians, poets, and preachers, who were expected to influence or shape the minds of their audience in academic, political, or religious settings. As Western education systems evolved, rhetoric underwent a transformation from mere ornate speech skills to an academic discipline in its own right, with dedicated courses offered in high schools and universities. The teaching and study of rhetoric became more formalized, focusing on eloquence and persuasion and the critical analysis of discourse and argumentation. It delved into the techniques of crafting persuasive arguments and exploring the subtleties of language and communication. In the late 1950s, the works of Olbrechts-Tyteca and Perelman (1969) (The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation) or Traité de l’argumentationla. La nouvelle rhétorique, 1958) and Fogarty (1959) (Roots for a New Rhetoric) ushered in the development of the New Rhetoric, which built upon the foundations of classical rhetoric and gave it renewed relevance in contemporary discourse. The New Rhetoric breathed new life into the fundamental principles of rhetoric and offered novel insights into the dynamics of persuasion and communication. Central to the New Rhetoric was the recognition of humans as symbol-using animals whose discourse is shaped by shared and private symbols. This perspective acknowledged the complexities of language and communication and the diverse cultural contexts in which rhetoric operates. Unlike the classical view, which often emphasized the rhetor’s skill in manipulating an audience, the New Rhetoric emphasized the cooperative nature of communication between the rhetor and the audience. It aimed to establish a mutual understanding and reduce potential threats in communication, recognizing the importance of both rational and emotional appeals in persuasive discourse (Ede & Lunsford, 1984).

2.1 Notions of Rhetoric and Writing

15

The New Rhetoric opened up new modes of communication and fresh contexts for discursive practices, emphasizing audience interaction considerably. In the context of modern rhetorical studies, written discourse assumed a primary concern. While classical rhetoric encompassed both oral and written communication, contemporary rhetoric saw a growing focus on writing as a central mode of communication. This shift in emphasis brought about changes in the theoretical landscape of rhetoric, with topics related to writing and composition gaining prominence in the field. The nineteenth century saw a significant turning point when writing was placed at the heart of rhetoric, and composition rhetoric became the most vibrant component of the discipline (Connor, 2001). Additionally, a descriptive paradigm of rhetorical analysis flourished, particularly evident in the development of argumentation theories that sought to integrate rhetoric (Kock, 2009). Scholars like van Eemeren emphasized that the New Rhetoric should be perceived as a descriptive theory aimed at discovering argumentative effectiveness in discourse rather than providing normative rules or standards for arguers to follow (van Eemeren, 2015). It is noteworthy that some argumentation theorists, particularly those with backgrounds in linguistics and discourse analysis, were primarily interested in “how in argumentative discourse, speakers and writers try to convince or persuade others by making use of certain linguistic tools or by other means to influence their audience or readership” (van Eemeren et al., 2014, p. 29). Therefore, the theories focusing on rhetorical argumentation emphasize the effect of argumentative skills and techniques on the minds of audiences or readers that are anticipated to hold differing or even opposing beliefs or perspectives. These theories aimed to explore the impact of argumentative skills and techniques on the minds of such audiences, providing descriptive and explanatory models for understanding the social and cognitive foundations of argumentative discourse. The interdisciplinary nature of contemporary rhetorical studies further enriched the field. Rhetoric extended its reach beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries, drawing insights from the humanities, social sciences, and psychology. As a result, rhetorical theories found applications in various research fields, demonstrating the ubiquity of rhetorical issues and concerns in social life. In particular, the insights gained from rhetorical studies have significantly impacted conventional writing instruction. By understanding the complexities of rhetorical communication, educators have been better equipped to guide students in developing effective writing skills. Besides, rhetorical theories have provided valuable tools for analyzing and crafting persuasive arguments, enabling students to become more adept communicators in various professional and academic settings.

16

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

2.1.2 Integration of Rhetoric Into Writing Instruction The 1960s marked when writing instructions drew inspiration from classical rhetoric and New Rhetoric broadly. Composition rhetoric enters a new stage of development. Before that period, writing instructions concentrated on the rules and principles of composition at the intra-sentence level, such as those concerning morphosyntax, lexis, grammar, and writing mechanics, but had little connection with the macrolinguistic aspects of written discourse1 . The years since 1959 have witnessed a shift from classical rhetoric to modern or “New Rhetoric” (Ede & Lunsford, 1984). In this era, rhetorical theories attend more closely to the deliberate organization of written discourse than ever before. In the 1960s, the combination of rhetorical studies and writing instruction or research became a central topic in pedagogical programs, workshops, and conferences. The year 1963, when the historical conference “Conference, Composition, and Communication” was held and influential publications on the merging of rhetoric and composition appeared, is generally claimed as the appropriate birth date of the New Rhetoric (Young & Goggin, 1993). Since then, it has been generally recognized that writing is directly linked to rhetoric. For one thing, the revival of rhetoric meets the demands of composition pedagogy. Burke (1965) argued that establishing rhetoric informs the discipline of composition and makes it respectable as an educational field. For another, combining rhetoric with composition pedagogy motivates composition or writing research. It has been noted that in the twenty-first century, rhetoric is positioned “at the nexus of composition studies” (Mulderig, 1999, p. 171). This aspect is relevant to the current research and will be detailed below. Rhetoric contributes to the detailed analysis of writing products and processes. Van Eemeren et al. (2011) maintained that the New Rhetoric was conducive to the development of structural analysis of argumentative discourse, and both new and old rhetoric focused on the properties of discourse associated with communication’s persuasiveness. Flower and Hayes (1981) claimed that writing as a “rhetorical act” was intended to solve or respond to a rhetorical problem (p. 369). This concept helps students find a rationale or purpose for writing and develop an effective writing process, so it should be explained in writing classrooms (Clarks, 2012). In the theoretical context mentioned above, rhetoric can be understood as “the choice of linguistic and structural aspects of discourse—chosen to produce an effect on an audience” (Purves, 1988, p. 9). The notion of rhetoric matters for textual effects created by the use of language beyond the formal level, so it provides researchers and practitioners in the field of writing with a new perspective on the representation of writing. Notably, it enhances our understanding of why writing is purpose-driven and goal-oriented. Flower and Hayes (1980) proposed that the ultimate purpose of the execution of writing activities was to resolve different rhetorical problems. They believed that the ability to respond to all these problems was a distinct characteristic of good writers who could thus be differentiated from those with limited writing ability (Flower & Hayes, 1980).

2.1 Notions of Rhetoric and Writing

17

According to the composite model of rhetorical problems proposed by Flower (1979), a rhetorical problem can be broken into two units, which writers would actively think over during their composing process: a rhetorical situation and a set of writing goals, which are interconnected with each other. A rhetorical situation consists of an audience and tasks. The major categories of writing goals include affecting the reader, creating a persona or voice, building meaning, and producing a formal text, representing the four essential elements of written communication, i.e., reader, writer, world, and word (p. 25). Among them, “world” and “word” belong to the textual dimension as they directly matter in constructing texts in the sense that cognition is converted into language and rhetorical forms during writing. “Reader” and “writer” can be projected into the communicative dimension since they involve both written communication parties. It should be noted that the term “reader” as used here, refers to either authentic readers known to the writers personally or constructive readers imagined by the writers (Kroll, 1984). Normally, the test-like nature of assigned writing tasks determines that the conceptions of target readers are probably dominant in their rhetorical writing process. To produce a high-quality essay, test takers would imagine communicating with a natural person whose mental image is constructed during writing activities. The relationship between text, reader, and writer defines the fundamental property of writing. Lauer (1982) relied on Booth’s remarks to specify the general purpose of writing as leading readers to “engage in mutual inquiry or exploration” with writers and to “constitute each other in symbolic exchange” (p. 89). From a rhetorical perspective, writing aims at effective written communication between writers and readers in an appropriate way. Notably, the consciousness of readers or audiences has been identified as a crucial element in the rhetorical situation that needs to be addressed by discourse makers (e.g., Magnifico, 2010; Park, 1982). This is especially true for writing. Due to the non-simultaneous and non-face-to-face nature of written communication, writers must rely on their general conception of potential readers to make sense of with whom they are communicating, of what response may be elicited by the text, and of how to make their written output acceptable and effective in communication. Simply put, they need to think about readers abstractly. As a result, their prior rhetorical knowledge is correspondingly activated to accommodate the demands of written communication (Magnifico, 2010). Although there is no consensus about the meaning of rhetoric, it can be tentatively defined as a technique for organizing discourse for the intended goals of text construction, which frequently has a direct link with the change to be made in the readers’ mind. With the intended goals of successful written communication, the rhetorical operation might be performed at any level of discourse to externalize the writers’ relevant knowledge of hierarchical text structure.

18

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

2.1.3 Rhetorical Knowledge Applied to Writing The concept of rhetorical knowledge, rooted in the art of effective expression, emerged from a growing recognition of the importance of composite structure in writing instruction. Inspired by the thoughts of rhetoric, scholars in the field of writing and composition have come to realize that the composition rules should extend beyond individual words and sentences to encompass larger units of discourse in which the intended expressions can be better analyzed and interpreted. They further consider rhetorical organization as an indispensable cue for understanding communicative effects, which considerably influences the quality of texts (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2013; Hyland, 2016). It is remarkable that rhetoric lies at the heart of writing due to its decisive role in completing the writing purpose. Moreover, the rhetorical signs encoded in writing (DePalma & Ringer, 2011) constitute an indispensable communication channel between writers and readers. In DePalma and Ringer’s (2011) words, a text is nothing but “a linguistic representation of organizational discourse patterns that a writer has internalized” (p. 138). Regarding argumentative discourse, the argumentation structure or “external organization” is necessary to reveal “how exactly the reasons advanced in defending a standpoint relate to each other in supporting the standpoint at issue” (van Eemeren et al., 2014, p. 21). Indeed, as a type of persuasive activity through written discourse (Blair, 1992; Azar, 1999), argumentation depends considerably on its rhetorical structure to demonstrate the convincingness and reasonableness of the arguments presented, enabling writers to make their claims accepted by audiences. Currently, the concept of rhetoric is involved with writing and composition studies. Scott (1993) considered rhetoric as “an art of effective expression” (p. 121). Likewise, Bazerman (1993) saw rhetoric as the way “people use language and other symbols to achieve human goals and perform human activities” in written communication (p. 6). According to Kaplan (1967), rhetoric refers to “the method of organizing syntactic units into larger patterns,” especially paragraph patterns, serving as an essential standard for judging the construction of composition (p. 5). The definition of rhetoric given by Trimble (1985) takes readers’ acceptability into account, i.e., “the process a writer uses to produce a desired piece of text” (p. 10). Taken together, rhetoric in writing matters in terms of textual structure and organization, and it explains the overall meaning or communicative function of discourse. The text organization conveying such a rhetorical sense in any genre of writing is often labeled as “rhetorical structure.” Rhetorical structure, representing the relations embedded in texts, addresses the cultural aspects of logic (Kaplan, 1966, 1967 as cited in Mohan & Lo, 1985) and the organization of ideas developed in units larger than sentences (Carrell, 1984; Flower & Hayes, 1980), so it is viewed as the basic unit of rhetorical analysis in writing. It is noteworthy that, with the increasing attention paid to discourse rhetoric in Chinese rhetorics, rhetorical structure gradually becomes an essential part of analysis in Chinese rhetorical studies (e.g., Zheng, 1991). Zheng (1991) considered a paragraph the basic rhetorical unit of discourse. Even though the same content meaning

2.1 Notions of Rhetoric and Writing

19

is conveyed, a group of paragraphs might achieve different communicative effects due to their different ways of organization. The motivation for focusing on this organizational structure stems from the psychological view that rhetoric performs the function of a device for active reflection of thought patterns in writing. As larger discourse units like paragraphs represent “artificial thought units” employed exclusively by written language, they become the focus of rhetorical analysis (Kaplan, 1966, p. 16). With the increasing focus on rhetorical structure in discourse, the ability to produce extended written discourse has attracted enormous attention from L2 writing instructors. It is commonly noted that texts would pose a problem with their structure without the fabric made by rhetorical devices and become no more than a set of random utterances (Sanders & Schilperoord, 2006). Thus, pedagogical approaches emphasize the logical construction and arrangement of discourse forms beyond the sentence level (Silva, 1990). Indeed, knowledge of rhetorical organization has been confirmed as an indispensable part of writing ability (Tardy, 2005). Miller (1979) designated “rhetorical maturity,” as “being able to communicate effectively to a large variety of more or fewer audiences… to identify and respond to the various demands for perception, conception, and execution that many writing situations create” (pp. 3–4). Smit (2004) asserted that rhetorical maturity, together with syntactic fluency, contributes to the conceptualization of writing ability. Thus, the quality of written communication is determined by whether a text is well organized for its rhetorical expectations. However, despite its importance, the concept of rhetorical knowledge lacks a clear, universally accepted definition in research. This book proposes a working definition of rhetorical knowledge as the writing knowledge and skills encompassing various facets of discourse organization for communicative effects. It involves understanding how to cater to target readers’ understanding of a writing genre, applying both the macro-structure and specific relations built on coherence. According to Grabe and Kaplan’s classification of rhetorical aspects captured by contrastive rhetoric analysis (1996, p. 200), the notion of rhetorical knowledge can be considered from the aspects of text organization, genre conventions, and audience awareness. (1) Rhetorical knowledge on text organization Rhetorical knowledge concerns translating mental representation into the appropriate text form (Wenden, 1991). More specifically, it is associated with “the command of effective writing formats at the sentence, paragraph, or whole text level” (Hayes & Flower, 1986, p. 1108). Wenden (1991) analyzed this rhetorical knowledge into the components of the overall plan, paragraph plan, and specific techniques, which imply the focus on different levels of rhetorical structure. Three sets of questions can illustrate these components of writing as follows: Overall plan: How to organize the entire essay? How many points are to be covered in the thesis statement? What ideas are to be developed in the thesis? Where should each of these concepts be placed in the essay? How to write an introduction? When and how is a conclusion made?

20

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

Paragraph plan: How to develop a paragraph? How to start a paragraph with a general idea or a specific idea? What ideas are to be contained in a paragraph? How should the main idea be presented? Specific techniques: How to elaborate on a given idea? What kind of information is provided to support the idea? (pp. 308–309). These components represent the hierarchical layers of text organization, spanning both global and local levels of a text. So, they provide a window into how rhetorical efforts are devoted to writing activities, showing where concerns are raised during the purposeful exploitation of rhetorical knowledge. Rhetorical knowledge comprises two critical and interrelated components: the content and structural components. They are instrumental in shaping the overall demand for effective written communication, extending beyond mere linguistic accuracy. The content component of rhetorical knowledge refers to the deliberate inclusion of specific aspects during the writing process, strategically selected to generate textual constituents that achieve rhetorical effects. Writers must carefully consider the content they incorporate, aiming to resonate with their intended audience, evoke emotions, convey arguments convincingly, or create a memorable impact. For example, in persuasive writing, selecting robust evidence, compelling anecdotes, or relevant statistics can enhance the overall persuasive appeal of the text. Complementing the content component, the structural component focuses on arranging the conceived content within a pattern that resonates with the mental representation of the target readers. Writers must know the expected conventions and norms of discourse organization within their chosen genre, audience preferences, and cultural contexts. The structural aspect ensures the content flows logically, leading the readers through a coherent and easily understandable narrative. It involves crafting wellstructured paragraphs, ensuring smooth transitions between ideas, and strategically placing essential elements like the thesis statement and conclusion. For instance, in academic writing, adhering to the conventional essay structure of introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion provides readers with a familiar framework for absorbing and retaining information effectively. Both components of rhetorical knowledge are intricately intertwined and should work harmoniously to achieve the desired communicative effects. The content component provides the substance and persuasive power, while the structural component organizes and presents this substance in a way that resonates with the readers. In this sense, rhetorical knowledge distinguishes itself from other writing knowledge, primarily concerning formal construction and linguistic accuracy. It elevates writing beyond technical proficiency into a powerful tool for effective communication and connection with the audience. Writers leverage rhetorical knowledge to create texts that inform, inspire and influence the target audience. (2) Rhetorical knowledge on genre conventions Rhetoric and genre are intricately linked concepts that are foundational in defining the nature of writing (Hyland, 2016; Tardy, 2017). However, the significance of writing rhetoric becomes fully realized when it is contextualized within a genre-based framework (Zhang, 2016).

2.1 Notions of Rhetoric and Writing

21

Throughout the writing process, applying rhetorical knowledge necessitates a thoughtful consideration of both the text type and the specific text situation (Hyland, 2016), which constitute the components of a genre. Given that rhetorical knowledge includes how linguistic signals shape each genre (Yasuda, 2011, p. 114), this knowledge is closely tied to the awareness or understanding of a writing genre. Such genre awareness imbues the act of writing with interactive and contextual characteristics as writers tailor their rhetorical operations to suit the demands of diverse writing contexts. Indeed, rhetorical actions are taken to address demands in different writing contexts. Given that their value is ultimately embodied by communication in a discourse community, rhetorical organizations or patterns of writing need to be skilfully manipulated in the manner conventionally prescribed by specific text genres, including narration, exposition, and argumentation in academic or other contexts. For instance, in educational settings, scholars adhere to conventions of narration, exposition, and argumentation to effectively convey their ideas and engage with the scholarly community. Embedded within the fabric of genre awareness lies a profound understanding of the fixed and universal text format, which facilitates effective communication across various contexts (DePalma & Ringer, 2013; Johns, 2011). This encompasses how discourse units are logically organized at both the micro and macro levels to achieve specific communicative functions. In an academic research paper, the logical progression of introduction, literature review, methodology, findings, and conclusion follows a standardized format that readers anticipate, facilitating comprehension and assimilation of information. Genre awareness, in its essence, empowers writers to wield rhetorical effectiveness. It allows them to navigate the conventions of specific writing types, making informed choices about rhetorical strategies, styles, and tones. By understanding and adhering to the expectations set forth by a particular genre, writers can align their texts with the purpose of the communication situation, ensuring their work resonates with the intended audience. In summary, the intricate relationship between rhetoric and genre underscores their crucial role in shaping the art of writing. Genre awareness enables writers to navigate diverse writing contexts and communicate effectively within their discourse communities. (3) Rhetorical knowledge on audience awareness Rhetoric is essentially “the communicative dimension of a text, that is, the intended effects on readers” (Klein et al., 2017, p. 293). In this sense, audience/reader awareness is vital for evaluating writing, as it is an integral aspect of rhetorical knowledge. As highlighted by van Eemeren et al. (2011), the orientation toward the audience or readers has gained importance as one of the distinctive themes in contemporary rhetorical studies. The New Rhetoric emphasizes viewing readers as cooperators, not fixed antagonists, whose opposing views should be reconciled based on shared understanding and a quest for truth. Ede and Lunsford (1984) underscored the crucial role of the audience in any rhetorical situation, reshaping writing into a medium for interacting with readers rather than merely responding to an essay task. Due to

22

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

its importance in reflecting the nature of writing, audience awareness is necessarily covered by the notion of rhetorical knowledge. It serves as an essential benchmark for measuring writing performance. Flower and Hayes (1980) contended that a critical characteristic of skilled writers was the extent of their contemplation on shaping the reader’s experience. As observed by Sullivan et al. (2012), writers’ use of rhetorical knowledge is indicated by the effective response from the audience. These arguments advocate the integration of audience awareness into rhetorical knowledge. As Hyland (2004) asserted, ultimately, writing depends on anticipating readers’ needs, thus representing a rhetorical act deliberately made by writers. The theory of argumentation also exemplifies the advocacy of audience awareness. According to this theory, the importance of concerning readers lies in its function of establishing “the boundaries of acceptable argumentative practices” (Zarefsky, 2014, p. 39). In realizing its purpose of influencing their minds, argumentation demands the response and feedback of audiences (van Eemeren et al., 2014). It is especially true for argumentative essay writing, a form of written communication that aims to convince readers of the writer’s central proposition (Hyland, 1990). Audience awareness becomes particularly important for second language (L2) writers, motivating them to thoughtfully consider persuasive elements such as logic, reasoning, metadiscourse, and evidence use (Liu & Du, 2018; Pessoa et al., 2017). Thus, it has a considerable influence on the perceived quality of argumentative written discourse. To summarize, rhetorical knowledge is an integral aspect of writing capacity, with the ability to create a textual structure that resonates with native readers and aligns with the writing purpose. It incorporates a profound understanding of audience awareness, recognizing readers as cooperative participants whose perspectives must be considered and engaged with for effective communication. The integration of audience awareness into rhetorical knowledge ensures that writing goes beyond mere technical proficiency and effectively impacts the intended readers, making it a vital component of successful writing. (4) Rhetorical knowledge in the cross-lingual perspective The rhetorical knowledge domains discussed above apply to both first and second language writing or composition. However, a critical factor in distinguishing L2 rhetorical knowledge from its L1 counterpart lies in considering cross-linguistic aspects. For L2 learners, acquiring rhetorical knowledge includes an awareness of not only the rhetorical and discourse conventions in the target language but also those prevalent in their native language. This awareness is directly linked to the concept of comparative or contrastive rhetorical awareness, wherein the unique language and cultural elements of both languages come into play (Leki, 2003; Liao & Chen, 2009; Liu, 2005). Non-L1 rhetorical knowledge implies the significance of recognizing the contrasts in rhetoric between languages, as emphasized by the contrastive rhetoric theory (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996). Hence, developing a sophisticated and comparative multilingual view of writing and argumentation becomes a necessary goal in L2 writing training (Kirkpatrick, 2017, p. 82). In a similar vein, in the taxonomy of language knowledge developed by Bachman and Palmer (2016), the knowledge of rhetorical organization, which falls under the

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

23

category of textual knowledge, is concerned with “conventions of sequencing units of information in written texts” (p. 47). This knowledge helps L2 learners raise awareness of the differences in rhetorical styles derived from comparing languages and cultures. More importantly, it enables L2 to adopt a unique or preferred rhetorical pattern during their writing, which makes their written works accepted and comprehended by native-language users. A wealth of research has revealed the value of such rhetorical notions in L2 writing. A few studies performed comparative analyses of writing materials in the L1 and L2 languages to gain insights into the conventional rhetorical structure of a given language. For instance, Liu’s study (2005) compared Chinese and English writing instructional materials from the following rhetorical aspects: global organization, the organization of supporting points, and the techniques of argument. Similarly, Liao and Chen (2009) delved into additional elements related to argumentative patterns and techniques, including the placement of thesis statements, rhetorical strategies for argumentation, and audience awareness. These studies contribute to the broader understanding of how rhetorical knowledge is employed and adapted across different languages, supporting the enhancement of L2 writing proficiency. Put simply, the exploration of rhetorical knowledge in L2 writing involves recognizing the contrasts between the source and target languages, leveraging the insights from contrastive rhetoric, and understanding the significance of rhetorical organization in written texts. These efforts are crucial in shaping the effectiveness and clarity of L2 learners’ written expression, making it more aligned with the expectations of native speakers.

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing The concept of rhetorical transfer, drawn from the principles of interlingual transfer, provides valuable insights into the development of L2 rhetorical competence. It involves the intricate negotiation between newly acquired L2 rhetorical knowledge or skills and pre-existing L1 rhetorical habits. As L2 learners strive to navigate this L1–L2 rhetorical relationship, L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer emerges as an outcome of this cognitive process. While this transfer is dominant in shaping L2 writing, its depth and intricacies need to be explored by transcending the boundaries of various disciplines that address similar transferrelated issues. Transfer is a widely studied phenomenon in second-language acquisition (SLA) and educational psychology. The theoretical underpinning of transfer suggests the existence of two main types—the first being language transfer, which involves the cross-language influence of L1 on L2, and the second being knowledge/learning transfer. Although these types are often investigated separately in their respective fields, they share a common attribute related to their cognitive mechanisms. In

24

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

essence, both kinds of transfer regard knowledge as the central object of transfer, representing a component of mentality or a product of cognition. This perspective aids in clarifying the concept of rhetorical transfer, allowing it to be understood as the application of rhetorical knowledge or skills in a cross-linguistic context.

2.2.1 Reconsideration of L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer Despite the widespread recognition of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer as a mental activity in L2 writing over the years, its precise meaning and definition still lack clarity. To address this gap, it is essential to draw upon the notions of cross-language writing transfer and explore the interplay between L1 and L2 writing knowledge. In second-language acquisition (SLA) and educational psychology, interlingual transfer presents a notable distinction in writing patterns between bilingual or multilingual writers and monolingual writers. Several researchers have investigated knowledge transfer in L2 writing. DePalma and Ringer (2011, 2013) defined knowledge transfer as the reuse of prior writing knowledge in a new L2 writing context. Likewise, Kobayashi and Rinnert (2012) proposed the notion of cross-language writing transfer, which can be interpreted as L2 writers’ access to their “repertoire of writing knowledge to meet the needs and expectations they perceive are associated with the particular writing context and readers they envision” (p. 101). This notion integrates multicompetence theory, encompassing both L1/L2 linguistic knowledge and non-language-specific knowledge as the sources of knowledge transfer in bilinguals’ writing, including the knowledge of L1/L2 writing and disciplinary conventions, L1/ L2 rhetorical features, and meta-knowledge into the repertoire of writing knowledge. The role of knowledge transfer in writing was described by Zarei and Rahimi (2014) as the “mental structure or thought that is developed in one context to a large extent as the determinant of writers’ written performance” (p. 1). Notably, the mental state and processing for knowledge transfer in L2 writing are mainly dependent on the knowledge that has been previously developed and is available to be reused in L2 writing, especially L1 writing knowledge. Given the interconnectedness between L1 and L2 writing knowledge (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012), knowledge absorbed in an L1 would probably be transferred to L2 writing across situations set by the two languages. Apart from linguistic knowledge, non-linguistic knowledge developed in the L1 is frequently transferred to L2 writing for task-oriented or communicative purposes (Carson & Kuehn, 1992; Petri´c & Czárl, 2003; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2009). This interlingual transfer is associated with activating linguistic or non-linguistic knowledge in the L1, serving the demands of L2 use. The categorization of transfer is determined by the area of knowledge involved. L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer falls into the category of knowledge transfer related to the discoursal or rhetorical aspect, and it can be studied in terms of both the transferring process and its knowledge source. This transfer primarily originates

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

25

from rhetorical knowledge at the procedural level, i.e., the understanding of how L1 discourse is produced and organized in L2 writing tasks. Such knowledge is particularly associated with the writing conventions in an L1, involving “conventions for organizing information, enhancing communication, and expressing thoughts and feelings as determined by the discourse communities to which a person belongs” (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008, p. 103). L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer involves reusing or reshaping the rhetorical knowledge acquired in the L1, which is often the dominant language for L2 writers. Two relevant aspects of L1 rhetorical knowledge transferred across languages include: (1) rhetorical patterns, structures, or organizations specific to text types or genres (González et al., 2001; Hirose, 2003; Khodabandeh et al., 2013; Mohan & Lo, 1985; Rinnert et al., 2015; Taft et al., 2011; Yang & Cahill, 2008), most of which take on communicative meaning at extrasentential or paragraph levels; (2) rhetorical operations, involving the rhetorical skills, techniques, and strategies that facilitate composing processes in a given writing type or genre (Connor, 2001; Jiang & Zhou, 2006; Liao & Chen, 2009; Uysal, 2008). It is important to note that rhetorical transfer does not always manifest itself explicitly in L2 texts. Instead, it could be indicated by the logical relation between units of meaning at different hierarchical levels of discourse without concrete linguistic features explicitly pointing to the transfer. The transferred object is often the underlying typical text or discourse production pattern, apparent only during composing activities. In this case, the rhetorical transfer is processed in the mind rather than being explicitly recognized in texts. Transfer will lose its meaning and value if it is isolated as a self-contained textual phenomenon independent of the mental state in which it occurs. As such, it is crucial to distinguish between L1 rhetorical processes occurring in learners’ minds and instances of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer evident in L2 texts. The former can be referred to as the “L1-to-L2 rhetorical transferring process” in this book. By understanding and acknowledging the complexities of rhetorical transfer, researchers can gain deeper insights into the dynamics of L2 writing and design more effective language teaching approaches to support learners in their rhetorical development.

2.2.2 Studies on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer is a mental phenomenon triggered by using rhetorical knowledge in L2 writing situations. This transfer can be observed in two distinct aspects: its manifestation as text features in L2 writing and its occurrence during the processing and retrieval of knowledge accessed during the composing processes. To gain a deeper understanding of this transfer, previous research has primarily focused on exploring these two aspects, with particular emphasis on the latter. The following part will delve into the specific dimensions and approaches adopted in transfer studies to investigate L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer.

26

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

• Overall trend The studies on rhetorical tra data-element-type="html" style="position: relative; top: 0px; left: 0px; z-index: 1 !important; pointer-events: none;"/>nsfer align with the overall trend in transfer research. According to Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008), the ultimate aim of transfer research is to investigate “how the languages a person knows interact in mind” (p. 111). It calls for an inquiry into the cognitive basis of transfer. Through a growing body of research, we now realize that the root cause of transfer is the cognitive mechanism of SLA that reflects “underlying organizational principles of language” (Gass, 1988, p. 387). Accordingly, some features can be seen in the measure of transfer as well as the focus and direction of transfer studies. The current mainstream development of interlingual transfer research is in a transition marked by the shift from a phase focusing on the investigation of the transfer itself and multiple factors interacting with it to a phase trying to provide more full-fledged theoretical explanations of how transfer operates (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). During this transition period, transfer research is concerned with individualized transfer effects, constraints on transfer, and transfer selectivity. It also attempts to explain transfer in terms of its situational and mental conditions, constructs, and processes. Following this trend, transfer studies emphasize the focus of transfer as a dependent variable and attempt to achieve explanatory adequacy to unravel the mechanism of transfer. In particular, the agency of transfer gains prominence as a learner variable in the inquiry about the cause and variation of interlingual transfer (DePalma & Ringer, 2011; Lobato, 2006). Regarding the methodology, this research direction is characterized by the growing attention paid to the observable and reliable evidence of this transfer. A key aspect in advancing transfer research lies in the reliable identification of interlingual transfer (ILT) and the establishment of standards of evidence to demonstrate its occurrence. Since the twentieth century, scholars have tried defining the criteria for cross-linguistic transfer (CLT) and the rigorous methods needed to collect objective and valid data that truthfully reveal transfer instances (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008; Odlin, 2001). The core of transfer research is rooted in the acquisition of diverse and well-blended data, as no single type of data can fully substantiate the complex nature of transfer. To ensure the validity of the evidence, researchers frequently employ mixed-design studies in L2 writing research. This research design offers the advantage of optimizing data collection and interpretation quality. As Silva (2005) observed, using mixed methods has become increasingly fashionable in the field. In his words, “it is becoming more and more difficult to find studies which do not employ more than one type of design” (p. 12). The combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches allows researchers to explore both the external manifestations of transfer in L2 texts and the underlying cognitive processes driving this transfer. The qualitative analysis enables a detailed examination of transferred rhetorical features and their implications for L2 writing, providing valuable context and nuances that quantitative data alone cannot capture. Meanwhile, quantitative data offer statistical information that helps

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

27

researchers identify patterns, trends, and potential correlations related to interlingual transfer. • Dimensions Empirical studies on L2 writing have made significant contributions to our understanding of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. These studies have primarily relied on evidence obtained from text analysis, which involves an in-depth examination of textual features and dynamic writing processes (Polio & Friedman, 2017). The investigation of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer encompasses three interconnected dimensions of writing: (1) the textual dimension, (2) the L2-writer dimension (concerning the L2 writer’s agency in the transfer process), and (3) the reader dimension (concerning the perspective of readers who evaluate the rhetorical effectiveness of L2 writing). (1) The textual dimension serves as the external manifestation of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, providing tangible evidence of this phenomenon. Researchers have often sought evidence of transfer by analyzing textual traces that reflect the cross-language use of rhetorical knowledge. This involves conducting comparative analyses of L2 and L1 writing samples, particularly following the model of contrastive rhetoric. Through this approach, researchers identify instances where L1 rhetorical knowledge influences the organization, cohesion, and discourse markers present in L2 texts. (2) Compared with the other two dimensions, the L2-writer dimension mostly matters to the underlying attribute of this transfer, as it plays a pivotal role in driving its occurrence. This dimension concerns L2 writers’ agency, which can be viewed as “the process of an informed action by an individual in a particular context for the sake of the successful completion of a given L2 writing task” (Bhowmik, 2016, p. 285). The agency of L2 writers is closely connected to their autonomous decision-making processes and considerations regarding the flexible use of writing knowledge and experiences to construct texts and achieve communicative goals. The L2 writers’ agency makes it feasible to look deeply into the writers’ active role in leading to transferring processes. Its central role in developing a profound understanding of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer has been empirically corroborated (e.g., Rinnert et al., 2015; Larsen-freeman, 2013). This perspective is beneficial in providing such a comprehensive view that covers both the writers’ dispositions of setting off transfer and the actual occurrence of transfer. In this way, the transfer mechanism can be thoroughly uncovered. By monitoring the composing activities involving L1 rhetorical resources, the relevant studies attempted to probe into writers’ goal-oriented or habit-driven operation of transferring processes across languages, including activation and inhibition (Majchrzak, 2018). Rhetoric-centered activities are integral to meaning-making processes during composing, and managing or practicing L1 rhetoric is part of L2 composing. From the dimension of an L2 writer, we can inquire into the process of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer embedded in composing activities at different stages of L2 writing, including pre-writing and formulation stages (Lally, 2000). Thus, a

28

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

detailed or specific analysis of this transfer can be conducted by determining its distribution within dynamic processes involving multiple factors. The functioning of the L2 writers’ agency during L2 writing is closely linked to their individual factors. For cross-language transfer in L2 writing, L2 writers’ perception of L2 writing difficulty and L2 and L1 writing proficiency are the key factors in determining the variation of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. L2 writers’ perception of L2 writing difficulty is conceptualized as perceived task difficulty, which has been empirically recognized as a factor influencing the allocation of mental resources (Sasayama, 2016). It reflects the interaction between learners’ language abilities and the task they get involved in. It represents learners’ self-rating perspective on task demands in a purely perceptual sense. Cho’s (2018: p. 162) assertion reveals the importance of judging task difficulty through learners’ selfperception: “Task performance cannot be fully understood without taking the learner into consideration.” Thus, perceived task difficulty provides a more fundamental account of the mental efforts taken to cope with cognitive loads in learners’ minds (Pallotti, 2017). As a cognitive vehicle used for task completion or problem-solving, the transfer is equivalent to applying previous knowledge and skills across contexts and situations. Such an agency-driven process determines that the role of transfer rests with the learners’ notice and understanding of task difficulty. Perceived task difficulty is likely a triggering factor in activating L1 resources as a writing strategy (van Weijen et al., 2009; Woodall, 2002). Therefore, this book investigates writers’ perception of L2 writing difficulty as a variable related to the mental operation of L2 writing that potentially impacts L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. The level of L2 writing proficiency is also emphasized in the relevant research as it is a key factor associated with the variation of writing processes and textual phenomena exhibited in L2 writing. A substantial body of evidence has confirmed the links between composing activities, linguistic or rhetorical features, and L2 text quality (see Gánem-Gutiérrez & Gilmore, 2018, for a review). L2 writing proficiency reflects the ability to exploit various types of L2 or L2related writing knowledge to complete L2 writing tasks. L2 knowledge has been widely surveyed as the most fundamental variable that causes individual variation in interlingual transfer (Odlin, 2001). In terms of the transfer across language in L2 writing, the interaction of L2 writing knowledge with its L1 counterpart is vital for understanding the reasons behind this transfer and the degree of its occurrence (Uysal, 2008, 2012). Thus, L2 writing proficiency is expected to be related to instances of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. L1 writing proficiency provides an essential index of participants’ L1 writing knowledge or skills used in task situations, which might be transferred to L2 writing. Weigle (2005) assumed that L1 writing skills could take effect in L2 writing at a threshold of L2 proficiency. Kubota (2010) also pointed out that rhetorical transfer cannot be ascertained in learners’ L2 writing without knowledge about their writing in L1. Thus, it is undeniable that L1 writing knowledge is a significant factor contributing to textual features in L2 writing. According to Cummins (1989), L2

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

29

writing proved to be the same as L1 writing in many fundamental ways of composition, such as planning, revising, and thinking activities. Consistent with this observation, a number of studies (e.g., Iwashita & Sekiguchi, 2009; Sasaki, 2000; Sasaki & Hirose, 1996; Whalen & Ménard, 1995) found that L1 writing knowledge relates to L2 proficiency, which also counts as a contribution to the quality of L2 writing. Besides, taking L1 writing proficiency into account also addresses whether developmental or transfer factors cause textual phenomena to occur in L2 writing. The acquisition of writing knowledge and skills in the L1 is required to transfer writing knowledge and skills across languages. In other words, L1 writing expertise is a source of L1-to-L2 transfer in L2 writing. The lack of L1 writing or literacy knowledge makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the transfer of writing knowledge across languages to occur. Indeed, if discourse competence is not well developed in the L1, the transfer of L1 rhetorical or discoursal knowledge to L2 writing will be restrained (Carson & Kuehn, 1992). In this situation, the problems or characteristics exhibited by L2 texts are not supposed to be attributed to transfer factors but likely to the developmental factors relevant to the limitation in L2 knowledge. Furthermore, considering L1 writing proficiency, the transfer will not be simplified as the inevitable interference in L2 writing; instead, we will have a comprehensive view of the transfer concerning its nature and effect. Because writing is a rhetorical act, knowledge of rhetorical goals, situations, and problems, as well as the ability to operate rhetorically, are regarded as essential components of writing proficiency (Deane et al., 2008; Flower & Hayes, 1981). Therefore, the rhetorical knowledge involved in L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer is probably associated with L1 writing precedence. (3) The reader dimension stands for an assessment perspective that examines the effect of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer on L2 production based on the rhetorical expectations of competent L2 readers. Such rhetorical evaluations involve a qualitative appraisal of the cultural and logical aspects of L2 writing. To ensure a reliable benchmark for L2 writing, the ideal evaluator should be a competent reader who has mastered the L2 language. Such an evaluator is the standard model for language learners to follow (Brown, 2013; Cook, 2016). Numerous studies have focused on the rhetorical expectations of native English evaluators, which influenced the assessment of the rhetorical abilities demonstrated in ESL/ EFL compositions (Huang & Foote, 2010; Marefat & Heydari, 2016; Roberts & Cimasko, 2008; Shi, 2002). These studies primarily relied on native speakers’ intuitive sense of their mother-tongue writing to determine whether the rhetorical performance in L2 writing adheres to the standard of proficient L2 writing. It is important to recognize that effective rating and evaluation of writing quality are not limited to native L2 evaluators. Indeed, many studies (e.g., Harding & McNamara, 2018; Kim, 2009; Zhang & Elder, 2011) indicate that non-native evaluators, who are highly educated and proficient in L2, demonstrate comparable competence to native evaluators. Taken together, it is evident that the qualified evaluators must be advanced or expert users of the assessed language.

30

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

When assessing L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, a critical question arises: How does this transfer impact L2 written communication at the rhetorical level? Evaluators must determine whether the rhetorical effect aligns with the audience’s expectations. If the transfer fits well with the rhetorical conventions of L2, it can be considered a positive transfer. In this case, the writer’s L1 background enriches the L2 writing and elevates its communicative power. Conversely, negative transfer arises when L1 rhetorical patterns clash with those of the L2, leading to misunderstandings or a lack of coherence in the writing. Advanced L2 evaluators possess the ability to perceive students’ written work as a medium of communication. Their perspective offers an accurate rhetorical evaluation, essential for identifying problems arising from the negative rhetorical transfer. Additionally, the reader dimension helps distinguish between genuine rhetorical issues and matters of rhetorical style (Hyland & Anan, 2006; Roberts & Cimasko, 2008), providing a comprehensive view of rhetorical transfer that encompasses both the interference of L1 rhetoric and its facilitating effects. Understanding both aspects allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics of language transfer and acquisition. Moreover, the distinction of roles of L1 rhetoric is critical in comprehending the root causes of specific writing challenges; accordingly, evaluators can provide targeted feedback that fosters improvement in both rhetorical skills and personal writing styles. • Approaches According to research approaches, the empirical studies on L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer are generally classified into two main types: those adopting a between-subject design and those employing a within-subject design. The common objective of both types of studies is to investigate the phenomenon of rhetorical transfer in L2 writing across languages. Nevertheless, they diverge in their conceptualizations of transfer, the sources of textual evidence they utilize, and their approaches to comparative analysis. In the initial investigations into rhetorical transfer across languages, researchers predominantly employed a between-subject design. This category of study was inspired by earlier contrastive rhetoric analyses and aimed to uncover the impact of different languages and cultures on rhetorical differences. Specifically, the early between-subject studies focused on the paragraph organization errors made by beginning-level learners (Connor, 2001). By comparing the rhetorical patterns in ESL writing with those in L1 writing by native English writers, these studies sought to gather evidence for the presence of rhetorical transfer. The underlying assumption guiding this research approach was that if the discourse organization observed in L2 texts written by one L1 group significantly differed from that found in L1 texts produced by native writers, it would suggest the transfer of L1 rhetorical patterns to L2 writing (Kubota, 1998). Through this method, researchers aimed to identify potential instances of language interference, where the rhetorical conventions of the learners’ L1 language influenced their L2 writing. By examining the contrast between L1 and L2 writing, researchers sought valuable insights into how the learners’ native language and its associated rhetorical norms

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

31

could affect their expression in the target language. This between-subject design provided an initial platform for exploring and understanding the complex dynamics of rhetorical transfer in L2 writing, paving the way for further investigations in the field. Nevertheless, these studies followed contrastive analysis and tended to have a negative attitude toward rhetorical transfer. With pedagogical concerns, they sought to detect and predict problems caused by transfer but overlooked the possibility of positive transfer (Kubota, 1998). According to this biased viewpoint, rhetorical transfer is considered L1 interference that causes problems in L2 writing and should be avoided and prevented in L2 writing. This view simplified transfer as an inevitable phenomenon resulting from interlingual or intercultural differences but ignored the role of learners’ variation in contributing to its occurrence. Another type of study using the between-subject design includes the L1 and L2 writing of separate groups with the same language background. For instance, Kobayashi’s study (1984) was conducted in heterogeneous groups and asked U.S. college students (English L1 group in the U.S.), advanced ESL students in the U.S. (EFL group in the U.S.), and English-major students in Japan (EFL group in Japan) to write English essays and non-English-major students in Japan (Japanese L1 group in Japan) to write Japanese L1 essays. These essays were coded by native speakers of Japanese and English according to their rhetorical patterns, which might be manifested as General-to-Specific, Specific-to-General, General Statement in the Middle, or Omission of the General Statement. The evidence of rhetorical transfer was confirmed through two analytical methods: (1) finding similarities in the organization patterns of the texts written by the two EFL groups in Japan; (2) making a cross-linguistic comparison of the texts produced by the English L1 group in the U.S. and those by EFL groups. Likewise, to gain a clear understanding of the Chinese rhetorical style, Yang and Cahill (2008) conducted a comparative analysis of 50 Chinese texts written by Chinese students in Chinese, 100 English texts written by beginning and advanced Chinese English learners in English, and 50 English texts written by U.S. college students in English. The analysis revealed the rhetorical features of sentence and paragraph boundaries, the placement of a thesis statement, and the topic sentence. The frequency of these features was calculated to show the rhetorical preference of the three groups of participants. The results suggested that Chinese college students preferred the directness of rhetoric in English writing. Still, the degree of directedness exhibited by the beginning Chinese English learners was lower than that of the advanced English learners, who were lower than that shown by the U.S. college students. Regarding within-subject design studies, those conducted earlier sought evidence of rhetorical transfer merely from ESL texts. The occurrence of rhetorical transfer was inferred by determining the preferred rhetorical styles emerging in English texts. However, as these studies were based on inferred evidence of transfer, the corroboration of transfer is likely to be affected by researchers’ subjectivity (Uysal, 2008). Thus, they are of limited validity for identifying rhetorical transfer across languages.

32

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

To overcome this limitation, an increasing body of research has investigated rhetorical transfer by examining ESL/EFL texts and L1 texts written by the same subjects. In Carson and Kuehn’s study (1992), transfer at macro-level systems was substantiated by demonstrating the relationship between L2 writing expertise and L1 writing ability. Their study asked Chinese ESL high school graduates in a U.S. academic setting to write an English essay and a Chinese essay on different topics, with the task requirement similar to that of the writing assessment. Then, the essays were scored using scales for evaluating English and Chinese writing in terms of discourse competence. The findings suggested that good L1 writers performed better in L2 writing and tended to transfer writing skills from an L1 to an L2, whereas poor L1 writers performed worse in L2 writing, implying that transfer from an L1 may contribute to L2 writing development. To examine L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in L2 writing, Kubota (1998) compared the rhetorical structures in university students’ L1 Japanese and L2 English writing on a persuasive topic. The comparative analysis of rhetorical patterns was performed from two perspectives: “the location of main ideas” and “the macro-level rhetorical pattern.” The effect of L1 rhetorical patterns on L2 organization scores was measured to evaluate the outcome of transfer (positive or negative). The participants were also interviewed regarding their feelings about task difficulty, their perceived similarities, the difference between the writing tasks regarding content and organization, and the formal writing instruction they had received. The findings indicated no negative effect of L1 rhetorical patterns on the organization of L2 writing. They also revealed that non-nativeness in the organization of ESL writing might be related to learners’ differences in L1 writing skills, L1/L2 composing experience, and English proficiency. Within-subject research on L1-to-L2 writing transfer is suitable for exploring L2 writers’ minds for more solid evidence. A noteworthy study (Holyoak & Piper, 1997) investigated L2 writers’ perceptions of rhetorical differences between L1 writing and ESL writing and their awareness of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. The method used in their study was semi-structured interviews intended to elicit the 17 interviewees’ retrospective descriptions of their feelings and cognition about the cross-cultural rhetorical comparison of L1 and ESL writing and the influence of L1 rhetoric on their ESL writing. Their findings showed that most interviewees were consciously aware of rhetorical differences but failed to provide a concrete explanation. Additionally, half of the informants were sure about their inappropriate transfer of L1 rhetoric in ESL writing, and three of them consciously reported the influence of this transfer. Kobayashi and Rinnert’s (2012) research was aimed at seeking direct evidence of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer from the perspective of adaptive transfer. In their study, one of the central undertakings was to inquire into the transfer of L1 English rhetorical knowledge to Japanese L2 argumentative writing, primarily through multiple methods compatible with the notion of adaptive transfer. The comparative analysis of Japanese as a foreign language (JFL) essays and English L1 essays written by the same JFL learners (N = 19) was performed concerning text rhetorical features. These features were classified as overall structure, typical organizational pattern, introduction, body, conclusion, and style. Kobayashi and Rinnert reorganized them into the

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

33

categories for coding the text features in their analysis, which are listed as follows: argumentation sub-types (i.e., argumentation, exposition, justification, recommendation, and exploration); components of introductions (i.e., context, focus, position, and structure), and components of conclusions (i.e., concession, counterargument/ refutation, extension, position, suggestion, and summary). The results showed that the text features of justification co-occurred in the participants’ English L1 and JFL essays, suggesting that they were transferred from English to Japanese. Regarding the reason for this transfer, post-writing questionnaire/interview responses indicated that it originated from their previous English L1 writing instruction, focusing on the rhetorical schema and organization of the argumentative genre, as well as from their relatively limited JFL writing experience. The subsequent case studies confirmed the role of the writer agency in controlling transfer processes, particularly affecting the reuse and reshaping of L2 writers’ L1 knowledge in L2 text construction. Rinnert et al. (2015) further inquired into a dynamic view of adaptive transfer. Their study compared rhetorical performance in Japanese as a foreign language (i.e., JFL) and English L1 essays on the same topic, written by the identical 19 JFL learners, and Japanese L1 essays by those without English writing experience. The analysis focused on rhetorical text features—argumentation subtypes in L2 and L1 writing. These features suggested L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in both JFL and English L1 writing. To supplement the text data, the JFL writers’ reflections elicited by a postwriting questionnaire and interview were also analyzed. Based on the retrospective reflection data, this study investigated the dynamic process of rhetorical transfer, in which L1 rhetorical knowledge was adapted to L2 writing situations. In addition, an in-depth investigation of two cases revealed the L2 writers’ agency, which played a central role in flexible rhetorical transfer. Uysal’s study (2008) provided a detailed analysis of the rhetorical styles or features exhibited by participants’ L2 writing, with more importance attached to individual differences in the transfer. It examined rhetorical transfer in 18 Turkish participants’ L2 argumentative essays on the same topic. These participants, who were living in the U.S., constituted a heterogeneous group in terms of their level of English language skills. They were asked to complete two argumentative essays separately in English and Turkish. The analysis of the collected 36 essays focused on the argumentative structures determined by Toulmin’s argumentation models and Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals, including the overall organization of texts, macro-level rhetorical structure, coherence, explicit signaling, and the presence and location of thesis statements. Besides the textual analysis from a comparative perspective, this study also obtained information about participants’ experience of L1 and L2 writing instruction by employing a background questionnaire and their reasons for individual choices in writing through audiotaped stimulated recalls. In the textual analysis, the study recognized the similarities in rhetorical structures across L1 and L2 texts and accordingly made inferences about the possible occurrence of transfer. Given the participants’ differences, L2 proficiency was identified as a critical factor explaining the lack of interlingual transfer of some rhetorical knowledge in the L1. Moreover, the interview results, indicating that specific rhetorical choices were rooted in the L1 rhetorical tradition, provided further evidence to confirm the transfer.

34

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

Apart from the occurrence and characteristics of rhetorical transfer from L1 to L2 writing, the influence of this transfer is also a remarkable issue in within-subject studies, which is explored based on the qualitative evaluation of native speakers. For instance, Fang’s study (2005) examined L1 cultural and thought patterns in Chinese students’ ESL writing based on a native English linguist’s and a Chinese researcher’s evaluation. The result showed that the Chinese-styled rhetorical patterns that did not conform to target English-speaking readers’ rhetorical expectations (including the spiral pattern, neutral position, and the belief in authority) occurred frequently in ESL writing samples. The exhibition of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer varied with individual differences, such as rhetorical preference and belief, which reflected the diversity of rhetorical manifestation. Several studies on L1 use using the within-subject design deserve mention for their relevance to the topic of this book. These studies focused on L1 use or language switching, so their findings inform the academic understanding of interlingual transfer in L2 writing. Wang and Wen (2002) undertook to explore L1 use during L2 writing among 16 participants through think-aloud protocols. A major finding of their study is that L1 tended to be used for generating and organizing ideas during composing activities. In addition, van Weijen et al. (2009) conducted a more detailed study on individual writers’ L1 use during their specific cognitive activities. Their findings revealed the influence of learner factors on L1 use for higher-order composing and the textual effect of L1 use: L1 use was negatively caused by general writing proficiency; L2 writers would turn to L1 use when perceiving the difficulty in coordinating various cognitive or conceptual activities in the L2 writing process; L1 use of meta-comments had an adverse effect on L2 text quality. In a study focusing on language switching, Woodall (2002) also found that ESL students would depend on L1 use when facing complex tasks. Overall, both the between-subject and within-subject designs have been widely adopted in previous empirical studies on rhetorical transfer. In terms of their validity, the within-subject design is more applicable to the in-depth analysis of transfer phenomena, as it excludes the variance that is detrimental to data analysis, concentrating on the focal variable. A within-subject design favors the examination of multiple factors related to actual transfer at the individual level (Kubota & Lehner, 2004). In addition, this approach allows for the control of subject variables (Uysal, 2012). As for the data sources supporting this design, L2 and L1 writing samples need to be collected from L2 learners. As Wu and Rubin (2000) stated, “Methodologically, it can be erroneous to generate L1 writing patterns based only on L2 data. To discern what is and what is not a culture-typical writing pattern, one must collect samples of writing in L1 as well as in L2” (p. 172). Their statement, which argues for one advantage of undertaking both L1 and L2 writing tasks by the same participants, supports the effectiveness of within-subject design. In line with the within-subject design, post-writing surveys facilitate the inquiry into processes of transfer by eliciting self-reported data. Post-writing surveys, including interviews, questionnaires, and verbal protocols, can investigate the impression of writing tasks and the recollection of composing processes (Lubold et al., 2016; Sasaki & Hirose, 1996) in the just-completed writing task.

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

35

In a couple of studies (e.g., Deng et al., 2014; Manchón & Roca de Larios, 2007; Ong, 2014; Wang, 2003), the retrospective questionnaire was used to elicit the recall of rhetorical or generic considerations from participants after completing their writing tasks. It is especially advantageous in revealing the outcome of thoughts or decisions during tasks (Kuusela & Pallab, 2000). The retrospective questionnaire administered in Wang’s study (2003) enabled subjects to retrospect the frequency of L1 transfer activities during L2 writing based on their memory of the L2 writing process. Methodologically, the studies reviewed above indicate the feasibility of exploiting a post-writing questionnaire to trigger the recall of rhetorical transfer activities. As for the effectiveness of the self-report questionnaire, Ong’s study (2014) found moderate correlations between the results of this instrument and those of actual performance. The value of the verbal report in the retrospective measurement of internal processes has been confirmed by many studies (e.g., Cohen, 1984; Deng et al., 2014; Ericsson & Simon, 1980; Kuusela & Pallab, 2000). As stated by Kuusela and Pallab (2000), “Ideally, retrospective protocol data are collected immediately after the task is completed, while most of the information is still in the short-term memory (STM) and can be retrieved directly” (p. 390). In research on writing, retrospective verbal reports or interviews facilitate the identification of sub-processes during writing, such as planning, translating ideas into words, and reviewing (Olive et al. 2002). Notably, they cater to the elicitation of L2 writers’ retrospection on the writing process involving L1 influence (Holyoak & Piper, 1997), particularly the transfer of generic knowledge across disciplinary and language contexts (Deng et al., 2014; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2009; Uysal, 2012). Therefore, it is necessary to learn about the administrative procedure and technique of this post-writing measure. According to the time when the verbalization is generated, verbal reports are categorized as concurrent and retrospective reports (Ericsson & Simon, 1980; Smagorinsky, 2001). This instrument had better be administered in the retrospective rather than the concurrent condition to collect the data on cognitive transferring processes. Although the concurrent think-aloud protocols are considered a major source of data or evidence, this method is criticized for its reactivity by many researchers. A problem has been raised regarding whether simultaneous reporting would increase participants’ cognitive load and interfere with their normal writing process, which has been empirically verified in Yang et al. (2014). Other inherent limitations of this method include participants’ difficulty speaking aloud their thoughts while completing tasks (Sasaki, 2000), indicating a high demand for this verbal ability. In comparison, retrospective protocols are more favorable due to their unique strength in probing the reasons behind writing activities, i.e., writers’ particular intentions or decisions during the execution of writing tasks. This method reveals what happened and why it happened (Uysal, 2012), enabling researchers to gain insights into participants’ intentions underlying their specific activities in writing. The procedure of verbal protocols is administered by virtue of prompt questions. These questions help elicit subjects’ or informants’ reports on their thoughts and behaviors during the task they have just completed (Matsumoto, 1993).

36

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

Thanks to these questions, verbal protocols can provide the data linked to participants’ conscious mental processes. This method for eliciting self-reports has been extensively applied to studies on mental operations or processing in language activities. In a study by Feldman and Stemmer (1987), the subjects verbalized specific cognitive activities in C-test taking, including problem-solving strategies and language processing, by responding to interview questions. Gosden (1996) conducted interview-based verbal protocols to examine novice researchers’ processes of academic writing with a focus on cross-cultural aspects. Through a series of interview questions, James’ study (2009) investigated participants’ reports about the knowledge or skills that were transferred from one disciplinary situation to another while completing their writing tasks. The importance of the between-subject design in contributing to the adequacy of the data should not be disregarded, despite the merits of within-subject design. The key is to combine the strengths of the two approaches to maximize the efficacy and effectiveness of research designs. By incorporating a between-subject approach, researchers can analyze the differences in rhetorical patterns across differing participant groups. Simultaneously, employing a within-subject design allows for a more fine-grained examination of learners’ individual changes and adaptations in their L2 writing. Such a combination of methodologies enables researchers to capture a broader spectrum of data and insights. Moreover, combining mixed-method approaches and quantitative and qualitative analyses can further enhance the research outcomes. Quantitative data can offer statistical evidence, while qualitative data can provide a deeper understanding of language learners’ underlying processes and experiences. Integrating both approaches and incorporating mixed-method methodologies can enrich our understanding of rhetorical transfer and contribute to more comprehensive and nuanced findings.

2.2.3 Contrastive Rhetoric Paradigm for Investigating Rhetorical Transfer Almost at the historical period when the trend for the combination of rhetoric and writing teaching began, it was recognized that written discourse analysis needed to be guided by the notions of applied linguistics, which centered on real-world problems. Against this interdisciplinary background, contrastive rhetoric emerged as an area of research in second language acquisition. It reflects a major paradigm for investigating rhetorical transfer nowadays. The following section focuses on this paradigm intending to establish the theoretical foundation for L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer studies.

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

2.2.3.1

37

Identification of Rhetorical Transfer in Contrastive Rhetoric Analysis

In the 1960s, the issue of formulating organizational patterns in texts in a second language (L2) was recognized in ESL/EFL writing pedagogy, possibly attributed to the transfer of linguistic patterns from students’ first language (L1). Such observations, captured in Kaplan and Grabe’s work (2002), identified potential stumbling blocks in learners’ writing due to the intrusion of their native language structures into their acquired language. Kaplan (1966) emphasized the critical need for EFL/ESL learners to adopt English rhetorical patterns instead of adhering to their L1 structures in their L2 writing. He contended that identifying differences in the rhetorical structures between L1 and L2 could provide insights into preventing such linguistic interferences. As stated by Kaplan, “…the patterns of paragraphs in other languages need to be discovered or uncovered and compared with the patterns of English in order to arrive at a practical means for the teaching of such structures to non-native users of the language” (p. 16). For this pedagogical purpose, Kaplan utilized contrastive rhetoric analysis—an intercultural or interlingual comparison of essays authored by students from diverse linguistic or cultural backgrounds. This method was used to pinpoint the distinct characteristics of L2 rhetorical modes, foresee potential difficulties faced by L2 writers, and accordingly enhance their rhetorical construction skills. Kaplan’s approach laid the foundation for the field of contrastive rhetoric, placing greater emphasis on the extrasentential and discourse levels in L2 writing research. Leki (1991) recognized the importance of contrastive rhetoric as a means of cultural exploration, offering more profound insights into the structures of texts and cultural norms. The fundamental principle underpinning contrastive rhetoric is the variation of rhetorical patterns across different languages and cultures. According to Kaplan (1966, as cited in Mohan & Lo, 1985), the English expository prose generated by L2 learners varies from that of native speakers regarding paragraph sequencing and organizational pattern. He attributed these rhetorical disparities to the transfer of L1’s rhetorical organization, arguing that “each language and each culture has a paragraph order unique to itself” (as cited in Mohan & Lo, 1985). Moreover, these differences reveal the distinct cognitive styles enacted in writing across various languages (Kubota, 1998). As Kubota and Lehner (2004) outlined, the two key postulates of contrastive rhetoric are: (1) the distinctness of rhetorical conventions across languages and cultures and (2) the influence of L1 rhetorical norms on ESL writing. The contrastive rhetoric paradigm, led by Kaplan, expanded the scope of contrastive analysis to the discourse level, leading to further research into “rhetorical transfer.” This term, derived from contrastive rhetoric studies, signifies the impact of first language conventions of discourse and rhetorical structure on second language usage (Connor, 2001: xi). Péry-Woodley (1990) acknowledged the significant role of contrastive rhetoric research in the exploration of rhetorical transfer: Efficient research design could be achieved in the area of L1/L2 rhetorical transfer if the account was taking of research in contrastive rhetoric, and indeed contrastive rhetoric research is a necessary preliminary to any study of rhetorical transfer (p. 145).

38

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

One of the cornerstones of contrastive rhetoric is the influence of rhetoric in the first language on the second language (Connor, 2001, 2004, 2008), which becomes a vital issue in contrastive rhetoric analyses. The initial goal of contrastive rhetoric studies was to unearth instances of negative rhetorical transfer from the L1 to the L2 textual organization. This means any deviations or errors observed in the L2 text organization were primarily attributed to the structural influence of the L1. This L1–L2 rhetorical discrepancy is considered a source of linguistic interference, often creating a conflict between the two languages. However, these early studies seemed to downplay the possibility of positive rhetorical transfer from L1 to L2 (Kubota, 1998). In other words, these analyses often failed to acknowledge situations where the influence of the L1 could potentially enhance, rather than hinder, L2 writing. For example, unique stylistic devices or argumentation structures from the L1 could enrich the rhetorical style of L2 writing, leading to a more sophisticated, nuanced, and engaging text. This oversight might be traced back to the foundational premises of contrastive rhetoric, which tend to cast the influence of L1 on L2 in a negative light. The prevailing viewpoint in this early period was that any interference from L1 was undesirable and should be eradicated. This standpoint effectively framed L1 as a potentially damaging influence that could distort the correct use of L2, thereby ignoring its potential benefits. In the paradigm of contrastive rhetoric, a text is treated as a medium of communication between the writer and readers. As such, the units of analysis in contrastive rhetoric, which are essential components for performing the textual function, contribute to the communicative purpose intended by the text. In the framework of contrastive rhetoric, Grabe and Kaplan’s (1996) classification of rhetorical knowledge provides critical insights for contrastive rhetoric analyses (p. 200). Their taxonomy can further elucidate potential factors in predicting L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer within a specific genre. The elements that constitute this taxonomy are as follows: (1) Text organization concerning coherence (1a) Knowledge of the morphosyntax of the target language, particularly as it applies to the extrasentential level; (1b) Knowledge of the coherence-creating mechanisms of the target language. (2) Genre awareness (2a) Knowledge of rhetorical patterns of arrangement; (2b) Knowledge of the writing conventions of the target language in the sense of both frequency and distribution of types and text appearance. (3) Reader/audience awareness (3a) Knowledge of the audience characteristics and expectations in the target culture; (3b) Knowledge of the subject to be discussed, including both what everyone knows in the target culture and specialist knowledge. This taxonomy highlights the rhetorical aspects relevant to constructing rhetoricoriented texts closely related to the overall purpose of L2 written communication.

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

39

These aspects include the texture or organization of L2 discourse, genre conventions, and native-reader expectations, which can adequately reflect L1-L2 differences. In this sense, they embody the contrastive rhetoric perspective that facilitates understanding L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer regarding its knowledge source. The following part will elaborate on them. Within the framework of contrastive rhetoric, text organization concerning coherence denotes the logical progression of discourse elements, which is typically distinguished as global and local coherence. The overarching goal of structural organization in writing is the attainment of coherence. Mechanisms that create coherence are vital to maintaining the flow and logical sequence of texts, facilitating readers’ comprehension of the intended meaning and the writer’s arguments or narratives. Coherence embodies one structural aspect of rhetorical differences. What may be considered an effectively coherent text in the writer’s native context may not be perceived as such in the reader’s cultural and linguistic context (Matsuda, 1997). This may be due to differences in rhetorical traditions, discourse styles, or even reader expectations across different cultures. Contrastive rhetoric analyses, therefore, focus on exploring the coherence mechanisms that differ across languages and cultures (e.g., Connor, 2001; Uysal, 2008). These differences can potentially affect cross-lingual understanding in intercultural communication, as readers from various linguistic and cultural backgrounds may interpret the same text differently (Hinkel, 2002). For instance, the employment of cohesive devices such as pronouns, conjunctions, and discourse markers varies significantly across languages. These variations can impact the logical linkages between sentences or paragraphs, thereby influencing the overall coherence of the text. Cultural-specific rhetorical patterns and discourse structures may influence how writers arrange information and present arguments. More specifically, some cultures may favor a more direct, linear argumentation style, while others may prefer an indirect, circular approach. This cultural influence can lead to notable differences in the coherence of L1 and L2 texts. Understanding these differences is key to enhancing cross-cultural communication and forms a crucial component of the contrastive rhetoric approach. From a contrastive rhetoric perspective, genre conventions are vital for shaping the expression of ideas and information in L2 writing. The investigation of genrerelated differences has emerged as a central focus in contrastive rhetoric studies, drawing the attention of researchers interested in understanding how rhetorical patterns are transferred across different languages and cultures (Al-Ali, 2004; Connor, 2001; Johns, 2011). The comparative analysis of rhetorical differences places particular emphasis on genre situations. By examining how rhetorical acts differ within specific genres, researchers gain a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of L2 writing. For example, when exploring argumentative writing, researchers might delve into various aspects of the rhetorical convention to identify specific dissimilarities between L1 and L2 texts. These aspects could encompass the method of topic introduction, the positioning and development of the thesis statement, the structure of argumentative paragraphs, and the criteria utilized for presenting evidence. Through an in-depth

40

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

exploration of these generic aspects, researchers can discern and characterize the distinct rhetorical conventions present in L1 and L2 argumentative writing. Analyzing genre-specific characteristics in contrastive rhetoric offers valuable insights into how learners’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds influence their L2 writing. The interplay between genre conventions and L1-to-L2 transfer provides a rich source of data for researchers and educators seeking to enhance language instruction and foster communicative competence in diverse language contexts. By recognizing the interplay between genre and rhetorical patterns, educators can design pedagogical strategies that empower language learners to adapt their writing style and expression to meet the expectations of different genres and discourse communities. Furthermore, understanding genre-related differences sheds light on how L1 rhetorical norms might impact the overall persuasiveness, coherence, and effectiveness of L2 texts, especially in argumentative writing. By grasping the specific ways rhetorical patterns differ across languages, educators can offer targeted feedback and guidance to language learners, helping them navigate the intricacies of rhetorical transfer and achieve greater proficiency in L2 writing. Audience awareness in L2 writing is crucial in facilitating effective interlingual communication. It involves L2 writers’ ability to comprehend and consider the rhetorical conventions and expectations of native readers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Liu & Du, 2018; Sullivan et al., 2012; Xing et al., 2008). By acknowledging and addressing the audience’s cultural and literacy background, L2 writers can create texts that resonate with and engage their readers meaningfully. Understanding the target audience’s expectations is essential because different cultural and language communities may have distinct preferences when it comes to communication styles and textual organization. L2 writers need to be mindful of these differences to ensure that their writing effectively communicates their ideas and intentions to native readers. Being attuned to the audience’s expectations helps L2 writers to tailor their language use, rhetorical strategies, and content to suit the readers’ preferences. Moreover, audience awareness encourages L2 writers to consider the readers’ patterns of logic and reasoning. By anticipating how native readers might interpret and respond to their writing, L2 writers can make informed decisions about structuring their arguments, presenting evidence, and conveying information. This consideration of the audience’s perspective enhances the overall coherence and persuasiveness of the L2 texts. In intercultural communication, audience awareness is particularly important because it helps bridge the gap between linguistic and cultural differences. When L2 writers demonstrate an understanding of the native readers’ expectations and viewpoints, it fosters a sense of connection and mutual understanding. This, in turn, promotes successful cross-lingual communication and minimizes the risk of misunderstandings or misinterpretations. Furthermore, audience awareness is closely linked to the concept of communicative competence. L2 writers with strong audience awareness demonstrate a higher proficiency in intercultural communication. They are more likely to adapt their language use and writing style to meet the needs and preferences of the audience, thereby increasing the effectiveness of their communication.

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

2.2.3.2

41

Development of the Contrastive Rhetoric Approach

Contrastive rhetoric was criticized for its approach to reaching conclusions about rhetorical conventions and logic or thinking patterns in diverse languages without in-depth investigations into the cognitive activity in composing processes and the specific cultural context of writing. Those studies following this approach are challenged since they were merely based on the textual analysis of a few students’ essay writing. Indeed, early contrastive rhetoric studies tend to allege insensitivity to cultural differences (Connor, 2002, p. 493). Kaplan (1987) also noticed the problems with the original paradigm of contrastive rhetoric. He pointed out that the writing process is necessary to gain a better understanding of the nature of writing. On that account, Liebman (1992) proposed a broader view of contrastive rhetoric. The elements covered by this view include not only the finished written product but also the writing process and the educational context in which writing occurs. Connor (2002) further argued that the rhetorical difference in writing is caused by contextual factors other than the national culture, including L1 educational background, genre characteristics, the mismatch of expectations between the writer and readers, and L2 writing background, among other things. Such specific factors characterize “complexly interacting small cultures” (i.e., classroom culture, disciplinary culture, student culture, etc.) (Connor, 2004, p. 292) and support the account of the “particularity of writing activity” (Connor, 2004, p. 506), and they are relevant to the contrastive relations in the rhetorical structure between different languages. In this way, the influence of cultural determinism on contrastive rhetoric analyses can be avoided and replaced by intercultural awareness of rhetorical phenomena in different languages. More recently, contrastive rhetoric has become more concerned with the dynamic complexity of writing and considers L2 writer-related variables. In 2005, Kaplan proposed a communication model for writing in which text, an L2 writer, and native readers interact. The underlying constructs of contrastive rhetoric today are reduced to two aspects: multilingual writers and the effect of persuasion on readers (Connor, 2008). It thus suggests that the corresponding contrastive rhetoric analysis encompasses the dynamic factors that significantly affect the quality of written communication, including the individual variation of L2 writers and readers’ responses. These factors were believed to be part of learner writers’ “mental energy” to impact their L2 expressions (Kennedy, 1998, p. 5) and communicative purpose. Another point that marks the development of contrastive rhetoric is the perspective on L2 writers’ agency in L2 written communication, which was advocated by the scholars upholding the pedagogical value of contrastive rhetoric (e.g., Connor, 2008; Kubota, 2010; Ortega & Carson, 2010). According to Matsuda (1997), L2 writers’ agency should be underscored to facilitate the application of contrastive rhetoric research for L2 writing instruction; indeed, it offers a vantage point to look into L2 writers’ transferring or transformative process, which is integrated with individual factors and reflects a variation in their intentional and adaptive inner-operation during a writing process (Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2016; Rinnert et al., 2015). This factor, related to the autonomy or self-regulation of L2 learners (Oxford, 2017),

42

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

contributes to L2 writing development characterized by the influence of L1 rhetorical patterns. As recommended by Casanave (2004), L2 students should be encouraged to “become ethnographers” of their own writing (p. 49), particularly to incorporate the L1 rhetorical background into their understanding of L2 writing. Additionally, a growing number of scholars have noticed the likelihood of positive rhetorical transfer in their contrastive rhetoric studies. Péry-Woodley (1990) described it as “rhetorical patterns that are close enough in the two cultures/languages for transfer to be more positive than negative” (p. 148). Intercultural or interlingual similarities in rhetoric lead to positive transfer and facilitate students’ second language composition. González et al. (2001) also maintained that positive rhetorical transfer could occur due to universal thinking patterns shared by different writing conventions. In this sense, the rhetorical conventions of L1 might not necessarily interfere with L2 writing if native readers accept them. Jin (2017) stressed the importance of positive L1 transfer under the condition of comprehensible L2 input, especially at the supra-sentential level for L2 writing development in her proposed L2 writing principles. Li (2023) further elaborated on the positive roles of first languages or prior learned languages and the knowledge already acquired through the learners’ first and/or prior learned languages. In summary, given the two sides of rhetorical transfer, we must abandon the biased view that this transfer is bound to be negative.

2.2.3.3

Contrastive Rhetorical View of Chinese Composition Rhetoric

It is necessary that contrastive rhetorical views be incorporated into the study of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. The identification of this transfer in L2 texts relies on the occurrence of L1 rhetorical features, especially those that do not exist in L2 writing. The following parts aim to enhance the understanding of Chinese composition rhetoric from a contrastive angle. It summarizes the rhetorical features unique to or preferred by modern Chinese argumentative composition to lay the groundwork for investigating Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer using textual analysis. Although the development of modern Chinese composition draws on the merits of Western rhetoric, many typical features are deeply rooted in Chinese rhetorical conventions and even in Chinese social and cultural ideology (Zheng, 2011). They are the labels attached to the unique rhetorical style or pattern of Chinese writing, which marks Chinese-English rhetorical differences. Whether in academic studies or teaching practices, these characteristic Chinese rhetorical features are mostly analyzed in terms of their discourse roles or functions, including general rhetorical patterns, overall discursive characteristics, topic and theme introduction, paragraph development, and methods of concluding essays. The emergence of these features constitutes a piece of evidence of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer since “the non-native appearance of L2 composition is attributable to the transfer of fundamentally different L1 rhetorical conventions” (Holyoak & Piper, 1997, p. 125). In addition, there are such rhetorical features that coexist in both Chinese and English writing, but they are more likely to be exhibited in Chinese writing than in the

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

43

English counterpart. These features indicate the likelihood of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer but not the certainty of its occurrence. They offer helpful preliminary evidence for this transfer in English texts. Unquestionably, further evidence is necessary to confirm the actual occurrence of this transfer. The fundamental consideration is that the comprehensive view of transfer, which is in nature a complex inner phenomenon, may not only depend on visible textual manifestations but other cues of the mentality for processing transfer, like writers’ self-report about their mental activity. It is worth noting that the Chinese rhetorical features mentioned later reflect optional choices but not prescriptive rules in Chinese writing. This book does not expect they would be doubtlessly adopted in Chinese students’ English writing. It corresponds with my view of transfer: Transfer is a kind of individualized cognitive activity driven by learners’ active exploitation of L1 rhetoric rather than a fixed pattern activated mechanically. The following will expound on characteristic Chinese rhetorical features of Chinese yilunwens based on previous theoretical or empirical works and modern writing instructional materials published by authoritative publishers. These rhetorical features likely result from Chinese EFL student writers’ years of Chinese literacy education, which has endowed them with L1 rhetorical knowledge that may be activated in their English writing. Such features are typical in Chinese yilunwens but absent or rare in English argumentative essays. They probably emerge in Chinese EFL student writers’ English argumentative essay writing and can mark a rhetorical difference between Chinese yilunwens and English argumentative essays. In light of the rhetorical aspects that reflect the contrastive perspective (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996), characteristic rhetorical features of Chinese yilunwens can be categorized as “general rhetorical patterns,” “argument construction,” and “specific rhetorical techniques.” • General rhetorical patterns (1) Indirect introduction of central opinion In the early days of contrastive rhetoric studies, Chinese writing often exhibited an “indirect” pattern, suggesting that Chinese users tended to delay or omit their central opinions or ideas in communication. However, this perspective has faced criticism for its arbitrary nature in sweeping assertions about the quality of logic or thinking patterns in non-English writing. It is not appropriate to label contemporary or modern Chinese composition rhetoric as uniformly adopting an “indirect pattern.” Such generalizations oversimplify the complexities and diversity of Chinese writing practices. Indeed, the nature of Chinese composition rhetoric is multifaceted and cannot be reduced to a single characterization. It is essential to recognize that Chinese writing has evolved, incorporating various rhetorical styles and approaches that reflect both traditional and contemporary influences. Rather than imposing rigid labels, researchers should adopt a more nuanced approach, acknowledging the dynamic nature of Chinese composition rhetoric.

44

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that certain features of indirectness can mark a rhetorical difference between Chinese yilunwen writing and English argumentative essay writing, as demonstrated in previous studies (e.g., Liu & Huang, 2021; Yeung, 2019). These studies have shed light on specific instances where Chinese writing may exhibit tendencies towards indirectness in presenting arguments or ideas. For example, Chinese yilunwen writing may employ a more gradual and contextually rich approach to building and supporting arguments. Writers might employ use expressions, contextual cues, and background information to gradually lead readers toward their main point. In contrast, English argumentative essays often prioritize a more direct and explicit presentation of the thesis statement and supporting evidence. An indirect beginning is a typical Indirectness feature in Chinese writing, especially in yilunwen writing. According to the conventions of Chinese writing, the stance or central opinion may not be straightforward at the beginning. Lu (2016) identified two indirect approaches to the introduction before the main idea is explicitly revealed: Yuyang Xianyi fa (欲扬先抑法): the method of concealing before revealing: to retreat to advance, seemingly meandering but rhetorically sound and appealing. Pudian Xushi fa (铺垫蓄势法): the method of accumulating force from foreshadowing: to draw the bow but not discharge the arrow, thus intriguing readers’ interest. (p. 120)

Both ways of beginning an essay are meant to lay the groundwork for the rest of the piece. The writers’ stance or standpoint on the premise of their arguments likely will not be stated directly until an adequate introduction of the theme is provided to arouse the readers’ interest. This rhetorical style is also termed “topic-comment,” that is, “considerable amounts of background information were given first, followed by the writers’ statement of position” (Tyler & Bro, 1993, p. 508). Take the following excerpt of a full-mark Chinese yilunwen written by a candidate for Gaokao (a standardized college entrance exam held annually in mainland China) for example. In this essay, entitled “Each Beidou Satellite Performs its Function,” the thesis (underlined) is not put forward until the penultimate paragraph of the essay: Under the background of the new crown epidemic, countless scientific and technological workers have overcome various difficulties and completed the Beidou satellite network task; this event is to break the monopoly of GPS in the field of global satellite navigation, so that Beidou satellites can cover every corner of the world, so that the Beidou system can serve every customer in the world. … Like each Beidou Satellite performs its function, every Chinese person makes contributions in his or her position (the penultimate paragraph).

As can be seen, the writer draws a parallel between the functionality of each Beidou satellite and the contributions of every Chinese individual in their respective roles. This statement effectively encapsulates the main point of the essay, emphasizing the collective efforts of the Chinese people. By employing the “topic-comment” rhetorical style, the writer skillfully guides the readers through the essay, leading

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

45

them to the central argument while providing ample context and evidence along the way. This approach is well-suited for certain cultural and linguistic contexts, such as Chinese academic writing, where a gradual and contextualized presentation of ideas is highly valued. Although the formulation of a thesis statement is not alien to Chinese writing instruction (You, 2005), such a thesis statement is often not placed in an independent sentence at the beginning of an essay but instead is integrated with or implied by a detailed introduction and elaboration of background information concerning the writing topic. This Indirectness structure aims to pave the way for the subsequent argumentation in the body of the essay (You, 2005). Further, a thesis or main idea might be gradually elicited based on the accumulation of statements in Chinese yilunwen writing rather than being directly stated in a single sentence. Following this approach, Chinese writers expect target readers to encounter and accept their viewpoints without feeling obtrusiveness and gradually become interested in the essay. In brief, this technique for thesis advancement can be characterized as “from the surface to the core” (Shen, 1989, p. 463), which involves first analyzing superficial elements before delving deeper into the core ideas. It enables readers to gradually enter into the realm of writers’ arguments and naturally capture the meaning intended by the text. In contrast to the “topic-comment” style often found in Chinese yilunwen essays, an effective English argumentative essay typically adopts a more direct approach in its introduction. The English argumentative essay begins with a clear and concise thesis statement that succinctly presents the central point or main argument of the essay (Al-Haq & Ahmed, 1994; Langan, 2007). This thesis statement serves as a roadmap for the reader, outlining the writer’s opinion and the key points that will be explored in the essay. The thesis statement in an English argumentative essay is usually a single sentence strategically placed at the end of the introduction. Its purpose is to provide readers with immediate insight into the writer’s stance on the topic and the direction the essay will take. By presenting the main argument upfront, the thesis statement sets the tone for the entire essay, guiding readers on what to expect and what specific aspects will be covered. Unlike the “topic-comment” style, the thesis statement in an English argumentative essay does not require extensive elaboration in the introduction. Instead, its clarity and brevity allow readers to grasp the main idea quickly. This concise presentation of the thesis statement ensures that readers are not left guessing about the writer’s position or the purpose of the essay. From the perspective of English rhetoric, presenting a thesis statement at the outset of the essay also facilitates efficient communication, as it allows readers to assess whether the essay aligns with their interests and needs. If the thesis statement resonates with readers, they are more likely to fully engage with the essay, knowing that it will explore the topic or argument they are interested in. Moreover, a well-crafted thesis statement provides a robust framework for the essay’s structure. Each subsequent paragraph can be organized around supporting points directly related to the thesis statement. This structured approach enhances the

46

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

overall coherence and cohesion of the essay, making it easier for readers to follow the writer’s line of thought. (2) Turn for encompassing altered angles Turn is a distinctive mode of paragraph development commonly found in Chinese yilunwen writing. It has its roots in classical Chinese writing conventions and continues to be deeply ingrained in modern Chinese composition. The use of turn as a rhetorical strategy comes naturally to Chinese writers and serves as a means of facilitating written communication. The concept of Turn in Chinese writing can be understood through the famous remark: “Wen si kanshan bu kanping” (“文似看山不看平”), which translates to “Writing is like enabling readers to enjoy the view of mountains; flatness is not appreciated.” This proverb encapsulates the underlying philosophy behind writing with turns in Chinese composition. The use of turns reflects the writers’ intention to engage readers by creating a sense of dynamic movement and progression in the text, akin to the journey of appreciating a picturesque landscape. By employing turns, Chinese writers demonstrate a rhetorical concern for readers’ interest and attention. The deliberate use of turns is intended to support enjoyable and continuous reading, as it prevents the writing from becoming monotonous or overly direct. Instead of presenting information straightforwardly, writers skillfully introduce shifts in perspective, elaboration of ideas, or contrasting viewpoints, thus engaging readers and inviting them to explore the text further. The use of the Turn pattern in Chinese yilunwen writing is indeed prevalent, emphasizing ups and downs and twists and turns in constructing arguments (Liu, 2005, p. 4). This pattern aligns with the rhetorical demands of Chinese composition and serves various purposes beyond simply “beating around the bush.” One essential function of Turn is to enrich arguments by adding supplementary information that expands the scope of the discussion (Cai, 2003). Rather than presenting ideas in a linear and straightforward manner, writers employ Turn to provide additional context, examples, or supporting evidence. This not only enhances the depth and complexity of the argument but also engages readers by introducing fresh perspectives and insights. Turn also allows writers to adopt a spiral pattern (Luoxuan Xing) (Hu, 2008), exploring thoughts from multiple angles without clearly indicating an endpoint or interval. This spiral approach adds an element of intrigue and depth to the essay, encouraging readers to delve deeper into the writer’s thought process. By presenting ideas from different viewpoints, writers can create a more comprehensive and nuanced argument. Cahill (2003) highlighted the positive role of Turn in Asian rhetorical structures, such as ki sho ten ketsu and qi cheng zhuan he, as it provides an opportunity to develop an essay further through alternative means (p. 170). The Turn pattern allows writers to explore ideas more expansively and creatively, resulting in a richer and more compelling narrative. The following excerpt from a Chinese yilunwen exemplifies the use of Turn. The writer begins by stating the importance of communication from small families to large countries. Rather than moving directly

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

47

to the next point, the writer employs Turn to present a detailed account of the roles of communication in families, workplaces, and society. From a small family to a large country, it is very important to communicate with each other. In the family, the lack of communication between fatherand son leads to a generation gap. In the workplace, communication between superiors and subordinates, departments, and colleagues is equally important. Large countries, different classes, different fields, etc. If there is a lack of communication, it will affect social stability.

This self-contained paragraph exemplifies the interconnectedness and coherence achieved through Turn. Each angle presented in the paragraph supports and reinforces the idea expressed in the first sentence, providing a well-rounded and persuasive argument. The Turn pattern is rarely employed in English argumentative essay writing. English academic writing follows the principles of directness and unity, prioritizing logical progression in presenting arguments (Cahill, 2003). The direct and straightforward approach aims to ensure that readers grasp the main point of the essay immediately, without unnecessary detours or distractions. In Western conventions of writing, the term “turn” may be associated with topic digression or veering off the main point. In English essays, maintaining a clear focus on the thesis statement throughout the text is highly valued, and any perceived deviation from the main point may be considered less effective in conveying the writer’s ideas. To maintain clarity and unity in English argumentative essay writing, writers often structure their essays in a more straightforward manner. Each paragraph typically addresses a specific supporting point or evidence directly relevant to the thesis statement. This organization ensures that the essay’s argument remains focused and coherent, avoiding potential confusion or ambiguity. (3) Implicit semantic relations between discourse units Explicit cohesive ties are used for the unity of structure in English argumentative essays, but not necessarily so in Chinese yilunwens (see Wang & He, 2016). As suggested by Cai’s contrastive study of rhetoric in English and Chinese (2003), the connection of sentences in Chinese yilunwen writing depends more on the coherence forged by implicit logical or semantic relations than on explicit cohesive devices like conjunctions, reference, and repetition. Chinese yilunwen writing often employs a flowing and interconnected style, where concepts and propositions logically link sentences. The discourse meaning of each sentence is implied within the textual context, allowing readers to comprehend the writer’s intended ideas and meaning naturally. In Chinese argumentative discourse, the topic-chain format is a widely used rhetorical strategy that allows writers to present interconnected ideas without explicitly stating the referent in each clause. In this format, multiple clauses share the same referent, creating a cohesive thread that runs through the text. By omitting explicit markers and relying on the surrounding textual context, Chinese writers invite readers to actively engage with the content and draw their own connections between ideas. This “formally loose” approach to clause groups may seem unconventional from the perspective of Western rhetorical traditions, which often emphasize the use of

48

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

explicit cohesive ties. However, in Chinese writing, this style is deeply rooted in the cultural and linguistic context, where coherence is fostered through implicit logical and semantic relations. During the construction of a Chinese argumentative essay, the writer’s intention is for readers to grasp the underlying connections between ideas naturally. Rather than relying heavily on explicit markers, writers trust that readers will intuitively understand the logical progression of the argument. This approach is in line with the broader Chinese literary tradition, which values subtlety and invites readers to participate in the interpretative process actively. Readers’ tacit understanding of the contextual link built up by the discourse purpose and content is crucial in fulfilling the communicative functions of Chinese writing (see Crossley et al., 2016). As readers engage with the text, they draw on their cultural knowledge, shared assumptions, and prior experiences to make sense of the information presented. This participatory aspect of Chinese discourse creates an interactive and dynamic reading experience where readers construct meaning collaboratively with the writer. However, in typical English academic writing, which is text-based in rhetorical nature, explicit cohesive ties or devices are indispensable for achieving text coherence and being accepted by native-English writing readers (Bamberg, 1983; Halliday & Hasan, 2013; Lumley, 2002). In particular, cohesive links between adjacent sentences are necessary to make up a text coherently. Like glue, they bind together the elements of writing pieces, enabling readers to follow the train of thought and reduce the processing demand when retrieving ideas and information from texts. Without these cohesive ties, readers may struggle to understand how different parts of the text relate, resulting in a fragmented and confusing reading experience. Cohesion, therefore, serves as a bridge that connects ideas and maintains the logical progression of the text. Unlike in Chinese yilunwens, where the “formally loose” clause groups rely on readers’ tacit understanding of contextual links, English writing demands a more explicit and structured approach. Cohesive devices such as pronouns, conjunctions, and transitional phrases provide signposts that guide readers through the text, clarifying the relationships between ideas and ensuring a clear and cohesive narrative. In addition to fostering text coherence, the need for cohesive ties in English argumentative discourse is also driven by the requirement for logical and well-structured arguments (Feilke, 1996). In argumentative writing, the explicit presentation of ideas and their connections is essential for convincing and persuading readers to accept the writer’s viewpoint. Various cohesive devices, often referred to as discourse organizational marks, enable this mode of argumentative organization in English writing. These devices help writers signal the relationships between different parts of their arguments, making the coherence explicit and evident to readers. By providing a clear structure and logical flow, cohesive devices facilitate readers’ comprehension of the text, enhancing their ability to follow the author’s line of reasoning. Furthermore, cohesive ties in English academic writing cannot be replaced or substituted by contextual elements alone. While contextual understanding is valuable,

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

49

cohesive devices play a unique role in shaping the overall structure of the text and guiding readers through the writer’s intended progression of ideas. • Rhetorical means and strategies for argument construction The rhetorical features specific to Chinese argumentative writing are evident in argument construction, which will be detailed in the following sections. (1) Delaying or concealing the subpoint connected to the premise of an argument The specific-to-general or inductive rhetorical pattern is a prominent feature of the Chinese argumentative structure. This distinctive pattern involves strategically delaying or concealing the main subpoint in the argumentation, creating a sense of anticipation and gradually building towards the overarching conclusion. In Chinese argumentative composition, paragraphs that carry points of argumentation often adopt the specific-to-general approach (He, 2012). This method starts with specific supporting details considered representative or typical enough to support a reliable and accurate generalization. These details serve as the foundation upon which the broader argument is constructed. One way in which this specific-to-general pattern is manifested is through the use of factual evidence. Chinese writers often provide concrete examples, instances, or observations to substantiate their claims. These specific details are meant to illustrate the validity of the writer’s argument and provide a solid basis for the subsequent generalization. In addition to factual evidence, Chinese argumentative writing draws upon philosophical evidence from historical figures’ remarks or classical works. Quotations from renowned Chinese philosophers, historical figures, or literary classics are commonly used to lend credibility to the writer’s argument. These philosophical references are considered authoritative sources of wisdom and are often accepted as valid explanations for various phenomena in life, nature, and society. By following the specific-to-general or inductive rhetorical pattern, Chinese writers engage readers in a process of discovery and exploration. As readers encounter the specific supporting details, they are led to anticipate the eventual generalization that will tie these particulars together. This approach fosters a sense of engagement and involvement, as readers actively participate in unfolding the argument and draw their own conclusions from the evidence provided. In Chinese argumentative writing, the pieces of evidence presented are carefully chosen to be representative, but they may not necessarily be abundant in quantity. Chinese writers value the quality and relevance of evidence over sheer quantity. Readers are expected to draw upon their extensive understanding of relevant concepts and information, even if they are not explicitly mentioned, to connect the presented evidence with broader contexts. The specific selection of evidence contributes to the inductive scientific pattern, enhancing the persuasive and convincing nature of the argumentation (Ren & Wang, 2009). This pattern builds on the principle of reasoning from specific instances to form a general conclusion. By presenting carefully chosen pieces of typical evidence,

50

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

Chinese writers encourage readers to make inferences and uncover broader meanings that hold for similar evidence. This approach follows the because-therefore pattern (Cai, 2003, pp. 79–83), in which a sub-conclusion or supporting idea is derived from the inferential analysis of evidence in the preceding section. Chinese students skillfully navigate this pattern by drawing logical inferences from selected pieces of evidence, leading them to reach conclusions that apply to other related instances. A typical discourse sequence within the because-therefore pattern can be summarized as BECAUSE1−2 —THEREFORE (Kirkpatrick, 1995, p. 279). In this sequence, the four symbols of BECAUSE signify the accumulation of evidence and supporting details that serve as the foundation for the ultimate conclusion indicated by THEREFORE. Furthermore, the process of selecting new evidence is of great importance in Chinese argumentative writing. The term “new” in this context refers to fresh, unique, and not ordinary evidence. Chinese writers seek evidence that showcases their creative ideas for rhetorical design, demonstrating their ability to engage readers with novel and thought-provoking examples. By presenting new and compelling evidence, Chinese writers aim to captivate their readers and highlight the unique perspectives they bring to the topic. This creative approach to evidence selection adds depth and richness to the argumentation, making the writing more engaging and stimulating for the audience. In Chinese yilunwen writing, the progressive sequence of paragraph development is evident, as writers often refrain from advancing the main idea straightforwardly at the beginning of body paragraphs. Instead, they tend to present adequate arguments and supporting details beforehand, leading readers through a logical progression of ideas. One noticeable aspect of this approach is the arrangement of topic sentences. That is, topic sentences are often delayed until the middle or end of a paragraph, as observed in He’s (2012) and Liu and Huang’s (2021) studies. As demonstrated in the following excerpt of a Chinese yilunwen, the paragraph begins by introducing Helen Keller, a unique individual who shook the world with her bravery. Rather than stating the main idea directly, the paragraph develops the main idea through Helen Keller’s story, which serves as the foundation for the subsequent argument. This gradual approach to presenting the main idea is characteristic of the Chinese rhetorical style, which values a gradual unfolding of ideas and aims to engage readers by building anticipation and interest. In the 20th century, a unique individual shook the world with his brave way. She is Helen Keller-a woman who lives in the dark but brings light to mankind...Learning from Helen and daring to overcome disadvantages, we can get the courage to change destiny.

The preference for delaying topic sentences and explicitly stating the main idea aligns with the Chinese cultural norm of politeness, as being too direct or assertive may be seen as impolite or aggressive. Chinese writers often use this indirect pattern to convey their arguments with a sense of modesty and humility, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions and actively engage in the process of understanding the writer’s intent.

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

51

In contrast, most English argumentative essays show an inclination toward the general-to-specific (i.e., deductive) rhetorical pattern to develop a paragraph (Gosden, 1996; Kobayashi, 1984; Noor, 2001; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2001; Silva, 1993). This pattern involves starting a paragraph with a topic sentence that expresses the paragraph’s general idea or main point, followed by the presentation of supporting details that elaborate on and reinforce the main idea (Cai, 2003; Shi, 2002). While the specific-to-general pattern does exist in English argumentative writing, it is often employed with certain prerequisites. Specifically, inductive reasoning is appreciated in cases where ample factual evidence, including facts and data, has been gathered to support the arguments. The more substantial the concrete evidence, the more convincing the arguments can be when employing inductive reasoning. However, using this pattern requires careful consideration, as arguments that lack sufficient factual evidence may be criticized for being oversimplified and lacking depth (Fowler & Aaron, 2007). The specific-to-general pattern is beneficial in expository essays, where readers may withhold agreement with the writer’s general ideas until they are presented with supporting evidence. In this case, the gradual presentation of evidence allows readers to understand the logical progression of the argument and makes the overall essay more persuasive and coherent (Fowler & Aaron, 2007). However, the specificto-general pattern is not commonly used in short English argumentative articles, such as those found in exams like IELTS and TOEFL, due to the limited length of writing (Kirszner & Mandell, 1986). In these situations, writers often adopt a more direct approach, presenting the main idea upfront and providing supporting evidence concisely within the confines of the word limit. Moreover, when employing inductive reasoning in English argumentation, the emphasis is not necessarily on presenting entirely new and original evidence (Fowler & Aaron, 2007). Instead, the value of the evidence lies in its relevance and ability to support the paper’s claim effectively. This means that various forms of evidence, including scientific research, personal experiences, or historical incidents, can be utilized as long as they contribute to the logical development of the argument and strengthen the overall persuasiveness of the essay. (2) The parallel pattern of argumentation The parallel (pingxing—平行) organization recommended for Chinese yilunwen writing, as described in the Chinese literacy textbook Gaozhong Yuwen Bixiu 4 (Chinese Literacy 4), involves presenting arguments that proceed from different perspectives, all of which are in parallel relation to a central point (People’s Education Press, Course and Textbook Institute, Course and Textbook for Middle/High School Literacy Research and Development Center, Peking University, & Literacy Education Institute, 2006). This mode can be called transverse or hengxiang (横向) argumentation, which was interpreted as follows: Around a central point, arguments proceed in parallel ways from different perspectives, which are in parallel relations with each other (p. 71).

52

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

In this hengxiang (横向) argumentation, the writer places multiple supporting points (fen lundian) around the central idea, giving them equal weight and significance. The juxtaposition of coordinated constituents in hengxiang argumentation aims to enhance the persuasiveness of the writer’s arguments by providing broad coverage of perspectives on the topic. It is noteworthy that there is no strict requirement for a specific order in which the supporting points should be organized. This flexibility allows writers to present their arguments in a manner that best suits their intended message and audience. The organization of arguments in hengxiang argumentation is akin to the coordinated pattern frequently found in Chinese discourse, as observed in Liu’s study (1999). In this pattern, the macro-structure of the discourse is organized around a central topic, and the adjacent ideas or cases bear no explicit hierarchical relation to one another. This arrangement reflects a style of presenting ideas without strict linear progression, promoting a holistic and encompassing approach to the topic. The hengxiang argumentation in Chinese yilunwen writing serves multiple purposes. Firstly, it allows writers to explore various perspectives and angles on the central idea, offering a well-rounded and comprehensive view of the argument. Secondly, this mode of organization enables writers to convey that each supporting point is equally important and contributes significantly to the overall argument. This inclusive and democratic approach to presenting arguments encourages readers to consider multiple viewpoints and make informed judgments based on the strength of each sub-argument. However, English argumentative essay writing emphasizes the logical order of arguments to support a thesis. In some writing textbooks, the supporting points are advised to be ranked or sequenced according to their order of importance (Liu, 2005). One common approach suggested in writing textbooks is to organize or sequence supporting points based on their order of importance (Liu, 2005). The most critical or persuasive support idea is often recommended to be placed strategically in the essay. For instance, it could be positioned at the end of a paragraph or as the final supporting paragraph in the entire essay. This practice follows the principle of “saving the best till last,” which aims to highlight the importance and strength of the critical argument (Langan, 2007, p. 78). By presenting the most compelling point as the final supporting argument, writers create a strong impression on readers, leaving them with a lasting and persuasive impression. On the other hand, some writing textbooks (Mayberry, 2002) advocate placing the most significant argument at the beginning of the essay. This strategy is employed to capture readers’ attention and establish credibility immediately. By presenting the most compelling argument early on, the writer aims to engage readers from the outset and elicit their agreement or interest. This early hook can set the tone for the rest of the essay and keep readers engaged. The strategic arrangement of supporting points in English argumentative essays helps writers construct a cohesive and logical flow of ideas. Each supporting point builds upon the previous one, leading readers through a coherent and persuasive

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

53

progression of arguments. By carefully organizing their arguments, writers can effectively guide readers toward the thesis statement and create a compelling case that supports their main claim. (3) Exemplification with classical or antique sources In both English and Chinese argumentative essay writing, exemplification is vital because it demonstrates the validity of the writer’s claim as a way of presenting evidence (Fowler & Aaron, 2007). Some sorts of exemplification work merely in the Chinese mode, among which is the reference to classical Chinese, including historical remarks, anecdotes, allegories, and events. The evidence provided by these forms of exemplification is considered to contain the wisdom testified to by hard facts and long spans of time. By comparing English argumentative essays written by U.S. college students and Taiwanese college students, Wu and Rubin’s study (2000) indicated that Taiwanese students were inclined to use classical proverbs, while few such fixed patterns emerged in the English essays of U.S. students. Fang (2005) elaborated that the authority of allegories makes evidence more adequate and claims more trustworthy from the viewpoint of Chinese ESL writers. In a similar vein, Kargren assumed that using quotation and allusion in Chinese writing is praised as “the height of culture” or “the mark of good breeding” (as cited in Tsao, 1990). Resorting to history as evidence shows Chinese writers’ great respect for history and the belief that the ancients’ experience is filled with wisdom. In Chinese culture, it is widely acknowledged that the present is understood with reference to the past or historical experience, which can be generalized by a set phrase—Jiangu Zhijin (鉴古 知今). Most Chinese writing instruction manuals encourage the extensive and tactful use of quotes from famous people or historical accounts as philosophic evidence (daoli lunju or道理论据) in yilunwen writing, which is thought to strengthen claims and enliven the text with literary elegance (wencai or 文采). Chinese students are accustomed to quoting famous sayings to back up their arguments. Günthner (1991) explained the rationale underlying this rhetorical habit as “the argumentative force of the assertion could be substantiated by the reference to wisdom which the whole community considers to be valid” (p. 412). The primary sources of quotes include maxims or epigrams derived from Chinese classics and Chinese historical figures’ remarks or anecdotes. By the standard of Chinese literacy, the essays, with broad reference to various sources of classical works, are generally appreciated as products replete with literal elegance and implications. Widely quoting or citing is a rhetorical practice advocated by the conventions of Chinese writing. In Chinese writing training, students are generally encouraged to light up their writing with historical wisdom because, in so doing, they not only make their arguments convincing but bring forth spiritual enjoyment through the readers’ reading experience. That is why they are fond of quoting delicate expressions to embellish their Chinese essays. (4) The moral or philosophical implication in the conclusion

54

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

In the conclusion of Chinese yilunwen writing, a common way to end the argumentation is to draw moral or philosophical implications from the set of arguments made in the body of the essay. These implications mainly include what the argumentation implies, involves, and suggests. Two methods suggested by Chinese writing instructional manuals are conventionally applied to typical Chinese yilunwen writing to achieve specific rhetorical effects. One method of concluding an essay is to end with a moral exhortation (Dong, 2000; Liao & Chen, 2009; Liu & Furneaux, 2015; Matalene, 1985). Specifically, students are encouraged to conclude their Chinese essays with moral enlightenment and are inspired to “take a moral stand” and “learn a moral lesson” (Liao & Chen, 2009, p. 711), as exemplified by the concluding sentence of a Chinese yilunwen: It is our responsibility to address any challenge in our future lives in order to become qualified to serve our country. By employing moral exhortation, Chinese writers aim to leave a lasting impression on their readers, instilling a sense of responsibility, moral guidance, and cultural pride. The conclusion becomes a pivotal moment for the writer to reaffirm their main argument while leaving the readers with a sense of reflection and admiration for the rich cultural heritage of China. It aligns with the holistic approach of Chinese composition rhetoric. Chinese yilunwen essays are not merely academic exercises but also vehicles for imparting broader life lessons and cultural insights. The inclusion of moral teachings in the conclusion reinforces the educational aspect of the essay, aiming to cultivate the readers’ character and wisdom. The use of moral exhortations in the conclusion of Chinese yilunwens serves several rhetorical and cultural purposes. First and foremost, it reflects the Chinese cultural tradition of Confucianism, which places great emphasis on moral values, ethics, and social responsibility. By concluding with a moral appeal, the writer stresses the importance of upholding virtuous principles and fulfilling one’s duties to society and the nation. Furthermore, this conclusion method aims to inspire and motivate readers to take action based on the presented arguments. The writer seeks to evoke a sense of moral responsibility and duty in the readers, encouraging them to apply the insights from the essay to their own lives and actions. In this way, the conclusion becomes a call to action, urging readers to embody the moral values espoused in the essay. The use of moral exhortations also contributes to the persuasive power of the essay. By appealing to the reader’s sense of morality and shared cultural values, the writer seeks to establish a solid emotional connection with the audience. This emotional appeal can effectively influence the readers’ beliefs and attitudes, making them more receptive to the writer’s argument and viewpoints. The other method is weiwan hanxu (委婉含蓄), that is, ending with an indirect or reserved statement of conclusion, usually with philosophical meaning. The writer gives readers the responsibility of understanding what is intended in the essay (Kirkpatrick, 1995, 1997) to create a strong or lingering effect in the readers’ minds. This method engages readers intellectually and emotionally, encouraging them to actively participate in meaning making. The following ending sentences are a case in point: Don’t judge one thing by our likes and dislikes. Maybe you will also find that

2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing

55

setaria can also turn into beautiful flowers. The latter sentence furthers the meaning conveyed by the former through a figurative analogy, which may impress readers and provoke their thoughts. The pragmatic functions of the conclusion in Chinese yilunwen writing go beyond mere summarization of arguments. The conclusion acts as a bridge between the writer’s ideas and the readers’ understanding. It provides a sense of closure while leaving a lasting impact on readers’ minds. It may also inspire further contemplation and discussion, extending the essay’s influence beyond its written form. In contrast to the Chinese composition rhetoric, English argumentative essay writing places greater emphasis on a direct and concise summary of the arguments presented throughout the essay. This practice reflects the influence of Western rhetorical conventions, prioritizing clarity and explicitness in the communication of ideas. The English argumentative essay typically concludes with a well-crafted conclusion that restates the main thesis and summarizes the critical points of the argument. This concluding section serves to reaffirm the writer’s position and reinforce the overall message of the essay. The aim is to leave readers with a clear understanding of the writer’s intention and the persuasive force of the argument. The summary in an English argumentative essay is concise and to the point. It avoids the inclusion of moral or philosophical implications that are considered to divert attention from the central argument. Instead, it focuses on reinforcing the key ideas and logical progression of the essay, highlighting the most persuasive evidence and reasoning as appealed by Western rhetoric. By doing so, the conclusion strengthens the overall impact of the essay and ensures that the main message is effectively conveyed to the readers. • Specific rhetorical techniques for achieving specific discourse effects in argumentation (1) Employment of rhetorical questions and tags Chinese writers’ positions tend not to be stated directly but implied in rhetorical questions to avoid imposing their views on readers’ minds. Its target is to draw readers’ attention to the upcoming portions, which are organized sequentially to reveal what writers intend to mean or encourage their interpretation based on context information. Rhetorical interrogation might sometimes be in the form of particular negative integrative questions that elicit self-evident responses. The relevant questions are not raised for the readers’ responses; instead, they may serve as a signpost that guides their interest in the topic to be addressed in writing or a code for them to grasp the pragmatic meaning attached by writers. For instance, in the following excerpt of a highly rated yilunwen, two rhetorical questions were used (a general question and a tag question) to draw readers’ attention to the subsequent claim. The first question

56

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

captures the readers’ attention and prompts them to ponder the origins of human knowledge and civilization. The question implies a line of thought that the writer wishes to explore further, encouraging readers to consider the significance of pioneer work in early human achievements. The second question is designed to elicit an affirmative response that reinforces the writer’s viewpoint. In this case, it supports the idea that the ancestors themselves made these pioneering advancements, promoting a sense of pride and appreciation for their contributions. From the perspective of the development of human society, only by breaking through the shackles of old concepts, emancipating the mind, and having the courage to explore, can mankind be able to make continuous progress. In ancient times, who taught people to use fire, raise cattle, and grow rice? Not our ancestors themselves?Our ancestors endured great hardships in pioneer work, risked their lives to make the first fire, hunted and tamed the first bison, and cultivated the first bunch of rice ears, which enabled human beings to enter the barbaric age from the age of obscurity.

Overall, Chinese writers tend to present intriguing questions leading readers toward the intended claim or conclusion. As readers progress through the essay, they encounter arguments and evidence that gradually reveal the writer’s position on the topic. Nevertheless, rhetorical questions are seldom employed in English argumentative essay writing (Mayor, 2006), which seems more inclined to prefer the direct statement of writers’ reasoning and viewpoint. According to Hinkel (1997), direct and tag questions are disfavored in English argumentative essay writing for two reasons: (a) they are judged as “excessively personal and subjective,” which is incompatible with the conventions of Anglo-Saxon academic writing; and (b) they indicate the detachment from the proposition in formal discourse (p. 368). That is, English argumentative essays are often written in a formal and objective tone, particularly in academic settings; rhetorical questions, especially direct and tag questions, may be perceived as overly informal or conversational in such contexts. Chinese students’ habit of using interrogative sentences in yilunwens can possibly be transferred to their EFL argumentative essay writing. For instance, Mayor’s corpus study (2006) found that the instances of rhetorical questions in Chinese candidates’ IELTS scripts far exceed those of candidates from Greece. A similar finding was corroborated by other empirical studies (e.g., Hinkel, 1997; Thompson, 2001). (2) Exact repetition of sentence patterns In Chinese composition rhetoric, the repetition of discourse patterns is a strategy for emphasizing given messages, such as the writer’s emotions, attitudes, and beliefs, tightening the link between rhetorical constituents and strengthening the tone of discourse (Zhang et al., 2004). Such structural repetition facilitates the organization of arguments, achieving textual cohesion by making rational points merge into the emotional power of touching readers’ minds. Its function depends on the exact repetition of the pattern made up of lexical units more than twice, thus creating a sense that a given implied meaning is emphasized within a parallel structure. In the context of Chinese yilunwen writing, all the formally identical items contribute to the overall rhetorical effect. As such, they form an organic whole. This rhetorical structure is

2.3 Theories on Metacognition

57

approved as an effective and heart-touching technique, as exemplified by the paibi— 排比 structure. With this structure, the following excerpt displays a tactful organization of figurative sentences, not just vividly expressing a philosophical idea in life but creating a rhythm that touches the readers’ hearts in Chinese. Life is like a cup of fragrant coffee. It will be a bit bitter at first, but eventually sweet. Life is like a drifting boat. It will lose its way at first, but will always drift back to the coast. Life is like a tumbler. It will sway at first, but will not fall.

In the given example, the phrases “Life is like…” are repeated to establish a consistent pattern, drawing attention to the subsequent comparisons and creating a sense of unity within the text. Repetition of discourse patterns is typically discouraged in English argumentative essay writing, as it does not meet the demand for variety in syntactic structures in EAP (English for Academic Purposes) contexts. As specified by TOEFL iBT Independent Writing Rubrics, high-quality English argumentative essay writing should display syntactic variety. Such variety is associated with the degree of syntactic complexity and indicates learners’ ability to use the syntactic repertoire in English academic writing (see Lu, 2016). The rhetorical features demonstrating the differences between Chinese and English argumentative essay writing discussed above are summarized in Table 2.1. These rhetorical features are unique to or preferred by Chinese yilunwen writing, so they are useful to identify the instances of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer in English texts. They fall into three categories of rhetorical manifestation: general rhetorical patterns, rhetorical means and strategies for the construction of arguments, and specific rhetorical techniques for achieving discourse effects. All these rhetorical features are marked by the abbreviated form, with the initial letter capitalized. At the end of the given short terms, (a) and (b) were used to mark the specific subcategories of these features.

2.3 Theories on Metacognition Central to L2 writers’ agency is their self-consciousness related to intentional or regulatory actions involved in the L2 writing process (Bhowmik, 2016; Negretti, 2012). However, the execution of this agency does not mean that they are “selfconsciously aware of the objective and subjective conditions that they mediate or could consider in their writing” (Ryan, 2014, p. 62). In other words, this agency might not be converted to the self-direction leading to effective written production. It calls for a deeper exploration into how self-consciousness and self-regulation function in L2 writers’ agency. In this regard, a key component of the agency, namely metacognition, emerges as a central theme of this book. Metacognition can be broadly identified as a distinctive cognitive ability that learners need to understand, regulate, and evaluate their performance in acquiring and applying knowledge within a specific academic discipline or task domain. The

58

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

Table 2.1 The characteristic Chinese rhetorical features that demonstrate the difference between Chinese and English argumentative essay writing Category

Description of the rhetorical features typical to or preferred by Chinese yilunwen writing

General rhetorical patterns

Indirect statement of the central opinion—ISCO Turn for encompassing altered angles—TEAA Implicit semantic relations between discourse units—ISRDU (a) No explicit linguistic signal of the logical connection between adjacent clauses (b) Two or more clauses sharing the referent without overly mentioning it

Rhetorical means and strategies for argument Delaying or concealing the subpoint connected construction to the premise of an argument—DCSCPA (a) Delaying the main idea or central theme of the body paragraph (b) Concealing the main idea or central theme of the body paragraph Specific rhetorical techniques for achieving specific discourse effects in argumentation

The parallel pattern of argumentation—PPA Exemplification with classical or historical sources—ECHS (a) Quotations from classical remarks or works (b) Arguments by using historical figures’ anecdotes The moral or philosophical implication in the conclusion—MPIC (a) Conclusion with moral implication (b) Conclusion with the philosophical implication Employment of rhetorical questions and tags—ERQT (a) Questions raised before the asserted statement (b) Questions eliciting self-evident responses Exact repetition of sentence patterns—ERSP

role of metacognition in education is particularly significant, given its contribution to understanding the cognitive mechanisms that facilitate self-regulation in academic learning (Zimmerman, 1990). As highlighted by Devine et al. (1993), “The emergence of metacognition theory in the 1970s has further enhanced our understanding of complex cognitive phenomena, especially those involving awareness and control over cognitive activities” (p. 204). Regarding its psychological attributes, metacognition is conceived as “higherorder cognition about cognition” within the broader context of cognition itself (Veenman et al., 2006, p. 5). As such, it resides in the upper stratum of cognitive states or capacities indispensable for self-regulated language acquisition. Metacognition’s role is integral to the sustainable development of knowledge and skills, as

2.3 Theories on Metacognition

59

it empowers learners to take control of their learning journey, embodying individual agency in cognition. In second language acquisition (SLA) research, metacognition is a cognitive variable that warrants keen attention (Wenden, 2014). Its components and relationships, particularly for writing and interlingual transfer, are the focal points of numerous studies in this field. As SLA research suggests, metacognition serves as a bridge, connecting the knowledge of one’s cognitive processes and ability to regulate them to achieve successful language acquisition outcomes. Understanding metacognition allows for the design of more effective strategies for language instruction and skill development. By delving deeper into the roles and functions of metacognition in L2 writing and interlingual transfer, we can elucidate the nuanced ways these cognitive mechanisms contribute to the advancement of SLA research and pedagogy.

2.3.1 Notions of Metacognition In the 1970s, the American psychologist Flavell proposed the concept of metacognition. According to Flavell (1976, 1979), metacognition could be viewed as a person’s cognition about his cognitive phenomena. It is common to divide metacognition according to its declarative or procedural state operating in learners’ minds (Veenman et al., 2006). In line with this division, the notion of metacognition is inclusive of two distinguished content areas of knowledge: product knowledge—the declarative or factual knowledge existing in learners’ minds (i.e., metacognitive knowledge) and process knowledge—the procedural or strategic knowledge that actively interacts with cognitive processes underlying actual performance (Sitko, 2009, p. 94) (i.e., metacognitive skills). (1) Metacognitive knowledge Metacognitive knowledge represents a self-conscious state of mind. It was defined as “the knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them” (Flavell, 1976, p. 232). It’s like a high-level surveillance system within learners’ minds that oversees, monitors, and directs their thinking and learning. This concept is essential for successful learning and problem-solving tasks because it involves an individual’s ability to plan, monitor, and regulate their thinking processes. Anderson (2005) further conceptualized metacognition as “thinking about thinking” or “the ability to make your thinking visible… the ability to reflect on what you know and do and what you do not know and do not do” (p. 767). In this regard, metacognitive knowledge involves self-evaluation and self-regulation. It enables learners to consider their strengths and weaknesses and to adjust their approach accordingly. In a similar vein, Fox and Riconscente (2008), in their review of Piaget’s theoretical work, explained this notion as “awareness of and reflective knowledge regarding one’s own thoughts and thought processes” (p. 380). It highlights the importance of

60

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

being actively conscious of learners’ thought processes, not just what they know but also how they came to know it. Building upon the works of these scholars, metacognitive knowledge can be construed as learners’ cognitive understanding of the knowledge they have. It forms the basis for the operation of metacognition, working to “monitor the process of selection and application of operators by keeping track of the process toward the goal state” (van Gog et al., 2005, p. 237). It is worth mentioning that metacognitive knowledge is not just about understanding what we know but also why we know it and how we can use it. It equips learners with the tools to manage their cognitive resources more effectively, enhancing learning outcomes and problem-solving capabilities. Metacognitive knowledge functions with other components necessary for learners to complete tasks, including person, task, and strategy, to manage and appraise cognitive enterprises. Correspondingly, metacognitive knowledge is divided into the self-consciousness of the three types of knowledge base: the self-consciousness of their knowledge about the person (person-/self-knowledge), the self-consciousness of their knowledge about the task (task knowledge), and the self-consciousness of their knowledge about strategy (strategy knowledge). It is important to note that metacognitive knowledge exists in a dynamic state. Its measure should depend on the given tasks being performed just now. Based on its divided dimensions and dynamic features, metacognitive knowledge was considered as relating to “the process of using reflective thinking to develop an awareness of one’s own person, task, and strategy knowledge in a given context” (Ridley et al., 1992, p. 294). Person knowledge, also known as self-knowledge, is defined as “everything one could come to believe about oneself and others as learners or cognitive processors” (Wenden, 1987, p. 574). This knowledge encompasses both learners’ awareness of individual variations—their cognitive states as a learner and their awareness of universals of cognition—the permanent attributes of humans as learners. Person knowledge makes learners clear about their strengths and weaknesses in a certain area of knowledge and about the approach to making progress and obtaining maximum effects in knowledge acquisition through their learning skills (Wenden, 1987, pp. 575–576). Task knowledge refers to “what learners need to know about the tasks teachers set for them or the tasks they set for themselves to accomplish them successfully” (Wenden, 1991, p. 302). It includes knowledge about the nature of the tasks (e.g., task type, difficulty, and complexity), the purpose of these tasks (e.g., learning objectives, goals), and the demands of the tasks (e.g., resources needed, time constraints). Such knowledge is essential because it informs learners about what is expected of them and guides their approach toward task completion. By employing task knowledge, learners can evaluate the tasks’ effectiveness, assess their own performance, and reflect on the outcomes, fostering higher-order thinking skills and promoting more effective learning strategies. Strategy knowledge is the knowledge or perceptions concerning applying appropriate strategies that facilitate the completion of specific cognitive tasks (Wenden, 1987). It’s about knowing which strategies work best for different types of tasks and

2.3 Theories on Metacognition

61

under various circumstances. Moreover, it involves an ongoing process of evaluating the efficacy of chosen strategies and modifying or adjusting them based on task demands and learning outcomes. Strategy knowledge helps learners to determine whether the efforts they are investing in a task are yielding the anticipated results. It provides a framework for decision-making regarding learning behaviors. This knowledge contributes to the development of flexible and autonomous learners who can adapt their learning strategies based on task requirements and their own learning preferences. (2) Metacognitive skills Metacognitive skills, or regulatory skills, are vital components in managing learners’ cognitive processes, particularly during task performance. As articulated by Veenman et al. (2006), these skills focus on the real-time application of metacognition, regulating and orchestrating cognitive operations as they happen. Similarly, Flavell (1976) highlighted active monitoring, regulation, and orchestration as crucial elements of metacognitive skills. Leveraging metacognitive skills enables learners to direct and regulate their cognitive activities during a dynamic process, typically monitoring, evaluation, and control processes (Fox & Riconscente, 2008; Veenman et al., 2006). Monitoring refers to keeping track of their thoughts, strategies, and progress as they undertake a task. Evaluation involves assessing their performance, determining whether their current strategies are effective or whether they are getting closer to their goals. Control means adjusting their strategies or cognitive processes based on the results of their monitoring and evaluation. According to Brown (1978), these metacognitive thinking skills can be encapsulated in key actions. These include predicting the outcome of learning performance, which requires understanding the task at hand and estimating one’s ability to complete it. They also include planning ahead, a process that involves setting goals, choosing strategies, and determining the resources required. Efficiently apportioning cognitive resources is another critical metacognitive skill, allowing learners to prioritize tasks and allocate their mental energy accordingly. In essence, metacognitive skills represent a higher-order cognitive capability that enables learners to take an active role in their learning process. They serve as internal managers, directing and regulating their thinking and learning in response to the demands of the tasks we undertake. By cultivating these skills, learners can improve their learning effectiveness, become more self-directed, and achieve better outcomes in their learning pursuits. These skills also contribute to developing lifelong learners capable of adapting to new tasks and challenges with a flexible and autonomous learning approach. (3) Differing levels of metacognition Metacognition operates on various levels, reflecting different dimensions of learners’ cognitive awareness and regulation. Kuhn (2000) outlines two key facets that embody the essence of metacognition. One facet is “becoming aware of and reflective about their own thinking”; the other is becoming “able to monitor and manage the ways in which it is influenced by external sources” (p. 181). Building on this foundation,

62

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

Meijer et al. (2006) propose a taxonomy that differentiates metacognitive activities based on its level. On a lower level, metacognitive activities primarily involve selfreflection or self-knowledge of cognition. This corresponds to Kuhn’s first facet and represents the initial stage of metacognition, where individuals become aware of their cognitive operations. On a higher level, metacognition embodies an executive role, taking charge of strategizing and regulating the problem-solving process. This aligns with Kuhn’s second facet and symbolizes the active application of metacognitive knowledge to regulate and enhance cognitive operations. This taxonomy suggests a hierarchical structure within metacognition, with different levels of control and influence exerted at each level. Lower-level metacognition may involve essential awareness and understanding of one’s cognitive processes, while higher-level metacognition involves strategic planning, monitoring, and regulation. This hierarchical perspective helps differentiate metacognitive effects on the mental function, demonstrating how metacognition can be harnessed at various levels for effective learning and problem-solving.

2.3.2 Metacognition in Second Language Acquisition The focus of metacognition in SLA begins with Wenden’s study on language learning (1987). She described two central aspects of metacognition in SLA: “knowledge of cognition”—“thinking about the process of learning a second language” and “regulation of cognition” or “active cognitive involvement” (p. 573). These two aspects correspond with the metacognitive knowledge and skills identified in Flavell’s framework of metacognition (1978). In essence, they stand for the qualitative and executive facets of metacognition. The importance of metacognitive knowledge in language use lies in its influence on learners’ ability to comprehend and produce language. Metacognitive knowledge enables learners to grasp the nature and demands of a language task and assess their skills to complete it effectively. It forms the basis for strategic planning and control of their language learning process. Metacognitive skills exist in a reciprocal relationship with metacognitive knowledge, which can be understood as metacognitive knowledge in actual use, i.e., the conscious control of one’s own thought processes during tasks or activities (Stolarek, 1994; Wenden, 1987). The role of metacognition pervades the internal processes of language use. It guides how learners process and interpret linguistic information, make sense of new vocabulary and grammatical structures, and adjust their language production in response to different contexts. Given its critical role, metacognition has been widely discussed in psychology and language education. It merits increased attention in language learning and acquisition research, as understanding the role of metacognition can provide valuable insights for improving language teaching and learning strategies.

2.3 Theories on Metacognition

63

In second language education, Wenden (1987) claimed that metacognition provides an expanded view of cognitive activities in L2 learning. It belongs to a critical cognitive variable that accounts for learner differences in SLA and is responsible for the management and control of cognitive resources, especially in the dynamic process engaged by positive language learners. That is why metacognition can cause differences in L2 performance. Learners with strong metacognitive awareness are more strategic and perform better than those with weak metacognitive awareness, so metacognition helps distinguish between effective and ineffective L2 learners or skilled and less skilled L2 users (Harris et al., 2010). Specifically, metacognition motivates and guides learners’ self-directed and self-regulatory abilities in L2 learning processes (Wenden, 2014). It is an essential mental capacity that fosters the grasp of skills before their automaticity is achieved. In the model proposed by Bachman and Palmer (1996, 2010), metacognition is regarded as strategic competence in language use and other cognitive activities, constituting an essential component of communicative language ability. In particular, metacognition is one of the salient features exhibited by cognitive strategies that are planned, deliberate, and conscious (Garner, 1988). Taking metacognition into consideration, autonomous activities can be distinguished from strategical ones (Negretti, 2012); hence, the focus on metacognition is necessary as an approach to understanding how a language task is performed (Garner, 1987). It is noteworthy that the term can be substituted by another—metacognitive awareness, both of which refer to nearly the same thing (Zhang, 2001). In this book, the two terms will be used interchangeably. Besides being merely a general capacity, metacognition operates by being attached to cognitive domain-specific knowledge and cognitive activities (Veenman et al., 2006). The metacognition of L2 writing is the focus of interest in this book.

2.3.3 Metacognition in L2 Writing Writing activities are distinct mental activities interacting with writers’ cognitive attributes and involving dynamic processes initiated, controlled, and monitored by writers. These activities are affected by various cognitive factors, including the selfconsciousness and self-control of writers’ thinking, termed “metacognition” (Kirkland & Saunders, 1991). Metacognition works as a form of L2 writers’ agency, playing a significant role in the L2 writing process. Graham and Harris (1997) contended that skilled writing “being an intentional, self-initiated, and self-contained activity” (p. 102) needs to be supported by high-level regulation. Similarly, Sitko (2009) viewed writing as “a complex process that must be regulated” (p. 99). The significance of metacognition in L2 writing has been confirmed and elaborated upon by numerous researchers in both fields of education and SLA (e.g., Flower & Hayes, 1981; Graham & Harris, 1997; Schoonen et al., 2003; Veenman et al., 2006). Hacker et al. (2009) put forward the idea that “writing is applied metacognition,” emphasizing

64

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

the indispensable role of goal-oriented metacognition in writing, in that the production of thoughts and meaning is what is meant by metacognitive operation. This idea was justified by his argument that “metacognitive monitoring and control are essential components of writing” (Hacker et al., 2009, p. 160). It is fair to say the influence of metacognitive dynamics pervades the entire writing experience and boosts the writing development of those who take the self-regulated approach (Negretti, 2012). The connection between metacognition and writing is important for learners’ development of writing competence, which is affected by the metacognitive awareness of their writing both as a cognitive resource inventory and a mental process. The high value of such metacognitive awareness in composition is indicated by Flower and Hayes’ view (1981) that the success of writing largely depends on conscious control over rhetorical knowledge and the composing processes effectively orchestrating and organizing various mental activities to realize writing goals. Likewise, Negretti (2012) noted that metacognition informs L2 writers about “how to adapt their strategies to achieve certain rhetorical purposes and their ability to monitor and evaluate the successfulness of their texts” (p. 146). Metacognition marks a distinctive feature of good L2 writers. As Raphael et al. (1989) stated, “It is hard to imagine skilled writers who are not actively engaged in applying their knowledge of the writing process, text structures, purposes, audiences, and so forth as they regulate their use of strategies throughout the writing process” (p. 347). The centrality of metacognitive awareness to successful L2 writing was emphasized by Ruan (2013), who linked it to the efficiency of cognitive processes involved in task completion. Essentially, L2 writers with higher levels of metacognitive awareness tend to perform better in writing tasks as they can strategically utilize their knowledge about writing strategies, text structures, and language conventions and actively monitor, evaluate, and regulate their writing process. According to Schraw and Moshman (1995), the rationale behind using metacognition as a distinguishing factor for writing skills lies in its capacity to enable learners to identify issues in their text and make appropriate modifications. Teng, Qin, and Wang’s study (2021) shows that metacognition, which is linked to self-regulated learning of writing, empowers learners to critically review their work, identify areas for improvement, and implement revisions effectively. This process of self-monitoring, self-evaluating, and self-correcting not only improves the quality of their written work but also strengthens their metacognitive skills, leading to the enhancement of their writing abilities over time. The importance of ongoing metacognition in writing lies in the nature of the writing activities themselves. As indicated by Hayes’ cognitive model of writing, text generation is, in essence, a problem-solving process in goal-oriented writing (Hayes, 1996). In this way, it calls for a cognitive force to maintain the right direction and smooth progression toward writing goals. In this sense, metacognition empowers a writer (Anderson, 2007, p. 41). As a higher-order cognitive process, it is responsible for managing, controlling, and evaluating the cognitive activities involved in L2 writing. Moreover, it aids in the writer’s decision-making process, helping them determine what to write, how to express their ideas, and when to revise their work. As writers become more aware of their writing process, they can make more informed

2.3 Theories on Metacognition

65

and effective decisions, leading to improved writing performance and enhanced L2 writing skills. The three dimensions of metacognitive knowledge, i.e., person, task, and strategy dimensions, also apply to metacognitive knowledge in writing. In the person dimension, metacognitive knowledge in writing denotes writers’ knowledge or understanding of themselves involved in written communication. The main subcategories of this knowledge include the self-concept of writers, the perception of writing problems (Victori, 1999), and the personal voice (Devine et al., 1993). From the task dimension, metacognitive knowledge refers to knowledge about the nature of writing tasks and the understanding of task demands (Ruan, 2013, p. 81). This relates to the condition and constraint of writing tasks, i.e., to what extent writing tasks can be smoothly completed or what has to be done before a writing purpose is achieved. This metacognitive knowledge influences the following subaspects: what cognitive resources are available for supporting writing activities, how these resources have been exploited according to certain task situations, and how these resources can be given full play. These sub-aspects might take the form of writing knowledge, including content or world knowledge, rhetorical knowledge, or linguistic knowledge, all of which exist under the control and management of task-related metacognitive knowledge (Wenden, 1991). It’s important to mention that the task dimension also accounts for cross-language interference, a factor often encountered in second language (L2) writing. Ruan’s work in 2013 demonstrated that L2 writers often opt for a literal translation of their original ideas from their first language into English, reflecting an influence of the original linguistic framework on the task at hand. The strategy dimension of metacognitive knowledge refers to the extent to which writers are aware of the various strategies they utilize throughout their writing process. It represents a self-reflective approach, allowing writers to consciously implement and adapt certain strategies to better suit their creative intentions or the requirements of their writing tasks. Metacognitive knowledge is established from the individual’s unique writing experiences and can manifest in myriad ways. It essentially involves understanding one’s own cognitive processes during the act of writing. This self-understanding can be converted into practical metacognitive skills utilized during the writing process to efficiently manage various cognitive resources and activities involved in the craft. Metacognitive skills in writing can be considered as self-regulatory strategies that a writer employs to consciously control and orchestrate the multifaceted cognitive processes that go into writing. They can significantly affect the ongoing stages of writing, providing an active element of control and direction. Hence, they can also be termed metacognitive regulations in writing. These regulations are implemented through three key operations: anticipation, monitoring, and adjustment: 1) Anticipation. This operation reflects the transposition of the subject’s representations of the task and the context into goal orientations, defined with varying degrees of precision and intentionality. 2) Monitoring. This operation entails the comparison of the present state of advancement with respect to the task to an anticipated goal-state.

66

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition 3) Adjustment. This operation aims at reducing the discrepancy between the present state and the goal-state. If the feedback from the monitoring operation is negative (i.e., the goal-state is not attained, or progress in that direction is unsatisfactory), an adjustment is introduced in the production processes. (Allal, 1999, p. 149)

These operations represent the general metacognitive skills applied throughout the writing process. They represent an active, conscious control over one’s writing activity, enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall process. The successful implementation of these metacognitive skills can greatly improve the quality of the end product, making them a vital component of proficient writing. Also, metacognitive skills act on the specific cognitive activities of writing. For example, one crucial aspect of metacognitive skills in writing is monitoring strategy use. This involves maintaining a continuous awareness of the strategies currently in play during the writing process and assessing their effectiveness. By doing this, writers can recognize when a strategy is working well or might need adjustment or replacement, thus enabling a dynamic and responsive approach to their writing. Metacognitive skills also involve orchestrating multiple strategies (Anderson, 2007). This is not a simple matter of employing various strategies independently; instead, it requires a higher level of coordination, a sort of ‘strategy synergy.’ It’s about understanding how different strategies interact and how they can be harmoniously integrated to achieve the writer’s goals. This could involve, for instance, merging a structured planning approach with a more spontaneous, free-flowing writing style to balance creativity and coherence. In addition, metacognitive skills encompass problem-solving abilities (Sitko, 2009). Metacognitive problem-solving skills involve recognizing the problems of writing, identifying potential solutions, and implementing these solutions effectively. This involves a high degree of self-awareness and reflective thinking, enabling writers to navigate obstacles and continually improve their craft. Metacognitive skills executed in L2 writing overlap with the metacognitive strategies for L2 learning. Carson and Longhini’s study (2002) found the effects of metacognitive strategies upon the use of rhetorical knowledge in L2 writing, which are equivalent to metacognitive skills. Hence, I do not treat metacognitive skills and strategies as distinct mental activities in this book.

2.3.4 Metacognition and Interlingual Transfer Given the vital role of metacognition in knowledge transfer, there may be a relationship between metacognition and interlingual transfer. The role of metacognition has been valued in self-regulated learning and language activities as it facilitates the transfer of skills, knowledge, and strategies across contexts and situations (Azevedo, 2009; Schoonen et al., 1998; Schraw, 2009; van Gelderen et al., 2004; Yancey et al., 2014). It is usually performed under the condition that students are “confronted with new tasks that require the knowledge and skills they have not yet learned” (Pintrich, 2002, p. 222) and have to rely on their prior

2.3 Theories on Metacognition

67

knowledge to accomplish tasks, so metacognition reflects the (mis)match between what is mentally possessed and what is required in practice. In educational psychology, it has been recognized that knowledge transfer is stimulated and directed by metacognition, which optimizes the use of cognitive resources available within specific task situations. The success of transfer requires the conscious or reflective level of mental operation; to be specific, learners need to be conscious about the knowledge that is available to be transferred and keep monitoring their decision-making and problem-solving processes involved in a task through metacognition (Hartman, 2001; Wenden, 1998). Put differently, no careful observation and description of metacognition means overlooking the transfer of knowledge. According to the degree of cognitive involvement, Perkins and Salomon (1994) made a distinction between high-road transfer and low-road transfer. High-road transfer is knowledge transfer with mindfulness or a high degree of cognitive involvement. This transfer requires learners’ deliberate search for connections between the knowledge they acquired in a prior context and given task situations; it is characterized by learners’ metacognitive guidance and effort (Salomon & Perkins, 1989). Low-road transfer is associated with well-automatized patterns of response. This transfer occurs based on the similarity of the prior learning context and stimulus conditions in the transfer context. In this transfer, learners are reflexive to task situations without cognitive involvement or the use of metacognition (Perkins & Salomon, 1994; Salomon & Perkins, 1989). Hence, the difference in metacognition determines whether knowledge transfer is a strategic action that facilitates knowledge use in a different situation or a habitual pattern without conscious control. Given that metacognition functions as a cognitive factor affecting knowledge transfer, it can be argued that a relationship probably exists between metacognition and interlingual transfer—the transfer involving the interaction between L1 and L2 knowledge. Faerch and Kasper’s study (1987) noted that the activation of L1 knowledge involves different degrees of cognitive control. Further, knowledge transfer based on the L1 repertoire of knowledge may occur in the state of self-reflective consciousness or metacognitive awareness. In particular, learners’ metacognitive awareness is raised to reflect on the learning stored in their minds or previously used in their task experience (Phakiti, 2003). As such, it is beneficial for the transfer of relevant knowledge and for controlling the process in which the knowledge is employed. As argued by Rinnert et al. (2015), L2 learners take an active role in the agency to control their process of transfer across languages, suggesting the influence of learners’ self-consciousness or self-regulation on this transfer. Several scholars have maintained that interlingual transfer may be either conscious or automatic (James, 2009; Möhle & Raupach, 1989). Since consciousness serves as a necessary condition of metacognition, it seems reasonable that the concept of metacognition applies to the conceptualized understanding of interlingual transfer. As James (1996) elaborated, the knowledge of relationships between one’s mother tongue and foreign languages is as follows:

68

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition This knowledge can be held at the procedural level of performance (being manifest in MT interference on FL use) or at the cognitive level of intuition, in which case we talk of CrossLinguistic Intuition (XLI). Or knowledge can be held at the explicit (declarative) level of metacognition, which we shall call Cross-linguistic Awareness (XLA). (p. 139)

In the statement above, Cross-Linguistic Awareness represents the metacognitive awareness of foreign language performance, enabling learners to know when to transfer based on the judgment of transferability and decide whether to utilize or avoid the transfer. This heightened awareness allows learners to make informed decisions about when to use or prevent such transfers. It essentially involves a conscious evaluation of the potential benefits and drawbacks of transfer, fostering more effective and nuanced language learning and usage. The notion of metacognition offers a valuable lens through which to categorize and understand the phenomenon of interlingual transfer. It informs one’s mental condition when it occurs. In the discussion on the role of metacognition in language transfer, Kellerman (1995) posited that in some instances, transfer may occur without learners consciously recognizing the similarities between two languages or actively reflecting on the utilization of their first language (L1) resources. Kellerman termed this phenomenon as “transfer to nowhere” or “blind transfer.” He rendered it opposite to “transfer to somewhere” or “rational transfer,” the transfer overseen or guarded by meta-awareness. This kind of transfer involves active, conscious decision-making by the learner, who intentionally applies knowledge from their L1 to their second language learning process. The learner is aware of the similarities and differences between the two languages and makes strategic use of this understanding. In the case of “rational transfer,” the learner harnesses their metacognitive skills to assess the appropriateness of the transfer, monitoring and adjusting their language use as necessary. This conscious, deliberate transfer allows for more accurate and effective language use, as the learner can avoid potential errors arising from incompatible language structures and rules. In short, whether metacognition is present leads to the difference in the cognitive state in which interlingual transfer occurs. Normally, metacognition promotes learners’ understanding of knowledge transfer between different languages. From the viewpoint of James (2009), metacognitive reflection facilitates the acquisition of foreign languages since it makes the use of language knowledge/skills driven by learners’ self-consciousness. Similarly, Cohen (2014) stressed the importance of conscious awareness of thoughts in the L1, which was believed to foster autonomous L2 learning and use. By maintaining a conscious awareness of their L1, learners can effectively leverage their existing linguistic knowledge to facilitate L2 acquisition. Consciousness plays a crucial role in making access to knowledge from memory successful, as expected by learners during task performance. According to Ellis (2005), the ability to consciously organize existing knowledge in new ways is indispensable. This implies that active mental engagement, powered by consciousness, can significantly enhance the process of knowledge transfer. It allows learners to restructure, synthesize, and apply their pre-existing knowledge in novel contexts,

2.3 Theories on Metacognition

69

thereby fostering more profound understanding and more effective learning. Moreover, consciousness is considered a fundamental aspect of knowledge transfer across languages. This view is echoed by Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008), who proposed intentionality as a critical dimension of transfer, allowing for a division of transfer into intentional and unintentional forms across languages. Intentional transfer aligns with the concept of high-road transfer. It involves a conscious recognition by learners of the need or direction for knowledge transfer from one language to another. This type of transfer is characterized by an active, deliberate effort to apply knowledge or skills learned in one context (e.g., the native language) to a new context (e.g., a foreign language). Intentional transfer serves a specific purpose. It is driven by the learners’ conscious decision based on their assessment of the relevance and applicability of their existing knowledge to the new learning context (Gott et al., 1996). In contrast, unintentional transfer, analogous to low-road transfer, occurs without the learner’s conscious awareness. It typically takes place automatically and spontaneously during the use of a second language, with learners unconsciously applying patterns or rules from their first language. Because of its subconscious nature, unintentional transfer can sometimes result in errors or misconceptions due to the unexamined application of inappropriate or incompatible elements of the first language. The distinction between intentional and unintentional transfer underscores the role of consciousness in interlingual transfer. The conscious or deliberate application of knowledge can lead to more effective learning and language use, while unconscious, unintentional transfer may result in potential errors. This highlights the importance of developing learners’ metacognitive awareness to facilitate intentional transfer and mitigate the risks associated with unintentional transfer. Such metacognitive awareness is relevant to learners’ judgment or perception of the relationship between L1 and L2. According to Odlin (2001), learners’ judgment of the relationship between items in the native language and those in the target language gives rise to language transfer, and this judgment might be either conscious or unconscious. This view of transfer was echoed by Gabry´s-Barker’s observation (2006) of two cases of transfer in translation. One case is that an L1 might be consciously or deliberately activated when a similarity between two languages is perceived by learners and found to facilitate their L2 production. The other is that L1 switches occur automatically and cannot be explained verbally. Likewise, Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994) distinguished the cases of L1 switch according to whether the first language use is intentional or unintentional. Depending on the level of consciousness involved, the role of an L1 could be interpreted as a strategy for facilitating L2 production or as a habit or pattern of L1 use. According to Connor (2001), transfer can be construed as a strategy that compensates for limitations in L2 production abilities; it is “a problem-solving procedure utilizing L1 knowledge to solve a production or learning problem” (p. 120). Corder (1978, 1983) further regarded learners’ gap-filling from L1 resources as borrowing, an effective technique for promoting L2 use. It is worth noting that the role of an L1 is activated not only in structural transfer but also in discourse transfer. In L2 writing, it is common for learners to generate and organize their ideas and transform them into

70

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

language forms with the aid of L1 thinking. When applied as a production strategy, the transfer is characterized as an intended, planned, and goal-oriented act. Such strategic transfer depends on the active role of L2 learners, who are in a position to allocate and exploit their cognitive resources in language use, among which the prior knowledge developed in their L1 is probably the most accessible one. By contrast, the habit or pattern of L1 use is performed without the L2 learner’s intentional mental process. Such unconscious activation of L1 knowledge and skills is reflexive and automatic, as it is triggered off in response to a situation instead of being executed as a strategy. Without focal attention, learners might take the occurrence of interlingual transfer for granted. Under this circumstance, the knowledge transferred in habitual language use might not be transferable as a positive element for L2 production (Hirvela et al., 2016). Consequently, the transfer occurring in such an uncontrolled way probably leads to the undesired outcome of L2 performance. In this sense, if the occurrence of transfer is a deliberate process controlled by consciousness, it can be regarded as a kind of processing strategy targeting specific language goals (Harrington, 1987). In contrast, if transfer is an automatic process without the involvement of learners’ consciousness, it is the language or thought usage from habitual formation. The former case demonstrates that transfer is used for both its positive effect on L2 production and the prevention of its negative effects; however, the latter case implies that the problems caused by transfer might be ignored. As can be seen, the mode of interlingual transfer differs according to whether L2 learners exert conscious control of L2 production (see Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). Considering the cause of this difference, I argue that learners’ self-consciousness is a key factor worth considering in transfer studies. In nature, this factor can be signified by metacognition—the cognition and regulation of cognition. Because of its advanced order in mind, learners’ metacognition makes them aware of interlingual transfer and guides them to draw on L1 resources properly. The following three studies have provided evidence for the metacognitive effect on L1-to-L2 transfer in L2 learning. Aghaie and Zhang (2012) found that those students whose metacognitive awareness of reading skills was raised after strategy instruction would think in their L1 to understand L2 text structure and its characteristics. The finding reveals the positive role of metacognitive awareness in employing L1 strategies. Zhang’s study (2010) indicated that metacognitive knowledge promoted the transfer of knowledge and strategies from an L1 to an L2 in successful reading comprehension. Convinced of the value of metacognition in L2 writing, Donahue (2012) argued that students should develop their metacognitive awareness of L1 rhetorical features and readers’ expectations to construct L2 texts better. These studies suggest that specific metacognition empowers L1 learners to harness their L1 resources. Grounded on the theoretical considerations and empirical evidence above, it can be considered that the reason, manner, and outcome of interlingual transfer are linked to learners’ metacognition; and that owing to relevant metacognition, L1-to-L2 transfer becomes something that can be utilized.

2.4 Measures of Metacognition in L2 Writing

71

2.4 Measures of Metacognition in L2 Writing Metacognition in L2 writing is non-language-specific knowledge about L2 writing that enables L2 writers to efficiently direct cognitive resources across languages. Reviewing empirical studies helps clarify how this metacognition can be assessed and what has been found. Unlike the specific techniques that can be observed in writing behaviors, metacognition exists at an advanced level of cognition, and it can merely be assessed by writers’ self-report measures. Methodologically, there are various optional methods to collect self-reported data on metacognition in previous writing studies, including the questionnaire, interview, and stimulated recall. These measures are administered based on writers’ retrospection of writing activities. The questionnaire measure focuses on the metacognitive inventory of writing acquisition and metacognitive processes during writing. Teng (2016) adopted Schraw’s Metacognitive Awareness Instrument (MAI) to assess the general development of metacognition in Chinese EFL students’ acquisition of English writing skills. This instrument contained 52 items subsumed under the knowledge and regulation of writing cognition, covering eight scales, i.e., declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, conditional knowledge, planning, monitoring, evaluating, information management, and debugging strategies. This study confirmed that the factor of L2 writing proficiency affected the use of writing metacognitive strategies. With the aid of a retrospective questionnaire, Ong (2014) captured the metacognitive processes in L2 writing that were believed to affect writing proficiency, namely, generating new ideas, elaborating, organizing new ideas, thinking about essay structure, and thinking about language aspects of the task. This questionnaire was designed with items measuring the frequency of metacognitive processes on an 8-point Likert scale. Regarding the relationship between metacognition and the quality of L2 writing, the questionnaire data revealed that metacognitive processes favored the process and product of L2 writing. A semi-structured interview can be used to determine the taxonomy, aspect, and features of metacognition. For instance, Ruan (2013) investigated Chinese students’ metacognitive awareness of EFL writing through small-group interviews with 51 English-major students. The results indicated the constituency of students’ metacognitive awareness of person, task, and strategy variables in their English writing. Metacognitive awareness of the person variable consisted of writing efficiency, writing anxiety, and motivation for EFL writing. These factors were found to reflect the students’ perceptions of their writing competence and their thoughts and feelings as writers. Metacognitive awareness of task variables consisted of task purpose, task constraints, and cross-language task interference; metacognitive awareness of strategy variables consisted of planning, text generation, revising, and redrafting. The finding showed that the three types of metacognitive awareness had an interactional nature: The constituents of metacognitive awareness of different variables influenced each other. Negretti and McGrath (2018) also adopted interview data to reflect

72

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

the development of writing metacognition in genre pedagogy. This study administered interviews before and after metacognitive training around research writing. The participants’ self-report in interviews demonstrated the remarkable effect of metacognitive training on fostering their metacognitive knowledge about academic writing and facilitating the high-road transfer of prior genre knowledge across contexts. As regards stimulated recall (SR), it is an off-line introspective verbal report that can capture ongoing metacognitive skills during task processing. It has gained increasing popularity in second language research. Gass and Mackey (2000) regarded stimulated recall as “one subset of a range of introspective methods that represent a means of eliciting data about thought processes involved in carrying out a task or activity” (p. 1). Such thought processes are covert and cannot be observed from explicit cues. Stimulated recall is widely regarded as one of the most effective methods for externalizing metacognition (Artzt & Armour–Thomas, 1998; Lam, 2008; Polio & Friedman, 2017; Stolarek, 1994). As a qualitative method, it makes information regarding consciousness accessible that cannot be provided by the quantitative analysis of written products (Gass & Mackey, 2017; Hirose & Sasaki, 1994). Moreover, it usually assists in raising the level of participants’ conscious awareness of cognitive processing and helps researchers recognize their conscious processes (Lam, 2008). Its most common use is to examine strategic thoughts that reflect the conscious representation of knowledge and reasoning processes in language learning. In this respect, it has a clear advantage in “providing a window into the ‘black box’ of students’ minds and their inner strategic voices (if any)” and “enabling us to understand students’ awareness of what counts as strategic” (p. 218). In a few studies, stimulated recall has been considered more effective in eliciting metacognition data than other measures (Garner, 1988; Lam, 2008; Polio & Friedman, 2017). The reason why it particularly applies to the measurement of metacognition is that this method is adapted to the properties of rhetorical activities. Given that rhetoric is an intentional, purposeful, and strategic action (Bazerman, 1993; Jørgensen, 2007), it can be considered that rhetorical activities are monitored and regulated by metacognition and that they are retrospectively reportable. Moreover, the retrospective report in SRs is conducive to confirming whether decisionmaking in language tasks is deliberate or not because of its capacity to gain insights into cognitive status and processing. Compared to other verbal report procedures like think-aloud protocols, the stimulated recall method has been recognized as a superior technique for collecting data related to metacognition during the L2 writing process (Hu & Gao, 2017; Polio & Friedman, 2017; Uysal, 2008). One of the key advantages of this technique is its ability to overcome the challenge of reactivity. It manages to achieve this by not meddling with the cognitive processes involved in the language performance of the participants, hence maintaining the integrity of the data gathered. The existence or non-existence of metacognition in this context is primarily based on whether it can be intentionally reported in the recall, an aspect that underlines the subject’s active participation in this method.

2.4 Measures of Metacognition in L2 Writing

73

Furthermore, the stimulated recall method essentially serves as an exercise designed to increase consciousness or heighten awareness (e.g., Lapkin et al., 2002; Lindgren & Sullivan, 2003; Swain & Lapkin, 2002). It is designed to assist participants in bringing their subconscious cognitive processes to their conscious mind, thus facilitating their ability to notice and report on these processes. This element of consciousness-raising and notice-increasing sets it apart from other methods and validates its efficacy. Stimulated recall allows participants to retrospectively reflect on and articulate their thought processes, thereby investigating their metacognitive processes. It allows for exploring both the depth and breadth of metacognitive awareness, accommodating an extensive range of cognitive behaviors that may not be accessible during real-time tasks. Encouraging learners to reflect on their thought processes provides valuable insights into how they monitor and regulate their cognitive activity during L2 writing. The stimulus for recall provides support for the “recollection of cognitive processes so that they can be accurately recalled and verbalized” (Gass & Mackey, 2000, p. 5). Its sources include audiotapes, videotapes, and written products, which contain recordings of actions, behaviors, and decisions that are linked to the thinking behind language tasks. These stimuli serve as tangible, retrievable reminders of the thought process that the participants engaged in during the language task. For instance, audiotapes or videotapes can reflect the exact moments of decision-making and action-taking, preserving the real-time thought processes for later analysis. They can capture both verbal and non-verbal cues that may reveal the participants’ cognitive processes. Non-verbal cues might include pauses, hesitations, facial expressions, and gestures, offering additional insights into the learner’s cognitive state and decision-making processes. On the other hand, written products offer a unique glimpse into the ‘end product’ of these cognitive processes. They can include essays, translations, or any other form of written output the participants produce. By analyzing these written artifacts, researchers can trace back the steps the participants might have taken in their cognitive journey, thereby gaining a deeper understanding of the metacognitive strategies employed. The tangible nature of these products makes them particularly useful for stimulated recall as they provide a permanent record of the task performance. These sources, acting as memory triggers, prompt the participants to delve into their memory and recount the thought processes they experienced during the task. They support the recollection of subconscious decision-making pathways, the emotional state during task execution, and the reasoning behind certain actions. This makes them an essential tool for understanding the intricate dynamics of cognitive processes during language tasks, providing invaluable insights into learners’ metacognitive awareness and strategies.

74

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

2.5 Remarks on the Previous Relevant Studies The literature review suggests that few studies have systematically explored this transfer in L2 writing. Most relevant studies identified this transfer more as a possible factor in L2 text construction than as a mental activity undertaken by bilingual or multilingual writers. However, the issue of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer is vital for EFL or ESL students, who have to manage and harness their rhetorical resources in two languages to enhance their L2 writing development. A question yet to be resolved is how the L1 logical or organizational pattern can be approximately transferred to L2 writing. Hence, there is a need to explore L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer as an important topic for a pragmatic purpose. Inadequate attention has been paid to the agency in L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in L2 writing, which is the key to understanding the mechanism of this transfer from a cognitive perspective. This transfer is a highly complex cognitive phenomenon, interacting with various cognitive factors (see Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). Its mechanism cannot be uncovered without concern for its cognitive attributes. Although the outcome of transfer can be inferred from textual evidence, it cannot be known convincingly in what mental situation transfer occurs, what relation it holds with other concurrent cognitive activities, or even what is transferred in writers’ minds by merely analyzing completed texts with no consideration of ongoing cognitive processes. Matsuda (1997) argued for the necessity of consulting students to understand their intentions in organizing the text. DePalma and Ringer (2011) also pointed out that measuring transfer only through textual analyses without inquiring into writers’ minds limits the validity of results in transfer studies. Textual analyses indeed provide researchers with evidence about the extent to which the meaning conveyed by conventional language forms is organized coherently. This kind of evidence, mainly concerning textual features, is insufficient to reveal how organizational patterns are formed in discourse processing. Moreover, while it is granted that textual evidence supports the discovery of transfer, the criterion for determining such evidence was not well justified and expounded in these studies, which weakened the claims about the detection of transfer. Therefore, it is vital to get a comprehensive picture of transfer in terms of both its textual manifestation and cognitive process from the perspective of L2 writers’ agency. In this respect, Rinnert et al.’s study (2015) sets an example by highlighting the core role of L2 writers’ agency, which supports a dynamic view of rhetorical transfer. Although much has been discussed about the relationship between language development and metacognition, virtually no study has concerned itself with metacognition blended with specific cognitive activities undertaken during language tasks. This limitation may impede the inquiry of “agency-driven” interlingual transfer, in which metacognition might have a role to play. The probable relation between the transfer and relevant metacognition deserves the empirical effort to facilitate an understanding of how the transfer functions in L2 writing. Given that rhetorical transfer is either automatic or conscious, the issue of whether its process and outcome are affected

2.6 Summary

75

by the difference in the cognitive states of its occurrence deserves more in-depth exploration in transfer studies. Intertwined with deliberate L2 composing processes, L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer might benefit L2 written production as a strategic act. Its positive or “non-negative” role in L2 writing needs to be further explored. Most previous studies tended to ascertain the adverse effect of rhetorical transfer based on the contrastive analyses of cultural and linguistic differences between L2 and L1 writing. Despite the need to shift the focus toward understanding the positive aspects of rhetorical transfer, research in this area remains scant. The identification of positive transfer, and the conditions under which it occurs, have largely been neglected in favor of studying instances of negative transfer. The positive effects of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, such as how it might facilitate L2 writing processes or enhance the communicative efficacy of L2 writing, remain largely uncharted territory. The mechanisms, extent, and implications of positive rhetorical transfer are thus areas ripe for further exploration. In addition, understanding the strategic application of rhetorical transfer, how L2 writers consciously or subconsciously leverage their L1 rhetorical knowledge to aid in L2 written production, could yield valuable insights into the metacognitive aspects of L2 writing. Such an exploration could pave the way for new pedagogical strategies that focus on harnessing positive transfer while minimizing the risk of negative transfer, thereby enhancing overall L2 writing performance.

2.6 Summary As indicated in Chap. 1, L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer is a worthy topic that has not been fully explored. It is necessary first to clarify the notion of this transfer. This chapter considers it as a complex mental activity in L2 writing. It explains “what to transfer” (L1 rhetorical knowledge) and “how to transfer” (reusing or reshaping previous knowledge in a new context) in detail. Then it reviews the contrastive rhetoric paradigm and finds it useful for rhetorical transfer studies. Exploiting this paradigm, it generalizes characteristic features of composition rhetoric in Chinese yilunwens on the levels of general rhetorical patterns, rhetorical means and strategies for argument construction, and specific rhetorical techniques for achieving discourse effects, which support the recognition of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in L2 writing products. The review of the relevant studies in this chapter suggests that the dimensions of the text, L2 writer, and target readers should be considered to find sufficient evidence for this transfer, so these dimensions are incorporated into the theoretical framework to be presented in Chap. 3. This review also demonstrates the importance of combining within-subject and between-subject designs to collect both product and process data.

76

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

Moreover, this chapter suggests that the theories of metacognition provide a useful lens through which to view the role of L2 writers’ agency in L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer from the perspective of metacognition. As indicated by these theories, metacognition in writing empowers L2 writers to manipulate their existing writing abilities (Whalen & Ménard, 1995), exercise deliberate control over the cognitive processes of L2 writing, and evaluate the appropriateness of particular text structures in their L2 writing (Ferrari et al., 1998); such metacognition also means a high degree of cognitive control over interlingual transfer in L2 writing, which entails the role of L2 learners’ agency in operating the use of L1 resources and achieving strategic transfer.

Notes 1. At the end of the nineteenth century, there were a few attempts that drew reference to rhetorical theories in composition instructions. These attempts, however, did not lead to the widespread practice of combining writing instructions and rhetorical theories. 2. It is noteworthy that L2 language proficiency is not incorporated as an L2-writer-related factor associated with L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in this book. The reason is that this association is inevitable in that the occurrence of this transfer is premised on L2 writers’ L2 linguistic knowledge.

References Aghaie, R., & Zhang, L. J. (2012). Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies on Iranian EFL students’ reading performance and strategy transfer. Instructional Science, 40(6), 1063–1081. Al-Ali, M. N. (2004). How to get yourself on the door of a job: A cross-cultural contrastive study of Arabic and English job application letters. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(1), 1–23. Al-Haq, F. A. A., & Ahmed, A. S. (1994). Discourse problems in argumentative writing. World Englishes, 13(3), 307–323. Allal, L. (1999). Metacognitive regulation in the classroom of writing. In A. Camps, M. Millan, & A. C. Mundo (Eds.), Metalinguistic activity in learning to write (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam University Press. Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 strategy research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 757–772). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Anderson, N. J. (2007). Metacognition in writing: Facilitating writer awareness. In A. Stubbs (Ed.), Rhetoric, uncertainty, and the university as text: How students construct the academic experience. (pp. 19–43). Canadian Plains Research Center. Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1998). Mathematics teaching as problem solving: A framework for studying teacher metacognition underlying instructional practice in mathematics. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 5–25. Azar, M. (1999). Argumentative text as rhetorical structure: An application of rhetorical structure theory. Argumentation, 13(1), 97–114.

References

77

Azevedo, R. (2009). Theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and instructional issues in research on metacognition and self-regulated learning: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 87–95. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language jesting in practice. Oxford University Press. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press. Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2016). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Bamberg, B. (1983). What makes a text coherent? College Composition and Communication, 34(4), 417–429. Bazerman, C. (1993). A contention over the term Rhetoric. In T. Enos & S. C. Brown (Eds.), Defining the new rhetorics (pp. 3–7). Sage Publications. Bhowmik, S. K. (2016). Agency, identity and ideology in L2 writing: Insights from the EAP classroom. Writing & Pedagogy, 8(2), 275–308. Blair, A. J. (1992). Everyday argumentation from an informal logic perspective. In W. L. Benoit, Hample, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 357–378). Foris Publication. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (vol. 1, pp.77–165). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, T. A. (2013). Multicompetence and second language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(2), 219–235. Burke, V. M. (1965). The composition-rhetoric pyramid. College Composition and Communication, 16(1), 3–7. Cahill, D. (2003). The myth of the “turn” in contrastive rhetoric. Written Communication, 20(2), 170–194. Cai, J. G. (2003). A Contrastive study of writing & rhetoric in English and Chinese. Fudan University Press. Carrell, P. L. (1984). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18(3), 441–469. Carson, J. E., & Kuehn, P. A. (1992). Evidence of transfer and loss in developing second language writers. Language Learning, 42(2), 157–179. Carson, J. G., & Longhini, A. (2002). Focusing on learning styles and strategies: A diary study in an immersion setting. Language Learning, 52(2), 401–438. Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing. Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. University of Michigan Press. Cho, M. (2018). Task complexity and modality: Exploring learners’ experience from the perspective of flow. The Modern Language Journal, 102(1), 162–180. Clarks, I. L. (2012). Concepts in composition: Theory and practice in the teaching of writing (2nd ed.). Routledge. Cohen, A. D. (1984). Studying second language learning strategies: How do we get the information? Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 101–112. Cohen, A. D. (2014). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd ed.). Routledge. Cook, V. (2016). Where is the native speaker now? TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 186–189. Connor, U. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 493–510. Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 291–304. Connor, U. (2008). Mapping multidimensional aspects of research: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 299–316). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

78

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

Corder, S. P. (1978). Language-learner language. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning: Issues and approaches (pp. 71–93). Newbury House. Corder, S. P. (1983). A role for the mother tongue. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 85–97). Newbury House Publishers. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The development and use of cohesive devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 1–16. Cummins, J. (1989). Language and literacy acquisition in bilingual contexts. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 10(1), 17–31. Deane, P., Odendahl, N., Quinlan, T., Fowles, M., Welsh, C., & Bivens-Tatum, J. (2008). Cognitive models of writing: Writing proficiency as a complex integrated skill. ETS. Retrieved from http:// www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/report/2008/htxo Deng, L., Chen, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Developing Chinese EFL learners’ generic competence: A genre-based and process-genre approach. Springer. DePalma, M. J., & Ringer, J. M. (2011). Toward a theory of adaptive transfer: Expanding disciplinary discussions of “transfer” in second-language writing and composition studies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 134–147. DePalma, M. J., & Ringer, J. M. (2013). Adaptive transfer, genre knowledge, and implications for research and pedagogy: A response. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(22), 465–470. Devine, J., Railey, K., & Boshoff, P. (1993). The implications of cognitive models in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2(3), 203–225. Donahue, C. (2012). Transfer, portability, generalization: (How) does composition expertise “carry”? In K. Ritter & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Exploring composition studies: Sites, issues and perspectives (pp. 145–166). University Press of Colorado. Dong, X. Y. (2000). Xiandai Xiezuo Jiaocheng (现代写作教程). Higher Education Press. Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35(2), 155–171. Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(02), 305–352. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1987). Perspectives on language transfer. Applied Linguistics, 8, 111–136. Fang, L. Q. (2005). A study of rhetoric patterns in ESL writings. Journal of Foreign Languages, 1(1), 48–52. Feilke, H. (1996). From syntactical to textual strategies of argumentation. Argumentation, 10(2), 197–212. Feldman, U., & Stemmer, B. (1987). Thin_aloud a_retrospective da_in C-te_taking: Diffe_ languages_diff_learners_sa_approaches? In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 251–266). Multilingual Matters. Ferrari, M., Bouffard, T., & Rainville, L. (1998). What makes a good writer? Differences in good and poor writers’ self-regulation of writing. Instructional Science, 26(6), 473–488. Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. (2013). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process, and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Lawrence Erlbaum. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, 41(1), 19–37. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31(1), 21–32. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.

References

79

Fogarty, D. J. (1959). Roots for a new rhetoric (Vol. 10). Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University. Fowler, H. R., & Aaron, J. E. (2007). The little, brown handbook (9th ed.). Peking University Press. Fox, E., & Riconscente, M. (2008). Metacognition and self-regulation in James, Piaget, and Vygotsky. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 373–389. Gabry´s-Barker, D. (2006). Language activation in the thinking processes of a multilingual language user. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(2), 105–124. Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A., & Gilmore, A. (2018). Tracking the real-time evolution of a writing event: Second language writers at different proficiency levels. Language Learning, 68, 469–506. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Ablex Publishing. Garner, R. (1988). Verbal-report data on cognitive and metacognitive strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 62–76). Academic Press. Gass, S. M. (1988). Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: The role of language transfer. In S. Flynn & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 384–403). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2017). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and l2 research (2nd ed.). Routledge. González, V., Chen, C. Y., & Sanchez, C. (2001). Cultural thinking and discourse organizational patterns influencing writing skills in a Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learner. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 627–652. Gosden, H. (1996). Verbal reports of Japanese novices’ research writing practices in English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(2), 109–128. Gott, S. P., Hall, E. P., Pokorny, R. A., Dibble, E., & Glaser, R. (1996). A naturalistic study of transfer: Adaptative expertise in technical domains. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction. Ablex Publishing Corp. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. Longman. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). Self-regulation and writing: Where do we go from here? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 102–114. Günthner, S. (1991). A language with taste’: Uses of proverbial sayings in intercultural communication. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 11(3), 399–418. Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 154–172). Routledge. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (2013). Cohesion in English. Routledge. Harding, L., & McNamara, T. F. (2018). Language assessment: The challenge of ELF. In J. Jenkins, M. J. Dewey, & W. Baker (Eds.), Routledge handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 570– 582) Harrington, M. (1987). Processing transfer: Language-specific processing strategies as a source of interlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8(04), 351–377. Harris, K. R., Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2010). Metacognition and strategies instruction in writing. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition strategy use, and instruction (pp. 226–256). The Gulford Press. Hartman, H. J. (2001). Developing students’ metacognitive knowledge and skills. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Erlbaum. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1106–1113.

80

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

He, W. (2012). Contrastive analysis and English Writing (英汉对比与英语写作). Peking University Press. Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 361–386. Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Routledge. Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 181–209. Hirose, K., & Sasaki, M. (1994). Explanatory variables for Japanese students’ expository writing in English: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 203–229. Hirvela, A., Hyland, K., & Manchón, R. (2016). Dimensions in L2 writing theory and research: Learning to write and writing to learn. In R, M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 45–63). De Gruyter. Holyoak, S., & Piper, A. (1997). Talking to second language writers: Using interview data to investigate contrastive rhetoric. Language Teaching Research, 1(2), 122–148. Hu, J., & Gao, X. (Andy). (2017). Self-regulated strategic writing for academic studies in an English-medium-instruction context. Language and Education, 32(1), 1–20. Hu, S. Z. (2008). Studies in English and Chinese rhetorics (英汉修辞跨文化研究). Qiangdao Press. Huang, J., & Foote, C. J. (2010). Grading between the lines: What really impacts professors’ holistic evaluation of ESL graduate student writing? Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(3), 219–233. Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC Journal, 21(1), 66–78. Hyland, K. (2004). Metadiscourse. Continuum. Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing (3rd ed.). Routledge. Hyland, K., & Anan, E. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of error: The effects of first language and experience. System, 34(4), 509–519. Iwashita, N., & Sekiguchi, S. (2009). Effects of learner background on the development of writing skills in Japanese as a second language. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 03.1– 03.20. James, C. (1996). A cross-linguistic approach to language awareness. Language Awareness, 5(3–4), 138–148. James, M. A. (2009). Far” transfer of learning outcomes from an ESL writing course: Can the gap be bridged? Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 69–84. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge. Jiang, Y. J., & Zhou, C. (2006). World Englishes and contrastive rhetoric. English Today, 22(02), 11–22. Jin, Y. E. (2017). Bridging theory and practice for L1 influence in L2 writing development in the expanding circle. Asian Englishes, 19(3), 273–282. Johns, A. M. (2011). The future of genre in L2 writing: Fundamental, but contested, instructional decisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 56–68. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. Jørgensen, C. (2007). The relevance of intention in argument evaluation. Argumentation, 21(2), 165–174. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16(1–2), 1–20. Kaplan, R. B. (1967). Contrastive rhetoric and the teaching of composition. TESOL Quarterly, 1, I0-16. Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 texts (pp. 9–22). Addison-Wesley. Kaplan, R. B. (2005). Contrastive rhetoric. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 375–393). Erlbaum. Kaplan, R. B., & Grabe, W. (2002). A modern history of written discourse analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 191–223.

References

81

Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 125–150. Kennedy, G. A. (1998). Comparative rhetoric: An historical and cross-cultural introduction. Oxford University Press. Khodabandeh, F., Jafarigohar, M., Soleimani, H., & Hemmati, F. (2013). Overall rhetorical structure of students’ English and Persian argumentative essay. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(4), 684–690. Kim, Y. H. (2009). An investigation into native and non-native teachers’ judgments of oral English performance: A mixed methods approach. Language Testing, 26(2), 187–217. Kinneavy, J. L., & Eskin, C. R. (2000). Kairos in Aristotle’s rhetoric. Written Communication, 17(3), 432–444. Kirkland, M. R., & Saunders, M. A. P. (1991). Maximizing student performance in summary writing: Managing cognitive load. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 105–121. Kirkpatrick, A. (1995). Chinese rhetoric: Methods of argument. Multilingua-Journal of CrossCultural and Interlanguage Communication, 14(3), 271–296. 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. (2017). How important is argument? Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 81–82. Kirszner, L. G., & Mandell, S. R. (1986). Patterns for college writing: A rhetorical reader and guide (3rd ed.). St. Martin’s. Klein, P. D., Haug, K. N., & Arcon, N. (2017). The effects of rhetorical and content subgoals on writing and learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(2), 291–308. Kobayashi, H. (1984). Rhetorical patterns in English and Japanese. TESOL Quarterly, 18(4), 737– 738. Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2012). Understanding L2 writing development from a multicompetence perspective: Dynamic repertoires of knowledge and text construction. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 Writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 101–134). Walter de Gruyter. Kock, C. (2009). Choice is not true or false: The domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation, 23(1), 61–80. Kroll, B. M. (1984). Writing for readers: Three perspectives on audience. College Composition and Communication, 35(2), 172–185. Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1–L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 69–100. Kubota, R. (2010). Cross-cultural perspective on writing: Contrastive rhetoric. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. Mckay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 265–289). Multilingual Matters. Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 7–27. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178–181. Kuusela, H., & Pallab, P. (2000). A comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbal report analysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 113(3), 387–404. Lally, C. G. (2000). First language influences in second language composition: The effect of prewriting. Foreign Language Annals, 33(4), 428–432. Lam, W. Y. (2008). Metacognitive strategy use: Accessing ESL learners’ inner voices via stimulated recall. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 207–223. Langan, J. (2007). College writing skills with readings (6th ed.). Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 485–507.

82

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013). Transfer of learning transformed. Language Learning, 63(s1), 107–129. Lauer, J. M. (1982). Writing as inquiry: Some questions for teachers. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 89–93. Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogues. TESOL Quaterly, 25(1), 123–143. Leki, I. (2003). Living through college literacy: Nursing in a second language. Written Communication, 20(1), 81–98. Liao, M. T., & Chen, C. H. (2009). Rhetorical strategies in Chinese and English: A comparison of L1 composition textbooks. Foreign Language Annals, 42(4), 695–720. Liebman, J. D. (1992). Toward a new contrastive rhetoric: Differences between Arabic and Japanese rhetorical instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(2), 141–165. Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. P. (2003). Stimulated recall as a trigger for increasing noticing and language awareness in the L2 writing classroom: A case study of two young female writers. Language Awareness, 12(3–4), 172–186. Liu, D., & Huang, J. (2021). Rhetoric construction of Chinese expository essays: Implications for EFL composition instruction. SAGE Open, 11(1), 1–10. Liu, L. (2005). Rhetorical education through writing instruction across cultures: A comparative analysis of select online instructional materials on argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(1), 1–18. Liu, L. J. (1999). The organizational patterns of English and Chinese texts: A contrastive study. Modern Foreign Languages, 4, 408–419. Liu, X., & Furneaux, C. (2015). Argument structures in Chinese university students’ argumentative writing: A contrastive study. English Text Construction, 8(1), 65–87. Liu, Y., & Du, Q. (2018). Intercultural rhetoric through a learner lens: American students’ perceptions of evidence use in Chinese yìlùnwén writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 1–11. Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: History, issues, and challenges for future research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 431–449. Lu, D. (2016). Putong Xiezuo Jiaocheng (普通写作教程) (5th ed.). Higher Education Press. Lubold, S. L., Forbes, S., & Steveson, I. (2016). The effect of topic selection on writing fluency among Japanese high school students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 231–241. Lumley, T. (2002). Assessment criteria in a large-scale writing test: What do they really mean to the evaluators? Language Testing, 19(3), 246–276. Magnifico, A. M. (2010). Writing for whom? Cognition, motivation, and a writer’s audience. Educational Psychologist, 45(3), 167–184. Majchrzak, O. (2018). Learner identity and learner beliefs in EFL writing. Springer. Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). On the temporal nature of planning in L1 and L2 composing. Language Learning, 57(4), 549–593. Marefat, F., & Heydari, M. (2016). Native and Iranian teachers’ perceptions and evaluation of Iranian students’ English essays. Assessing Writing, 27, 24–36. Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English, 47(8), 789–808. Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 45–60. Matsumoto, K. (1993). Verbal-report data and introspective methods in second language research: State of the art. RELC Journal, 24(1), 32–60. Mayberry, K. J. (2002). Everyday arguments: A guide to writing and reading effective arguments. Longman. Mayor, B. M. (2006). Dialogic and hortatory features in the writing of Chinese candidates for the IELTS test. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 104–121. Meijer, J., Veenman, M. V., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. (2006). Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: Development of a taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 209–237.

References

83

Miller, S. (1979). Rhetorical maturity: Definition and development. Paper presented at the 12th annual meeting of the Canadian council of teachers of English, Ottawa, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 176 292). Mohan, B. A., & Lo, W. A. Y. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 515–534. Möhle, D., & Raupach, M. (1989). Language transfer of procedural knowledge. In H.-W. Dechert, D. Möhle, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language production (pp. 195–216). Narr. Mulderig, G. (1999). Is there still a place for rhetorical history in composition studies? In M. Rosner., B. Boehm & D. Journet (Eds.), History, reflection, and narrative: The professionalization of composition, 1963–1983. (pp. 163–176). Ablex. Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: Longitudinal study of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation, evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29(2), 142–179. Negretti, R., & McGrath, L. (2018). Scaffolding genre knowledge and metacognition: Insights from an L2 doctoral research writing course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 12–31. Noor, R. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric in expository prose: Approaches and achievements. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 255–269. Odlin, T. (2001). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., & Perelman, C. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press. Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T., & Levy, C. M. (2002). The triple task technique for studying the process of writing. In T, Olive, R. T. Kellog & A. Piolat. (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 31–60). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Ong, J. (2014). How do planning time and task conditions affect metacognitive processes of L2 writers? Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 17–30. Ortega, L., & Carson, J. (2010). Multicompetence, social context, and L2 writing research praxis. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp. 48–71). Parlor Press. Oxford, R. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context (2nd ed.). Routledge. Pallotti, G. (2017). Assessing tasks: The case of interactional difficulty. Applied Linguistics, amx020. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx020 Park, D. B. (1982). The meanings of “Audience.” College English, 44(3), 247–257. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1994). Transfer of learning. In T. Husén & T. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopaedia of education (vol. 7, 2nd edn, pp. 6452–6457). Elsevier/ Pergamon. People’s Education Press, Course and Textbook Institute, Course and Textbook for middle/high school Literacy research and development center and Literacy education institute, Peking University, (2006). Gaozhong Yuwen Bixiu 4 – 高中语文必修4 (Chinese Literacy). Peoples Education Press. Pessoa, S., Mitchell, T. D., & Miller, R. T. (2017). Emergent arguments: A functional approach to analyzing student challenges with the argument genre. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 42–55. Péry-Woodley, M. P. (1990). Contrasting discourses: Contrastive analysis and a discourse approach to writing. Language Teaching, 23(03), 143–151. Petri´c, B., & Czárl, B. (2003). Validating a writing strategy questionnaire. System, 31(2), 187–215. Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26–56. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225. Polio, C., & Friedman, D. A. (2017). Understanding, evaluating, and conducting second language writing research. Taylor and Francis Inc.

84

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

Poulisse, N., & Bongaerts. (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 15, 35–57. Purves, A. (1988). Introduction. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 9–21). Sage Publications. Raphael, T. E., Englert, C. S., & Kirschner, B. W. (1989). Students’ metacognitive knowledge about writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(4), 343–379. Ren, S., & Wang, B. (2009). Daxue Xiezuo Xunlian –大学写作训练 (College Writing Training). Renmin University of China Press. Ridley, D. S., Schutz, P. A., Glanz, R. S., & Weinstein, C. E. (1992). Self-regulated learning: The interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal-setting. The Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 293–306. Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2001). Differing perceptions of EFL writing among readers in Japan. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 189–209. Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2009). Situated writing practices in foreign language settings: The role previous experience and instruction. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching and research (pp. 23–48). Multilingual Matters. Rinnert, C. & Kobayashi, H. (2016). Multicompetence and multilingual writing. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 365–386). De Gruyter. Rinnert, C., Kobayashi, H., & Katayama, A. (2015). Argumentation text construction by Japanese as a foreign language writer: A dynamic view of transfer. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 213–245. Roberts, F., & Cimasko, T. (2008). Evaluating ESL: Making sense of university professors’ responses to second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 125–143. Ruan, Z. (2013). Metacognitive awareness of EFL student writers in a Chinese ELT context. Language Awareness, 23(1–2), 76–91. Ryan, M. (2014). Reflexive writers: Re-thinking writing development and assessment in schools. Assessing Writing, 22, 60–74. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113–142. Sanders, T. J. M., & Schilperoord, J. (2006). Text structure as a window on the cognition of writing: How text analysis provides insights in writing products and writing processes. In C. A. Macarthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 386–402). The Gulford Press. Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259–291. Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing. Language Learning, 46(1), 137–168. Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 231–254. Schoonen, R., van Gelderen, A., Glopper, K. D., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53(1), 165–202. Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J., & Bossers, B. (1998). Metacognitive and language-specific knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension: An empirical study among Dutch students in grades 6, 8 and 10. Language Learning, 48(1), 71–106. Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 33–45. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. Scott, R. L. (1993). Rhetoric is epistemic: What difference does that make. In T. Enos & S. C. Brown (Eds.), Defining the new rhetoric (pp. 120–136). Sage Publications.

References

85

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, L. (2002). How Western-trained Chinese TESOL professionals publish in their home environment. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 625–634. Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction developments, issues and directions in ESL classroom. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657–677. Silva, T. (2005). On the philosophical bases of inquiry in second language writing: Metaphysics, inquiry paradigms, and the intellectual zeitgeist. In P. K. Mastuda & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing research: Perspective on the process of knowledge construction (pp. 3–16). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sitko, B. M. (2009). Knowing how to write: Metacognition and writing instruction. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 93– 116). Routledge. Smagorinsky, P. (2001). Rethinking protocol analysis from a cultural perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 233–245. Smit, D. W. (2004). The end of composition studies. Southern Illinois University Press. Stolarek, E. A. (1994). Prose modeling and metacognition: The effect of modeling on developing a metacognitive stance toward writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(2), 154–174. Sullivan, P., Zhang, Y., & Zheng, F. (2012). College writing in China and America: A modest and humble conversation, with writing samples. College Composition and Communication, 64(2), 306–331. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 285–304. Taft, M., Kacanas, D., Huen, W., & Chan, R. (2011). An empirical demonstration of contrastive rhetoric: Preference for rhetorical structure depends on one’s first language. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(4), 503–516. Tardy, C. M. (2005). It’s like a story”: Rhetorical knowledge development in advanced academic literacy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(4), 325–338. Tardy, C. M. (2017). The challenge of genre in the academic writing classroom: Implications for L2 writing teacher education. In J. Bitchener, N. Storch., & R. Wette. (Eds.) Teaching writing for academic purposes to multilingual students: Instructional approaches (pp. 69–83). Routledge. Teng, M. F. (2016). Immediate and delayed effects of embedded metacognitive instruction on Chinese EFL students’ English writing and regulation of cognition. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 289–302. Teng, M. F., Qin, C., & Wang, C. (2021). Validation of metacognitive academic writing strategies and the predictive effects on academic writing performance in a foreign language context. Metacognition Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09278-4 Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58–78. Trimble, L. (1985). English for science and technology: A discourse approach. Cambridge University Press. Tsao, F.-f. (1990). Linguistics and written discourse in particular languages: Contrastive studies: English and Chinese (Mandarin). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 99–117. Tyler, A., & Bro, J. (1993). Discourse processing effort and perceptions of comprehensibility in nonnative discourse: The effect of ordering and interpretive cues revisited. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(4), 505–522. Uysal, H. H. (2008). Tracing the culture behind writing: Rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 183–207.

86

2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition

Uysal, H. H. (2012). Argumentation across L1 and L2 writing: Exploring cultural influences and transfer issues. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 133–159. van Eemeren, F. H. (2015). In what sense do modern argumentation theories relate to Aristotle? The case of pragma-dialectics. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse: Fifty contributions to the development of pragma-dialectics (pp. 31– 51). Amsterdam: Springer. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C., Henkemans, A. S., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Springer. van Eemeren, F. H., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (2011). Argumentation. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd edn). Sage Publications. van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first-and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 19–30. van Gog, T., Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Witte, P. (2005). Uncovering the problem-solving process: Cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 237–244. van Weijen, D., van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2009). L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 235–250. Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27(4), 537–555. Wang, L. (2003). Switching to first language among writers with differing second-language proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 347–375. Wang, W., & He, Q. (2016). On the difference in spatiality and temporality in Chinese and English textual structures. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 48(5), 657–668. Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 225–246. Weigle, S. C. (2005). Second language writing expertise. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in second language teaching and learning (pp. 128–149). Palgrave Macillan. Wenden, A. L. (1987). Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learners. Language Learning, 37(4), 573–597. Wenden, A. L., et al. (1991). Metacognitive strategies in L2 writing: A case for task knowledge. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown roundtable on languages and linguistics 1991: Linguistics and language pedagogy-state of the art (pp. 302–322). Georgetown University Press. Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning1. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537. Wenden, A. L. (2014). Metacognitive knowledge in SLA: The neglected variable. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 44–64). Routledge. Whalen, K., & Ménard, N. (1995). L1 and L2 writers’ strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 45(3), 381–418. Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(1), 7–28. Wu, S. Y., & Rubin, D. L. (2000). Evaluating the impact of collectivism and individualism on argumentative writing by Chinese and North American college students. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(2), 148–178. Xing, M., Wang, J., & Spencer, K. (2008). Raising students’ awareness of cross-cultural contrastive rhetoric via an e-learning course. Language Learning and Technology, 12(2), 71–93. Yancey, K., Robertson, L., & Taczak, K. (2014). Writing across contexts: Transfer, composition, and sites of writing. University Press of Colorado.

References

87

Yang, C., Hu, G., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). Reactivity of concurrent verbal reporting in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24, 51–70. Yang, L., & Cahill, D. (2008). The rhetorical organization of Chinese and American students’ expository essays: A contrastive study. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 113–132. Yasuda, S. (2011). Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers’ genre awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 111–133. Yeung, L. (2019). Dialectics versus polemics in Chinese rhetoric: A study of indirection in Chinese and Chinese ESL argumentative writing as compared with English argumentative writing. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 8(1), 29–55. You, X. Y. (2005). Conflation of rhetorical traditions: The formation of modern Chinese writing instruction. Rhetoric Review, 24(2), 150–169. Young, R., & Goggin, M. D. (1993). Some issues in dating the birth of the New Rhetoric in departments of English: A contribution to a developing historiography. In T. Enos & S. C. Brown (Eds.), Defining the new rhetoric (pp. 22–43). Sage Publications. Zarefsky, D. (2014). Rhetorical perspectives on argumentation: Selected essays by David Zarefsky. Springer. Zarei, G. R., & Rahimi, A. (2014). Learning transfer in English for general academic purposes writing. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1–12. Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268–288. Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 320–353. Zhang, L. J. (2016). Reflections on the pedagogical imports of western practices for professionalizing ESL/EFL writing and writing-teacher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(3), 203–232. Zhang, W. (2004). The rhetorical patterns found in Chinese EFL student writers’ examination essays in English and the influence of these patterns on evaluator response. Tsinghua University Press. Zhang, X., Zhang, B. F., & Wang, B. H. (2004). 语言技能研究 (六) – Yuyan Jineng Yanjiu VI. Language Teaching in Middle School, 12, 51–55. Zhang, Y., & Elder, C. (2011). Judgments of oral proficiency by non-native and native English speaking teacher raters: Competing or complementary constructs? Language Testing, 28(1), 31–50. Zheng, J. (2011). Linguistic, ideological, and cultural issues in Chinese and English argumentative writings. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 73–80. Zheng, W. (1991). 篇章修辞学 – Pianzhang Xiuci Xue (Discourse Rhetoric). Xiamen University Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.

Chapter 3

Theoretical Framework for L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer Studies

Over the past six decades, L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer has been recognized as an important issue in the writing of EFL students in a foreign language learning environment. L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer can be defined as a mental activity involving the reuse or reshaping of L1 rhetorical knowledge, either explicitly shown in L2 texts or not. As a complex activity related to the agency of L2 writers, this transfer is not merely dependent on L2 writers’ cognition about the L2 writing context but relevant to their metacognition in L2 writing. This transfer might be monitored and regulated by the L2 writers themselves. Hence, it is necessary to examine its dynamic nature from both cognitive and metacognitive perspectives. According to the previous review of relevant literature, however, there is no framework for the systematic inquiry of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in L2 writing research yet. It simplifies this transfer as a textual phenomenon without taking a comprehensive and in-depth look at its complex picture. Given this limitation, this book has formulated a theoretical basis to pave the way for the research design of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer studies.

3.1 Overview of the Framework To build a well-grounded framework for L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer studies, this book draws on many academic sources, including the literature on composition rhetoric, writing transfer, knowledge transfer, contrastive/intercultural rhetoric, and metacognition relevant to knowledge transfer, as reviewed in Chap. 2. This theoretical framework centers on the process and outcome of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and forges a link between this transfer and metacognition in L2 writing. It addresses three aspects of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer: its distribution in L2 written products and composing processes, its associations with L2 writer-related factors, and its impact on L2 writing quality, as well as metacognition in relation to this transfer,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Wei, Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9_3

89

90

3 Theoretical Framework for L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer Studies

Target reader

Fig. 3.1 Framework of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer studies

including relevant metacognitive knowledge and skills. The following will provide more details about the framework by taking the aspects of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer in English argumentative essay writing as an example. The proposed framework (Fig. 3.1) captures the dimensions of the text, the L2 writer (transfer agency), and the target reader (the L2 essay evaluator), each of which corresponds to the dimensions of L2 writing discussed in Chap. 2. This multi-faceted approach provides a comprehensive perspective on the various aspects influencing and being influenced by the process of rhetorical transfer in L2 writing.

3.2 The Text Dimension The text dimension reflects the textual outcomes resulting from Chinese L1-toEnglish L2 rhetorical transfer in L2 writing. It encapsulates characteristic Chinese rhetorical features or other features that emerge from composing activities that involve Chinese rhetorical knowledge in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing. These features can be systematically classified based on their usage—for general rhetorical patterns, for constructing arguments via rhetorical means and strategies, or for achieving specific discourse effects through particular rhetorical techniques. From the perspective of the text dimension, the distribution and impact of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer can be indicated by the frequency of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features appearing in the text and the overall quality of discourse evident in English argumentative essay writing. The analysis of these typical L1 rhetorical features provides validation for the occurrence of L1-toL2 rhetorical transfer. However, while this analysis does shed some light on the phenomenon of rhetorical transfer, it is insufficient to reveal the dynamic cognitive nature of this transfer fully. Further, while the text dimension offers a snapshot of the

3.3 The L2-Writer Dimension

91

visible outcomes of rhetorical transfer, it doesn’t provide a comprehensive understanding of the underlying cognitive processes involved in this transfer. This includes how L2 writers consciously or subconsciously apply their L1 rhetorical knowledge during the L2 composing process and how this influences their textual output.

3.3 The L2-Writer Dimension The L2-writer dimension, centrally situated within the framework, focuses on the agent of transfer or the transferor, reflecting the underlying catalysts of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. This dimension aligns with the composing processes of L2 writers in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing, providing a mirror to the dynamic aspects of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. Specifically, this dimension emphasizes the cognitive processes associated with this transfer that are intrinsically interwoven with composing activities in English argumentative essay writing. It also explores two critical factors related to L2 writers—their perception of L2 writing difficulty and L2 writing proficiency—which are presumed to have significant roles in the transfer process. The first factor, L2 writers’ perception of writing difficulty, embodies the typical affective state of L2 writers during the writing process. It is important to note that this affective state can significantly influence the distribution of cognitive resources during the writing process. For instance, great perceived difficulty may lead to increased cognitive load, potentially influencing the writer’s ability to effectively apply their L1 rhetorical knowledge (Sasayama, 2016; van Weijen et al., 2009; Woodall, 2002). The second factor, L2 writing proficiency, is tied to the cognitive understanding of L2 writing or the application of L2 writing knowledge. This factor essentially determines the extent to which the L1 counterpart is activated during the writing process. A high level of L2 writing proficiency might imply less reliance on L1 rhetorical structures, whereas lower proficiency might lead to more extensive activation of L1 rhetorical knowledge. Besides, L1 writing proficiency, which is believed to have an interplay with L2 writing proficiency, is also incorporated in this dimension. The “L2 writer” dimension substantiates the connection between L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and the associated metacognition as well. This dimension acknowledges the pivotal role played by the transfer agency, manifested through metacognitive knowledge or skills in L2 writing. Metacognition, at its core, signifies an element of self-agency and is vital for L2 writers to effectively regulate and monitor their cognitive resources, composing processes, and textual products. This self-regulatory mechanism allows the L2 writer to strategically manage the application of their L1 rhetorical knowledge during the L2 writing process. Thus, the process of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer might not be merely incidental but could be a strategic or deliberate action significantly influenced by metacognition. Therefore, by shedding light on the metacognitive aspect of the transfer process, the “L2 writer” dimension contributes to a more nuanced understanding of L2 writers’ agentive roles in L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. It highlights

92

3 Theoretical Framework for L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer Studies

that such transfer is not a passive process but is an active and strategic one driven by the L2 writers’ metacognitive abilities. These metacognitive abilities facilitate the transfer of rhetorical structures from L1 to L2 and in shaping how these structures are applied during the L2 writing process. They allow L2 writers to consciously decide when and how to draw on their L1 rhetorical knowledge and to adjust these decisions based on the evolving needs of their L2 writing. In summary, the L2-writer dimension offers a nuanced understanding of the L2 writers’ roles in L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, emphasizing the transfer process as an active, strategic action guided by the L2 writers’ metacognition.

3.4 The Reader Dimension The reader dimension is connected with the evaluations made by proficient writing assessors or advanced target readers regarding the effect of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer on the overall quality of discourse in English argumentative essay writing. This dimension offers an insight into the outcome of this rhetorical transfer, which in tandem with the “text dimension,” presents a comprehensive view of the writing product. In particular, this outcome is closely related to the quality of L2 academic writing, which necessitates proficient L2 readers with academic competence for a fair evaluation. These readers should possess the capacity to appraise discursive and rhetorical features in terms of their impact on L2 writing, as corroborated by several empirical studies (Huang & Foote, 2010; Marefat & Heydari, 2016; Roberts & Cimasko, 2008; Shi, 2002). Assuming that a rhetorical feature is presented as an indicator of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, an accurate assessment of this feature will provide valuable insights into whether this transfer has a positive or negative impact on L2 writing. Additionally, such a reader dimension offers a reader-centric perspective that efficiently uncovers the effect of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer on the quality of L2 written discourse, which is critical in transfer studies. Therefore, understanding and harnessing the reader dimension is paramount in the framework for L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. Not only does it contribute to the evaluation of the end product, but it also facilitates an understanding of how the rhetorical features potentially influenced by L1, are perceived and assessed by target readers. The target readers’ perceptions, in turn, may offer new perspectives and methodologies in improving the effectiveness of L2 writing through the strategic application of L1 rhetorical knowledge. Furthermore, this dimension provides a foundation for gauging the perceived efficacy of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, allowing for the development of strategies to enhance L2 writing quality.

References

93

3.5 Summary The theoretical framework presented in this chapter incorporates textual, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives to explore the explicit features and dynamic nature of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. It caters to the need for a comprehensive view of this transfer in L2 writing, allowing for the overall investigation of this transfer in terms of its cause, process, and effect. The following chapters will report on the transfer studies drawing on this framework.

References Huang, J., & Foote, C. J. (2010). Grading between the lines: What really impacts professors’ holistic evaluation of ESL graduate student writing? Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(3), 219–233. Marefat, F., & Heydari, M. (2016). Native and Iranian teachers’ perceptions and evaluation of Iranian students’ English essays. Assessing Writing, 27, 24–36. Roberts, F., & Cimasko, T. (2008). Evaluating ESL: Making sense of university professors’ responses to second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 125–143. Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 231–254. Shi, L. (2002). How Western-trained Chinese TESOL professionals publish in their home environment. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 625–634. van Weijen, D., van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2009). L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 235–250. Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(1), 7–28.

Chapter 4

Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

As mentioned in Chap. 2, L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer is a complex mental activity intertwined with L2 composing processes, which are dominated by the agency of L2 writers. To explore the mechanism of this transfer, there is a need to incorporate textual, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives into research design. Corresponding with this need, this book builds a theoretical framework of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer studies, in which the three perspectives are reflected in the dimensions of the text, L2 writer, and the target reader (the L2 essay evaluator). This chapter will present the mixed-methods approach adopted by the research reported in this book, drawing on the theoretical framework. This approach ensures adequate evidence of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer: Text data were gathered employing English and Chinese writing tasks to uncover the textual evidence of this transfer; to reveal its cognitive and metacognitive aspects, retrospective and introspective reports were elicited from participants. As regards the implementation of the research, it first investigated all participants, focusing on the distribution and overall characteristics of Chinese L1-toEnglish L2 rhetorical transfer. Then, sampled cases were examined to provide more details about how this transfer occurs in response to specific L2 writing contexts, particularly with metacognition or not.

4.1 Research Design The research reported by this book focuses on two primary aspects of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. The first aspect (Aspect 1) revolves around the distribution of L1to-L2 rhetorical transfer, its relations with characteristics pertinent to L2 writers, and its subsequent effect on L2 writing. Aspect 1 adopts a textual perspective, emphasizing the observable linguistic features and structures in the writing. Alongside this, a cognitive perspective is also considered, focusing on the mental processes behind the writer’s decision-making during L2 writing. The second aspect of the

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Wei, Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9_4

95

96

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

current research (Aspect 2) pertains to the relationship between L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and relevant metacognition. It concerns how one’s awareness and control over their own cognitive processes may influence the transfer. This aspect is further split into two subcomponents: metacognitive knowledge and skills. It hence adopts a metacognitive perspective, scrutinizing the role of metacognition in the phenomenon of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. In summary, this book’s research presents an in-depth exploration into the intricate dynamics of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, considering both the visible outcomes in written texts and the unseen cognitive and metacognitive processes that drive such transfer. More specifically, the following specific questions were addressed: (1) How is L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer distributed in L2 writing? (2) How are L2-writer related factors associated with L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in L2 writing? (2a) How is L2 writers’ perception of L2 writing difficulty associated with L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in L2 composing processes? (2b) How is their L2 and L1 writing proficiency associated with L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in L2 writing? (3) What is the effect of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer on the text quality and composing processes of L2 writing? (4) How is L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer related to the relevant metacognition in L2 writing? (4a) How is this transfer related to the relevant metacognition knowledge in L2 writing? (4b) How is this transfer related to the relevant metacognitive skills in L2 writing? The current research was divided into two phases (I & II) to explore these questions based on mixed sources of empirical evidence.

4.1.1 Participants A total of 89 Chinese EFL undergraduates in China volunteered to participate in the current research. They all studied English as a second or foreign language. Hence, they can be regarded as either ESL or EFL writers. The overall information of these participants will be presented according to the two phases of research (I & II, as shown in Fig. 4.1) in which they were involved: The participants taking part in Phase I were selected through cluster sampling (Davis, 2015, pp. 201–202), which took ± English major and educational level into account. They were made up of 47 non-English-major sophomores (19) and seniors (28), as well as 42 English-major seniors. The primary purpose of taking ± English major as the requirement for participant selection was to increase the difference in English writing proficiency among these participants, which was taken as a variable in the present investigation. The following part will explain the reason in detail.

4.1 Research Design

97

Fig. 4.1 Data types and the corresponding collection methods

The division of English and non-English majors constitutes a critical aspect of the institutional status that accounts for English competence, especially English writing abilities, in China. By and large, English majors possess a higher level of English literacy than non-English majors. According to the Teaching Guide for Undergraduate Foreign Language and Literature Majors in General Institutions of Higher Learning in China (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2020), the ultimate purpose of the English teaching curriculum for English majors is to train talents who have a good command of professional knowledge about the English language, culture, and literature, cross-cultural abilities, and critical thinking skills. In Chinese academic institutions, English majors need to meet high requirements in their development of English competence in an all-around way. They are expected to become qualified talents who can apply English to various tasks, including translation, English teaching, and academic research, as specified by the national syllabus for college English teaching. Hence, English learning or training becomes routine primary work that requires English-major students to invest a substantial amount of time and effort during their three or four years of academic study. Their major academic work centers on English studies concerning linguistic, literary, and cultural aspects of the English world. Moreover, they are required to receive intensive writing training. It is especially true for English majors at a higher educational level. Typically, the conventional activities of English-major seniors, such as attending lectures, after-class assignments, and self-regulated learning in specialized courses, revolve around English language training and professional development in English linguistics, literature, thinking, or translation. As a result, compared to non-English majors, they receive adequate exposure to English materials, formal English skills instruction,

98

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

and English writing training, and they have more chances to learn English rhetorical patterns in their writing experience (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1996). Because academic requirements differ between English-major and non-Englishmajor English curriculums, English-major seniors have more opportunities to receive formal English writing instruction than non-English majors. As such, ± English major is a crucial variable affecting participant selection, requiring distinct levels of English writing competence. Considering this variable, it is convenient for the current research to pick out the target participants, namely, those with a higher level of English writing proficiency, mostly English majors, and those with a lower level of English writing proficiency, mostly non-English majors. Through purposive sampling (Davis, 2015, p. 202), the participants in Phase II were respectively selected from Phase I. They could be classified into two subgroups based on the relative ranking of their English writing proficiency among all the participants: those with a higher level of English writing proficiency and those with a lower level of English writing proficiency. The specific number of those participants and their background information will be presented in the report about Phase II in this chapter. It is worth mentioning that the difference in English writing proficiency is mainly reflected among the selected participants, so it is considered in relative terms. To measure these participants’ English writing proficiency, each participant was asked to complete three English writing tests. Their English essays were rated and evaluated by experienced native English-speaking evaluators who had received college-level education. Apart from their English writing proficiency, these participants’ majors (English major or non-English major), scores on large-scale English proficiency tests, and English training experience were also considered to measure their comprehensive English competence. These factors account for synthetic L2 proficiency, which is directly linked to L2 writing proficiency (e.g., van Weijen et al., 2009).

4.1.2 Mixed-Methods Approach To demonstrate how to explore the complex issues of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, this book will describe the mixed-methods approach to gathering relevant data in detail. The mixed design, which reflects the dimensions of the text, L2 writer, and reader, was applied to collect multiple data sources that contributed to the examination of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and its relevant metacognition. The following two subsections present the approaches to acquiring these sets of evidence and the plan for data collection.

4.1 Research Design

99

4.1.3 Methods of Obtaining the Evidence The evidence for L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer depended on text data and self-report data. As noted in Chap. 2, text-based analysis is the most common method to confirm the occurrence of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. This book identified characteristic Chinese L1 rhetorical features as evidence of this transfer in English L2 writing. To strengthen this evidence, a comparative textual analysis was also conducted to examine whether these features could be identified in the rhetorical patterns of Chinese L1 texts. In so doing, the textual manifestation of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and the frequency of its occurrence can be identified from L2 written products. Nevertheless, text-based analysis is limited in capturing mental operations or processing involved in the transfer. Matsuda (1997) pointed out that textual decisions and rhetorical intentions cannot be revealed by merely utilizing text analysis, which only indirectly reflects dynamic cognitive processing. Therefore, in order to make the associated evidence robust, the analysis of self-report data provided by the writers themselves is equally vital for identifying L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. This type of data was generated through the participants’ immediate retrospection of composing activities in L2 writing concerning their plans and decisions for L2 rhetorical goals. The L2-writer-related factors, including the participants’ perception of L2 writing difficulty as well as L2 and L1 writing proficiency, were taken as affective and cognitive factors that might result in the variances of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer in the composing processes of English writing. As writing metacognition is a form of L2 writers’ agency, it can be assumed that metacognition stands out as a significant variable affecting the operation and influence of interlingual transfer. In the current research, the exploration of metacognition followed the conceptual division of metacognition into metacognitive knowledge and skills, which were believed to impact the emergence of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and to monitor and regulate its process. Metacognitive knowledge is responsible for managing learners’ own knowledge repertoire, and metacognitive skills, i.e., the metacognitive awareness displayed during composing processes, guide their practical operation of this knowledge in actual task situations. Accordingly, the measure of metacognition took two key characteristics of metacognition into consideration—“self-reflection” and “selfdirection” (see Vandergrift et al., 2006, p. 435), which respectively embody the inventory and process of such cognitive capacity; further, the effective instrument design for the metacognitive measure was expected to make the functions of metacognition manifest in learners’ self-report about their both language resources and language production. The current research aims to explore specific metacognition over relevant aspects of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer as a mental inventory of L2 learners and as a cognitive operation during their L2 writing process. Because of the complexity of metacognition, it cannot be easily measured and assessed using a single method; instead, different data collection methods are required to measure this variable from its various

100

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

facets. Hence, a questionnaire survey and stimulated recalls were used to collect data on metacognition related to L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. The questionnaire survey measured participants’ declarative metacognitive knowledge about their cognitive resources and processes concerning L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. As the survey instrument was a self-designed questionnaire, its development had to undergo a rigorous procedure to guarantee its effectiveness in collecting quantitative data on the metacognition relevant to L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. Stimulated recalls, with the aid of video recording and textual analysis, were implemented to capture the metacognitive skills that mediate L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer itself or the rhetorical activities in relation to this transfer.

4.1.3.1

Types of Data and Their Collection Methods

The current research was divided into two phases: Phases I and II. Within Phase I, mixed data sources, including textual and questionnaire data, were collected, analyzed, and interpreted to discover the overall tendency of the participants’ performance related to Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer during their English writing and their metacognitive knowledge about Chinese-English rhetorical differences. The adoption of the quantitative paradigm derives from my expectation that the findings could be generalized across different research contexts based on an empirical measure of the subject matter. However, the complexity of cognition under investigation cannot be adequately uncovered merely through the statistical analysis of quantitative data. The quantitative method has limitations in the in-depth of data analysis and interpretation in that it fails to provide “the reasons for particular observations or the dynamics underlying the examined situation or phenomenon” (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 35). The inadequacy of quantitative examination calls for the compensation offered by qualitative exploration, which was the primary goal of Phase II. In this phase, I first analyzed 16 selected participants with higher and lower English writing proficiency. Then I conducted a comparative cross-case or collective analysis of the two groups of participants (Duff, 2011) to explore the pattern of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer and relevant metacognitive skills in their writing processes.

4.1.4 Research Instruments The database for seeking and analyzing the evidence for Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer and its relevant metacognition consists of the data primarily for quantitative analyses, which was collected via Writing Background Questionnaire (WBQ), three English and Chinese writing tests, two sets of English and Chinese writing tasks (I & II), Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire (PWRQ), and Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire (MKCERDQ), as well as the data for qualitative analyses from Retrospective

4.1 Research Design

101

Verbal Report (RVR) and Stimulated Recalls (SRs). The target research questions, the main data sources, and the corresponding data collection methods are presented in Fig. 4.1. What distinguishes the instruments in the two phases is that they elicit the data encompassing the dimensions of the text, L2 writer, and target readers. In the following subsections, these instruments will be introduced in terms of their effectiveness in the current research. (1) Writing Background Questionnaire The survey on writing background helps reveal the participants’ perceptions and experiences related to writing. The writing background information for the current research pertains to the development of English writing competence. It is meant to explain why or how rhetorical activities are undertaken during the writing process. Furthermore, the reason underlying the organizational pattern in ESL/EFL writers’ English writing can hardly be discussed without considering the writer’s background (Hirose, 2003), which thus plays a critical role in understanding mental activities in English writing. The participants’ writing background information was gathered using a selfdesigned questionnaire (see Appendix A). This questionnaire can be divided into two parts. Part One (Items 1–8): Background information. This part aims to elicit the participants’ background information, including their gender, years of English learning, participation in large-scale English proficiency tests (including CET4/6, TEM4/ 8, TOEFL iBT or IELTS), and methods to improve their English writing on a regular basis. These pieces of information supported a better understanding of the participants’ English writing competence. Part Two (Items 9 and 10): Self-evaluation of English rhetorical knowledge and contrastive rhetorical awareness. Item 9 requests the participants to evaluate their knowledge of structure and organization in English argumentative essay writing. Such self-evaluation might be concerned with the cause of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. Item 10 presents an open-ended question on the participants’ overall comparative perception of organizational patterns in Chinese and English argumentative essay writing. This information reflects the participants’ rhetorical awareness across languages, an important factor in the cross-language influence of Chinese rhetorical patterns in English writing. (2) English and Chinese writing tests L2 writers’ writing proficiency is a variable regarding their cognition of L2 writing. Three English argumentative essay writing tests and three Chinese yilunwen writing tests were administered at the beginning of the formal studies to provide a valid measure of English and Chinese writing proficiency. These tests were completed three times, with a one-week interval between every two adjacent ones. Each English writing test required the participants to write an English argumentative essay of more than 300 words within 70 min. In Chinese writing tests, the participants were asked to write a yilunwen of more than 450 words on a topic

102

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

within an hour. The time and length constraints were set according to the results of pilot tests. (3) English and Chinese writing tasks (I and II) The English and Chinese argumentative essay writing tasks, i.e., English Writing Tasks I & II and Chinese Writing Tasks I & II, were intended to collect the text data serving as evidence for Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. It is widely acknowledged that argumentative writing serves as a reliable means of measuring the ability to write academically (Hirvela, 2017). However, this type of writing is challenging in terms of its rhetorical organization, specifically the conceptual and structural organization, such as coherence and sequencing (Ka-kan-dee & Kaur, 2015; Shen, 1989; Zhang, 2013). Because of its enormous complexity and high demand, argumentative writing is focused on in the current research. Moreover, it is assumed that a close relationship exists between the composing process of argumentation and the possible occurrence of rhetorical transfer. The process in which arguments are constructed, driven by reasoning and argument skills, is initiated to affect or change readers’ opinions and attitudes toward the writing topic. During such a process involving rational and complex thoughts, L2 writers might activate their rhetorical knowledge in the L1, making rhetorical transfer occur across languages. The criteria for choosing the topics of English and Chinese writing tasks include: Being debatable or inclusive, requiring writers to hold a clear position or stance and enabling them to contribute something fresh and interesting, and being close to the university or college students’ academic or campus life. The English and Chinese writing task topics were similar, so the elicited English and Chinese texts were comparable based on the same scope of content. The prompts and instructions are stated as follows: The qualities that a person needs to become successful cannot be learned at university or in a similar academic institution. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Write at least 250 words. This essay will go to English-speaking readers (English Writing Task I) It has been said, ’Not everything that is learned is contained in books.’ Knowledge can be gained either from experience or from books. In your opinion, which source is more important? Why? Write at least 250 words. This essay will go to English-speaking readers. (English Writing Task II) 有这样一种观点: 一个人成功的自身因素不是在学校中获得的。你同意这种观点 吗, 为什么?请写一篇字数在400以上的汉语议论文。这篇文章会由以汉语为母语的读 者阅读。(Chinese Writing Task I) 你认为, 来源于书本的知识和来源于实践的知识, 哪类知识更重要, 为什么?.请写 一篇字数在400以上的汉语议论文。这篇文章会由以汉语为母语的读者阅读。(Chinese Writing Task II)

In terms of the administrative procedure of writing tasks, the participants were first invited to write an English argumentative essay on given topics. After that, they wrote a Chinese yilunwen on similar topics. The reason for English-writing tasks coming before Chinese-writing tasks is to avoid L1 interference or translation from L1 writing (Whalen & Ménard, 1995). In so doing, the interlingual transfer involves L1 rhetorical knowledge, skills, or strategies rather than L1 surface features (Roca de

4.1 Research Design

103

Larios et al., 2006). This sequence has been proven effective in gathering evidence for rhetorical transfer (e.g., Rinnert et al., 2015; Uysal, 2008). (4) Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire A post-writing retrospective questionnaire (see Appendix B) was adopted to investigate the process of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer during L2 writing. It consists of two parts. Part one was designed to solicit the participants’ retrospective report of the influence of Chinese L1 rhetorical knowledge/skills upon their L2 composing. Such influence is not equivalent to the instance of interlingual transfer that can be explicitly recognized. Instead, it amounts to the process through which this transfer occurs in composing acts (or transferring process in short), so they ought to be investigated by consulting L2 learners’ minds. This measure complements English and Chinese writing tasks in offering evidence of cognitive processes underlying Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. The rationale for using this instrument lies in the interlink between an L1, a form of “inner speech” or “self-talk” (Cohen, 2014, p. 237), and its encoded rhetorical knowledge or thoughts operated for writing activities. Further, it is feasible for L1 rhetorical schemata formulated in years of writing training and experience to be recalled under the retrospective condition. Although a retrospective measure is limited in that conscious awareness might distort direct experience, the data it elicits could not be invalidated (Ericsson & Simon, 1980). Empirical studies (e.g., Artemeva & Fox, 2010; Mein, 2012; Reiff & Bawarshi, 2011) have demonstrated that the rhetorical knowledge involved in the transfer across languages or writing contexts can be retrospectively reported. In designing the questionnaire, the literature around rhetorical knowledge in L2 writing (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Hyland, 2016; Tardy, 2005, 2017; Wenden, 1991) was consulted to ascertain the aspects concerning the cross-language influence of L1 rhetoric, including text construction concerning coherence, genre conventions, and audience awareness. Besides, the questionnaire construction drew inspiration from previous rhetorical transfer studies (e.g., Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012; Liu & Du, 2018; Rinnert et al., 2015; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2009; Uysal, 2008; Wang, 2003). Initially, an item pool consisting of 42 candidate items was generated. These items were formatted on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not true of me at all, 2 = partially not true of me, 3 = either true or not true of me, 4 = partially true of me, and 5 = completely true of me). To ensure the quality of these items, four experts, who specialized in rhetoric, second language writing, educational assessment, and foreign language teaching, were invited to scrutinize the item pool. They mainly focused on whether the candidate items were effective and reasonable in eliciting the recall of Chinese L1-toEnglish L2 rhetorical transferring processes. During this evaluation process, 24 items were eliminated from the pool, as they were identified as having problems, including low validity, being confusing, and being double-barrelled. Then the retained 18 items were submitted to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine their factor structure. The dataset for EFA was created by a survey involving 123 Chinese non-English-major undergraduates. These respondents first

104

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

completed an English argumentative essay writing task and immediately filled out the questionnaire that had been preliminarily devised. EFA removed one item with low communality from the item pool. As a result, the variables of the 17 items were combined into three dimensions, each of which had reliability higher than 0.8, as shown in Table 4.1. The first dimension is “The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric.” Concerning general written production, this dimension incorporates Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes generally occurring during English argumentative essay writing. The second dimension is “The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on the Construction of Arguments,” involving transferring processes relevant to the construction of arguments, specifically concerning argumentative structure (i.e., the layout of argumentation), argumentative parts (i.e., introduction, body, and conclusion paragraphs), and argumentative elements (i.e., thesis statement, supportive points, evidence, and concession). The third dimension—“The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on Text Organization” represents the cross-language influence of Chinese rhetoric on within-paragraph and between-paragraph text organization, including the items centering on the transferring processes regarding the logical progression of discourse units, which hinges on the coherence-making mechanism. Part two contains an item about the participants’ perception of writing difficulty after completing the English writing task. The format of this item is the same as that used in Part One. To minimize the influence of participants’ subjectivity, the item statements were made to elicit their memory of composing processes rather than their explanatory comments. Additionally, no technical term was included to make these statements well understood. (5) Retrospective Verbal Report To obtain retrospective data on thought processes co-occurring with Chinese L1-toEnglish L2 rhetorical transfer, the current research invited the participants to provide retrospective verbal reports about whether or to what extent English composing activities were influenced by Chinese writing knowledge and skills during justcompleted English writing. According to Gass and Mackey (2000), this kind of instrument is favorable for collecting cognitive information that other means cannot access. Furthermore, the potential limitations of this measure’s veridicality can be addressed during the implementation process, for example, by asking participants to Table 4.1 Dimensions of PWRQ items Dimension

No. of items

Reliability (Alpha)

The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric (OICPR)

1, 2, 3, 12, 13

0.876

The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on the Construction of Arguments (ICRCA)

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17

0.877

The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on Text Organization (ICRTO)

4, 5, 6, 14

0.815

4.1 Research Design

105

relate their retrospective accounts to specific textual portions or by minimizing the interval between writing performance and retrospective reports (Reiff & Bawarshi, 2011; Veenman, 2011). To elicit retrospective reports, extensive interactions between participants and the researcher are in demand, most of which are probably initiated by questions from the researcher (Taylor & Dionne, 2000). In previous studies (Lee, 2002; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2009; Wang, 2003), prompt questions were used for participants’ recollections of composing processes. With the aid of these questions, the verbal-report measure is flexible in its format since it can combine the use of open-ended and fixed-choice items (Cohen, 1984), which is expected to gather both focused and insightful responses. Therefore, in the current research, retrospective reports were elicited under the direction of questions to prompt the reporting. The prompt questions are divided into three categories: warming-up questions, leading questions, and follow-up questions. The warming-up questions concerned the participants’ overall feelings about the English writing task they had completed and their general description of English composing processes. As to leading questions, they aimed at eliciting the participants’ recall of whether they had recalled their Chinese writing knowledge or Chinese writing experience during their English composing activities. The follow-up questions were raised based on the verbal report for a more specific explanation or supplementary information. In the current research, the retrospective verbal report was immediately conducted after participants performed the English writing task to improve the accuracy of their reporting (Gass & Mackey, 2000). The other merit of doing so is that the participants can retrieve and report as comprehensive information regarding their cognitive processes as possible. Another noteworthy point is that retrospective reports cannot be totally subjected to the influence of researchers’ guidance in restricting the information range. Taylor and Dionne (2000) proposed that the technique of interviewing participants creates conditions for their spontaneous reporting without the restriction of predetermined questions. In case of interference with participants’ reports, the prompt questions in the current research mainly emphasize the information regarding “what” and “which” rather than “why.” The participants’ retrospective verbal reports were recorded by a voice recorder as both units of analysis and prompts for the further survey. (6) Stimulated Recalls In the current research, Stimulated Recalls (SRs) were employed to measure general writing metacognitive skills and specific metacognitive skills in addressing the rhetorical transfer from Chinese L1 to English L2. The purpose of stimulated recalls is to determine “the depth and level of metacognitive knowledge” (Pintrich, 2002, p. 224). Many previous studies have demonstrated its effectiveness in collecting data on metacognition (e.g., Kim, 2013; Lam, 2008; Polio & Friedman, 2017). SRs could reveal two aspects of metacognitive skills in EFL writing. One aspect pertains to whether or to what extent the participants display metacognitive awareness of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer instances shown in English texts. The other aspect is whether or to what extent their composing activities are performed

106

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

with rhetorical intentions. This aspect indicates the metacognitive reflection on the degree to which rhetorical consideration is given to composing behaviors. In the present investigation, SRs were administered in two sessions. The first session (i.e., the session of SR I) was based on the video recording of long writing pauses. The reason why SR I works with the prompt of long writing pauses lies in the fact that “activities that the learners are not in full control of are slow and involve controlled processing” (Lam, 2008, p. 210). Long writing pauses were regarded as indicators of conscious or deliberate thoughts featuring metacognitive awareness. The interviewees were invited to watch the video replay of their handwriting movements and were asked to report their thoughts when pausing for more than 5 seconds. These pauses might serve as cues for deliberate activities, including the mental efforts put into composing and problem-solving strategies. The pausing might also indicate that the writers’ composing activities were obstructed because of inadequate English writing knowledge. The second session of SRs (i.e., SR II) was undertaken based on the prompt of textual portions produced under the influence of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. These portions were identified by referencing both English texts and audiotaped responses elicited by RVR. As Gass and Mackey (2000) suggested, video recordings of writing movements or pauses were also added as the prompt to strengthen the stimulus for recall. Looking at textual portions linked to Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer and relevant video recordings, the participants were invited to report their composing activities for discourse construction, paragraph organization, and argumentative pattern. SR II was used to collect information concerning the monitoring and control of the interlingual transfer of Chinese rhetorical knowledge, as well as relevant internal activities during this transfer: Monitoring—noticing the activation of Chinese rhetorical knowledge or experience; Control—regulating the transfer of Chinese rhetorical knowledge or experience to make Chinese rhetorical mental resources compatible with English writing situations. Suppose the participants’ self-report contains information pointing to one or both of the two aspects. In that case, it can be considered that they draw metacognitive attention to the ongoing activities in connection with the cross-language influence of Chinese rhetoric. By this means, it is feasible to assess whether and to what extent their writing metacognitive skills can be used to notice or deal with Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer consciously. Moreover, SRs are participant-centered, with the prompts leading to the participants’ self-initiated report of their true thoughts (see Stolarek, 1994, p. 160). To guarantee the truthfulness of the participants’ responses, the guiding questions were exploratory without any cue of “Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer,” like “the influence of the Chinese pattern of writing or Chinese writing experience.” In so doing, objective and detailed information can be obtained (Greene & Higgins, 1994:124). However, if “Chinese writing pattern or experience,” “Chinese writing knowledge/skills,” or “Chinese way of thinking” was verbalized in the elicited

4.1 Research Design

107

response, it was plausible to further inquire about their metacognitive understanding of these cues of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. To ensure the accuracy of participants’ self-report, the offer of these questions was well combined with the observed prompts that were conducive to the recall of past mental activities through reviving memories of performance in English writing. Additionally, in case of the “misinformation effect” created by “post-event information” or the reconstruction of thoughts at the moment of recall (Egi, 2004, p. 256), I would remind the participants that they should report their composing activities based on the facts occurring in their writing and allow them to say they could not remember what they were thinking. Inspired by Englert, Raphael, Fear, and Anderson’s practice (1988), I prompted unclear and vague responses to further ask the interviewees about what they intended to mean, with questions like “You said xxx, what do you mean by xxx/how do you xxx” (p. 28). (7) Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire A questionnaire survey is an off-line method conducted after task performance for assessing metacognition from a declarative-knowledge perspective (Veenman et al., 2006). In the current research, the questionnaire survey was used to gauge metacognitive knowledge concerning L2 writing development: the self-knowledge of cognition regarding L1-L2 rhetorical differences. More specifically, Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire (hereafter also referred to as MKCERDQ) (see Appendix C) was developed to investigate the metacognitive knowledge of Chinese L1-English L2 rhetorical differences (hereafter also referred to as MKCERD) concerning the cause of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer as well as the participants’ self-awareness of this transfer in their English argumentative writing. To effectively perform its instrumental function, this self-designed questionnaire should be guaranteed in terms of its theoretical fundamentals, construction, and validation. Considerations for the former two aspects will be reported in the following parts. (7a) Theoretical fundamentals for the metacognitive knowledge related to Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer The theoretical underpinning of the questionnaire design was mainly informed by the idea about metacognition that “metacognition involves an awareness of oneself as an actor, a deliberate storer, and receiver of information. It can be conceived as potentially reportable” (Phakiti, 2003, p. 29). The construct of metacognition, as measured in the current research, incorporates the participants’ contrastive reflection of their Chinese L1 and English L2 rhetorical knowledge application and the outcome of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer during their English writing. As mentioned previously, L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer is, in essence, a cognitive activity in which the rhetorical knowledge acquired and developed in the L1 setting is activated in L2 use. The metacognitive knowledge or awareness under study represents a mental inventory associated with the participants’ self-consciousness

108

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

of Chinese-English rhetorical difference, reflecting their agency in predicting the occurrence of negative L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. Nonetheless, metacognition is still an umbrella term difficult to be operationalized since it covers a broad domain. Thus, this term can hardly be given a definite explanation for a specific research context. Therefore, following Schoonen et al.’s practice of modeling a metacognition questionnaire (1998), the development of MKCERDQ borrowed ideas from previous literature instead of following the particular examples in the literature. Overall, the item design was based on two related theoretical rationales, which account for the dynamic and static aspects of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer concerned with relevant metacognitive abilities. One is that learners’ awareness of the influence of L1 rhetoric upon their L2 writing activities determines how to tap L1 rhetorical resources as an L2 writing strategy effectively. It offers an account of the perceived outcome resulting from L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer; the other is that learners’ awareness of cross-language differences in rhetoric enables them to monitor or regulate the occurrence of this transfer deliberately. These differences, which concern differing ways of fulfilling discoursal and rhetorical expectations in L1/L2 writing, need to be studied by EFL learners to strive for effective and authentic (or nativelike) L2 writing (Casanave, 2004; Connor, 2002, 2004; Ferris, 1994; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Holyoak & Piper, 1997; Uysal, 2012). The basic concepts of composition rhetoric lay the theoretical foundation for item design in terms that they help in ascertaining the dimensions of Chinese-English rhetorical differences. According to the theoretical inquiries on writing rhetoric (see Sect. 2.1), though rhetoric has no rigorous definition, it can be understood as a deliberately planned device for effective text construction in writing. The textual aspects that perform rhetorical functions include the word or phrase usage, the coherence between discourse units at the within-paragraph level, the transition between adjacent paragraphs, and the rhetorical organization of texts for the genre purpose. Also, these aspects were believed to indicate the attributes, features, and elements of writing tasks and to specify further where Chinese-English rhetorical differences exist and where Chinese rhetoric might have a bearing on English writing. As with the genre of writing, in argumentative essay writing, the pattern and method of argumentation were treated as the focus of the rhetorical operation, which plays a decisive role in achieving the ultimate rhetorical purpose. The literature in composition, contrastive rhetoric, L2 writing, and educational psychology was also drawn upon to formulate a well-grounded rationale for questionnaire development. Particularly, the literature addressing the categorization of rhetorical knowledge and the literature discussing the conceptual extension of such knowledge from a contrastive perspective (see the section on the identification of rhetorical transfer in contrastive rhetoric analysis in Chap. 2) were instrumental in delineating this scope. This included audience awareness, text organization concerning coherence, genre conventions, and cross-language influence or interference. Based on the theoretical considerations above, the target information of this questionnaire was ascertained as categorized by the following four overarching aspects:

4.1 Research Design

109

Reader expectations, i.e., the participants’ metacognitive knowledge or reflection of their role in EFL writing, with the items focusing on their awareness of the identity as an EFL writer and their perception of target English-speaking readers’ expectations that potentially affect the process through which writing goals are reached, i.e., the mental representation of target readers with different language and cultural backgrounds; Text organization concerning coherence, i.e., the participants’ metacognitive knowledge of the difference between their Chinese yilunwen writing and English argumentative essay writing in respect of text organization concerning local and global levels of coherence, with the items focusing on the participants’ self-consciousness of the difference in textual organization at the extrasentential level; Argument construction, i.e., the participants’ metacognitive knowledge of the Chinese-English rhetorical difference in argument construction, with the items focusing on the participants’ self-consciousness of the difference in the components of argumentation, like introduction, thesis statement, topic sentence, argument structure, evidence, and conclusion. Cross-language influence or interference, i.e., the participants’ metacognitive knowledge of the use of Chinese rhetorical patterns as an L1 strategy and its effectiveness in EFL writing or of the negative influence of these patterns, with the items focusing on the participants’ deployment of Chinese rhetorical strategies and avoidance of Chinese-rhetoric interference with English writing. (7b) Construction of an item pool The questionnaire design drew upon theoretical and empirical sources to construct an item pool. One source was the previous studies on general metacognition, the relationship between metacognition and the development of English writing skills or strategies, and the comparison of Chinese and English rhetoric (Cohen & BrooksCarson, 2001; Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Wang, 2003; Zhang, 2001). The questionnaire design drew inspiration from these studies on the content and format of items for eliciting responses about metacognitive awareness over the inventory and operation of intellectual or mental resources available for language activities. The other source of the questionnaire construction was the information collected from an on-line survey. The primary purpose of this survey was to make the item pool grounded in students’ English writing experience so that it was not purely dependent on the researcher’s theoretical assumption or subjective judgment. This survey was administered to collect qualitative or exploratory data for the generation of items (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2011), including those on students’ view of their role as a writer, their understanding of conditions for good English writing, and their perception of the differences between Chinese yilunwen writing and English argumentative essay writing in terms of the aforementioned four overarching aspects. 11 Chinese students volunteered to participate in this online survey. In a short self-report questionnaire, their demographic or other information was reported. This questionnaire indicates that they were graduates majoring in English applied linguistics (4 males and 7 females, with a mean age of 26.3) who had more than 15 years of

110

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

English learning experience; their scores on TEM-8 (Test for English Majors-Band 8, a test assessing the English proficiency of Chinese English majors, including the section of English argumentative writing) were higher than 70, indicating a good level; all of them had received English writing training in formal instruction settings. Four open-ended questions were posed in this survey: (a) “What do you think is the difference in consideration of target readers’ responses or expectations between your Chinese yilunwen writing and English argumentative essay writing or the difference in the influence of target readers’ responses or expectations on the writing process between the two types of writing?”; (b) “What difference do you notice between Chinese yilunwen writing and English argumentative essay writing in the overall organization, paragraph development, organization at the sentence or paragraph level, and language usage?”; (c) “How do you think about the difference in the method of developing arguments between Chinese yilunwen writing and English argumentative essay writing?”; (d) “Do you feel the positive and negative influences of Chinese modes of writing or Chinese writing knowledge and skills in your English argumentative essay writing? If so, try to describe it.” These survey questions were stated in Chinese for the respondents’ convenience to capture the meaning. As for the language used for response, both English and Chinese were allowed to answer the questions, so respondents could provide more sources of information with the choice of more than one language. After collecting survey data, it came to the next step—the content analysis of the elicited responses. According to the metacognitive categorization of survey questions, these responses could be initially categorized into “reader expectations,” “text organization concerning coherence,” “argument construction,” and “cross-language influence or interference.” On this basis, fourteen themes were initially extracted from the informants’ responses, among which five fell into the “reader expectations” aspect, two into the “text organization concerning coherence” aspect, four into the “argument construction” aspect, and three into the “cross-language influence or interference” aspect, as seen from Table 4.2. Some themes could be merged into the latter two aspects. Within the “argument construction” aspect, the methods of arranging different parts of argumentative writing and the skills in constructing arguments could be categorized as the pattern for argumentation in English argumentative essay writing. The “cross-language influence or interference” aspect includes the perception of the influence of Chinese ways of argument construction and the perception of the possible interference of Chinese rhetorical features or patterns in English argumentative essay writing. The themes above determined the foci of items in the questionnaire, around which sample items were further generated. On this ground, a total of 34 sample items were produced, and their quality was examined to ensure that they fit in with the purpose of the metacognition questionnaire survey in the current research. For the statement of questionnaire items, phrases and sentences were borrowed from the interview responses to make it well understood by the participants of the formal studies (see Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2011). I also consulted the questionnaire measuring metacognition in L2 writing in previous studies (Ong, 2014; Teng, 2016).

4.1 Research Design

111

Table 4.2 On-line survey information for questionnaire design Response

Theme (Dimension)

“I feel relaxed about my Chinese yilunwen writing, since I seem to be talking to someone I know. But I am cautious about how I write in native-like logic using the structure accepted by native English target readers of my English argumentative essay.”

Awareness concerning differences in the expectations regarding the structure and organization of argumentative essays (or yilunwens) between native Chinese target readers and native or native-like English target readers (reader expectations)

“In my opinion, the target readers of Chinese yilunwens and those of English argumentative essays use different criteria to assess my argumentative essays.”

Awareness concerning different assessment criteria followed by the target readers of Chinese yilunwens and those of English argumentative essays (reader expectations)

“In Chinese yilunwen writing, my primary goal is to touch readers deeply with the power of language. For my English argumentative essay writing, I need to put much focus on making arguments that are acceptable to English target readers.”

Awareness concerning differences in the expectations about the effectiveness of arguments between native Chinese target readers and native or native-like English target readers (reader expectations)

“I focus attention on communicating my thoughts to readers using polished and touching languages in Chinese yilunwens. But I think it is necessary to consider how to make native English readers feel smooth and natural when writing English argumentative essays.”

Awareness concerning the use of different patterns to organize units of expression when facing native Chinese target readers and native or nativelike English target readers (reader expectations)

“I need to do well in switching between two languages in order to make my English argumentative essays well understood by English-speaking readers.”

Awareness concerning native or native-like English target readers’ misinterpretation likely caused by negative transfer from Chinese (reader expectations)

“I feel thoughts in Chinese interfere with my English writing, because it makes Chinglish. Concerning the argument, the method of logic or reasoning in Chinese is probably unacceptable in English argumentative essay writing.”

Perception of the interference of Chinese rhetorical patterns in English argumentative essay writing (cross-language influence or interference)

“One difference might be that I can still feel the role of Chinese in English writing, especially when thinking about what points should be covered and how these points are related. It helps for my writing if used well.”

Perception of the effect of Chinese rhetoric on English composing processes (cross-language influence or interference)

“Regarding the conclusion of English writing, we should not use ‘should+’ structure or slogan-styled sentences in case of appearing aggressive.”

Perception of the rhetorical difference in the method of making a conclusion (cross-language influence or interference) (continued)

112

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

Table 4.2 (continued) Response

Theme (Dimension)

“There exists a difference in paragraph organization between my Chinese yilunwen and English argumentative essay. It is okay for a Chinese yilunwen to develop multiple perspectives around a topic, and there is no restriction on the pattern of paragraph organization.”

Perception of differences in between-paragraph coherence between Chinese yilunwens and English argumentative essays (text organization concerning coherence)

“Perhaps due to the different modes of thinking, it appears that a paragraph that is well united in Chinese yilunwens might not be in a logical relation in English argumentative essays.”

Perception of differences in within-paragraph coherence between Chinese yilunwens and English argumentative essays (text organization concerning coherence)

“The evidence in Chinese yilunwens is familiar to Chinese readers, like those historical maxims or anecdotes, but might not be understandable if used in English argumentative essays.”

Perception of differences in the method of using evidence (or lunju) between Chinese yilunwens and English argumentative essays (argument construction)

Perception of differences in the topic “English argumentative essays have a more direct beginning with a brief topic introduction introduction and elaboration between Chinese yilunwens and English argumentative essays than Chinese yilunwens.” (argument construction) “I remember that English writing teachers emphasized the clear presentation of a thesis in a sentence, and it might be a difference from Chinese yilunwens.”

Perception of differences in the thesis statement between Chinese yilunwens and English argumentative essays (argument construction)

“In English argumentative essay writing, we usually don’t mention another point until one point has been fully dealt with, while in Chinese yilunwen writing, one point might be associated with several other points. It reflects different ways of enhancing arguments.”

Perception of differences in the pattern of developing arguments between Chinese yilunwens and English argumentative essays (argument construction)

After completing the construction of an initial item pool, the questionnaire design came to the stage of item modification. To ensure content validity, the items were checked and scrutinized by four experts who specialized in metacognition, educational measurement, language testing, and second language writing. They were all published widely in education or SLA and had enriched experience in questionnaire design. To make the examination of these experts well-directed, I first explained to them the type of data expected from this questionnaire and the intent of the questionnaire design. As requested, they mainly focused on the theoretical rationale underlying the items in the item pool, the categories of these items, their validity in this questionnaire, and reasonableness in measuring the construct of MKCERD. Through this procedure, the taxonomy of the metacognitive knowledge of Chinese-English rhetorical differences and its components were scrutinized and theoretically determined,

4.1 Research Design

113

as reflected in the following three respects. Firstly, all the experts agreed that “Crosslanguage influence or interference” should be further divided into two aspects to clarify the factor structure. Hence, this aspect was split into “Cross-language influence” and “Cross-language interference.” Secondly, concerning the items relevant to reader consideration involved in writing tasks, initially classified as “text organization concerning coherence,” an expert suggested that those items fell into the category of “reader expectations.” This suggestion was adopted given its reasonableness on the theoretical consideration. Moreover, the denotative meaning of six items was found to coincide with that of other ones. For instance, the meaning of an item—“the position where a thesis statement is advanced” overlapped that of another item “the method of presenting the central viewpoint.” The latter item was finally retained since it was considered clearer. Another two items were deleted from the item pool because it was unrelated to the construct of MKCERD. After the expert evaluation, an item pool consisting of 26 items was constructed, which could be combined into the following sub-scales: • Reader Awareness Across Languages (RAAL); • Perception of the Influence of Chinese Rhetorical Knowledge and Skills in English Writing (PICRKSEW); • Perception of Possible Interference from Chinese Rhetoric on Argument Construction in English Writing (PPICRACEW); • Perception of the Differences in the Coherence of Discourse Units Between Chinese and English Writing (PDCDUCEW); • Perception of the Differences in the Pattern of Argumentation Between Chinese and English Writing (PDPACEW). (7c) Item writing The key to the assessment of metacognitive awareness is that respondents report whether the aspects concerning L1–L2 rhetorical differences are metacognitively perceived rather than evaluating whether given strategical actions should be taken to accomplish writing tasks better. Hence, the participants’ responses were anticipated to provide information about their cognitive behaviors instead of their impersonal judgment or opinion towards a given self-evident proposition. The items aimed to investigate to what extent respondents were metacognitively aware of or deliberately attentive to the specific facets of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. This questionnaire was formatted using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not true of me at all, 2 = partially not true of me, 3 = either true or not true of me, 4 = partially true of me, and 5 = completely true of me). The degree of agreement on this scale can indicate the certainty of respondents’ knowledge about their mental inventory and their reflective thinking about their cognitive performance, thus showing the strength of metacognitive awareness. It is worth mentioning that “3—either true or not true” was necessary since, in the measurement of awareness, there is a need for a grey area where the uncertainty in response options is allowed (Gehlbach & Barge, 2012). Moreover, the usage of the word “completely” is better

114

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

than other words often appearing on scales like “strongly” or “very” because this word is more likely to elicit impersonal responses that are not subject to emotional affection (see Fowler, 1995). This format of scale, well applied to the self-report measure, is effective in eliciting respondents’ self-assessment on metacognition (Hartman, 2001; Rivers, 2001) or self-report of their knowledge—a key component of metacognition (Coutinho & Neuman, 2008; Pintrich, 2002; Taraban et al., 2004). Through the previous steps, a draft version of the questionnaire with 26 items was preliminarily completed, but it was still in need of further modification and validation before serving the function of data collection. Therefore, it proceeded to the stage of pilot testing, which is essential for the psychometric quality of a questionnaire (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2011). At this stage, five university students, including three English majors and two non-English majors, were invited to go through the sample items and answer them. Each of them was inquired about their comments on the overall appearance of the questionnaire and the clarity of the instruction and item statements. Their feedback indicated that two items contained academic terms and caused difficulties in understanding, so they needed to be revised for their clarity in wording. For instance, the term “coherence” occurring in an original item conveyed elusive meaning to one respondent, so it was replaced by an equivalent expression, i.e., “the logical link.” The other item led to ambiguity in the expression of its statement, which was initially written as: “There exists a difference in the expression of stance and attitude between English and Chinese writing.” In this statement, the meaning of the expression—“the expression of stance and attitude” was unclear to most respondents because the expression might be interpreted as either “what is expressed” or “how something is expressed.” As such, this expression was finally changed to “the method by which stance and attitude are presented.”

4.2 Research Procedure This section consists of two subsections presenting the ways of undertaking the pilot study and the formal studies, which are generally divided into Phase I and II. Between the two phases, a procedural component—the evaluation of the English and Chinese argumentative essays collected via writing tasks I is reported since it contributed to the link between Phase I and Phase II. (1) Pilot study A pilot study was conducted before the formal studies to ensure that the instruments could be helpful in data collection and that the research procedure was favorable to the quality of data and the effect of result analyses. Seven Chinese university students participated in the pilot study: three were graduates majoring in English, and four were first-year undergraduates majoring in non-English-major subjects. These students completed the pilot study one month before the formal investigations began.

4.2 Research Procedure

115

During the pilot study, the participants were requested to complete Writing Background Questionnaire (WBQ), English Writing Task I, and Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire (PWRQ) at first. One week later, they were assigned Chinese Writing Task I and Metacognitive Knowledge on Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire (MKCERDQ). The problems with the wording of items in PWRQ were detected through two participants’ feedback. One of them pointed out that the term in two items—“transfer” is not easy to understand. Another one responded that she could not capture the meaning of “paragraph organization.” Both of the problems were corrected by substituting the specialized and ambiguous expressions with clear ones. The results of the pilot study also revealed that many a case of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer could be uncovered from English texts; there existed differences in the occurrence of this rhetorical transfer between the English texts written by English-major and those by non-English-major participants, which indicated the likely relationship between this transfer and English writing proficiency; moreover, the negative relation between the mean scores in PWRQ and MKCERDQ could be found. These results altogether justified the feasibility of the formal studies. (2) Formal studies: Phases I and II The formal studies took nearly four months. It was divided into Phase I and Phase II according to the implementation sequence and the sort of data. The data collection procedures are described below. Phase I. In this phase, textual and questionnaire data were collected to explore the text manifestation of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features in English writing and Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes. At first, the participants were requested to take the three English and Chinese writing tests, administered thrice every other week during an English writing training program. Afterward, English Writing Task I was assigned to them. Immediately after completing this task, they were requested to fill out PWRQ. Following that, they completed WBQ. One week later, they were assigned Chinese Writing Task I. The purpose of setting the one-week interval was to avoid the interference of the memory of English writing experience in English writing on the Chinese writing performance. Subsequent to this task was MKCERDQ, which had gone through validation (reported in detail later). The data collection procedure in Phase I was performed in quiet classrooms with the help of two assistants, who were ready to answer any questions relevant to writing tasks or questionnaire surveys. After Phase I, the holistic rating method was employed to assess the participants’ English and Chinese writing proficiency as measured by three writing tests and to evaluate the text quality of their English essay produced in Task I. To this end, the collected English and Chinese argumentative essays were given an overall score by experienced English and Chinese writing raters. Three native English raters—Sarah, Susan, and Mike, were invited to grade each English essay using Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, and Hughey’s rubric for ESL composition (1981). The advantage of these native English raters lies in their

116

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

educational background and writing instruction experience: Sarah, a PhD degree holder, was an associate professor at a university in Sydney; she had a 12-year experience of English writing teaching. Susan, who held a master’s degree, was a British English instructor with more than ten years of English writing teaching experience at a university in Beijing, China. With a master’s degree, Mike worked as a lecturer at a British university; he had five years of experience teaching overseas students English academic writing. Three native Chinese raters were invited to score the Chinese essays using the rubric for Chinese yilunwen writing, all of whom held a master’s degree and had more than nine years of Chinese literacy teaching experience in Chinese high schools. Phase II. Following Phase I, this phase of research conducted more detailed and in-depth analyses of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer and relevant metacognition in English argumentative essay writing. For this purpose, the participants across the levels of English writing proficiency were selected for case investigations through purposeful sampling (see Patton, 2005). This purposeful sampling conformed to the purpose of the inquiry into whether there existed a difference in L1to-L2 rhetorical transfer instances and relevant metacognitive skills between lower and higher-proficiency L2 writers. According to their performance in English writing tests, 16 participants were selected for in-depth investigations. Eight of them performed remarkably better in these tests than the other eight. Their writing background information, including their English writing training methods, contrastive rhetorical awareness, and selfevaluation of the knowledge about structure/organization in English argumentative essay writing, was collected via WBQ and will be presented in detail in the sections of results for Phase II. During Phase II, the selected participants were first requested to complete English Writing Task II. During their writing process, their pausing behaviors that lasted a long time, including slow writing moves, pauses, backward pointing, marking, scratching, or underscoring, were video recorded by a recorder. Immediately after completing English Writing Task II, it came to the Retrospective Verbal Report (RVR) session. The participants were asked to retrospect and verbalize their feelings about the just-completed English writing task and their composing activities influenced by Chinese writing knowledge or Chinese writing experience. RVR was guided by the prompt questions (see Appendix D). Then it moved to the first Stimulated Recalls (SR I) session. Before the administration of SR I, the participants were instructed about how to retrospect and verbalize their thoughts according to video recordings. They were given opportunities to practice it until they were acquainted with the self-reporting procedure. During the operation of SR I, the participants were shown recordings of their long pauses during English writing. When the recordings were played back, they were requested to fix their attention on their handwriting, especially when the writing instrument was temporarily taken away from the paper for more than 5 seconds. Once long pauses appeared in the video, they would give a retrospective description of their thought processes at the moment of these pauses in response to leading

4.2 Research Procedure

117

questions (Appendix D). Alternatively, it was specified that the participants were also able to provide a self-report in time autonomously. Follow-up questions during SR I (Appendix D) were raised at intervals based on the participants’ responses. For instance, the reason for long pauses might be reported as an encounter with a writing difficulty. In this case, further questions might relate to the problem-solving strategy for overcoming the difficulty. If there was a description of their intention during long pauses, then questions would be asked about the more specific plan and decision and the result. All the questions mentioned above were raised according to the respondents’ responses. There was a four-hour delay after the execution of SR I. During this delay, my assistants and I identified and marked the textual portions concerning Chinese L1to-English L2 rhetorical transfer in English essays produced in English writing task II, which were used as textual prompts for SR I. To locate such textual portions, characteristic Chinese rhetorical features in English argumentative essays and the corresponding retrospective data from RVR were focused on. The textual portions or stretches both exhibiting typical Chinese features and being noted or referred to in RVR were considered the manifestation of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. After the delay, it came to the session of SR II. During SR II, I first drew the participants’ attention to the marked-up textual portions connected with Chinese L1to-English L2 rhetorical transfer in their English writing. I invited them to watch the corresponding writing movement or pause captured by video recordings. Then they were asked to verbalize how they had composed these portions. Following that, the selected participants were invited to complete Chinese writing task II (for leading and follow-up questions in SR II, see Appendix D). After the implementation of Phase II, rhetorical evaluation was made by the three native English raters to assess the English essays collected from English writing tasks I and II. The rhetorical evaluation provided detailed information about the participants’ rhetorical performance in their English writing; this kind of information supported the judgment on whether the textual outcome of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer was negative or not. In this process, the scripts were evaluated with respect to the overall organization of texts, the coherence between discourse units or their logic of reasoning, and the convincingness of arguments. The three native English speakers who completed the holistic rating for English writing task I (Sarah, Susan, and Mike) were requested to qualitatively evaluate the rhetorical quality of English textual portions by referring to Jacobs et al.’s scale (1981). The primary reason for choosing them was that they all had experience rating English argumentative essays and were familiar with the criterion for this type of essay. Their language intuition, writing teaching and rating experience, and background knowledge enabled them to evaluate whether the rhetorical quality of the participants’ EFL writing conformed to the norm or standard of English argumentative essay writing (see Lumley, 2002; Zhang, 2004).

118

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

4.3 Overview of Corresponding Evidence and Analysis Methods Multiple sources of evidence obtained in the current research will be displayed according to the corresponding object of the present investigation before the results are reported. As shown in Table 4.3, these sets of evidence are constituted by the triangulation of research data that supports quantitive and qualitative analyses. There were three categories of data in the current research: the text data generated by English and Chinese writing samples, the evaluation data by three native English raters’ rhetorical evaluation, and the self-report data by the participants’ retrospective/ metacognitive verbal and questionnaire reports. These data constituted two types of evidence that laid the ground for the results of the current research concerning Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer and the metacognition relevant to this transfer. (1) Evidence for Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer and corresponding analysis methods The evidence of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer was established based on two types of data: the text data collected using English and Chinese writing tasks I and the self-report data from PWRQ and RVR. The subsequent parts will explain how the sets of data and relevant analyses constitute the expected evidence in detail. Table 4.3 Triangulated data, data sources, data analysis approaches, and forms of evidence Category of data

Data source

Data analysis approach

Form of evidence

Text data

English Writing Tasks I and II

Quantitive and qualitative

Textual manifestation of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer

Chinese Writing Tasks I and II Evaluation data

Native English raters’ rhetorical evaluation

Qualitative

Effect of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer

Self-report data

PWRQ

Quantitive

RVR

Qualitative

Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes

MKCERDQ

Quantitive

Metacognitive knowledge relevant to Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer

SRs

Qualitative

Metacognitive skills relevant to Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer

Note: PWRQ = Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire; RVR = Retrospective Verbal Report; MKCERDQ = Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire; SRs = Stimulated Recalls

4.3 Overview of Corresponding Evidence and Analysis Methods

119

(1a) Text data Based on the notion that ESL/EFL essays produced by learners from different L1 backgrounds exhibit unique group features of rhetoric, Kubota (2010) stated that “identification of culturally specific rhetorical organization leads to a claim of rhetorical transfer” (p. 269). Hence, the key to identifying rhetorical transfer is the determination of rhetorical features unique to L1 writing. A good way to ascertain such L1-typical rhetorical features is to conduct contrastive rhetoric analyses supported by a fair number of essays written by writers with different language backgrounds. Nonetheless, given the difficulty in gathering adequate written samples, this way was not adopted for the current research. Alternatively, the writing research and instructional literature that report on or reflect the outcomes of contrastive rhetoric analyses were consulted to make sure of characteristic Chinese L1 rhetorical features that rarely occur in English argumentative essay writing, as reviewed previously (see the section related to the contrastive rhetorical view of Chinese composition rhetoric in Chap. 2). These rhetorical features helped identify or speculate about Chinese L1to-English L2 rhetorical transfer, which fell into the categories of general rhetorical patterns, the rhetorical means or strategies for argument construction, and the specific techniques for achieving certain discourse effects, as listed in Table 2.1. Considering the Chinese mode of writing dominates most Chinese EFL students studying in China, these features could be used to seek evidence for Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. It is noteworthy that the features preferred by Chinese rhetoric for argumentation were cautiously interpreted in the current research. This type of feature supported the assumption about the probability of this transfer. To corroborate this assumption, other pieces of evidence needed to be gathered. If there was no further evidence, it could be concluded that this transfer would likely occur. In data analysis, I conducted a within-subject text analysis of English argumentative essays targeting characteristic Chinese rhetorical features. First, the textual manifestation of these features was qualitatively analyzed and presented. Then their percentage in English essays was calculated concerning the text quality of these essays. To further substantiate the evidence of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer, a comparative analysis of English and Chinese argumentative texts was also conducted, focusing on whether the characteristic Chinese rhetorical features in English writing could also be identified in Chinese writing. The rationale behind this comparative analysis is that similarities or commonalities in rhetorical patterns or preferences exhibited by the same L2 writers in their L2 and L1 writing justify the likelihood of L1-to-L2 transfer (Uysal, 2008), which is expected to supplement the confirmation of this transfer. The justifiability of both types of analysis lies in its accordance with both standards of intragroup homogeneity and crosslinguistic performance congruity, as set by Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008). In respect of intragroup homogeneity, it means that the evidence helps investigate the tendency of L1-unique or -preferred rhetorical performance shown by a group of Chinese EFL learners in their English writing task.

120

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

Crosslinguistic performance congruity in the current research refers to the similarity in the rhetorical patterns exhibited in Chinese EFL writers’ English and Chinese writing. (1b) Evaluation data The evaluation data from three native English raters’ rhetorical evaluations contributed to the inquiry into the effect of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. These raters assessed the English writing samples for rhetorical aspects of argumentative writing, including overall textual structure, between-paragraph or between-sentence text organization, argumentative construction, and language usage. The corresponding data analysis revolved around two questions: whether the raters gave negative feedback or responses to the manifestation of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features and how they commented on the portions related to these features. The former question was helpful in the identification of negative Chinese L1-toEnglish L2 rhetorical transfer, and the latter in the contextual interpretation of the effect of this transfer. (1c) Self-report data Complementary to text data, the self-report data provided by the participants in WBQ, PWRQ, and RVR contributed to both quantitative and qualitative evidence of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. The information regarding the English learning experience, contrastive rhetorical awareness, and self-evaluation about organizational knowledge in English argumentative writing was gathered from WBQ, facilitating the understanding of the participants’ English writing proficiency and rhetorical knowledge. The evidence based on PWRQ and RVR data included the participants’ retrospective verbalization of the influence of Chinese rhetoric (i.e., Chinese writing knowledge or Chinese writing experience) on their English composing activities. The quantitative evidence based on PWRQ data indicated the Chinese EFL writers’ immediate retrospection of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes emerging in the just completed English Writing Task I. As regards the qualitative evidence drawing upon RVR data, its value lies in its capacity to reflect a more global and dynamic picture of transferring activities integrated into the English writing process. The mixed evidence is primarily related to the cognitive processes as with the occurrence of rhetorical transfer, i.e., the processes concerning the rhetorical transfer itself or the composing activities linked with it. Such a classification of cognitive processes corresponds with the condition for judging the occurrence of rhetorical transfer, that is, L1 rhetorical knowledge or skills are retrieved and used during L2 writing. This condition embodies the underlying truth of the rhetorical transfer that the knowledge of L1 rhetoric is transferred across languages and that this transfer is accommodated by rhetorical activities or composing processes. This condition not only places the observation of transfer into dynamic cognitive situations but further specifies and clarifies the mental state of rhetorical operation. For data analyses, PWRQ data was submitted to statistical analyses, including one-way ANOVA as well as correlation and regression analyses. Additionally, the

4.3 Overview of Corresponding Evidence and Analysis Methods

121

data was blended with text data to make a detailed analysis of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features. The analysis of RVR data focused on the consideration of three rhetorical aspects of argumentative writing embedded in Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer: the organization of discourse meaning, argumentative patterns, and relevant moves, which were revealed as concerning communicative purpose in the case of participants’ retrospective verbalization. (2) Evidence for the metacognition relevant to L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in L2 writing and corresponding analysis methods The evidence for metacognition was sought from the self-report data collected through MKCERDQ and SRs. The score gained on each item of MKCERDQ was calculated to indicate the degree of metacognitive awareness reflecting the self-knowledge about the differences between Chinese L1 and English L2 rhetoric. The data from SRs provided evidence for general writing metacognitive skills and the specific metacognitive skills used in perceiving and manipulating Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer or relevant rhetorical activities. More specifically, this interview sought evidence regarding the extent to which the participants’ metacognition got involved in the management of English composing processes and the perception and regulation of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. The participants were guided by questions to recall and report on their deliberate mental activities aiming for specific rhetorical goals in different writing sessions. As the thought processes elicited by stimulated recalls exist at the declarative level, they were available for reporting. Two cases of failure in participants’ self-report on metacognition were considered. Case 1: When the thought processes become automatic and rise to the procedural level in L2 writing, there will be no need for awareness of them. In this case, the measure of metacognition seems to have no effect. Case 2: The failure in self-reports for metacognition might also be because learners have a low level of metacognition, so they are limited in their capacity for noticing and reporting their cognitive processes. The occurrence of Case 2 is possible, while that of Case 1 is not. According to skill acquisition theories, the development of language knowledge proceeds from the declarative to the procedural stage (Ellis, 2013). It implies that procedural knowledge is more advanced than declarative knowledge. It is almost impossible for advanced learners with sufficient L2 procedural knowledge to transfer the L1 counterpart to their L2 production. In other words, the presence of transfer means that the given L2 knowledge in demand is not as adequate as its L1 counterpart and probably remains at the declarative level; metacognitive awareness executes the function of moving problematic L2 use from automaticity to consciousness so that target problems can be detected and resolved of learners’ own accord (see Oxford, 2017, p. 177). That is, metacognition is a requisite rather than something unnecessary for L2 knowledge development. For learners, only if metacognition informs them about their behavior of transferring knowledge from the L1 can they be aware of the inadequacy of their L2 procedural knowledge. Hence, the measure of metacognition linked to rhetorical transfer under investigation does not elicit what is dispensable, and its effectiveness is justified. The composing processes in which L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer results

122

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

from the lack of L2 rhetorical knowledge have declarative attributes, and they are reportable. Then it is safe to say that little or no metacognitive account from the participants about Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer, which occurs in their English writing, indicates their weak metacognitive awareness of this transfer. Further, metacognition in SLA represents a cognitive attribute peculiar to the interlanguage stage when learners have not attained the advanced level of L2 proficiency. It is noteworthy that there might be an overlap between the investigated phenomena of SR II and RVR: SR II involves the retrospective description of the influence of Chinese rhetoric. This overlap reveals that RVR complements and corroborates SR II, which makes their combination conducive to the validity and comprehensiveness of findings (Berg, 2001; Johnson et al., 2007). Based on the shreds of evidence I and II, the relationship between Chinese L1to-English L2 rhetorical transfer and the relevant metacognition can be explored concerning whether Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer is different in terms of its occurrence because of the involvement of metacognitive knowledge and skills. As with data analyses, PWRQ data was used for regression analyses with MKCERDQ data to examine the relations between Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes and the metacognitive knowledge about Chinese-English rhetorical differences. The analysis of SR I data was intended to identify deliberate concerns for the construction of specific textual portions during L2 composing processes, from which general L2 writing metacognitive skills could be revealed. Of particular interest in the interpretation of SR II data was the report data on Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer itself and the rhetorical activities co-occurring with this transfer. Such self-report reflected the participants’ recall of their deliberate plans and decisions in relation to Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer in English writing, which further pointed to metacognitive monitoring and control of this transfer. For the analysis of this self-report, its correspondence with Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer and its adequacy and depth in accounting for the rhetoric-oriented composing activities were considered to distinguish the levels of metacognitive skills relevant to this transfer.

4.4 Summary This chapter focuses on the methodological aspects of the studies reported, especially the mixed-methods approach for research design (with both quantitative and qualitative methods). Following this approach, multiple research instruments were designed to collect text data, evaluation data, and self-report data. These data reflected textual, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives in L2 writing, which could provide evidence for the distribution, characteristics, and outcome of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and the relationship between this transfer and metacognition (i.e., metacognitive knowledge and skills). Combining quantitative and qualitative analyses of

References

123

these data supports the study of this transfer in a comprehensive way. This book merely provides an initial attempt to explore the issues of rhetorical transfer, so there inevitably exist limitations in the methodology, e.g., the lack of experimental methods to reflect the ongoing cognitive process involved in participants’ retrieval of previous knowledge. It requires much more effort to uncover the mechanism of such a complex mental activity in future studies.

References Artemeva, N., & Fox, J. (2010). Awareness versus production: Probing students’ antecedent genre knowledge. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(4), 476–515. Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Allyn & Bacon. Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing. Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. University of Michigan Press. Cohen, A. D. (1984). Studying second language learning strategies: How do we get the information? Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 101–112. Cohen, A. D. (2014). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd ed.). Routledge. Cohen, A. D., & Brooks-Carson, A. (2001). Research on direct versus translated writing: Students’ strategies and their results. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 169–188. Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 493–510. Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 291–304. Coutinho, S. A., & Neuman, G. (2008). A model of metacognition, achievement goal orientation, learning style and self-efficacy. Learning Environments Research, 11(2), 131–151. Davis, J. M. (2015). Sampling and what it means. In J. D. Brown & C. Coombe (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to research in language teaching and learning (pp. 198–206). Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2011). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2nd ed.). Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Duff, P. A. (2011) Case study research in applied linguistics. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Egi, T. (2004). Verbal reports, noticing, and SLA research. Language Awareness, 13(4), 243–264. Ellis, R. (2013). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Fear, K. L., & Anderson, L. M. (1988). Students’ metacognitive knowledge about how to write informational texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(1), 18–46. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251. Ferris, D. R. (1994). Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences between native and non-native English speakers. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(1), 45–65. Fowler, F. J. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation (Vol. 38). Sage Publications. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Gehlbach, H., & Barge, S. (2012). Anchoring and adjusting in questionnaire responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(5), 417–433. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of Writing. Longman.

124

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

Greene, S., & Higgins, L. (1994). Once upon a time”: The use of retrospective accounts in building theory in competition. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 115–140). Sage Publications Inc. Hartman, H. J. (2001). Developing students’ metacognitive knowledge and skills. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 181–209. Hirvela, A. (2017). Argumentation & second language writing: Are we missing the boat? Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 69–74. Holyoak, S., & Piper, A. (1997). Talking to second language writers: Using interview data to investigate contrastive rhetoric. Language Teaching Research, 1(2), 122–148. Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing (3rd ed.). Routledge. Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Newbury House. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. Ka-kan-dee, M., & Kaur, S. (2015). Teaching strategies used by Thai EFL lecturers to teach argumentative writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 208, 143–156. Kim, T. Y. (2013). An activity theory analysis of second language motivational self-system: Two Korean immigrants’ ESL learning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 459–471. Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1996). Factors affecting composition evaluation in an EFL context: Cultural rhetorical pattern and readers’ background. Language Learning, 46(3), 397–433. Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2012). Understanding L2 writing development from a multicompetence perspective: Dynamic repertoires of knowledge and text construction. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 Writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 101–134). Walter de Gruyter. Kubota, R. (2010). Cross-cultural perspective on writing: Contrastive rhetoric. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. Mckay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 265–289). Multilingual Matters. Lam, W. Y. (2008). Metacognitive strategy use: Accessing ESL learners’ inner voices via stimulated recall. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 207–223. Lee, Y. J. (2002). A comparison of composing processes and written products in timed-essay tests across paper-and-pencil and computer modes. Assessing Writing, 8(2), 135–157. Liu, Y., & Du, Q. (2018). Intercultural rhetoric through a learner lens: American students’ perceptions of evidence use in Chinese yìlùnwén writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 1–11. Lumley, T. (2002). Assessment criteria in a large-scale writing test: What do they really mean to the evaluators? Language Testing, 19(3), 246–276. Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 45–60. Mein, E. (2012). Biliteracy in context: The use of L1/L2 genre knowledge in graduate studies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(6), 653–667. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2020). Teaching guide for undergraduate foreign language and literature majors in general institutions of higher learning. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Ong, J. (2014). How do planning time and task conditions affect metacognitive processes of L2 writers? Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 17–30. Oxford, R. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context (2nd ed.). Routledge. Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. In B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (pp. 1633–1636). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

References

125

Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26–56. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225. Polio, C., & Friedman, D. A. (2017). Understanding, evaluating, and conducting second language writing research. Taylor and Francis Inc. Reiff, M. J., & Bawarshi, A. (2011). Tracing discursive resources: How students use prior genre knowledge to negotiate new writing contexts in first-year composition. Written Communication, 28(3), 312–337. Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2009). Situated writing practices in foreign language settings: The role previous experience and instruction. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching and research (pp. 23–48). Multilingual Matters. Rinnert, C., Kobayashi, H., & Katayama, A. (2015). Argumentation text construction by Japanese as a foreign language writer: A dynamic view of transfer. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 213–245. Rivers, W. P. (2001). Autonomy at all costs: An ethnography of metacognitive self-Assessment and self-management among experienced language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 279–290. Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R. M., & Murphy, L. (2006). Generating text in native and foreign language writing: A temporal analysis of problem solving formulation processes. The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 100–114. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J., & Bossers, B. (1998). Metacognitive and language-specific knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension: An empirical study among Dutch students in grades 6, 8 and 10. Language Learning, 48(1), 71–106. 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. Stolarek, E. A. (1994). Prose modeling and metacognition: The effect of modeling on developing a metacognitive stance toward writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(2), 154–174. Taraban, R., Kerr, M., & Rynearson, K. (2004). Analytic and pragmatic factors in college students’ metacognitive reading strategies. Reading Psychology, 25(2), 67–81. Tardy, C. M. (2005). It’s like a story”: Rhetorical knowledge development in advanced academic literacy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(4), 325–338. Tardy, C. M. (2017). The challenge of genre in the academic writing classroom: Implications for L2 writing teacher education. In J. Bitchener, N. Storch., & R. Wette. (Eds.) Teaching writing for academic purposes to multilingual students: Instructional approaches (pp. 69–83). Routledge. Taylor, K. L., & Dionne, J. P. (2000). Accessing problem-solving strategy knowledge: The complementary use of concurrent verbal protocols and retrospective debriefing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 413–425. Teng, M. F. (2016). Immediate and delayed effects of embedded metacognitive instruction on Chinese EFL students’ English writing and regulation of cognition. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 289–302. Uysal, H. H. (2008). Tracing the culture behind writing: Rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 183–207. Uysal, H. H. (2012). Argumentation across L1 and L2 writing: Exploring cultural influences and transfer issues. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 133–159. Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431–462.

126

4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation

van Weijen, D., van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2009). L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 235–250. Veenman, M. V. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 205–211. Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. Wang, L. (2003). Switching to first language among writers with differing second-language proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 347–375. Wenden, A. L., et al. (1991). Metacognitive strategies in L2 writing: A case for task knowledge. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown roundtable on languages and linguistics 1991: Linguistics and language pedagogy-state of the art (pp. 302–322). Georgetown University Press. Whalen, K., & Ménard, N. (1995). L1 and L2 writers’ strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 45(3), 381–418. Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268–288. Zhang, L. J. (2013). Second language writing as and for second language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(4), 446–447. Zhang, W. (2004). The rhetorical patterns found in Chinese EFL student writers’ examination essays in English and the influence of these patterns on evaluator response. Tsinghua University Press.

Chapter 5

Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive Knowledge

This chapter documents the investigation of all the participants’ Chinese (L1)-toEnglish (L2) rhetorical transfer and relevant metacognitive knowledge, primarily based on the quantitative evidence (Phase I). At first, it focuses on the textual analysis of the characteristic Chinese rhetorical features in English written products to investigate the occurrence of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. It then examines whether Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes are associated with the EFL writer-related factors assumed to affect the English writing performance of the participants (including their English writing proficiency and their perception of English writing difficulty). It is noteworthy that the transferring process reflects the influence of Chinese rhetoric during the composing process of English writing, which might cause the manifestation of textual outcomes in explicit forms or their termination as the presumed thinking inside the EFL writers’ minds. Moreover, this chapter explores the effects of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer by analyzing the rhetorical evaluation of English writing samples by professional English essay evaluators. Another focus of this chapter is the relationship between Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes and relevant metacognitive knowledge; such metacognitive knowledge concerns the participants’ awareness of Chinese-English rhetorical differences in their own English writing.

5.1 Overview of the Data Collected in the Study in Phase I The results gained in Phase I primarily depended upon the text data gathered from English and Chinese writing tasks I and the report data from Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire (PWRQ). The text data provided the main evidence for the emergence of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features, pointing to the distribution and effect of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer in English argumentative essays. The report data from PWRQ was analyzed for two purposes. One purpose

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Wei, Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9_5

127

128

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

is that it supported the examination of the associations of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes with three L2-writer-related factors, i.e., the participants’ perception of L2 writing difficulty and L2 and L1 writing proficiency. PWRQ data also supplemented text data to further evidence the distribution and effect of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. In addition, another result from Phase I was the validation of Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire and the relationship between Chinese L1-toEnglish L2 rhetorical transfer in process and this metacognitive knowledge. The following sections will report these results in detail.

5.2 Writing Performance in English and Chinese Writing Tests and English Writing Task I Writing Background Questionnaire was used to collect relevant information from the 89 participants. The scores on English proficiency tests reported by themselves are as follows. Among the 42 English majors, 24 took CET4 (including 17 with the score higher than 569 and 7 with the score between 568 and 426), 21 CET6 (including 6 with the score higher than 569 and 15 with the score between 568 and 426), 41 TEM4 (including 6 with the score higher than 80, 34 with the score between 60 and 79, 1 with the score lower than 59), 38 TEM8 (including 5 with the score higher than 80, 32 with the score between 60 and 79, 1 with the score lower than 59), 1 IELTS (with the score of 6.5); among the 47 non-English majors, 25 took CET4 (including 7 with the score higher than 569, 16 with the score between 568 and 426, 2 with the score lower than 425), and 22 did not take any test. The quality of the English essays produced in English Writing Task I was assessed through the scoring by three English-native evaluators using Jacobs et al.’s rubric (1981). The inter-evaluator reliability among the English writing evaluators reached 0.958. According to the mean scores given in the triple rating, the English essays could be divided into three groups with differently-rated text quality: the highly rated group was made up of 27 English texts (with mean scores higher than or equal to 80); the moderately rated group was comprised of 28 English texts (with the mean scores higher than 60 and lower than 80); and the lowly rated group included 34 English texts (with the mean scores lower than or equal to 60). To assess the participants’ English and Chinese writing proficiency, their overall scores in three English and Chinese writing tests were calculated by averaging the marks given by triple rating with Jacobs et al.’s rubric and Chinese yilunwen writing rubric, respectively. According to their overall score on English writing tests, the participants could be distinguished into 27 higher-proficiency EFL writers (with an overall score higher than 80) and 18 lower-proficiency ones (with an overall score lower than 60). The Chinese yilunwen writing rubric (see Appendix E for details) adopts the sixty-point system, meaning the total possible score is 60 points, and it incorporates three main aspects: content, expression, and development of creative

5.2 Writing Performance in English and Chinese Writing Tests and English …

129

Table 5.1 The aspects involved in the rhetorical evaluation by native English-speaking evaluators Overall level

Rhetorical evaluation of the overall structure of the essay Rhetorical evaluation of the introduction or conclusion paragraphs

Local level

Rhetorical evaluation on the development of a paragraph Rhetorical evaluation of the function of a paragraph Rhetorical evaluation of the transition between the paragraphs Rhetorical evaluation of the coherence between the two adjacent sentences

Specific level Rhetorical evaluation on the method or strategy of argument in the portion mark Rhetorical evaluation of the language usage

ideas. Each aspect is further divided into four distinct levels (Level 1: 20–17; Level 2: 16–12; Level 3: 11–7; Level 4: 6–0). The content aspect deals with several key factors, including the relevance to the writing prompt, the sufficiency of the material in representing the underlying theme, and the integrity of ideas—particularly in evaluating whether ideological tendencies are positive and progressive. It also considers the genuineness of emotion. The expression aspect emphasizes the appropriateness of the writing style, coherence between paragraphs, fluency of language, and the legibility of handwriting. Lastly, the development aspect centers on more nuanced elements such as the depth of thought, richness of content, the language’s ability to convey feeling, and the originality or innovativeness of perspectives and ideas. The rhetorical evaluation by native English-speaking evaluators could be summarized by the framework outlined in Table 5.1, which reveals the evaluated rhetorical aspects, including overall textual structure, between-paragraphs and -sentences text organization, argumentative construction, and language usage. According to the addressed text spans involved in the evaluation, these aspects fall into overall, local, and specific levels.

5.2.1 Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features in English Writing The following parts will present the characteristic Chinese rhetorical features manifested in English texts, i.e., the rhetorical features unique to or preferred by Chinese in English writing. These features could be categorized according to the dimensions of general rhetorical patterns, the rhetorical construction for arguments, and the specific rhetorical techniques for creating discourse effects. The collected English and Chinese text samples were firstly marked with major, i.e., English-major (E) or non-English-major (NE), the participant’s number (S…), the relative level of English writing quality, i.e., H (highly rated), M (moderately rated), L (lowly rated). Then two kinds of analyses were conducted to seek the

130

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

evidence of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer initially: (1) the rhetorical analysis of English texts targeting the three categories of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features, as listed in Table 2.1; (2) the comparative rhetorical analysis focusing on whether the characteristic Chinese rhetorical features identified by Analysis (1) also emerged in Chinese yilunwens. The outcomes of Analysis (1) were distinguished for a more specific analysis. If the rhetorical features identified by (1) were uniquely exhibited in stereotyped Chinese writing, it could be asserted that Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer probably occurred, and the likelihood of this transfer could be inferred from the result of Analysis (2). If the rhetorical features identified by (1) were preferred by but not unique to Chinese writing, more evidence would be demanded to deduce the presumed occurrence of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer.

5.2.2 Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features in the Category of General Rhetorical Patterns (1) Indirect statement of the central opinion This rhetorical feature was characterized as the “indirect beginning.” An indirect beginning led to a balanced discussion revolving around the topic temporarily without presenting the writer’s position or central view. By doing so, it helps build a more thorough understanding of the subject and fosters an environment that encourages open-minded consideration of differing perspectives. Textual analysis suggested that 29 essays did not set a clear position or standpoint at the beginning. This rhetorical feature was frequently indicated by no direct response to the question in the task prompt (i.e., agree or disagree?), as shown by the following example: When I take the first eye at this conclusion. I know this is a complex question which requires detailed analysis. Everyone knows how important is the basic knowledge of man in this century. It can only be systematically learned in an academic institution… But, what is known to us all, we need companions, and they can help us achieve our common goal. What is essential in this process is the ability to communicate. This kind of ability can’t be directly learned in our daily school… You can see that, we can’t come to the conclusion whether the qualities a person needs to become successful can be learned at school. (NE S43 M)

From these paragraphs, it appeared that this participant intended to separate the issue into positive and negative sides and to adopt a middle-way attitude because of its complexity. By refraining from an explicit declaration of stance at the outset, the writer might invite readers to join in a journey of exploration rather than confrontation. From the perspective of Chinese rhetoric, this makes the subsequent argument or discussion more resonant and persuasive, as it is founded on careful and respectful

5.2 Writing Performance in English and Chinese Writing Tests and English …

131

consideration of the subject matter; in this way, the “indirect beginning” serves as a potent tool in the arsenal of effective communication and rhetoric. (2) Turn for encompassing altered angles A total of 32 English essays were characterized by Turn. In these texts, Turn was devised to make the argument encompass the necessary points with the view that it would become more convincing. Take one essay (S32) as a case in point: In one word, a successful man needs knowledge and knowledge exists in universities. By the way, some qualities to be a successful man also can be acquired in the society, such as social contacts, survival rules in working places. (E S32 M)

This statement illustrates the idea that success is not solely tied to university education but also to the abilities acquired from societal interactions. Near the end of her essay, the previous argument was bolstered with the recognition of the importance of practical experience in gaining success. However, the central point was the indispensable role of universities in developing the qualities for success. With this justification of another view using a paragraph, the argument was probably expected by the participant to become more comprehensive and thus more impartial. Turn might also occur within an argumentative paragraph. Amid the development of argumentation, Turn intended to build up a link between differing ideas or information so that a compelling argument could be formulated and grounded on favorable warrants or backings. As shown in the following paragraph, to support the point that university education is important but not indispensable, this argumentative paragraph argues that success lies in one’s initiative rather than external factors. At the end of this paragraph, however, the writer added that it would be better if the desire to pursue success were facilitated by university education (in bold). It seemed that this turn was utilized to make the argument impartial. Secondly, a person has the right to pursue success or not and choose the way to success. In fact, just gives us one way to be successful…But we cannot deny that some people who get the education from university are easier to be successful. (E S33 M)

Another instance of Turn existed between arguments going in different directions, as exemplified by the following excerpt. Of course, qualities are important, however, what we can’t overlook is that overlooking primary knowledge is the first step to success. And the best way to learn it is studying in school. What’s more, on the road of acquiring knowledge, there’s no doubt that we will need other qualities to put away the objects in front of us. After all, universities are somewhat many tiny societies, and we are not only students but also personalities alone. We can gain the qualities we need as well from the positive atmosphere of university. (NE S21 H)

At first, this paragraph began with the reasoning for the importance of knowledge in success. What followed was the turn to the warrant for the role of the school in contributing the knowledge required for success. Led by a transitional sentence, the rest of the portion moved forward to center on the warrant for the role of universities in shaping non-knowledge qualities. The two turns within the series of warrants were

132

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

made to strengthen the argument by adequate reasoning, which was believed to make it more persuasive. (3) Implicit semantic relations between discourse units This feature was found in 44 English essays, characterized as the absence of any conjunctive device between any two adjacent sentences or clauses. The logical relations between these discourse units, which led to implicit coherence, appeared dependent upon contextual clues for readers’ inference. This rhetorical feature might be exhibited in two cases. (3a) No connective devices between adjacent sentences In particular, three types of logical relations between adjacent sentences without any signal of connection occurred in the participants’ English writing: progressive, parallel, and adversative relations. Among them, the progressive relation was the most frequent, followed by the parallel and adversative ones. The ensuing part was to analyze them one by one. Firstly, the implicit progressive relation meant that the second sentence moved forward the meaning of the first one. As shown in the following pair of sentences, although their logical relation was not encoded by linguistic forms, the cue for their shared context was implied by interrelated expressions “going out of school” as well as “the society” in the first sentence and “gaining practical knowledge and experience” in the second one. As a result, I think going out of school and entering the society is an essential step to be successful. Joining in a volunteer group, working in a company, taking part in a talent or going travelling are all ways to gain practical knowledge and experience. (NE S39 L)

Besides, the lack of cohesive devices between adjacent progressive sentences might result in “choppy” sentences—the sentences that are grammatically correct but stylistically inappropriate in English argumentative essay writing, like the following: … I would like to take Cheng Hao for example. He didn’t even go to any school for he was disabled. He laid in bed for 23 years and could only use two fingers to type. But he wrote a lot of stories that inspired thousands even millions of people on the internet. He is more than success. He is a model. (E S19 M)

In the context of Chinese writing, the above between-sentence structure would be generally acceptable in the belief that it could strengthen the effect of impressing readers with the exemplified figure by using a similar structure. Apart from the absence of connective devices between progressive sentences, another mark of the implicit logic was the switch of focal points conveyed by the themes of sentences, which are in parallel relations. As indicated by the following excerpt, the first sentence highlights the role of university education; the second one, students’ advantage in making creations based on a wide range of knowledge acquired at university; and the third one, the condition for success—“innovative ability.” Presenting brand new themes is detrimental to the coherence of discourse in English essay writing because the theme position is usurped by further information,

5.2 Writing Performance in English and Chinese Writing Tests and English …

133

which breaks the given-new sequencing of information—a typical logical connection of sentences in English essay writing (Green et al., 2000). What’s more, the education in university makes us look at the picture of the world with a bigger view. We have the common knowledge of all branches, and we are more likely to create based on what we know. More and more successes depend on innovative ability nowadays. (NE S10 L)

The implicit logical relation also included the adversative link between two adjacent discourse units. In this case, the adversative link between the two sentences is either signaled by the Chinese adverbial word, e.g., “Ze (则),” placed behind the topic of the second sentence, or dependent upon the readers’ sense of contextual cues. The transfer of its rhetorical feature was embodied in the English texts as the absence of connective expressions, as suggested by the following two examples. First, good habits are the key to all success. Bad habits are the unlocked door to the failure. (NE S18 M) Second. You can see that we can’t come to the conclusion whether the qualities a person needs to become successful can be learned at school. We just can give the conclusion that… (NE S45 M)

In the first set of adjacent sentences, the contrast was implied by the antonymous words of the two sentences. As for the second set, the adversative relation was indicated by “can” in the first sentence and its negative form in the second. Both examples contained contextual cues for readers to sense the adversative relationship. (3b) Two or more clauses sharing the referent without overly mentioning it. Another form of discourse organization with implicit logical relations was when several independent sentences were combined into a single long one, in which they became clauses subject to the new sentence, as shown by the following example. When we learn at university, we have the chance to learn the basic knowledge and find what we are interested in, or somebody we are willing to get along with, the most important thing is to learn the ability to acquire knowledge or learn skills. (NE S38 L)

The above “run-on” sentence constituted a semantic unit composed of two clauses that had no connective expression between “we have the chance to…” and “and the most important thing is to…” The two clauses were connected because the second one contained the same semantic subject as the first one. Such macro-level rhetorical organization strengthens the bond seen from the view of Chinese rhetoric, but it is probably criticized as being too long or verbose for readers to read at ease according to the rules of sentence combination in English. As the English sentence-making rule specified, the second clause would normally be separated from this sentence to become an independent sentence. From the view of Chinese rhetoric, such a macro-level rhetorical organization may strengthen the bond between ideas. The tendency to link clauses more implicitly without overt conjunctions might be seen as a reflection of certain patterns in Chinese writing. It may allow for a flow of ideas perceived differently in that cultural context.

134

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

5.2.3 Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features in the Category of Rhetorical Construction for Arguments (1) Delaying or concealing the subpoint connected to the premise of an argument The main idea of argumentative paragraphs was implicitly treated, either delayed or omitted, in 25 English essays. In other words, it was elicited or implied rather than directly displayed in a clear position. (1a) Delaying the main idea or central theme of the body paragraph To ensure that readers naturally accepted their claim, a few participants were disposed to delay its presence until it was well ready to do so. More often than not, this rhetorical pattern could be illustrated as the evidence-claim or cause-therefore structure in which claim/therefore is inferred from evidence/cause. The evidence or reason was representative but not necessarily plentiful or adequate to support the final claim. For instance, instead of clarifying the subpoint of the argument in the following paragraph, the writer initiated the argumentative paragraph by presenting the common views regarding the elements of success held by most people. Then these views were refuted as opposed to the side of the writer’s argument. To evade the interference from these views, a transition sentence was devised to indicate the quality of success that this essay will discuss. Then, in the next sentence, the writer’s point of view was presented based on the scope of the topic specified before. The standard of “successful” may vary individually, yet most people would take power, fortune of fame as the symbol of being successful in career. Instead of other elements of success including opportunities, human relation and alike, there are some basic and common qualities of almost all successes, such as confidence, perseverance and devotion. These qualities can be acquired at university. (E S15 H)

Another preferred way to reveal the subpoint occurring in the English essays was to present common sense or widely acknowledged facts. The summary of these facts served as the warrant that made readers understand the direction favorable to the writer’s claim. This rhetorical method enabled the argument to go through a natural process, from which readers could gradually capture the writer’s intended meaning. This way, in which a warrant came first, was more advantageous in securely making a claim than advancing arguments straightforwardly according to the Chinese rhetorical convention. The following example illustrates a case of this rhetorical pattern: In one part, what can we do in university? The most important we get are knowledge and guidance…What about guidance? At university, professors and classmates all can guide us about study, life and so on… Therefore, to be successful, learning at university can provide many possibilities. (NE S24 L)

The above textual stretch covered the hard facts about the two functions of universities, which were so common that none could deny them. From the Chinese rhetorical

5.2 Writing Performance in English and Chinese Writing Tests and English …

135

perspective, the argument supported by typical facts is more competitive to win readers’ rational appeal than a mere reason for a viewpoint. However, as seen from the inductive pattern in English, the evidence contained in this rhetorical organization is insufficient to make the argument probable. Preceding a claim might be the presentation of factual evidence. Take the following argumentative paragraph as an example: Foremost, an illiterate person definitely is not successful in this century. Illiteracy is the evil start of poverty. Thus, our government spent so many efforts to eradicate illiteracy and implement compulsory education and offer favorable conditions for higher education. This is because the school or university is a palace of knowledge, which can tell you what is right or evil. From my perspective, to be a successful man, you need learn to be knowledgeable and good-mannered at the educational institution. (E S32 M)

The initial portion presented factual evidence associated with the great support for education in China. Then it was further explained that the rationale for such a governmental measure lies in the critical role of education in eliminating poverty and bringing out successful men. The claim that the importance of education cannot be disproved for certain was subsequently drawn forth at the end of the essay. As can be seen, the writer’s assertion was gradually approached in the process of analyzing the factual evidence. Another example is the following excerpt, which lists the figures’ anecdotes as factual evidence before revealing the main point of the argument: There are too many examples for the great role of the qualities for success which are learned in the non-university settings. It’s known to all that the greatest scientist Edison tried the material for light bulbs for thousands of times. Owing to his strong curiosity and perseverance, he finally got extraordinary success. However, the two qualities are not formed in the university setting. (NE S37 L)

This argumentative paragraph began with a general statement about the category of examples to be used. Then a typical example of Edison was illustrated in detail, and the writer’s claim was expressed until the end of this exemplification. This paragraph constructed arguments mainly by narrating a representative example, so the writer’s viewpoint was retained to wait until adequate ideas and information were provided to gain readers’ approval. The last sentence had a dual discourse function. On the one hand, it ended the anecdote about Edison by further explaining its implications. On the other hand, it implicitly expressed the writer’s claim. This last paragraph blended the factual evidence with the reasoning for the writer’s claim. (1b) Concealing the subpoint of the argument In several essays, the subpoint of the argument was not clarified until a valid warrant was offered. For example, in the following paragraph, the writer’s claim was omitted at the portion where a piece of factual evidence was presented and analyzed in detail. Maybe someone will say Bill Gates didn’t go to university, but he succeeds, those who have the most money rarely go to university. The reason why they succeed is they know what they want to do and to do what before they go to university. What’s more, they got the opportunity, the devoted all. There is no doubt they are successful. (NE S43 M)

136

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

This initial part of this argumentative paragraph first analyzed the limitation of typical contradictory evidence concerning its validity to address the potential challenge to the writer’s argument. It provided evidence that all of those figures who had no university education were aware of the goals they were pursuing and how to achieve them. Then the following part pointed out that this account does not accord with the cases of most students who have no idea about their future goals. As such, this evidence for the opposing argument was proved not sound enough to refute the writer’s viewpoint, which in turn was convincing even though no direct argument supported it from the positive side. Besides, the absence of claims for an argument might exhibit a specificgeneral pattern across paragraphs. For example, the following frame reflects that argumentative paragraphs were distributed to launch arguments from specific aspects. The problem is what make a person success. I believe that is tough spirit, experience and confidence. The first one is impossible learned in class… The Second One is Experience… The third one is confidence… (NE S42 L).

The frame listed above indicates that the writer concretized the qualities dealt with in this essay, which became specific as spirit, experience, and confidence. In the body part, three paragraphs were distributed to specifically discuss the importance of the three qualities and the reason they cannot be learned in formal education. None of these paragraphs had a topic sentence to summarize their main ideas. Instead, they introduced and extended the subpoints subordinate to the central point put forward at the beginning in the form of free discussion. It was not until these subpoints were elaborated upon that the generalized remarks were given in the conclusion part. (2) The parallel pattern of argumentation The parallel pattern of argumentation emerged in eight English essays. This rhetorical feature was manifested as such textual organization that the subpoints of argumentative paragraphs paralleled each other, which conveyed the points without the order of importance. The parallel pattern reflected the equal importance of these specific points to the overall demand for argumentation. As shown by the following example (E S33 M), this non-linear paragraph organization could be identified by two topic sentences at the outset of the two argumentative paragraphs. The position upheld by this essay was that “In my opinion, whether a person can learn the qualities necessary to be successful at university or in a similar academic institution depends on himself.” To support this position, the following argument was developed from two directions: (1) university education helps cultivate the qualities of success by providing valuable knowledge and skills, and (2) students’ initiative efforts play a fundamental role in achieving success. The two directions represented both the external and internal factors that contributed to the success, which did not display the progressive logical link as expected in English argumentative writing.

5.2 Writing Performance in English and Chinese Writing Tests and English …

137

First of all, a person who wants to be successful needs to learn some skills and knowledge from university education… Secondly, a person has the right to pursue success or not and choose the way to success… (E S33 M)

(3) Exemplification with classical or historical sources A total of eight essays had this Chinese rhetorical feature. Their textual manifestation was associated with the argument’s purpose, as illustrated by the following examples. First, what is more, the influence of education is silent. Then the proverb said, “a frog in the well will never know the ocean.” The knowledge is more than an ocean. (E S4 L)

This example demonstrates how a proverb originating from a Chinese idiom story can be employed to substantiate a claim about the transformative role of education in enlarging one’s perspective. The metaphor of the “frog in the well” represents a limited viewpoint, whereas the reference to the ocean symbolizes the vast expanse of knowledge that can be explored through education. The inclusion of this proverb is not merely ornamental. It functions as critical evidence for the claim, reflecting the value placed on wisdom and insights drawn from Chinese classical works. This rhetorical feature underscores the importance of cultural heritage and historical wisdom in shaping contemporary viewpoints and arguments. Indeed, in Chinese rhetoric, classical works and traditional proverbs are frequently quoted or cited as philosophical evidence for argumentation or to bolster a writer’s claims. They serve to root the argument in a recognized wisdom tradition, providing it with a form of cultural authority and resonance that might be deeply meaningful to readers familiar with these references. (4) The moral or philosophical implication in the conclusion There were 10 English essays being concluded in a Chinese way of rhetoric, which could be divided into the following two sub-categories: (4a) Conclusion with moral implication This way of concluding emphasized the practical implications drawn from the summary of the previous argument. Such implications were mostly initiated by the cohortative structure—“we should/must…” This structure effectively called for readers’ joint actions with moral values, aligning with moral values, or promoting a particular virtue. For instance, the following paragraph embodies such a summary + exhortation pattern. All in all, the statement is partially right. We should hold a neutral attitude towards the role of university, and should learn the qualities of success both in and outside universities to become a person useful for society. (E S11 M)

Instead of merely restating the writer’s position and stance, the first sentence resonates with the indirect beginning of the essay, “I agree with part of the statement.” From the perspective of Chinese rhetoric, this kind of symmetry between the beginning and

138

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

end emphasizes the multifaceted nature of the issue and the necessity for a balanced approach. The implication is clear: the qualities for success must be learned both in and outside universities to contribute positively to society. (4b) Conclusion with the philosophical implication An indirect conclusion might be intended to add the profound meaning that affected readers’ minds. This conclusion often goes beyond the specific argument to provide a universal insight or wisdom that might be derived from the subject. It can give the conclusion a more profound, reflective tone and connect the argument with broader human experiences or cultural values, as shown by the following conclusion: Maybe there are celebrities who haven’t go to universities at all, but I’m sure they are little percent. The head master of Beijing Normal University has said: “The aim of universities is to teach students how to read and live better.” If you want to be successful, you had better not skip the step. (NE S22 M)

It ended the essay with a remark about a Chinese figure and an implication drawn from this remark by the writer. However, the meaning of this remark was not clearly shown to the readers, which could be implicitly suggested to them with the aid of the contextual cues provided in the previous part. The indirect conclusion might also take the form of a question the writer raises. For instance, the following paragraph is a conclusion intended to inspire readers to understand the central opinion of the essay based on the partial statement of the writer’s viewpoint and the context set by the previous parts instead of stating the writer’s conclusion directly. So, whether university is the only place to learn the qualities for success? Not necessarily. (NE S9 L)

5.2.4 Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features in the Category of Rhetorical Techniques for Achieving Discourse Effects (1) Employment of rhetorical questions and tags This was a typical Chinese rhetorical feature used in 18 English essays, whose subcategory was twofold: (1a) Questions raised before the asserted statement From English writing samples, it was recognized that rhetorical questions appeared mostly before the writer asserted his or her own opinion. Their primary purpose was to draw readers’ attention to the topic that would be addressed in the essay. By stimulating their thinking about such topic-related questions, the writer could pave the way for readers to come into the area of his opinion and argument. In this case, EFL writers may expect readers to feel at ease when they begin reading the essay, as

5.2 Writing Performance in English and Chinese Writing Tests and English …

139

it was designed to aid their adaptation to the topic. Besides, these questions were also linked to unraveling the central meaning of the thesis statement. For instance, before the following thesis was stated, a series of questions were raised about the qualities of success. As can be seen, all the qualities involved in the question were concerned with traits or characters, implying the writer’s central opinion for argument. Indeed, the subsequent argument indicates that the “qualities” were mainly specialized as moral and ethical ones, which were irrelevant to academic study. What qualities do you think that a person needs to become successful? Braveness? Strongwillness? Or any other good qualities? Whatever your idea is, they must be useful to foster people’s all-round development…And I hold the view that we can learn the basic qualities we need to be successful at university or in a similar academic institution. (E S36 H)

(1b) Questions eliciting self-evident responses This integrative form was utilized for argumentative purposes as well, as shown in the following excerpt: “Reading makes a full man.” Bacon, a well-known philosopher, has told us the importance of reading. So, where can we read more books in different areas? Most people will think about university. Libraries in universities gather and select massive useful books… Admittedly, reading at university can widen our knowledge and leads us to enrich our mind. (EM S37 H)

This excerpt constituted the initial portion of an argumentative paragraph, which highlighted the importance of reading at university. The logic of the subsequent argument was created by deductive reasoning, in which reading was associated with studying in the libraries of universities. In terms of its textual function in this paragraph, the question following the citation of Bacon was posed to signal the connection of its adjacent sentences. The coherence was formulated based on the shared components as well as the logical link of their meaning, as illustrated by the following: Reading is important in accessing knowledge; reading is greatly supported by university libraries; university education fosters the qualities of success. As a device for developing the warrant, the rhetorical question shifted the argument from the extended part of a discourse to its focal subpoint. There was also the likelihood that rhetorical questions occurred to interpret the evidence in a way favoring the argumentative point, as suggested by the following example. The primary function of these questions was to strengthen the argument by arousing readers’ attention and emotion. Did he make mistakes after graduated from university? Sure, yes. Was he a mature leader of his party at the beginning? Sure, not. So what bring this? As he showed to us, it is because his experience and his ability in analyzing the reason of failure and his outstanding maintainability. (NE S19 L)

The series of questions followed by answers helped this part gradually approach the point intended by the participant, i.e., the vital importance of experience in promoting Chairman Mao’s success. Instead of adopting direct narration, the rhetorical effect of these questions depended on the readers’ background knowledge of Chairman Mao’s revolutionary experience.

140

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

From the angle of Chinese rhetoric, raising questions is deemed a valuable tool in drawing readers’ attention to specific ideas and information. More importantly, it is an effective strategy for boosting reasoning and argument. Its effectiveness lies in its capacity to gain the readers’ strong approval through simple questions and the definite answers immediately offered by Chinese writers. Unlike direct statements or narration, the operation of questioning has to activate readers’ contextual knowledge that writers expect. Otherwise, the echoing can hardly be generated in their minds. It is worth noting that contextual information originates from Chinese culture, history, or the social status quo. (2) Exact repetition of sentence patterns Four essays featured the repeated use of sentence patterns. This feature catered to the need to list the evidence and reasoning. As indicated by the following excerpt, these parallel-arranged sentences were positioned in the initial part of an argumentative paragraph. It seemed that the writer was attempting to make the parallel structure prominent in the essay. Specifically, the three compound sentences led by “when” were organized in a parallel pattern to present pieces of factual evidence related to different aspects of campus life. It was likely that this list of evidence collectively constituted a strong warrant for the writer’s claim. Fitting for this rhetorical structure, the corresponding argumentation could be constructed by listing facts without much writer’s reasoning. Such parallel organization appeared to conflict with the criterion of English writing’s local text construction—“progression of idea/example within a paragraph” (Hinkel, 2015, p. 153). We can learn everything we need in our life. For example, when we see garbage beside the road, we put up it, we will know that it’s our opportunity to keep our society clean. When we wait in line to get breakfast, we will know that only be polite to others, can we win other’s polite. When we learn for pass exam, even stay up to 3:00 am, we can know that we’d be keeping trying. (NE S30 L)

Sentences with a repeated pattern may also bear a progressive relation and be organized in a parallel or replicated structure. The following example shows that the two adjacent sentences were organized in the “so”-structure, indicating the writer’s claim through repetition. So, people can do all the thing he needs to do at university. So, he can learn the qualities a person needs to become successful. (NE S16 L)

Using “so” at the beginning of two adjacent sentences forms a parallel construction, which in turn emphasizes the logical progression of the argument. This repeated pattern can be interpreted as a rhetorical device to stress the cause-and-effect relationship between attending university and acquiring the qualities needed for success. From the perspective of Chinese rhetoric, the second “so” may be viewed as offering a more detailed analysis of the cause introduced by the first “so.” This reflects a tendency in Chinese rhetorical tradition to build upon a claim by reinforcing it with additional parallel statements.

5.3 Frequency of the English Argumentative Essays with Characteristic …

141

5.3 Frequency of the English Argumentative Essays with Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features Table 5.2 indicates that a variety of characteristic Chinese features were displayed in the participants’ English writing samples. It needs to be noted that the calculation of the English essays characterized by these features was aimed at their distribution among a participant group, so the count of these features in each sample would not be repeated if they occurred more than once. As seen from this table, a difference existed in the overall frequency distribution of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features. Those with a high percentage occurred in general rhetorical patterns, including Implicit semantic relations between discourse units (ISRDU), Turn for encompassing altered angles (TEAA), and Indirect statement of the central opinion (ISCO), whose frequency was all higher than 30%. What came second was Delaying or concealing the subpoint connected to the premise of an argument (DCSCPA) concerning the rhetorical construction of arguments, which Table 5.2 Overall frequency of the English texts with characteristic Chinese rhetorical features Category of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features

Number of English texts with characteristic Chinese rhetorical features (N)

Percentage (%) *

ISCO

29

32.58

TEAA

32

35.96

ISRDUa

43

48.31

ISRDUb

1

1.12

DCSCPAa

6

6.74

DCSCPAb

19

21.35

PPA

8

8.99

ECHSa

7

7.87

ECHSb

1

1.12

MPICa

3

3.37

MPICb

7

7.87

ERQTa

13

14.61

ERQTb

5

5.62

ERSP

4

4.49

Note: The denominator is the total number of the participants’ writing samples, so the percentage represents the proportion of samples exhibiting a characteristic Chinses rhetorical feature among the total. ISCO = Indirect statement of the central opinion; TEAA = Turn for encompassing altered angles; ISRDU = Implicit semantic relations between discourse units; DCSCPA = Delaying or concealing the subpoint connected to the premise of an argument; PPA = The parallel pattern of argumentation; ECHS = Exemplification with classical or historical sources; MPIC = The moral or philosophical implication in the conclusion; ERQT = Employment of rhetorical questions and tags; ERSP = Exact repetition of sentence patterns

142

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

had a frequency higher than 25%. There was the least emergence of Exact repetition of sentence patterns (ERSP) that was categorized as the specific techniques for creating discourse effects, accounting for only 4.49%. To examine the relationship between the frequency of the English texts with characteristic Chinese rhetorical features and English text quality, Chi-square tests were operated to compare the counts of the English texts exhibiting these features, which had been divided into three groups according to their text quality. The result showed a significant difference in the number of the English writing samples reflecting the following features among the highly, moderately, and lowly rated groups: ISCO (χ 2 = 7.859, df = 2, p < 0.05) and TEAA (χ 2 = 25.845, df = 2, p < 0.05), which emerged on general rhetorical patterns. As indicated by Table 5.3, these features occurred more frequently in lowly-rated writing than those in the highly-rated counterpart. Furthermore, it suggested that the frequency counts of these features were related to English text quality. There was no significant difference in the counts of other characteristic Chinese rhetorical features under investigation, including ISRDU, DCSCPA, PPA, ECHS, MPIC, ERQT, and ERSP (p > 0.05). Notably, ISRDU was similar in frequency among the lowly-rated, moderately-rated, and highly-rated groups, with a difference of less than 5%. As there existed more than one subcategory for ISRDU, DCSCPA, MPIC, ERQT, and ECHS, the frequency counts of these subcategories were submitted to Chi-square tests. Table 5.3 Frequency of the English texts with characteristic Chinese rhetorical features in the highly, moderately, and lowly rated English essays Category of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features

H (27)

M (28)

L (34)

N

%

N

%

N

%

ISCO

5

18.52

7

25

17

50

TEAA

2

7.41

7

25

23

67.65

ISRDU

14

51.85

14

50

16

47.06

DCSCPA

4

14.81

8

28.57

13

38.24

PPA

0

–

5

17.86

3

8.82

ECHS

1

3.70

1

3.57

6

17.65

MPIC

2

7.41

2

7.14

6

17.65

ERQT

1

3.70

7

25

10

29.41

ERSP

1

3.70

1

3.57

2

5.88

Note: ISCO = Indirect statement of the central opinion; TEAA = Turn for encompassing altered angles; ISRDU = Implicit semantic relations between discourse units; DCSCPA = Delaying or concealing the subpoint connected to the premise of an argument; PPA = The parallel pattern of argumentation; ECHS = Exemplification with classical or historical sources; MPIC = The moral or philosophical implication in the conclusion; ERQT = Employment of rhetorical questions and tags; ERSP = Exact repetition of sentence patterns

5.4 Validation of Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical …

143

Fig. 5.1 The frequency of the characteristic Chinese rhetorical features that are also exhibited in Chinese writing samples

It was found that there was a significant difference in the frequency of DCSCPAb (χ 2 = 8.257, df = 2, p < 0.05) among the lowly, moderately, and highly rated groups, which displayed the most frequent (29.41%), less frequent (25.00%), and the least frequent (7.41%) occurrences of this typical Chinese feature, respectively. No significant difference was found in the frequency of the subcategories of other rhetorical features among the three groups (p > 0.05). To further investigate the possibility of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer, I focused on the characteristic Chinese rhetorical features exhibited in both English and Chinese writing samples. Figure 5.1 demonstrates that more than 50% of all these features except ERSP (14.29%) were also displayed in Chinese writing samples. By comparison, most of these features that accounted for higher frequency were closely related to general rhetorical patterns (e.g., ISRDU: 87.72%, TEAA: 83.87%), rhetorical means and strategies for argument construction (e.g., MPIC: 63.64%) and techniques for interacting with or impressing upon readers’ mind (e.g., ERQT: 72.22%) in Chinese argumentative writing. Furthermore, their frequency percentages in Chinese writing were comparable to those in English, indicating the presence of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer.

5.4 Validation of Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire In this subsection, the data collected through MKCERDQ will be presented for the subsequent analyses of metacognitive knowledge about Chinese-English rhetorical differences, the relations between this metacognitive knowledge and Chinese L1-toEnglish L2 rhetorical transferring processes, and English writing performance. Before presenting the data for the analyses just mentioned, there is a need to justify the feasibility and quality of MKCERDQ with statistical data capable of indicating its reliability and validation. To assess its reliability, the internal consistency of this

144

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

questionnaire was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Moreover, confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted to obtain empirical support for the factorial validation of the scales that had been theoretically developed. These data were processed through the analytical procedures of SPSS 19.0 and Amos 22.

5.4.1 Background of Validation Data The sampled data for MKCERDQ was derived from 347 university students who voluntarily participated in the pilot test. Two invalid cases were removed from the sample. Among them, one case displayed systematic response bias, in which all the items elicited the same response; the other one featured missing values due to its inclusion of unanswered items. Hence, valid data was provided by 345 informants, excluding the 2 cases with biased responses and missing values. The distribution of the major and degree/grade level among these sampled students (male: 210/60.87%, female: 135/39.13%; English major: 80/23.19%, non-English major: 265/76.81%; freshman: 117/33.91%, sophomore: 146/42.32%, junior: 41/11.88%, senior: 23/6.67%, graduate: 13/3.77%, postgraduate: 5/1.45%) suggested that they were well representative of the participants to be selected for the formal research.

5.4.2 Descriptive Statistics and Univariate Normality Test To ensure the feasibility of inferential analyses, it is necessary to check whether the data collected via MKCERDQ was normally distributed. To this end, descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis, were calculated to judge normal distribution. The result showed that the mean scores displayed by the responses to the 26 items among the participants ranged from 3.00 to 3.79, with standard deviations lying between 0.840 and 1.138. The values for skewness were in the range of −0.71 to 0.03, which did not exceed the required cut-off values of ± 1.00 (Larson-Hall, 2010). Those for kurtosis were between −0.62 and 0.20, being close to zero, the thumb rule for kurtosis (Field, 2018), indicating the scores of these items were normally distributed, and they allowed for statistical inferences. An internal consistency reliability test was conducted on this questionnaire. Internal consistency, referring to “the homogeneity of the items making up the various multi-item scales within the questionnaire,” is one essential aspect of a questionnaire with appropriate and well-documented reliability (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2011, p. 94). For the measure of this reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was computed to determine the consistency estimates of the results across the items in MKCERDQ. As presented in Table 5.4, the overall reliability was fairly high (α = 0.917), and the reliability for each scale and subscale was acceptable, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.785 to 0.942, all of which were above 0.70, reaching the threshold for the minimum

5.4 Validation of Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical …

145

Table 5.4 Internal consistency reliability of MKCERDQ Scale (number of items)

Sub-scale (no. of items)

Reliability coefficient Cronbach’s alpha

Overall (26) Reader Awareness Across Languages (RAAL) (Items 4, 5, 6, 25, 26) 0.891 Perception of the Influence of Chinese Rhetorical Knowledge and Skills in English Writing (PICRKSEW) (Items 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 23)

0.942

Perception of Possible Interference from Chinese Rhetoric on Argument Construction in English Writing (PPICRACEW) (Items 15,19,21,24)

0.905

Perception of the Differences in the Coherence of Discourse Units 0.785 Between Chinese and English Writing (PDCDUCEW) (Items 7, 10, 12, 16) Perception of the Differences in the Pattern of Argumentation Between Chinese and English Writing (PDPACEW) (Items 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22)

0.902

All

0.917

reliability level required by the development of scales. Such high reliability suggests the high consistency of items in each subscale of MKCERDQ.

5.4.3 Construct Validity and Composite Reliability of Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire The validity tests of this questionnaire were conducted with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), a statistical technique used to verify the factor structure of a set of observed variables. The reasons for choosing CFA over exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were threefold. Firstly, compared with EFA, CFA is more appropriate in this study as it meets the demand of testing whether the measure of the construct in MKCERDQ, which has been determined in theory, is in line with the theoretical considerations taken into the design of this questionnaire. The design of MKCERDQ was supported by a theory-driven approach rather than a data-driven one, which determines the suitability of CFA for the construct validation of this questionnaire. Also, carrying out CFA is more adapted to the condition that the number and traits of factors contributing to the conceptual facets of the metacognitive knowledge interesting for this study have been theoretically prespecified. Another merit of CFA is that it reveals the interrelations between observed or measured and latent variables and provides an estimate of the unstandardized error in measuring latent variables using observed ones.

146

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

A total of 345 cases were submitted to the procedures of CFA. Among the discrepancy functions, maximum likelihood (ML) was chosen to calculate the parameter estimates that reflected the fit indices of the proposed model. The result of CFA indicated that the five-factor structure met all the cut-off criteria for good fit (TLI = 0.975 > 0.95, CFI = 0.977 > 0.95, RMSEA = 0.035 < 0.05, SRMR = 0.034 < 0.08, see Hu & Bentler, 1999; x 2 /df = 1.431 < 2, GFI = 0.917 > 0.9, IFI = 0.978 > 0.9, see Marsh & Hau, 1996). CFA also showed that the tested model had a strong convergent validity, as evidenced by three indexes, against the criteria set in Hair et al. (2010). Figure 5.2 presents the standardized regression weights of the five-factor correlated structure. As can be seen, the standardized factor loading coefficients on each variable were above 0.7, ranging from 0.71 to 0.99 (p < 0.05). It could thus be considered that their convergent validity was reasonably good. Additional evidence for the good convergent validity was that the AVE (Average Variance Expected) of all the factors, which was computed by Gaskins’ Stats Tools Package (2012), was greater than 0.5 (RAAL: 0.85; PPICRCAEW: 0.86; PICRKSEW: 0.95; PDCDUCEW: 0.71; PDPACEW: 0.76). Moreover, composite reliability coefficients were computed by Stats Tools Packages (Gaskin, 2012). This index of each sub-aspect was above 0.8 (RAAL: 0.92; PPICRACEW: 0.92; PICRKSEW: 0.95; PDCDUCEW: 0.81; PDPACEW: 0.91), suggesting that the construct reliability of this model was sound. The MSV and AVE of each factor were compared by Stats Tool Package to measure discriminant validity. It turned out that all five factors met the criterion of MSV < AVE, suggesting acceptable discriminant validity.

5.5 Results Based on the Data of Writing Tasks I and Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire The data from PWRQ (Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire) reflected the participants’ recall of the influence of Chinese rhetoric during the composing processes of English writing (i.e., Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes) and the participants’ perception of English writing difficulty in the writing process. Writing tests provided data concerning English and Chinese writing proficiency. The relevant results will be reported below. The descriptive analysis of PWRQ data was conducted to provide a general picture of the Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes. The skewness values displayed by all the transferring variables ranged from −0.631 to 0.122, and the kurtosis values of these variables were between −1.341 and 0.285, both of which met the criterion of normal distribution—within the interval of ± 1.00 (Larson-Hall, 2010) and near to zero (Field, 2018), respectively. The frequency percentage of the participants who chose “4—true of me” and “5—completely true of me” for each questionnaire item was calculated. It turned out that the percentages of those making this choice with higher- and lower- levels

5.5 Results Based on the Data of Writing Tasks I and Post-Writing …

147

Fig. 5.2 Five-factor structure of Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire

of English writing proficiency ranged from 18.5% to 55.5% and from 33.4% to 69.7%, respectively, and that for all but one item (Q8), the percentage of the higherproficiency participants choosing “4” and “5” was lower than that of their lowerproficiency counterparts. The difference in the percentage between the two groups of participants for Items 7, 10, 13, and 15 was comparatively small. The detailed results are listed in Appendix F. Descriptive data also indicated that the mean of OICPR (The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric) (M = 3.27, SD = 0.88) was higher than that of the other two dimensions [ICRCA (The Influence of

148

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

Chinese Rhetoric on the Construction of Arguments): M = 3.12, SD = 0.91; ICRTO (The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on Text Organization): M = 3.03, SD = 0.87]. To examine whether Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes could be affected by the L2 writer-related factors assumed to affect their English writing performance, multiple regression analyses were run with the three categories of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes (i.e., OICPR, ICRCA, and ICRTO) entered as outcome variables and perception of English writing difficulty and English and Chinese writing test scores as three predictor variables. The stepwise method was adopted to include variables in models since this method could automatically remove one independent variable that failed to enter the model according to the criteria for the probability of F value (p-value) in each step (Field, 2018). This method ensured an objective inclusion and exclusion of variables, minimizing the risk of human bias. Table 5.5 indicates that all the three factors were retained for the prediction of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes in OICPR and ICRCA [OICPR: F (3, 85) = 6.854, p = 0.000, R = 0.441, R2 = 0.195, adjusted R2 = 0.166; ICRCA: F (3, 85) = 7.706, p = 0.000, R = 0.462, R2 = 0.214, adjusted R2 = 0.186]; perception of English writing difficulty and English writing score jointly contributed to the prediction of the transferring processes in the dimension of ICRTO: F (2, 86) = 13.045, p = 0.000, R = 0.482, R2 = 0.233, adjusted R2 = 0.215. As each item represented an individualized aspect of transferring processes, the relationship between the variable denoted by a single item and the three factors was Table 5.5 The prediction of the three categories of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes with perception of English writing difficulty and English and Chinese writing scores as the predictors Outcome variable/ Predictor variable

Perception of English writing difficulty

English writing score

Chinese writing score

B (SE B)

β

B (SE B)

β

B (SE B)

β

0.301* (0.120)

0.254

−0.096* (0.038)

−0.253

0.185* (0.090)

0.208

The Influence of 0.252* Chinese Rhetoric on (0.113) the Construction of Arguments (ICRCA)

0.252

-0.085* (0.036)

−0.235

0.251** (0.084)

0.299

The Influence of 0.427** Chinese Rhetoric on (0.119) Text Organization (ICRTO)

0.346

−0.109** (0.038)

−0.276

–

–

The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric (OICPR)

**

p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 Note: B = unstandardized coefficients; SE B = standard error of unstandardized coefficients; β = standardized coefficients

5.5 Results Based on the Data of Writing Tasks I and Post-Writing …

149

also statistically analyzed, which were submitted to regression analysis using the stepwise method as outcome and predictor variables, respectively. Table 5.6 demonstrates that perception of English writing difficulty and Chinese writing score contributed to the positive prediction of two transferring variables in the category of OICPR together, as marked by Items 12 and 13 [Q12: F (2, 86) = 4.979, p = 0.000, R = 0.322, R2 = 0.104, adjusted R2 = 0.083; Q13: F (2, 86) = 4.663, p = 0.012, R = 0.313, R2 = 0.098, adjusted R2 = 0.077]; English writing score was retained as a single negative predictor for three transferring variables in this dimension, as marked by Items 1, 2, and 3 [Q1: F (1, 87) = 10.418, p = 0.002, R = 0.327, R2 = 0.107, adjusted R2 = 0.097; Q2: F (1, 87) = 10.071, p = 0.002, R = 0.322, R2 = 0.104, adjusted R2 = 0.093; Q3: F (1, 87) = 10.081, p = 0.002, R = 0.322, R2 = 0.104, adjusted R2 = 0.094]. Two transferring variables in the category of ICRCA, which were marked by Items 11 and 16, could be predicted by English and Chinese writing scores together [Q11: F (2, 86) = 7.348, p = 0.001, R = 0.382, R2 = 0.146, adjusted R2 = 0.126; Q16: F (2, 86) = 8.814, p = 0.000, R = 0.412, R2 = 0.170, adjusted R2 = 0.151]; two variables under this category, i.e., those marked by Items 9 and 17, were negatively predicted by English writing score alone [Q9: F (1, 87) = 7.304, p = 0.008, R = 0.278, R2 = 0.077, adjusted R2 = 0.067; Q17: F (1, 87) = 4.736, p = 0.032, R = 0.227, R2 = 0.052, adjusted R2 = 0.041]; besides, the transferring variable represented by Item 8 was positively predictable from perception of English writing difficulty on its own [F (1, 87) = 5.643, p = 0.000, R = 0.247, R2 = 0.061, adjusted R2 = 0.050]. Table 5.6 also shows that perception of English writing difficulty and English writing score jointly displayed a prediction on two variables in the category of ICRTO, which were signaled by Items 4 and 5, respectively [Q4: F (2, 86) = 10.901, p = 0.000, R = 0.450, R2 = 0.202, adjusted R2 = 0.184; Q5: F (2, 86) = 12.321, p = 0.000, R = 0.472, R2 = 0.23, adjusted R2 = 0.205]; the variable embodied by Item 6 was positively predicted by perception of English writing difficulty and that by Item 14 was negatively predicted by English writing score [Q6: F (1, 87) = 8.435, p = 0.000, R = 0.297, R2 = 0.088, adjusted R2 = 0.078; Q14: F (1, 87) = 6.781, p = 0.011, R = 0.269, R2 = 0.072, adjusted R2 = 0.062]. One-way ANOVA was employed to examine whether there was a difference in the degrees of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes among the highly, moderately, and lowly rated English essays. As the number of the three groups of English texts differed, Scheffe was chosen as the method of post hoc test. As shown in Table 5.7, there was a significant difference in the mean score of seven items among the highly rated, moderately rated, and lowly rated English texts. The estimates of eta squared indicated (η2 ) the medium effect sizes for the analysis (>0.06) (see Cohen, 1988). These items touched on seven sub-aspects of the Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring process, which marked the difference in the frequency of transferring processes among the three groups of English texts. Among them, three were under the category of The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric (Q1, Q2, and Q3), two under the category of The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on the Construction of Arguments (Q10 and Q15), and two under the category of The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on Text Organization (Q4 and Q5).

150

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

Table 5.6 The prediction of the variables of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes with perception of English writing difficulty and English and Chinese writing scores as the predictors Outcome variable/ Predictor variable

Perception of English writing difficulty

Category

B (SE B) β

English writing score

Chinese writing score

B (SE B) β

B (SE B) β

OICPR

Q1 The – influence of Chinese writing conventions and standards

–

−0.158 (0.049)

−0.327**

–

–

OICPR

Q2 The – influence of Chinese writing knowledge

–

−0.149 (0.047)

−0.322**

–

–

OICPR

Q3 The – influence of Chinese writing strategies and techniques

–

−0.150 (0.047)

−0.322**

–

–

OICPR

Q12 The 0.253 influence of (0.147) Chinese rhetoric on enhancing the persuasiveness of viewpoints in English argumentative writing

0.264*

–

–

0.253 (0.110)

0.239*

OICPR

Q13 The employment of Chinese translation during the composing process

0.360 (0.148)

0.254*

–

–

0.249 (0.110)

0.235*

ICRCA

Q8 The influence of Chinese rhetoric on the statement of a thesis

0.358 (0.151)

0.247*

–

–

–

–

(continued)

5.5 Results Based on the Data of Writing Tasks I and Post-Writing …

151

Table 5.6 (continued) Outcome variable/ Predictor variable

Perception of English writing difficulty

English writing score

Chinese writing score

Category

B (SE B) β

B (SE B) β

B (SE B) β

ICRCA

Q9 The influence of Chinese rhetoric on the overall arrangement of argumentative paragraphs

–

–

−0.138 (0.051)

−0.278*

–

–

ICRCA

Q11 The influence of Chinese rhetoric on the method of developing arguments

–

–

−0.123 (0.049)

−0.252*

0.284 (0.115)

0.249*

ICRCA

Q16 The – influence of Chinese rhetoric on the treatment of the opposing opinion

–

−0.128 (0.049)

−0.261*

0.318 (0.114)

0.279*

ICRCA

Q17 The influence of Chinese rhetoric on the way of conclusion

–

–

−0.105 (0.048)

−0.227*

–

–

ICRTO

Q4 Organizing the content in Chinese and translating it into English when developing a paragraph

0.506 (0.167)

0.298**

−0.155 (0.053)

−0.285**

–

–

(continued)

152

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

Table 5.6 (continued) Outcome variable/ Predictor variable

Perception of English writing difficulty

English writing score

Chinese writing score

Category

B (SE B) β

B (SE B) β

B (SE B) β

ICRTO

Q5 The influence of Chinese L1 patterns of writing on the organization of thoughts in paragraph development

0.601 (0.151)

0.386**

−0.104 (0.048)

−0.208*

–

–

ICRTO

Q6 The influence of Chinese logical patterns on discourse organization when developing a paragraph

0.423 (0.146)

0.297**

–

–

–

–

ICRTO

Q14 The influence of Chinese rhetoric on paragraph transition

–

–

−0.125 (0.048)

−0.269*

–

–

**

p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 Note: B = unstandardized coefficients; SE B = standard error of unstandardized coefficients; β = standardized coefficients

Post hoc test revealed a significant difference in the degree of these transferring processes between the highly and lowly rated groups but not between the highly and moderately rated groups or between the moderately and lowly rated groups.

5.6 Results Based on the Rhetorical Evaluation of English Writing Samples Table 5.8 presents the feedback or comments made on the characteristic Chinese rhetorical features in English texts by the three native English-speaking evaluators (i.e., Sarah, Susan, Mike). As shown in this table, there were four outcomes

5.6 Results Based on the Rhetorical Evaluation of English Writing Samples

153

Table 5.7 Comparison of scores in PWRQ among the highly, moderately, and lowly rated English writing Variable of items

df

F

p

η2

Q1 The influence of Chinese writing conventions and standards

2

4.814*

0.018

0.089

Q2 The influence of Chinese writing knowledge

2

4.978*

0.011

0.100

Q3 The influence of Chinese writing strategies and techniques

2

5.360**

0.008

0.106

Q4 Organizing the content in Chinese and translating it into 2 English when developing a paragraph

5.345**

0.006

0.111

Q5 The influence of Chinese L1 patterns of writing on the organization of thoughts in paragraph development

2

4.555*

0.030

0.079

Q10 The influence of Chinese L1 rhetoric on the development of argumentative paragraphs

2

5.866**

0.008

0.106

Q15 The influence of Chinese L1 rhetoric on the usage of evidence

2

5.062**

0.017

0.091

*

p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

of rhetorical evaluation: “all-positive”—no negative feedback or comments; “twopositive”—negative feedback or comments from one evaluator; “two-negative”— negative feedback or comments from two evaluators and “all-negative”—negative feedback or comments from all the three evaluators. The textual outcomes of the following categories of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features were “all-negative,” i.e., ISCO, ISRDUb, ECHSb, ERQTa, ERQTb, ERSP, and, that is, they were given a negative evaluation by all three evaluators; those of the other ones did not receive a consistent rhetorical evaluation, especially ISRDUa, which received similar numbers of positive and negative feedback or comments. The following analyses will focus on how these typical Chinese features were negatively evaluated. (1) Indirect statement of the central opinion (ISCO) ISCO was a textual feature concerning the global level of texts, typically located in the introduction part of an English essay. In the current research, each case of ISCO that was evaluated (29/29) received negative feedback from all three English evaluators. This unanimity among the evaluators highlights a clear cross-cultural disparity in how this rhetorical device is perceived. Most comments on this transfer instance pointed out the problem arising from the lack of essential argumentative elements, including the thesis statement and the outlining sentence. As exemplified by the case in Table 5.9, on the discourse level, this problem was revealed as the absence of a thesis statement according to the evaluators’ comments, which led to confusion about the writer’s stance or central idea. It is safe to say that this characteristic Chinese rhetorical feature negatively affected the text quality.

154

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

Table 5.8 Number of feedback or comments on characteristic Chinese rhetorical features Category of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features

Feedback or comments All-positive

Two-positive

Two-negative

All-negative

ISCO

0

0

0

29

TEAA

2

0

3

27

ISRDUa

29

6

11

19

ISRDUb

0

0

0

1

DCSCPAa

1

0

1

4

DCSCPAb

0

0

4

18

PPA

2

0

3

4

ECHSa

2

2

3

1

ECHSb

0

0

0

1

MPICa

1

0

0

2

MPICb

1

0

0

8

ERQTa

0

0

0

16

ERQTb

0

0

0

5

ERSP

0

0

0

4

Note: ISCO = Indirect statement of the central opinion; TEAA = Turn for encompassing altered angles; ISRDU = Implicit semantic relations between discourse units; DCSCPA = Delaying or concealing the subpoint connected to the premise of an argument; PPA = The parallel pattern of argumentation (The coordinate relation among argumentative paragraphs); ECHS = Exemplification with classical or historical sources; MPIC = The moral or philosophical implication in the conclusion; ERQT = Employment of rhetorical questions and tags; ERSP = Exact repetition of sentence patterns Table 5.9 Typical negative comments on the effect of ISCO upon an exemplified excerpt ISCO Textual manifestation

Typical negative comment

Case

“You need to state your agreement or disagreement about the topic sentence in the first paragraph.”(Sarah) “A thesis statement needs to be added in the introduction.” (Susan) “There is no clear statement of the stance in the introduction paragraph.” (Mike)

Wisdom, patience, as well as many good qualities are widely regarded as very important qualities to become successful. They are not formed in born, they are formed or learned at school, which may be primary school, high school or university. (NE S4 M)

5.6 Results Based on the Rhetorical Evaluation of English Writing Samples

155

(2) Turn for encompassing altered angles (TEAA) The majority of targeted TEAA cases (27/32) were “all-negative.” TEAA was considered to cause the incomplete development of arguments because it caused a lack of exemplification or detailed explanation, as evidenced by Sarah’s evaluation of the paragraph of Case 1 in Table 5.10. According to Mike, the problem came down to a deficiency in paragraph organization, i.e., the failure to display the progression of the argument throughout the paragraph. Besides, the adverse effect on the rhetorical outcome was also recognized as the digression from the topic and the disordered structural progression. In the excerpt shown for Case 2, the first body paragraph argued for the importance of three qualities in achieving success—“integrity,” “perseverance,” and “the ability to learn” in a parallel sequence constantly. Although the writer might have intended to bring out the specific facets of the qualities of success, it turned out that the outcome of this Table 5.10 Typical negative comments on the effect of TEAA upon exemplified excerpts TEAA Textual manifestation

Typical negative comment

Case 1 First of all, obviously, university is the place where students acquire academic and life knowledge rather than successful people were born. Second, the criteria of “successful” depend on whether a person is able to apply those book words into practical situation independently and flexibly. In addition, a large part of a person’s whole life would be spent in society dealing with complex situations. People have to meet various kinds of people and address difficult challenges every day. Therefore, there are more qualities a person needs to acquire such as dealing with people you dislike and respect for authority than academic knowledge.

“You list multiple ideas in this paragraph, but do not elaborate them in detail.” (Sarah) “This paragraph is not well organized, for it fails to display the progression.” (Mike)

Case 2 Integrity, perseverance and the ability to do research indisputably altogether constitute the qualities that a person needs to become successful in the academic development. Integrity to a man is like what water to fish… Regarding perseverance, I have never in my life seen someone who quits easily accomplished something magnificent…The ability to complete research is also a requisite for students to be academically successful… (E S12 L)

“Your whole paragraph is off-topic, you failed to relate the acquisition of the aforementioned character traits to school environment or non-school environment. Please rewrite this.” (Sarah) “You need to discuss how the qualities you elaborate relate with the role of university.” (Mike)

156

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

rhetorical performance was disfavoured by native English readers. As responded to by Sarah and Mike, this paragraph did not touch on the focus of the given topic, especially the relationship between higher education and the development of qualities necessary for success. (3) Implicit semantic relations between discourse units (ISRDU) (3a) No explicit linguistic signal of the logical connection between adjacent clauses (ISRDUa) Among the cases of ISRDUa that were evaluated, those receiving “all-negative” and “two-negative” evaluations occurred as frequently as those with “all-positive” and “two-positive” evaluations (the former: 30 times, the latter: 35 times). In Case 1 (Table 5.11), the problem of ISRDUa was connected with the matter of rhetorical style by Sarah. According to her evaluation, the use of “choppy” sentences had an adverse effect on the demonstration of syntactic variety. In Mike’s view, ISRDUa in Case 1 was problematic with the organization between adjacent sentences; the relevant portion needed to be revised by strengthening the cohesion of these sentences. Table 5.11 Typical negative comments on the effect of ISRDUa upon exemplified excerpts ISRDUa Textual manifestation

Typical negative comment

Case 1

… I would like to take Cheng Hao for example. He is more than success; he is a model. He didn’t even go to any school for he was disabled. He laid in bed for 23 years and could only use two fingers to type. But he wrote a lot of stories that inspired thousands even millions of people on the internet. (E S19 M)

“Avoid choppy sentences and vary your sentence structure.” (Sarah) “Use different sentence structures to keep the writing fresh and varied, making it easier to read.” (Susan) “Organize these adjacent sentences properly with cohesive words.” (Mike)

Case 2

In the point of my view, practice is the sole criterion for testing truth, the people who want to become success should be more practical. We need to know that the university or similar academic institution is just a station that provides us mental power, not the only road for success in the real situation. (NE S45 L)

“The organization of sentences needs to be improved.” (Sarah) “The two sentences do not appear logically coherent.” (Susan) “The logical link between the two sentences is unclear, signal it with connective words.” (Mike)

5.6 Results Based on the Rhetorical Evaluation of English Writing Samples

157

A similar problem occurred in Case 2. In her comment, Sarah clarified the need to enhance the relationship between sentences. The comments from Susan and Mike highlighted the influence of this problem on the interaction with readers; specifically, the absence of linking words made it difficult for readers to grasp the logical progression of discourse. Overall, it appeared that ISRDUa had a negative effect because the involved sentences coexisted in the same or closely linked rhetorical move(s) (including exemplification and claim-making), and there was no explicit signal indicating the relationship between these sentences. (3b) Two or more clauses sharing the referent without overly mentioning it (ISRDUb) This pattern is familiar or accepted in Chinese rhetorical traditions, but as the analysis showed, it was not well-received in English argumentative essay writing. As presented in Table 5.12, the single case of ISRDUb, substantiated by a “run-on” sentence, was “all-negative.” A common problem detected by the raters was its loose sentence structure or the failure to organize adjacent sentences. It suggested that the Chinese way of discourse organization to mark the boundary between a sentence and its neighbors was inappropriate in English composition rhetoric. Such a finding reveals that this particular feature of Chinese rhetorical tradition does not translate effectively into English writing standards. (4) Delaying or concealing the subpoint connected to the premise of an argument (DCSCPA) The problems engendered by DCSCPA were central to the delayed or absent topic sentence. (4a) Delaying the main idea or central theme of the body paragraph (DCSCPAa) Among the cases of DCSCPAa evaluated by English raters, 4 out of 6 were “allnegative,” 1 “two-negative,” and the other one “all-positive.” As exemplified by Case Table 5.12 Typical negative comments on the effect of ISRDUb upon an exemplified excerpt ISRDUb Textual manifestation Case

When we learn at university, we have the chance to learn the basic knowledge and find what we are interested in, or somebody we are willing to get along with, the most important thing is to learn the ability to acquire knowledge or learn skills. (NE S38 L)

Typical negative comment “The sentences here are not properly organized.” (Sarah) “The sentence is too long, it needs to be cut short and connected by linking words.” (Susan) “This part fails to display the unity of its located paragraph.” (Mike)

158

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

1 (Table 5.13), one prominent problem arising from DCSCPAa was that the key point was not clarified to unite the upcoming content at the beginning of this paragraph. Due to the lack of a focal point, the way the listed facts were connected with the main idea was considered unclear to readers, according to Susan’s evaluation. Mike identified this problem from the perspective that ideas were improperly organized. These ideas were not placed in a sequential order, which was supposed to progress from the general to the specific. The other problems aroused by DCSCPAa were mainly concerned with the argument pattern, as reflected by Case 2. It appeared that the presented paragraph purported to follow an inductive pattern, i.e., the sequence from specific examples to a general idea. However, the evaluators’ comments indicated the failure of the paragraph arrangement. According to Sarah, this paragraph’s structure lessened the argument’s effectiveness in length-limited writing. Mike’s evaluation pointed to the negative effect of DCSCPAa on argumentative adequacy, which meant that the evidence accommodated by the paragraph was inadequate to support the final claim. (4b) Concealing the main idea or central theme of the body paragraph (DCSCPAb) As regards DCSCPAb, 18 cases of this feature were negatively evaluated by all three raters and four by two raters, as exemplified by Cases 1 and 2, respectively. As Table 5.13 Typical negative comments on the effect of DCSCPAa upon exemplified excerpts DCSCPAa Textual manifestation

Typical negative comment

Case 1

We can learn everything we need in our life. For example, when we see garbage beside the road, we pick it up. We will know that it is our responsibility to keep our society clean. When we wait in line to get breakfast, we will know that only be polite to others can we win other’s politeness and respect. When we learn for passing exams, even stay up to 3 pm, we know that we should keep trying. All we talk about is the qualities that a person needs to become a successful man. (NE S29 L)

“You state a series of facts at first, but you fail to explain how these facts are connected with the main idea of this paragraph.” (Susan) “First thing, you need to organize your ideas properly. Then, you must express them in a sequential order.” (Mike)

Case 2

As we learned in the university, we wake up early in the morning to take class, and we might study in the library after the class, reviewing the notes. What’s more, we have plenty of time to read a book which entertains us. So there’s no doubt that the university establishes us excellent qualities. (E S18 M)

“The structure is not good to generate an effective argument in a short essay; you need to follow a linear pattern in which a general idea is proposed at first and then support it with specific examples and explanations.” (Sarah) “It is obvious that the evidence you have given is not adequate to elicit your claim in the final position.” (Mike)

5.6 Results Based on the Rhetorical Evaluation of English Writing Samples

159

shown by the excerpt of Case 1 in Table 5.14, the presented paragraph set out to put forward ideas about the contribution of three qualities to achieving success and finally to associate these qualities with the role of university education. All these ideas were presented in a parallel order without a specific explanation. Sarah criticized this pattern of argument for lacking support from examples. Susan identified the problem with this paragraph as the absence of a topic sentence that clarified the sub-point of the argument before it was further extended in the subsequent portion. For Mike, the structure of this excerpt could not be accepted because the three aspects of reasoning were not focused on a central idea. Case 2 revealed that the writer meant to provide factual evidence that accounted for the importance of university education in shaping the qualities of success in a body paragraph. Sarah commented that this paragraph failed to explain how these pieces of evidence were connected to the central idea of the whole essay. Her remark showed that the absence of a topic sentence made the argument lose its orientation. From the perspective of paragraph organization, Mike highlighted the link between the paragraph and the previous one in Case 2, so he advised combining the two paragraphs. It implied that he did not reckon that the paragraph was self-contained, for it did not have its key point. (5) The parallel pattern of argumentation (The coordinate relation among argumentative paragraphs) (PPA) Among the 9 cases of PPA, 4 were “all-negative,” 3 “two-negative,” and the other 2 “all-positive.” The majority of the raters’ responses focused on its negative impact, which was primarily attributed to the fact that PPA is central to the between-paragraph organization of the body part. In the particular example presented in Table 5.15, the lack of clear connections between the body paragraphs led to the conclusion that they were not interlinked in a way that followed traditional English rhetoric. According to Mike, this problem was predominantly caused by the lack of transitional signals marking the logical progression from one key point to another. The findings suggest that while PPA may be a legitimate and effective rhetorical tool in Chinese writing, its application in English composition may result in confusion, fragmentation, and a lack of coherence. The absence of well-defined links between paragraphs may leave the reader struggling to navigate the text and understand how each section relates to the others. (6) Exemplification with classical or historical sources (ECHS) (6a) Quotations from classical remarks or works (ECHSa) In the case of ECHSa, the number of English essays receiving negative evaluations (including 3 “two-negative” and 1 “all-negative”) was similar to that of those receiving positive ones (including 2 “two-positive” and 2 “all-positive”). The raters’ judgment of ECHSa’s effects largely depended on whether Chinese classical quotes made sense to native English raters. It implied that negative feedback towards this characteristic Chinese rhetorical feature would be generated if the quoted remark confused raters’ understanding of discourse meaning. A typical example is presented by the case in Table 5.16. In this case, ECHSa emerged in the conclusion part of this

160

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

Table 5.14 Typical negative comments on the effect of DCSCPAb upon exemplified excerpts DCSCPAb Textual manifestation

Typical negative comment

Case 1

Firstly, only you have the quality about respect and kindness. I believe everyone can succeed even if you have not much money. In the second place, as the saying goes, “A father is a treasure, a brother is a comfort, but a friend is both,” from it we can see other guys who are your friends will be important for one’s successful way, you can acquire the help from friends when you are in poverty. In addition, success needs opportunity, you must obey the social rules to develop, or you will be thrown away by society. All these qualities are being focused on at university, don’t they? (NE S47 L)

“Please provide examples to support your ideas.” (Sarah) “You need to write a topic sentence to summarize the main idea in the beginning.” (Susan) “This paragraph lacks the unity since the three points are loosely connected.” (Mike)

Case 2

I know a lot of people might think of Bill Gates who has never finished college, or Susan Chan who has never been to college, and so on, they have a brilliant life. What we see, however, is the surface. They do not have the mental qualities they have. We will gradually develop them in our future life, and the educational institutions have given us such opportunities. (NE S7 M)

“This body paragraph merely states the examples but does not contain detailed analysis of how they connect to the thesis statement.” (Sarah) “This paragraph is not independent from the main idea of the previous one, so they had better be combined.” (Mike)

Table 5.15 Typical negative comments on the effect of PPA upon an exemplified excerpt PPA

Textual manifestation

Case University is the place where we can study… … University is a small society where we can develop many qualities in practice (NE S16 L)

Typical negative comment “The structural pattern of paragraphs is not clearly displayed.” (Susan) “The main ideas of your argumentation are not explicitly connected by transitional signals in a progressive sequence.” (Mike)

5.6 Results Based on the Rhetorical Evaluation of English Writing Samples

161

essay; it gave rise to Susan’s suspicion for its accuracy of meaning and appropriateness in the context. Mike construed the problem in this matter of ECHSa from the perspective of rhetorical style. In particular, he was apt to treat the emergence of ECHSa as a negative factor that affected how logical ideas were properly presented. (6b) Arguments by using historical figures’ anecdotes (ECHSb) There existed a single case of ECHSb, as shown in Table 5.17. In this case, the anecdote of Mencius—a Chinese sage, was utilized in the introductory paragraph to introduce the topic. The evaluation of this case illustrates the diverging rhetorical norms between Chinese and English writing. Both Sarah and Mike identified the introduction as problematic, mainly because it did not conform to the structure typically expected in an argumentative English essay, which usually includes a clear paraphrase of the question, a thesis statement, and an outlining sentence. In traditional Chinese rhetoric, however, anecdotes and historical references are often utilized as effective introductory tools to provide context, capture attention, and convey wisdom. Such techniques are deeply rooted in China’s rich cultural Table 5.16 Typical negative comments on the effect of ECHSa upon an exemplified excerpt ECHSa Textual manifestation

Typical negative comment

Case

“Do not use an idiom unless you are not 100% sure about its usage and its meaning is clear and fits in your context.” (Susan) “An attempt is made to reach a logical conclusion; yet, ideas are not presented in a proper manner here.” (Mike)

Thus, I am reminded of the famous saying, “life is like a box of chocolate, and we never know what we are gonna get!” Believe it or not, but that is the truth. A great Chinese philosopher Mencius also said, “We cannot get both two sides, we must choose one and lose one.” And, this thing is just like that… (NE S29 L)

Table 5.17 Typical negative comments on the effect of ECHSb upon an exemplified excerpt ECHSb Textual manifestation

Typical negative comment

Case

“This is not a good introductory paragraph; a hook is not necessary and you need to paraphrase the question, provide a thesis statement, and include an outline statement.” (Sarah) “This paragraph fails to fully introduce the topic—the role of university or other academic institutions developing qualities of success.” (Mike)

If you know about the Chinese culture, you may hear of a story that a mother called Mrs. Meng moved her home for three times to build a good environment for her son. So this story tells us the environment influences our qualities. (E S7 M)

162

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

and philosophical traditions, drawing on centuries of literature, history, and moral teachings. (7) The moral or philosophical implication in the conclusion (MPIC) (7a) Conclusion with moral implications (MPICa) As to the cases of MPICa, two were “all-negative” and 1 “all-positive.” Take the Case in Table 5.18, for example. The negative evaluations of MPICa mainly indicated that it did not contribute to the function of the conclusion or failed to keep in line with the topic. However, it’s important to note that the presence of MPICa did not universally lead to negative evaluations. The other “all-positive” case shows that MPICa can be appropriately used in English argumentative essay writing without causing issues. This suggested that the problem may not lie in the MPICa strategy itself but in how it is executed. Therefore, the success or failure of MPICa in English writing may hinge on careful consideration of context, purpose, and audience expectations. All but one commented case of MPICb were disfavoured by the three raters altogether. Similar to MPICa, MPICb was considered to hinder the function of conclusion, i.e., the restatement of the writers’ central opinion and the way of arguments, which was implied by Sarah’s and Susan’s comments, as listed in Table 5.19. According to Mike, the other problem caused by MPICb was that it led to difficulty in understanding discourse meaning, which thus affected the success of the communication with readers. Nevertheless, in Chinese yilunwens, such a way of conclusion is credible, implying a reflective perspective and profound thoughts; it has the potential to engage the reader in a deeper, more contemplative dialogue. (8) Employment of rhetorical questions and tags (ERQT) (8a) Questions raised before the asserted statement (ERQTa) The evaluation of ERQTa revolved around the usage of rhetorical questions. Without exception, all the instances of ERQTa were taken as negative factors that weakened the quality of English writing, with 16 out of 16 being “all-negative.” As indicated by Table 5.20, the engendered problems were multifaceted: Some of them were externalized as the inappropriateness of the rhetorical question, which was deemed unnecessary by Sarah in both Cases 1 and 2; the others broke the norm of English Table 5.18 Typical negative comments on the effect of MPICa upon an exemplified excerpt MPICa Textual manifestation

Typical negative comment

Case 1

“The ending sentence is off the topic.” (Sarah) “The final sentence has nothing to do with the conclusion.” (Mike)

All in all, this excellent quality will go with you all the time if you keep seeing around the world… Last but not the least, don’t just sit down and learn. You should go out of the room and you’ll learn more. (NE S6 H)

5.6 Results Based on the Rhetorical Evaluation of English Writing Samples

163

Table 5.19 Typical negative comments on the effect of MPICb upon an exemplified excerpt MPICb

Textual manifestation

Typical negative comment

Case

Maybe there are some celebrities who haven’t go to universities at all, but I’m sure they are little percent. The head master of Beijing Normal University has said: “The aim of universities is to teach students how to read and live better.” If you want to be successful, you had better not skip the step. (E S21 L)

“Do not introduce new ideas in the conclusion.” (Sarah) “The conclusion fails to display your agreement in the end.” (Susan) “The meaning of the concluding sentence is vague and elusive.” (Mike)

argumentative writing, including its interference with clarifying the main idea of a body paragraph, as seen by Mike’s comment in Case 1 and by Susan’s comment in Case 2, as well as its interference with achieving the efficiency of arguments, as shown by Mike’s comment in Case 2. That is, the use of rhetorical questions caused the writers’ failure to state their stance or point of argument directly; meanwhile, it harmed the efficiency of communication of the writers’ intended meaning. (8b) Questions eliciting self-evident responses (ERQTb)

Table 5.20 Typical negative comments on the effect of ERQTa upon exemplified excerpts ERQTa Textual manifestation

Typical negative comment

Case 1

Nowadays, the reason why people succeed has been widely discussed in the society. So do people get the necessary qualities at universities or outside school? (E S4 L)

“Remove this, avoid asking questions, paraphrase the topic instead and display your thesis.” (Sarah) “The introduction does not clearly state your thesis.” (Mike)

Case 2

However, can we simply say that one cannot succeed “Avoid rhetorical questions. if he never goes to a university? We don’t. (E S19 M) Replace the hook with your topic sentence.” (Sarah) “Direct tell your reader the main idea of this paragraph.” (Susan) “The rhetorical question delays readers’ capture of your point of argument.” (Mike)

164

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

Like ERQTa, all the cases of ERQTb (5/5) produced the effect that was responded to with “all-negative” evaluations. The raters identified the problem with ERQTb as its negative role in making the discourse meaning unclear or indirect for readers, as shown by the case in Table 5.21. The issue with ERQTb highlights a tension in writing between prompting the reader to engage in an argument and maintaining clarity. While rhetorical questions may be employed as a persuasive tool, questions that seem to solicit self-evident answers can undermine the efficacy of the argument in English argumentative essay writing. The comments from Sarah, Susan, and Mike emphasize the importance of being direct and clear, particularly in English academic or formal writing. However, it is worth contrasting this with the potential value and role of rhetorical questions in Chinese argumentative discourse. In this context, rhetorical questions may not be seen as a hindrance but rather as a stimulating device, provoking thought and encouraging the reader to engage with the text on a deeper level. (9) Exact repetition of sentence patterns (ERSP) All four cases of ERSP were “all-negative.” The chief problem with this characteristic Chinese rhetorical feature was considered as the inadequacy of arguments. As pointed out by raters (see Table 5.22), the textual portion affected by ERSP, in this case, was problematic for its failure to expand the paragraph by adding elucidation to the enumerated ideas. Besides, another problem of ERSP indicated by Sarah’s evaluation was the rhetorical style of English argumentative writing, namely, the failure to demonstrate syntactic variety. While the English-speaking raters perceived ERSP negatively, this rhetorical device may hold a different value in the context of Chinese yilunwens. In Chinese rhetorical tradition, the exact repetition of sentence patterns is not regarded merely as a redundancy or a failure. Instead, it embodies a deliberate and sophisticated stylistic choice that can serve various intricate functions. Using ERSP, a writer can create emphasis, forging a link between separate ideas or themes and thereby strengthening Table 5.21 Typical negative comments on the effect of ERQTb upon an exemplified excerpt ERQTb Textual manifestation Case

… And during the time, if a person stays at home, he is in the university. If he didn’t go to university, but only stay home, can he success? So, the qualities that a person needs to become successful he learned must be learned at university. (NE S16 L)

Typical negative comment “Avoid the hook question.” (Sarah) “Be direct and clear to show your opinion.” (Susan) “This interrogative sentence makes the meaning vague.” (Mike)

5.7 Results Based on the Data of Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire …

165

Table 5.22 Typical negative comments on the effect of ERSP upon an exemplified excerpt ERSP Textual manifestation

Typical negative comment

Case

“Avoid the repeated sentence structure; you have multiple ideas but lack the specific explanation of them.” (Sarah) “In this portion, you only listed a series of examples, but fail to connect these examples with your claim.” (Susan) “This paragraph does not contain a well-developed argument. It merely enumerates the points awaiting detailed explanation.” (Mike)

When we stay in dormitory, we will learn how to get along with our roommate. When we go to class, we will learn how to gain knowledge what we really need. When we do sport at campus, we will get a strong and healthy body. Whatever we are undergoing, we have countless chances to improve ourselves, to be closer to the success. (NE S17 L);

the central argument. It also aids in building a rhythm within the text, giving rise to an aesthetically pleasing cadence that resonates with readers. This rhythmic quality can enhance the overall coherence and elegance of the prose, reflecting Chinese literary principles that value harmony, balance, and grace.

5.7 Results Based on the Data of Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire and Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire The results on the recall of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer in composing processes (Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes) and the metacognitive knowledge about rhetorical differences between Chinese and English writing were presented based on the data from PWRQ and MKCERDQ. Correlation analyses were conducted to identify the relationship between Chinese L1-toEnglish L2 rhetorical transferring processes and relevant metacognitive knowledge. Then, stepwise regression analyses were run with the three categories of transferring processes as outcome variables and the five factors of MKCERD as predictive ones. In general, negative correlations existed between the categories of Chinese L1-toEnglish L2 rhetorical transferring processes (on the vertical axis) and all the factors

166

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

of MKCERD but PICRKSEW (on the horizontal axis) with the level of significance (p < 0.01 or 0.05), as displayed in Table 5.23. Table 5.24 indicates the results of regression analyses: RAAL (Reader Awareness Across Languages) and PDPACEW (Perception of the Differences in the Pattern of Argumentation Between Chinese and English Writing) were retained as the predictors. The former metacognitive knowledge could negatively predict ICRCA (The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on the Construction of Arguments) alone [F (1, 87) = 25.708, p = 0.000, R = 0.478, R2 = 0.228, adjusted R2 = 0.219]. The latter metacognitive knowledge showed the negative prediction of OICPR (The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric) and ICRTO (The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on Text Organization) [OICPR: F (1, 87) = 20.173, p = 0.000, R = 0.434, R2 = 0.188, adjusted R2 = 0.179; ICRTO: F (1, 87) = 22.168, p = 0.000, R = 0.451, R2 = 0.203, adjusted R2 = 0.194]. With the five factors of MKCERD as predictor variables and each transferring process as an outcome variable, stepwise regression analyses were conducted to estimate to what degree the indices of MKCERD could predict the variance in specific Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes. From Tables 5.25, 5.26, 5.27, it could be identified that RAAL, PDCDUCEW, and PDPACEW were retained as predictors for corresponding Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes. Table 5.25 displays the results of regression analyses using the indices of MKCERD as the potential predictors of transferring processes under the category of OICPR (The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric). It could be seen that all the variables in this category could be negatively affected by the corresponding indices of MKCERD. For the variable of transferring process embodied by Item 1, RAAL (Reader Awareness Across Languages) and PDPACEW (Perception of the Differences in the Pattern of Argumentation Between Chinese and English Writing) Table 5.23 Correlations between the categories of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes and MKCERD Variable

RAAL

PPICRACEW

PICRKSEW

PDCDUCEW

PDPACEW

OICPR

−0.356**

−0.281**

−0.186

−0.277**

−0.424**

ICRCA

−0.450**

−0.274**

−0.172

−0.311*

−0.386**

ICRTO

−0.369**

−0.308**

−0.139

−0.400**

−0.452**

**

p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 Note: OICPR = The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric; ICRCA = The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on the Construction of Arguments; ICRTO = The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on Text Organization; MKCERD = Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences; RAAL = Reader Awareness Across Languages; PPICRACEW = Perception of the Possible Interference from Chinese Rhetoric on Argument Construction in English Writing; PICRKSEW = Perception of the Influence of Chinese Rhetorical Knowledge and Skills in English Writing; PDCDUCEW = Perception of the Differences in the Coherence of Discourse Units Between Chinese and English Writing; PDPACEW = Perception of the Differences in the Pattern of Argumentation Between Chinese and English Writing

−0.505 (0.100)

–

ICRCA

ICRTO

β

–

−0.478**

–

–

–

–

B (SE B)

PPICRACEW

β

–

–

–

–

–

–

B (SE B)

PICRKSEW

β

–

–

–

–

–

–

B (SE B)

PDCDUCEW

β

–

–

–

– −0.451**

– −0.542 (0.115)

β −0.424**

B (SE B) −0.533 (0.119)

PDPACEW

* p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 Note: B = unstandardized coefficients; SE B = standard error of unstandardized coefficients; β = standardized coefficients; OICPR = The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric; ICRCA = The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on the Construction of Arguments; ICRTO = The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on Text Organization; RAAL = Reader Awareness Across Languages; PPICRACEW = Perception of the Possible Interference from Chinese Rhetoric on Argument Construction in English Writing; PICRKSEW = Perception of the Influence of Chinese Rhetorical Knowledge and Skills in English Writing; PDCDUCEW = Perception of the Differences in the Coherence of Discourse Units Between Chinese and English Writing; PDPACEW = Perception of the Differences in the Pattern of Argumentation Between Chinese and English Writing

*

–

B (SE B)

RAAL

OICPR

Outcome variable/ Predictor variable

Table 5.24 The prediction of the categories of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes with MKCERD as the predictors

5.7 Results Based on the Data of Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire … 167

168

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

collectively worked as negative contributors to its explanation [Q1: F (2, 86) = 10.371, p = 0.000, R = 0.441, R2 = 0.194, adjusted R2 = 0.176]. RAAL also negatively predicted the variable of transferring process embodied by Item 13 [Q13: F (1, 87) = 11.350, p = 0.001, R = 0.340, R2 = 0.115, adjusted R2 = 0.105]. As with the variables embodied by Items 2, 3, and 12, merely PDPACEW (Perception of the Differences in the Pattern of Argumentation Between Chinese and English Writing) entered the regression models to predict them negatively [Q2: F (1, 87) = 9.286, p = 0.000, R = 0.311, R2 = 0.096, adjusted R2 = 0.086; Q3: F (1, 87) = 13.637, p = 0.000, R = 0.368, R2 = 0.136, adjusted R2 = 0.126; Q12: F (1, 87) = 10.157, p = 0.002, R = 0.323, R2 = 0.105, adjusted R2 = 0.094]. Table 5.26 presents the results of regression analyses involving the indices of MKCERD as the negative predictor of transferring processes under the category of ICRCA (The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on the Construction of Arguments). For the prediction of each transferring process in this category, a single index of MKCERD existed in the regression models, i.e., RAAL (Reader Awareness Across Languages). RAAL contributed as a negative predictor to the transferring variables embodied by Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16 [Q7: F (1, 87) = 13.884, p = 0.000, R = 0.371, R2 = 0.138, adjusted R2 = 0.128; Q8: F (1, 87) = 15.493, p = 0.000, R = 0.389, R2 = 0.151, adjusted R2 = 0.141; Q9: F (1, 87) = 14.177, p = 0.000, R = 0.374, R2 = 0.140, adjusted R2 = 0.130; Q10: F (1, 87) = 10.339, p = 0.002, R = 0.326, R2 = 0.106, adjusted R2 = 0.096; Q11: F (1, 87) = 7.891, p = 0.000, R = 0.288, R2 = 0.083, adjusted R2 = 0.073; Q15: F (1, 87) = 12.002, p = 0.001, R = 0.348, R2 = 0.121, adjusted R2 = 0.111; Q16: F (1, 87) = 16.031, p = 0.000, R = 0.394, R2 = 0.156, adjusted R2 = 0.146. Table 5.27 indicates the results of the prediction of MKCERD on the variables of transferring processes under the category of ICRTO (The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on Text Organization in English). Two indices of MKCERD, i.e., PDCDUCEW (Perception of the Differences in the Coherence of Discourse Units Between Chinese and English Writing) and PDPACEW (Perception of the Differences in the Pattern of Argumentation Between Chinese and English Writing), entered the regression models to predict the variance of transferring processes in this category on their own. For the variable embodied by Items 5 and 6, PDCDUCEW (Perception of the Differences in the Coherence of Discourse Units Between Chinese and English Writing) contributed as its single negative predictor [Q5: F (1, 87) = 16.722, p = 0.000, R = 0.402, R2 = 0.161, adjusted R2 = 0.152; Q6: F (1, 87) = 12.208, p = 0.001, R = 0.351, R2 = 0.123, adjusted R2 = 0.113]. The variable embodied by Items 4 and 14 was negatively predicted by PDPACEW (Perception of the Differences in the Pattern of Argumentation Between Chinese and English Writing) alone [Q4: F (1, 87) = 8.907, p = 0.001, R = 0.359, R2 = 0.129, adjusted R2 = 0.119; Q14: F (1, 87) = 8.868, p = 0.004, R = 0.304, R2 = 0.093, adjusted R2 = 0.082].

−0.338**

–

–

Q1 The influence −0.525 of Chinese writing (0.195) conventions and standards

Q2 The influence – of Chinese writing knowledge

Q3 The influence – of Chinese writing strategies and techniques

B (SE B ) β

Category

OICPR

RAAL

Outcome variable/ Predictor variable

–

–

–

B (SE B)

–

–

–

β

PPICRACEW

–

–

–

B (SE B )

PICRKSEW

–

–

–

β

–

–

–

B (SE B )

–

–

–

β

PDCDUCEW

−0.311**

−0.368**

−0.483 (0.159) −0.575 (0.156)

(continued)

−0.592**

β

−0.960 (0.258)

B (SE B )

PDPACEW

Table 5.25 The prediction of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes in the category of The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric with MKCERD as the predictors

5.7 Results Based on the Data of Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire … 169

−0.340**

Q13 The −0.508 employment of (0.115) Chinese translation during the composing process –

–

B (SE B)

–

–

β

PPICRACEW

–

–

B (SE B )

PICRKSEW

–

–

β

–

–

B (SE B )

–

–

β

PDCDUCEW

–

−0.323**

−0.493** (0.155)

–

β

B (SE B )

PDPACEW

* p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 Note: MKCERD = Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences; OICPR = The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric; RAAL = Reader Awareness Across Languages; PPICRACEW = Perception of the Possible Interference from Chinese Rhetoric on Argument Construction in English Writing; PICRKSEW = Perception of the Influence of Chinese Rhetorical Knowledge and Skills in English Writing; PDCDUCEW = Perception of the Differences in the Coherence of Discourse Units Between Chinese and English Writing; PDPACEW = Perception of the Differences in the Pattern of Argumentation Between Chinese and English Writing; B = unstandardized coefficients; SE B = standard error of unstandardized coefficients; β = standardized coefficients

*

–

B (SE B ) β

Category

Q12 The influence – of Chinese rhetoric on enhancing the persuasiveness of viewpoints

RAAL

Outcome variable/ Predictor variable

Table 5.25 (continued)

170 5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

ICRCA

−0.371***

−0.389***

−0.374***

−0.326**

−0.288**

Q8 The influence −0.582 of Chinese rhetoric (0.148) on the statement of a thesis

Q9 The influence −0.597 of Chinese rhetoric (0.159) on the overall arrangement of argumentative paragraphs

Q10 The influence −0.513 of Chinese rhetoric (0.159) on the development of argumentative paragraphs

Q11 The influence −0.422 of Chinese rhetoric (0.150) on the method of developing arguments

B (SE B ) β

Category

Q7 The influence −0.457 of Chinese rhetoric (0.123) on the topic introduction

RAAL

Outcome variable/ Predictor variable

–

–

–

–

–

B (SE B )

–

–

–

–

–

β

PPICRACEW

–

–

–

–

–

B (SE B )

PICRKSEW

–

–

–

–

–

β

–

–

–

–

–

B (SE B )

–

–

–

–

–

β

PDCDUCEW

–

–

–

–

B (SE B )

–

–

–

–

–

β

(continued)

PDPACEW

Table 5.26 The prediction of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes in the category of The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on the Construction of Arguments with MKCERD as the predictor

5.7 Results Based on the Data of Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire … 171

−0.394***

Q16 The influence −0.588 of Chinese rhetoric (0.147) on the treatment of the opposing opinion –

–

B (SE B )

–

–

β

PPICRACEW

–

–

B (SE B )

PICRKSEW

–

–

β

–

–

B (SE B )

–

–

β

PDCDUCEW

–

–

B (SE B )

PDPACEW

–

–

β

p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 Note: MKCERD = Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences; ICRCA = The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on the Construction of Arguments; RAAL = Reader Awareness Across Languages; PPICRACEW = Perception of the Possible Interference From Chinese Rhetoric on Constructing the Argument in English Writing; PICRKSEW = Perception of the Influence of Chinese Rhetorical Knowledge and Skills in English Writing; PDCDUCEW = Perception of the Differences in the Coherence of Discourse Units Between Chinese and English Writing; PDPACEW = Perception of the Differences in the Pattern of Argumentation Between Chinese and English Writing; B = unstandardized coefficients; SE B = standard error of unstandardized coefficients; β = standardized coefficients

**

−0.348**

B (SE B ) β

Category

Q15 The influence −0.548 of Chinese rhetoric (0.158) on the usage of evidence

RAAL

Outcome variable/ Predictor variable

Table 5.26 (continued)

172 5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

–

–

Q5 The influence – of Chinese L1 patterns of writing on the organization of thoughts in paragraph development

β

Q4 Organizing – the content in Chinese and translating it into English when developing a paragraph

B (SE B )

Category

ICRTO

RAAL

Outcome variable/ Predictor variable

–

–

B (SE B )

–

–

β

PPICRACEW

–

–

B (SE B )

PICRKSEW

–

–

β –

−0.402***

−0.644 (0.158)

β

–

B (SE B )

PDCDUCEW

–

−0.658 (0.183)

–

(continued)

−0.359**

B (SE B ) β

PDPACEW

Table 5.27 The prediction of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes in the category of The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on Text Organization with MKCERD as the predictors

5.7 Results Based on the Data of Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire … 173

–

Q14 The – influence of Chinese rhetoric on the paragraph transition

–

–

–

–

PPICRACEW

–

–

PICRKSEW

–

–

−0.304**

−0.462 (0.155)

–

–

–

−0.514 (0.147)

–

−0.351**

PDPACEW

PDCDUCEW

p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 Note: MKCERD = Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences; ICRTO = The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on Text Organization; RAAL = Reader Awareness Across Languages; PPICRACEW = Perception of the Possible Interference from Chinese Rhetoric on Argument Construction in English Writing; PICRKSEW = Perception of the Influence of Chinese Rhetorical Knowledge and Skills in English Writing; PDCDUCEW = Perception of the Differences in the Coherence of Discourse Units Between Chinese and English Writing; PDPACEW = Perception of the Differences in the Pattern of Argumentation Between Chinese and English Writing; B = unstandardized coefficients; SE B = standard error of unstandardized coefficients; β = standardized coefficients

**

–

RAAL

Q6 The influence – of Chinese logical patterns on discourse organization when developing a paragraph

Outcome variable/ Predictor variable

Table 5.27 (continued)

174 5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

References

175

5.8 Summary This chapter aims to report on a study exploring the distribution and overall characteristics of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer in English argumentative essay writing and the relationship between this transfer and Chinese EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge about the rhetorical differences between Chinese yilunwens and English argumentative essays. As mentioned earlier, an innovative point of this book lies in its investigation of L1to-L2 rhetorical transfer, integrating textual, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives. The textual perspective means recognizing characteristic Chinese rhetorical features in English argumentative essays and equivalent Chinese yilunwens to find textual evidence. These features, which indicate a high likelihood of Chinese L1-toEnglish L2 rhetorical transfer, were analyzed for the distribution and outcome of this transfer. The cognitive perspective emphasizes the cognitive process of Chinese L1-toEnglish L2 rhetorical transfer (i.e., the transferring process), which was investigated through the participants’ immediate responses to a post-writing questionnaire. As part of composing activities, such a transferring process reflects the dynamic nature of the transfer. Even if it might not be explicitly shown in English texts, it allows us to see whether Chinese rhetorical knowledge is activated during English writing. Moreover, the results indicated the associations between Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes and individual factors (i.e., the participants’ English and Chinese writing proficiency and perception of English writing difficulty). It implies that transfer studies should focus on the individual differences of this transfer to reveal its complexity as a mental activity. From the metacognitive perspective, participants’ metacognitive knowledge of Chinese-English rhetorical differences was measured using a self-report questionnaire. This metacognitive knowledge was reflected by how EFL students raised their contrastive rhetorical awareness by comparing the rhetorical difference between their Chinese and English argumentative essay writing. As shown by the result, negative associations exist between such metacognitive knowledge and the corresponding Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes. It suggests that metacognitive knowledge can inhibit unnecessary interlingual rhetorical transfer in L2 writing and, meanwhile, encourage the positive use of L2 rhetorical knowledge.

References Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2011). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2nd ed.). Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Field, A. P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publication Ltd. Gaskin, J. (2012). Stats tools package. Retrieved from http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com

176

5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive …

Green, C. F., Christopher, E. R., & Mei, J. L. K. (2000). The incidence and effects on coherence of marked themes in interlanguage texts: A corpus-based enquiry. English for Specific Purposes, 19(2), 99–113. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). PrenticeHall Inc. Hinkel, E. (2015). Effective curriculum for teaching L2 writing: Principles and techniques. Routledge. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Newbury House. Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. Routledge. Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable? The Journal of Experimental Education, 64(4), 364–390.

Chapter 6

Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive Skills

This chapter reports the study grounded on qualitative evidence by investigating the sample cases (Phase II). It describes the detailed and in-depth surveys of 16 participants with distinct levels of English writing proficiency who were selected from the participants in Phase I. The surveys concentrated on how the transfer of Chinese rhetorical knowledge occurs and functions in the English writing process of the selected participants, as well as their metacognitive skills in relation to this transfer. The exploration of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer depended on a synthesized analysis of the selected participants’ English argumentative texts, their retrospective verbal reports of their Chinese writing knowledge or experience during English composing processes, and rhetorical evaluations by qualified English writing evaluators. The metacognitive skills, which are self-conscious or self-regulated in nature, were explored via video- and text-based stimulated recalls eliciting the participants’ recollection of their deliberate plans and decisions about Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer in English writing, which further indicate the metacognitive monitoring and control of this transfer.

6.1 Overview of the Data Collected in the Study in Phase II Qualitative case analyses were conducted in Phase II of the current research to gain an in-depth insight into the mental operation of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer and its relationship with relevant metacognitive skills. The following sections will present the results from the analyses of 16 cases in the qualitative paradigm. The set of qualitative data came from English and Chinese writing tasks II, Retrospective Verbal Report (RVR), and Stimulated Recalls (i.e., SR I and SR II) with the prompts of video-recorded long pauses and the textual manifestation of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Wei, Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9_6

177

178

6 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive Skills

These sections first present the overall findings based on the data gathered from all the case participants with differing levels of English writing proficiency. Then they provide the detailed results concerning two representative participants.

6.2 Analyses of Retrospective Verbal Report and Stimulated Recall Data (1) For RVR data To inquire into the characteristics of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer, the analysis of RVR data was focused on two rhetorical aspects of English argumentative writing involved in the participants’ verbalization of transferring activities: (1) text construction in the introduction, argumentation, and conclusion parts, and (2) between-sentence and between-paragraph coherence. According to these rhetorical composing activities, the instances and effects of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer were further categorized and calculated. (2) For SR I data A coding scheme was devised to organize and analyze the data gathered via SR I according to my research purpose, mainly based on Bosher’s counterpart coding scheme (1998, p. 215). I referred to Bosher’s coding scheme, which covers two categories of coded information related to pausing behaviors: attention to the aspects of writing and problem-solving strategies. Regarding the first category, the elements of writing that draw writers’ attention include the gist, discourse organization, composing intention, language use, and writing procedure. As with problem-solving strategies, they are concerned with addressing the demands of the assigned English writing task and solving the problems arising from composing processes. In this study, the coding scheme for SR I data covered four general aspects of the metacognitive activity in L2 argumentative essay writing, pertaining to the focal points of the EFL writers’ composing activities intended for argumentative text construction, i.e., language use, content generation, structural organization, and intentions for argument. Problem-solving strategies were intertwined with the processes of text construction, so they did not count as a single coded item in the scheme. (3) For SR II data The coding of SR II data concentrated on two aspects, from which the relevance of metacognitive skills to Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer could be judged. The first aspect was related to monitoring Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer in terms of the Chinese rhetorical knowledge, skills, or experience that were transferred or were to be transferred across languages in English argumentative essay writing. This aspect indicated Chinese EFL writers’ conscious awareness of the

6.2 Analyses of Retrospective Verbal Report and Stimulated Recall Data

179

occurrence of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer during English writing. It could be confirmed if the participants referred to the influence of concrete Chinese writing knowledge, skills, or experience in their self-report. The other aspect concerned the control of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. This aspect was connected with the rhetoric-oriented consideration demonstrated during this transfer. Since writing is essentially a rhetorical act (Flower & Hayes, 1981), whether rhetorical consideration is given to composing processes should be taken as a benchmark for L2 writing. Thus, when dealing with the data validating the metacognitive skills concerning the rhetorical construction affected by Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer, there is a need to set a criterion for determining the rhetorical nature of the composing activities co-occurring with this transfer. As previously mentioned in the section regarding the integration of rhetoric into writing instruction, in both the fields of writing pedagogy and research, it has been recognized that the issues of rhetoric have become completely intertwined with those of writing and composing. Rhetoric, a tool exclusively mastered by writers, is requisite for producing a good piece of written work (Flower & Hayes, 1980); so, it is a key facet of writing that needs to be considered for a better understanding of composing processes. To operationalize the second aspect, we drew on theoretical model of the writing process (Hayes, 2012; Hayes & Flower, 1986) and set three criteria to determine whether a composing activity was rhetorical or not: (1) the concern for the overall argumentative purpose and specific goals set for the English writing task; (2) the concern for how specific writing goals have been or will be achieved; and (3) the concern for advanced English readers’ response and feedback, including their possible perspective and viewpoint anticipated to be brought into their reading process. By means of these criteria, the coding operation marked the distinction as to whether the construction of textual portions connected with rhetorical transfer was characterized by rhetorical intention; if one of these criteria was met, the process of this transfer would be considered to exhibit rhetorical intention. By this means, whether Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer was under metacognitive control could be measured. It should be noted that the evidence for metacognitive control is based on the confirmation of metacognitive monitoring in that what is metacognitively controlled must be monitored first. The coding operation for text-based SR data initially focused on whether the participants could report the first aspect. If the first aspect was reported, we further examined whether the second aspect was indicated in their self-report. Accordingly, the degree of metacognitive awareness might be externalized as follows: with both monitoring and control (+monitored, +controlled), with monitoring but no control (+monitored, −controlled), and without either monitoring or control (−monitoring, −controlled). Since monitoring works as the premise of control, as noted above, the coding did not include the case of no monitoring but with control.

180

6 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive Skills

6.3 Relevant Information of Case Participants For case investigations, 16 participants (female: n = 10; male: n = 6) were selected according to their English writing proficiency as reflected by three English writing tests administered in Phase I, including eight with an overall English writing score higher than 80 and the other eight with a score lower than 60, who will be referred to as the H and L groups correspondingly. As to their self-evaluation of the knowledge about structure and organization in English argumentative essay writing, seven participants reported “moderate” (H group: n = 5; L group: n = 2), seven “limited” (H group: n = 2; L group: n = 5), and two “very limited” (H group: n = 0; L group: n = 2). Two of these participants, i.e., Jiang and Yang, were chosen for more detailed results of the case analyses. Their background information is listed in Table 6.1. Jiang was an English-major student with a higher level of English writing proficiency. Yang majored in a non-English subject, and her English writing proficiency level was lower among the participants. As regards English writing training, Jiang’s usual method of enhancing English writing depended on native English teachers’ guidance and English writing drills; Yang mentioned reading English model essays and doing English writing practice. They opined differently about the difference in the rhetorical aspects between English and Chinese argumentative essay writing. From Jiang’s viewpoint, the difference lay in three respects: (1) English argumentative writing generally followed a linear structural pattern, whereas Chinese yilunwen writing followed a parallel one; (2) English argumentative essay writing did not allow for loose structure when organized around a central point, whereas Chinese yilunwen writing did; (3) cohesive links and transitional signals were required to forge coherence between sentences in English essay writing, whereas these elements might be overlooked in the Chinese counterpart; and (4) text organization in English essay writing appeared to be more fixed and rigid than in Chinese essay writing. Yang pointed out one difference in text organization between Chinese and English argumentative essay writing: The paragraphs in English argumentative essay writing Table 6.1 English writing background information of the representative case participants Name of case participants

Gender

Method of English writing English writing training proficiency

Length of English essay written in English writing task II (number of words)

Jiang

Female

Consulting native English teachers about English writing skills; drilling in English writing

Higher

329

Yang

Female

Memorizing English model essays; practicing English writing

Lower

202

6.4 Results Based on Retrospective Verbal Report and Stimulated Recalls

181

were usually organized from a general point to its detailed explanation; in contrast, Chinese yilunwen writing tended to follow a sequence from specific examples to the general point.

6.4 Results Based on Retrospective Verbal Report and Stimulated Recalls The participants’ retrospective reports revealed that Chinese patterns of writing or thinking less influenced the H group than the L group. Chinese rhetorical thoughts generally played a dominant role in the L group’s English writing, as Yang indicated: “English writing was no different from the translation of Chinese-mediated ideas into English expressions.” Table 6.2 presents an overview of the confirmed instances where the influence of Chinese rhetorical patterns occurred in the H and L groups’ English writing. The transfer instances emerging in most participants’ English writing could be identified in both the written products and RVR. In the H group, seven transfer instances occurred in four participants’ English writing; in the L group, 16 transfer instances were indicated in seven participants’ English writing. A detailed look at these instances indicated the difference in the scope of influence between the H and L groups. In the H group’s English writing, the influence of Chinese rhetoric was demonstrated mainly in the local portions of English texts or for argumentation, including topic introduction, evidence use, and idea organization concerning general and argument-oriented coherence. For the L group, Chinese rhetoric was more likely to exert its influence on the global scope of English texts, involving the entire introduction, body, and conclusion parts. Besides, the retrospective reports from seven case participants, including five in the L group and two in the H group, suggested the potential role of Chinese rhetoric associated with their sense of English writing difficulty in the English writing process. This cross-lingual role could be summarized in the following two aspects: The role of Chinese rhetoric in clarifying the mind. Chinese rhetoric could ease English composing processes. The following retrospective report indicated that the dominant role of Chinese rhetoric was fairly evident when performed as a writing strategy that coped with the stumble of the mind: I did not know why, but I naturally felt that Chinese patterns of writing helped stimulate and clarify ideas that justified my claim, especially when my mind got blocked. It can be said that the utilization of the mentality of Chinese writing allowed me to know what to write and how to organize sentences so that I would not get lost. (Example 1, L group)

As can be seen, the Chinese writing experience helped to keep his mind clear throughout the writing process. In this way, he could keep his composing activities on track. The role of Chinese rhetoric in developing arguments. The Chinese way of argumentation had a bearing on the development of convincing arguments. The

182

6 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive Skills

Table 6.2 The influence of Chinese rhetoric in the H and L groups’ English writing Identified in English texts

Indicated by RVR

H group Transfer instances (TI): N = 7 Participants (P): N = 4;

(1) Narrowing down the topic background to current Chinese education (TI: 3; P: 3) (2) Quotation or citation from classical Chinese in the body paragraph (TI: 2; P: 1) (3) Non-linear (inductive) patterns (TI: 2; P: 1)

Inspired by the way of beginning Chinese essays Retrieval of Chinese maxims to illustrate ideas Following the Chinese logic of argumentation to make claims grounded on adequate reasons or arguments

L group Transfer instances (TI): N = 16 Participants (P): N = 7;

(1) Quotation or citation from classical Chinese in the introduction paragraph—No thesis statement (TI: 3; P: 2) (2) Narrowing down the topic background to current Chinese education (TI: 2; P: 2) (3) Non-linear (inductive) pattern in an argumentative paragraph—the absence or delay of a topic sentence (TI: 8; P: 5) (4) Ending with a moral exhortation (TI: 3; P: 3)

Recall of ancient Chinese remarks to introduce the topic Inspired by the way of beginning Chinese essays Transformation from Chinese patterns of argument into English linguistic forms Inspired by the way of concluding Chinese essays

retrospective account below revealed that the role of the Chinese pattern of argumentative essay writing was reflected in its compensation for the limitation in his genre knowledge of English argumentative writing. I have never written any English argumentative essays before. I did not know how to argue convincingly in English, so I had to rely on my experience of Chinese argumentative writing and write in an intuitive sense. (Example 2, L group)

The analysis of video-based SR data showed that most of the textual portions involving transfer instances were produced with long pauses during their production. The percentage of such excerpts in the H group’s English writing was 85.71% (6/7), higher than that in the L group’s English writing, at 62.50% (10/16). Table 6.3 presents the descriptive data about the metacognitive skills co-occurring with the confirmed Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer instances in the English writing of the H and L groups. In the H group, 75.00% of the participants whose English writing exhibited Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer showed both metacognitive monitoring and control of the transfer instances occurring in their English writing. In comparison, only one of them (25.00%) could not either metacognitively monitor or control the transfer instances. Among the transfer instances in the H group’s English writing,

6

3

H group

L group

85.71

18.75

3

2

75.00 28.57

7

0

N 43.75

–

% 6

0

N

Participants

Transfer instances %

Participants

N

Transfer instances

N

%

+monitored, −controlled

+monitored, +controlled

85.71

–

%

6

1

N

37.50

14.29

%

Transfer instances

4

1

N

Participants

−monitored, −controlled

Table 6.3 Metacognitive skills co-occurring with Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer in the H and L groups’ English writing

57.14

25.00

%

6.4 Results Based on Retrospective Verbal Report and Stimulated Recalls 183

184

6 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive Skills

most were both monitored and controlled, accounting for 85.71%; only one (14.29%) was neither monitored nor controlled. In the L group, 85.71% of the participants whose English writing exhibited Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer could metacognitively monitor but not control Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer instances in their English writing. 57.14% of them could neither metacognitively monitor nor control the transfer instances. Those who could both metacognitively monitor and control the transfer instances accounted for 28.57%. In this group’s English writing, the percentage of the transfer instances being monitored but not controlled was 43.75%, followed by that of the instances being neither monitored nor controlled (37.50%). In comparison, those instances being both monitored and controlled had a much lower percentage (18.75%). Table 6.4 indicates how the transfer instances involved metacognitive awareness, as well as how these transfer instances were negatively evaluated. In the H group’s English writing, all the transfer instances except one were both monitored and controlled, including narrowing down the topic background to current Chinese education, quotation or citation from classical Chinese in the introduction paragraph, and non-linear (inductive) patterns. The other transfer instance, i.e., nonlinear (inductive) patterns, was an outlier that was neither monitored nor controlled. This instance received negative feedback from two evaluators, who pointed out the inadequacy of the argument evidence. In the L group’s English writing, three transfer instances were monitored and controlled, with two categorized as quotation or citation from classical Chinese in the introduction paragraph and one as narrowing down the topic background to current Chinese education. The former two instances elicited negative evaluations from all three evaluators, which pointed to the lack of a thesis statement or a failure to present the central viewpoint in the related portions. Seven transfer instances were monitored but not controlled. Most (n = 4) manifested as non-linear (inductive) patterns. Among them, two were negatively evaluated by three evaluators and two by two evaluators. The negative evaluation pointed to inadequate evidence leading to the writers’ claim. Those being neither monitored nor controlled were mainly concerned with non-linear (inductive) patterns (n = 4). The three evaluators evaluated all the transfer instances negatively due to problems with inadequate evidence for arguments and failures in the summary of arguments, respectively. In what follows, I will present the results based on detailed analyses of the metacognitive skills under study. The result indicated that adequate metacognitive skills were associated with precautions about whether the use of Chinese rhetorical knowledge was well suited in EFL writing situations, demonstrated by six participants in the H group and one in the L group. The following three extracts illustrate these participants’ consideration of the compatibility between Chinese rhetorical elements and the demand or expectation of arguments in English writing, as well as of the potential problems caused by Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer before this transfer was executed. This precautious consideration entailed their comparative awareness of Chinese and English rhetorical expectations.

6.4 Results Based on Retrospective Verbal Report and Stimulated Recalls

185

Table 6.4 Metacognitive awareness involved in Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer and negative evaluation of this transfer + monitored, + controlled (1) Narrowing down H group the topic (Transfer instances: N background to = 7) current Chinese education (3); (2) Quotation or citation from classical Chinese in the body paragraph (2); (3) Non-linear (inductive) patterns (1)

+ monitored, − controlled

− monitored, − controlled Non-linear (inductive) patterns (1) (negatively evaluated by two evaluators)

(1) Quotation or (1) Non-linear (1) Non-linear L group citation from (inductive) (inductive) (Transfer instances: N classical Chinese patterns (4) patterns (4) = 16) in the introduction (negatively (negatively paragraph (2) evaluated by three evaluated by three (negatively evaluators: 2, by evaluators: 4/4); evaluated by three two evaluators: 2); (2) Ending with a moral exhortation (2) Quotation or evaluators: 2/2); (1) (negatively citation from (2) Narrowing down evaluated by three classical Chinese the topic evaluators); in the introduction background to (3) Narrowing down paragraph (1) current Chinese the topic (negatively education (1) background to evaluated by three current Chinese evaluators); education (1) (3) Ending with moral (negatively exhortation (2) evaluated by three (negatively evaluators) evaluated by three evaluators: 2/2);

I also considered how to make this (Chinese classical) maxim work well with my arguments. (Example 2, H group) In any case, I followed the (Chinese) pattern of beginning an essay and, in the meantime, tried not to be overwhelmed by Chinese-mediated thoughts. (Example 3, H group) To make a good beginning, I thought a lot about Chinese educational situations and naturally turned to the point I would argue to avoid listing facts without clarifying my opinion. (Example 4, L group)

Coincidently, the transfer instances involving adequate metacognitive skills plus comparative rhetorical awareness received no negative evaluation.

186

6 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive Skills

Four participants in the L group showing inadequate metacognitive skills, who were unable to both metacognitively monitor and control transfer instances, reported their little idea of English rhetorical conventions in SR II. As stated by one participant, “I did not know much about what English writing should be like, so I just wrote based on my feelings and experience” (Example 5, L group). Even though this participant monitored Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer, this transfer was not positively integrated into text construction in her English writing. It is coincident that these participants evaluated their knowledge of structure and organization in English argumentative writing as “limited” (n = 3) or “no knowledge” (n = 2). All but one who did not demonstrate metacognitive skills in the L group (n = 3) reported their sense of L2 writing difficulty. As indicated by the report below, this sense was incorporated into their metacognitive awareness of L2 writing and became their attentional focus. At that moment, I was unclear about the logical link to be constructed and feared a mind blank, so I mainly thought about how I should develop my ideas. (Example 6, L group)

Case of an EFL Writer With a Higher Level of English Writing Proficiency (1) Writing metacognitive skills during writing pauses As indicated by Table 6.5, the number of long pauses in Jiang’s English writing was relatively small. Among them, most (65.38%) were made to cater to the need for polishing English expressions in respect of their effectiveness and authenticity. In particular, she would deliberately consider how her English expressions could be well accepted by native English speakers or maintain academic styles. The second most frequent pauses (30.78%) occurred for argumentative purposes, especially for considering the presentation of a thesis and the usage of evidence. (2) Retrospective report of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer or related composing activities Table 6.5 Metacognitive activities identified in SR based on video-recorded pausing behaviors in Jiang’s case Dimension of metacognitive activity

Category of metacognitive activity

N

Concerning English expressions

Considering the choice of expressions

2

7.69%

Refining expressions

15

57.69%

Concerning the development of argumentation

Considering the thesis advancement and statement in the pre-writing stage

3

11.54%

Considering the supportive points

1

3.85%

Considering the usage of evidence

3

11.54%

Considering the conclusion

1

3.85%

Concerning text organization

Considering the overall structure

1

3.85%

Total

–

26

–

Percentage

6.4 Results Based on Retrospective Verbal Report and Stimulated Recalls

187

As reflected by Jiang’s retrospective report, the instances of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer were not frequent in her English writing, except some that were triggered to enhance the authenticity of English expressions or to meet the needs of argumentation, in which her awareness of native English readers could be displayed. The influence of Chinese rhetoric in Jiang’s English writing was instantiated by two rhetorical aspects of argumentation: narrowing down the topic background to current Chinese education and quotation or citation from classical Chinese in the body paragraph. Both transfer instances were attached to the composing activities intended for rhetorical purposes, which will be illustrated as follows. In RVR, Jiang reported the influence of Chinese rhetorical knowledge on the topic introduction, where she consulted her Chinese writing experience and background knowledge at the prewriting stage. She was informed by the Chinese style of introduction that it was crucial to design the opening to grab native English readers’ attention and keep their continuous interest in reading. This reader-oriented awareness made her scrupulous about the introduction part, which was perceived as a key to the quality of an essay in terms of its effect on readers’ first impressions of the text: In my Chinese writing, I paid attention to the opening of an essay, and this habit was followed in my English writing. I devoted quite a lot of effort to writing an engaging introduction because it gave the very first impression of this essay to English-speaking readers and influenced their willingness to read it.

Her writing act for the introduction was linked to her knowledge of Chinese rhetorical conventions and social phenomena in China. As recalled by her, “…when I was thinking about the beginning of this English essay, the instances, events, or scenarios appearing in China’s setting first came to my mind; this thinking pattern was borrowed from my Chinese writing.” Such a rhetorical consideration involving Chinese background knowledge yielded the presentation of a misconception of education shared by most Chinese parents at the beginning of her English essay: Nowadays, it is believed by many parents that books are the main and even the only source of knowledge and learning, especially for their children who have not yet entered university.

Then the introduction further pointed out how practical experience is highly valued in the Western education system and established her standpoint for the whole essay. The other transfer instance in Jiang’s English writing was externalized by the indirect quotation of a Chinese sage Mencius’ remark, as shown by the specific portion: In China, there is a saying that if you believe in everything written in books, then you’ll end up gaining nothing (from Jin Xinshu Ze Buru Wushu–尽信书不如无书).

Jiang’s retrospective report indicated her intention to use this maxim, “I used this maxim to highlight the unique advantage of experience knowledge.” (3) Metacognitive skills concurrent with the composing processes affected by Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer

188

6 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive Skills

As shown below in Table 6.6, the two transfer instances in Jiang’s English writing textually overlapped with writing metacognitive skills during long pauses. In one transfer instance, i.e., narrowing down the topic background to current Chinese education, metacognitive skills centered on the argument-rhetoric-oriented purpose of arousing readers’ interest in the argumentative topic. The other transfer instance, i.e., indirect quotation from classical Chinese in the body paragraph, was metacognitively associated with a pause, entailing the expression-rhetoric-oriented purpose of finding an exact English expression for the meaning of an ancient Chinese maxim and taking a precaution against Chinglish when conveying its meaning. Both instances were completely attended to by their concurrent writing metacognitive skills, which are detailed below. For the former transfer instance, Jiang provided an explicit explanation that the current situation of Chinese education came to mind when writing the introduction and that arousing readers’ concern about the essay topic was inspired by her habitual way of opening a Chinese essay. Chinese students get immersed in book study but lack practical experience; this is a typical problem in current education, whether in China or other countries. I thought this problem was the concern of the target readers, and it was necessary to point it out.

The self-report above displayed Jiang’s rhetorical intention—catering to readers’ concerns when the Chinese pattern of introduction occurred to her. Furthermore, she was metacognitively aware of this transfer and was clear about its knowledge source and expected rhetorical effect. Regarding the other instance of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer, which manifested as the indirect quotation of Chinese sage Mencius’s remark, she was aware of such a Chinese-styled rhetorical act for exemplification and the anticipated rhetorical effect. Perhaps because of her view of the need for argument, she thought that it matched the context in which the backing was provided to support her claim, as shown by her metacognitive report: I indirectly used a sentence said by Mencius here. I thought this old saying profoundly revealed the relationship between books and practice.

Table 6.6 The composing activities affected by Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer together with the involvement of concurrent metacognitive skills in Jiang’s case Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer instance

Concurrent with Writing metacognitive skills during long pauses

Metacognitive skills co-occurring with Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer

Narrowing down the topic background to current Chinese education

+ (argument-rhetoric oriented)

+ monitored, + controlled

Indirect quotation from classical + (expression-rhetoric Chinese in the body paragraph oriented) Note: “+”, can be evidenced/metacognitively attended to

+ monitored, + controlled

6.4 Results Based on Retrospective Verbal Report and Stimulated Recalls

189

She held that the classical maxim supported her viewpoint as justified and could serve her argument, so it was deliberately used in her English essay. In Jiang’s SR report, she also cautioned about the quotations from Chinese historical remarks in her English writing, given that “an English reader might not understand them if their meaning is not accurately conveyed.” Hence, she would not use classical Chinese in her English essays unless she was certain whether it was understandable for native English speakers. Case of an EFL Writer With a Lower Level of English Writing Proficiency (1) Writing metacognitive skills during writing pauses According to Yang’s SR report about long writing pauses (see Table 6.7), a total of 27 metacognitive activities were performed during her completion of English writing task II. Yang’s writing process ended much sooner, leading to fewer metacognitive operations. Compared with Jiang, her metacognitive writing skills focused more on the retrieval and formation of English expressions and the conception of ideas conveyed by sentences in argumentative paragraphs than on the other aspects of composing activity. (2) Retrospective report of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer or related composing activities As indicated in her retrospective report, Chinese-based thoughts generally dominated Yang’s English writing. She described such an influential role as “my English writing was restricted by the Chinese mode of thinking.” She interpreted her English writing as translating Chinese-based ideas into English expressions. Overall, text Table 6.7 Metacognitive activities identified in SR based on video-recorded pausing behaviors in Yang’s case Dimension of metacognitive activity

Category of metacognitive activity during long pauses

Number

Percentage

Concerning English expressions

Considering word expressions

4

14.81%

Refining expressions

3

11.11%

Completing sentences

2

7.41%

Checking for grammatical accuracy 2

7.41%

Concerning the development of the argument

Considering topic introduction

1

3.70%

Considering thesis statement

1

3.70%

Concerning text organization

Conceiving ideas to be conveyed by 12 sentences

44.44%

Considering between-paragraph organization

1

3.70%

Considering overall discourse organization

1

3.70%

–

27

–

Total

190

6 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive Skills

construction in her English writing was dominated by her Chinese-based logical pattern. This cross-lingual role of Chinese eased her mind throughout her English writing; in her words, it made her “feel secure about the writing process.” Coinciding with her habitual state of mind in Chinese writing, the topic was entirely understandable, so she did not feel difficulty with English writing task II, as stated below: Well, I felt like it would be easy to write if I understood it because I relied on the discourse meaning provided by Chinese thoughts to write. Basically, for the sentence, the simpler and the better; firstly, I was afraid of making it wrong.

To be specific, there were two instances of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer, as confirmed in Yang’s English writing: quotation or citation from classical Chinese in the introduction paragraph and ending with a moral exhortation. As shown below, the beginning of Yang’s English writing lacked a thesis statement that presented her central opinion but reviewed two Chinese maxims aiming to draw readers’ attention to the ensuing parts: With the development of society, many people think that not everything is learned from books. But is it really so? I want to tell you what I think. Let’s begin with two maxims.“Zhi Xing Heyi.”—“Knowledge and practice should be combined.” “Du Wanjuan Shu, Xing Wanli Lu.”—“Read thousands of books, walk thousands of miles.”

This cross-language influence was also indicated in her retrospective report of her dependence on Chinese rhetorical skills: When composing the beginning of this essay, I relied on my habitual Chinese writing skills, that is, encoding my views in the citation of classical remarks.

In this way, the opening part can be attractive. However, native English evaluators indicated that this cross-language influence was negative as it caused a lack of a thesis statement—“rendering the central view fail to be clearly presented.” As for ending with a moral exhortation, this transfer instance could be identified as a cheer-up sentence calling for joint action at the end, i.e., “Let’s believe a bright future is awaiting us and try to become a valuable person for society.” Such a heartening ending could also be seen in her Chinese essay produced in task II as well, i.e., Wo Xiangxin, Zai Fengyunbianhua Zhong De Shehui Huanjing, Women Dingjiang Tuoyingerchu, Yehui Gengjia Rongyidi Zouxiang Chenggong Zhilu, Shixian Shehui Jiazhi—我相信, 在风云变化中的社会环境, 我们定将脱颖 而出, 也会更加容易地走向成功之路, 实现社会价值. In RVR, it was reported that she completed the conclusion part more efficiently than other parts, owing to her dependence on Chinese rhetorical habits and her perception of the relatively fixed pattern of conclusion in normal English writing. (3) Metacognitive skills concurrent with the composing processes affected by Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer As displayed by Table 6.8, among the two evidenced Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer instances in Yang’s English writing, one transfer instance, i.e.,

6.4 Results Based on Retrospective Verbal Report and Stimulated Recalls

191

using a quotation from classical Chinese in the introduction paragraph, was not attended to by general writing metacognitive skills during long pauses. The other one, i.e., ending with a moral exhortation, was attended to by general writing metacognitive skills, which reflected the expression-oriented purpose without rhetorical consideration. The former transfer instance was metacognitively monitored but not controlled, while the latter one was not intervened in by concurrent metacognitive skills at all. I will detail the results in the following part. Using a quotation from classical Chinese in the introduction paragraph was metacognitively monitored but not controlled with any rhetorical intention. As indicated by her SR II report below, the introduction followed a fixed structural pattern she had used in her past writing. She further stated that she was not sure about the effect achieved by writing in such a pattern. I rarely read English passages, and I had little idea about what patterns should be used in English writing. I did what I always do to open an essay, but I wondered whether this was a good way to begin.

Without detailed rhetorical knowledge of English argumentative writing, she could not help but perform the habitual rhetorical operation leading to a Chinesestyled beginning. Moreover, as no rhetorical intent was reflected in her report above, it could be said that the process of this transfer instance was not metacognitively controlled. Ending with a moral exhortation was neither metacognitively monitored nor controlled. Her account of the composition for the conclusion did not cover the influence of the Chinese way of conclusion. She mentioned her hesitance about how to make a good ending: I felt a dilemma then: on the one hand, I was in a hurry to complete this essay; on the other hand, I wanted to write a good conclusion as it is very important for the whole essay.

Table 6.8 The composing activities affected by Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer together with the involvement of concurrent metacognitive skills in Yang’s case Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer instance

Concurrent with Writing metacognitive skills during long pauses

Metacognitive skills co-occurring with Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer

Using a quotation from classical Chinese in the introduction paragraph

–

+ monitored, − controlled

Ending with a moral exhortation

+ (expression oriented)

− monitored, − controlled

Note: “+”, can be evidenced/attended to; 1/2 “+”, can be partially or indirectly evidenced/attended to

192

6 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive Skills

It could be said that in a “tricky” situation, she was unaware of this Chinese L1to-English L2 rhetorical transfer instance when it took place and did not positively make this transfer integrated with her rhetorical intention.

6.5 Summary The study reported in this chapter explored the metacognitive skills relevant to Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer shown by Chinese EFL writers at differing proficiency levels of English writing. As suggested by the findings, (1) lower-proficiency writers tended to display partial or no metacognitive awareness of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer during English argumentative essay writing; they could merely monitor but not control this transfer or could neither monitor nor control this transfer; the deficiency of metacognitive awareness was related to their limited L2 rhetorical knowledge or perception of L2 writing difficulty; (2) higher-proficiency writers were more capable of both metacognitively monitoring and controlling Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. Such more complete metacognitive awareness was characterized by comparative rhetorical awareness, which helped to prevent negative transfer. The findings above further revealed a difference in metacognitive skills to address L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer across proficiency levels during L2 writing.

References Bosher, S. (1998). The composing processes of three Southeast Asian writers at the post-secondary level: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 205–241. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31(1), 21–32. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369–388. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1106–1113.

Chapter 7

Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive, and Metacognitive Perspectives

Drawing on the theoretical framework for L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, this chapter is devoted to an overall understanding of this transfer by incorporating textual, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives. Based on the investigations reported in Chaps. 5 and 6, it argues that L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer is embodied not only by the textual manifestations of characteristic L1 rhetorical features but also by the participants’ retrospective reports of their mental or cognitive activities linked to this transfer. From the metacognitive perspective, this transfer can be profoundly interpreted as either an intuitive response to a rhetorical situation in L2 writing or a conscious retrieval of the rhetorical knowledge previously acquired and developed in the L1 setting. The following sections attempt to gain insights into the cognitive dynamics of this transfer based on the evidence from both the textual outcomes and composing processes involving L2 writers’ L2 writer-related factors, metacognition, and evaluators’ rhetorical evaluation. The main discussion of the relevant findings focuses on how L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer works dynamically in L2 writing and relates to relevant metacognitive knowledge and skills.

7.1 Distribution of L1-to-L2 Transfer in L2 Writing In the research reported in this book, the first question (RQ1) was concerned with the distribution of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in L2 writing. This question was explored based on the analyses of English writing samples and the participants’ retrospective verbal reports. The analysis of text data revealed that the most frequent characteristic Chinese rhetorical features in English texts involved general rhetorical patterns. This finding was consistent with the higher mean of The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric than the other categories of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical processes, indicated by the descriptive analysis of retrospective questionnaire (PWRQ) data. The

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Wei, Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9_7

193

194

7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive …

relevant rhetorical transfer likely corresponds with the processing of general logical links throughout the entire L2 writing process. It reflects the organization of idea units in the Chinese-L1 conventional way, which can be traced back to the rhetorical or cultural tradition (Rinnert et al., 2015; Uysal, 2008). Furthermore, these rhetorical transfer processes align with the overarching logical connections the participants had to manage throughout their L2 writing process. This suggests that learners tend to apply their familiar L1 rhetorical strategies to create coherence and logical flow in their L2 writing. Such transfer practices can be seen as an extension of their established cognitive schemas related to writing, echoing Hyland’s (2016) view on the significant role of individual cognition in shaping L2 writing practices. The other remarkable characteristic Chinese rhetorical feature was connected with the development of arguments—Delaying or concealing the subpoint connected to the premise of an argument. This feature relates to the conventions of the argumentative pedagogical genre or the patterning of structural elements for argumentative purposes (see Wang, 2008). As such, I infer the likely occurrence of Chinese L1to-English L2 rhetorical transfer concerning the use of Chinese genre knowledge across languages. This rhetorical knowledge needs to be developed through deliberate efforts in the educational setting so it is not inherently formed in learners’ repertoire of writing knowledge. The retrieval of such absorbed knowledge in relation to the argumentative genre in an L1 is probably not as effective as that of fundamental literacy knowledge that is naturally developed within a literal or cultural setting. The nature of genre knowledge accounts for why this category of transfer tends to occur less frequently than that concerning general rhetorical patterns. In comparison, Exact repetition of sentence patterns, the characteristic Chinese rhetorical feature under the category of specific rhetorical techniques for creating discourse effects, emerged at a relatively low frequency in the English texts. This feature occurs when there is a need to underscore intended ideas or information or increase the power of eloquence in argumentation, mainly in the local organization of discourse units (Zhang et al., 2004). The possible reason for their rare occurrence might be that the relevant Chinese rhetorical skills did not perform essential functions in Chinese EFL writers’ English argumentative essay writing; in other words, their occurrence was not necessary for their completion of English writing. As evidenced by comparing Chinese writing samples, these rhetorical features also seldom emerged in the equivalent Chinese yilunwen writing. Case investigations revealed that the evidence for transfer could be foreseen at the prewriting stage of EFL writers who made overall arrangements for their English argumentative essay writing, as provided by the retrospective accounts of case participants. By means of this prewriting overall plan, the generation and organization of main points or content were rehearsed in advance in their minds. The composing activities manifested in their plan accommodated the processing of L1 rhetorical thoughts. The analysis of Jiang’s English writing scripts and her SR I report for long pauses indicated that the most striking instances of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer that were identified at the pre-writing stage, co-occurred with her conceptualization of the topic introduction as well as the decision of the thesis. Preceding the formulation processes, her background knowledge of the Chinese

7.2 Associations Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer Manifested in L2 …

195

educational situation was retrieved from her Chinese repertoire of rhetorical knowledge to promote convincing and valuable arguments in English writing. This result substantiates the facilitative role of L1 knowledge in idea generation or brainstorming during the prewriting stage (Lally, 2000). Pre-task planning has more to do with the decision that exerts the most global influence on L2 writing than during-task planning. In this circumstance, the L1 state of mind assists with manipulating the direction and journey of L2 writing. Overall, the results above show the distribution of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer among both L2 texts and composing activities, suggesting that this transfer can be investigated in terms of its textual outcome (i.e., characteristic L1 rhetorical features) and cognitive process (participants’ verbal report of their thoughts involving L1 rhetorical knowledge).

7.2 Associations Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer Manifested in L2 Composing Processes and L2 Writer-Related Factors The second question (RQ2) was about the associations between L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer manifested in composing processes and three L2 writer-related factors, i.e., L2 writers’ perception of L2 writing difficulty and L2 and L1 writing proficiency. The findings of analyses involving the retrospective questionnaire data and writing test scores indicated that the three factors impacted L1-to-L2 rhetorical transferring processes.

7.2.1 Association of L2 Writers’ Perception of L2 Writing Difficulty with L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transferring Processes The L2 learners’ perception of task difficulty during the time-on-task indicates one of the most common appraisals of task experience (see Cho, 2018); it matters to the task-person interaction involving their endowment with previous knowledge and skills (Pallotti, 2017). This book provided evidence that the degree of Chinese L1-to-English L2 transferring processes as a whole (as assessed by PWRQ) was positively associated with Chinese EFL student writers’ perception of English writing difficulty. In a similar study, van Weijen et al. (2009) also found that L2 writers would resort to L1 use when feeling it difficult to orchestrate their composing activities, which indicated their limited L2 writing knowledge and the need to exploit their L1-rhetoric resources. This result also corresponds to the previous finding that L1 use, which was connected with the L1 repertoire of knowledge, differed in its frequency of occurrence and its

196

7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive …

strategic function according to levels of task complexity or cognitive difficulty (e.g., Debreli, 2016; Wang, 2003; Wang & Wen, 2002; Woodall, 2002). L2 writers might choose to utilize L1 resources carried over by certain transferring processes for the purpose of problem-solving when perceiving difficulties in L2 writing. These transferring processes stand for L2 writer-task interaction that reveals L2 writers’ deliberate attempt to address the task complexity they have sensed. The regression analyses suggested that L2 writers’ perception of English writing difficulty tended to cause transferring processes central to three rhetorical aspects of argumentative writing—text organization concerning within-paragraph coherence, general written production, and argument construction. Primarily, the participants’ perceived English writing difficulty could positively impact their Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes in respect of text organization concerning within-paragraph coherence (as shown by Q4, Q5 & Q6 in PWRQ). This result indicates the role of L1 rhetoric in thought organization during L2 writing difficulty (Beare & Bourdages, 2007), which has to do with the production of coherent or logical discourse. It further corroborates the influence of L1 rhetorical thoughts on meaning or idea-organizing activities (Wang & Wen, 2002). Yang’s retrospective account indicated that discourse meaning conceived in Chinese thoughts helped keep her mind clear throughout the English writing process; otherwise, well-organized ideas could hardly be maintained in her English writing. It can be argued that the mental resources for discourse production encoded in the mother tongue keep L2 writers’ composing actions on track and guarantee their logical progression toward the purpose of L2 written communication. The L2 writers’ perception of English writing difficulty was also found to positively affect the Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes that generally occurred in English argumentative writing. Such transferring processes involve two specific aspects, i.e., the consideration of argument persuasiveness (Q12) and idea/meaning-making activities (Q13) in general written production. The first aspect is probably linked with the difficulty of achieving the persuasiveness of argumentation. The construction of persuasive arguments is described as the “most crucial yet challenging” feature of L2 argumentative essays (Lee & Deakin, 2016, p. 21). Perhaps for this reason, EFL writers were much more likely to perceive the difficulty with the persuasiveness of argumentation, and thus relevant L1 rhetorical notions were activated. The influence on the second aspect was indicated by the meaning making aided by L1-to-L2 translation, in which L1 rhetorical patterns were inevitably followed. The analysis of follow-up interview data collected from RVR revealed that Chinese L1-to-English L2 translation worked as a medium that clarified logical thinking and made thoughts for discourse units productive; it helped relieve the cognitive load in English writing. This mediating vehicle forged a link between L1 rhetorical patterns and L2 writing situations; its role manifested when L2 writing difficulty was experienced and answered the demand for enhancing the L2 writing process so that the writing content could be delivered effectively. As viewed by Beare and Bourdages (2007), when the difficulty of L2 writing is encountered, idea generation may be dependent upon L1 strategies, which ease the L2 composing processes.

7.2 Associations Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer Manifested in L2 …

197

Besides, one transferring process related to argument construction was positively influenced by the perception of L2 writing difficulty. It is associated with the consideration of the thesis statement (Q8). The reason for this influence is that the primary challenge of argumentative essays for L2 writers arises from the requirement to organize argumentative elements around a central opinion in the conventional way of L2 argumentation (e.g., Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012). In accordance with the presentation of this opinion, the positioning of a thesis statement is a critical element emphasized in L1 literacy education (Rinnert et al., 2015; Uysal, 2008). Whether a thesis is strong or not, it has much to do with the quality of argumentative writing. Moreover, the thesis statement can be identified as the most challenging component of argumentative essay writing, as it influences the whole process of argumentation (Al-Haq & Ahmed, 1994). Hence, deliberate attention and consideration are usually needed by L2 writers when composing for a thesis; the relevant L1 rhetorical knowledge or skills are prone to be activated as a facilitative tool for those who feel uncomfortable with L2 writing. It is noteworthy that even the more advanced L2 writer also reverted to L1 rhetorical patterns when experiencing difficulties during content production and problemsolving activities. This finding suggested that L1 rhetorical knowledge can thus be viewed as a flexible writing strategy rather than a fixed trait. It allows L2 writers to navigate through the complexities of L2 writing by drawing on the linguistic and rhetorical skills they have developed in their L1. However, the efficacy of this strategy largely depends on how effectively the writer can adapt and deploy their L1 knowledge in the L2 context. In this respect, the role of the writer’s agency comes into focus. According to Rinnert et al. (2015) and van Weijen et al. (2009), the writer’s active engagement and decision-making in the writing process can facilitate the beneficial transfer of L1 rhetorical patterns to L2 writing. This underscores the importance of cultivating a sense of agency among L2 writers, enabling them to take control of their writing process and thereby more effectively harness their L1 knowledge. Furthermore, a synthesized analysis revealed that the transferring processes entailed by the awareness of L2 writing difficulty were cognitively performed in two ways: serving as a writing strategy that compensated for the limitation in the rhetorical knowledge regarding argumentation in the L2 and working as the rhetorical vehicle that was habitually employed in L1 writing to lighten the cognitive load of L2 writing. The former function represents the reaction to the problems encountered in L2 argumentation, while the latter corresponds with the task response stemming from the intuitive recognition of the match between L1 rhetorical habits and the needs of the L2 writing process. Taken together, it can be argued that L2 writers’ perception of L2 writing difficulty motivates the retrieval of their L1 rhetorical knowledge. Meanwhile, the regression analyses indicated that Chinese EFL writers’ perception of English writing difficulty did not influence 11 specific transferring processes. This result corresponds with Sasayama’s view (2016) that the allocation of mental effort is either related to perceived task difficulty or not. The seeming disconnect between perceived writing difficulty and L1 rhetorical transfer may be attributed to two possible factors. Firstly, Chinese EFL writers might habitually draw upon L1

198

7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive …

rhetorical practices in their English writing regardless of perceived difficulty. This suggests that using L1 rhetorical strategies is an ingrained part of the writers’ cognitive process in L2 writing. Conversely, there might be circumstances under which L2 writers choose not to access their L1 rhetorical resources despite experiencing difficulty in L2 writing. It implies that the utility of L1 rhetorical transfer is not a universal solution for all writing difficulties.

7.2.2 Associations of L2 and L1 Writing Proficiency with L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transferring Processes Writing proficiency refers to the quality of written products that reflect the outcomes generated by a series of writing activities. It provides a lens through which to look into the writing activity, which comprises various processes involving the application of mixed writing knowledge and skills. Therefore, focusing on writing proficiency allows for examining the attributes of those written works that accommodate the traces and clues pointing to L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. The following parts will discuss the predictive effect of English and Chinese writing proficiency (as measured by English and Chinese writing tests) on Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes. As suggested by the regression analyses of English writing scores and PWRQ data, English writing scores affected the extent of most Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes that were categorized as The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on the Construction of Arguments, The Influence of Chinese Rhetoric on Text Organization, and The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric. Thus, it can be assumed that the weakening of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transferring processes is due to the increase in L2 writing proficiency. The development of L2 writing knowledge allows L2 writers to be less dependent on their L1 rhetorical knowledge. The underlying reason for this tendency is attributed to “the evolving repertoire of configuration of writing knowledge” (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012, p. 125): With their growing repertoire of L2 writing knowledge, they become more capable of manipulating their L2 text through utilizing resources available in the L2 to ensure the appropriateness of rhetorical usage. Those transferring processes that were not weakened by the increase in English writing proficiency were concerned with topic introduction (Q7), thesis statement (Q8), argument persuasiveness (Q12), the development of argumentative paragraphs (Q10), evidence use (Q15), idea/meaning-making activities (Q13), and betweensentence organization (Q6). The descriptive analysis of PWRQ data (see Appendix F) revealed unignorable percentages of both higher- and lower-proficiency EFL writers reporting these transferring processes, reflecting the steadfast cross-language influence of Chinese L1 rhetoric, as explained below. The high likelihood of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer concerning topic introduction and thesis statement lies in the vital importance of an introduction part to the success

7.2 Associations Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer Manifested in L2 …

199

of argumentation. This part determines how arguments are organized and developed by introducing a topic and presenting a central opinion or position. As explained previously, advancing a sound thesis is cognitively demanding, requiring complex and deliberate thinking. Besides, how to set a context and review a topic is a critical factor in readers’ interest in continuing their reading. Probably for this reason, regardless of L2 writing proficiency, L1 rhetoric mediates the decision-making process. The enduring influence of L1 rhetoric on the composing acts of argument persuasiveness might originate from the high demand for persuasiveness in argumentative writing. Achieving persuasiveness in an argument requires a compelling stance and robust reasoning and substance to support that stance (Stapleton & Wu, 2015). Such quality of argumentation often involves high-level cognitive processes, which are intrinsically tied to L1 rhetorical modes (Connor & Connor, 1996). The notion of L1 procedural transfer, as outlined by Ringbom (2016), provides a possible explanation for this phenomenon. This concept refers to the transfer of ‘abstract principles of organizing information’ from L1 to L2. This transfer may manifest as L2 writers utilizing their L1 rhetorical strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of their arguments. In this sense, the influence of L1 rhetoric is likely to unceasingly occur in meaning-making rhetorical activities to persuade readers, even on the part of advanced L2 writers. The long-lasting effects of L1 rhetoric concerned the development of the generation of idea/meaning units and argumentative paragraphs. Such dual roles are manifested in its encoding of discourse meaning that is compatible with the textual context and serves the purpose of genre-specific communication. The relevant L2 composing processes pertain to the search for ideas for local text production and to the planning of paragraph-level content central to the supportive points of argumentation; their necessity in L2 writing has been substantiated in previous studies (e.g., Uysal, 2008; Wang, 2003; Wenden et al., 1991). It can be assumed that the dependence on L1 rhetoric, regardless of L2 writing proficiency, supports the mental efforts made to form specific text segments and promotes the intentional thinking that orients toward compelling arguments. The influence of L1 rhetoric on the use of evidence did not vary with different levels of L2 writing proficiency. As corroborated by previous studies (Liu & Du, 2018; Uysal, 2012), the method of evidence used in L1 writing originates from literacy and cultural backgrounds, so it becomes ingrained in L2 writers’ rhetorical considerations and operations. The current research further confirms the long-run effect of such an entrenched L1 argument strategy: whether the level of L2 writing proficiency is low or high, the influence of L1 rhetorical skills is inevitable on the conception of evidence in L2 argumentative writing. The continuing role of L1 rhetoric in a between-sentence organization affects the local coherence of discourse units in L2 writing. This processing of transfer is accommodated in the formulation activities at local levels. Along the thread of research on contrastive or intercultural rhetoric, a constant focus has been the difference in the organizational patterns comprising adjacent sentences between L1 and L2 writing. It suggests that this kind of difference is likely to generate long-lasting, complex

200

7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive …

problems in text construction that cannot be easily handled in cross-lingual or crosscultural writing (see Zhang, 2016). In the meantime, the mental operation of rhetorical transfer indicates L2 writers’ consideration of logical progression and linkage during composing processes, so it can also be counted as a stubborn transferring process that is difficult to change with the development of L2 writing. The regression analysis showed that Chinese writing proficiency positively affected two Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes (Q12 & Q13) in general written production and two transferring processes regarding the logical and critical reasoning for argument construction (Q11 & Q16). It suggests that L1 writing proficiency can stimulate the transfer of L1 rhetorical modes in general and argument-oriented meaning-making activities to L2 writing. The likely reason is that higher L1 writing proficiency means more active in utilizing L1 rhetorical features or patterns to create quality argumentative texts. It underscores the idea that mastery of L1 rhetoric can serve as a valuable cognitive resource that can be tapped into during the L2 writing process. The former two transferring processes (Q12 & Q13), which are pertinent to the consideration of persuasiveness of argumentation and the creation of ideas or meaning, had no relation to English writing proficiency. Given the relatively high proportion of both higher- and lower-proficiency EFL writers who demonstrated the two transferring processes (Appendix F), it is reasonable to assume that the transferring processes are challenging to avoid. Such characteristics of rhetorical transfer are rooted in the intrinsic knowledge source of L1 writing, which can be traced to the early writing training and L1 writing experience at different stages of education. It is fair to say that adult L1 writers have formed their habits in L1 on how to argue persuasively and move forward in the writing process. These L1 rhetorical patterns constitute the foundation of writing competence and predominate in L2 writing (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012). The latter two transferring processes (Q11 & Q16), involving the consideration of performing specific argument skills (i.e., conceiving supportive points of argument and handling opposing views), could be diminished because of English writing proficiency. This finding suggests that when specific L2 rhetorical knowledge is developed, the dependence on the L1 counterpart becomes lessened (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012). The results above, nonetheless, contradict van Weijen et al.’s study (2009), which revealed a negative relation between general or L1 writing proficiency and the amount of L1 use in L2 writing. One probable reason for the inconsistency rests with the difference in investigating L1 influence on L2 writing. Although both the results are concerned with the L1 influence during composing processes, van Wijen et al.’s study (2009) focused on the proportion of L1 use and analyzed L1 use by calculating the percentage of L1 words in think-aloud protocols, while the current research investigated to what degree the influence of L1 rhetoric occurred under a retrospective condition. It implies that L1 writing proficiency means L1 rhetorical knowledge more than spontaneous L1 thinking.

7.3 Effects of L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer on L2 Writing

201

7.3 Effects of L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer on L2 Writing A practical aspect of studying L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer is to reveal its effect on the composing processes and text quality of L2 writing, as was the concern of RQ 3). With mixed sources of data, including English writing samples, the participants’ retrospective verbal and questionnaire reports, and native English-speaking evaluators’ rhetorical evaluation, the current research explored this question from both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The quantitative evidence can be uncovered from the association between the frequency of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features shown in English texts and the text quality of English essays produced in Task I. The frequency of three categories of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features [i.e., ISCO—Indirect statement of the central opinion, TEAA—Turn for encompassing altered angles, and DCSCPAb— Concealing the main idea or central theme of the body paragraph] in the participants’ English essays was negatively associated with the text quality of the English writing. These features evidencing Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer were more inclined to occur in the lower-rated English essays than in their higher-rated counterparts, indicating the likelihood of the negative effect of this transfer. It is worth considering why these categories of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features relate to English writing quality. The reason might be associated with their salient locations and connection with argumentation development. The occurrences of ISCO and DCSCPAb are located in the salient portions of texts: the former was at the outset of an English essay where argumentation was initiated, and the latter was at the end of an argument where the writer made his/her claim. TEAA, in the logical pattern, was concerned with the Chinese way of developing a convincing and compelling argument. The textual portions and argument rhetoric demonstrated by these typical Chinese features draw serious attention from EFL writing instruction and inspire the formulation of clear-cut rules to guide the composing activities oriented towards qualified English argumentative writing, like “clearly present your thesis and views,” “follow the linear/deductive pattern of argument,” and “notice the paragraph unity.” Due to these prescribed rules, the relevant rhetorical knowledge is more clearly shown and explicitly developed in EFL writing instruction. This type of knowledge contributes to the rhetorical organization of the essential elements that are supposed to be contained in English argumentative writing and deserves learners’ conscious notice; its importance decides that it cannot be lacking for completing English writing tasks. The emergence of ISCO, TEAA, and DCSCPAb violates the vital rules of English argumentative essay writing, so they mark the low quality of this writing. The other categories of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features that emerged with a relatively high frequency in the English essays, like ISRDU (Implicit semantic relations between discourse units), MPIC (The moral or philosophical implication in the conclusion), and ERQT (Employment of rhetorical questions and tags), revealed no significant difference in frequency among the differentially-rated English essays.

202

7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive …

The occurrence of ISRDU was not associated with English writing quality, which similarly emerged in highly and lowly-rated English writing samples. In other words, this rhetorical feature is unlikely to work as a marker that differentiates highly and lowly-rated English texts. This finding is consistent with that of empirical and theoretical works on the use of explicit cohesive devices. For example, L2 learners investigated in a study (Crossley et al., 2016) did not display any development in using explicit cohesion links at the sentence level either. Indeed, it has been argued that explicit cohesion does not feature in good writing (see also McNamara et al., 2010). Another study (Kim & Crossley, 2018) found that local cohesion was not positively correlated with the quality of L2 argumentative writing. The findings of the current research, combined with the previous ones listed above, reinforce the notion that no apparent relation exists between local cohesion and the overall quality of English argumentative writing. MPIC occurred in both highly and lowly rated English writing samples but failed to show a significant difference in the frequency percentage between the highly and lowly rated English writing samples. Text analyses revealed the difference as regards whether the conclusion successfully achieved its expected discourse function according to the norm of English argumentative writing: Despite its occurrence in two highly rated English essays, the conclusions in both pieces carried out their function of summarizing previous arguments; in contrast, all the six lowly rated essays with MPIC failed to do so, solely leaving suspense for eliciting readers’ further thinking or informing readers of the action that should be taken. It appears that MPIC itself might not be responsible for the low rating of English writing; rather, the rhetorical failure was caused by EFL writers’ complete dependence on Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer, which made them mindless of essential L2 rhetorical elements or functions supposed to be demonstrated by the conclusion of L2 writing. Indeed, the underlying factor in deciding the textual effect of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer is the adequacy of L2 rhetorical knowledge. The same is true for ERQT, which appeared in both highly and lowly rated English writing but in different textual locations. In many lowly-rated English essays, the occurrence of ERQT was placed before the thesis statement or topic sentence, which is a critical portion requiring clarity and directness in stereotyped English essays. Hence, interference with presenting central views or ideas was much more likely to happen. In their highly-rated counterparts, most ERQT instances occurred merely as a redundant element in a place where no critical ideas were conveyed. In this case, they did not interfere with readers’ understanding of textual meaning, so these instances had no serious adverse effect on English text quality. I assume that the contrastive effect of the same characteristic Chinese rhetorical feature on L2 text quality is determined by whether the transfer of L1 rhetorical knowledge and skills causes problems in L2 writing. The claim’s tenet is the fitness of the transferred object from L1 to L2 situations. It resonates with the notion of “transfer-appropriate-processing,” that is, “processing that has enough elements in common with the context of transfer for this context to activate the memory traces from this processing” (DeKeyser, 2017, p. 17). The appropriateness of processing transfer is attributed to the perceived task similarity in the L1 and L2, or at least to

7.3 Effects of L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer on L2 Writing

203

the security from the problems caused by the L1-L2 task difference. As exemplified by the present text data, the different textual effects produced by the same characteristic Chinese rhetorical features either might or might not lead to the textual outcomes accepted by native English-speaking evaluators because of the difference as to whether these features conformed to the rules or expectations of English argumentative essay writing. The characteristic Chinese rhetorical features not involved in the analysis above occurred at a low frequency in the highly and lowly rated English essays. As a result, it is impossible to determine whether their occurrence is related to the quality of English writing. However, based on their frequency percentage in English texts, it can be deduced that they are more likely to appear in low-rated English writing. In addition to the text data, the PWRQ and RVR self-report data quantitatively demonstrated the negative relationships between some L1-to-L2 rhetorical transferring processes and L2 writing performance. Notably, these transferring processes represent the mental operations with the medium of L1 rhetorical thoughts; some turned into the textual outcomes manifested in explicit forms, while others remained as the presumed thinking inside the EFL writers’ minds. This emic perspective centering on writers allows us to better understand their cognition of writing in a way that is impossible when it is seen as the end product (Hyland, 2016). Then it is justifiable that the transferring processes occurring in the cognitive mind may not be consistent with their corresponding textual manifestation. The PWRQ data indicated that seven L1-to-L2 rhetorical transferring processes differed among the lowly, moderately, and highly rated English essays; specifically, these transferring processes occurred to a lower degree in the highly rated group. Furthermore, the influence of the L1 rhetorical thoughts embodied by these transferring processes is generally weaker in higher-quality EFL writing than in its lower-quality counterpart. Among these transferring processes marking the difference in EFL writing quality, three fall into the category of the overall influence of the Chinese patterns of writing (Q1, Q2 & Q3) (a); two belong to the dimension of within-paragraph text organization (Q4 & Q5) (b); the other two are concerned with the influence of Chinese rhetoric on the construction of argumentative paragraphs (Q10 & Q15) (c). A closer look at these transferring processes showed that five of them (a and b) related to the composing processes for the general rhetorical aspects of English argumentative writing. These aspects are seriously concerned with the perception of writing and trains of thought pointing to the ultimate communicative purpose of writing, specifically with the fundamental understanding of successful L2 argumentative writing and the mental ability to organize this writing along with a logical path. The rhetorical considerations around them count a lot in the respect that they distinguish L2 writing performance. Hence, the occurrence of these transferring processes at a high frequency in L2 writing is probably associated with the low quality of L2 writing. As for the other two transferring processes (c), both had to do with the dependence on Chinese rhetorical knowledge or thinking to create the writing content for the argumentative purpose, composed of a large idea/meaning unit that demanded to be

204

7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive …

expressed by multiple sentences. Given the differences in the transferring processes in highly and lowly-rated English writing, it can be considered that L2 writers who are less reliant on L1 rhetorical knowledge to formulate L2 argumentative content are more likely to produce high-quality L2 writing. It needs to be noted that the rhetorical transfer in this regard might also occur and manifest in highly rated L2 writing when necessary to generate intricate thoughts for argumentation. In other words, such cross-language influence could hardly be evaded or forbidden with L2 writing development. A comparison of transfer instances in the H and L groups’ English writing revealed a difference in the effect of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer between higher- and lowerproficiency L2 writers in Phase II. On the part of the higher-proficiency EFL writers, the instances of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer were mostly manifested in the construction of local textual portions in the introduction paragraph (i.e., topic introduction) or for the specific purpose of argument in the body paragraph (i.e., inductive logic of argument and evidence use), which took account of English writing situations. However, in the case of the lower-proficiency EFL writers, the influence of Chinese rhetorical thinking tended to be more extended in English texts, which might even involve the entire paragraph; these writers’ retrospective reports suggested that they were prone to negatively following the Chinese pattern of writing during English composing processes. The comparison above suggests that L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer has differing roles in English writing across L2 writing proficiency levels. Higher-proficiency L2 writers are more able to manipulate their L1 rhetorical resources to construct L2 argumentative texts. The reason for this finding might be “writer empowerment” (Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2016, p. 375): advanced L2 writers possess more L2 writing knowledge and need not resort to their L1 rhetorical resources throughout their L2 writing; moreover, these writers become more aware of L1–L2 rhetorical differences and will not be unconsciously dependent upon their L1 rhetorical resources. From the qualitative perspective, the evaluation of the effect of Chinese L1-toEnglish L2 rhetorical transfer depended on the rhetorical effect yielded by the textual formation characterized by Chinese rhetoric. This evaluation could be seen in terms of the rhetorical outcome and construction. With regard to the rhetorical outcome of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer, native English-speaking evaluators’ evaluations of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features were primarily concerned with the purpose of written communication in the argumentative genre and their feelings or responses to the rhetorical organization of English written texts. These evaluators’ evaluations reflected the quality of the textual portions produced by rhetorical practices in the argumentative genre. In written communication, argumentative effectiveness, specifically the argumentation schema and process, is inevitably affected by rhetorical habits deeply rooted in cultural conventions (Stapleton, 2017). Nevertheless, the rhetorical pattern that is effective in strengthening argumentation in one language is probably not so in the other language, in that the mode of argumentation varies from culture to culture.

7.3 Effects of L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer on L2 Writing

205

As reckoned by Lorenz (1999), “It is tempting to postulate that deviant L2 production arises from a conflict of overall discourse organizing principles between L1 and L2” (p. 56). In this sense, the positive and negative effects of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer can be ascertained in L2 writing according to whether the textual portions carrying the trace of this transfer conform to or deviate from the rhetorical expectations of normal L2 argumentative writing. The adverse effect means the transferred L1 discourse knowledge cannot be accepted as the substitution of the L2 counterpart used for the construction of certain portions; thus, it manifests the textual problems subsequent to the lack of essential L2 rhetorical knowledge. More specifically, the positive characteristic Chinese rhetorical feature was entailed by the facilitative rhetorical effect, indicating that the relevant rhetorical outcome conformed to the conventions of English writing. The positive effect of this feature was reflected by the absence of negative feedback from the target Englishspeaking readers because it met their rhetorical expectations. On the contrary, the negative characteristic Chinese rhetorical features led to the deviation from the norm of English L2 argumentative essay writing and to the weakening of its argumentativeness, as qualitatively evaluated from the perspective of native English-speaking evaluators. Two rhetorical failures of the argumentative writing genre reflected such adverse effects: one failure in the fulfillment of needs specified by the argumentative genre in English and the other in the observation of fundamental rules for qualified English writing. The lack of essential elements or moves for argumentative construction (including the thesis statement, outlining sentence, topic sentence, detailed analysis, specific examples, restating the thesis, and ideas of arguments) was typical of the former failure. The latter failure was derived from the unfavorable influence of the pattern of Chinese rhetoric in EFL learners’ English writing, which probably caused the lack of authenticity of English expressions or the deviation from the rhetorical requirements of normal English writing. For instance, rhetorical questions were typically employed to grab readers’ attention in Chinese writing, but they were considered useless hooks for English academic discourse. According to the present finding, many categories of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features (including ISCO, ISRDUb, MPICb, ERQTa, ERQTb, and ERSP) tended to be unanimously determined as negative factors in English argumentative essay writing because they were bound to cause either or both of the failures mentioned above; the rest of the categories of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features were different in their effect since they did not necessarily lead to rhetorical failures. For the latter categories of characteristic Chinese rhetorical features, their mixed effects were primarily dependent upon whether their emergence caused textual problems with native-readers’ reading comprehension or not. ISRDUa (no explicit linguistic signals of the connection between adjacent clauses) is a case in point. The problem with ISRDUa mostly occurred at the position where the EFL writer was supposed to explicitly signal the logical direction so that readers could be guided along the way that writing proceeded (i.e., within the same or closely-related rhetorical moves). However, this feature might be characterized by the absence of indispensable explicit signals, which makes it difficult for readers to follow the writer’s

206

7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive …

train of thought. ISRDUa therein embodies EFL writers’ activation of Chinese rhetorical knowledge in response to the limitation or unfamiliarity of the corresponding English knowledge about the explicit linkers that are vital for local-level text organization in English writing. Nevertheless, ISRDUa was not problematic in English texts when it did not arouse problems in understanding the logic displayed by discourse units. Such a neutral effect might be attributed to the agreement about the logical link between English and Chinese writing. Because of the dynamic nature of the context in which rhetoric functions, the textual effect produced by the same L1 rhetorical practice was not fixed and unchangeable in different pieces of L2 writing (Matsuda, 1997). This means that contextual factors specific to an L2 text need to be considered when evaluating the effect of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. The effect of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer on the process of rhetorical construction can be judged according to whether it facilitates or hampers composing processes in L2 writing. It further corroborates the neutral view on this transfer. As suggested by the results of RVR data, the Chinese-dominant mindset, associated with the logic and reasoning internalized in EFL writers’ intuitive thinking, could automatically facilitate mental functioning during their dynamic composing processes. The result is consistent with the finding in Cohen and Brooks-Carson’s study (2001) that writers could often clearly organize their thoughts and opinions owing to their dominant language. This influence can probably be attributed to the active role of the L1 rhetorical pattern formed and reinforced by their years of L1 writing experience. The key is to leverage this influence as a cognitive strategy in a given writing context.

7.4 Relationship Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and the Relevant Metacognition To address RQ4, the following three relations between L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and relevant metacognition were explored, respectively: the relation between this transfer and the metacognitive knowledge about L1–L2 rhetorical differences, the relation between this transfer and general writing metacognitive skills, and the relation between this transfer and the metacognitive skills co-occurring with this transfer. These relations are to be discussed by adopting the perspective of L2 writers’ agency, which is the essence of metacognition, serving as a fundamental cause of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. The relevant data sources were mainly the participants’ verbal and questionnaire reports.

7.4 Relationship Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and the Relevant …

207

7.4.1 Relation Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and the Metacognitive Knowledge about L1-L2 Rhetorical Differences The negative correlations between Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes and the metacognitive knowledge about Chinese-English rhetorical differences suggested that the degree of the influence of Chinese rhetorical knowledge or experience during English writing was negatively associated with corresponding metacognitive knowledge. This finding substantiates the potential role of contrastive rhetorical awareness in dealing with the interference of L1 rhetoric, which reflects the operation of L2 writers’ agency (Casanave, 2004; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2016; Rinnert et al., 2015). Many variables of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes were negatively predicted by two factors of MKCERD, i.e., Reader Awareness Across Languages (RAAL) and Perception of the Differences in the Pattern of Argumentation Between Chinese and English Writing (PDPACEW). RAAL indicates Chinese EFL writers’ concern about advanced target readers’ rhetorical expectations of essay writing. It was evidenced as a robust predictor of the decrease in transferring processes. This factor of metacognitive knowledge enabled the EFL writers to notice the communicative and interpersonal nature of their English academic writing and proactively interact with target English-speaking readers. It has been proven to remarkably lessen the degree of those transferring processes concerning argument construction, especially the generation of arguments with the discourse meaning that strongly interacts with readers’ minds or the usage of argumentative skills involving critical thinking. The specific composing activities undergoing the influence of Chinese L1 argumentative rhetoric included the introduction of topic background (as shown by Q7 in PWRQ), the statement of the thesis (Q8), the presentation of evidence (Q15), the treatment of counter opinions (Q16), argument development and organization (Q9, Q10, and Q11), writing conventions and standards and Chinese L1 translation (Q1 and Q13). The following will go into detail. The topic introduction, together with the thesis statement, which occupies “a textually prominent place” (Dreyfus et al., 2016, p. 129, as cited in Pessoa et al., 2017), is crucial to influencing readers’ impressions of the whole text before it unfolds at the beginning of writing. Hence, the composing processes for the introduction part are intertwined with reader awareness. The introduction part of English argumentative essay writing represents an aspect that indicates the rhetorical difference from its Chinese counterpart. Correspondingly, RAAL means the metacognitive knowledge about the difference in the opening of an essay that grabs readers’ attention and interest. It allowed EFL writers to consciously get free from the interference of their habitual patterns in the Chinese L1. This finding corresponds with the observation that a JFL (Japanese as a Foreign Language) writer deliberately chose a Japanese-styled pattern different from that in his L1 rhetorical habit when organizing the introduction to meet the expectations of target readers in a previous case study (Rinnert et al.,

208

7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive …

2015). Due to the awareness of native-readers’ rhetorical preferences, which differed from the writer’s own, his or her composing act for the introduction part was less influenced by the L1 rhetorical pattern. With reader awareness across languages, EFL writers would consider using evidence that matched native English-speaking readers’ rhetorical expectations concerning their notions of argumentative evidence, their cultural knowledge background, as well as their preference for evidence use. The provision of evidence is a rhetorical act for aligning readers with the writer’s claim (Myskow & Ono, 2018), and L2 writers’ perception of evidence tends to be influenced by their L1 rhetorical knowledge (Liu & Du, 2018). In this sense, the awareness of target English-speaking readers enabled EFL writers to avoid resorting to their L1-rhetoric-based way of selecting and presenting evidential backups for L2 argumentative writing in case of misunderstanding or discomfort by target English-speaking readers. This result echoes what was found in Liu and Du’s study (2018), lending support for interpreting intercultural reader awareness in respect of its negative influence on the L1-to-L2 transferring processes related to the composing act for laying evidential grounds for arguments. The metacognitive knowledge about target English-speaking reader expectations could also account for the transferring process regarding how counterarguments are treated. An essential facet of meeting reader expectations and achieving argument purpose is manifested by addressing the opinion standing against the writers’ arguments in normal English argumentative writing. However, this aspect is not seriously cared about in the Chinese counterpart because different views could be philosophically integrated into a united whole. For the Chinese EFL students in the current research, the self-reflection on this Chinese-English rhetorical difference naturally brought about a decrease in their inclination to fall back on Chinese L1 rhetoric when considering how to address different sides of view that native English readers might hold. Without such metacognitive awareness, it is unlikely that L2 writers would deliberately seek to refute the opposing view or stance for effective argumentation. As noted by Qin (2009), a possible reason that L2 students would not consider counterarguments is their unawareness of addressing counterarguments in making their arguments more persuasive. In this sense, this result suggests that L2 writers’ awareness of target L2-speaking readers helps raise their concern about counterarguments. Apart from its metacognitive effect of managing L1 argumentation skills, RAAL was also found to inhibit the Chinese L1-to-English L2 transferring processes related to argument development and organization. It suggests its role in promoting target readers’ cultural and linguistic understanding in L2 argumentative essay writing. It enables L2 writers to connect with their target audiences’ minds and follow their logic and reasoning patterns of argumentation. Due to such metacognitive awareness, they may consider readers’ rhetorical expectations of argument development and organization and control the relevant transfer of L1 rhetorical knowledge. In this sense, RAAL indicates L2 writers’ engagement in cross-cultural communication in argumentative essay writing.

7.4 Relationship Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and the Relevant …

209

Besides, RAAL had a negative predictive effect on the influence of Chinese writing conventions and standards as well as Chinese L1 translation. The reason is that the mental image of target readers gives writers a sense of intercultural written communication, which makes them dedicated to suiting the rhetorical preferences of the target language. Correspondingly, what concerns this metacognitive awareness is the rhetorical consideration of two aspects of EFL writing. One is EFL writers’ expectation that their written work will be accepted or favored by target English-speaking readers; the other is the general agreement about the basic principles and procedures of written communication as conventionally established by the English discourse community. In light of the former aspect, argumentative writing should proceed along with the way accepted by native readers, how they would preferably receive messages to convince or persuade them. So, the metacognitive concern with this aspect entails that EFL writers catch on to the communicative nature of written argumentation in their English argumentative essay writing; it reflects the social value of English rhetorical conventions, which represent an essential condition for “communicative force” routinely executed within a discourse community (Hyland, 2016, p. 25). It is reasonable that L2 writers with native-reader awareness are consciously aware of L2 writing conventions differing from their L1 counterparts, and they would be released from the bondage of their L1 thoughts in this regard. As regards the latter aspect, it can be argued that the metacognitive knowledge about native readers’ rhetorical evaluation has the potential to guide composing thoughts along the way supposed to be followed by L2 rhetoric and to make them unaffected by the perspective of L1 writing or rhetoric. The reason for this view is that the perceived criteria of English writing reflect EFL writers’ beliefs about good English writing, which influences the mental operation of creating high-quality L2 texts (Sanders-Reio et al., 2014). This view is consistent with Uysal’s claim (2012) that commanding L2 writing norms leads to the mitigation of the negative influence of L1 writing rhetoric. Perception of the Differences in the Pattern of Argumentation Between Chinese and English Writing (PDPACEW) had a remarkable negative effect on the variables of the Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transferring processes linked to The Overall Influence of Chinese Patterns of Rhetoric, mainly involving Chinese writing norms or conventions, Chinese writing expertise, and general rhetorical modes preferably followed by Chinese yilunwen writing. It implies that metacognitive knowledge of L1–L2 differences in the textual representation of the argumentative genre reduced the pervasive influence of L1 rhetoric on L2 writing composing processes. It further substantiates the importance of cross-cultural genre awareness in promoting L2 students’ understanding of their EFL writing and enabling them to become adapted to the target discourse in another culture (Zheng, 2017). Moreover, mediated by this kind of awareness, their composing processes cater to the genre demands unique to L2 argumentative writing (Roca de Larios et al., 2002). Notably, it could be identified that the transferring process concerning the overall arrangement of argumentative paragraphs (Q9) was irrelevant to PDPACEW. It might result from the preference for parallel relations among different perspectives of arguments (pingxing lunzheng—平行论证) (People’s Education Press et al., 2006) or the coordinated pattern without topic continuity (Liu, 1999) in the Chinese rhetorical

210

7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive …

tradition. The reason might be that such a pattern of arguments is exemplified by the inductive sequence of “because1−4 ” followed by “therefore” (Kirkpatrick, 1995, p. 279); it becomes an ingrained part of adult Chinese EFL writers’ repertoire of rhetorical knowledge, which tends to be habitually employed in L2 argumentative writing. Meanwhile, it could be found that the L1-to-L2 transferring processes intertwined with the holistic composing of argumentative content or meaning had nothing to do with such metacognitive cross-cultural awareness of genre knowledge regarding the conventional organization of argumentative writing. The reason might be that the components of PDPACEW pertain to structural argument organization, so this metacognitive knowledge cannot mitigate the influence of L1 rhetorical thoughts on argumentative content or meaning. For instance, as evidenced in the current research, the transferring process for dealing with counterarguments (Q16) could not be predicted by PDPACEW. According to the norms of English argumentation, assessing the quality of rebuttals depends on whether the response to counterarguments is clear and complete (Newell et al., 2015) and whether the substance of arguments is relevant and accurate (Stapleton & Wu, 2015). The L1 rhetorical knowledge involved in the transferring process regarding counterarguments is in accordance with the composing efforts to conceive and generate a well-developed critical opinion covering both counterarguments and rebuttals. Therefore, the transfer of this knowledge could hardly be diminished by L2 writers’ metacognitive awareness of the cross-lingual difference in the organizational aspects between L1 and L2 argumentative writing that have no connection with the conception of complete discourse meaning. The degree of the transferring process related to within-paragraph text organization (Q4) and paragraph transition (Q14) could be negatively predicted by PDPACEW as well. It reflects the negative effect of PDPACEW on the transfer of the Chinese way of managing global or local coherence. Concerning the argumentative pattern, PDPACEW incorporates the metacognitive awareness of the difference in the organization of discourse units (either sentences or paragraphs) between Chinese and English argumentative essay writing. In essence, considering within-paragraph text organization or paragraph transition involves the intention to address the logical relationship between the preceding and following parts; due to their accordance with PDPACEW, the transferring processes indicated by Q4 and Q14 can be prevented based on the metacognitive awareness of its cause of inappropriateness in the L2 writing context. With weaker predictive power, PDCDUCEW—the metacognitive knowledge about the difference in the coherence of discourse units between Chinese and English writing, contributed to the negative impact on the two transferring processes. One was concerned with the influence of Chinese L1 writing patterns on the organization of thoughts in paragraph development (Q5). The sources of knowledge for the potential transfer were related to how texts were rhetorically constructed in normal L1 writing as well as the notions of excellent L1 writing in terms of rhetorical structure (Hinkel, 2002). As such, the corresponding disposed transfer, which occurred based on the profile of clear, well-organized, and qualified essays in L2 writers’ L1

7.4 Relationship Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and the Relevant …

211

rhetorical schemata, could be suppressed by the metacognitive awareness of the L1L2 difference in logical organization. The other transferring process was linked to the influence of Chinese logical patterns on discourse organization when developing a paragraph (Q6). This transferring process co-occurred with the logical progression of generating discourse units in a reasonable sequence. It was concerned with text organization concerning local coherence, which corresponds with the focus of PDCDUCEW. PDCDUCEW was comparatively limited in its predictive effect on transferring processes. The reason might be that this factor of metacognitive knowledge merely denotes Chinese learners’ individualized notice of the difference in a profile of coherence between Chinese and English argumentative writing rather than their genuine understanding of the underlying rules of structural organization required by English argumentative essay writing, which is supposed to be well observed; so, it was unlikely to motivate EFL writers to treat Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer as the interference that should be restricted. For this reason, it could not be transformed into a mental operation to avert these transferring processes. The two factors of metacognitive knowledge concerning the self-consciousness of Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer itself [Perception of Possible Interference from Chinese Rhetoric on Argument Construction in English Writing (PPICRACEW) and Perception of the Influence of Chinese Rhetorical Knowledge and Skills in English Writing (PICRKSEW)], failed to exert influence on any transferring process. The two kinds of metacognitive awareness represent EFL writers’ self-reflection of emergence and interference of this transfer in their English writing; they are at the passive and reflective level of metacognition (Meijer et al., 2006), which merely give these writers the vision of their cognitive enterprise and processes. Without reaching the regulatory level, they are not strong enough to execute the preventive power toward the occurrence of this transfer. That is to say, metacognition can only be exercised for problem-solving purposes when attaining the superordinate level of strategic processing. Taken together, the current research provided empirical support for the active role of metacognitive knowledge about English-speaking audience awareness and the L1–L2 differences in the argumentative pattern in offsetting the corresponding L1to-L2 rhetorical transfer. The former factor of metacognitive knowledge effectively motivates L2 writers’ deliberate efforts to direct their mental or intellectual resources for constructing arguments involving reader interaction, critical thinking, and writing standards and conventions to lighten the dependence on L1 rhetorical thoughts. The latter carries out its function for mitigating the influence of L1 rhetorical modes on the general composing state during L2 writing and the influence of L1 rhetorical techniques on the process of contriving argumentative manoeuvers. Both types of metacognitive awareness act as the catalyst for rhetorical production accepted by the target English-speaking community.

212

7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive …

7.4.2 Relation Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and General Writing Metacognitive Skills General writing metacognitive skills indicate the self-regulated properties of writing task performance. Its link to interlingual transfer reflects the role of the writer agency in this transfer to text construction (Rinnert et al., 2015). We could infer the difference in L2 general writing metacognitive skills between higher- and lower-proficiency EFL writers by comparing the long pauses reported by Jiang and Yang. It could be argued that Jiang was more concerned with the quality of English argumentative essays, particularly the production of authentic English and the development of arguments. Furthermore, her composing processes involved rhetorical concerns about the task purpose of argumentation and target Englishspeaking readers’ reactions. However, Yang was disposed to care more about the search for accurate English expressions and the ideas or meanings to be expressed in argumentative paragraphs, which caused frequent hesitations. It suggests that the metacognitive attention of more advanced L2 writers is directed to the appropriateness of the rhetorical form (Wenden et al., 1991), which is not probably true for lower-proficiency ones. Further, the comparison of Jiang and Yang indicated the difference in employing writing metacognitive skills between L2 writers with distinct levels of English writing proficiency. Those higher-proficiency L2 writers could be identified as being stronger in metacognitive skills; they demonstrated a higher level of rhetorical consideration concerning the effectiveness of argumentative patterns and rhetorical expectations of advanced target English readers. On the contrary, those lower-proficiency counterparts might be less metacognitively skillful EFL writers; they struggled with the search for English expressions in their composing activities and lacked rhetorical consideration in English writing. Synthesizing the data from the participants’ SR I reports, English written samples, and retrospective verbal accounts, it could be found that the textual portions where Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer took place tended to overlap with those which were planned and produced under the guidance of writing metacognitive skills, especially in the case of higher-proficiency EFL writers. Further, this transfer was likely to co-occur with the writing metacognitive skills that were focused on composing acts in the argumentative context, mainly including those concerning the consideration of points of argument and the production of English expressions with the awareness of target English-speaking readers. Such overlap reveals the following two points: Firstly, the interaction between different levels of cognitive processes and task demands during L2 writing reflects L2 writers’ metacognitive attempt to coordinate diverse cognitive activities deliberately. It accounts for the “metacognitive dynamics” entailed in L2 writing (Negretti, 2012), i.e., the pervasive role of ongoing metacognition that is blended with L2 composing processes. Hence, it is indicative of its dynamism and intertwined relationship with purely cognitive activities (Veenman et al., 2006; Zhang, 2010; Zhang & Zhang, 2018), in accordance with the notion

7.4 Relationship Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and the Relevant …

213

of “the marriage between self-consciousness and the intention to act” (Dinsmore et al., 2008, p. 404). The cognitive trait of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer enables its occurrence in a flexible and complex way, allowing us to see the role of EFL writers’ agency. Secondly, for L2 writers, especially those higher-proficiency ones, their L1 rhetorical thought patterns tend to be interlinked with the rhetoric-oriented metacognitive skills amid long writing pauses. The overlap between the two types of cognitive activities might result from their similarity in the knowledge source that supports the mental operation or in the processing of rhetorical factors. Both are concerned with the processes characterized as the retrieval, activation, or management of the rhetorical knowledge borrowed from the Chinese (L1)-based mind. This overlap is also connected to their shared cognitive attributes. The rhetorical composition linked to Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer reflects its concurrent metacognitive processes; in turn, the functionality of writing metacognitive skills has to be executed by targeting the focal cognitive activities for the composition purpose, and metacognitive functions are demonstrated by their corresponding composing activities. It seems that higher-proficiency L2 writers were more capable of taking the initiative in deriving L1 rhetorical resources to resolve rhetorical problems. During their composing processes in EFL writing, they could incorporate the rhetorical knowledge activated in L1 habits of mind into their metacognitive allocation, aiming for rhetorical goals. This result echoes the finding of Negretti’s study (2017) about the positive relationship between the utilization of rhetoric-related metacognitive resources and EFL/ESL students’ writing task performance. Negretti found that the metacognitive execution of highly effective writers prominently demonstrated rhetorical concerns. The current research also aligns with Forbes’ (2019) finding that successful writers’ level of metacognitive engagement led to their effective strategy use in their goaloriented L2 writing, including the voluntary transfer of writing strategies across languages. Writing metacognitive skills with rhetorical concerns stand for the positive intention to utilize cognitive resources available to fulfill rhetorical demands, which constitute the core issue in completing writing tasks. For L2 writers, such highorder skills mirror their proactive management of the composing activities affected by L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer.

7.4.3 Relation Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Its Concurrent Metacognitive Skills Two aspects can measure the effectiveness of metacognitive skills co-occurring with L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer: (1) the conscious awareness of this transfer and (2) the regulation of the process of this transfer. As suggested by the case analyses, L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer was interrelated with metacognitive skills co-occurring with this transfer in two ways. One way was

214

7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive …

that the L2 composing activities affected by L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer were entirely attended to by metacognitive skills (or involving adequate metacognitive skills). That is, this transfer was metacognitively monitored and controlled. The other way was that the L2 composing activities influenced by L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer were partially attended to by metacognitive skills (or involving inadequate metacognitive skills), in which L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer was metacognitively monitored but not controlled. This relationship can be further confirmed as either direct or indirect, as informed by the L2 student writers’ self-reports. On the one hand, this relationship might be direct if they can provide an accurate account of their L1 rhetorical actions in terms of their knowledge foundation and the regulated rhetoric-oriented process, demonstrating their self-knowledge or mindfulness of “what they are doing” and “why they are doing so.” On the other hand, this relation might be indirect, provided that these writers are aware of the knowledge source of L1 rhetoric but show no rhetorical consciousness as to how to make the occurrence of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer fit in L2 writing situations. The directness in metacognitive evaluation can be seen as a dimension of metacognitive accuracy (Negretti, 2017), i.e., to what degree can writers offer enough explanations of the cross-language influence of L1 rhetoric involving L2 writers’ agency. The difference in the use of the metacognitive skills co-occurring with L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer was obviously shown across proficiency levels in L2 writing. From the overall finding of case analyses, it could be recognized that on the part of the higher-proficiency L2 writers, the occurrence of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer tended to be wholly attended to by the metacognitive skills concurrent with this transfer in their L2 composing processes. Regardless of their explicitness or the scope of their influence in L2 texts, most transfer instances can be easily monitored and controlled by them. They showed a tendency for adequate metacognitive skills, capable of both monitoring and controlling transfer instances. Hence, their metacognitive skills can be considered related to Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer. The detailed analysis of SR II reports suggested that adequate metacognitive skills were associated with comparative rhetorical awareness, which was more evident in the case of the H group. This comparative awareness manifested as L2 writers’ perception of the rhetorical similarity and difference between L1 and L2 writing during their metacognitive control of the process of transfer; it informed the transferability of L1 rhetorical knowledge in specific L2 rhetorical situations, leading to “rational transfer” (Kellerman, 1995) or strategic transfer. For instance, Jiang’s metacognitive awareness was demonstrated as contrastive awareness of the difference in rhetorical expectations between Chinese and English writing, which enabled her to evade the negative transfer from Chinese to English. It can thus be inferred that adequate metacognitive skills plus comparative rhetorical awareness potentially prevent the negative effect of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. Notably, two transfer instances in the English writing of the L group were found to be mediated with adequate metacognitive skills, yet native English-speaking evaluators negatively evaluated them. It might be that though the transfer occurred under

7.4 Relationship Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and the Relevant …

215

their metacognitive state, its potential negative effect on L2 texts was not consciously noted or addressed through comparative rhetorical awareness. Lower-proficiency L2 writers like Yang were likely to display inadequate or no metacognitive skill concerning L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer; they could neither monitor nor control this transfer or only monitor it. Furthermore, the majority of transfer instances observed but not controlled by these writers manifested as influences on the overall structure of a paragraph (i.e., non-linear paragraph structure) and explicit forms of L1 rhetoric (i.e., Chinese maxims or set phrases). All these instances were evidently shown in their English texts. Their metacognitive skills appeared less related to Chinese L1-to-English L2 rhetorical transfer than higher-proficiency counterparts. Furthermore, lower-proficiency L2 writers are more prone to indulge in the occurrence of transfer across languages with less concern about its influential process or effect on their L2 writing. This mindless transfer results from the uncontrolled switching of their habitual pattern of L1 writing without the functioning of metacognitive skills. The habitual state of cognition inevitably influences their composing activities in the L2 in L1 writing, which is autonomously activated when they fail to metacognitively perceive any mismatch between L1 rhetoric and the contextual situation of L2 writing. In other words, these L2 writers have not raised their contrastive rhetorical awareness of their composing activities in the bilingual mind. The present result also revealed two characteristics of inadequate and no metacognitive skills displayed by lower-proficiency L2 writers: (1) Those with poor metacognitive skills were more likely to lack familiarity with the rhetorical organization in L2 writing. The failure to apply metacognitive awareness was due to the inability to manipulate cognitive processes during L2 writing. The reason lies in the condition of metacognitive functioning. The effectiveness of the vehicle of metacognition specific to a domain or task is built on learners’ relevant prior knowledge or knowledge structure (Guterman, 2003; Veenman & Beishuizen, 2004; Veenman et al., 2006). In this sense, the limitation of knowledge about L2 rhetoric negatively impacts the effectiveness of the metacognitive awareness of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. (2) Many who exhibited no metacognitive skill reported difficulty moving the writing process forward. For instance, when composing the conclusion, Yang’s sense of difficulty, as reflected by the contradiction between her anxiety to complete her essay and the desire for a satisfying ending, occupied her metacognitive attentional resources, which otherwise might have been diverted to transfer. It reveals that the feeling of L2 writing difficulty, which is associated with cognitive interruption (Touroutoglou & Efklides, 2010), impacts the functioning of metacognitive awareness. Since the sense of difficulty can trigger monitoring and control processes as the objects of metacognition (Efklides, 2011; Goh & Hu, 2014; Touroutoglou & Efklides, 2010), it gives rise to the little allocation of metacognition to the self-consciousness and self-regulation of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer.

216

7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive …

As can be seen, compared with their lower-proficiency counterparts, higherproficiency L2 writers were more capable of making strategic use of L1 rhetoric and, at the same time, avoiding the interference caused by its inappropriateness in the L2 setting. The results presented above respond to Kellerman’s assumption that transfer results from selectively exploiting L1 knowledge (1995). Equipped with metacognitive skills, higher-proficiency L2 writers maintain a self-conscious state during L2 composing processes, so the occurrence and direction of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer can be kept under their metacognitive control. In this way, the random occurrence of this transfer is perceived and prevented, and their rhetorical behaviors are expected to become native-like through intentionally employing L1/L2 rhetorical knowledge. The difference in the mental state of knowledge transfer in connection with metacognitive involvement lends support to James’ proposal about the contrast between “cross-linguistic awareness” and “cross-linguistic intuition” (James, 1996, p. 139). The former mentality allows for learners’ skilled control of their operation of knowledge repertoire in the mother tongue, so L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer can be made explicit regarding its backup L1 rhetorical resources, its transferring processes, and its effects in L2 writing. By contrast, the latter leads to the automatic process of rhetorical transfer without conscious involvement, which cannot be detected as an influential factor in L2 writing. Complementing the finding of Forbes’ study (2019), the current research demonstrated that higher-achieving L2 writers’ rhetoric-related metacognitive engagement made the transfer of L1 strategic resources suited to L2 writing situations. This result corresponds with Jarvis and Pavlenko’s view that “conscious control and monitoring,” which are dependent on metacognitive skills, making the transfer purpose-driven (2008, p. 196). Furthermore, metacognition reflects the role of agency in the process of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer (Rinnert et al., 2015), which enables L2 writers, especially those with higher L2 writing proficiency, to consciously recognize this transfer and make it actively involved in L2 rhetorical construction.

7.5 Summary This chapter explains the results reported in Chaps, 5 and 6. It indicates that an overall understanding of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer can be developed based on the theoretical framework presented in Chap. 3. This framework combines the textual, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives on dimensions of L2 writing. The textual outcome of this transfer was examined through the distribution of characteristic L1 rhetorical features in L2 writing and the evaluation of these features by qualified L2 writing evaluators. These features reflect the difference between L1 and L2 rhetorical conventions, which can be determined through contrastive analyses of L1 and L2 writing instruction materials or the review of contrastive rhetoric studies. Hence, the recognition of them in L2 texts offers textual evidence for the occurrence of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer.

References

217

Nevertheless, the textual outcome alone is insufficient to uncover the mechanism of such a complex mental activity. In other words, more evidence is required to further understand how it functions dynamically in composing activities and acts on L2 writing via L2 writers’ agency. In the current research, the transferring processes of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer were investigated for the cognitive evidence of this transfer. It was found that some of these transferring processes were associated with individual factors, including L2 writers’ L2 and L1 writing proficiency and perception of English writing difficulty, while the others were not. This finding reveals the complexity of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer caused by individual differences, suggesting that L2 writers’ cognitive or affective factors might affect the degree to which this transfer occurs. Moreover, it is believed that the metacognitive perspective should be considered in the study of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. With this perspective, the current research focused on metacognition in relation to this transfer, which reflects the tendency to control the use of L1 rhetorical knowledge based on contrastive rhetorical awareness. It indicates whether L1 rhetorical knowledge is deployed as a strategy due to the role of L2 writers’ agency. Furthermore, the transfer under study can be metacognitively interpreted as either a mechanical response to an L2 rhetorical situation or a conscious retrieval of L1 rhetorical knowledge for the purpose of L2 writing.

References Al-Haq, F. A. A., & Ahmed, A. S. (1994). Discourse problems in argumentative writing. World Englishes, 13(3), 307–323. Beare, S., & Bourdages, J. S. (2007). Skilled writers’ generating strategies in L1 and L2: An exploratory study. In G. Rijlaarsdam, M. Torrance, L. Van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Studies in writing vol. 20, writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 151–161). Elsevier. Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing. Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. University of Michigan Press. Cho, M. (2018). Task complexity and modality: Exploring learners’ experience from the perspective of flow. The Modern Language Journal, 102(1), 162–180. Cohen, A. D., & Brooks-Carson, A. (2001). Research on direct versus translated writing: Students’ strategies and their results. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 169–188. Connor, U., & Connor, U. M. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge University Press. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The development and use of cohesive devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 1–16. Debreli, E. (2016). Perceptions of non-native EFL teachers’ on L1 use in L2 classrooms: Implications for language program development. English Language Teaching, 9(3), 24–32. DeKeyser, R. (2017). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). Routledge. Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409. Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25.

218

7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive …

Forbes, K. (2019). The role of individual differences in the development and transfer of writing strategies between foreign and first language classrooms. Research Papers in Education, 34(4), 445–464. Goh, C. C., & Hu, G. (2014). Exploring the relationship between metacognitive awareness and listening performance with questionnaire data. Language Awareness, 23(3), 255–274. Guterman, E. (2003). Integrating written metacognitive awareness guidance as a ‘psychological tool’ to improve student performance. Learning and Instruction, 13(6), 633–651. Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Routledge. Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC Journal, 21(1), 66–78. Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing (3rd ed.). Routledge. James, C. (1996). A cross-linguistic approach to language awareness. Language Awareness, 5(3–4), 138–148. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge. Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 125–150. Kim, M., & Crossley, S. A. (2018). Modeling second language writing proficiency: A structural equation investigation of lexical, syntactic, and cohesive features in source-based and independent writing. Assessing Writing, 37, 39–56. Kirkpatrick, A. (1995). Chinese rhetoric: Methods of argument. Multilingua-Journal of CrossCultural and Interlanguage Communication, 14(3), 271–296. Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2012). Understanding L2 writing development from a multicompetence perspective: Dynamic repertoires of knowledge and text construction. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 101–134). Walter de Gruyter. Lally, C. G. (2000). First language influences in second language composition: The effect of prewriting. Foreign Language Annals, 33(4), 428–432. Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21–34. Liu, L. J. (1999). The organizational patterns of English and Chinese texts: A contrastive study. Modern Foreign Languages, 4, 408–419. Liu, Y., & Du, Q. (2018). Intercultural rhetoric through a learner lens: American students’ perceptions of evidence use in Chinese yìlùnwén writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 1–11. Lorenz, G. 1999. Learning to cohere: Causal Links in native vs. non-native argumentative writing. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it (pp. 24–27). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 45–60. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing proficiency. Written Communication, 27(1), 57–86. Meijer, J., Veenman, M. V., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. (2006). Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: Development of a taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 209–237. Myskow, G., & Ono, M. (2018). A matter of facts: L2 writers’ use of evidence and evaluation in biographical essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 55–70. Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: Longitudinal study of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation, evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29(2), 142–179. Negretti, R. (2017). Calibrating genre: Metacognitive judgments and rhetorical effectiveness in academic writing by L2 graduate students. Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 512–539. Newell, G. E., Bloome, D., & Hirvela, A. (2015). Teaching and learning argumentative writing in high school English language arts classrooms. Routledge.

References

219

Pallotti, G. (2017). Assessing tasks: The case of interactional difficulty. Applied Linguistics, amx020. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx020 Park, D. B. (1982). The meanings of “Audience.” College English, 44(3), 247–257. People’s Education Press, Course and Textbook Institute, Course and Textbook for middle/high school Literacy research and development center and Literacy education institute, Peking University. (2006). Gaozhong Yuwen Bixiu 4 – 高中语文必修4 (Chinese Literacy). Peoples Education Press. Pessoa, S., Mitchell, T. D., & Miller, R. T. (2017). Emergent arguments: A functional approach to analyzing student challenges with the argument genre. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 42–55. Qin, J. (2009). The analysis of Toulmin elements and use of sources in Chinese University EFL argumentative writing. Doctoral dissertation. Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database (Accession No. 3370640). Ringbom, H. (2016). Comprehension, learning and production of foreign languages: The role of transfer. In Alonso (Ed.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 38–52). Multilingual Matters. Rinnert, C., Kobayashi, H., & Katayama, A. (2015). Argumentation text construction by Japanese as a foreign language writer: A dynamic view of transfer. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 213–245. Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2016). Multicompetence and multilingual writing. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 365–386). De Gruyter. Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2002). A critical examination of L2 writing process research. In S. Ransdell & M. L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing research (pp. 11–48). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sanders-Reio, J., Alexander, P. A., Reio, T. G., Jr., & Newman, I. (2014). Do students’ beliefs about writing relate to their writing self-efficacy, apprehension, and performance? Learning and Instruction, 33, 1–11. Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 231–254. Stapleton, P. (2017). Ability to argue: Rooted in nature. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 83–84. Stapleton, P., & Wu, Y. A. (2015). Assessing the quality of arguments in students’ persuasive writing: A case study analyzing the relationship between surface structure and substance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 12–23. Touroutoglou, A., & Efklides, A. (2010). Cognitive interruption as an object of metacognitive monitoring: Feeling of difficulty and surprise. In A. Efklides & P. Misailidi (Eds.), Trends and prospects in metacognition research (pp. 171–208). Springer. Uysal, H. H. (2008). Tracing the culture behind writing: Rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 183–207. Uysal, H. H. (2012). Argumentation across L1 and L2 writing: Exploring cultural influences and transfer issues. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 133–159. van Weijen, D., van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2009). L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 235–250. Veenman, M. V., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). Intellectual and metacognitive skills of novices while studying texts under conditions of text difficulty and time constraint. Learning and Instruction, 14(6), 621–640. Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. Wang, L. (2003). Switching to first language among writers with differing second-language proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 347–375.

220

7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive …

Wang, W. (2008). Newspaper commentaries on terrorism in China and Australia. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 169–194). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 225–246. Wenden, A. L., et al. (1991). Metacognitive strategies in L2 writing: A case for task knowledge. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown roundtable on languages and linguistics 1991: Linguistics and language pedagogy-state of the art (pp. 302–322). Georgetown University Press. Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(1), 7–28. Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 320–353. Zhang, L. J. (2016). Reflections on the pedagogical imports of western practices for professionalizing ESL/EFL writing and writing-teacher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(3), 203–232. Zhang, L. J., & Zhang, D. (2018). Metacognition in TESOL: Theory and practice. In J. Liontas & A. Shehadeh (Eds.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English language teaching (Vol. II, pp. 682–792). Wiley. Zhang, X., Zhang, B. F., & Wang, B. H. (2004). 语言技能研究 (六) – Yuyan Jineng Yanjiu VI. Language Teaching in Middle School, 12, 51–55. Zheng, L. (2017). Teaching EFL writing: An approach based on the learner’s context model. TESOL Journal, 8(1), 142–165.

Chapter 8

Conclusion and Implications

This chapter concludes by summarizing the major results, restating the main arguments, and discussing theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical implications. It offers new insights into the cognitive mechanism and dynamic nature of L1-toL2 rhetorical transfer and the L2 writing instruction that guides EFL students to exploit their L1 rhetorical resources via metacognition involving comparative rhetorical awareness. This chapter ends with suggestions for future studies by highlighting potential areas worthy of further exploration.

8.1 Summary of Major Results From the dimensions of the text, L2 writer, and target readers, the research reported in this book is an initial attempt to make a systematic inquiry into L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and to explore its relationship with relevant metacognition. It targeted four questions central to the distribution of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, the associations of this transfer with L2-writer-related factors, the effects of this transfer in L2 writing, as well as the relations between this transfer and relevant metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive skills. Given that the objects of the current research involved mental operations, the investigation collected multiple sources of data to provide solid evidence. The major results are summarized as follows: • The distribution of rhetorical transfer from L1 to L2 Based on the analysis of textual and retrospective data, the current research revealed how L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer was distributed in L2 written products and the writing process. To be specific, the instances of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer involving the general rhetorical pattern can be easily identified in English argumentative essays. This distribution could be attributed to the differing degrees of dominance exhibited

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Wei, Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9_8

221

222

8 Conclusion and Implications

by the L1 rhetorical knowledge connected with L1 literacy conventions and that developed in formal education. The rhetorical transferring processes might also occur at the prewriting stage, depending on the L2 writers’ writing habits, i.e., if they were used to making an overall plan before writing. • The associations of L2-writer-related factors with L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in the process According to the results from Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire data, L2 writers’ perception of L2 writing difficulty and L2 and L1 writing proficiency were evidenced as three main L2-writer-related factors impacting L1-to-L2 rhetorical transferring processes. L2 writers’ perception of L2 writing difficulty positively affected their L1-to-L2 rhetorical transferring processes related to text organization, respecting within-paragraph coherence, meaning-making activities in general L2 production, consideration of argument persuasiveness, and thinking for a thesis during argument construction; L2 writers’ L2 writing proficiency had a negative impact on the degree of most transferring processes except those reflecting the crucial role of L1 rhetoric; L2 writers’ L1 writing proficiency showed a positive effect on the degree of the transferring processes that were interrelated with general and argument-oriented meaning-making activities. • The effects of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer The synthesized analysis of product, process, and evaluation data suggested that L1to-L2 rhetorical transfer affected both L2 composing processes and written products. As regards the transfer instances manifest in L2 texts, the characteristic L1 rhetorical features placed in salient locations or concerning the development of argumentation were likely to emerge in the lowly rated L2 writing samples. These features represented the instances of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer that impeded L2 writing development. The textual effects differed among the characteristic L1 rhetorical features in L2 writing: some tended to be negative, others to be positive, and still others to be negative or positive. This difference was linked to whether the rhetorical expectations involving the needs determined by the argumentative genre were fulfilled and whether the ground rules of standardized L2 writing were followed during L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. Within composing activities, those transferring processes related to the argumentoriented composing activities for writing substance and general rhetorical aspects tended to emerge in lower-proficiency writers’ L2 writing. Compared with lowerproficiency L2 writers, higher-proficiency ones were more capable of manipulating L1 rhetorical resources to aid in constructing local or specific textual portions in the introduction and body parts of EFL argumentative writing. • The relation between L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and relevant metacognitive knowledge

8.2 Implications

223

The regression analyses of the data on L1-to-L2 rhetorical transferring processes and the metacognitive knowledge of L1–L2 rhetorical differences suggested that this metacognitive knowledge, especially concerning native-reader awareness and argumentative pattern, exerted negative influences upon relevant transferring processes. The consistency between the contrastive rhetorical aspects captured by metacognitive awareness and the L1 rhetorical knowledge involved in these transferring processes explains the function of this metacognitive knowledge over the prevention of potential L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. • The relation between L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and relevant metacognitive skills As suggested by the results of case investigations, L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer corresponded with the composing actions propelled and monitored by writing metacognitive skills. Metacognitive skills co-occurring with L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer could be used to address this transfer, which was particularly true for higher-proficiency L2 writers. Higher-proficiency L2 writers were more capable of both metacognitively monitoring and controlling L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. Such adequate metacognitive awareness was characterized by contrastive rhetorical awareness, which helped to prevent negative transfer; lower-proficiency L2 writers tended to display inadequate or no metacognitive skills about L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, who could neither monitor nor control this transfer or only monitor this transfer; the deficiency of metacognitive skills was related to their limited L2 rhetorical knowledge or sense of L2 writing difficulty. The findings also suggest a difference in metacognitive skills regarding L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer across proficiency levels in L2 writing.

8.2 Implications Using the integrated dimensions of the text, L2 writer, and target readers, the current research sought to uncover how L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer dynamically operates in L2 writing and its relationships with relevant metacognitive knowledge and skills. Its ultimate purpose is to shed some light on the cognitive mechanism of L1-toL2 rhetorical transfer and the metacognitive operation required to harness it. Its implications can be explained from theoretical, pedagogical, and methodological perspectives.

8.2.1 Theoretical Implications The first theoretical implication of the current research lies in its formation of a theoretical framework favorable to revealing the all-round aspects of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, including its distribution reflected by both the L2 written product and the

224

8 Conclusion and Implications

writing process, its associations with L2 writer-related factors, its effects revealed by native L2 evaluators’ evaluation, and its relations to metacognition. This comprehensive theoretical framework synthesizes theories from disparate yet interconnected fields such as rhetoric, educational psychology, and second language writing. This integration aids in forming a sophisticated understanding of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. It allows for examining this phenomenon from a myriad of perspectives, thus countering a simplistic or stereotyped view that reduces this transfer merely to a factor of task or assignment. In this way, the framework illuminates the complexity of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, highlighting that a multiplicity of factors influences it and has a far-reaching impact on the process and product of L2 writing. This opens up new avenues for inquiry and sets a foundation for further empirical investigation and theory development in second language writing. The current research provides empirical evidence for the dynamic view of L1-toL2 rhetorical transfer. This view is centered on the L2 writers’ agency, from which the dynamic nature of this transfer can be revealed, i.e., a mental activity integrated into dynamic composing acts instead of an unconditional state. The cognitive perspective of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer contributes to an in-depth understanding of the mechanism of this transfer, i.e., how it is mentally triggered and operated during L2 composing processes. In particular, it is unlikely to make an accurate analysis of the influence of L1 rhetoric without considering the train of rhetorical thoughts that are individually varied. It implies that transfer should be taken as part of cognitive operation rather than a static textual phenomenon and that more attention should be focused on the mental processes leading to explicit textual outcomes. In a word, such a dynamic perspective gives us a more objective view of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in terms of its occurrence, characteristics, and effect. Greater attention, therefore, should be paid to understanding the mental processes that lead to explicit textual outcomes. By focusing on these cognitive activities, we can gain insights into the interplay between a writer’s thought process and their use of L1 rhetorical strategies in L2 writing. Another theoretical implication is that metacognitive lenses allow us to gain a profound understanding of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in terms of its distinct levels of consciousness. Notably, the cognitive features of transferring processes and transfer instances can be distinguished in terms of metacognitive engagement. The current research shows that the absence or presence of metacognitive functioning when L1 rhetorical knowledge is activated amid L2 composing processes decides whether L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer is a self-reflected strategic action or an unconscious and spontaneous response. Further, metacognitive monitoring and control enabled L2 writers to reuse or reshape their previous L1 rhetorical knowledge and experience to realize L2 writing goals. The value of metacognition lies in its potential to make the transfer across languages fit in with L2 use situations. Hence, it is worthwhile to augment the understanding of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in L2 writing from the metacognitive perspective in future studies. Further, the current research incorporates a contrastive viewpoint into the study of transfer-related metacognition. This metacognition consists of five interpretable

8.2 Implications

225

factors regarding reader awareness across languages, the perception of L1–L2 differences in coherence-making methods, the perception of L1–L2 differences in argument patterns, the perception of the influence of L1 rhetorical knowledge or skills, and the perception of the possible interference of L1 rhetoric on argument construction. Each of these factors represents one difference in the rhetorical aspect between L1 and L2 writing. The role of contrastive awareness in worsening the condition of interlingual transfer explains why such metacognition involving contrastive awareness has preventive power. The similarity between the source and target languages is the primary cause of interlingual transfer. As opposed, the metacognitive awareness of their difference represents a conscious mind estimating the influence of this transfer upon L2 production; so, it constitutes learners’ intent to perceive this transfer and prevent its potentially negative influence. As a strategic component of the self-regulated learning model, metacognitive functions are executed to move inappropriate transferring behaviors caused by L1–L2 differences from automaticity back to consciousness (see Oxford, 2017) so that learners can actively recognize and solve their subsequent problems. Hence, future studies should link the metacognitive abilities required for L2 writing to their awareness of cross-linguistic differences in cognitive regulation and control of the transfer from an L1. It is noteworthy that the negative effect of metacognitive knowledge of the occurrence of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer can be produced only if it reaches a depth that motivates learners to break away from associated transferring processes. Hence, it is meaningful to regard the depth of metacognition as a factor affecting its actual effect on avoiding or controlling cross-lingual interference.

8.2.2 Methodological Implications The methodology used in the current research demonstrates that product and process approaches can guide the data collection and analysis comprehensively. This mixed design has two merits. It is consistent with the textual, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives on L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, as mentioned above. Through written products, the textual manifestation of characteristic L1 rhetorical features can be analyzed to reflect the outcome of this cross-lingual activity. Besides, the track of the writing process shows a dynamic picture of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in L2 composing acts. Secondly, it supports triangulation in research, allowing multiple sources of data on the same object to be gathered and interpreted. Specifically, the current research better revealed the multifaceted aspects of interlingual transfer and relevant metacognition by writing samples, retrospective questionnaires, verbal reports, and stimulated recalls. Such a diversified data collection approach suggests that integrating multiple types of data sources contributes significantly to exploring intricate issues such as L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. It facilitates a more holistic and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon and supports the development of well-substantiated claims about it.

226

8 Conclusion and Implications

Moreover, the current research enriches the literature on investigating L2 writing metacognition. It provides empirical evidence that validates the measure of metacognitive awareness related to the rhetorical transfer from first language (L1) to second language (L2). Based on the questionnaire data, this awareness can be directly assessed through respondents’ self-reports of their cognizance of differences in rhetorical construction between their L1 and L2 argumentative writing. The targeted conceptual components within this metacognitive measure can be further explicated by a corollary that posits a general pattern of transfer: “If cross-language similarity is the driving force behind transfer, then where there are no perceived similarities, there should be no transfer” (Kellerman, 1995, p. 131). The first part of this corollary delineates a fundamental condition resulting in the influence of first languages across linguistic boundaries, embodying the underlying principle of linguistic transfer predicated on perceived similarities. Conversely, the latter segment addresses the scenario in which an avoidance strategy is required to mitigate potential negative influences stemming from crosslinguistic dissimilarities. This questionnaire-based measure captures a potential variable that can curb the occurrence of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, which may adversely impact L2 writing. By doing so, it offers a more nuanced understanding of how metacognitive awareness can influence rhetorical transfer. Furthermore, exploring the relationship between rhetorical transfer from the first language (L1) to the second language (L2) and metacognitive skills stimulates a more in-depth analysis of ongoing metacognitive awareness during the L2 writing process. As indicated by the findings of this research, metacognitive effects could be mirrored by the directness of metacognitive involvement in L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer, that is, the extent to which metacognitive skills directly tackle the issue of this transfer. For instance, for higher-proficiency English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writers, their metacognitive skills were more directly linked with the rhetorical transfer from Chinese L1 to English L2. This link encompassed both the monitoring of the occurrence of this transfer and the regulation of this transfer, taking into account rhetorical considerations. The degree of directness in this connection provides a unique perspective through which to observe the correspondence between metacognitive reflection and actual performance in L2 writing. This, in turn, makes the measure of metacognition during the writing process feasible. By identifying and measuring this metacognitive involvement, we can gain valuable insights into how second language writers perceive, monitor, and adjust their use of L1 rhetorical strategies in their L2 writing. This not only enhances our understanding of the cognitive and metacognitive aspects of L2 writing but also offers a pathway for developing pedagogical strategies to improve L2 writing proficiency. Therefore, the current research adds another layer of complexity to our understanding of the role of metacognition in L2 writing and sets the stage for further exploration in this area.

8.2 Implications

227

8.2.3 Pedagogical Implications The current research findings have implications for L2 writing pedagogy, which relate to how to address L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. Retrospective data corroborated the positive effect of this transfer. Exploiting L1 rhetorical resources matches the cognitive demand arising from the composing processes of L2 writing, particularly for relieving the mental burdens of performing complex L2 writing activities (Wei, 2022; Woodall, 2002). Throughout the L2 writing process, such ‘inner speech’ coded in the L1 becomes a mechanism for formulating rhetorical thoughts and facilitating decision-making (Cohen, 2014, p. 237). It can effectively guide the cognitive processes responsible for sequential progression and text organization in L2 argumentative writing if properly harnessed. This insight points towards potential pedagogical strategies for leveraging L1 rhetorical knowledge in L2 writing instruction. Teachers could encourage L2 writers to actively utilize their L1 rhetorical skills as a cognitive tool during drafting. For instance, strategies could be developed to promote self-regulation and metacognitive reflection, enabling students to consider how and when to use their L1 rhetorical knowledge to aid in formulating and organizing their L2 texts. Further, writing exercises could be designed to explicitly cultivate students’ awareness of similarities and differences in rhetorical structures between their L1 and L2, facilitating more effective L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. This approach would require a nuanced understanding of the potential for both facilitative and interfering effects of L1 rhetorical transfer, which could then be addressed through differentiated instruction and individual feedback. Given the effects of perceived L2 writing difficulty and L2/L1 writing proficiency on the degree of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transferring processes, L1 rhetorical resources can be treated as a mental asset for L2 writers to address the sense of insecurity about their L2 writing and to promote content generation in the argumentative genre. The critical issue is to facilitate students in properly employing such an L1 expedient solution. Meanwhile, the influence of L1 rhetoric on the crucial aspects of argumentative L2 text construction can hardly be avoided through L2 writing development. These aspects require particular attention if L2 writing is weakened by negative L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. L1 rhetorical knowledge or thinking can be an important resource for L2 writing development (Wei, 2022). The key point is to make the cross-language transfer compatible with L2 writing situations. The current research proved that metacognition has an indispensable role in this regard. Through metacognitive processing, L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer can be managed to work as a vehicle catering to the demands of L2 writing: adverse effects of this transfer can be detected and prevented through metacognitive awareness at a certain depth; in addition, the transferred L1 rhetorical expertise can be turned into a resource or strategy used to facilitate the L2 writing process by way of metacognitive processing. A pedagogical implication can be drawn about the instrumental function of metacognition to promote the effective strategic use of L1 rhetoric. That is, it is worthwhile to incorporate a metacognitive contrastive view into L2 writing practices. For instance, EFL/ESL students can be

228

8 Conclusion and Implications

led to execute such high-order cognition to make L1 rhetorical knowledge tailored for effective composing processes in L2 writing, especially to take the initiative in taking precautions against the detrimental effects of L1 rhetoric and to fulfill specific rhetorical goals in the conventional way of L2 writing. Meanwhile, L1 rhetorical operations that cause no problems, especially those relevant to rhetorical meaning-making activities, should be allowed to promote L2 composing processes. Moreover, priority should be given to effective ways to promote the development of L2 writing knowledge in the L2 writing curriculum, which plays a fundamental role in evading negative transfer. Equally important, L2 learners should master their L2 rhetorical knowledge, especially when L2 and L1 writing conventions differ (Hirose & Sasaki, 1994). Teachers can provide explicit instruction about the specific rhetorical norms and expectations of the L2, along with ample opportunities for them to apply this knowledge in practice. To sum up, a metacognitive contrastive rhetorical view and L2 rhetorical knowledge should complement each other.

8.3 Limitations and Suggestions A limitation lies in the validity of the self-report instrument. An unexpected finding showed that several rhetorical transfer instances were not entirely attended to by metacognitive skills in the cases of the higher-proficiency EFL writers as well. A likely reason for this is the methodological limitation caused by the difference in the constructs of L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and its related metacognition. The relationship between the two constructs results from the similar cognitive attributes of the two mental operations and the different scopes of their function. Metacognition, as a self-reflective consciousness, is responsible for the monitoring and control of cognitive activities while the transfer is executed to make it feasible for mental resources to be employed across languages. It is hard for one metacognitive report to demonstrate participants’ metacognitive competence for reflecting and managing interlingual transfer. In future studies, measures should be taken to prompt participants’ reports of more comprehensive and insightful information that indicates their conscious awareness of transfer. Some variables were not studied in the transfer inquiry. Take topical familiarity as an example. This variable concerns the substance framed in rhetorical structure, which is thus believed to play a role in the form or way of rhetorical transfer. As expounded by Bachman and Palmer (2016), topical knowledge is necessary for learners to demonstrate their language use, which is even “involved in all the language use” (p. 41). It seems not exaggerated to say that topical knowledge contributes to language production. In this sense, it deserves our efforts to explore how topical familiarity affects the occurrence of interlingual transfer. The relationship between L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer and perceived L2 writing difficulty has not been fully unveiled because of a lack of specific information indicating what rhetorical aspect the difficulty lies in. As such, the measure of perceived

References

229

L2 writing difficulty should be concretely devised concerning the dimension of transferring processes in the following studies so that the reason for the existence or non-existence of their relationship can be manifestly shown. In addition, there existed reverse transfer from L2 rhetoric to L1 writing, as confirmed in L1 writing samples. For instance, a few highly-rated Chinese essays clearly showed the linear logical patterns consisting of claim, backup, and warrant. As reverse transfer was beyond the scope of the current research, it was not explicitly investigated. However, this topic is worth attention in rhetorical transfer studies as it concerns a form of rhetorical transfer occurring during the advanced development of L2 writing.

References Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2016). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Cohen, A. D. (2014). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd ed.). Routledge. Hirose, K., & Sasaki, M. (1994). Explanatory variables for Japanese students’ expository writing in English: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 203–229. Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 125–150. Oxford, R. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context (2nd ed.). Routledge. Wei, L. (2022). Translanguaging as a political stance: Implications for English language education. ELT Journal, 76(2), 172–182. Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(1), 7–28.

Appendix A

Writing Background Questionnaire

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Wei, Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9

231

Appendix B

Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire

Instruction: Please choose from the corresponding numbers according to the experience of your just-completed English writing: 1 = Not true of me at all, 2 = Partially not true of me, 3 = Either true or not true of me, 4 = Partially true of me, 5 = Completely true of me Part one 1. Chinese writing conventions and standards influenced my English writing

1 2 3 4 5

2. Chinese writing knowledge influenced my English writing

1 2 3 4 5

3. Chinese writing strategies and techniques influenced my English writing

1 2 3 4 5

4. I composed the content in Chinese and translated it into English when developing a paragraph

1 2 3 4 5

5. Chinese patterns of writing influenced the logical organization of a paragraph

1 2 3 4 5

6. I employed Chinese logical patterns to organize the discourse during English writing

1 2 3 4 5

7. For the topic introduction, I associated relevant Chinese writing skills

1 2 3 4 5

8. For the thesis statement (or the presentation of the central view), I thought about ways of presenting the central viewpoint in Chinese writing

1 2 3 4 5

9. When considering the organization of paragraphs, I recalled how I made it in 1 2 3 4 5 Chinese writing 10. When writing a body (middle) paragraph, I thought about how I extended a 1 2 3 4 5 paragraph in Chinese writing 11. When considering supportive points, I associated them with how I developed arguments in Chinese writing

1 2 3 4 5

12. When trying to make arguments persuasive, I thought of how I made it in Chinese writing

1 2 3 4 5 (continued)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Wei, Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9

233

234

Appendix B: Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire

(continued) 13. I used Chinese translation during the composing process of English writing 1 2 3 4 5 14. When considering the transition between paragraphs, I thought of how I made it in Chinese writing

1 2 3 4 5

15. I drew upon the method of using evidence employed in Chinese writing

1 2 3 4 5

16. I recalled how I dealt with opposing or adverse views in Chinese writing

1 2 3 4 5

17. In the conclusion part, I thought about how a Chinese essay should be ended

1 2 3 4 5

Part two I felt it difficult to write this English essay

1 2 3 4 5

Appendix C

Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire

Instruction: Please choose from the corresponding numbers according to your perception of the differences in Chinese and English writing and your past English writing experience: 1 = Not true of me at all, 2 = Partially not true of me, 3 = Either true or not true of me, 4 = Partially true of me, 5 = Completely true of me 1. I can tell whether Chinese writing standards or conventions influence the composing activities in my English essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

2. I know how Chinese writing knowledge or skills influence text organization in 1 2 3 4 5 my English essay writing 3. I know whether Chinese writing strategies and techniques work in my English 1 2 3 4 5 essay writing 4. I would organize the structure of my essay in different ways according to whether it is written for English- or Chinese-speaking readers

1 2 3 4 5

5. I would use differing patterns to organize units of expression according to whether it is for English- or Chinese-speaking readers

1 2 3 4 5

6. I would consider whether my English argumentative essay writing feels natural for English-speaking readers

1 2 3 4 5

7. I consciously focus on how my English argumentative essay writing differs from the Chinese one in terms of the order or sequence of paragraphs

1 2 3 4 5

8. I know how Chinese writing knowledge influences the consideration of the overall structure of my English argumentative essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

9. I understand the influence of the Chinese writing pattern on building the logical link between adjacent paragraphs during my English argumentative essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

10. I pay attention to the difference in the organization of expressions between my Chinese and English argumentative essay writing

1 2 3 4 5 (continued)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Wei, Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9

235

236

Appendix C: Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical …

(continued) 11. I would notice the difference in the manner of expressing my stance and attitude between my Chinese and English argumentative essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

12. I would ask myself how my English argumentative essay writing differs from the Chinese one in terms of the logical connection between adjacent sentences

1 2 3 4 5

13. I would consider how different the way of introducing a topic is in my Chinese and English essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

14. I would think about the difference in the method of presenting the central viewpoint between my Chinese and English argumentative essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

15. I am aware that the Chinese way of topic introduction might not fit in my English argumentative essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

16. For my English argumentative essay writing, I would reflect on how the pattern of paragraph organization differs from that in the Chinese one

1 2 3 4 5

17. I would notice the difference in how I present subpoints in body paragraphs between my Chinese and English argumentative essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

18. I would focus on the difference in ways of handling opposing or adverse views between my Chinese and English argumentative essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

19. I realize that the skills of argument in my Chinese essay writing might not apply to my English argumentative essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

20. I would think of the difference in criteria for evidence selection in my Chinese and English argumentative essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

21. I am aware that the evidence used in my Chinese argumentative essay writing is not always applicable in English

1 2 3 4 5

22. I am clear about the difference in approaches to making arguments convincing and persuasive between my Chinese and English argumentative essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

23. I am conscious of the influence of ancient Chinese maxims or allusions on my English argumentative essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

24. I know that Chinese ways of concluding an argumentative essay may not work in my English argumentative essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

25. I am aware of the effect of considering English-speaking readers’ responses and expectations on the quality of my English argumentative essay writing

1 2 3 4 5

26. I understand that English- and Chinese-speaking readers hold different criteria for evaluating my English argumentative essay

1 2 3 4 5

Appendix D

The Questions in Retrospective Verbal Report (RVR) and Stimulated Recalls (SRs: SR I and SR II)

(1) Interview questions in RVR Warming-up questions: What is your overall feeling about your just-completed English writing task? Was it difficult for you? Why do you think so? Leading question: Could you tell me whether and how your Chinese writing knowledge or Chinese writing experience influenced your English writing? (2) Interview questions in SR I Leading questions: Could you tell me what you were thinking about at the moment of the long pauses, as shown by this video recording? Follow-up questions: …Then what did you consider to deal with it?/…Could you provide more details about the composing process?/ …Could you further tell me how you organized your thoughts to fulfill this intended goal?/…What strategy/technique did you employ to make it? How did the strategy/technique work out in your English writing? (3) Interview questions in SR II Leading questions: How did you compose this marked-up textual portion in your English writing? What do you think about the effect of this organization/arrangement? Did you use a habitual composing method in your past writing experience?

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Wei, Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9

237

238

Appendix D: The Questions in Retrospective Verbal Report (RVR) …

Follow-up questions: You have just mentioned… Could you talk more about your mental activity in detail/ Did you take it as a writing strategy, and why? / What effect did it have on your English writing?

Appendix E

Chinese Yilunwen Writing Rubric

Content Criteria (20) Level One (20–17): • Relevance to the Writing Prompt: Ensuring writing is within the scope of the given materials and their meanings. • Clear Focus: Crafting the composition closely around the main theme. • Substantial Content: Enriching the material to portray the theme effectively. • Healthy Ideas: Expressing positive and healthy ideological tendencies. • Sincere Emotion: Conveying emotions genuinely and naturally. Level Two (16–12): • Relevance to the Writing Prompt: Maintaining alignment with the given materials and their meanings. • Clear Focus: Developing a clear conceptual structure around the theme. • Moderately Substantial Content: Essentially reflecting the theme with some depth. • Healthy Ideas: Demonstrating a positive and healthy ideological inclination. • Genuine Emotion: Presenting authentic emotions without artificiality. Level Three (11–7): • Basic Relevance to the Writing Prompt: Grasping the meaning of the material, although with occasional deviations. • Generally Clear Focus: Maintaining a basic center, with some parts veering offtheme. • Thin Content: Using some material but not enough to fully convey the theme. • Generally Healthy Ideas: Reflecting generally acceptable moral values in the thought process. • Generally Genuine Emotion: Exhibiting some traces of artificiality in emotion expression.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Wei, Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9

239

240

Appendix E: Chinese Yilunwen Writing Rubric

Level Four (6–0): • Deviation from Writing Prompt: Concentrating solely on peripheral aspects outside of the theme. • Unclear Focus: Lacking a clear theme or central concept. • Inappropriate Content: The chosen material does not appropriately convey the theme. • Unhealthy Ideas: Holding viewpoints contrary to prevailing laws and moral standards. • False Emotion: Employing contrived expressions and emotions. Expression Criteria (20) Level One (20–17): • Suitability to Writing Style: Exhibiting distinct characteristics of the chosen writing style. • Precise Structure: Ensuring coherence between the introduction, body, and conclusion with well-organized paragraphs and smooth transitions. • Fluent Language: Employing proper Modern Chinese, with accurate vocabulary, varied sentence structures, and apt usage of rhetoric. • Neat Handwriting: Maintaining neat and orderly handwriting. Level Two (16–12): • Suitability to Writing Style: Adhering to the distinctive traits of the chosen writing style. • Sound Structure: Including a clear introduction and conclusion, along with reasonable paragraph division. • Fluent Language: Communicating ideas fluently, with minor language errors not significantly affecting meaning. • Clear Handwriting: Using fairly neat handwriting that’s legible. Level Three (11–7): • Basic Suitability to Writing Style: Exhibiting some mixed traits but still discernible writing style. • Moderately Sound Structure: Maintaining an introduction, body, and conclusion, even if paragraph division could be improved. • Basic Fluency: Displaying some language errors (3–4 instances) that minimally impact communication. • Somewhat Clear Handwriting: Although not strictly neat, handwriting remains somewhat legible. Level Four (6–0): • Lack of Suitability to Writing Style: Failing to conform to the expected writing style.

Appendix E: Chinese Yilunwen Writing Rubric

241

• Disorganized Structure: Having severely flawed paragraph divisions and chaotic arrangement. • Incoherent Language: Suffering from many language errors (5 or more instances), impeding effective communication. • Illegible Handwriting: Presenting hasty and unreadable handwriting that hinders evaluation. Development Criteria (20) Level One (20–17): • Profound Thinking: Delving into the essence behind phenomena, revealing underlying connections, and offering thought-provoking viewpoints. • Rich Content: Abundance of material, ample evidence, vivid imagery, and farreaching ideas. • Expressive Language: Apt vocabulary, varied sentence structures, adept use of rhetorical devices, and expressive phrases. • Creative Ideas: Fresh insights, novel material, innovative composition, distinctive imagination, and personal characteristics. Level Two (16–12): • Fairly Expressive Language: Appropriate word choices, varied sentence structures, and some use of rhetorical devices. • Moderately Creative Ideas: Valid insights, appropriate material, reasonable imagination, and certain personal traits. Level Three (11–7): • Slightly Expressive Language: Reasonably appropriate vocabulary and limited use of rhetorical devices. • Limited Creative Ideas: Basic imagination, somewhat unique viewpoints, and mild personal characteristics. Level Four (6–0): • Occasional Profoundness: A few sentences bear deeper meanings. • Occasional Excellence: Some examples stand out; certain sentences are more impressive. • Occasional Creativity: Distinctive elements appear in certain areas.

Appendix F

The Percentages of the Lowerand Higher-Proficiency EFL Writers Who Chose “4” or “5” for Items in Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire

No. of items

Lower-proficiency EFL writer (%)

Higher-proficiency EFL writer (%)

Q1

57.7

37.0

Q2

66.7

40.7

Q3

63.7

37.0

Q4

69.7

40.7

Q5

51.5

25.9

Q6

45.5

22.2

Q7

35.3

33.3

Q8

48.5

55.5

Q9

63.6

40.7

Q10

42.4

33.3

Q11

57.6

25.9

Q12

54.5

33.3

Q13

54.5

44.4

Q14

66.7

44.4

Q15

33.4

19.2

Q16

63.7

18.5

Q17

45.5

25.9

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Wei, Exploring the Cross-Language Transfer of L1 Rhetorical Knowledge in L2 Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7637-9

243