The Uses and Complexity of Argument Structures in Expert and Student Persuasive Writing

This study investigated differences among student writers at three grade levels (6, 8, and 10) and between expert writers and students in terms of the uses and complexity of arguments presented in their persuasive texts. To analyze argument, a model was developed that could account for structural variations occurring across a range of writing situations. The characteristics of this model were defined using categories derived from a model of semantic representation in discourse. The structural analysis revealed that (a) argument was the predominant organizational structure for all writers, (b) more than 80% of students produced arguments involving some form of opposition, (c) embedded arguments identified in expert texts functioned primarily as countered rebuttals and in student texts as subclaims or reservations, and (d) expert texts contained relatively higher frequencies of warrants, countered rebuttals, and modals, and student uses of these substructures increased with grade.

[1]  Lee Galda,et al.  Context in Text: The Development of Oral and Written Language in Two Genres. , 1984 .

[2]  Barbara J. O'Keefe,et al.  Construct comprehensiveness and cognitive complexity as predictors of the number and strategic adaptation of arguments and appeals in a persuasive message , 1979 .

[3]  Ruth E. Knudson.  Effects of Instructional Strategies, Grade, and Sex on Students’ Persuasive Writing , 1991 .

[4]  Ruth E. Knudson.  Analysis of Argumentative Writing at Two Grade Levels , 1992 .

[5]  Ruth E. Knudson.  The Development of Written Argumentation: An Analysis and Comparison of Argumentative Writing at Four Grade Levels. , 1992 .

[6]  C. Miller,et al.  A theory of argumentative understanding: Relationships among position preference, judgments of goodness, memory and reasoning , 1993 .

[7]  J. Hayes,et al.  Images, Plans, and Prose , 1984 .

[8]  Ulla Connor,et al.  Linguistic/Rhetorical Measures for International Persuasive Student Writing , 1990 .

[9]  Gene L. Piché,et al.  Development in Syntactic and Strategic Aspects of Audience Adaptation Skills in Written Persuasive Communication , 1979 .

[10]  T. Mccann.  Student Argumentative Writing Knowledge and Ability at Three Grade Levels , 1989, Research in the Teaching of English.

[11]  Dana R. Ferris,et al.  Rhetorical Strategies in Student Persuasive Writing: Differences between Native and Non-Native English Speakers. , 1994 .

[12]  D. McCutchen.  Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability , 1986 .

[13]  Friedrich L. Bauer,et al.  Revised report on the algorithm language ALGOL 60 , 1963, CACM.

[14]  Ch. Perelman.  The New Rhetoric , 1957 .

[15]  Jeanne Fahnestock,et al.  Teaching Argument: A Theory of Types. , 1983 .

[16]  Deborah McCutchen,et al.  Children's discourse skill: Form and modality requirements of schooled writing , 1987 .

[17]  Marion Crowhurst,et al.  Cohesion in Argument and Narration at Three Grade Levels , 1987, Research in the Teaching of English.

[18]  Lucille M. Schultz,et al.  Appealing Texts , 1990 .

[19]  Caroline Golder,et al.  Argumentative text writing: Developmental trends , 1994 .

[20]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Toward a model of text comprehension and production. , 1978 .

[21]  Marlene Scardamalia,et al.  The Function of Explicit Discourse Knowledge in the Development of Text Representations and Composing Strategies , 1985 .

[22]  Marion Crowhurst,et al.  AUDIENCE AND MODE OF DISCOURSE EFFECTS ON SYNTACTIC COMPLEXITY IN WRITING AT TWO GRADE LEVELS , 1979 .

[23]  Carl H Frederiksen,et al.  Representing logical and semantic structure of knowledge acquired from discourse , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.