Chinese style vs. English style

A result of this is that many Chinese writers are not good at channeling negative feelings into constructive and logical criticisms. It's not rare to see illogical or at least largely emotionally-based rants in otherwise well-respected publications.

So why is it that the same happens in writings in Taiwan? Lingering influence of KMT censorship?

Chinese sentences are supposed to contain an idea, as opposed to a subject-predicate clause in European grammar.

Thanks for that explanation, it makes a lot of sense. Mind, I'm not criticizing those long sentences (it's not wrong in Chinese, obviously), just noticing the difference.

So why is it that the same happens in writings in Taiwan? Lingering influence of KMT censorship?

Part of the problem stems from the Chinese rhetorical tradition, which has always emphasized poetry over prose, emotion over logic. If you read classical Chinese writing, you'll notice that even prose uses lots of rhyming and repetition.

Taiwan's press a bit better in taking an evidence and logic-based approach to writing, though of course, it has room for improvement. At the time, we have to admit that the western press is hardly immune from logically handicapped writing, especially on the editorial pages.

This article below talks about Chinese writing style and the problems encountered in the legal field.

http://review.jcrb.com.cn/ournews/asp/readNews.asp?id=115977

郝铁川：中国语言、思维与法律

　　中国传统思维方式的一个重要特点是模糊性。它使人们在认识客观事物时，满足于通过直觉得到一个总体印象，而不习惯作周密的详细的分析。

They are also careless about leaving a space after punctuation marks.

Do they do it in handwriting too?

I can understand why they do it when typing in English' date=' since all Chinese IMEs I know use particular Unicode points made in such a way that you don't require to hit the space bar. I.e., a single Unicode point comprises both the punctuation mark and the space, and they're as wide as any Chinese character, hence the nomenclature "fullwidth forms". When typing in English, they may think that the comma Unicode point used in English keyboard layouts is the same as the Chinese one (so you don't need to hit the space bar), and that is not the case.

But... What about handwritten Chinese? Do they start the next character right after the punctuation mark, like this?

它使人们在认识客观事物时,满足于通过直觉得到一个总体印象,而不习惯作周密的详细的分析。

Maybe you can teach me how to skim academic things written on the mainland... I haven't figured that one out yet (at least, not with also retaining what it is that I read). It's probably also why I read articles written in Taiwan and HK - most of the academics have been trained to write articles in the same way as those in English: introduction where you lay out your thesis statement and main points, sub-sections addressing the points with topic sentences and examples, connection to theoretical underpinnings, etc. Really easy to follow, also easy to skim. I get a headache trying to follow the logic and arguments in some mainland texts.

And yeah, in the U.S. we averaged 2-3 books and a handful of articles each week for two seminars. You just adjust and figure out what you need to read and know and what you can toss to the side for the moment.

Maybe you can teach me how to skim academic things written on the mainland... I haven't figured that one out yet (at least, not with also retaining what it is that I read).

There's a lot of plagiarism in Mainland academic writing, so theoretically it should be easier to skim/skip In the legal area which I used to read, I find that there is a lot of 废话, which can be safely skimmed to get to the nuggets. Skimming skills are pretty transferable from English to Chinese. It just requires practice.

Skimming skills are pretty transferable from English to Chinese. It just requires practice.

Really? I haven't found that to be true for history articles - plagiarism, yes, but the logic/theory is all kinds of whacked out sometimes...

Plagiarism leads to a lot of repetition. Doesn't make skimming easier?

The teaching of writing in China emphasizes emotionalism and neglects logical analysis. You see this in Gaokao essay questions. They are good at teaching students to write poetically but not logically. That's one reason for the deficiency in logic you see.

The teaching of writing in China emphasizes emotionalism and neglects logical analysis.

Fascinating. Any idea if that's a post-Communist thing? i.e. everyone knows the correct answer (because we're all good Marxists etc) so logic isn't necessary. But if you can show how much you believe it.....

Well, yes, I guess that's true. I am always hopeful that when I read something closely there will be something new and brilliant, but for this I tend to rely on my HK and Taiwan sources.

Fascinating. Any idea if that's a post-Communist thing? i.e. everyone knows the correct answer (because we're all good Marxists etc) so logic isn't necessary. But if you can show how much you believe it.....

No, it pre-dates Communism. It has long been noted, for example, that ancient Chinese philosophy lacks logical rigor, in contrast to, say, ancient Greek philosophy. Communism's influence is that where the education system has modernized generally, the need for political conformity has made it harder to reform and strengthen analytical thinking component of education.

This article below discusses this deficiency in writing education. This problem becomes apparent when students prepare for Western writing exams, such as the essay tests on the GRE or IELTS.

http://www.neworient.../info354209.htm

从文化的情智差异看高考作文命题嬗变

2009-06-26 07:51:39 作者：孙绍振 来源：中国青年报

每年语文高考试卷一公布，最能引起广泛热议的就是作文题目。可今年，媒体对于作文题的得失却没有表现出多大兴趣。是不是今年的作文题不值一谈呢？我们不能仓促下这样的断语。

　　

　　少理性，多抒情——

　　

　　今年多数作文题仍然沿着前几年开拓的思路，提供话题材料，启发学生自行立论。就综合素质的调动而言，大抵重在感性的抒情。如北京卷的“我有一双隐形的翅膀”，对学生的想象应该说具有冲击力。但是，此题和1998年全国卷的“假如记忆能够移植”，在推动抒情上似乎大同小异。

　　

　　笔者去年曾撰文指出，中国高考作文命题与欧美等国作文命题的不同之处在于：中国重在感性抒情，而欧美等国则以哲学和人生思辨为主，追求激发批判的、分析的理性反思。感性抒情和理性反思，从根本上来说，属于两种不同的思维类型。

Exaggerated emotionalism also earns one higher scores on school essays.

http://news.xinhuane.../c_12803909.htm

专家谈中学作文教学弊端:说真话反拿不到高分

2010年11月22日 20:31:08 　来源： 文汇报

“作文写过自己妈妈的，请举手！”下面的高中生哗哗举起一片手；“里面写自己生病，妈妈送去医院的，请举手！”哗哗又是一片手；“写去医院的时候，当时天正在下雨的，请举手！”下面又举起一片手；“写妈妈背着自己去医院的，请举起手！”同样还是举起很多手。

昨天举行的上海市暨华东六省写作教学峰会上，华东师范大学一位教授讲起最近在中学做的小调查，让与会专家深感忧虑：如今的中学生作文，越来越脱离对真实生活的追求，作文成了学生应付老师的作业，而不是自己内心的抒发。

上海市写作学会会长赵长天讲了一个故事，他的一个朋友带孩子来向他请教，为什么孩子的作文一直拿不到高分，赵长天就就告诉孩子“怎么肉麻怎么写”，孩子开始尝试在作文里胡乱赞美抒情，后来果真分数提高很多。赵长天颇为痛心：“当前语文教学中所暴露的问题，已经到了一个令人无法忍受的地步，我们不应该总是教孩子说假话。”

And here are essay prompts from past universities entrance exams (高考). There are supposed to be these types of Gaokao essays -- 记叙 (memoir)、描写 (descriptive)、抒情 (emotionally expressive)、说明 (explanatory)、议论(argumentative) -- but 抒情 essays are the most common. Most essay prompts are about an abstract topic, often on a moral issue. The topics are often designed to solicit an emotional response. In theory, that would allow one more freedom to write, but in practice, one is strongly encouraged to give politically correct answers. You are supposed to sing praises of moral uprightness, paint moving pictures of self-sacrifice, and avoid talking about anything negative, whether in society in general or in your own life. Moral/political correctness is, in fact, a component of grading for such essays.

http://news.xinhuane...ent_8304229.htm

1998：坚韧：我追求的品格战胜脆弱(二选一)小作文：补写《妈妈只洗了一只鞋》

1999：假如记忆可以移植

2000：通过对四个图形符号的不同认识，谈你在生活中看问题的角度、对问题的理解、解决问题的方法以及问题的答案。

2001：诚信

2002：心灵的选择

2003：感情的亲疏远近对认知的正误深浅影响

It's also a debate between 史 versus 论.

If any of you have access to academic journals (versus JSTOR or otherwise) check out this essay:

"On Shi and Lun: Toward a Typology of Historiography in the PRC"

Author: Susanne Weigelin-Schwiedrzik

History and Theory, Vol. 35, No. 4, Theme Issue 35: Chinese Historiography in Comparative Perspective (Dec 1996) pp 74-95

From the abstract:

"The discussion of shi and lun is the discussion of the relationship between historical data on the one side and theories of history on the other. It is the only methodological discussion historians in the PRC have been going through since the People's Republic of China (PRC) was founded in October 1949. The question of how to relate data to theory gained a new dimension as not only the quality of historical research but also historians' loyalty to the Communist regime was evaluated according to the methodological approach they preferred. "

Unfortunately, I don't have access to academic papers, but I did find this interesting study comparing argumentative essays written by Taiwanese and American college freshmen. The study found that the Taiwanese students were weaker in providing support for the underlying assumption of their arguments (backing), in addressing counter-arguments, and providing qualifications to their claims, though the American students were not substantially better in addressing counter-arguments, either.

http://www.argumenta...ls/MET-TOU.aspx

4. Warrant

The warrant is the unstated assumption underlying a claim, which should be a value, belief, or principle the audience agrees with.

The warrant is the component of the argument that establishes the logical connection between the data and the claim.

5. Backing

Backing is support material that supports the warrant in the argument and answers the question, "Why do you believe that?"

http://www.tespa.org...Miao%20Chen.PDF

Taiwanese argumentation skills: Contrastive rhetoric perspective

Fei-Wen Cheng, Yueh-Miao Chen, National Chiayi University, National Chung-Cheng University

In the first prompt (Topic 1), participants were given a hypothetical rhetorical situation describing a foreign student studying in the US. The student had to go back to his hometown in Africa during the school year since his father was ill and his relatives insisted he should stay and take over the family business. However, this student was torn in the conflict between family obligations and his personal pursuits. Participants were asked to give their opinions about whether they agreed or disagreed that this African student should give up his studies and go back to help his family. This writing prompt was adapted from an ESL textbook, Identity by Shaules, Tsujioka & Lida (2003, p.6).

The second prompt (Topic 2) presented a controversial issue involving the famous long-necked women on the Thai/Myanmar border. Participants were given background information about the Padaung tradition, which requires women to stretch their necks by wearing brass coils, and about the impact of tourism on this tradition and the lifestyles of these women. Participants were asked to argue whether tourists should or should not visit these long-necked women. This writing prompt was adapted from an ESL textbook, NorthStar Building Skills for the TOEFL iBT, Intermediate by Beaumont (2005, pp. 96-97).

DISCUSSION

In regards to the use of claim, the present data indicated that Taiwanese students in their Chinese or English argumentative writing made explicit statements of their position without using an implicit strategy to suggest their stance. This finding is consistent with some cross-cultural studies reporting Chinese-speaking students’ use of claims (Wu & Rubin, 2000; Zhang, 1997). In support of their claim, Taiwanese students in this study, in their Chinese writing, were able to generate a similar number of reasons/data (as were US students) but they were less capable of doing so in their English writing. This finding suggests that the use of this structure is language-specific rather than culture-specific. Their L2 proficiency may interfere in their composing process and prevent them from expressing their ideas effectively.

6.2 Use of optional structures

The use of the rhetorical element, backing, is seen as essential to construct extended arguments since it reflects the use of argument chains to strengthen any other argument structures except the major claim. Using argument chains to present the data (reason) or optional structures is a powerful rhetorical strategy to gain the reader’s acceptance of the writer’s top level claim (Crammond, 1998). Compared with US students, Taiwanese students employed a relatively lower frequency of backing in both their Chinese and English writing. Taiwanese students were less capable of elaborating their ideas by utilizing backing to formulate argument chains in support of other argument structures. Despite the quantitative differences in the use of backing, the student texts also showed qualitative differences in the use of this structure. Although different types of evidence can be observed in Taiwanese and US students’ writing, such as logical explanations, facts, and consequences, a majority of US students sought to recount their own personal stories as a backing for their arguments. None of the 80 Taiwanese essays backed up their arguments with this type of evidence. This observation that US texts were more personally involved and contained a large portion of personal experiences is consistent with previous studies discussing personal disclosure from cross-cultural perspectives. English writing practices emphasize individual voice and encourage writers to explore their inner feelings (Hyland, 2003; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999). It’s common for English writing instructors to ask students to write about personal experiences (Connor, 1996; Wu & Rubin, 2000). By contrast, Chinese speaking students appear to avoid revealing personal feelings and experience so that Chinese writing has been viewed as lacking individualism (Matalene, 1985; Scollon, 1991).

Among the three oppositional structures (reservation, countered-rebuttal, and alternative solution), a somewhat unexpected finding was that when composing in their L1, both Taiwanese and US students utilized few countered-rebuttals and alternative solution structures though US students employed a significantly higher number of reservations than Taiwanese students did. Yet, according to Crammond (1998), the inclusion of countered-rebuttals and alternative solutions is generally viewed as strong evidence of reader consideration while the use of reservation structure is considered a less powerful strategy to solicit reader agreement. Apparently, both groups employed few opposing structures though the inclusion of the oppositional devices occurred more frequently in US writing.

A defining feature of English argumentative writing is to take into account the opposing views that either challenge or are an alternative view to the writer’s claim. The handling of counterargument in argumentation is regarded as being a defining feature of good argumentation, and an indicator of a writer’s rhetorical and reasoning competence. This is also the essential trait differentiating English from Chinese argument (Liu, 2005). English rhetorical tradition encourages differentiation of contradictory perspectives and attempts to reconcile opposing perspectives in an effort to determine which fact or position is correct or better (Peng, 1999). Peng further elaborated that contradiction is considered a temporary state that will be replaced by integrated thoughts — using reasoning that is linear, logical, and moves in one direction — from a contradiction to a sy nthesis. Based on this tradition, Western education emphasizes the generation of arguments and counterarguments concerning a given position. In contrast, very little emphasis has been placed on constructing counterargument in the Asian rhetorical tradition (Becker, 1986; Liu, 2005; Peng, 1999). This rhetorical feature, lack of counter-argument, may be attributed to Chinese dialectical epistemology, which assumes that there can be some truth to both of two opposing propositions (Peng, 1999) and thus implies that there is no need to elucidate the oppositional statements in a way expected in Western argumentation.