In order to succeed in Higher Education, students need to be able to argue effectively in writing. This thesis focuses on the argumentational skills of international students as manifested in short essays, similar to the written English proficiency tests for university admission. The study compared these essays to opinion pieces produced by expert academic writers. First, insights from the field of rhetoric were used to compare how the writers argued. An analytical tool was designed to deconstruct arguments into their essential parts to determine the number and distribution of these components in the texts. The results from this analysis then informed an investigation into selected types of cohesive markers and their role in managing writer-reader dialogues. The study found differences in both the argumentational and linguistic strategies used by the writers to persuade their readers, especially with regard to the integration of other voices. The thesis discusses implications for the teaching of argument in the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) curriculum and beyond, and advocates a more rhetorical approach. Recommendations include the use of a new generative model of argument in the classroom and the use of the analytical tool for further research across different argumentational genres and academic disciplines.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:760498 |
| Date | January 2018 |
| Creators | Van Geyte, Els |
| Publisher | University of Birmingham |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/8636/ |
Page generated in 0.0092 seconds