Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • Connor Understanding Persuasive

    Enviado por

    Gayuh Pratama
    45 visualizações10 páginas
    B.INGGRIS

    Direitos autorais

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    B.INGGRIS

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    45 visualizações10 páginas

    Connor Understanding Persuasive

    Enviado por

    Gayuh Pratama
    B.INGGRIS

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 10
    Understanding persuasive essay writing: LLingusti/rhetorical approach ULLA CONNOR and JANICE LAUER Abueact Ths paper reports on researc, funded by the Education Foundation of the ‘Bezon Corporation to study several measures for describing and evaluating student persuasive writing. The varibls examined were coherence, cohesion, ‘ynactcforurs, and persuaive appeal, The data were 100 American and British highschool student persuaive essays randomly selected from the compositions of the Intemational Education Assocation projec. The results demonstrate the need for & multidimensional methodology to ase a broad range of tings and rhetorical fotures inorder to adequately account for barron in writing quality omongstadents 1. Introduction In writing evaluation, holistic ratings have been the most common assessment took, with use also of ansiyic and primary tat scorlag. Charney (1984) In her cxiteal overview of holistic writing assessment cal fora systematic exploration of the ise of eterla for the improvement ofthe validity and reliability of evaluations of wring samples. Weare alo concerned about the ‘eset of relablity and validity, and especially about the fact that holistic caluations are to global to indicate specifi strengths and weakness in Stent compositions. We think that ite not enough for either research or Insructional practice to evaluate the genera quality of compositions, but that specie information is needed about the linguistic and rhetorical characte ha ie isto such judgment “The methodology that euggerted inthe paper considers both agus 165-9445 008-0309 2.00 ‘Text 5) (1985). 308-326 pyre iran 310° Ulla Connor and Janice Laver and shetorcl features in writing. AS Enkvist (1985) points out, oth linguists nd thetorans need to examine student wlting Ia atempts t0 explain writing quality. the present study, concepts and methods of analyses from both text ogustics and thetoric were included, namely coherence, cohesion (text, logustics), and persuasive appeals to th audience chetorc). These vaables UJand methods were chosen because dicourse theory sues that coherence tnd cohesion ae indicators of textual quality and hetorcl theory suggests thatthe apes account for suons in persuasive discourse 2. Purpose The purpose ofthe present stuly was to develop valid and reliable methods of describing writing quality bused on curent linguistic and rhetorical ‘heores for analyzing persusivé essays. The flowing restarch questions, wee pose ‘What relible and valid indicators of writing quality canbe identified? Whats the relationship between cohernoe and esay quality? Whats the relationship between coesion and esa quality?” ‘Whats the relationship betwen cohesion and coherence? What isthe seationsip between the shetoical appeals and writing aquaty? 3. Major variables 34, Coherence Studies of coherence in writing, both theoretical and empirical have been numerous i the part five years Eventhough thee isnow a consensus bout the separate quaities of coherence and cohesion the concep of coherence is sll not well undertood. A few eearchers have attempted, with varying degers of success, 10 describe coherence using linguistic Features from ral texts (Como, 984; Lautamatt 1978, 1980; Lindeberg, 1985). These studies Inve been exploratory in nature and hav ncnded small numberof subjects (vith the exception of Wikborg, 1985; and Bamberg, 1983, 1964), and have sed only one rater, with the exeption of Bambergs studies. nthe present Understanding persuasive sey ring 311 study, Bambor's coherence rule was used because it has met the test of pr review (1983, 1984). Bnbees's method has proved tobe highly eube and she has discussed th vality of her sale na recent study, Connor and Farmer (1985) used the Bamberg scale and found an interatrvelzbty of 93. The Bamberg cles shown in Figue 1 Games ara our pat cokers ae {rthoe cneeozer = Magee ope and des ot it ot Foout 5 nb reacer by deco eeconcext wanton Canes. 1 Grier dear scoring ts dame pln hte Orgenaton ‘rained howtos heey ‘see folk stances an pag Shen conta witha sarement fa pe he ose tetera define ee of one er few or ao gama anor mecha Gunma ~ meet noth fhe ter shoves hat nde old oes no ety he op and fence wld Daly ‘Seto dienes equety ‘Shume rder sre ier canter and proves ito 0 oetaon ‘abner plan met fet od forty er om ring ‘Serf cakes ds ine cobs cojncinn meen) oak sates tesla pases {he readig procon sas oh or regal dcoe Dow ~ ey tea nomprehonste Bese mining or mending preted eo ing neo te et gee 1. Bamber Pint Halt Caen Rubric s+ From Hetty Brg What Matra Tet Catto Clipe Compton ord ‘Cmmaration (Deeb 198) 47-439 312 Ulla Conor andJeniee Lauer ‘The scale has six subcategories (we labelled them: focus, context, organiz ation, cbeson, closure, and grammar), but only one score of eoberence has ben given to cach composition in Bamber’ reearch, Because the present dy is concemed with the construct validity ofthe scale ln addition to reinbilty, a acore (1-4) was gien to cach essay, on each of tho sx categories, We questioned whether Grammar and Cohesion ae elated to coherence. In addition, we felt that some categories, eg. Focus and Development may measure the same undedying characterise 3.2. Cohesion Cohesion, the Unking of sentences together using surfice items, has been ‘widely studed in weitig ssearch, Connor (1984) and Witte and Faigley (1981) appled the Halday and Hsan system to student eeays, Lindeberg sand Wikborg Ive added more detalled categories of cohesive items in thee ‘work, Connor's esearch and informal anlyies of the current data ed us to tive that in studying writing quay the most useful categories would be reference tes and leial cohesion. Further, previous investigators, with the ‘exception of Wikbor, have not dealt with the brakdowas in cohesion due titer to's dstance between a cobesve tem snd Is fferent ort a miscued item. In the present study, breakdowns in cohesion were studied 3.3, Peruasiveness ‘The anayss of persuasive texts has been impeded by # confusion that has ‘exited since the nineteenth century over the nature of persuasive dscour, Clsifctions of discourse into description, martin, exposion, argu mentation, and persusson le fiat to 2 separation of argumentation and perunsion and then tothe eimination of persuasion by mor American text ‘waters such as Genung (1885, 1898), Subsequently argumentation either replaced or subsumed persuasion in composition struction. Thisconfounding ‘of argumentation and persion las recently been challenged by hetoricians like Kinneay (1971), Connors (1981), and Beri and Inkster (1980), who sarge that such confusion reduces persion to the loll apes Tn this esearch, we consider writen persuasive discourse oe that which Iimerates the raion, credit, and affective appeals (coresponding 10 Understanding persuasive esay writing 313 logos, ethos, and pathos) which together had characterize persuasion for ‘over neten centuries fom hereto of Aristotle, Cero, and Quintin, to those of Campbell and Whately. We define writen persuasive discourse as that which integrates the tree appeals in its effort to effect cooperation and ‘dentifction with an audience. This view of shetoric ix contonant withthe ‘work of Burke (1969); Young, Becker, nd Pike (1970); Kinneary (1971); and Laver ea. (1985), In our definition, argumentation becomes pact of persuasion. Our aalyss of good writen persuasive dicoure, therefore, fttempts (0 determine those atonal, cxedblty, and affective features of + text tht account foes persuasivenes. ‘We know of no discourse analysis of the macrostructure or microstructure ‘of pemutsie ditcourse, as we define It. No alternative methods of analysis ‘exit for this type of dicourve such at have been developed either for (1) expository prose by Meyer (1985), Kitsch (1974), Miler (1985), ané Gresser and. Goodman (1985), or for (2) namatie prose by Gilich and ‘Quasthoft (1985), Mander and Johnson (1977), Labo and Waetzy (1967), and van Dik (1973), ‘Some communication theoris have established a measure ofthe relation ship between copatve complenty and persuasive ski (O'Keefe and Deb, 1979) The most proximate studies to ous in discourseaalysesare Kummer’ (1972) ingustic analyses of argumentative text types and Kopperschid's (1985) analysis of argumentation. Kummer's macroaaytc system was used ‘in a recent text aralyssby Tikonen Cont (1984) on argumentative prose, and by Connor and Takala (1985) in the analysis of persuasive student essays Koppershmict (1985) sugested a twoveel analytic method fr agumen- ‘ution, which has a macrostricral analy sith five stages and a micro- “eacturlapalyss which sims to identify the detailed stuctue of individual partial argumentation by proceeding in thee steps: (1) analyzing the ole ‘ofan argumentative statement within a stand of argument; (2) analyzing the se oft argumentative potent in weakening or supporting given validity snd (3) formally analyzing an argument’ Soidavarant and rol iniferent barat puters. He cites Aristotle’ topot snd Perelman and Olrects ‘Tytea’s (1969) informal arguments as efforts to systematize such Held. Independent arguments ‘Our analytic system is 4 variation of Kopperschmit's formal analysis “To identify the features of tents that acount for thelr pesuasienes, we (ith the help of two research assistants, Mary Farmer and Janet Flt) have

    Você também pode gostar