2008-Contrastive Analysis On RHETORIC AND LINGUISTIC FEATURES Of Academic Essay.Pdf

CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS ON
RHETORIC AND
LINGUISTIC FEATURES
OFACADEMIC ESSAYS
Prof. Dr. Teguh Budiharso, M.Pd
Cawanmas
Yogyakarta
2008

Contrastive Analysis on Rhetoric and Linguistic Features
of Academic Essays
Hak cipta © Prof. Dr. Teguh BudiharsQ, M.Pd
Diterbitkan oleh:
Penerbit Cawanmas
Jl. Abimanyu GK I/215 RT. 05/RW. 02
Demangan, Yogyakarta
telp. 0274-6842258
email: cawanmas@yahoo.com
Desain Sampul: Antok
Penata Letak: Ratna Ningsih
Produksi: M. Romdon
Perpustakaan Nasional: Katalog Dalam Terbitan (KD1)
Contrastive Analysis on Rhetoric and Linguistic Features
of Academic Essays
Cawan Mas, Yogyakarta,Juli 2008
xx· + 172 hal: 15 x 23 em
ISBN: 978-979-17585-0-2

FOREWORD
The first version ofthis monograph originates from the work
of doctoral dissertation in State University of Malang entitled
Rhetoric and the Linguistic Features ofEnglish and Indonesian
Essays Made byEFL Undergraduate Students. Promoting emphasis
on the analysis on contrastive rhetoric the substantial analysis of
which this study is intended to present, the title of this book has
been modified into Contrastive Analysis ofRhetoricandLinguistic
Features ofAcademic Essays. The study specifically examines and
contrasts typical rhetoric in the English and Indonesian essays, the
inspiration ofwhich comes from the work by Connor (1994) and
Wahab (1991) stating that writing craft is culturally bound and
rhetoric is part of the culture.
Prior to the publication of this monograph, parts ofthis work
have been published as journal articles, such as TEFLIN Journal,
books, and seminar papers. The complete version ofthe work takes
place sequent chapters of the original dissertation. No revision or
modification toward the original draft are made in this work.
The first chapter of this work starts from introduction giving
general background ofthis study and focuses ofthe study. Chapter
two provides theories pertaining to the rhetoric and writing process
from which academic writing and contrastive rhetoric in the writing
essays are conceived. Chapterthree deal with researchmethodology
where research design, focus, data, and data analysis are described.
Onchapter four, the work describes research fmdings where rhetoric
and the linguistic features are discussed. Finally, chapterfive present
iii

the conclusion and suggestions. In addition, the front pages ofthis
work are prevented as well as the appendices.
This project has been made available because the auspices of
Mas Mohammad Romdon of Solo and friends from which the
author has relied upon various publications in terms of books,
articles, journals, and alike. The works of Mas Romdon have
substantiallypromoted the author invaluable benefits in his careers.
iv
Samarinda,Jqij 2008
The author,
Prof. Dr. Teguh Budiharso, M.Pd

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion ofthis dissertation was possibly accomplished
with the support, assistance, guidance, and encouragement from
many people. I would like to deserve my genuine gratitude to all
ofthe impressive and influential individuals in my study within a
rather long list ofpages.
First, I am exceptionally grateful to my academic advisors,
respectively Prof. Dr. H.M.F. Baradja, M.A., Prof. Abdul Wahab,
MA, Ph.D., and H. Moh. Adnan Latief, M.A, Ph.D., for their
invaluable helps, supports, guidance, and kindness. I have great
admiration and respect for them.
Besides his excellent academic reputations, Prof. Dr. H.M.F.
Baradja, M.A, my first advisor, is a teacher whose voluntary and
enthusiastic assistance gives me great encouragement and quality
contributions. His almost daily encouragement serves positive
feedback and excellent suggestions that have helped me on
numerous occasions and keep going beyond the point ofexhaustion.
His sincere beliefin the worthiness ofmy work is a constant energy.
He has devoted to teach me howto be a truly faith ofa saintMoslem.
I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Prof. Abdul Wahab,
M.A, Ph.D., my second advisor. His exceptional talent and
excellence in pioneering contrastive rhetoric of Indonesian
academic writing and in linguistics dedicated to his students has
been a great inspiration ofthis dissertation. I am extremely indebted
for his sincere appreciation and recognition ofmy work that make
up it all worthwhile. I appreciate the time and energy volunteered
for the whole process ofmy study. His feedback and suggestions
improve the quality of this dissertation immensely. The most
significant understanding ofthe difficulty I had is his awareness of
v

the ups and downs of my motivation. He is not only an excellent
professor but also a true father whose friendship I value dearly.
I am extremely grateful to H. Moh. Adnan Latief, M.A, Ph.D.,
my third advisor, for his never-ending patience and superlative
skills at correcting my dissertation. Beside his critical, deliberate,
and insightful revisions and comments, he contributes invaluable
assistance particularly when I was depressed in my hometown,
Samarinda. His expertise in writing and his friendly emotional
supports lead a hardship work for me. His exceptional talents in
research methodology and statistics have encouraged me to work
under his supervisory since my master's degree. He is one ofmy
excellent instructors in State University ofMalang that I admire at
much. I frequently expect ifi were he!
Parts ofthe language ofthis dissertation have been proofread
and polished by Prof. Dr. Marilyn Johnston of Iowa University
and Jeff Barrus a reporter ofAmerican Express. I am extremely
grateful to Prof. Dr. Marilyn Johnston for her excellent comments,
corrections, encouragement, and positive feedback on lliY English.
Inher very tight schedule, she is kindly spendingtime to deliberately
proofread and revise my dissertation drafts. I specifically want to
thank JeffBarrus for his kindness to proofread and revise parts of
the draft ofthis dissertation. Their exceptional contributions have
made this dissertation more credible.
I am very grateful to the late Prof. Dr. H. Soeseno
Kartomihardjo, M.A, for his great contribution, helpful feedback,
inspiring advice and suggestions, which could encourage me to
keep on writing this dissertation. I devote this dissertation for his
generous and never-ending memory. He had been my Dad in my
troubles and hopeless during my study. Spending nights and
discussions in his mosque is a teary unforgotten memory.
For the final revision ofthis dissertation I received invaluable
comments and direction from the members of the Examination
Board. I am deeply grateful to Prof. Dr. H. Imam Syafi'ie, Prof.
Dr. H.D. Edi Subroto, and Prof. Dr. Willem Mantja. Their critical
comments and deliberate correction to the substance of this
Vl

dissertation they made are exceptional contributions to improve
the quality ofthis work.
I feel exceptionally grateful to my spiritual teachers: Gus Huda,
Gus Qoyim, K. H. Ghozali, Abah Suyuti, Gus Jalil, Mbah Warok
Sanggrok, K. Muhaji, and Ki Supeno. Their genuine and solemnly
prayers, supports, and advice during my ups and downs of my
motivation are extremely appreciated. I am especially grateful to
Gus Huda for his voluntarytime and energy ofbeing my spiritual
consultant. I am also indebted to Gus Qoyim for his genuine
welcome spending several nights with me in his PondokPesantren
and teaching me some sacred wirid. On my occasions, Gus Huda
and Gus Qoyim specifically deserve their beliefs in the worthiness
and forget their own troubles to bolster my spirits and reinforce
my conviction to finish my study.
.In particular of spiritual case, I also feel extremely grateful to
the family ofProf. Dr. H. Imam Syafi'ie whose father the late Kiyai
Nurcholis, was my family's Moslem teacher. Their genuine prayers
and advice have led my family and I to achieve a better future of
lives and wisdom of reality, struggling from any oppression.
In collecting the data ofthis research, Ireceive invaluable helps
and assistance from my fellow instructors in Muhammadiyah
University of Malang (MUM) where I have devoted my teaching
experiences and improve theoretical knowledge for around 5 years.
I am extremely indebted to all ofthe staffs ofEnglish Department
of MUM. Specifically, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to
Dwi Priyo Utomo, M.Pd, Dra. Thathit M. Andini, Dra. Hj. Pardini
Sabilah, M.Pd, Drs. Soeparto, M.Pd, Drs. Masduki, M.Pd, Drs.
Sudiran, M.Hum, and Drs. Estu Widodo, M.Hum. Their
cooperation, assistance, and beliefs in the worthiness to give me
opportunity to independently teaching Research Methodology and
Statistic Courses have made me more mature in English and in the
reality of life. Their sincere appreciation and recognition of my
work helps make it all worthwhile. Indeed, I am extremely grateful
to all of my colleagues in MUM.
I owe a tremendous debt ofgratitude to my students joining in
my research course and my research project. Without their presence,
vii

this study would never be completed. With their permission, I
specifically thank to: Hanik Masrokah, S.Pd, Saifi Yunianto, RPd,
Ani Rufaqoh, S.Pd, Kholish Shudqiyati, S.Pd, RochmawatiA, S.Pd,
Rakhmawati, S.Pd, Noor Chamidah, S.Pd, Novita Utami, S.Pd,
Kamilatul Hidayati, S.Pd, Arsiska Yulyant, S.Pd, and Suparkit,
S.Pd.
For the sake ofscholarship, my appreciation and thanks go to
Ditjen Dikti and Director ofGraduate School of State University
ofMalang (UM) who provided me scholarship from BPPS. I am
extremelygrateful to Prof. Dr. Yuhara Sukraand Dr. Tony Phatony,
M.Si inJakartafor theirgenerous assistance. I am also very grateful
to Dr. Frans Mataheru, former Director ofGraduate School ofUM,
Prof. Dr. H. Imam Syafi'ie, the recent Director, and Dr. H. Ali
Saukah, the former Vice Director II for giving me precious
opportunity to study in the doctoral degree in this school.
Forthe significantprocess ofstudy, I acknowledgethe following
persons in Mulawarman University Samarinda where I currently
dedicate my career. I gratefully acknowledge to Prof. Dr. Riyanto,
M.Sc, the former Vice Rector I for his encouragement to continue
my Doctoral Degree immediately after I finished my Master's
Degree in 1997; Prof. Ir. Rachmad Hemadi, M.Sc, the present
Rector of Mulawannan University for his generous assistance,
advice, and wisdom to support my study; Drs. Eddy Subandrijo,
M.Pd, the recent Dean of Teacher Training Faculty for his
invaluable advice; and
Drs. Muh. Sarangan D, the Head of English Department for
his generous support during my study. Some persons behind my
success also appear to my indebtedness. Firstofall, I am extremely
gratitude to Dr. Saraka, M.Pd, my true teacher of life, Drs. Muh.
Natsir, M.Pd, my respected senior, Dra. Aminah Biby, my mother,
Drs. Darminto, MS, former Dean of Economic Faculty, my most
respected senior, and Prof. Dr. Ristono, M.S my teacher, colleague,
and friend. I am specifically grateful to Drs. Martinus F. Tennes a
former member ofDPR RI and his wife Dra. Anisia Hong Hajaat,
my truly friend and mom.
Vlll

I am especially indebted to my devoted family and friends who
made this ｾｴ･ｭ｡ｲｫｬ｢ｬ･＠ ueeompliShment possible. First, words
cannotexpressthe full extentofmy gnttiUR!e to myparents Haryoso
and Sutarsih and my parents' in law Sunari and Suwarti for their
solemnly prayer. I also have difficulty finding words to show my
gratitude to my brothers and sisters' in law: Slamet Riyanto and
Suliasih; WuwuhYunhadi and Siti Rohmahin Samarinda; Suparno
and Narmi; Sutrisno and Marsini in Blitar. Fortunately, I don't
need to find the words to thank them because I think they already
know.
I am extremely indebte4 to Drs. Fl. Syaukani, HR the Regent
of Kutai Kartanegara and the Head ofAssociation ofAll Regents
in Indonesia, and Drs H. Kasyful AnwarAssa'ad the Vice Head of
DPRD ofEast Kalimantan. They have contributed very significant
financial supports during the exhaustion of my study. On my
occasions, my brothers Eko Mujani, Anwar Sanusi, S.Pd, Agus
Winarno, and
Drs. Sujito, M.Pd; my fellows Hermanus Tingang, S.Pd and
Hamli, S.Pd; my colleagues and brothers in the NGO and
Democratic Activists in Samarinda: Drs. RagilHarsono, MM and
Lukman Junaedi, S.Pd frequently forgot their own troubles to
bolster my spirits and reinforce my conviction to finish this
dissertation. My ｾ｡ｴｩｴｵ､･＠ also goes to Drs. Sutopo Gasif, M.Pd of
Kutai Kartanegara and Drs. Agustianur, MS of Provincial Office
of East Kalimantan in Samarinda for partial financial support to
conducting this research. I thank them for being ardent s_upporters
and faithful friends.
I acknowledge my classmates ofDoctor in Language Education
1998 at State University ofMalang. I exceptionally wish to thank
to Drs. Sudaryono, M.Pd, Drs. Suhartono, M.Pd, and Drs. Moh.
Ainin, M.Pd who were ready to be peer debriefers. Their valuable
comments and contributions made this study more credible. I also
want to thank
Dr. I. Harjanto and Dra. Ruruh Mindari, M.Pd of Widya
Mandala University Surabaya for their comments in the data
analysis.
ix

Beyondthe process ofmy study, I owe a tremend()us debt from
my roommates and daily environment during my stay in Malf.U)g.
First of alL I am very grateful to Prof. Dr. H. Supamo and his
family for permitting me to stay in his home peacefully and
comfortably. The home facilities have significantlymade my study
ease. I am specifically indebted to Drs. Bambang E. Siagiyanto,
M.Pd., ofLampung, ustadz Drs. Lalu Suherman, M.Pd ofPapua,
ｾｄｲｳＮ＠ M. nrasＮｬ｡ＧｦＳｴＺＮ＼＾ｦｓｾ＠ •.ｾ［ｰ･ｾｩｾ､｡ｹｳ＠｡ｱＴＮｾｩｧ｢Ｌｴｳ＠
with them is wonderful for relaxation. ·I also.want to thank :IDyah
Sunggingwati, S.Pd, M.Pd., my former student who is later my
junior in Graduate School ofUM for· her constant and generous
cooperation.
Malang, July 26, 200l
The Writer,
X

TABLE OF CONTENT
FOREWORD ......•..•........•...............•......•...•••.........•...............•• iii
ACKN"OWLEDGEME"NTS ••••••••••••••••••·
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• v
TABLE OF CONTENT••••.•...••.•.•.•.•••••••.••.•••.•••••••.•••••.•••••••.•••• xi
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................. xiv
LIST OF FIGURES ...........................••..•.•....•......•..........••.....• XV
LIST OF APPENDICES .•..•..........•••.•••••••.•.•.•.••.•.•....•••.••••.••. xvi
ABSTRACT •.•••..•••.••.••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••.•••••••••.••••••.. xvii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION .........•.•.......••.....•...••..•.....•.•.•.•.••••......•..•..•••. 1
1.1 Background ofthe Study ...................................................... 1
1.2 Statement ofthe Problems ................................................... 6
1.3 Objectives ofthe Study ........................................................ 7
1.4 Significance ofthe Study ..................................................... 7
1.5 Scope and Limitation ofthe Study ....................................... 8
1.6 Assumption .......................................................................... 9
l.7 Theoretical Framework ...................................................... 10
1.8 Clarification ofTerms ........................................................ 11
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................ 15
2.1 Rhetoric .............................................................................. 15
2.2 Contrastive Rhetoric .......................................................... 18
Xl

2.3 Toulmin's Model ofReasoning .......................................... 19
2.4 English Academic Writing ................................................. 22
2.5 Part ofa Good Academic Writing ...................................... 25
2.5.1 Paragraph .................................................................. 25
2.5.2 College Academic Writing........................................ 27
2.5.3 Writing Process......................................................... 29
2.5.3.1 Prewriting ..................................................... 31
2.5.3.2 Organizing ...............................•.............·
....... 32
2.5.3.3 Outlining ...................................................... 32
2.5.3.4 Drafting ........................................................ 33
2.5.3.5 Revising......................................................... 33
2.5.3.6 Editing .......................................................... 34
2.6 Coherence and Cohesion ofa Discourse............................ 34
2.7 Mode ofAcademic Writing ................................................ 37
2.7.1 Argumentative Essay ............................................... 37
2.7.2 Expository Essay ...................................................... 38
2.8 Linguistic Feature ofAcademic Writing ............................ 39
2.9 Indonesian Academic Writing ............................................ 41
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................... 47
3.1 Research Design ................................................................ 47
3.2 Participants ......................................................................... 48
3.3 Research Instrument........................................................... 50
3.4 Data and Source ofData .................................................... 52
3.5 Data Validation................................................................... 53
3.6 Data Collection Techniques ............................................... 54
3.7 Data Analysis Techniques .................................................. 56
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ............................................ 59
4.1 Linearity and Non-Linearity Essay .................................... 59
4.1.1 Linear Essay.............................................................. 64
4.1.2 Non-Linear Essay ..................................................... 66
Xll

4.2 Development ofldeas ........................................................ 69
4.2.1 Title........................................................................... 70
4.2.2 Introductory Paragraph ............................................. 72
4.2.3 Body Paragraph ........................................................ 76
4.2.3.1 Body Paragraph ofLinear Essay .................. 76
4.2.3.2 Body Paragraph ofNon-Linear Essay .......... 80
4.2.4 Concluding Paragraph .............................................. 83
4.3 Coherence ofthe Essay ...................................................... 87
4.4 Sentence Complexity ......................................................... 92
4.5 Granunar and Mechanics ................................................. 100
4.6 Results ofQuestionnaire and Interview ........................... 103
4.7 Discussion ........................................................................ 106
CHAPTERV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND SUGGESTION ..•...•. 115
5.1 Summary .......................................................................... 115
5.2 Conclusion ....................................................................... 119
5.3 Suggestion ........................................................................ 122
REFERENCES ..................................................................... 127
APPENDICES....................................................................... 135
xiii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1. Modes ofEssays UnderStudy............................... 60
Table 4.2. Liaearity•.Non-Linearity Patterns ofIdeas ....... 61
Table 4.3. Summary ofNumber ofParticipants
Writing Linear and Non-Linear Essay ................... 62

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Basic Pattern ofToulmin's Argument. .................. 22
Figure 2.2. IntroductoryParagraph. Style ................................. 28
Figure 2.3. The Body Paragraph Style ..................................... 29
Figure 2.4. Concluding Paragraph Style ................................... 29
Figure 2.5. Communication Square Model in Writing ............. 30
Figure 2.6. Schema of a Prewriting Process ............................. 31
Figure 2.7. Summary ofWaysto Get Started Writing ............. 32
Figure 2.8. Steps in Writing Process ........................................ 34
Figure 2.9. Types of Cohesion ................................................. 36
XV

LIST OF APPENDICES
ApPendix 1 Writing Promptfor the English Essay ............... 141
Appendix 2 Writing Prompt for the Indonesian Essay .......... 142
Appendix 3 Angket Penelitian............................................... 143
Appendix 4 Pedoman Wawancara ......................................... 145
Appendix 5 Data Analysis Coding Form ............................... 146
Appendix 6. Sample Data ofEnglish Essays.......................... 151
Appendix 7 Sample Data ofIndonesian Essays .................... 159
xvi

ABSTRACT
The knowledge ofhow to write well is a skill that most people
have to work to develop. Writing effectively can be achieved if
learners are willing to learn some strategies and practice them.
Contrastive rhetoric of writing concerns with transfer of
conventions ofL1culture to L2 performance. Language and writing
are cultural phenomena, so rhetoric and linguistic conventions of
L1il}terfere with writing in L2..When ESLstudents write in English,
they translate Ll words, phrases and organization into English.
They use patterns oflanguage and stylistic conventions they learned
in their L1and cultures.
This study was aimed at comparing the similarity and difference
ofrhetoric and linguistic features ofEnglish and Indonesian essays
made by the same 10 EFL undergraduate students of
Muhammadiyah University of Malang (MUM). The rhetoric
focused on linearity and non-linearity of ideas, development of
ideas, and coherence of the essays. The linguistic features
conceived sentence complexity, grammar, and mechanics.
The sources of data of this study were 10 English and 10
Indonesian essays obtained from a classroom work given to the
same 10 EFL undergraduate students of MUM. Relying on
qualitative approach, this study used content analysis adapting
various theories on contrastive rhetoric in writing.
The findings showed that EFL undergraduate students devoted
similar rhetoric and linguistic features in English and Indonesian
essays. The similarity was shared in the linearity and non-linearity
ofideas, development ofideas, coherence, and sentence complexity.
xvii

The distinction was served on grammatical and mechanical errors.
The linear English and Indonesian essays served similarity in
the use ofgeneral statements preceding the thesis and controlling
ideas in the introductory paragraph. Each controlling idea was
clarified in the body paragraphs supporting the detailed information
ofthe topic. However, information irrelevant to the topic appeared
and the concluding paragraph failed to clarify the topic. The non-
linear English and Indonesian essays shared no thesis and no
controlling ideas, unrelated ideas in the body paragraphs, and
digressive development of ideas in the whole essays. Digressive
progression of ideas resulted comments from one sentence to
another, details in the body paragraphs deviated from the topic,
and the concluding paragraph added other information irrelevant
to the topic. Students writing linear English essays did not
necessarily share the same linear Indonesian essays.
Development ofideas in the linear and non-linear English and
Indonesian essays met the acceptable criteria ofacademic writing,
each consisting of introduction, body, and closing. Coherence of
English and Indonesian essays was colored with the straightforward
sentences relevant to the topic and controlling ideas. However,
some were interrupted by incorrect use of transition signals and
sentence connectors. Most Indonesian essays used transition signals
and sentence connectors properly.
In terms ofsentence complexity, fragment, run-on, and stringy
sentences appeared in English and Indonesian essays. Errors on
agreements, pronoun substitution, and mechanics were made.
However, grammatical errors in Indonesian essays did not reflect
students' problems on mastery of Indonesian grammar. Errors on
confused grammar rules, e.g. "be, auxiliary, modal, do, and have"
did not appear, as the rules were not present in Indonesian grammar.
Mechanical errors in Indonesian essays occurred in terms of
spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.
Previous findings on contrastive rhetoric studies were
confirmed in this study. Rhetoric of Indonesian intellectuals
including undergraduate students is in the process ofchange. The
layout structure of the essay meets the academic writing but not
XVlll

the substance. Also, clear similarities do exist in competence and
performance of writing in L1 and L2, and that translating words,
phrases, organization, and conventions ofLI toL2 does appear in
the composing process.
It is suggested that contrastive rhetoric be included in the writing
instruction and thesis advisory, and contrastive rhetoric be
incorporated in the composing process and strategies in Indonesian
essays for the junior and senior high school students. In addition,
a study on contrastive rhetoric describing how native speakers of
English write Indonesian and English essays is also recommended.
xix

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background ofthe Study
Despitethe popularopinionthat beingableto write wellis a talent
that one either has or does not have, the knowledge ofhowto write
well is notsomethingthatcomes naturally. Itis askillthatmostpeople
have to work to develop. One can learn to write effectively ifhe is
willing to learn some strategies and practice them (Kirszner, 1978;
Oshima and Hogue, 1991). Perhaps the most pervasive and most
dangerous beliefsome writers have is that there is no writingprocess,
that experienced writers simply sit down at the typewriter or the
computer, beginatthe beginning, and writethroughto theend, withno
planning, revision, orbreak inthe linearflow (Krashen, 1984:33).
Reviewing Kaplan's study(1966; 1987)on Contrastive Rhetoric,
Connor (1996:100) posits that writing was concerned wl5ith the
transfer ofthe first language (L1) cultural conventions to the second
language (L2) performance. The transfer deals with the rhetorical
organization of ideas in writing that was assumed to be culturally
determined. According to Kaplan, spoken language is primarilyan
innate, biologicallydeterminedability; writingonthe otherhand, is a
"post-biological" step and obviously is not universal to all people.
Because language and writing are cultural phenomena, the linguistic
and rhetorical conventionsofthe L1interfere withwriting intheL2.
Various studies onwriting indicatethatasbeginners, whenstudents
of English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) write inEnglish, theytranslate orattempttotranslate
the L1words, phrases, andorganizationinto English. Thestudentsuse

patterns oflanguageand stylistic conventionsthattheyhavelearnedin
theirnative languageandcultures (Connor, 1996:3-4). Whentheyare
mature to achieve successful accomplishments the advanced level of
mastery in writing, ofcourse, they will not translate L1words and
patternsofL1conventions into Englishanymore.
As a matter of facts, writing an essay for a standard academic
purposerequiresafonnal styleofessaythatcannotbedonebyfollowing
a setofrules. Someaspectsofwriting skills canbetaught, butthere
arelimitations. Onlythemostgeneralandobviousfeatures ofform and
organizationmaybeteachable (Krashen, 1984).
Inadherenceto theteachableaspects ofwriting, the keyto grasping
a writing style is experience. Inthis respect, choosingthe appropriate
styleofwritingbecomesacommonproblemforcollege students. Many
students complainthatachieving some level offormality soundstoo
difficultand also sounds as ifitmust result ina hopelessly dead, dry,
unnatural style that few would want to read. However, with more
practice in writing and more reading ofcollege texts, the style will
automatically become more formal and polished (Hogins-Lillard,
1972:13-16) without necessarily being dead and dry.
Heaton (1989:135) asserts that writing skill is complex and
sometimesdifficulttoteach, requiringmasterynotonlyofgrammatical
andrhetorical devicesbutalsoofconceptualandjudgmentalelements.
Findings ofvarious studies indicate thatthe subject ofwritinghas not
beenappropriatelytreated. Forexample, almostall college instructors
frown upon teaching writing (Hogins and Lillard, 1972:13). In
Indonesia, writing is not a favorite subjectto teach, because teaching
writing takes more time than teaching any other subject. As a result,
very few teachers are interested inteaching writing, andevenfewer of
themare interestedindoingresearchonthis subject (Latief, 1990:17).
For academic purpose, however, learning writing skills is an
obligation that students must meet in college. Essentially, students
should assimilate a specific body ofknowledge and demonstrate the
familiaritywiththeknowledgeinawrittenform. Inthisregard,performing
a scholarly writing, e.g. abbreviated essay, term paper, report on
research is repeatedlyrequired by the college students (Hogins and
Lillard, 1972:5). As writingskillis animperativeobligationforcollege
2

students, scholarly writing is a primary means to demonstrate the
knowledge theyhave achieved.
Toequipcollegestudentswith writing skills,writingis stipulatedas
acompulsory subject in the English Departmentat the college level in
Indonesia Studiesoflndonesianwriting learnersfocusing onstudents'
rhetoricandthe linguistic aspects ofthe Englishessays showunsatisfied
results, indicatingthenegativetransferofindonesianrulesintotheEnglish
essays. StudentsperformEnglishsentencesusingIndonesianstructure
and use Indonesianrhetoric forthe organizationofideas. Itseemsthat
aquestionbehindhowtht?languagetransferintoEnglishwritingappears
notto have beenstudiedyet. Therefore, a studyattemptingto compare
the writing process ofan English essay and an Indonesian essay is
required.
Wahab (1995b, 1995c) has pioneered a preliminary study on the
rhetoricofacademicwritingbyIndonesianwriters, examiningexpository
and argumentativepapers. The studyreveals thatthe modelofthought
patterns ofindonesianrhetoric is intheprocess ofchange, shiftingfrom
circular patterns into linear patterns. As indicated in the paragraphs,
some types ofparagraphs exhibit the straight linear approach, some
exemplifYthespiral/circularstructure, andsomeothersareneitherlinear
norcircular. Emphasisofchangeis indicatedbytheuseoflinearstructure
as a result oftechnologythat requires a tendencyto use directthought
patterns ratherthan indirectthoughtpatterns.
In adherence to Wahab's study (1995b, 1995c), Harjanto (1999)
investigates the features ofEnglish academic writing by Indonesian
learners. The study suggeststhatfeatures ofEnglish academic writing
by Indonesian learners are not the same as those byEnglish-speaking
writers. The lay out structureoftheessays expressesthe conventionof
the Englishacademic essaybutnotalways the substantialelements. In
addition,therhetoricaldevelopmentsofideasintheessaysdo notentirely
followthestagingofthe informationasexpectedbythe English-speaking
readers, whichis mainlylinear.
Withregardtothelinguisticaspects, astudyonassessmentonEnglish
writing skills for EFL students conductedby Latief(1990) indicates
thatstudentstaking more writing coursesdo notimprovethe rhetorical
and coherentqualities intheir writing. The students did not write with
3

greatercomplexityofsentenceconstruction, didnotwritelongerpapers,
and did not make fewer errors.
In line with the study inwriting at MuharnrnadiyahUniversityof
Malang (henceforthabbreviated to MUM) five undergraduate theses
andonemaster'sthesisareavailableintheEnglishDepartmentatMUM.
Ofthe studies, one master's thesis by Sabilah(1999) and three theses
ofundergraduate students (i.e. Indrawinarni, 1993; Sulistyani, 1993;
and Rachrnawan, 1995)arereviewed.
Focusingonthelinguisticaspectsofwriting(i.e.coherence, syntax,
grammar, and mechanics), Sabilah(1999) identifiesthaterroneous
linguisticaspects inwritingare frequently performedbythe students,
implyingthatinsufficientexercisesonthescientificwritingarelacking.
Thestudysuggeststhatthewritingprocessisnotlearnedwellbystudents.
Some high group students (Grade PointAverage is 3.0 and up), all of
middle group students (GPAis 2.5 to 2.9), and all ofthe low group
students (GPAis less than2.0) write draft oftheir English essay in
Indonesianbeforetheywrite the final copyinEnglish. Moststudents
also lackedthe coherence ofanessay; for instance, athesis statement
is not clearly stated or additional sentences irrelevant to the thesis
statement are added.
Apparently, thestudies indicatetwo mainconcernsofessaywriting.
First, studentshaveproblemspreparingtopics,developing ideas, and
elaborating the contents, resulting in a lack offocus in the essays.
Second, errors on essay elements (i.e. introductory paragraph, body
ofparagraph, and closing paragraph), paragraphelements (i.e. topic
sentences, supportingdetails, and relevantconclusion), and sentence
problems (e.g. fragment, choppy, run-on, stringy sentences) are
dominant
With regardtothe undergraduatestudies,thougheachofthe thesis
writersseeksdifferentfocusofinvestigation,allfiveorganizethefindings
into the same datapresentation. Indrawinarni (1993)conducts a study
on The Ability ofthe Second Year Students ofEnglish Department
ofMUM in Using Transition Signals in Paragraph Writing. This
study reports the ability of90 samples in using transition signals in a
paragraph. The result ofthe analysis is based on the frequency of
occurrence, showing what percent of the sample uses correct or
4

incorrecttransition signals inthe whole paragraph. The higher the
percentage ofoccurrenceinusingcorrecttransitionsignalsis,the better
the student'sabilityindeveloping aparagraphｩｳｾ＠
Sulistyani (1993) investigates Coherence in a Paragraph of
English Composition by English Department students ofMUM.
Givenatestoncompositionto 32 subjects, she scoresthecompositions
and reports percentages, indicatingthe range ofability from very poor
to the excellence. In addition, Rachmawan (1995) examining The
Ability ofthe Sixth Semester Students ofEnglish Department of
MUMin Argumentative Composition, presents his research results
intermsofmeanscores obtainedbyhis 60 samplesofstudy. Analysis
was basedupon the proportionoffrequency andthe percentageofthe
students' achievement in terms ofexcellent (A), good (B), fair (C),
poor (D), and very poor (E).
The above illustration indicates that the writing programat MUM
does notyet meetthe expected level ofcompetence inthe outline of
writing instructions. The writingprogramatMUMis providedinfour
consecutivewritingcourses(WritingI,WritingIl,WritingIll,andWriting
IV).. The first three levels ofthe writing course are offered in four
semesterhours each and the highest level, i.e. WritingIV is offered in
two·semester hours. The objective ofthe writing program is to help
studentsachieveskillsinusing linguisticaspectsofwriting andskills in
writing papers ofdifferent modes. Writing Iis focused onwritingone-
paragraph composition in terms ofnarrative and descriptive types.
Writing Il introduces more types ofdiscourse: exposition, narration/
objective reports, and description. Writing III focuses on an essay
consisting ofmore than one paragraph developed invarious types of
discourse. WritingIVequips studentswithabilityinwritingacomplete
essayemphasizingonargumentativewriting.
So far scientific study ofwriting at MUM has been conducted,
focusing on the linguistic aspects ofwriting. No study concerning
rhetorical aspectthat analyzes writing basedoncultural phenomenais
available, however. Thestudymayprovideinitialreferencefor scientific
studyonthe linguistic aspectsofwritingonly. Therefore,astudyonin-
depthanalysisofacademic writing oftheEnglishDepartmentstudents
ofMUM involving analysis ofrhetoricis apparently needed.
5

Concerning a hypothesis that language and writing are cultural
phenomenaso thateachlanguagehas rhetoricalconventionuniqueto
it, the purpose ofthe current study is to investigate one group ofthe
sameEFLlearners. Therationale behindthis isthatEFLstudentsoften
usepatternsoflanguageandstylisticconventionsthattheyhavelearned
in their native languages and cultures. In research on L2 -Titing
contrastivestudieshavereceivedmoreattentionthanperhapsanyother
sjngleissue,focusing ontherhetorical strategiesofthe Ll andthe L2.
Contrasting andcomparing are basictOanyform ofanthropological
investigationand thisincludes ofcourse linguistic investigation. The
contrastivelightshowsaparticularpractice as specificto a groupand
itallowstheidentificationofuniversals.
The increasedunderstanding oflanguage learners' needs to read
and write inthe target language has includedthe studyonmodels of
writing. Therefore,itistimetoanalyzetheachievementofcontrastive
analysesofcompositioninordertodetermineitsuniversalaswell asits
cross-culturalparticulars(Connor, 1996:6).
Inaddition, inorderto achievecomparisonofrhetorical features of
anEnglishessayandanIndonesianessay,thesamesubjectoftheEnglish
Department students is assigned to write an essay in both languages.
Such a study can ensure and give more elaborated reasons why
differencesmayappear. Moreover, examiningthecontrastiverhetoric
beyond EnglishcompositionandIndonesiancompositionisnecessary
becauseofthe expansionofEFLinstructionto academic andcontent-
area literacy.
1.2 Statement ofthe Problems
Inorderto ascertainthedletoricandthelinguisticfeatures of English
andIndonesianessays,basicallythis studytries to answerthequestion:
"Howdothedletoricandthelinguisticfeatures ofEnglishandIndonesian
essaysmadebythe sameEFLundergraduatestudentsofMUMindicate
similaritiesanddifferences?" Specifically,thisstudyattemptstoanswer
thefollowing five sub-questions:
1). Howdo linearityandnon-linearityideasofthe Englishessaysand
Indonesianessaysmade bythe same EFL undergraduate students
ofMUMindicatesimilaritiesanddifferences?
6

Howdoes thedevelopmentofideasto be organized inthe English
essays and in Indonesian essays made by the same EFL
undergraduatestudentsofMUMindicatesimilaritiesanddifferences?
3). HowdoesthecoherenceoftheEnglishessaysandIndonesianessays
made bythe same EFL undergraduate students ofMUM indicate
similaritiesanddifferences?
4). How does the sentence complexity ofthe English essays and
Indonesian essaysmade bythe same EFLundergraduate students
5). How do the grammars and mechanics ofthe English essays and
Indonesianessaysmade bythe sameEFLundergraduate students
1.3 Objectives ofthe Study
...The currentstudycompares the rhetoric and the linguistic features
of English essays and Indonesian essays made by the same EFL
undergraduate students ofMUM. Specificallythe studycompares:
1). The linearity and non-linearity ideas in the English essays and
. Indonesian essays made bythe same EFL undergraduate students
.ofMUM.
2)..·Thedevelopmentofideasto be organized inthe Englishessays and
in the Indonesian essays made by the same EFL undergraduate
students ofMUM.
3). The coherence inthe Englishessays and Indonesianessays made
bythe same EFL undergraduate students ofMUM.
4). Thesentencecomplexityinthe EnglishessaysandIndonesianessays
made bythe same EFLundergraduate students ofMUM.
5). The grammar and mechanic inthe Englishessays and Indonesian
essays made bythe same EFL undergraduate students ofMUM.
1.4 Significance ofthe Study
This study will be useful to the English teachers at MUM, more
specificallythe writingteachers, thesis advisors, and studentspreparing
to writetheirthesis. Thisstudywill also make acontributioninthearea
ofcontrastive rhetoric ofacademic writinginEnglishandIndonesian.
Inaddition, otheruniversities private or stateones offeringEnglishand
7

Bahasa Indonesia Department, candepend onthe resultofthis study
for reference ofteaching writing and studiespertainingto contrastive
rhetoric.
First, the study can reveal information in the writing aspects,
concerningstudents'errorsondevelopingsentences. Writinginstructors
and the Department ofEnglish Education in MUM canmake use of
this informationto develop better programs to teaching writing and
writingsyllabusessothatwritingexercisesthatsupportthethesiswriting
programcanbeemphasized. Incollaborationwithgrammarinstructors,
the writing instructors inMUMcanimprove relevant teachingplans.
Second, thesis advisors in MUM canmake use ofthe informationto
specify supervisoryactivities onvarious grammatical errors. Third,
students preparingtheirtheses canuse the information to be aware of
how typical problems ofexpressing ideas should be manipulated.
Strategies and sentence errors that are mostly used to tackle thesis
writing will guidethemto develop a good description.
Above all, contrastive rhetoric is an area ofresearch in the L2
acquisitionthatidentifiesproblems incompositionencounteredbythe
L2 writers by referring to the rhetorical strategies ofthe L1(Connor,
1996). Withthis inmind, instructors and students ofEnglishcanmake
use ofthe informationoncultural andthe linguistic aspectsofacademic
writing. Studentscanbenefit from learningthestructureandsequence
ofargument development. English instructors canbe more aware of
the negative transferofthe L1onwriting, sothatappropriate strategies
of instruction can deliberately be planned. In addition, English
Department or Bahasa Indonesia Department ofother universities
privateorstateonescanmakeuseoftheresultofthisstudyforreference
in teaching writing, thesis supervisoryplan, and study ofcontrastive
rhetoric, e.g. Bahasa Indonesia, local language, orEnglish.
1.5 Scope and Limitation ofthe Study
Thefocal objectofthisstudyisthe Englishessaysandthe Indonesian
essays produced bythe same EFL undergraduate students ofMUM.
Themodesoftheessaysareexpositoryandargumentative. Investigation
to both essays is focused onthe rhetorical and linguistic features.
8

Theinvestigationofrhetorical features isconceivedonthelinearity
andnon-linearityofideas;thedevelopmentofideas,andthecoherence
inthewriting. Linearityandnon-linearityrepresenthowstudentsdevelop
theirlogic; thedevelopmentofideasindicatestheorganizationofideas
presented inthe essay level; andcoherence refers to theconsistencyof
the logic andorganizationofideasthatis semanticallydeveloped.
Pertainingto thecoherencethat shows semanticrelationship inthe
esstW,thecohesionthatserveslexicalandgrammaticalrelationship in
theessayisnotdiscussedinthisstudy. Thecohesivedevicesthatinclude
referential, ellipsis, substitution, lexical, andconjunctionareanalyzed
integratedlyinthelinguisticfeatures. Thelinguisticfeatures understudy
are focused on the sentence complexity, grammar, and mechanical
aspects ofEnglishand Indonesianessays.
The main sources ofdata for this study are a combination ofa
classroomand homeworkessaydone bythesameEFL undergraduate
students ofMUM involving inthe supervision ofthesis writing and a
thesisexam. Theessayisservedinafive-paragraphcompositionwritten
in English and in Indonesian. Therefore, the object ofthe studyis the
discourse level consisting ofparagraphs andthe whole composition.
In other words, the primary sources ofthe data ofthis study are the
documentsconsistingofafive-paragraph EnglishandIndonesianessay
writtenby the same lGundergraduate students ofEnglishDepartment
ofMUM. The topics ofthe essay are academic concerns, whichthe
students are familiar. Thetopics aredevotedto presentissues, facts, or
descriptionsdevelopedintheacademic writing.
1.6 Assumption
This study is based on the following assumptions. First, the
participants ofthis studyhave beenlearninginEnglishDepartmentof
MUMfor4.5 yearsandhave successfullypassedall prerequisitecourses
ofwriting, i.e. Writing I, Writing II, Writing III, and Writing IV, and
research in language teaching, i.e. research methodology and thesis
writing. It isassumed thatparticipants haveachievedacomprehensive
mastecyontheconventionsofwritingscientificworkuptotheadvanced
level.
9

Second, MUM is one ofthe prospective private universities in
Malang, EastJava,havingarmmd40,000 students. Theuniversityhas
9 faculties, 27 studyprogramsoflll1dergraduateschools includingthe
EnglishDepartment, 3programs ofgraduate schools, and 3diploma
programs. The EnglishEducation recently has approximately 1,500
students, 15 teachers holding master's degree, and modem language
laboratory. As one ofthe English Centers in East Java, MUM is
assumedtohavestandardleanling-teachingprogramandthe oufpqts
of the English Department of MUM perform standard English
proficiei1CYofundergraduatelevel.
Third, the participants of this study have been equipped with
exercises and experience inwriting various papersand inpresenting
theiropinionsinIndonesianfortheprerequisiteprocessoftheirlearning
process. It is assumed that the participants achieve conventions of
Indonesian academic writing for scientific work up to the advanced
leveL
Fourth, the participants ofthis study have furnished their field
researchproject,preparedto writetheir final projectofresearchreport
interms oflll1dergraduate thesis. It is assumed that the participants
have mastered various kinds of rhetoric skills for expository and
argumentative stands.
Fifth,theparticipantsofthis studyusethesamenational language,
Indonesian,and internalize itfor their dailycommunicationat homes
andcampus inbothwrittenand spokenforms.
Sixth, Theparticipantsofthis studylearnandlll1derstandrulesand
conventionsofEnglishlanguagethroughouttheirlearningprocessinthe
writtenand spokenforms.
Seventh,theparticipantsofthisstudyareatthesamelevelofmastery
inwritingbothEnglishandIndonesianessays.
1.7 TheoreticalFramework
Thecmrentstudyfocusesonanalysisoftherhetoricandthelinguistics
features ofEnglishandIndonesianacademicessays. Intermsofrhetoric
features, theoryofContrastive Rhetoric byKaplan (1966) isthe main
reference. Thistheoryexplainsthatrhetoricvaries:fromculturetoculture
and evolves from time to time (Kaplan, 1980). Writing involves the
10

transferoflanguage intothewrittenform. Inthisregard, conventionin
Ll issuspectedtointerferewiththeperformanceofL2writing. Transfer
on the logic, development ofideas, and strategiesto organize ideas,
occursinwriting. Forthe learnersofEnglishwhosenative language is
notEnglish,theprocessoftransferoftherhetoricoftheirnativelanguage
intoEnglishwill be the mainprobleminwriting. Therefore, contrastive
rhetoric indicating howwTiting process inthe native language and in
Englishisrequiredto observe.
The linguistics features ofthis study rely ontheories ofEnglish
academic writing. The theory mainly focuses on the syntactic and
mechanic quality ofwriting. Therefore, theessay isevaluatedonthe
basis oftheuseofsentencecomplexity, grammar,andmechanicquality
(Raimes, 1987). In this regard, theories concerning the process of
developing academic writing (Hogins and Lillard, 1972;Andrew, IB
and Gardner R, 1979; Krashen, 1984) that specifically deal with
characteristics ofacademicwriting, writingprocess, andanalysis ofan
essayinto pieces oftraits are applied. The syntactic quality refers to
the types ofsentence construction: simple, compound, complex, or
compoundcomplexsentences. Inaddition, thegrammarand mechanic
qualityreferstothecharacteristicsofgrammaticalandmechanicalerrors
found in each sentence. The grammatical errors include awkward
constructionsand agreement errors. The mechanical errors include
punctuationerrors, spellingerrors, andcapitalizationerrors{Andrew,
BI and Gardner R, 1979; Latief, 1990; Oshima and Hogue, 1991).
1.8 Clarification ofTerms
To avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding ofsometerms used in
this study, the following key-terms are clarified.
1). Rhetoric refers to the art ofwriting, includingthe practicalskill of
deliveringawell-constructedtheoreticalscienceofformulatingrules
andconditionsforgoodand balancedexposition(Wahab, 1986:88).
It is a mode ofthinking or fmding all available means for the
achievement ofadesired end. Basically, itdeals withwhatgoes in
the mind ratherthan whatcomes outofthe mouth(Kaplan, 1980).
In this study, rhetoric refers to how a writer produces ideas in an
essay by logic, analytic wordings, and sentences. The rhetorical
11

features include general patternsofthought,developmentofideas,
andcoherence inEnglish and Indonesianessays.
2). Linguistic features refer to the use ofsentence construction,
grammar, and mechanical aspects ofwriting. A text with good
linguistic features usescharacteristicsoflanguage ofscience. The
textconveys statementthat is accurate and exact, supportingthe
logic ofthe statement. The use ofproper sentence structure and
precisevocabularyhelpreaderidentifypropositioninthetextmore
readily(Richards, 1992:103). Linguistic features inthisstudyare
identifiedthroughtheuse ofsentencecomplexity,that is, simple
sentences, complex sentences, andcompound sentences; the use
ofgrammarandmechanics inEnglishand Indonesianessays.
3). Coherence means holding together. In orderto have coherence
inwriting,the movementfrom onesentencetothe nextorfromone
paragraphto the next mustbe logical and smooth. There must be
no suddenjumpsandeachsentenceshould flow smoothlyinto the
nextone (Oshimaand Hogue, 1991:39). Inotherwords, one idea
mustflowlogicallyandsmoothlyfromthepreviousone. Inthisstudy,
coherencereferstothe wholeness andinterconnectedness among
sentences and ideas withina paragraphor among the paragraphs
withinapiece ofdiscourse, Englishand Indonesian.Apaperwith
highcoherenceclearlyfocuses ononemajortopicidea, issupported
by all the rest ofthe other ideas, and displays strong connections
between ideas inthe sentences and paragraphs (Latief, 1990:8).
Whether the essay is expository or argumentative, a variety of
techniques to achieve coherence mustbe the goal. There are four
ways to achievecoherence ofa paragraph or an essay: repeating
keynouns, synonyms,andpronouns; coordinatingconjunctionsand
correlativeconjunctions; subordinateclauses;andtransitionwords
and phrases (Smalley and Ruetten, 1982; Oshima and Hogue,
1991).
4). Grammarand mechanic ofwritingrefertothe use ofbasicrules
ofwritingsuchas parallelism,pronmmreference, agreement, tenses,
andbasicconventionsofwritingsuchaspunctuation, spelling, and
capitalization. Inthisstudy, grammarandmechanicalfeatures refer
12

to thecharacteristicsoferrors found ineachsentence ofanEnglish
and Indonesianessay (Latief, 1990).
5). Contrastive rhetoric refers to an attempt to identifyproblems in
compositionencounteredbythe writersofnon-Englishlearners. In
this study, contrastive rhetoric attempts to compare strategies of
rhetoric inEnglishand inIndonesiantexts.
6). Transferrefers to aprocess ofcarryover ofpreviousperformance
orknowledge to subsequent learning. Transfercanbe inpositive
or negative sense. The positive transfer occurs when the prior
knowledge benefitsthe learningtask, thatis, whenapreviousitem
iscorrectlyapplied to presentsubjectmatter. Thenegativetransfer,
onthe other side, occurs when the previous performance disrupts
the performance on a second. A previous item is incorrectly
transferred or incorrectly associated with an item to be learned
(Brown, 1994:90). Linguistic and rhetorical transferinthis study
refersto using Indonesianlanguage modesandIndonesianthought
patterns when writing academic compositioninEnglish(Hru:janto,
1999:20).
7)•..Expository or analysis essay is anessaythat explainsoranalyzes
a topic using specific details or examples (Smalley and Ruetten,
1982:100). In this study, anexpositionessayrefers to howa writer
explainsthe logicalrelationship betweenthingsthatexistorcanbe
provedto have existed. Usingappropriate useoflanguage andthe
rhetorical operationsandconventions, a writerexplains clearlyand
logicallythe informationthat she orhe knows oropinionsthat she
orhe thinks is sound.
8). An argument ensues whentwo parties disagree aboutsomething,
one party gives an opinion and offers reasons in supportofit and
the otherparty givesadifferentopinionandoffersreasonsinsupport
ofherorhis stand. Thekindofargumentthatcanbearguedlogically
is one based onan opinionthatcanbe supportedby evidence such
asfacts. Inthis study, anargumentativeessayisanessaythatattempts
to change the reader's mind, to convince the reader to agree with
the point ofview or opinion ofthe writer (Smalley and Ruetten,
1982:319-20). Inconvincingthe audience, anargumentativeessay
mustpayattentionontheeffectiveness andrelyonlogicandreason.
13

CHAPTER II
REVIEWOFRELATED LITERATURE
This chapter is devoted to describing theoriesand research reports,
reviewing the rhetoric and academic writing. The review consists of
eightparts: rhetoric, contrastiverhetoric,Toulmin'smodelofreasoning,
English academic writing, parts ofacademic writing, coherence and
cohesion, modesofacademicwriting, linguistics features ofacademic
writing, andIndonesianacademicwriting.
2.1 Rhetoric
The term "rhetoric" has served different meanings throughout its
development. Intraditional grammar, rhetoric was defmedasthe study
ofstylethroughgrammatical andlogicalanalysis. IntheancientGreeks,
rhetoric referred to public speaking, not writing. According to Ong
(1983), the word "rhetor" in Greeks means orator, public speaker;
and the phrase"rheto-rike" means primarilypublic speaking. Ofthe
Greekpioneer,Aristotlewasone famous rhetorician(Connor, 1996:64).
ForAristotle, rhetoric existedprimarilyto persuade. Thus,the technical
study ofrhetoric is concerned with the modes ofpersuasionthat go
with three major components inthe communication: the speaker, the
audience, andthecontentofargument. Thetypeofaudiencedetermined
three division oforatory: judicial or political inthe forum, legal or
deliberative inthecourt, andceremonialorpanegyriconstateoccasions.
Inorderto make an argument, three points are required: the means
or sources ofpersuasion, the language, and the arrangement ofthe
various parts oftreatment. The means or sources ofpersuasion are
inventional strategies formakingthree appeals: ethos, pathos, andlogos.

Ethos refers to the personalappeal ofthe sender;pathos showsappeals
to the emotions or values ofthe receiver; and logos is the appeals to
reason. The language of argument refers to the word choice and
appropriate themes ormetaphors.
Finally, thecontentofawell-organizedorproperlyarrangedspeech
has three parts: introduction, argument and counter-argument, and
epilogue. Inthe introductionstage, thearguerstatesthe subjects. Next,
thearguerpresentstheargumentandprevents itfrom possibleoounter
against the argument. In the epilogue the arguer summarizes the
argumentbywhichthe argument has beenproved (Connor, 1996:65).
In the era that follows, rhetoric is defined as the study ofhow
effectivewritingachievesitsgoals. Ittypicallyfocusesonhowtoexpress
oneselfcorrectlyandeffectively inrelation to the topic ofwriting or
speech, the audience, andthe purpose ofcommunication(Richards,
Plat, and Plat, 1992:316). Inaddition, Kaplan (1980:399) positsthat
rhetoric is the use ofsymbols to influence thought and action. It is a
modeofthinkingorfindingallavailablemeans fortheachievementofa
desired end. In short, rhetoric basically deals with what goes in the
mindratherthanwhatcomesoutofthe mouth. Itconcernswithfactors
ofanalysis, datagathering, interpretation, andsynthesis (Wahab, 1986;
1995b; 1995c).
Inthefieldofwriting,Aristotle'striangleofcommunication(sender,
receiver, andcontent)helpsorganizemanytextbooksofwriting. Connor
and Lauren (1988) asserted thatfrom Greektimesto Renaissance, the
education ofcommunication was synonymous with instruction in
persuasion. In the eighteen century, a four-component model of
discoursedominatedrhetoric: description, narration, argumentation,and
exposition. Persuasionwas replaced byargumentation inthe writing
curriculum.
Today, however, studies onwriting discover the notion ofrhetoric
useful. Rhetoric refers notonly as a means ofimproving efficiencyin
verbal presentation,butasananalyticaltool thatcanbeusedbydifferent
disciplines for uncovering certain aspects ofdiscourse (Connor and
Lauren, 1988).
Withthedevelopmentofmodernstudiesinrhetoric,thetermrhetoric
is labeled as "classical rhetoric" to be opposed to "new rhetoric".
16

According to Connor (1996:6) the classical rhetoric is concerned
primarilywiththe logic ofargument and its persuasiveness: makinga
point and winning over an audience througha coherent, convincing
presentation. Inthis regard, the readerorauditor isconsidereda largely
passive participant. Conversely, the new rhetoric focuses on the
achievement ofaparticulareffectonthe audience.
Rhetoric is the art of good writing, that is the standard of a
straightforwardandclearstyleofwriting. To achieve agoodrhetoric, a
writer needsto know not onlythe proper subject and interestinhis or
her writing, but also he or she should know and understand the
acceptable modes ofpackaging what he or she wants to say. The
packaging is the rhetoric. Packaging is powerful. Theright wrapping
can usuallycompensate for poorcontent, buteven solidcontentcanbe
weakened by a dated or inappropriate style.
Accordingto Winklerand McCuen(1974:8-9) essentiallyrhetoric
is a wayofimposing orderand elegance onraw ideas inorderto make
the 'Writing attractive. For this purpose, one needs to know and
understands the acceptable modes ofpackagingwhat she orhe has to
ｳ｡ｹｾ＠ Rhetoric deals withform and content. Content is what to say;
form is how the writer says it. In other words,form refers to the
shape, size, and color ofthe package; content is what is inside the
package.
In reference to writing, Oshima and Hogue (1991 :30) assert that
the basic term ofrhetoric is logicthatcomes from culture and it is not
universaL Therefore,rhetoricisnotuniversaleitherbutvaries:fromculture
to culture. The rhetorical system ofone language is neither betternor
worse thanthe rhetorical system ofanotherlanguage, butitisdifferent.
Accordingto Oshimaand Hogue (1991)Englishrhetoriciscolored
with linear pattern. Agood English paragraph begins with a general
statement ofits contentandthe statement isdeveloped withaseries of
specific illustrations. Agood English paragraph may use the reverse
sequence, stating a whole series ofexamples and summarizing those
examples in asingle statementatthe endofthe paragraph. Theflow of
ideas occurs in a straight line from the opening sentence to the last
sentence. Furthermore, a well-structuredEnglish paragraph is never
digressive. Every sentenceinthe paragraphsupportsthetopicsentence.
17

2.2 Contrastive Rhetoric
Wifutheexpandeddefinitionsofrlletoricalstudiesinwriting,rhetoric
is becominganintegral partofcontrastivewritingresearch. Contrastive
rhetoric is anareaofresearchinI2 acquisitionthatidentifiesproblems
in composition encountered by the L2 learners by referring to the
rhetorical strategiesofthe Ll (Connor, 1996:5).
During three decades, contrastive rhetoric has been focused to
variousmodesofwriting. Inthe 1960s, 1970s,andeady198Ps,studies
ofcontrastive rhetoric focused on expository essay writing byESL
students. Inthe 1980s,however, contrastiverhetoricanalyzedstudent
essays onnarrationand argwnent. Morerecently, contrastiverhetoric
has expanded to examinestudentwritinginacademic andworkplace
situations for specifictasks, suchas the vvritingofresearchreports and
abstracts, articles, grant proposals, and business letters (Connor,
1996:126).
Initiated byAmericanappliedlinguistRobert Kaplan, contrastive
rhetoric maintainsthatlanguage and writingare cultural phenomena.
Consequently, eachlanguage has rhetorical conventions uniqueto it.
The linguisticandrhetoricalconventionsofthe Ll interferewithwriting
in the L2. As so, contrastive rhetoric was the first serious attempt in
Americato explainthe L2 writing (Connor, 1996).
Kaplan's first model ofcontrastive rhetoric providesa model of
writingforatheocyofl2teaching. The model is useful inevaluatingL2
written products. Kaplan's pioneering study (1966) analyzed the
organization ofparagraphin ESL student essays. Kaplan identified
five types ofparagraphdevelopment for five groups, showingthat L1
rhetorical structureswereevidentinthe L2 writing.
Kaplan's work suggestedthatAnglo-European expositoryessays
follow a lineardevelopment. Incontrast, paragraph development in
Semitic languages is based ona series ofparallel coordinate clauses.
Essays writteninOriental languages use anindirectapproachand come
to the pointonly atthe end. InRomance languages and Russian, essays
are permitted adegree ofdigressiveness and extraneous material that
would seem excessiveto a writerofEnglish.
Culture-specificpatternsoforganizationwereconsiderednegative
influences in ESLwriting. Therefore, Kaplanrecommends that ESL
18

studentslearningtowriteessaysinanAnglo-Americanstylestudymodel
compositionsconstructedwiththestraightlineofdevelopmentthought
typical ofthat style. Avariety ofexercises in which students were
asked to reorganize sentences inparagraphswere also recommended.
In the recent ･ｲｾ＠ Kaplan's study is criticizedfor several reasons.
Matalene (1985) asserts that Kaplan's study is too ethnocentric and
privileges for the writing ofnative English speakers. The study also
ignores educational and developmental process variables as it is
examining onlyL2 products (MohanandAu-Yeung Lo, 1985). Itis
dismissinglinguisticandcultural differences inwritingamong related
languages, i.e. including Chinese, Thai, and Korean, andIndonesian
speakers in one "Oriental" Group (Hinds, 1983). And, the study
considers that transfer from Ll is anegative influence onL2 writing
(Raimes, 1991).
As the critics to Kaplan's study appeared, development on
contrastiverhetoric studies increased. Thecontrastiverhetoricresearch
changedsignificantlyinthe 1990's. As thetraditionalrhetoricframework
is no longer able to account for all ､｡ｴｾ＠ an expanded framework is
needed. Forthispurpose, cognitiveandsocioculturalvariablesofwriting
havesubstitutedthe linguisticframeworkinterestedinstructuralanalyses
ofproducts,consideringdiscourse level features andprocessesofwriting
for analysis. Contrastive rhetoric has moved from examining only
products to studying processes in a variety ofwriting situations. In
addition, discourse analysisandtextlinguistics allowsfor analysesthat
consider whole texts as dynamic entities (Enkvist 1987; Brown and
Yule 1983; Connor, 1978).
2.3 Toulmin's Model ofReasoning
The characteristics ofnew rhetoric have strong similarities with a
model developed by StepenToulmin(Connor, 1996; Hairston, 1981).
Toulmin's model was used in a cross-cultural studyofwriting, which
comparedargumentativewritinginstudents' essaysfromthreeEnglish-
speakingcountriesandinastudyofinternationalstudents' essaywriting.
Toulmin's model (1958) ofargumentation is particularly relevant in
today's writing research, whichemphasizesthe diversityofpurposes
and tasks. Toulmin et al. (1979) describe analyses ofarguments inthe
19

special fields of law, science, the arts, and business management,
showing how warrants - shared values or premises - determine the
developmentofanargument.
Further,Toulmin'stheoryofargumentationhasbeenfound successful
inratingargumentativeandexpositorywritings(Wahab, 1995b, 1995c).
It works especially well for writing in which one is investigating
possibilitiesorcitingevidence anddrawingconclusionfrom it.
Accordingto Toulmin, mostpeople do not try to use formal logic
when theyargue; instead, likejudgesorlawyers, they lookfor ways to
justifyclaims thatthey wantto make. Their methodisto fmd data to
support their claims and warrants to explainthem (Hairston, 1981).
Inprinciples, Toulmin'smodel consists ofaclaim(anassertion, athesis
statement), data (facts appealed to seek as foundation for the claim),
and warrant (the reasoning used to link the data to the claim). Despite
the wide use for several studies in cross-cultural rhetoric, Toulmin's
model has also beenused in IndonesiabyWahab (1995c): Indonesian
writing and Harjanto (1999): English academic writingfeatures by
Indonesian learners.
The completeversionofToulmin'smodel consists ofsixparts,they
are: data, claim, warrant, backing, qualifierdata, and reservation. The
six features of the model, however, do not have to appear in any
particular sequence(Harirston, 1981; Connor, 1996). The summary
ofeachpartofToulmin's model is described below.
Connor (1996:67) asserts that the first step ofToulmin's argument
isto expressanopinioninthe form ofanassertion, preference, view, or
judgement. The statement is calledthe "claim". The second feature is
the datato supportthe claim and to counter any possible challenge to
the claim. To show the accuracy and appropriateness of the data,
arguershouldprovide further claim showingthe relationship between
data and claim, using the justification or "warrant". According to
Toulmin, data, claim, and warrant are obligatoryinevery argument.
Toulmin's model servesdata asthe grounds forthe mainclaim. The
datacanbe in the form ofexperience, facts, statistics,oroccurrences,
designed to supportthe claimandto counteranypossible challengeto
the claim. Datarefer to evidence contending facts orconditions that
are objectivelyobservable. The evidenceapproves beliefs orpremises
20

that are accepted as true by the audience or conclusions that are
previouslystated. Inwriting, datameans"details"and"development".
The claim is the conclusion to an argument. This isthe statement
that is advancedfor the approval ofothers. Theclaimmaybestatedor
implied (Hairston, 1981 :64). In writing, the claim takes place inthe
form ofa thesis statement oran assertion.
Warrants are a statement or general principle that establishes the
validityoftheclaimonthe basisofitsrelationshiptothedata(Hairston,
1981:65). Warrants serve as abridge ofthe datato the claim. Warrants
are "rules, principles, inference-licenses oradditional information".
Warrants are typically general, hypothetical statementsthatauthorize
the relationship betweenthe dataand the claim (Connor, 1996:67).
Backingmeansthegeneralizationtomakethewayofarguingexplicit
in any particular case (Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik, 1979:57). The
backingserves further facts orreasoning utilizedtosupportorlegitimate
the principle contained in the warrant. Backing provides accepted
principles orfacts that arise inthe field when the argumenttakes place
(Warnick and Inch, 1994:181).
.Sometimes, however, the arguments a writer wants to make are
morecomplex, andoneormore statementsneedsto bequalified. When
thathappens, the writercanaddaqualificationtoanysection(Hairston,
1981:66). InToulmin's logic, qualifier refers to strengthorweakness,
conditions and or limitations with which a claim is advanced. It is a
qualifieradverboradverbial phrasethatmodifiestheclaimandindicates
the rational strengththe arguerattributes to it. Qualifiers oftentake the
form ofmodalqualifiers, suchas, "certainly, verylikely,maybe, strongly,
probably,certainly, possibly''. Thereservationstatesthecircumstances
orconditions, whichdetermine the argument. Itis the exceptionto the
rule expressed inthe warrant.
Ingeneral,Toulminand hisfollowers usefive primarytermsintheir
analysis ofarguments (Hairston, 1981:65). Theyare:
CLAIM
DATA
The conclusionto an argument. The statementthat
is advanced for the approval ofothers. It may be
stated orimplied.
The dataorevidence available to support aclaim.
21

WARRANT
SUPPORT
QUALIFIER
Astatementofgeneralprinciplesthatestablishes
the validityofthe claimonthebasis ofits
relationship to thedata.
Any material provided ... to makethe dataor
warrant more credibleto the audience.
Aqualificationplaced ... onsomeclaims
(frequentlyintheform ofsuchwords aspossibly,
probably, or most likely).
Inthebasic form, argumentsconstructedontheToulminmodeluse
onlythefirstthreeterms. FollowingHairston (1981:65)the patternof
argument ofToulminmodel is statedinFigure2.1.
DATA ＭＭＭＭＭＭｾＭＭＭＭＭＮｾ＠ CLAJM
WARRANT
Figure 2.1. BasicPatternofToulmin'sArgument.
Organizingargumentsinthiswayhasfour advantages. First,readers
who preferrational argumentsareaptto respondpositivelytothe datal
warrant/claim pattern because they recognize the resemblance to
courtroom procedures. Second, writers can employ the Toulmin
approach flexibly, making decisions about how to develop it onthe
basis ofthe audience,the purpose, and the writing situation. Third, it
allows thewritersto arrange thepartsofanargumentindifferentways.
Fourth, ithelps the writers generate material they can use to develop
their ideas (Hairston, 1981).
2.4 EnglishAcademic Writing
ThedominanceofEnglishinthe internationallanguageofscientific
research and technology has been widely recognized. With around
450.000 words, English is the greatest language in the world.
Apparently, Englishgrammar servesphrases and sentences efficiently
with highdegree ofaccuracy (Huda, 1999a, 1999b).
22

BritishCouncil (2000) reports that Englishhas official orspecial
status in atleast 75 countries witha total populationofover2billion.
English is spoken as an Ll by around 377 million and as an L2 by
around 375 million speakers inthe world.Around750millionpeople
are believedto speakEnglishas a foreign language. One outoffour of
the world's population speaks Englishto some level ofcompetence.
In addition, English is the main language ofbooks, newspapers,
airports andair traffic control, international business and academic
conferences, science, technology, diplomacy, sport, international
competitions,popmusicandadvertising. Overtwo-thirdsoftheworld's
scientistsreadinEnglish. Three quarters ofthe world'smailiswritten
inEnglish. Eightypercentoftheworld'selectronicallystoredinformation
is in English. Ofthe estimated 40 million users ofthe Internet, some
80% communicate inEnglish, butthis is expectedto decrease to 40%
as speakers ofother languages get online. It is common to refer to
English as the 'languageofadministration' for one-thirdofthe world's
population(Crystal, 1997; BritishCouncil, 2000).
Accordingly,thedominance ofEnglishhasaffectedthedominance
ofacademic writinginEnglish. Therefore, academicwritinginEnglish
is oftenregardedas the rhetoricofscientificwriting.
Inthe academic purpose, writing skill is anobligationthatstudents
must meet in college. Through writing students should assimilate a
specific body ofknowledge and demonstrate thefamiliarity with the
knowledge in a written form. Performing a scholarly writing, e.g.
abbreviatedessay, termpaper, reportonresearchis repeatedlyrequired
bythe college students (Hoggins andLillard, 1972:5). Thepurpose of
academic writingis usuallyto explainorto persuade. Thepurpose ofa
piece ofwritingwill determine its rhetorical form (Oshimaand Hogue,
1991:15).
Smith (1995) argues that to make writing good reading, a writer
must pay attentionto rhetoric-averbal means ofseeking agreement
with readers. Therefore, the writing should be carefully planned,
thoughtfullyfinished, revised, andedited. Toachievethisgoal,awriting
shouldhave goodrhetorical features and linguistics features. Inwriting,
rhetoric isimplemented interms ofanalysis, description, classification,
exemplification, definition, comparison, contrast, analogy, narration,
23

process, ｾ｡ｮ､＠ effect, induction and deduction. The linguistic
feaqn-es concernwiththe wordchoice, thematization, hedging, and
sentencecomplexity(Harjanto, 1999).
Writingforanacademicpurposeparticularlywillconcern'Withthree
fonnal characteristics: audience,tone, andpurpose. The writerofan
academicwritingshouldconsidertheaudience,thatis,thepeoplewho
willreadthearticle. Knowingtheaudience willhelpthewriterreach
ｉｊｩｳｧｯ｡ｬｾｾｾ｡ｊＱＴｾｔｑｊｙＺＬｯｦｾｾ＠
the writer's attitude toward the subjectby the choice ofwords, the
choiceofpmmaticalｳｴｭ｣ｾ＠ andthelengthofthe sentences. In
addition,thepurposeofapieceofwritingwilldeterminetherltetoriad
form-theorganizationalform and style- chosenfor it. No matter
whatkindofwritingis,specificandclearpurposeshouldappear(Oshima
and Hogue, 1991:2-3).
Thematters ofwritingto betaughthave turned to bethe focus of
interest. The cutTentapproachtotheteaching ofwriting focuses on
whatgoes onwhena learnerwrites and whattheteachercould do to
helpalearnergetintothenaturalprocessofwriting. OshimaandHogue
(1991) arguethatprocessofwritingconsistsofa seriesofdrafts. The
writingprocess consistsoffourmainstrategies: prewriting, planning,
writingandrevisingdrafts,andwritingforafinal copy.
When writingawriterdoes notbeginworkingbythinkingofall
ideastheywantto putdown, thenorganizethem, thenwritethemout,
then reread, andfinally editthe text. Planning, drafting,and revising
usuallyalltakeplacethroughouttheprocessofwriting(Caudery, 1995).
Skilledwritersposethemselvesquestionsaboutaudienceandpurpose,
whileunskilledwriterstendtosimplyrespondto thetopic. Moreover,
experiencedwriterstendto use draft, make substantial changes, and
muchmoreconcernedtotakeaccmmtoftheresponsesofahypothetical
reader. Conversely, inexperienced writers are much more concerned
withdetail, e.g. to changethe word choice orto correctonlysurface
errorsofgrammarandpunctuation(FlowerandHayes, 1986;Sommers,
1980).
24

2.5 Part ofa Good Academic Writing
This section deals with parts ofgood academic vnting as used in
the standard college writing. Two kinds ofdiscussion are presented
supportingthe theories. The first partconcernscithcharacteristicsof
agood paragraph, illustratingastandardtheoryofcriting. Basedupon
the theory ofparagraph, discussion on an essaydevelopment and its
characteristics isemployed. The secondpartdealswithcollegeacademic
criting. It goes with strategies to developing preliminary draftto the
final copyofan essay.
2.5.1 Paragraph
Paragraph theories used in this study refers to definitions of
paragraphproposedbySmalleyandReutten(1982), Oshimaand Hogue
(1991), Wingersky, Boerner, and Holguin-Balogh (1992). Parts of
paragraph elements that indicate characteristics ofa good paragraph
are based upon the theories.
--Aparagraph is defined as a group ofsentences that develops one
main idea (Oshimaand Hogue, 1991). Aparagraphdevelops atopic,
thatis, the basic subject ofthe paragraph. Incrittenform, aparagraph
distinguishes one mainideafrom othermain ideas.Agood paragraph
contains several related sentences that supportone mainidea, whichis
limited to and focused in one sentence. This sentence helps guide
readers through the related sentences in the paragraph. The vital
sentenceservesasacommitmentforthecriterto provideanexplanation
orillustrationofthis mainidea(Smalleyand Reutten, 1982; Wmgersky,
Boerner, and Holguin-Balogh, 1992).
A paragraphmay vary in length. Mostparagraphs havemore than
three sentences and usually have between 100 and 200 words. The
first sentence ofa paragraph isalways indented so thatthe reader will
know that a new subject is being dealt with (Amaudet and Barrett,
1981:2).
In addition to parts of a paragraph, Oshima and Hogue (1991)
state thataparagraphhas three major structural parts: atopic sentence,
supporting sentences, and a concluding sentence. Atopic sentence
states the main idea ofthe paragraph. It briefly indicates what the
paragraph is goingto discuss. The topic sentence states atopic ofthe
25

paragraphandlimitsthe topictooneortwo areasthatcanbediscussed
completelyinthespaceofasingleparagraph. The specificareaiscalled
thecontrolling idea. To sayinotherwords, thetopicsentencefunctions
to introduce the topic and the controlling idea of the paragraph.
Generally, because the topic sentence introduces, it is a good ideato
place itatornearthebeginningoftheparagraph. However,depending
onthekindofparagraphitis in, the topic sentencemaybeplacednear
the middleorevenatthe endofthe paragraph(SmalleyandReutten,.
1982).
Supportingsentencesdevelop the topic sentence. Theyexplainthe
topic sentence by giving reasons, examples, facts, statistics, details,
andquotations. The supportingsentencesarearrangedinalogical and
cohesive manner. The concluding sentence signals the end ofthe
paragraph and leaves the reader with important points to remember
(ArnaudetandBarret, 1982; OshimaandHogue, 1991).
In addition to the three structural parts ofa paragraph, a good
paragraphalso hasthe elementsofunity andcoherence (Smalleyand
Ruetten, 1982; Oshima and Hogue, 1991). Unity means that a
paragraphdiscusses onlyone idea. Themainideais statedinthe topic
sentence, and theneach and every supporting sentence develops that
idea Each sentence in a paragraph should relate to the topic and
developthecontrolling idea(Oshimaand Hogue, 1991). Ifa sentence
does not relate to ordevelop that idea, it is irrelevant and should be
omitted. Aparagraphthathassentencesthatdo not relate to ordiscuss
the controlling idealacksunity (Smalleyand Reutten, 1982).
Anotherelementthataparagraphneedsiscoherence(Smalleyand
Reutten,1982; Oshima and Hogue, 1991). A coherent paragraph
containssentencesthatarelogicallyarrangedandflowsmoothly. Logical
arrangement refers to theorder ofsentences and ideas. Smooth flow
refers to how well one ideaor sentence leads into another. Smooth
flow canbeachieved throughsentencecombiningandthroughthe use
ofcertainexpressions,calledtransitions, thatprovidethelinks between
ideas. In other words, a coherence paragraph is easy to read and
understand because the supporting sentences inthe paragraph are in
some kind oflogical orderand the ideas are connected bythe use of
appropriate transitionsignals.
26

In order to have coherence in writing, the movement from one
sentenceto the next niustbe logical andsmooth. Thereare four ways
to achievecoherence. The first two waysinvolverepeating keynouns
and using pronouns, whichreferbackto key nouns. The third wayis
to use transition signals to show how one idea is related to the next.
The fourth way is to arrange sentences in logical order (Oshima and
Hogue, 1991:39).
2.5.2 CollegeAcademic Writing
Inanygiven age, there is always an implied standardwriting that
exertsmoreinfluenceonhowtowrite. Asforgeneralreference, Hairston
(1981:201-202)suggests thattopics andtheses ofcollege writing vary
on the basis oflength ofpaper from 3to 30 pages, typed in a double-
space quarto paper. A very short paper has 3 to 5 pages. If read
aloud, itwouldtake no more than 10 minutes. Afairly shortpaperhas
8 to 10 pages or contains around 2,000 to 2,500 words or about as
long as a20 to 25 minute talk. Amoderate lengthpapercomprising 18
to 20 pages allows the writerto treat a limitedtopic insome depth and
complexity. Fewpapers consist of30 plus papers to discuss research
topic.
No matterthe writing is produced, it shouldfill the characteristics
ofa good standard writing (Winklerand McCuen, 1974). Incollege
writing the standard short essay is between 350 and 500 words long.
This usuallymeansthattheessaywillhaveoneparagraphofintroduction,
a three-paragraph body, and one paragraph ofconclusion (Kirszner
and Mandell, 1978:3).
The essay is a more formal composition. The paragraphs in an
essayeachhaveadesignatedfunction asintroduction,thedevelopmental
paragraphs, and the conclusion. How many paragraphs an essay
contains depends entirelyonthe complexity ofthetopic; some essays
have onlytwo to three paragraphs, while others have twentyorthirty.
Formostpurposes, the essays written inclass for most college English
courses contain from four to six paragraphs, with the most common
number being five: one introductoryparagraph, three developmental
paragraphs, and one concluding paragraph (Smalley and Ruetten,
1982:139).
27

Theintroductionisthefirst sectionofanessay. Theintroductionis
usuallyoneparagraphthatintroducesthetopicto bediscussedandthe
central idea (thethesis statement) ofthe essay (Smalley and Rutten,
1982). The purpose ofthe introduction is to arouse interest and
introducethecontrollingideaofanessay. Besidesstimulatingthereader's
interest, the introductionhas a structural purpose: it should state the
essay'smainideaandthesis statement. This thesis statementis called
thecontmlliDgideathatbringsanessayinto ｦｯ･ｾ＠ givingitdirection
and drawing its ideastogether (Kirsznerand Mandell, 1978:5). The
shapeofthe introductoryparagraphis described inFigure2.2.
General introductory remarks ----------------------------
------------------------------------------------------- controlling idea.
Figure 2.2. Introductory Paragraph Style
(KirsznerandMandell, 1978:5).
Thebodyparagraphsarethelongestsingle sectionofanessay. In a
short essay, there are usually three body paragraphs, each one
consideringindetail oneaspectofthe essay'scontrollingidea. This is
called athree-pointessay. Oncea topic sentence presents the pointto
be discussedinthe bodyparagraph,the writerneeds details and facts
to supportit(KirsznerandMandell, 1978:6). Theseparagraphsdevelop
various aspects ofthe topic and the central idea. They may discuss
causes, effects,reasons, examples,process, classification,orpoints of
comparisonandcontrast. Theymayalso describe ornarrate (Smalley
and Ruetten, 1982:139). Figure 2.3 resembles each ofthe body
paragraphs.
28

Topic sentence ----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------- supporting details
(examples, reasons, or arguments).
Figure 2.3. The Body Paragraph Style
(KirsznerandMandell, 1978:6)
The concluding paragraph is the end ofan essay. This paragraph
concludes the thought developed in the essay as the closing word.
Therefore, the ideas inthe conclusionmust be consistentwiththe rest
ofthe essay. Inthe conclusion, the writer shoulddrawtogetherall that
has come before by restatingthe controlling idea ofthe essay. This
statement isusuallymosteffectivewhenitislocatedatthe beginningof
the conclusion (Kirsznerand Mandell, 1978:7). Ingeneral, the shape
oftheconcluding paragraph should looklike Figure 2.4.
Restatement ofcontrolling idea ----------------------------
------------------------------------------- general concluding remarks
----------------------------------------------------- final statement.
Figure 2.4. Concluding Paragraph Style
(Kirsznerand Mandell, 1978:7)
2.5.3 Writing Process
Producing a piece ofwriting means conveying a written message
for aparticularpurposeto aparticularaudience. Therefore, beforethe
taskofwritingbegins,the writershouldrealize thatsheorhe isworking
in a specific situation. She or he has a topic to write about, persons
willingto readorlisten, andreasonfor writing. Thewriteris involvedin
acommunication square with its sides labeled as audience, purpose,
persona, and message. Specifically, the communication square is
expressed into such questions: "Who is my audience? What is my
purpose? What is mypersonaorrole as a writer? Whatis mymessage
orthesis?" (Hairston, 1981:44; Hartfiel etal., 1985:18).
29

Theaudience refersto the prospectivereadersorwhoaresupposed.
to read the essay. The purpose deals withthe reasonto write suchas•
to inform, to tell a story, to describe an object/aperson or a process,
and to persuade orto argue. The personameaning thecharacterbeing
acteddealswithhoweffectivewriteradaptsherorhistoneandapproach
to theaudience being addressed. The message orthe subjectrefers to
whatisconveyedto thereader, whattopicisto bepresented(Hairston,
198l:44;Hartfieletal, 1985:18).
The communication square as a focusing and discovery device
duringtheprewritingprocess looks likeFigure2.5.
PURPOSE.
AUDIENCE PERSONA
MESSAGE
Figure 2.5. CommunicationSquareModel inWriting
(Hairston, 1981:44).
Writingisaprocessthroughwhichthewriterdiscovers,organizes,
and writes her or his thoughts to communicate with a reader. The
writing process gives the writer a chance to compose, draft, rethink,
and redraft to control the outcome ofherorhis writing (Wingersk:y,
Boerner,and Holguin-Balogh, 1992:3).
Thegeneralstepsinthewritingprocessincludeprewriti.ng,organizing
ideas,drafting, revising,andmakingafinal draft. Eachstephasdifferent
activitiesthatwill helpawritergetthe ideasfrom his mindto thepaper
in an organized fashion. Prewriting is a way of generating ideas,
narrowing atopic, or finding a direction. Organizing involves sorting
ideas in logical mannerto prepare to write a draft. Draftingis the part
ofwritingprocess inwhichthe writercomposes sentences inparagraph
form toproducethe firstcopyofanessay. Revisinginvolvessmoothing
outawriting, adding more detail,and makingotherchangesthathelps
achieve bestwayto write. Editing is checking mechanical problems
30

andcorrectingthe problems. Making afinal draft anddecidingitready
fottheintendedaullienceinvolvesasincerelookatthepaperanddecide
iftheessayisinits bestfonn (Wmgernky,Boerner,andHolguin-Balogh,
1992:3).
2.5.3.1 Prewriting
Prewriting is the first majorstep inthe writingprocess. Prewriting
canbeaccomplished in several ways as Figure 2.6 shows.
One simple way to relieve andstartthe writing process is to talk
about the subject with fellow instructors, family members, and
knowledgeable people who canprovidethe inspirationto write. Like
otherprewritingstrategies, free-writing is writing anythingthatcomes
to mindaboutatopicofwriting. Itiswritingwithoutstoppingto correct
spellingorothermechanical errors. Ifawritercan'tthinkofanythingto
write,juststartwith anythingonherorhis mind atthatmoment, evenif
it isjustrepeating the assignment.
Freewriting
Talking
Prewriting Brainstorming
Journal Writing
Reading
Figure 2.6. Schemaofa Prewriting Process
(Wingersky, Boerner, and Holguin-Balogh, 1992:3)
Brainstormingiswritingwordsorphrasesthatoccurspontaneously.
Brainstonningis particularlyvaluableto the writerbecause it offers a
technique for getting suggestions and leads for a subject (Tibet and
Tibet, 1991:5). Journal writingis recording infonnationinanotebook
ofthe writer's daily innerthoughts, inspirations, andemotionsthatare
31

usuallyconsistentlyrecorded. Journal writing canprovidethe writer
opportunityto connectwithimportant insidethoughts, analyzethelife
environment,relievewritinganxiety, andpracticespontaneouswriting.
Readinginmagazinesornewspapercanalsohelp thewritergetstarted.
A summary ofways to getstartedwriting is giveninFigure 2.7.
Summary ofWays to Get Started Writing
Talking
Freewriting
: informal conversation about a subject or topic
: writing (in sentences) anything that comes to
mind without stopping
Brainstorming : listing words or phrases as they come to mind
Journal writing : recording the writer's own thoughts in a
notebook
Reading : browsing through materials that might be used
for writing
Figure 2.7. SummaryofWays to Get Started Writing
(Wmgersky, Boerner,andHolguin-Balogh, 1992:12)
2.5.3.2 Organizing
Organizing is the second major step in the writing process.After
the writerhas completedone ormore ofthe prewritingactivities,she
orhegoestoorganizingherorhisideasintoaroughoutlinethatincludes
a main idea and supporting ideas. The writer focuses on details to
supportthemainideaandinwhatordertheseideasneedto bepresented
(Wmgersky, Boerner,andHolguin-Balogh, 1992).To do this, the writer
goes with groupingandoutlining. Groupinginvolves puttingsimilar
ideas into groups; andoutlining involves identifYing a wordorphrase
that represents agroup ofrelated ideas and then arranging the words
orphrases inorderofdiscussion.
2.5.3.3Outlining
Outlining involves identifyinga wordorphrase thatrepresents a
group ofrelated ideas and then arranging these words orphrases in
orderofdiscussion. OshimaandHogue (1991:33)assertthatanoutline
is likeanarchitect's plan for ahouse.
32

Anoutliningimprovesthe"Writingforthreereasons. First,anoutlining
helpsorganizethe writer's ideas, specificallysheorhe will ensure not
to include any irrelevantideas, not leave outany importantpointsand
thatthesupportingsentenceswillbeinlogicalorder. Second,anoutlining
helps write more quickly. Preparing an outline is 75 per cent ofthe
work. The actual writing becomes easierbecausethe writerdoes not
have to worry about what she orhe is going to say; she orhe already
has awell-organizedplanto follow. Finally,the writercanconcentrate
onthe planso that herorhis grammar improves.
2.5.3.4 Drafting
Afterorganizingideasintheformofanoutline,the"Writerispreparing
to writeafirst draft. Draftinginvolvestakingthe informationthe writer
has generated andorganized inanessay. The writerconsciously starts
with the main ideas and adds supporting ideas that flow smoothly
(Wingersky, Boerner, and Holguin-Balogh, 1992). As writing is a
continuous process ofdiscovery, new ideas that may not present on
the brainstorming list oroutline will appear. The writercan add new
ideasordelete original ones atany time inthe writingprocess (Oshima
and Hogue, 1991:12).
2.5.3.5Revising
Revisingmeansmakingchangesto clarifywordingandorganization.
The revision should be done severaltimes, until the writeris satisfied
that it is the best she orhe can do. To achieve a satisfied final copyof
an essay, revision may be done more thanonce. In addition, Oshima
and Hogue (1991) assert that when revising, the writerchanges what
he or she has written inorder to improve it. She or he checks it over
for contentandorganization, includingunity, coherence, and logic. She
or he can change, rearrange, add, or delete, all for the goal of
communicatingherorhis thoughts more clearly, more effectively, and
more interestingly. Duringthe firstrevision, thewritershouldnottry to
correctgrammar, sentence structure, spelling, orpunctuation; sheorhe
mainlyconcernswithcontentandorganization. The proofreadingthat
is aimedatchecking for the grammar, sentence structure, spelling, and
punctuation is done inthe secondrevision.
33

2.5.3.6 Editing
Beforeconsideringthepaper ｦｩｮｩｳｨｾ＠ the writershouldcheckfor
anyproblems inmechanics. Commonly, editingfocuses on spelling,
punctuation,capitalization,grammarusage, errorsinsentencestructure,
consistency inverb tense, consistentpointofview, andabbreviations
and numbers. It isastepwhere awriteris readyto writethe final copy
ofapaper.Thestepsofthe writingprocessappearinFigure2.8 below.
PreWriting
Organizing
Drafting
Revising
Editing
Steps in the Writing Process
gathering ideas
grouping and ordering details
writing the first copy ofa paragraph or essay
changing words and organization
making mechanical changes
Figure 2.8. Steps inWriting Process
(Wmgersky, Boerner,and Holguin-Balogh, 1992:12)
2.6 Coherence and Cohesion ofa Discourse
Similarto the paragraph level, coherence in anessay level is also
prominent. Coherencemeans holdingtogether; the movementfrom one
sentencetothe nextorfrom oneparagraphto the nextmust belogical
andsmooth. Coherenceisevaluatedbasedonthesemanticrelationships.
Therefore, coherence provides sequence ofwords and sentences ina
paragraphand among paragraphs in the whole essay, showing clear
relationshipsanddevelopmentofideaswithinandbetweenunitsinthe
essay. Sentences ina paragraphand inthe whole essaymust be held
together bymore thansequence onthe page.
To achieve acoherentdiscourse, awritermustformulate hisideas
using appropriate words and syntactic structures in good order into
sentences and sentences into paragraphs so that they relate reasoned
andlogicalthoughtwithinandbetweenunits inthe essay. Similarto the
wayscoherenceisachieved inaparagraph, inanessay level, coherence
is achieved using four techniques: transitional words and phrases,
pronounreference, repeated key terms, andparallelism(Wmkler,AC
andMcCuenJR, 1974;0shirnaandHogue, 1991).
34

Applicationofcoherence in a discourse asserts two competing
tfreories(Connor, ｾＩｾｃｯｩｬｳｩ､･ｲｩｮｧ＠ Connor(1996) andOshima
and Hogue (1991), this studyusestwo definitionsofcoherence. The
first definitionadmitsthatcoherencereferstothe interactionbetween
the reader withthe text. The seconddefinitionfocuses coherenceon
the text itself, describing how semantic relationships ofsentences
betweenunits serve logical sequences.
Onepromisingattemptto describe coｨ･ｾ＠ inatextis topical
structureanalysis, focusingonsemanticrelationshipsthatexistbetween
ｾ｣･ｗｊ＾ｾ｡ｮＴｴＴ･ｯｶ･ｴ｡ｬｬ､ｩｳ｣ｯｵｲｳ･ｴｯｰｩ｣ｾ＠ Topicalstructureanalysis
examines how topics repeat, shift, and return to earlier topics in
discourse. Coherence intexts canbe identifiedusingthree kinds of
progression: parallelprogression, sequentialprogression,andextended
parallel progression. Intheparallel progression,topics ofsuccessive
sentencesarethesame. Topicsofsuccessivesentencesinthesequential
progression are always different, as the comment ofone sentence
becomes the topic ofthe next. In addition, in the extended parallel
progression, the first andthe lasttopics ofatextare the samebutare
interruptedwithsomesequential progression(Connor, 1996:85).
Besidescoherence, evaluationonthe unityof｡ｴ･ｾ＠ isalso based
oncohesion. Connor(1996:83)defines cohesionasthe useofexplicit
linguistic devicesto signal relations betweensentencesand,parts of
texts. Cohesivedevices arewords orphrasesthatactassignalstothe
readermaking connectionswithwhathadalreadybeenstatedorsoon
will be stated. Cohesion is determined by lexical and grammatical
relationship. Fivegeneral categoriesapplicable for cohesionanalysis
arereferential,ellipsis,substitution,lexical,andconjunctive. Following
Connor(1996:84), this studypresentsfive categoriesofcohesionin
35

,, ｲｾＺｾｾ［Ｚ［＠ＧＢＷＡｾＱｬ､ｬｩｩＧｾＮＮＬｲ｡ｩＧＮ･｡ｴ･ｧｯｲｩ･ｳ＠ ofCohesion
［ＧＧｒｾｦ･ｲ･ｮ｣･Ｎ＠ "John makes good meals. Last night he cooked
spaghetti."
2. Substitution. "I want an ice cream. Do you want one?"
3. Ellipsis. "Which hat will you wear? This (heat) is the best."
4. Lexical cohesion. "There's a boy climbing that tree."
a. ｔｨ･ｾｹＧｳ｡ｯｩｦｬｳｴｯ＠ fall ifhe doesn't take care.
b. 'IBdBW;s ' ·. · to faD ....
...,...,..,......,..........
c. The idiot's going to fall ....
5. Conjunction. "For the whole day he climbed up the steep
mountainside, almost without stopping. And in all this time he
met no one."
Figure2.9. TypesofCohesion(Connor, 1996:84).
Most studies oncoherence and cohesionnotethatcohesive texts
are notnecessarilyalso coherenttexts. Conversely, a coherenttextis
alsocohesive,butitdoesnotmean1hatcoherenceiscreatedbycohesion.
Connor(1996)reportstwostudiesevaluatingtherelationshipbetween
coherence and cohesion. Witteeand Faigley(1981) discovered that
relationship between cohesionandcoherence is presentinWritingof
cotlegesmdems.tmwever;·11er:teyandMosenthal (1983) fotmdno
relationshipbetweencohesionandcoherenceinAmericantwelfth-grade
students'essays. The following exampleofatext(Witteand Faigley,
1981:201) shows acohesivetext that is notcoherent.
"Thequarterbackthrewthe balltowardthetight end.
Balls are used inmany sports. Most ballsare spheres, but
afootball is anellipsoid. The tight end leapedto catchthe ball.
(Quoted from Connor, 1996:83).
The word"ball" inthe above textprovides the cohesionofthese
lines, butthis cohesivepassage sounds incoherentto the reader. The
first sentence uses the word "ball"to indicate the topic ofthe text. In
the next, the word "ball" appears in every sentence, but it does not
36

supportto eachother. As aresult, the word "ball" is used cohesively,
buteachworddeviatesfromthetopic; theyare not coherent.
2.7 Mode ofAcademicWriting
Traditionally, all writinghasbeendividedinto four majorforms or
modes (Langan, 1986), that have been considered the basicmode in
the academicwriting. Themodesareexposition, description, narration,
andargumentation. Ofthefourmodes,Langan(l986:lll)dividesan
exposition mode into sevenstrategiesto develop, they are examples,
reasons, process, comparison-contrast, definition, division and
classification.
Themodeofacademicwritingisdifferentfromothermodeofwriting
becauseofitspurpose, subjectmatter, and readers. Two most specific
differences presentinitsdiscourse structureandthediscourse strategy.
Thediscourse structureindicatestheknowledgeofhowtouselanguage
in the essay. In addition, the discourse strategy suggests the writing
style, the wayawriter develops his thoughts inwords.
The academic discourse mode is mainly coloredwith exposition
and argumentation. These two modes ofdiscourse are very important
in variety of academic writing tasks. Through exposition and
argumentation modes, the writer can present a position, belief, or
conclusion ina strong, emphatic,andrational way; defends aposition
against critics; persuades people to take certain actions, orattacks a
position or an opposing viewpoint (Latief, 1991:8). This section is
basically devotedto describing argumentative andexpository essays
as the mainmode ofthe academic writing.
2.7.1 Argumentative Essay
An argumentative essay is one thatattemptsto changethe reader's
mind, to convincethe readerto agree withthe pointofvieworopinion
ofthe writer. The purpose ofargumentative essay is to convince the
reader that the writer's position is the better one. An argumentative
essay attempts to be highlypersuasive andlogical. The argumentative
thesis takes aside ofanissue; frequently, itproposes acourseofaction
(Smalley and Ruetten, 1982:320).
37

Ｇｾ｡ｩｴｾｬｬｩｾｾ･ｮｴ｡ｮｳｷ･ｲｳｴｨ･＠ questionswhy.
·· . ｾｾｯｮ＠ logic. It focuses on an issue and
ｾＱＭｄＮＤｨ･ｳ＠ the controversial nature ofthe topic. More specifically,
argumentationfocuses onthe rational, logicalappeal andemphasizes
instructionindeductiveandinductivereasoning(Connor, 1996:31).
Inanalyzinganmgumentativeessay,HoginsandLillard(1972:186-
187)assertthatanargumentative essaymay be organized into three
sections:anintroductoeysection,amiddlesection,anda final ｳ･｣ｲｴｪＮｾｮＬ［ＬＬ＠
Anｩｮｴｬｾｳ･､ｩｴｭｏｕｴｬｩｮ･ｳｴｨ･＠ generalcontroversy. ItshoWsthat
the topic canbe rationally argued, states the primary issues,judges
theirrelativeimportance,andexplainshowthewriterhasorganizedt:JJ.e
rest oftheessay. A middlesectionpresentsthe primaryissuesoneby
oneinthemostefficientorder,summarizingthebestargwnentoneach
sideimpartially,andofferingdescriptivecommentarywhenneededbut
markingnojudgmentsorevaluation.A :final sectionstatesanddefends
a conclusion on the issues and the writer's position on the larger
controversy.
Inaddition, Smalleyand Ruetten (1982: 323-324) illustrate five
characteristics ofan argumentative essay. The argumentative essay
should introduceandexplainthe issueorcase. Theessayshould offer
reasonsandsupportforthose reasons. Theessayshouldrefuteopposing
arguments. ｬｦ｡ｮｾｾｨ｡ｶ･＠ avalidpoint,concedethatpoint..
Theconclusionshouldfollowtheargument.
There is no one particular pattern of organization for an
argumentative essay. However, there1sa basic workable approach
that is commonlyused. Inthe basicapproach proposed by Smalley
andRuetten(1982:335), four stepsoforganizationofargumentative
essayarementioned: introduction,reasons, refutation,andconclusion.
2.7.2 Expository Essay
Anexpositocyoranalyticalessayisanessaythatexplainsoranalyzes
atopic. Inexposition,thewriterprovidesinformationaboutaparticular
subject, using specific details orexamples to discuss the topic. The
purpose ofanexpositoryessayisto clarifyfacts, opinions, and ideas. '.
Awriterofexpositiontriestoexplainthelogicalrelationshipsbetween :
thingsthatexistorcanbeprovedto have existed(Inmanand Gardner,
38

2008-Contrastive Analysis On RHETORIC AND LINGUISTIC FEATURES Of Academic Essay.Pdf

2008-Contrastive Analysis On RHETORIC AND LINGUISTIC FEATURES Of Academic Essay.Pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 2008-Contrastive Analysis On RHETORIC AND LINGUISTIC FEATURES Of Academic Essay.Pdf

Similar to 2008-Contrastive Analysis On RHETORIC AND LINGUISTIC FEATURES Of Academic Essay.Pdf (20)

More from Valerie Felton

More from Valerie Felton (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2008-Contrastive Analysis On RHETORIC AND LINGUISTIC FEATURES Of Academic Essay.Pdf