WRITTEN COMMUNICATION / APRIL 2003

The Myth of the “Turn”

in Contrastive Rhetoric
DAVID CAHILL
Roosevelt University

Contrastive rhetoric scholarship researches rhetorical structures across languages to

predict the difficulties experienced by students learning to write essays in a second lan-
guage. The paradigmatic contrast is between Western languages (e.g., English) that are
said to exemplify “linearity” and “directness” and Eastern languages (e.g., Chinese,
Japanese) that are said to exemplify “nonlinearity” and “indirectness.” The prime exam-
ples in English-language contrastive rhetoric scholarship of Asian essay structure are
the four-part Chinese qi cheng zhuan he and Japanese ki sho ten ketsu, whose third
steps are said to represent a “turn.” The author’s research into Chinese and Japanese-
language scholarship on these two structures finds that the “turn” is not a rhetorical
move of “circularity” or “digression” as commonly assumed but rather serves as the
occasion to develop an essay further by alternative means. The implication for second-
language writing is recognition of greater similarities in essayist literacy across these
languages than previously supposed.

Keywords: constrastive rhetoric; comparative rhetoric; contrastive linguistics; rhe-

torical text structure; Chinese rhetoric; Japanese rhetoric; second-language
writing; composition studies

Two articles appearing in the third Annual Review of Applied Linguis-

tics in 1983 launched a trajectory of scholarship with considerable
repercussions in the applied linguistics and composition studies
fields. The issue, edited by Robert B. Kaplan, centered around a thesis
Kaplan first propounded in 1966 on the special character of “Orien-
tal” discourse in his famous “Cultural Thought Patterns” article,
which more or less single-handedly launched the field known as
contrastive rhetoric (Kaplan, 1966, 1968, 1972, 1988, 2001). In that arti-
cle, Kaplan proposed his “Oriental thought-pattern” hypothesis,
which sought to explain the reputed digressiveness of Asian writing
and the resultant difficulties Asian students have in learning to write
essays in English. He illustrated the so-called Oriental thought
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION, Vol. 20 No. 2, April 2003 170-194
DOI: 10.1177/0741088303255353
© 2003 Sage Publications

170 Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
 David Cahill 171

pattern with the drawing of a spiral, the English thought pattern with
a straight arrow, and the thought patterns of the Semitic, Romance,
and Russian cultures with various zigzags (Kaplan, 1966). Kaplan’s
hypothesis attracted widespread interest and it continues to be influ-
ential up to this day as a useful starting point for understanding non-
Western differences in writing. At the same time, sympathetic schol-
ars such as Hinds (1983a) have long pointed out that noticeably lack-
ing in the case of the Oriental thought pattern was native linguistic
and rhetorical evidence from the very East-Asian languages (primar-
ily Chinese and Korean) upon which Kaplan’s hypothesis was based.
The two articles in the 1983 Annual Review provided just such
native linguistic evidence in the form of textual analyses of Chinese
(Tsao, 1983) and Japanese (Hinds, 1983b). Both Tsao and Hinds con-
cerned themselves with the same four-part structuring known as qi
cheng zhuan he in Chinese and ki sho ten ketsu in the Japanese deriva-
tion, originally adapted from classical Chinese poetry and long used
in Chinese and Japanese prose composition. Equivalent in both lan-
guages, the four characters are commonly glossed as “introduction,”
“development,” “turn,” and “conclusion.” They may refer to four
consecutive lines of poetry, to four consecutive sentences or ideas in a
single paragraph of prose, or to the four parts of a whole essay. Tsao
and Hinds’ point was that the third step, that of the zhuan/ten turn,
invariably involved in Chinese and Japanese student essay writing
some kind of digression or move of indirection. They claimed that this
traditional rhetorical device by itself could account for the common
reactions among American writing instructors and second-language
writing scholars, accustomed to the dictum of directness, unity, and
coherence in essay writing, of the supposed illogicality and incom-
prehensibility in Asian students’ English compositions.
The evidence seduced researchers in contrastive rhetoric into
accepting a narrowly literal understanding of the “turn,” that is, as a
circular move of indirection or as an abrupt shift or digression from
the main argument of a composition. Following upon Tsao and
Hinds, a spate of publications appeared in the scholarship identifying
“turns” in Asian student writing or Asian discourse generally and
whose collective effect was to fix the zhuan/ten turn even more firmly
in the consensus than Kaplan’s now famous spiral (Bolivar, 1994; Cai,
1993; Clyne, 1994; Connor, 1996; Dunkelblau, 1990; Eggington, 1987;
Fagan & Cheong, 1987; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Leki, 1992; Malcolm &
Pan, 1989; McKay, 1993; Scollon & Scollon, 1997; X. Wang, 1994;
Young, 1994). The evidence of the turn moreover conveniently
Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
172 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION / APRIL 2003

dovetailed with ongoing research efforts to locate linguistic, psycho-

logical, and cultural evidence for the oft-observed indirection in
Asian discourse generally, in the fields of second-language writing
(e.g., Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995; Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; Bloch &
Chi, 1995; Gregg, 1986; Harris, 1997; Johns, 1984; Kobayashi &
Rinnert, 1996; Maynard, 1996, 1998; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999;
Silva, Leki, & Carson, 1997; Taylor & Chen, 1991; X. Wang, 1994), Eng-
lish composition and rhetoric (e.g., Coe, 1988; J. Corbett, 2001; Land &
Whitley, 1989; Lisle & Mano, 1997; Matalene, 1985; Panetta, 2001;
Reid, 1993; Shen, 1989), and the sociolinguistics of intercultural com-
munication (e.g., Clyne, 1994; Jin & Cortazzi, 1998; Scollon & Scollon,
1995; Young, 1994).
The consensus on Asian indirection is not without debate; some of
these same scholars have critiqued a variety of methodological short-
comings and inconsistencies in the contrastive-rhetoric scholarship,
among them the lack of native writing samples, failure to control for
writing context and genre, implicit cultural stereotyping, and confu-
sion of cross-cultural differences with developmental interference
(e.g., Connor, 1996; Hinds, 1983a, 1987; Mohan & Lo, 1985; Severino,
1993; Taylor & Chen, 1991). If, for example, Asian student writing is
often strange and difficult to understand for native English-speaking
readers, it is not necessarily due to differences between Eastern and
Western “thought patterns” but might be due instead to the sheer dif-
ficulty of learning the conventions of academic writing in any new
language (as it already is in one’s native language). Indeed, research
in developmental theories of writing suggest that what appear to be
foreign-like features in ESL students’ compositions and attributed to
cross-cultural transfer actually manifest the cognitive sequence of
stages that all second-language writers must traverse between the
first and second languages (Becker, 1995; Cumming, 1989; Johns,
1984; Leki, 1992, 1997; Mohan & Lo, 1985; Pery-Woodley, 1990;
Raimes, 1985; Zamel, 1983). Of greater concern, particularly given the
preponderant focus in contrastive-rhetoric research on East-West rhe-
torical contrasts, is that the characterization of Asian discourse as
indirect serves merely to shore up old Orientalist assumptions about
the mysterious East separated from the West by a great cultural
divide. An increasing body of scholars therefore have gone further in
laying bare certain intractable and fundamental problems of the
contrastive-rhetoric project and in articulating alternative
nondichotomizing and nonessentializing approaches to the cross-
cultural study of second-language writing (e.g., Cahill, 1999; Kowal,
Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
 David Cahill 173

1994, 1998; Kubota, 1997, 1998; Leki, 1997; Liebman, 1992; Liu, 1996;
Raimes, 1998; Spack, 1997, 1998; Zamel, 1997).
Yet researchers on both sides of the contrastive-rhetoric debate
have ultimately been hampered by their scant access to and limited
proficiency in native-language sources. As to the Chinese and Japa-
nese rhetorical traditions, the gap has only begun to be filled (e.g.,
Cahill, 1999; Kirkpatrick, 1995, 1997; Kubota, 1997; Liu, 1996; Mohan &
Lo, 1985; Scollon, Scollon, & Kirkpatrick, 2000). Still, it continues to be
taken as established fact in the English-language scholarship that qi
cheng zhuan he and ki sho ten ketsu are ubiquitous in Chinese and Japa-
nese writing, with the “turn” or “digression” of the third step the
paradigmatic marker of the “Eastern” (if no longer the “Oriental”)
essay.
My own research into the treatment of zhuan in Chinese and ten in
Japanese scholarship reveals, by contrast, a very different under-
standing of the “turn.” What the widely varying accounts of zhuan/
ten among both native Chinese and native Japanese scholars reveal is
that the original Chinese character of the third step, zhuan, can mean
literally a turn or, figuratively speaking, any kind of change or shift.1
These scholars advise against arriving at exact definitions of zhuan
and ten, appropriately so, in my view, because qi cheng zhuan he and ki
sho ten ketsu thereby retain their rich polysemy and metaphoricity.
This scholarship is reviewed below, beginning with the Chinese and
the Japanese accounts, and followed by the author’s own working
definition of the zhuan/ten turn based on these accounts. In the con-
text of essay writing, the turn may loosely be defined as the occasion
to develop an essay or paragraph further by alternative means. This
redefinition demythologizes the turn from something mysteriously
“Eastern” into something closer to the Western rhetorical notion of
amplification, broadly understood. The significant pedagogical
implication is that the Chinese and the Japanese essay are more like
the English essay than is commonly accepted.

CHINESE SCHOLARSHIP ON QI CHENG ZHUAN HE

To quote the term’s originator, Fan Heng (a.k.a. Fan Deji, 1272-1330
A.D.),
on the uses of qi cheng zhuan he in Chinese poetry: “‘the poet has
four methods at his disposal: qi—to be direct, cheng—to explain,
zhuan—to change, and he—to collect’ ” (cited in W. Chen, 1964, p. 235).2
According to Di (1984), qi cheng zhuan he was first applied as a structuring
Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
174 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION / APRIL 2003

device to the essay during the Song Dynasty (960-1279), though the
example he provides is not a Song but a Qing Dynasty (1644-1911)
essay of 1839, “A Sanitarium for Sick Plums,” by Gong Zizhen. Di
defines the four steps as, “beginning,” “elaborating,” “changing,”
and “concluding.” Zhuan, the third step, functions to present “a new
aspect on the problem. In the case of the argumentative essay, zhuan is
the counterargument and refutation [fanmian lunzheng].” In the zhuan
section of “A Sanitarium for Sick Plums,” Di goes on to explain, Gong
“speaks his opposition to painters and writers” who, as described in
the preceding cheng section, have encouraged planters to sell plum
trees, rendered sickly from excessive pruning in imitation of the
crooked varieties favored by artists, at a profit (p. 294). The zhuan sup-
plies Gong with the occasion to present his own opinion in opposition
to that of the purveyors of fashion—the artists and profiteers. The
“change” or “new aspect” initiated by the zhuan is thus of central
importance to the whole of the essay, constituting as it does the
author’s thesis, which is then expressed in more concise form in the
concluding he section. This is a common function of zhuan (and of Jap-
anese ten as well), one that will be returned to below.
Of greater interest for the moment is Di’s (1984) stress on the vari-
ability of qi cheng zhuan he and essay structure in general that follows
his analysis of the Gong piece:

The structure of the above essay is one typical structure among many.
Sometimes for the sake of topical or formal constraints, one of the four
parts may be omitted, or the order of the four parts may be altered, by,
for instance, placing the conclusion at the beginning. Since ancient
times, people have claimed both that there is a single essay-writing rou-
tine and that there is no single essay-writing routine. As Wang Ruoxu
[1174-1243] said in Wenbian [On Essays], “I was once asked if the essay
has a certain structure. No, I replied, it doesn’t. I was then asked if the
essay has no structure. Yes it does, I replied. But what on earth is the cor-
rect answer? I say, there is no particular structure, but there is a general
structure.” What he means by no “particular structure” is that there is
no fixed essay form. By “general structure” he means that there is a
kind of essay writing routine. So we can say that there is a general struc-
ture, but we cannot reduce it to a fixed formality as in the eight-legged
essay. (pp. 294-295)

Wu (1989), citing the Shifa Jiashu [Poetic Methods] of one Yang Zai (orig-
inally cited in an unreferenced work by Wenhuan He, Lidai Shihua
[Ancient Poetry]), states that qi cheng zhuan he formed the structure of
Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
 David Cahill 175

the narrative essay as far back as the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368). Yet qi
cheng zhuan he was never codified or found general acceptance as an
essay-writing routine but has always been, according to Wu, inher-
ently flexible and adaptable. W. Chen (1964) echoes this point by not-
ing the latitude with which writers have treated the device: “[S]ome
people add further steps to qi cheng zhuan he. They say for instance qi,
cheng, pu [elaborate], xu [narrate], guo [connect], jie [conclude], and
may add even more, or fewer than four steps, adding or deleting
according to need” (p. 235). As Lu (1937) alternatively advises, “use qi
cheng zhuan he or fan kai he [opposite-open-close] or any other pattern.
For example, begin with fan [opposite] and end with zheng [straight]
or begin with zheng and end with fan.” He too adds that good writing
need not confine itself to qi cheng zhuan he. “The most important thing
is that you have to explain the idea clearly and wholly” (p. 9).
K. Wang (1991) cites the Qing Dynasty scholar Gao Tang, who, in
his Wenfa Jishuo [Volume on Compositional Methods] from the Lunwen
Jichao [Anthology of Argumentative Essays] (date unknown), advises
manipulating or deleting one or more of the steps of qi cheng zhuan he
in order to strengthen the rhetorical impact of an essay. What Gao
advocates is particularly interesting because, unlike the usual
contrastive understanding of zhuan in contrastive rhetoric, where
zhuan serves as a turn, change, or alternative viewpoint, he recom-
mends a noncontrastive use of zhuan, as a straightforward amplifica-
tion of cheng. He also advocates omitting zhuan altogether in favor of
an open-ended approach, including such contrastive structural
moves as counterarguing. In effect, Gao (cited in Wang, 1991) freely
breaks from the formula and advocates simply dropping either cheng
or zhuan or both where it suits the writer:

If we were to replace the cheng that follows qi with free expression, or

replace the zhuan that follows cheng with free expression, the essay
would be more convincing and vivid. Cheng can only elaborate repeti-
tively on the preceding sentences, whereas by opening it up we could
substitute a whole new argument. Likewise, zhuan is limited to elabo-
rating an idea along the same general terms as qi and cheng, and by
eliminating zhuan we allow ourselves the option of using a counter-
argument or a tangential argument. (p. 12)

As Wang (1991) paradoxically asserts, putting qi cheng zhuan he in the

service of free expression exemplifies “structureless structure,”
where the structure is artfully rendered invisible by seeming to be an

Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
176 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION / APRIL 2003

organic expression of the content (p. 13). Such a rendering would be

compatible, as Di (1984) would concur above, with the artful execu-
tion of qi cheng zhuan he.
K. Wang (1991) also endorses the view of Lu (1937) that qi cheng
zhuan he should always be subordinated to the task of achieving clar-
ity or should be applied directly to that end. He advocates, along the
lines of Di and Lu, a more flexible notion of qi cheng zhuan he, regard-
ing it less as a fixed four-part, sequential structuring device than as a
more general means of articulating the interrelatedness of parts and
fashioning clarity out of the text. Wang (1991) quotes a qijiang para-
graph from an eight-legged essay entitled “Xue er Shixi Zhi” (“Study
and Practice”) by the Ming Dynasty author Chen Kangqi to illustrate
a “very clear” qi cheng zhuan he structure. The qi and cheng sections
here function as a unit to pose a question whose answer follows in the
zhuan section; the he section reestablishes unity by returning the
discussion to the initial topic, the importance of study and practice
(K. Wang, 1991):

[qi-cheng:] People ask, since we follow in the footsteps of the ancients,

are we doomed endlessly to repeating their achievements? [zhuan:] The
answer is that we can emulate them, rather, by struggling to accomplish
in our 100-year lifetime what took them a 1,000 years, and by accom-
plishing in one day what took them 100 years. [he:] Hence those of us
who aspire to greatness know the value of hard work and cherish every
minute of our life. (p. 9)

Wang criticizes overreliance on qi cheng zhuan he and advises, as does

Gao (as cited in K. Wang, 1991), omitting qi cheng zhuan he or one or
more of its parts where alternative means can effect greater clarity and
readability. On the other hand, Wang says, the device cannot be
entirely dispensed with: all parts of an essay being interrelated, par-
ticularly in the case of the eight-legged essay,3 the “logical relations
have to be very clear, and require qi cheng zhuan he” (p. 12). Wang
resolves this contradiction by investing qi cheng zhuan he with a meta-
phorical significance: “People today tend to borrow the eight-legged
essay term qi cheng zhuan he when analyzing contemporary essays.
But what they really mean by [qi cheng zhuan he] is the logical relations
of the whole essay” (p. 13).
Wang (1991) extends this metaphorical understanding in the teach-
ing of essay structure to novice writers. The novice writer advances
“from a simple to a complex structure” by first “learning specific parts

Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
 David Cahill 177

and then the whole essay, or learning the structure first and then fill-
ing it in with content” (p. 156). Wang believes that this method of
compositional instruction—of which the term “qi cheng zhuan he”
serves as well as any—aids in the development of students’ “logical
thinking”:

The basic training of high school and primary school students in writ-
ing can make use of certain formalities. How to begin an argumentative
essay, how to analyze the main idea and how to conclude the essay, all
require a formal method. Traditionally, to write an essay required qi
cheng zhuan he, but actually most of the good argumentative essays of
whatever period have used qi cheng zhuan he. . . . The incorrect approach
is to rigidify the formality to the point where everybody in China writes
according to a single structure. So today’s high school and primary
school students can still benefit from the traditional way of training
people how to write an essay. (p. 156)

Other scholars echo K. Wang’s concern for subsuming form to con-

tent and structure to clarity. Liang (1968) stresses that “no matter how
you arrange an essay’s structure, the purpose is to make the essay
clear to the reader,” and he cites the classical phrase “wen wu dingfa,”
meaning “no single method,” to underscore the correct approach,
achieved by finding the “certainty” (yiding) inherent in “uncertainty”
(wuding) (p. 40). Qi cheng zhuan he exemplifies one such approach
because the four steps of the sequence, as Liang sees it, reflect the most
“natural” clarification process. It is almost as if Liang here identifies qi
cheng zhuan he with the necessary conditions of communicative
exchange, something akin to the “felicity conditions” of speech act
theory (Austin, 1975).

Say you’re relating a story about a fire. You start off by announcing,
“There was a fire.” This is qi. Then you mention where and when it hap-
pened and how big the fire was. This is cheng. And then, you provide
further details. This is zhuan. Last, you mention the extent of the
destruction, or how you feel about the fire. This is he. Why is this qi
cheng zhuan he necessary? The reason is very simple: without it, you
won’t get the message across. The people you are talking to know noth-
ing about the fire, so you have to grab their attention by announcing it.
Once you have their attention, you fill them in on the basic circum-
stances of the event in order to give your story an air of authenticity.
Then, once they have the basics, they’ll start questioning you on the
details. Finally, after everything is explained, you react to the story or

Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
178 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION / APRIL 2003

share your opinions. All of this is just the natural way of going about it.
So even though you don’t know what qi cheng zhuan he is, you have
employed it anyway. (Liang, 1968, p. 41)

It is perhaps a recognition that the term has lost its specificity and
must be redefined anew by succeeding scholars that leads Liang,
finally, to reject qi cheng zhuan he as “an ancient term that we ought to
dispense with. The modern way is to divide an essay into three parts:
beginning, development, and conclusion” (p. 42). I suggest that Liang
shares, with K. Wang (1991) and Gao (cited in Wang), a hermeneutical
suspicion of “qi cheng zhuan he,” namely recognition of the problem of
naming and the exhaustion of terms, an awareness that history has
overdetermined qi cheng zhuan he to render it polysemous, unstable,
and of little heuristic value in essay writing practice. Whether qi cheng
zhuan he can be described as ever having had a stable meaning is,
indeed, the real question at issue, one that some, like Qu Qiubai, are
quick to answer: “‘Whatever was said by the authority of the saints
[i.e., Confucius, Mencius], whatever was meant by this “qi cheng
zhuan he” or by the “aesthetics” of the essay, was never agreed upon’ ”
(cited in Wang, p. 3).
Today Chinese scholars of rhetoric and writing pedagogy gener-
ally affirm that the modern Chinese school essay has a tripartite struc-
ture of introduction, body, and conclusion (and thus resembles or par-
allels its English counterpart). Where qi cheng zhuan he is not
consigned to historical footnote or simply ignored, it is redefined
anew. Z. Zhang (1959) defines the four steps of qi cheng zhuan he as (a)
“beginning the essay,” (b) “continuing what has not been completed
in the first part of the essay,” (c) “bringing the essay into a new terri-
tory [lingyu],” and (d) “concluding the essay” after “the idea has been
explained completely.” Zhuan comes into play “when the preceding
discussion winds up and the author needs to turn the essay around
with a word like ‘but,’ ‘however,’ or ‘nevertheless.’ ” Yet Zhang also
notes that qi cheng zhuan he has largely gone out of use and has given
way to the three-part essay of “past opinion” (i.e., of Chinese ori-
gins)—consisting of “purpose” or “position,” “development,” and
“conclusion” (p. 74). He recommends that the beginning writer learn
what he calls the two basic organizational approaches that can be
used in the three-part essay. These are either to base the results on a
preceding analysis—the “inductive” (guina) essay—or to present the
results before the analysis—the “deductive” (yanyi) essay. Whether to
use the inductive or deductive approach “depends on the style of the
Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
 David Cahill 179

essay, and no one can prescribe a fixed way” (p. 81). Using similar ter-
minology, Wu (1989) divides the argumentative essay into four types,
the “deductive” (yanyi), the “inductive” (guina), the “deductive/
inductive” (yangui), and the “multiple-topic” essay (fenlun) (p. 17).
Although the deductive essay (initial thesis plus support) and the
inductive essay (support plus concluding thesis) are essentially two-
part structures, they can be combined to form the three-part hybrid
structure (thesis-support-conclusion) of the deductive/inductive
essay. According to Wu (1989), the three-part essay has had a long his-
tory in Chinese essay writing, originating from the sanguwen essay of
“500 or 600 years ago, when the eight-legged essay prevailed.” In the
sanguwen, the multiple parts of the eight-legged essay were reduced
to three: poti (topic), fengu (body, i.e., chengti-qijiang-tibi), and jieti or
dajie (conclusion) (p. 16).
Other modern accounts that maintain or advocate modern use of qi
cheng zhuan he define it in a way consistent with the particular three-
or four-part essay model being proposed. Chou (1989) affirms that qi
cheng zhuan he is still taught in Taiwanese schools. There are two alter-
native procedures: (a) disguise the main theme with a subtheme (qi),
develop the subtheme (cheng), introduce the main theme (zhuan), and
conclude (he) and (b) introduce the main theme (qi), develop the main
theme (cheng), provide an anecdotal example (zhuan), and conclude
(he). Optionally zhuan may be dropped, leaving the familiar three-
part introduction-body-conclusion (qi-cheng-he) structure. The
advantage of retaining zhuan is that the “writer is given more freedom
to explore the topic on a new dimension” (p. 264). In another instance
of interpretive freedom, a contemporary mainland Chinese junior
high school textbook conceives of “cheng-zhuan” as a unit, where
cheng is a counterargument and zhuan both refutation and thesis:
“There are many ways to use cheng-zhuan. One of them is to start with
the traditional opinion, and then to attack this opinion. That is, start
with an opinion opposite your own, and then, turn to your thesis in
zhuan” (Shoudu Shifann Daxue, 1998, p. 356).4
The Chinese scholars cited above tend to stress that good essay
writing above all is free of fixed structures, and that traditional pat-
terns such as qi cheng zhuan he are of value only in the early stages of
essay writing instruction for training purposes. When relied upon the
patterns must be treated with enough flexibility to aid rather than hin-
der in the development of the content. W. Chen (1964) warns of the
danger of “wedging” oneself into such strict prescriptions for writing
that through force of habit extrication becomes impossible. He also
Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
180 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION / APRIL 2003

warns of “the cosmos at the bottom of the well” (p. 236), that is, the
futility of choosing among a potential infinity of ultimately useless
writing principles “such as the so-called qi cheng zhuan he, which the
shortsighted latch onto without realizing that it is only a twig, not the
trunk, of writing” (p. 243).

JAPANESE SCHOLARSHIP ON KI SHO TEN KETSU

Kubota (1997) cites a host of Japanese scholars writing in the last

few decades to illustrate the general state of disagreement over ki sho
ten ketsu. Aihara (1984) and Ichikawa (1978), for example, both regard
expository essays as typically displaying a three-part introduction-
body-conclusion structure rather than ki sho ten ketsu, which they
would confine to use in stories, defining ten as climax. Kokai and
Fukasawa (1982) allow use of ki sho ten ketsu in both persuasive and
narrative writing, but though they describe narrative ten as a marker
of digression, in persuasive writing it is integrated into the argument
of the essay. Okuma (1983) advocates the use of ki sho ten ketsu in jour-
nalism, describing ten as the “point” of the story and ketsu as the final
“twist,” whereas other scholars, such as Tokoro (1986), Kabashima
(1980), Sawada (1977), and Kinoshita (1990), question or criticize the
use of ki sho ten ketsu in academic, business, and expository writing
generally.
My own (and hardly exhaustive) investigation of the current Japa-
nese scholarship on ki sho ten ketsu confirms Kubota’s assessment that
it is not the dominant structuring device of Japanese essay writing as
assumed by contrastive rhetoric adherents. Yet the use of ki sho ten
ketsu in Japanese essay writing is not to be dismissed. It is frequently
mentioned in composition handbooks as one among an array of use-
ful procedural formulas or structuring devices in writing expository
prose. What is stressed above all in the accounts reviewed below is the
variety of compositional modes available to the writer, with com-
monly recommended structural breakdowns of the essay into three,
four, five, and six parts.
The three-part introduction-body-conclusion formula appears to
be the predominant standard of instruction in novice Japanese essay
writing (Maynard, 1998). Hinds (1983b), Kamitori and Muramatsu
(1991), and Okuaki (1993) distinguish a native three-part model based
on Noh drama known as jo-ha-kyu—“introduction,” “development”
(literally “breaking up”), and “climax” (literally “in haste”).5 The jo ha
Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
 David Cahill 181

kyu of Noh itself derives from the bugaku dance genre imported from
the Asian mainland in the 7th century A.D., preceding the develop-
ment of Noh drama by 7 centuries. This tripartite structure, which
originally marked the increasing tempo of the bugaku dance, was elab-
orated and stylized in Noh, with the middle ha section being further
subdivided into introduction, development, and climax (Hartnoll,
1983), though this stylization continued to serve “the aesthetic princi-
ple of ever-increasing emotional tension and tempo . . . that regulates
performance” of the Noh (Banham, 1995, p. 561). When and why the
jo-ha-kyu dance structure was appropriated to prose composition is
unclear, but Maynard (1998), Mukai (1989), Nakamura (1997), and
Noto (1989) all mention an analogous joron-honron-ketsuron organiza-
tion (the “ron” suffix meaning “argumentation”), where joron derives
from the Noh jo, honron means “main part” or “body,” and ketsuron
corresponds to the fourth character of ki sho ten ketsu. According to
Nakamura (1997), the function of joron is to pose a problem or get at
the motivation or meaning behind the main issue; that of honron is to
investigate and explain the main issue in depth or to ground the thesis
in concrete examples or a counterargument; and that of ketsuron to
summarize the author’s opinion. Noto (1989) coordinates ki sho ten
ketsu with joron honron ketsuron, assigning ki sho to joron, sho ten or ten
twice to honron, and ketsu to ketsuron, folding a five-part version of ki
sho ten ketsu into a larger three-part structure. Noto also makes ki sho
ten ketsu compatible with a three-part sequence designated by the
terms makura sawari ochi, where makura means “pillow,” that is, the
head or the introduction (ki), sawari “to touch,” that is, the point or cli-
max (sho ten), and ochi “to drop,” that is, the result or conclusion
(ketsu). “Advanced” writers may condense ki sho ten ketsu into ten sho
ketsu, where the initial ten serves to dramatize the essay by providing
an unexpected entry into the topic (p. 199).
Popular textbooks of Japanese composition broadly allow for
three-, four-, five-, and six-part essay formats. A handbook entitled
How to Write Thesis Reports and Compositions recommends a three-part
division into introduction, body, and conclusion, a four-part division
into ki sho ten ketsu (where sho contains the facts or experimental data
and ten the analysis or proof), a five-part division into introduction,
explanation, proof, description, and conclusion, and a six-part divi-
sion into introduction, explanation, example, explanation, discus-
sion, and conclusion (Jiji Kyoiku Kenkyukai, 1994). Hida (1997)
describes essay structures varying from two to six parts. In addition to
the standard introduction-body-conclusion format, Haga and
Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
182 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION / APRIL 2003

Sugitani (1993) intriguingly recommend the Western five-part orator-

ical format consisting of (a) introduction, (b) exposition, (c) argument,
(d) refutation, and (e) conclusion.6 They also recommend the Japanese
five- or six-part arrangement of ki sho ho jo (ka) ketsu, where ho means
“expansion,” jo “addition” or “comparison,” and the optional ka
“transition”; this arrangement is also compatible with ki sho ten ketsu if
ho jo (ka) is considered a subdivision of ten (p. 225). Haga and Sugitani
(1993) stress that the terms described are not to be applied rigidly or
formulaically; whether an essay is divided into three, four, five, or six
parts is less crucial than ensuring an essay’s overall “orderly arrange-
ment, unity and coherence” (p. 229). As an alternative to the three-
part Noh model, Kamitori and Muramatsu (1991) imaginatively sug-
gest basing Japanese essay structure on the five-part sonata form of
Western classical music: introduction (opening passage), exposition
(contrasting statements of the first and second themes), development
(free working out of the material in the exposition), recapitulation
(restatement of the two themes), and coda (closing passage). If the
recapitulation and coda are taken as a concluding unit, the resulting
introduction-exposition-development-conclusion sequence bears a
likeness to the four steps of ki sho ten ketsu.
A current ninth-grade composition textbook recommends a four-
part essay structure not explicitly based on ki sho ten ketsu: (a) state the
purpose and method of the investigation, (b) list the results, (c) dis-
cuss the results, and (d) conclude with a discussion of what has been
learned (Chu 3 Kyokasho, 1997).7 Another four-part structure not based
on ki sho ten ketsu is advocated by a university entrance-exam prepara-
tion guidebook. Here the recommended breakdown is by the propor-
tions of 10%-70%-10%-10%, consisting of hajime or introduction
(description of the content of the essay), naka or body (provision of
concrete examples), matome or synthesis (description of what the
examples have in common), and musubi or conclusion (generalization
from the examples and description of the author’s own opinion)
(Kokubungaku Henshubu, 1993, p. 125).
The Japanese treatments of the ki sho ten ketsu pattern itself are
equally varied and defy an easy unitary interpretation. Nakamura
(1997) advises ki sho ten ketsu for beginning writers of argumentative
essays where clear presentation of a proof or demonstration is
required. A handbook, Guide to Writing Thesis Reports and Composi-
tions, similarly describes the function of ten as that of proof or analysis
(Jiji Kyoiku Kenkyukai, 1994). Nakamura suggests that advanced

Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
 David Cahill 183

writers may apply ki sho ten ketsu to fiction or creative writing.

Mochizuki (1993) allows use of ki sho ten ketsu in both essays and sto-
ries. Okuaki (1993) recommends ki sho ten ketsu as a “safe and certain
method for essay exams” in preference to the use in exams of jo ha kyu
(p. 326). But Okuaki also ascribes a broad array of uses to ten beyond
that of merely being one step in a four-part organizational formula for
exam writing. According to Okuaki, ten may serve to provide one or
more examples, a historical anecdote, an opposing perspective, a
comparison, or simply to amplify or elaborate on the preceding dis-
cussion. This function of ten as elaboration has a parallel in the West-
ern rhetorical notion of amplification (amplificatio in classical rheto-
ric), “the process by which we highlight, by which we make as ‘big as
possible,’ the points we have made; amplification is a way of remind-
ing audiences of the importance or cogency or superiority of our
points” (E. P. J. Corbett, 1990, p. 313). As for counterarguing, the tactic
of refuting an opponent’s argument, it has had in Western rhetoric
and oratory a long tradition as well, where it is known as refutatio.
Whatever the precise use of ten, Okuaki (1993) stresses that its role
is crucial to effective essay writing. As the writer’s occasion to deepen
or dramatize the argument, ten is the centerpiece of an essay and is the
part the sensitive reader anticipates with keenest interest.8 Okuaki
employs a dramaturgical metaphor to highlight the role of ten as initi-
ator of the argumentative climax or denouement:

Ten is often misunderstood as a mere decorative accessory. In fact, it is a

crucial foreshadowing of the conclusion and determines how great an
impact the composition will make on the reader. The technique of ten
may be likened to the dramatic suspense of the “third” character arriv-
ing on the scene of a play who with a flourish sets in motion the final
sequence of events. (p. 325)

Takahashi (1993) also privileges ten and echoes Okuaki in assigning it

the rhetorical role of the controversial move or argumentative sur-
prise prepared for by ki and sho: “Two conditions for a successful ten
are to defy the reader’s predictions or to go the opposite way of the
reader’s expectations” (p. 159). Ten should work on the reader by sub-
terfuge, and this demands of the writer the skill of fashioning things
in a way the reader will perceive only aesthetically, after the fact, in the
magical impact of the perfectly contrived ten: “Ten takes shape in the
least expected way but is the most brilliantly exploding flower of the
fireworks, without which the audience will not go home satisfied. It is

Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
184 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION / APRIL 2003

where the writer devotes himself to fabricating his trick to similar

effect” (p. 157).
Although other Japanese scholars do not regard the element of sur-
prise as essential, it is generally stressed that ten should be “forceful,
not weak” (Kamata & Yoneyama, 1988, p. 248). Nakamura (1997)
asserts that the function of ten is to attract the reader’s attention and
stimulate the question, “Why?” (p. 146). An eighth-grade Japanese
textbook discussion of ki sho ten ketsu in poetry reiterates this view,
where ten “leads the reader to ask ‘Why?’ or ‘What happened?’ ” (Chu
2 Kyokasho, 1997, p. 203). Like Okuaki (1993) and Takahashi (1993),
Nakamura sees ten as the “main attraction” of an essay, “the occasion
for the writer to exhibit his or her literary talent” (p. 146). Mukai
(1989) states that ten “stirs movement and generates vivid images. It
not only varies, but also alters the whole tone of the essay” (p. 219).
For this reason, “if ten is too weak, the essay will fall flat and appear
banal and persuasively weak” (p. 222). At the same time, warns
Nakamura, the writer must find the right balance so that ten is propor-
tionate to the other parts and does not overwhelm the essay: “If ten
lacks inspiration, the sentences will plod and the writing will fail to
‘produce waves.’ But if ten is too ingenious, it will stand out from the
rest of the essay and float away as it were, and the writing will seem
disorganized and incoherent” (p. 146).
As the above accounts suggest, many Japanese writers character-
ize ten in terms of its harmonizing properties: its organic relationship
with ki sho ten ketsu and the whole of the essay or with words sugges-
tive of taste, flow, even the erotic. Okuaki (1993) remarks that telling
use of ten is a matter of impressing the reader with “taste” or “accent”
(ajitsuke—literally, “seasoning”) (p. 327). Mukai (1989) describes the
four parts of ki sho ten ketsu as (a) “raising” or “starting” (okoshi—
another reading of the character ki), (b) “embellishing” (junshokushi),
(c) “swelling out” (fukuramase), and (d) “tying” or “wrapping up”
(shimekukuru) (p. 217). The Guide to Writing Thesis Reports and Composi-
tions employs similar language—yamaba (“peak” or “climax”), aji
(“taste” or “depth”), uruoi (“moisture” or “succulence,” uruoi being
another reading of the first character of the word junshokushi, “embel-
lishing”)—to describe how effective essays work on the reader.
Although the three terms in the Guide are not directly discussed in
connection with ki sho ten ketsu (because they may also apply to three-,
five-, or six-part essays), their connotations—the impact or force of an
essay (yamaba), the lingering taste of the writing (aji), and the energy
or living quality of the words (uruoi)—are consistent with much of
Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
 David Cahill 185

what has been said in the Japanese scholarship about ki sho ten ketsu
(Jiji Kyoiku Kenkyukai, 1994, p. 67).

CONCLUSION

In both the Chinese and Japanese accounts, qi cheng zhuan he and ki

sho ten ketsu were originally used in poetry and then adapted to narra-
tive and expository writing as an organizational formula for novice
essayists or exam takers (Nakamura, 1997; Okuaki, 1993; K. Wang,
1991), and as a tool of invention or arrangement for advanced writers,
who condemn a rigid formulaic use in favor of a more flexible and cre-
ative application (Di, 1984; Haga & Sugitani, 1993; Lu, 1937; K. Wang,
1991; Wu, 1989). Writers have the option of using qi cheng zhuan he/ki
sho ten ketsu or not, of employing all four steps in the sequence, delet-
ing any one of the steps, or rearranging them, but however employed,
each step in the compositional sequence is considered of organic sig-
nificance to the whole and always subordinated to an overriding clar-
ity of purpose (Haga & Sugitani, 1993; Liang, 1968; Lu, 1937; K. Wang,
1991). As the four steps are generally understood, (a) qi/ki forms the
introduction, (b) cheng/sho and (c) zhuan/ten together form the body
and function to develop the essay, and (d) he/ketsu forms the conclu-
sion. Departures from this traditional sequential ordering are recog-
nized as exceptions even by those who would accept such flexibility
(e.g., Noto, 1989, who allows a three-part ten-sho-ketsu sequence).
Zhuan/ten is for many of these Chinese and Japanese scholars more
open-ended in its functions and invites a broader range of interpreta-
tions than the other three steps. These interpretations fall into two
categories.
In what I call the noncontrastive interpretation, zhuan/ten extends,
develops, or deepens cheng/sho, typically by way of an example or
anecdote (if not preceded by an example in cheng/sho) or by way of a
more detailed example (if preceded by an example in cheng/sho)
(Chou, 1989; Liang, 1968; Okuaki, 1993). Zhuan/ten is here distin-
guished from cheng/sho primarily in degree rather than kind: if cheng/
sho signals that what was introduced in qi/ki will now be discussed in
greater detail, zhuan/ten likewise signals that what was covered in
cheng/sho will now be discussed in greater detail (Okuaki, 1993;
K. Wang, 1991). Alternatively, zhuan/ten offers a second argument,
idea, or analogy following the one presented in cheng/sho and compa-
rable to the first in extensiveness; zhuan/ten functions transitionally to
Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
186 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION / APRIL 2003

bridge cheng/sho and he/ketsu; zhuan/ten sets up a punch-line conclu-

sion in he/ketsu (Chou, 1989; Okuaki, 1993; Okuma, 1983); zhuan/ten is
the thesis (Chou, 1989; Di, 1984; Shoudu Shifan Daxue, 1998) or the
main proof in the argument (Jiji Kyoiku Kenkyukai, 1994; Nakamura,
1997). What unites all of these noncontrastive functions of zhuan/ten is
that the sequential relationship with preceding cheng/sho is clear and
straightforward.
In what I call the contrastive interpretation, zhuan/ten signifies
something closer to the meaning of the term, “turn,” loosely con-
ceived. In the broadest sense, zhuan/ten introduces a new aspect on the
thesis or topic laid out in qi/ki and cheng/sho (Chou, 1989; Di, 1984;
Okuaki, 1993; Z. Zhang, 1959). Alternatively, zhuan/ten provides a
contrasting example or illustration (Okuaki, 1993); zhuan/ten intro-
duces an opposing perspective or counterargument following the
argument in cheng/sho (Di, 1984; Okuaki, 1993; K. Wang, 1991); zhuan/
ten refutes a counterargument laid out in qi/ki and cheng/sho, in which
case contrastive zhuan/ten-as-thesis (unlike noncontrastive zhuan/ten-
as-thesis) serves to introduce the controversial thesis of the author
vis-à-vis the status quo (Chou, 1989; Di, 1984; Shoudu Shifan Daxue,
1998); or, zhuan/ten provides an element of surprise (Okuaki, 1993;
Takahashi, 1993). Some scholars ascribe metaphorical readings to ten,
for example, as being the “accent,” “swelling point,” or “climax” of a
composition (Jiji Kyoiku Kenkyukai, 1994; Mukai, 1989; Noto, 1989;
Okuaki, 1993). Other scholars avoid prescribing a precise function to
ten, requiring only that it convey an impression of forcefulness (Chu 2
Kyokasho, 1997; Kamata & Yoneyama, 1988; Mukai, 1989; Nakamura,
1997) or that it serve as the showpiece of a composition, however
effected (Nakamura, 1997). In this latter understanding of ten as the
forceful part of the essay, the noncontrastive and contrastive interpre-
tations overlap, with noncontrastive ten distinguished by the extent
to which it can be predicted and contrastive ten by the extent to which
it cannot be predicted by the reader. Contrastive zhuan/ten at most
suspends the logical flow for dramatic effect, with the suspension
unambiguously resolved in the concluding he/ketsu.
Significantly, none of the Chinese or Japanese scholars I have
researched speak of zhuan/ten as it is commonly described in
contrastive rhetoric, as a subtheme, a digression, an incidental or
unrelated element, or more vaguely as a “circular” move, with zhuan/
ten merely functioning to upset the logical flow or coherence of a com-
position. Instead, if there is any unity to the disparity among the Chi-
nese and Japanese accounts, zhuan/ten broadly understood signals
Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
 David Cahill 187

the occasion to develop a composition beyond its sufficient require-

ments, and the way this is to be done (eschewing the guidelines of
composition textbooks) is up to the writer. Some of the Chinese and
Japanese accounts do treat zhuan/ten as a contrastive move, but the
contrastive-rhetoric accounts differ significantly in exaggerating the
contrastive function of zhuan/ten into something singular, enigmatic,
and strange for the Western reader, for whom the East may already be
symbolically invested with these qualities.9 Here the “turn” resonates
with corresponding essentializing epithets applied to spoken and
written Asian discourse more generally such as indirection, circular-
ity, circuitousness, and inscrutability. The appeal of this exaggerated
interpretation of zhuan/ten in the English-language accounts is, I
would argue, ideological, indeed mythological. If, as Barthes (1972)
reminds us, myth “abolishes the complexity of human acts” in favor
of “a harmonious display of essences” (pp. 142-143), contrastive rhet-
oric has mythologized the “turn” by encoding it with comforting illu-
sions and stereotypes about Eastern thought, psychology, culture,
and writing.
The pedagogical implications of these differing views are signifi-
cant. Western teachers influenced by the contrastive-rhetoric
accounts of the East-Asian “turn” may be inclined to expect or see
such “turns” in the English compositions of their Asian writing stu-
dents where they are in fact not there at all; they may be resistant to the
possibility that the rhetorical structures used by their Asian students
may not be all that different from English rhetorical structure. While
sincerely attempting to help their students’ writing, such teachers
may inadvertently be grossly misreading it. If indeed the Chinese,
Japanese, and English school essay—and perhaps those of other lan-
guages—are quite similar in their basics, they need not present an
overriding obstacle for student writers crossing over into another lan-
guage. The possibility that the school essay has universal characteris-
tics presents a theoretical challenge to the founding premise of
contrastive rhetoric that writing across languages necessarily
contrasts.

NOTES

1. Many free-standing Chinese characters have such semantic flexibility, unless

joined to a second character to form various compound words with narrower qualified

Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
188 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION / APRIL 2003

senses. For example, zhuanbian (change, transform), zhuandong (turn round, rotate),
zhuanhua (transform into the opposite), zhuanjia (shift, transfer), zhuanru (change over
to), zhuanxiang (change direction, get lost), zhuanyi (change location, divert).
2. All Chinese quotations are jointly translated by Ming Liu and the author. The
author takes final responsibility for the accuracy of the translated text. In this section
and for Chinese listings in the bibliography, school “essay” or “composition” is under-
stood to be the standard rendering of zuowen, “published article” of wenzhang, and “lit-
erary essay” of sanwen.
3. For a detailed discussion of the baguwen, or “eight-legged essay” and its historical
relationship to qi cheng zhuan he, see Cahill (1999).
4. The mainland Chinese national high school curriculum does not include the
teaching of qi cheng zhuan he as a requirement (P. Hou, personal communication, April
28, 1998); I do not have data on the Taiwanese national high school curriculum. In main-
land China, the annually published national university entrance-exam essay antholo-
gies containing model essays advise senior high school students preparing for the exam
to avoid the pitfall of digressing from the essay topic. There was no mention of qi cheng
zhuan he in the copy I examined, by Y. Zhang (1990). For another view of these entrance-
exam essay anthologies, see Li (2002).
5. All Japanese quotations are jointly translated by Atsuko Komukai and the author.
The author takes final responsibility for the accuracy of the translated text. In this sec-
tion and for Japanese listings in the bibliography, “essay” is understood to be the stan-
dard rendering of bunsho (though bunsho is also “sentence,” “composition,” “article,”
“prose”), “composition” or “organization” of kosei, (school) “composition” of sakubun,
and “thesis” of ronbun.
6. The five- or four-part oration (with the refutation optional) is a simplification of
the traditional seven-part oration consisting of exordium (introduction), narratio (narra-
tion), explicatio (exposition), partitio (proposition), confirmatio (argument/counterargu-
ment), refutatio (refutation), and peroratio (conclusion). Aristotle in the Rhetoric (3.1414a)
reduces the seven parts to two: exposition (state your case) and argument (prove it). See
also Plato, Phaedrus (266d-267e); Cicero, De Inventione (1.19); and Quintilian, Institutio
Oratoria (Bks 3-7).
7. The Japanese language section of the Japanese Ministry of Education national
curriculum for both junior and senior high school does not list knowledge of ki sho ten
ketsu as a requirement (Ministry of Education, 1989a, 1989b).
8. Okuaki (1993) exemplifies this point with a discussion of an essay by an unnamed
Japanese writer on Goethe. Goethe once expressed his views on the concepts of “pur-
pose,” “will,” and “ability” in correspondence he exchanged with Thomas Carlyle. The
essayist notes that what Goethe had in fact written on the same three words in a diary
was expressed with a style and acumen superior to that in the correspondence. Because
Goethe’s remarks on the words in his diary are generally less well known than his
exchange with Carlyle, the Japanese author presents these observations in the ten sec-
tion of his essay, where the point of most original import should appear.
9. Among the growing number of critical studies on Orientalism and the East-West
binary problematic see Ang (1998), X. Chen (1995), Chow (1998), Clifford (1988), Goody
(1996), Iwabuchi (1994), Kubota (1999, 2001), Liu (1996), Said (1978), Taussig (1993),
Thomas (1994), Yeh (1998), and L. Zhang (1988, 1998).

Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
 David Cahill 189

REFERENCES

Aihara, S. (1984). Bunsho hyogen no kisoteki kenkyu [A basic study on writing text]. Tokyo:
Meiji Shoin.
Ang, I. (1998). Can one say no to Chineseness? Pushing the limits of the diasporic para-
digm. boundary 2, 25(3), 223-242.
Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic compari-
son of L1 and L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3),
539-567.
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Oxford, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1991). Assessment by misconception: Cultural influences and
intellectual traditions. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writers in
academic contexts (pp. 19-35). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Banham, M. (1995). The Cambridge guide to theatre. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.
Becker, R. R. (1995). The second language writing of Chinese ESL students: Transfer and writ-
ing development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at
Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, IL.
Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English
academic discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second lan-
guage: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 231-274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bolivar, A. (1994). The structure of newspaper editorials. In M. Coulthard (Ed.),
Advances in written text analysis (pp. 276-294). New York: Routledge.
Cahill, D. (1999). Contrastive rhetoric, Orientalism, and the Chinese second language writer.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Cai, G. (1993, March). Beyond bad writing: Teaching English composition to Chinese ESL stu-
dents. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Conference on College Com-
position and Communication, San Diego, CA.
Chen, W. (1964). Xiucixue fafan [The study of rhetoric]. Hong Kong: Xianggang
Daguang Chubanshe. (Original work published 1932)
Chen, X. (1995). Occidentalism: A theory of counter-discourse in post-Mao China. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Chou, H.-L. (1989). Contrastive rhetoric: Chinese and English. In S. M. Chang, D. S. D.
Tseng, & B.-C. Hwang (Eds.), Collection of papers presented in the sixth conference on
English teaching and learning in the Republic of China (pp. 251-269). Taipei, China:
Crane.
Chow, R. (1998). Introduction: On Chineseness as a theoretical problem. boundary 2,
25(3), 1-24.
Chu 2 kyokasho [8th grade textbook]. (1997). Tokyo: Mitsumura Tosho.
Chu 3 kyokasho [9th grade textbook]. (1997). Tokyo: Mitsumura Tosho.
Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture: Twentieth-century ethnography, literature, and
art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clyne, M. (1994). Inter-cultural communication at work: Cultural values in discourse. Cam-
bridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Coe, R. M. (1988). Toward a grammar of passages. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univer-
sity Press.

Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
190 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION / APRIL 2003

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing.

Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, E. P. J. (1990). Classical rhetoric for the modern student (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Corbett, J. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric and resistance to writing. In C. G. Panetta (Ed.),
Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined (pp. 31-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language
Learning, 39, 81-141.
Di, C. (1984). Pianzhang xiuci chutan [A preliminary discussion of text rhetoric]. In
Xiucixue lunji 2 [Collected works on rhetoric 2] (pp. 289-306). Fuzhou, China: Fujien
Renmin Chubanshe.
Dunkelblau, H. S. (1990). A contrastive study of the organizational structure and stylistic ele-
ments of Chinese and English expository writing by Chinese high school students. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York.
Eggington, W. G. (1987). Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effec-
tive communication. In U. Connor, & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages:
Analysis of L2 text (pp. 153-168). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fagan, E. R., & Cheong, P. (1987). Contrastive rhetoric: Pedagogical implications for the
ESL teacher in Singapore. RELC: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research in South-
east Asia, 18(1), 19-31.
Goody, J. (1996). The east in the west. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic per-
spective. New York: Longman.
Gregg, J. (1986). Comments on “Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and
developmental factors.” TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 354-358.
Haga, Y., & Sugitani, Y. (1993). Sakubun kowa oyobi bunhan [Lectures on composition].
Tokyo: Kodansha Gakujyutsu Bunko.
Harris, M. (1997). Cultural conflicts in the writing center: Expectations and assump-
tions of ESL students. In C. Severino, J. C. Guerra, & J. E. Butler (Eds.), Writing in
multicultural settings (pp. 220-233). New York: Modern Language Association of
America.
Hartnoll, P. (Ed.). (1983). The Oxford companion to the theatre (4th ed.). Oxford, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Hida, Y. (1997). Nihongo Bunsho Hyogenho [Japanese compositional expression]. Tokyo:
Hakuteisha.
Hinds, J. (1983a). Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text, 3(2), 183-195.
Hinds, J. (1983b). Linguistics and written discourse in English and Japanese: A
contrastive study (1978-1982). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 3, 78-84.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor, &
R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-152). Read-
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ichikawa, T. (1978). Kokugo kyoiku no tame no bunshoron gaisetsu [Introduction to rhetoric
for Japanese language education]. Tokyo: Kyoiku Shuppan.
Iwabuchi, K. (1994). Complicit exoticism: Japan and its other. Continuum: The Australian
Journal of Media & Culture, 8(2). Retrieved April 20, 1999, from http://
kali.murdoch.edu.au/~cntinuum/8.2/Iwabuchi.html
Jiji Kyoiku Kenkyukai. (1994). Ronbun repoto no kakikata to sakubun giho [Guide to writ-
ing thesis reports and compositions]. Tokyo: Gakyuho.

Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
 David Cahill 191

Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). The culture a learner brings: A bridge or a barrier? In
M. Byram, & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective:
Approaches through drama and ethnography (pp. 98-118). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Johns, A. M. (1984). Textual cohesion and the Chinese speaker of English. Language
Learning and Communication, 3(1), 69-74.
Kabashima, T. (1980). Bunsho koseiho [Methods of text organization]. Tokyo: Kodansha.
Kamata, M., & Yoneyama, T. (1988). Koji seigo meigen daijiten [Encyclopedia of idioms
and proverbs]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kamitori, T., & Muramatsu, S. (Eds.). (1991). Bunsho hyogen jiten [Dictionary of
compositional expression]. Tokyo: Tokyodo Shuppan.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language
Learning, 16, 1-20.
Kaplan, R. B. (1968). Contrastive grammar: Teaching composition to the Chinese stu-
dent. Journal of English as a Second Language, 3(1), 1-13.
Kaplan, R. B. (1972). The anatomy of rhetoric: Prolegomena to a functional theory of rhetoric.
Philadelphia: The Center for Curriculum Development.
Kaplan, R. B. (1988). Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes toward
a theory of contrastive rhetoric. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and
cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 275-304). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kaplan, R. B. (2001). What in the world is contrastive rhetoric? In C. G. Panetta (Ed.),
Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined (pp. vii-xx). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Kinoshita, K. (1990). Repoto no kumitate kata [How to organize academic papers]. Tokyo:
Chikuma Shobo.
Kirkpatrick, A. (1995). Chinese rhetoric: Methods of argument. Multilingua, 14(3), 271-
295.
Kirkpatrick, A. (1997). Traditional Chinese text structures and their influence on the
writing in Chinese and English of contemporary mainland Chinese students. Jour-
nal of Second Language Writing, 6(3), 223-244.
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1996). Factors affecting composition evaluation in an EFL
context: Cultural rhetorical pattern and readers’ background. Language Learning,
46(3), 397-437.
Kokai, E., & Fukasawa, C. (1982). Gendai no bunsho: “Ikita bunsho” o kaku tame ni [Modern
writing: For writing vivid texts]. Tokyo: Yuseido Shuppan.
Kokubungaku Henshubu. (1993). Bunsho Sakuho Binran [Guidebook for compositional
grammar]. Tokyo: Gakutosha.
Kowal, K. H. (1994). The semantics of multicultural discourse: Linguistic relativity,
contrastive rhetoric, intercultural pragmatics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Kowal, K. H. (1998). Rhetorical implications of linguistic relativity: Theory and application to
Chinese and Taiwanese interlanguages. New York: Peter Lang.
Kubota, R. (1997). A reevaluation of the uniqueness of Japanese written discourse:
Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Written Communication, 14(4), 460-480.
Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese univer-
sity students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writ-
ing, 7(1), 69-100.
Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied
linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 9-35.

Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
192 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION / APRIL 2003

Kubota, R. (2001). Discursive construction of the images of U.S. classrooms. TESOL

Quarterly, 35(1), 9-38.
Land, R. E., & Whitley, C. (1989). Evaluating second language essays in regular compo-
sition classes: Toward a pluralistic U.S. rhetoric. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen
(Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 284-293). New York:
Longman.
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Leki, I. (1997). Cross-talk: ESL issues and contrastive rhetoric. In C. Severino, J. C.
Guerra, & J. E. Butler (Eds.), Writing in multicultural settings (pp. 234-244). New York:
Modern Language Association of America.
Li, X.-M. (2002). Track (dis)connecting: Chinese high school and university writing in a
time of change. In D. Foster & D. Russell (Eds.), Writing and learning in cross-national
perspective: Transitions from secondary to higher education (pp. 49-87). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Liang, Y. (1968). Zuowen keben [Handbook of composition] (Vol. 1). Hong Kong, China:
Renren shuju.
Liebman, J. D. (1992). Toward a new contrastive rhetoric: Differences between Arabic
and Japanese rhetorical instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(2), 141-165.
Lisle, B., & Mano, S. (1997). Embracing a multicultural rhetoric. In C. Severino, J. C.
Guerra, & J. E. Butler (Eds.), Writing in multicultural settings (pp. 12-26). New York:
Modern Language Association of America.
Liu, Y. (1996). To capture the essence of Chinese rhetoric: An anatomy of a paradigm in
comparative rhetoric. Rhetoric Review, 14(2), 318-335.
Lu, C. (1937). Pa ku wen hsiao shih [History of the eight-legged essay]. Shanghai, China:
Shangwu Inshuguan.
Malcolm, I., & Pan, H. (1989). Argumentation patterns in contemporary Chinese: Impli-
cations for English teaching. In V. Bickley (Ed.), Language teaching and learning styles
across cultures (pp. 321-333). Hong Kong, China: Institute of Language Education.
Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. Col-
lege English, 47(8), 789-808.
Maynard, S. (1996). Presentation of one’s view in Japanese newspaper columns: Com-
mentary strategies and sequencing. Text, 16(2), 391-421.
Maynard, S. (1998). Principles of Japanese discourse: A handbook. Cambridge, NY: Cam-
bridge University Press.
McKay, S. L. (1993). Sociocultural factors in teaching composition to Pacific Rim writ-
ers: An overview. In M. N. Brock & L. Walters (Eds.), Teaching composition around the
Pacific Rim: Politics and pedagogy (pp. 1-14). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ministry of Education. (1989a). Chugakko: Gakushu shido yoryo [Junior high school:
Instructional manual]. Tokyo: Author.
Ministry of Education. (1989b). Kotogakko: Gakushu shido yoryo [Senior high school:
Instructional manual]. Tokyo: Author.
Mochizuki, S. (1993). Korekara hajimeru shosetsu, essei, jibunshi no kakikata [Beginner’s
guide to writing novels, essays, and personal histories]. Tokyo: Seibido.
Mohan, B. A., & Lo, W. A.-Y. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer
and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 515-534.
Mukai, S. (1989). Bunsho dokuhon [Guide to composition]. Tokyo: Bungei Shunjyu.
Nakamura, A. (1997). Bunshoryoku o tsukeru [Developing the power to write]. Tokyo:
Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha.

Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
 David Cahill 193

Noto, K. (1989). Umai to iwareru bunsho wa dokakuka [How to write sentences with excel-
lence]. Tokyo: KK Besuto-seroazu-sha.
Okuaki, Y. (1993). Nihongo no bunshojyutsu [Techniques of Japanese composition].
Tokyo: Sotakusha.
Okuma, H. (1983). Bunsho no jozuna kakikata [Methods of skillful writing]. Tokyo: Jiji
Tsushinsha.
Panetta, C. G. (2001). Understanding cultural differences in the rhetoric and composi-
tion classroom: Contrastive rhetoric as answer to ESL dilemmas. In C. G. Panetta
(Ed.), Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Pery-Woodley, M.-P. (1990). Contrasting discourses: Contrastive analysis and a dis-
course approach to writing. Language Teaching, 23(3), 143-151.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of
composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258.
Raimes, A. (1998). Teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 142-167.
Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writ-
ers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45-75.
Reid, J. (1993). Teaching composition to speakers of other languages. In L. Q. Troyka
(Ed.), Simon & Schuster handbook for writers (annotated instructors edition) (3rd ed.,
pp. AIE 35-44). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage.
Sawada, A. (1977). Ronbum no kakikata [How to write compositions]. Tokyo: Kodansha.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1995). Inter-cultural communication: A discourse approach.
Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1997). Point of view and citation: Fourteen Chinese and Eng-
lish versions of the “same” news story. Text, 17(1), 83-125.
Scollon, R., Scollon, S., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2000). Contrastive discourse in Chinese and Eng-
lish: A critical appraisal. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Severino, C. (1993). The “doodles” in context: Qualifying claims about contrastive rhet-
oric. The Writing Center Journal, 14(1), 44-62.
Shen, F. (1989). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning Eng-
lish composition. College Composition and Communication, 40(4), 459-466.
Shoudu Shifan Daxue. (1998). Zhongxue yuwen jiaocan xinbian (Chuzhong) [High school
Chinese teacher’s book (Junior high school)] (New ed., Vol. 4). Beijing, China:
Yuwen Chubanshe.
Silva, T., Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Broadening the perspective of mainstream compo-
sition studies. Written Communication, 14(3), 398-428.
Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly,
31(4), 765-774.
Spack, R. (1998). The forum: The author responds to Carson. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4),
740-746.
Takahashi, G. (1993). Ii ikikata ii bunsho [Good living, good writing]. Tokyo: Dobun
Shoin.
Taussig, M. (1993). Mimesis and alterity: A particular history of the senses. New York:
Routledge.
Taylor, G., & Chen, T. (1991). Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive
discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied Linguis-
tics, 12(3), 319-336.

Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015
194 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION / APRIL 2003

Thomas, N. (1994). Colonialism’s culture: Anthropology, travel and government. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tokoro, K. (1986). Nihongo: Shiko no retorikku [Japanese: The rhetoric of thought]. Tokyo:
Takumi Shuppan.
Tsao, F.-F. (1983). Linguistics and written discourse in particular languages: English
and Mandarin. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 3, 99-117.
Wang, K. (1991). Baguwen gaishuo (A general survey of the eight-legged essay). Beijing:
China Peace Press.
Wang, X. (1994). Writing concepts in Chinese writing instruction. Issues in Applied Lin-
guistics, 5(2), 211-229.
Wu, Y. (1989). Wenzhang jiegou xue [Study of essay structure]. Beijing, China: Zhongguo
Renmin Daxue Chubanshe.
Yeh, M. (1998). International theory and the transnational critic: China in the age of
multiculturalism. boundary 2, 25(3), 193-222.
Young, L. W. L. (1994). Crosstalk and culture in Sino-American communication. Cambridge,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies.
TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165-187.
Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of transculturalism. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 341-352.
Zhang, L. (1988). The myth of the Other: China in the eyes of the West. Critical Inquiry,
15, 108-131.
Zhang, L. (1998). Mighty opposites: From dichotomies to differences in the comparative study
of China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Zhang, Y. (Ed.). (1990). 1990 nian quanguo gaokao youxiu zuowen xuanping [Anthology of
model essays with commentaries from the 1990 national entrance examination].
Beijing, China: Zhongguo Laodong Chubanshe.
Zhang, Z. (1959). Wenzhang jianghua [Guide to essay writing]. Taipei, China: Zhengxing
Chubanshe.

David Cahill teaches at Roosevelt University in Chicago and specializes in the

sociolinguistics of English in China, English and Chinese rhetoric, Chinese and Japanese
lexicography, the semiotics of nontraditional modes of writing, and the history of the
English language. He is presently researching Asian student silence, Chinese and Japa-
nese “decorative” English, Westerner’s adoption of Chinese character tattoos, and the
rhetoric of the New Age Movement. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Downloaded from wcx.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 31, 2015