The International Students here at Portland State University represent a variety of languages and cultures. These diverse language systems often use different forms in their writing. We call this “contrastive rhetoric.” These forms can be looked at in five major language groups: English, Semitic, Oriental, Romance, and Russian. It is important to remember that all of these rhetorical approaches are valuable, and that they are not strictly exclusive of one another.

English (United States/Canada)

This form of rhetoric is traditionally linear. The topic is developed using inductive or deductive reasoning. In addition, the writing is generally expected to be direct and concise.

Example: United States — The linear traditionally linear system is typically the standard form of American Academic writing. Traditional models of American Academic writing often use an Introduction-Thesis-Support-Conclusion format to the organization.

Example: Canada — Portions of Canada also use this model, though some portions of Canada are more heavily influenced by French and other European rhetoric.

Semitic (Arabic, Hebrew, others)

Semitic rhetoric is characterized by parallelism, and can be seen in a series of steps: statement, restatement, and expansion.

Example: Arabic — Arabic rhetoric tends to favor rich expression over concise, logistical construction. It is also very circular, allowing writers to display their command of language. Arabic writers may be familiar with using a great deal of long metaphors and figurative language that may seem oppositional to the linear construction of English prose.

Oriental (Japanese, Korean, Chinese/Mandarin, Vietnamese )

Oriental rhetoric has many unique structures. Traditionally, there is no direct statement of focus—the writer is expected to discuss around the topic, while the reader is expected to arrive at the writer’s intended thesis.

Example: Japanese — There are four primary styles of rhetorical structure using in Japanese writing.

1. Jo-ha-kyuu — very similar to English rhetoric, this form follows an introduction-development-climax pattern.

2. Ki-shoo-ten-ketsu — Developed from Chinese poetry, this form is common in contemporary Japanese prose. The organization begins with an argument (ki), and though this may seem similar to English patterns, the argument does not usually contain the actual thesis. The argument is then developed (shoo). After the development, the writer will turn to a subtheme that is indirectly connected to the main argument or theme (ten); this shift may seem abrupt and confusing to English readers. Lastly, the writer will bring everything together to form a conclusion (ketsu). The ketsu will often “introduce new ideas only loosely connected to the rest of the essay, to stimulate thought. The Japanese ketsu need not be decisive; it may ask a question or indicate a doubt. Nonetheless, the ketsu frequently contains the thesis.”

3. Fish Fried in Batter — Primarily used in Japanese journalism, this model begins with details, and gradually reveals the main idea or lead towards the end of the article.

4. Return to Baseline Theme — Features a constant return to the paper’s main idea at the beginning of each paragraph, before proceeding to introduce subtopics.

Example: Korean — “Expository essays are viewed as writings produced by experts in the field. Essays are typically organized from specific to general and do not contain a directly stated thesis. The thesis, unstated, is often found in the conclusion of the work” Korean writers spend a great deal of time organizing their thoughts prior to writing are so may tend to spend little time revising. Korean rhetoric assigns the reader the responsibility of “interpreting written works, and writing may often show what something is not, rather than what it is.”

Example: Chinese — The Chinese system of rhetoric differs widely from the linear approach used in American academic writing. The structure and organization may be characterized by circular patterns with regular returns to the main points, frequent usage of inductive expression, digressions, and repetitions of key ideas and stock phrases. Example: Vietnamese — Vietnamese rhetoric is heavily influenced by Chinese, English, and French models. However, Vietnam has developed its own unique characteristics, one of which is a strong presence of poetic elements in many forms of writing.

Romance (Spanish, Italian, Portugese (Brazilian), French, Hatian Creole (or Kreyol)

Romance rhetoric does include a direct statement of thesis. There is an expectation that the writer will make an occasional divergence, and return to the focus in the end.

Example: Spanish — Spanish writers may encounter a series of challenges when approaching the English language. This is a result of several differences in style between the two cultures. Spanish writers do not usually organize their writing using transitions and connectors as is the practice in English; it is also common for Spanish writers to deviate from the topic, though they eventually return to it.

Example: Portugese — Portuguese rhetoric tends to distrust persuasive methods and view them as a form of exploitation. There may be little restraint of description, which can cause digressions. Portuguese writers tend to favor interaction with their audience, and will often use the  pronouns you and I. Also, formal and/or academic writing may utilize “longer sentences with more subordination, prepositions, infinitives, and repeated use of key nouns” (Flaitz, 191). 

Example: French — While “academic French writing is intended to be clear, precise, and logical,” it differs greatly from American English. French students are specifically instructed not to use the introduction-body-conclusion format that is traditionally common among American academics. “The French writer’s intent is not to reach the core of the topic but, rather, to explore everything that is involved in getting to it.”

Example: Hatian Creole — Largely influenced by French rhetoric, Hatian writing tends to utilize broad, eloquent, and philosophical introductions, as well as frequent uses of proverbs. “It is estimated that during conversation, the speaker uses one proverb to illustrate a point for every five or six sentences.”

Russian OR Eastern European (Russian, Polish)

In Russian rhetoric, the topic is stated in the beginning. However, it may not be stated in as direct a form as English or Romance rhetoric. During the writing, there is an acceptable divergence before the conclusion. 

Example: Russian — Russian academic discourse is deliberately complex. Professional and academic Russian writers seek to display their skill and ideas through “subordination, multiple parallel constructions, parenthetical commentary, and technical terminology (often undefined)” (Flaitz, 2003). There may also be frequent digressions within single paragraphs as well as within an entire work. Writer do tend to return to the topic sentence or thesis statement.

Example: Polish — Polish rhetoric stems from the older Slavic forms. Polish rhetoric seeks to “attack a subtle point from a variety of perspectives, a method known as circumvoluted discourse” (Flaitz, 2003). The thesis will usually appear near the end.

Back to top