Rearticulating Rhetorical Modes of Apologies in Academic Texts: EFL University Students’ Voices

Authors

  • Anselmus Sudirman Universitas Sarjanawiyata Tamansiswa, Indonesia
  • J.C. Setyo Karjono Universitas Sarjanawiyata Tamansiswa, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30738/tijes.v1i2.7723

Abstract

The objectives of this research are 1) to describe the frequencies of rhetorical modes of apologies in academic texts written by EFL university students, and 2) to find out problems that they face when constructing rhetorical modes of apologies through exposition, narration, description and argumentation genres of writing. Using documents and interviews, this qualitative research mainly deals with the purposive sampling technique, data reduction, and display concerning rhetorical modes of apologies and problems on constructing them. The research results show that the interpretation of students' rhetorical expressions is meta-pragmatic based on interactions, linguistic nuances, and rhetorical meanings. Rhetorical modes of apologies influence the language production, contextual expressions, and dissemination of messages to audiences or readers. The language used in the rhetorical modes of apologies is integrally connected to one's identity, personality, and situation. Therefore, several efforts are made to see how linguistic differences in a series of interactions lead to denials, avoidance of responsibility, reduction of offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification. The interview results outline that rhetorical modes of apologies function as an integral part of interests, utilities, and moral values instead of some problems the students faced while writing the academic texts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abasi, A. R. (2012). The pedagogical value of intercultural rhetoric: A report from a Persian-as-a-foreign-language classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.010

Beck, S. W. (2009). Composition across secondary and postâ€secondary contexts: cognitive, textual and social dimensions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(3), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640903103710

Belcher, D. (2014). What we need and don’t need intercultural rhetoric for: A retrospective and prospective look at an evolving research area. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.06.003

Benoit, W. L., & Smythe, M. J. (2003). Rhetorical theory as message reception: A cognitive response approach to rhetorical theory and criticism. Communication Studies, 54(1), 96–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970309363268

Bruner, M. L. (2011). Rhetorical studies and national identity construction. National Identities, 13(4), 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/14608944.2011.629428

Chávez, K. R. (2015). Beyond Inclusion: Rethinking Rhetoric’s Historical Narrative. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 101(1), 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2015.994908

Christoffersen, K. (2019). Linguistic Terrorism in the Borderlands: Language Ideologies in the Narratives of Young Adults in the Rio Grande Valley. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(3), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1623637

Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003

DiSanza, James R., Legge, N. J. (2016). The Rhetoric of Persuasive Attack: Continuing the Development of a Taxonomy of Attack Strategies and Tactics. Relevant Rhetoric, Volume 7, 1–16. Retrieved from http://www.relevantrhetoric.com/TheRhetoricofPersuasiveAttack.pdf

Ellwanger, A. (2012). Apology as Metanoic Performance: Punitive Rhetoric and Public Speech. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 42(4), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2012.704118

Ene, E., McIntosh, K., & Connor, U. (2019). Using intercultural rhetoric to examine translingual practices of postgraduate L2 writers of English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 100664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100664

Ficcadenti, V., Cerqueti, R., & Ausloos, M. (2019). A joint text mining-rank size investigation of the rhetoric structures of the US Presidents’ speeches. Expert Systems with Applications, 123, 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.049

George, R., & Edwards, Katherine Gordon Nicoll, N. S. (2004). Rhetoric and Educational Discourse : Persuasive Texts (First Edit). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, J. J. (2016). Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. (B. Potthoff, Ed.) (7th Editio). London: Pearson Education, Inc. Retrieved from www.pearsonhighered.com

Kjeldsen, J. E. (2018). The rhetoric of sound, the sound of arguments. Three propositions, three questions, and an afterthought for the study of sonic and multimodal argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 54(4), 364–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2018.1525013

Liu, J. (2008). The Generic and Rhetorical Structures of Expositions in English by Chinese Ethnic Minorities: A Perspective from Intracultural Contrastive Rhetoric. Language and Intercultural Communication, 8(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.2167/laic179.0

Liu, Y., & Zhu, C. (2011). Rhetoric as the Antistrophos of pragmatics: Toward a “Competition of Cooperation†in the study of language use. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3403–3415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.010

Matthew B. Miles, A. Michael Huberman, J. S. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (Third Edit). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Mircică, N. (2014). Communication and Rhetoric in Knowledge. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 591–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.08.232

Nemesi, A. L. (2013). Implicature phenomena in classical rhetoric. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.004

Novak, M. (2020). Multi-modal argumentation and rhetoric in judicial proceedings. Argumentation and Advocacy, 56(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1708686

Papadopoulos, A., & Hegarty, K. (2017). Moving beyond the metaphor, reaching beyond the rhetoric: Social work education in a changing environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.204

Polezzi, L. (2014). Description, appropriation, transformation: Fascist rhetoric and colonial nature. Modern Italy, 19(3), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/13532944.2014.927355

Rawson, K. J. (2018). The Rhetorical Power of Archival Description: Classifying Images of Gender Transgression. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 48(4), 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2017.1347951

Rieder, J. (1990). Rhetoric of Reason, Rhetoric of Passion. Rationality and Society, 2(2), 190–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463190002002007

Shaw, P., & Vassileva, I. (2009). Co-evolving academic rhetoric across culture; Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany in the 20th century. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.009

Stein, Kevin A. & Ostrowsky, M. K. (2016). “Taco the Puppy is Super Sickâ€: Student Excuses as a Unique Form of Apologia Rhetoric. Relevant Rhetoric, Vol. 7, 1–19. Retrieved from http://relevantrhetoric.com/StudentExcuses.pdf

Towner, E. B. (2010). Truly Public Apologies: Third-Party Participation in Rwandan Apologetic Rhetoric. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 11(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459430903582228

Valentine, R. Y. (1981). The rhetoric of Horacio’s narration in Rayuela. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, 58(4), 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475382812000358339

Waller, G. F. (1987). The new rhetoric and the new literary theory. Poetics, 16(2), 103–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(87)90020-9

Werry, C. (2005). Rhetoric and reflexivity in cognitive theories of language. Language & Communication, 25(4), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2005.07.002

Downloads

Published

2020-04-28

How to Cite

Sudirman, A., & Karjono, J. S. (2020). Rearticulating Rhetorical Modes of Apologies in Academic Texts: EFL University Students’ Voices. Tamansiswa International Journal in Education and Science (TIJES), 1(2), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.30738/tijes.v1i2.7723

Issue

Vol. 1 No. 2 (2020): April 2020

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.