Physical and Topical Structures of Manpower Discourse: A Contrastive Rhetoric Analysis in Southeast Asia
Abstract
This paper explores the physical and topical structures of thirty paragraphs culled from websites of Philippine, Indonesian and Malaysian manpower agencies. Drawing on the frameworks of Simpson (2000) and Lautamatti (1987), the study describes potential regional (Southeast Asian) and national preferences of writers on a subgenre of L2 professional writing, called manpower discourse (MD). The physical structure analysis points to slight but statistically insignificant differences between the data sets. Such analysis aids in the description of a possible regional preference in the physical structure of MD in Southeast Asia, which appeals to directness and simplicity. The topical structure analysis (TSA) shows that there is a stronger demand for internal coherence in Philippine MD, compared with Indonesian MD and Malaysian MD. Specifically, the analysis reveals that topical development is more sophisticated in Philippine MD attributed to the use of some form of topical reoccurrence and some kind of topical progressions in all paragraphs, which was not observed in the internal structure of paragraphs from Indonesian and Malaysian MD. Moreover, Philippine MD seems to keep up with one valued characteristic of composition in English: to develop ideas using sequential and extended parallel progressions. Also, topical depth is found to be most elaborate in Philippine MD than in the Indonesian and Malaysian counterparts. The paper closes with a discussion of implications for professional writing, specific to manpower discourse and teaching writing coherence based on socially and culturally relevant inputs.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U., & Farmer, M. (1990). The teaching of topical structure analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 126-139). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Dautermann, J. (1993). Negotiating meaning in a hospital discourse community. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives (pp. 98-111). Carbondale, IL: University of Southern Illinois Press.
Dumanig, F.P. et al. (2012). Topical Structure Analysis of American and Philippine Editorials. Journal for the Advancement of Science & Arts, 1(1), 63-71.
Fartousi, H. and Dumanig, F.P. (2012). A Rhetorical Analysis and Contrastive Rhetoric of Selected Conference Abstracts. World Applied Sciences Journal, 18(4), 514-519.
Kachru, Y. (1999). Culture, context, and writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 75-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R.B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 6, 1-20.
Kleimann, S. (1993). The recicprocal relationship of workplace culture and review. In. R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives (pp. 56-70). Carbondale, IL: University of Southern Illinois Press.
Lackstrom, J., Selinker, L., & Trimble, L. (1973). Technical rhetorical principles and grammatical choice. TESOL Quarterly, 7(2), 127-136.
Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 123-143.
Matsuda, P.K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 45-60.
Mercado, M.C.P. (2009). Contrastive Rhetorical Analysis of School Paper Lead Stories in Philippine English, Spanish English and Indonesian English. University of the East Research Bulletin 11(1).
Morales, R.C. (2012). Conclusions in Research Articles: A Filipino-Japanese Contrastive Rhetoric Study. Philippines ESL Journal, 8, 83-95.
Rojo-Laurilla, M.A. (2002).The 'presentation of self' and 'self-disclosure': A contrastive rhetorical analysis of Philippine advice columns in English and Filipino. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 67-82.
Sandoval, M. (2010). Stance-taking strategies in the written discourse of research papers conclusion sections [Abstract]. Paper presented at the First International TESOL Convention, Clark Freeport Zone, Philippines Retrieved March 3, 2011 from http://independent.academia.edu/MarlowieSandoval/Papers/407379/Stancetaking_Strategies_in_the_Written_Discourse_of_Research_Papers_Conclusion_Sections_Presented_in_the_1st _International_TESOL_Conference-Clark_Philippines_
Schneider, M., & Connor, U. (1990). Analyzing topical structure in ESL essays: Not all topics are equal. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 411-427.
Scollon, R. (2000). Generic variability in news stories in Chinese and English: A contrastive discopurse study of five days’ newspapers. Journal of Pragmatics 32(6), 761-791.
Severino, C. (1993). The “Doodles” in Context: Qualifying Claims about Contrastive Rhetoric. The Writing Center Journal 14(1), 44-62.
Suryani, I. et al. (2014). Rhetorical Structures in Academic Research Writing by Non-Native Writers. International Journal of Higher Education 3(1), 29-38.
Swales, J. (2004). Research Genres: Exploration and Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thatcher, B. (2000). L2 professional writing in a US and South American context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(1), 41-69.
Thatcher, B. (2004). Rhetorics and communication media across cultures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 305-320.
Woolever, K. (2001). Doing a global business in the information age: Rhetorical contrasts in the business and technical professions. In C.G. Panetta (Ed.), Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined (pp. 47-64). Mahwan, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
eISSN : 2550-2131
ISSN : 1675-8021