The Five Contrastive Features Framework

In 2008, Xing, et al. collected 5 contrastive features found by a number of scholars in previous studies. These studies include: Ballard and Clanchy (1991); Cho (1999); Connor (1996); Cortazzi and Jin (1997); Schneider and Fujishima (1995). Xing, Wang, and Spencer (2008) used these 5 contrastive features to come up with a comprehensive framework for analyzing writing styles. They used the 5 contrastive features to compare British English and Chinese writing styles. The Five Contrastive Features Framework was used in the present study in order to compare the Persian and English essays of the participants. The 5 contrastive features of Xing et al. include:

2.13.1 Inductive vs. Deductive

This feature refers to the position of the thesis statement in the essay. A thesis statement is defined as a sentence summarizing the fundamental argument of any essay. As McClaine and Roth (1998a) point out the thesis statement is “a declarative sentence that tells your reader what you think about a topic. In other words, it is your opinion” (p. 1).

According to Xing, et al. (2008) If the thesis statement is placed at the beginning of the introduction or at most in the first paragraph of the written essay, the essay is assumed to be deductive, and if background information is given first then followed by the main point, it might be inductive. The British or American preferred style of writing is

deductive. Chinese and Finnish are considered as inductive languages in nature (Xing, et al., 2008; Kirkpatrick, 1995; Connor, 1996).

Deductive style of writing has some benefits for the reader. Singh and Fu (2008) believe that the deductive style of writing is more logically organized and easier to understand for the Western reader. They believe this style of writing assists writers

to indicate the proposition to be explored and makes clear the logical structuring of their argument. Another benefit of providing the topic sentence first is that it gives the reader the starting point for the argument (p. 127).

2.13.2 Start-Sustain-Turn-Sum vs. Introduction-Body-Conclusion

This feature mentions the overall rhetorical style used in the written essay. It is believed that the Chinese rhetorical style consists of four sections (Kirkpatrick, 1995). Xing, Wang, and Spencer (2008) explain about these four sections

qi ('start, open') establishes the field or prepares the reader for the topic; cheng ('carry on, sustain') introduces and develops the topic; zhuan ('turn') turns to a seemingly unrelated subject or looks at the problem from another angle; and he ('conclude') sums up the essay whereby the author’s opinion is established or hinted at (p. 74).

The English (American and British) way of structuring an essay usually includes an introduction, a body and a conclusion. English essays generally place a great emphasis on form and each section of the essay has its particular function. Xing, et al. (2008) assert that “the introduction brings out the theme, the middle contains the argument with its supporting evidence, and the ending summarizes the essay” (p.74).

2.13.3 Circular vs. Linear

This third feature pertains to the number of topic sentences mentioned per paragraph. In his article in 1966, Kaplan asserts that the Anglo American style of writing is linear while Oriental languages including Arabic and Chinese are circular. Kaplan (1966) further explains about his definition of linearity in saying: “linear is defined as a discourse pattern in which the topic occurs at the beginning of the discourse unit and controls its content” (p.2). In order to have a more systematic definition Xing, et al. (2008) elucidate that

Circularity can be measured by looking at the frequency of topic changes in paragraphs where topic sentences are used. Linearity can be indicated by a low frequency of topic changes or a low average number of topic sentences in a paragraph (p. 74).

2.13.4 Metaphorical vs. Straightforward

This feature directs our attention to the use of metaphors and proverbs in a written essay. The use of metaphors, allusions, similes, analogies, proverbs, etc. generally present “more than one interpretation of meaning” (Xing, et al., 2008, p. 75) and this can bring about confusion for the reader. This might be the reason why in the West, students are advised to voice their own points of views using their own words. Xing, et al. (2008) believe that the use of flowery language in written essays is considered a cliché by Western readers. Wong (1992) also believes using proverbs can be seen as lack of originality in the students’ writing. Therefore, when ESL/EFL students use such clichés in their writings, they receive negative scoring.

2.13.5 Explicit Discourse Markers

The last feature in the 5 contrastive features refers to the number and type of discourse markers. The use of explicit discourse markers adds to the unity and overall coherence of the written essay. Discourse markers can be defined as

Those natural language expressions whose primary function is to facilitate the process of interpreting the coherence relation(s) between a particular unit of discourse and other, surrounding units and/or aspects of the communicative situation. As such, the category of discourse markers includes members of a number of different word classes, e.g. adverbs, connectors, parenthetical expressions, as well as particles in the sense referred to above (Risselada & Spooren, 1998, p. 132).

Discourse markers act as signposts to signal coherence and unity in a written text and “English readers expect and require landmarks of coherence and unity as they read” (Connor, 1996; p. 20). The number and kind of discourse markers used can show the rhetorical differences that might exist between two languages. However, it must be mentioned that Xing, Wang, and Spencer (2008) do not mention what specific discourse markers taxonomy they have used in their study. It is with this in mind that the researcher decided to use Fraser’s Taxonomy of Discourse Markers in order to make the methodology more systematic.