This book addresses the transfer of rhetorical knowledge from a first language (L1) to a second language (L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer), a common cognitive phenomenon in the L2 writing of students in foreign language learning environments. It investigates L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer from a cognitive perspective and examines a specific component of L2 writers’ agency in this transfer, namely metacognition. The book’s ultimate goal is to enhance our understanding of the cognitive mechanism of rhetorical transfer across languages. This goal is in turn connected to the need to determine how L1 rhetorical knowledge can be steered and oriented toward successful L2 writing.
To this end, this book proposes a theoretical framework for transfer studies, encompassing the dimensions of text, transfer agency, and L2 essay raters. It facilitates an in-depth exploration of the intricacies involved in L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer. It then presents empirical studies on this transfer. Embracing a dynamic perspective, this book furthers our understanding of interlingual rhetorical transfer as a conscious or intuitive process for making meaning, one that can be monitored and steered. Moreover, it discusses the pedagogical implications for L2 writing instruction that guides students to use metacognition to transfer L1 rhetorical knowledge during L2 writing.
Author(s): Xing Wei
Publisher: Springer
Year: 2023
Language: English
Pages: 422
Acknowledgments
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Introduction
1.1 Research Background
1.2 Significance of the Study of L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer
1.3 Organization of This Book
References
2 On Rhetorical Transfer and Writing Metacognition
2.1 Notions of Rhetoric and Writing
2.1.1 Fundamentals of Rhetoric
2.1.2 Integration of Rhetoric Into Writing Instruction
2.1.3 Rhetorical Knowledge Applied to Writing
2.2 Research on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer in L2 Writing
2.2.1 Reconsideration of L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer
2.2.2 Studies on L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer
2.2.3 Contrastive Rhetoric Paradigm for Investigating Rhetorical Transfer
2.3 Theories on Metacognition
2.3.1 Notions of Metacognition
2.3.2 Metacognition in Second Language Acquisition
2.3.3 Metacognition in L2 Writing
2.3.4 Metacognition and Interlingual Transfer
2.4 Measures of Metacognition in L2 Writing
2.5 Remarks on the Previous Relevant Studies
2.6 Summary
Notes
References
3 Theoretical Framework for L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer Studies
3.1 Overview of the Framework
3.2 The Text Dimension
3.3 The L2-Writer Dimension
3.4 The Reader Dimension
3.5 Summary
References
4 Mixed-Methods Approach Research Design and Implementation
4.1 Research Design
4.1.1 Participants
4.1.2 Mixed-Methods Approach
4.1.3 Methods of Obtaining the Evidence
4.1.4 Research Instruments
4.2 Research Procedure
4.3 Overview of Corresponding Evidence and Analysis Methods
4.4 Summary
References
5 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive Knowledge
5.1 Overview of the Data Collected in the Study in Phase I
5.2 Writing Performance in English and Chinese Writing Tests and English Writing Task I
5.2.1 Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features in English Writing
5.2.2 Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features in the Category of General Rhetorical Patterns
5.2.3 Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features in the Category of Rhetorical Construction for Arguments
5.2.4 Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features in the Category of Rhetorical Techniques for Achieving Discourse Effects
5.3 Frequency of the English Argumentative Essays with Characteristic Chinese Rhetorical Features
5.4 Validation of Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire
5.4.1 Background of Validation Data
5.4.2 Descriptive Statistics and Univariate Normality Test
5.4.3 Construct Validity and Composite Reliability of Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire
5.5 Results Based on the Data of Writing Tasks I and Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire
5.6 Results Based on the Rhetorical Evaluation of English Writing Samples
5.7 Results Based on the Data of Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire and Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire
5.8 Summary
References
6 Exploring L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Relevant Metacognitive Skills
6.1 Overview of the Data Collected in the Study in Phase II
6.2 Analyses of Retrospective Verbal Report and Stimulated Recall Data
6.3 Relevant Information of Case Participants
6.4 Results Based on Retrospective Verbal Report and Stimulated Recalls
6.5 Summary
References
7 Understanding L1-To-L2 Rhetorical Transfer from Textual, Cognitive, and Metacognitive Perspectives
7.1 Distribution of L1-to-L2 Transfer in L2 Writing
7.2 Associations Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer Manifested in L2 Composing Processes and L2 Writer-Related Factors
7.2.1 Association of L2 Writers’ Perception of L2 Writing Difficulty with L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transferring Processes
7.2.2 Associations of L2 and L1 Writing Proficiency with L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transferring Processes
7.3 Effects of L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer on L2 Writing
7.4 Relationship Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and the Relevant Metacognition
7.4.1 Relation Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and the Metacognitive Knowledge about L1-L2 Rhetorical Differences
7.4.2 Relation Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and General Writing Metacognitive Skills
7.4.3 Relation Between L1-to-L2 Rhetorical Transfer and Its Concurrent Metacognitive Skills
7.5 Summary
References
8 Conclusion and Implications
8.1 Summary of Major Results
8.2 Implications
8.2.1 Theoretical Implications
8.2.2 Methodological Implications
8.2.3 Pedagogical Implications
8.3 Limitations and Suggestions
References
Appendix A Writing Background Questionnaire
Appendix B Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire
Appendix C Metacognitive Knowledge of Chinese-English Rhetorical Differences Questionnaire
Appendix D The Questions in Retrospective Verbal Report (RVR) and Stimulated Recalls (SRs: SR I and SR II)
Appendix E Chinese Yilunwen Writing Rubric
Appendix F The Percentages of the Lower- and Higher-Proficiency EFL Writers Who Chose “4” or “5” for Items in Post-Writing Retrospective Questionnaire
